Camel Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 This reply received from the Minister.Dear Sir/Madam l thank you for your correspondence regarding operational limitations for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines announced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). l fully appreciate that these operational limitations will have an impact on Jabiru and the many owners and operators of aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines. However CASA regards these limitations as necessary following a significant number of Jabiru engine failures as a precautionary safety step to reduce potential risk exposure to passengers. student pilots and persons on the ground. I am advised by CASA that the limitations which have becn put in place were developed after consultation with the aviation community including comments from kcy stakeholders such as Jabiru, Recreational Aviation Australia and the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia. A copy of the limitations can bc found on CASA`s wcbsitc at: www.casa.gov.au and came into effect on 23 December 2014. On thc basis of suggcstions rcccivcd from a number of key stakeholders during the consultation process, CASA has also advised that it will review these limitations early in 2015. I have asked CASA to undertake this review expeditiously. Yours sincerely WARREN TRUSS I received the exact same letter, I have since sent another letter calling him a LIAR and told him his letter did not address what I wrote to him. He is a disgrace and I have also written to the ombudsmen and the PM, seems to be falling on deaf ears but I won't stop as I believe CASA is out of order in everything it has dished out to RAA. The most important point is RAA is self regulated and does not need CASA to hound and destroy it constantly. It will not let up. I am outraged and disgusted by a government department in destroy mode ! 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS71 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Camel Isn't living in a democracy great? You have every right to be outraged, but just remember that sometimes it's better to walk away from the keyboard if you're angry. Rage can sometimes be translated into bread and butter cases for legal types! I'm referring here to personal attacks on civil servants via emails and/or letters. As angry as they make you, they will always win if you get personal. Don't want to sound all high and mighty Camel, just speaking from experience. I too am appalled at this current farcical situation and as I said in another post a while ago...CASA seems to think that they'll achieve safer skies for all by grounding all the aircraft! Good on you for taking a stand Camel, go get 'em...carefully cheers 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 never forget, it would be worse under labor, it just happened under the libs. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 People, you need to understand that this is a standard response drafted by someone in the Minister's office, not even by CASA. Ministerial staff have appallingly high levels of power, given that they are there to protect the Minister's person - NOT to advance the 'business' of actual government. Their function is to ensure that the Minister remains 'the Minister' and remains politically appealing i.e. will be re-elected! Having been a relatively senior public servant for many years, I've had years of dealing with Minister's offices. It is a standard requirement to reduce absolutely everything presented to a Minister to a specified length consistent with the Minister's attention span: about two A4 pages maximum of mostly dot points. Doesn't matter whether this was a response to a constituent's whinge about why their cat was not rescued from a tree in less than two hours after they rang 000 or a multi-million $$ proposal for a new programme for an improvement to survival rates for cancer: two pages was the response/submission requirement. With specific topic headings to be completed. Camel, your Ministerial letter never reached Truss's attention, nor will your response. It was fielded by some spotty mid-20's apparatchik in the Minister's office and put on the slate for a response - which it has received. The generic response letter has in all likelihood been drafted by CASA and 'polished' by the Ministerial staff; meantime Truss is wandering aimlessly around Rockhampton on his summer vacation, blissfully unaware. Oh, and he's running the country at the moment - good thing we're all on Christmas break, eh? Mind you, Truss is blissfully unaware of the world in general; he is intellectual porridge. He has been the Minister responsible for Aviation matters for many years - including during Howard's time - and he has consistently exhibited a grasp of aviation that can be summed up as: "If God had intended Man to fly, He would never have given us the Railways". He can probably count his toes, assuming he has the same number of them as his fingers, but you'd be wishful if you assumed anything more cerebral from him. