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

[facthunter]

Commercial/non-commercial.

 

An essential aspect of the "lower end" maintaining standards is that a large portion of the training will be done through RAAus sources. Would this be considered commercial? For the organisations involved it most certainly would be as no-one can run at a loss for very long. There is a path that gives credit for "ultralight" time, but it is qualified, (capped). Quite a few ultralight pilots have gone on to airlines and I haven't heard any bad reports.

 

I can only guess at the standard out there compared with what it used to be like years ago, and IF I had to do that I would be of the opinion that it is not as good. I have quite a few contacts in senior training positions here and overseas in the airline environment and there are some challenges that relate to attitudes and cultural factors, costs, language and so on. Pilot background is different. People who might have considered being a Doctor take up flying because it can be done in a smaller number of years.

 

There is no good career path in instructing at initial level and most instructors will jump into airlines given the chance.

 

The maintainance of a very good standard in flying training in australia is essential if we are to provide pilots from within australia and I find it unbelievable that we would contemplate "importing" them from overseas.

 

Australia has a very proud history in aviation and being a vast country, I would suggest appropriate, for a continued emphasis on aviation quality and quantity at the lower end.

 

I hope our new director will recognise the importance of the so called "non-commercial" sector, and support it positively. Nev.

 

 

[farri]

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

Naughty,Naughty,Ross,You must not think that, you must think possitive.:no no:.

 

I`m possitive, there will always be accidents and I got jumped on for having the cheek to say it on another thread,how dare we be realistic.

 

I sincerely wish there were no more accidents,but then I sincerely wish I didn`t get any older as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[Yenn]

Matt. You say the move is to self administration for non commercial aviation. This raises the question of who is going to administer what is now GA recreational flying. By that I mean all those planes above RAAus weight and not part of gliding, hang gliding etc.

 

My view is that it would be better for the members of RAAus to administer that area, rather than have another body do it. The only body I can see at the moment who could do it apart from RAAus are SAAA and if they took it on, would they not want to also administer the under 544kg area as well. I really cannot see any need for another body to do the work and it would be to our detriment.

 

 

[GraemeK]

I had thought much the same thing - ie we would have a separate regulatory regime for recreational aviation and another for commercial. Seems to make a bit of sense, despite that there may be some tricky issues (but there are now anyway, because of the arbitrary divide).

 

Thus you want to go commercial (be it the big kero burners or bashing your way around the outback on twin charters), then there is one stream for your licence and aircraft registration - appropriate for carrying members of the public for profit.

 

Want to buzz around in your bugsmasher (big or small), then you go recreational.

 

And I really did think CASA was thinking the same way - it would take all the headaches of private GA off their plate and let them concentrate on protecting the fare paying public. CASA is not really set up to understand and manage/regulate private GA, IMHO.

 

The attitude of the new CASA worried me though, it seemed to me the "Big R" stuff was dragging the industry back into its past. I hope Matt is right in his assessment of the new management.

 

 

[Al B]

To be honest I think the whole system in Australia is a bit messed up. We have a situation where someone with a PPL can fly a GA registered Jabiru, but not an RAA one - and vice versa. The plane doesn't handle any differently if it has numbers or letters on the side, so why do we restrict who flys it?

 

One viewpoint is that a GA registered Tecnam is safer (better maintained, possibly more instruments etc) then an RAA one. It certainly isn't harder to fly. Yet the current system stops people with an RAA license flying the better maintained, safer aircraft. What's the logic in that?

 

Why not let suitably trained people fly whatever they want, just as long as it's in the weight and stall speed limits?

 

It's crazy how we can have the same aircraft registered as pure GA, GFA, or RAA - or trikes either HGFA or RAA. In each case you must be a member of the governing body to fly that aircraft. In my case, I'd like to glide AND fly ultralights, but I'd pay 2 lots of fees for 2 bodies to do largely the same thing.

 

I kind of like the UK's 'NPPL' - see NPPL - it's a government license that lets you fly simple aircraft up to 2000kg, with no medical and a maximum of 3 passengers. I think the training requirements are like ours, once you factor in the minimum cross-country hours.

 

The USA has a 'Sport Pilot' license - see Pilot certification in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - this is very close to ours, except that you can ALSO fly light aircraft that existed before the LSA regulations came into being - such a cubs, ercoups etc. You can also add controlled airspace endorsements.