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Note Dear Sir/ madam...Generic auto reply. I'd disagree with the statement that casa consulted with stakeholders tho, or was the original draft and subsequent call for depositions considerd " consulting"? Yes it was, and it appears none of the submissions put up a compelling case, as in engines are NOT failing. As I've previously mentioned, financial hardship, whether by an individual or the biggest corporation in the land is not taken into consideration against the risk of injury/fatality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 People, you need to understand that this is a standard response drafted by someone in the Minister's office, not even by CASA. Ministerial staff have appallingly high levels of power, given that they are there to protect the Minister's person - NOT to advance the 'business' of actual government. Their function is to ensure that the Minister remains 'the Minister' and remains politically appealing i.e. will be re-elected!Having been a relatively senior public servant for many years, I've had years of dealing with Minister's offices. It is a standard requirement to reduce absolutely everything presented to a Minister to a specified length consistent with the Minister's attention span: about two A4 pages maximum of mostly dot points. Doesn't matter whether this was a response to a constituent's whinge about why their cat was not rescued from a tree in less than two hours after they rang 000 or a multi-million $$ proposal for a new programme for an improvement to survival rates for cancer: two pages was the response/submission requirement. With specific topic headings to be completed. Camel, your Ministerial letter never reached Truss's attention, nor will your response. It was fielded by some spotty mid-20's apparatchik in the Minister's office and put on the slate for a response - which it has received. The generic response letter has in all likelihood been drafted by CASA and 'polished' by the Ministerial staff; meantime Truss is wandering aimlessly around Rockhampton on his summer vacation, blissfully unaware. Oh, and he's running the country at the moment - good thing we're all on Christmas break, eh? Mind you, Truss is blissfully unaware of the world in general; he is intellectual porridge. He has been the Minister responsible for Aviation matters for many years - including during Howard's time - and he has consistently exhibited a grasp of aviation that can be summed up as: "If God had intended Man to fly, He would never have given us the Railways". He can probably count his toes, assuming he has the same number of them as his fingers, but you'd be wishful if you assumed anything more cerebral from him. While I'm not a supporter of Truss, and in fact think it's ridiculous that civil aviation in Australia has sunk out of sight within the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, NEVER assume what you just said. I've found the mid-20's apparatchiks, who these days usually have a shaved head with a pair of sunnys perched on top, are to be ignored at your peril, they always leave the emails on file, to cover themselves, so if it all goes sour they can say "I did send you the email...." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Hey oscar ol chum, truss is for sure a "dill", but hey he's convinced how many constituents repeated occasions, he's their man. .......truth be known he'll continue, their man. So.....does it follow he's smarter than his constituents. ( now that's scary. ) for how many yrs has ol warren, mumbled his tenure within Canberra.........maaate, he's there till he decides to take up lawn bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Yes, they are certainly to be ignored at your peril, no argument. But with regard to 'never assuming what you just said' - I have a long, long time of experience with 'what I just said' - that goes back to when Killen was Minister of Defence and Peter Nixon the self-appointed 'Bastard from the Bush') Minister for Transport. Personal friendships and social interaction as well as professional interaction - Canberra was like that in the 70's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Hey oscar ol chum, truss is for sure a "dill", but hey he's convinced how many constituents repeated occasions, he's their man. .......truth be known he'll continue, their man.So.....does it follow he's smarter than his constituents. ( now that's scary. ) for how many yrs has ol warren, mumbled his tenure within Canberra.........maaate, he's there till he decides to take up lawn bowls. Don't get me wrong: Truss is a league ahead of his likely successor, Joyce, who couldn't reliably count his toes even if they ARE the same number as his fingers.... But Transport is an hereditary portfolio of the Country Party as a member of a Coalition Government, even if the head of the Country Party (whatever they are called at the time) can't spell 'Transport'. Mind you - Albanese was no damn better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Thes CASA and political geniuses can't say they were not warned of the problems, there are other ways to high light problems. Standard answer to a letter is not addressing issues, just trying to Palm it off. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'm not sure how many emails a day a Federal Minister gets Camel, but a couple of years ago it was 10,000 a day for the Victorian Premier. Most of Truss's correspondence will be for the big portfolios of Infrastructure and Regional development. (I've lost EIGHTEEN front ends on the Upper Gring Gring HIGHWAY (HAHAHA) in the last two years you bastard - FIX IT!