 

Canada has a 'Recreational Pilot Permit' - see Flight Training School, Recreational Pilot Permit Licence, RPP, Prince George, BC, Canada- that takes 25 hours minimum. You can fly 4 seaters, but only 1 passenger.

 

The current Australian system has resulted in lots of little aviation fiefdoms which restrict pilots but don't always improve safety.

 

 

[storchy neil]

casa stinks and the words that i want to use i put in a complaint abut a lame that stuffed me around sighned my plane out as flyable 9 9 07 when i bent it casa dont wonnt to know about it not their problem but the lame that suposeably fix it also repairs ga planes that are used for training in the area that i live solicitor can not beleive that casa are so ignorant and there not our problem attitude neil

 

 

[wags]

What may happen and might not happen.

 

Seems everyone here has a lot to say about CASA, the CEO, Regulations and what might or might not happen.

 

Why don't you all put your questions to "the man" personally at the Gympie Aero Club dinner on the 5th December and stop bleating here on this forum... at least you'll get the answer in person and feel better - hopefully!

 

Wags.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You paying the flying costs for all 8000 of us Wags?

 

 

[Thx1137]

Well, we don't need lots of us asking the same questions at a dinner, one is sufficient. What may be useful is if any questions can be gathered via these forums and someone who is going up there can ask them.

 

Also, a lot of it is not so much a question but behaviour. I would be rather surprised given the coverage in aviation publications if they didn't know what a lot of the aviation community think. In the end what we think accounts for little because they do not answer to us. Neither do their political masters, there are just too few of us and it is difficult to get the public on our side because they think we are all rich and have nothing to do with 'thier' quality of life.

 

Anyway, we can tell them what we think via the CASA web site. Sure saying something to them in person possibly increases the uncomfortability factor but it will not help get something done, possibly quite the opposite if it gets narky.

 

About the only hope I see is if we can increase our profile and make more people _want_ Rec and GA to be around.

 

 

[wags]

Paying the cost?

 

Turboplanner we will all be paying the cost if this man doesn't get the right picture from us - the recreational aviators who use "his" airspace.

 

Wish I could afford to pay for 8000 to attend as that might just get the right message across that something is wrong and he needs to listen to what the grass roots aviators want. After all it is from amongst these grass roots aviators that his precious money paying commercial aviators are born. If there are no commercial aviators we don't need the likes of him in CASA do we? In fact we probably wouldn't need CASA! Now there's a thread for another forum subject.

 

This dinner was put on by a bunch of RAAus aviators in the hope of getting "the man" locked up in a room with 200 souls who are all saying the same thing, asking the obvious questions and wanting some answers. Hopefully that will make our message loud and clear and that we want to be listened to, not simply regulated against. Regulation is what we have had for years and it hasn't worked - guess he thinks he is going to reinvent the wheel.

 

I have promised to report back on this forum, but he needs to see that there is strong support out there for our values and freedoms to get a positive message across.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Wags you are way off the mark when you mention 'Grass Roots' aviation, the modern recreational aircraft is nothing like what started the movement. There are only a handfull of the true grass roots who are involved with the RAAus left. One of the main reasons that the AUF changed it's name to RAAus. Grass roots is a pre 1983 minimum aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I wish you well for the Gympie night.

 

If anyone thinks he is ignoring us and looking after the Commercial area, put it out of your mind.

 

From what I'm reading on a regular basis he's not listening to those guys either, and their emotions are running high, particularly the ones who were the lifeblood of recreational aviation and kept the small airports ticking over and the supply of instructors readily available.

 

However, if you are concerned about Aviataion Policy, and a lot of people posting are talking about that, he's not necessarily your man.

 

He's Director of Aviation Safety for CASA.

 

National Aviation Policy has a department within Department of Transport and Regional Service.

 

The man who runs Dotars is the Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, and the Parliamentary Secretary is the Hon Maxine McKew.

 

I'd be just about willing to bet that neither of these people have heard from a single RA Aus member, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to believe everything is going swimmingly.

 

The people responsible to see that they don't go to sleep on the job, or ignore the populations wishes are the Shadow Minister, the Hon Warren Truss, and Senator the Hon Ian McDonald.

 

I'd be willing to be they've never heard from anyone either.

 

 

[Yenn]

Anthony Al;banese has certainly heard from me via my local member and his reply to my question was exactly what I would expect. Waffle and how a committee has looked at the problem etc and it is all going well.