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 They pay attention when the media talk about them as tens of thousands listen. Bet they change their tone when it really blows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Yes, but you have to get the strategy right for that to happen Camel. It would all blow up if an aircraft lobs onto a beach and cleans up ten people. It will not blow up if the Minister trots out the forced landing statistics and says "I'm doing my job" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 This reply received from the Minister.Dear Sir/Madam l thank you for your correspondence regarding operational limitations for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines announced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). l fully appreciate that these operational limitations will have an impact on Jabiru and the many owners and operators of aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines. However CASA regards these limitations as necessary following a significant number of Jabiru engine failures as a precautionary safety step to reduce potential risk exposure to passengers. student pilots and persons on the ground. I am advised by CASA that the limitations which have becn put in place were developed after consultation with the aviation community including comments from kcy stakeholders such as Jabiru, Recreational Aviation Australia and the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia. A copy of the limitations can bc found on CASA`s wcbsitc at: www.casa.gov.au and came into effect on 23 December 2014. On thc basis of suggcstions rcccivcd from a number of key stakeholders during the consultation process, CASA has also advised that it will review these limitations early in 2015. I have asked CASA to undertake this review expeditiously. Yours sincerely WARREN TRUSS I know a couple of aircraft owners who have recieved the exact same letter............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 The most important point is RAA is self regulated and does not need CASA to hound and destroy it constantly. You raise an interesting point here. RAA have been collecting the statistics, why didn't RAA take care of business. And before someone says "they don't have the power" again, I'd suggest if you look at the Constitution it has never got very far off the standard Model Constitution, has never had sections developed for Compliance and Enforcement and other operational matters, but there is a clear path for those things to be taken care of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Camel, your Ministerial letter never reached Truss's attention, nor will your response. It was fielded by some spotty mid-20's apparatchik in the Minister's office.... Two points Oscar 1) Once a few years back I (who am a nobody) wrote to minister at the time Phillip Ruddock and some weeks later received a detailed response. It was very defensive of his position but it was quite lengthy and specifically drafted, certainly not generic. 2) Having worked in parliament house Canberra I can assure you the female staff are young, smartly dressed and mostly smoking hot. The males are nerdy and some may well be spotty but not the chicks - the HR department has high standards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 You raise an interesting point here.RAA have been collecting the statistics, why didn't RAA take care of business. And before someone says "they don't have the power" again, I'd suggest if you look at the Constitution it has never got very far off the standard Model Constitution, has never had sections developed for Compliance and Enforcement and other operational matters, but there is a clear path for those things to be taken care of. It has NOTHING to do with the RAA Constitution. It has to do with the authority under the CASR. I would have expected you to understand that, given your self-appointed knowledge of all things regulatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Two points Oscar1) Once a few years back I (who am a nobody) wrote to minister at the time Phillip Ruddock and some weeks later received a detailed response. It was very defensive of his position but it was quite lengthy and specifically drafted, certainly not generic. 2) Having worked in parliament house Canberra I can assure you the female staff are young, smartly dressed and mostly smoking hot. The males are nerdy and some may well be spotty but not the chicks - the HR department has high standards. A lady I lived with for a while, was one of those in category 2; specifically, the head of Information Services for the Senate. And yes, she was smoking; a certain leader of the Democrats tried repeatedly to hit on her. Gave up when he realised she was way more intelligent than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 You let him hit on your mum? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Very droll, Merv, but I'm not as juvenile as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Lighten up Oscar. dont take yourself so seriously.. Nobody else does :)) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 It has NOTHING to do with the RAA Constitution. It has to do with the authority under the CASR. I would have expected you to understand that, given your self-appointed knowledge of all things regulatory. You're commenting on something that hasn't been written yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 You raise an interesting point here.RAA have been collecting the statistics, why didn't RAA take care of business. And before someone says "they don't have the power" again, I'd suggest if you look at the Constitution it has never got very far off the standard Model Constitution, has never had sections developed for Compliance and Enforcement and other operational matters, but there is a clear path for those things to be taken care of. That's not correct Turbo, the board and executive is currently busy dealing with a serious enforcement matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Lighten up Oscar. dont take yourself so seriously.. Nobody else does :)) Jeez, Merv, and here was me thinking we had no common characteristics! Blimey, I had a few 'Gong lady friends in the late 60's and 70's ( not that I can remember much about them, but that was then..) - let's both hope there's no 'Days of Our Lives' revelations for you... or me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Blimey, I had a few 'Gong lady friends in the late 60's and 70's. OK we get you like mature ladies but afraid not getting the connection here...? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now