 

As far as I am concerned most politicians are a waste of space. CASA has the responsibility of controlling air safety, not promoting aviation, which is the US FAA requirement.

 

 

[Guest drizzt1978]

One thing that would drive CASA to be more involved with RA-Aus is if our safety stats are significantly worse than for GA. I came across an article recently where the writer asserted that our stats are 10 times worse than for GA. He came to this conclusion by dividing accidents by hours flown. If that were true, and I don't know if it is or not for certain, then CASA would be obliged to look very hard into RA-Aus to see what could be done about it.

Fatalaties or accidents (i seem to read a lot about landing gear failure, and all that jazz, but not many deaths???

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

You would have to talk to the RAAus ops manager about fatals Vs hours flown. I think our figures are pretty good at the moment. I would also hope that somebody at the dinner invites the CASA head to participate in this forum, direct. I for one would enjoy jousting with him. Unfortunatly since he probabily wouldn't get paid for it, he may not be interested. After all what could a man of his standing learn from we "who come from the weeds !"...........

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Lambles article has been around for a long time & has been discussed before on here somewhere. Using "news reports from different sources" removes any credibility his figures might otherwise have given the propensity of the press to describe any small aircraft, motorglider or even gyroplane which is involved in an crash as an "ultralight".

 

Its a shame that Lamble didn't use his position to encourage more accurate reporting rather than encouraging his students to spend a few minutes surfing the net to produce a sensationalist story like this rubbish here Ultralight trend takes off | The Courier-Mail

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS Better accident reporting & statistics from RAAus wouldn't go amiss though (getting off my hobby horse now).

 

 

[turboplanner]

I grappled with statistics like this in Motor Racing.

 

It all depends on what outcome you want to achieve.

 

Today we see Governments taking the opportunity to collect massive revenue in name name of reducing road deaths caused by people making mistakes, going to sleep, having bad drinking habits, being hoons etc., yet people doing much the same thing are dying of heart attacks at about twenty times the volume, and costing you and I billions in incomes tax without any auditing or enforcement.

 

Usually the road toll is quoted in year to date figures, but after the Christmas period you'll note it switches to a National total, because not enough people are dying, and when comparing road safety with other forms of transport the reporting switches to deather per 100,000 km/ 10,000 people and so on, all of which produce different results.

 

If you go back to the days before the motor car, then horse travel, per 100,000 km would have had horrific fatality figures, and most families had at least one relative who had broken his neck racing his neighbour home after a party with a skinfull.

 

Speed camera sensitive people, will be interested to know that consistent horse fatalities were the beginning of the "slow down" mentality which reasoned that if you restrained yourself to a genteel trot you would live to 53 or whatever the life expectancy average was then.

 

If you look at semi trailer safety, fatalities per number of drivers may be quite high, but the same fatalities per 100,000 km may make semi driving safer than watching TV.

 

What we found in speedway was that every single case where someone didn't come home to their family was the key factor to work on. Certainly it was a rsiky business, but we just went about reducing each of the risks to the point that our record was well above many "safe" sports.

 

And Crezzi, If I could pick something which would give us all an immediate improvement in managing our risks it would be open, and detailed reporting of RA Aus accidents and statistics.

 

If you don't have a target, how are you going to hit the bullseye.

 

 

[Yenn]

How does RAAus suggestion square with their Human factors training. They make use of statistics there and I think it is for the same reeason of safety. It doesn't matter what you read about safety, just read it, analyse it and learn.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If you look at semi trailer safety, fatalities per number of drivers may be quite high, but the same fatalities per 100,000 km may make semi driving safer than watching TV..

Turbo, I think your stretching things, have you got a link to the official "TV watching fatalities per 100,00km" statistic so that I can verify your claim :big_grin:

 

 

[Thx1137]

Turbo, I think your stretching things, have you got a link to the official "TV watching fatalities per 100,00km" statistic so that I can verify your claim :big_grin:

Well, if you count "brain dead"...hehehe :-)

 

I used to watch TV all the time. I cannot stand it at all anymore. The original Master Chef, House and NCIS I liked but not enough for me to move move to go watch them!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, I think your stretching things, have you got a link to the official "TV watching fatalities per 100,00km" statistic so that I can verify your claim :big_grin:

You've caught me out Andys, I was generalising with the TV watching fatalities.

 

However take note of the following quotes from official US Government statistics by Bill Bryson in his book "Notes from a big country"

 

"...every year more than 400,000 Americans suffer injuries involving beds mattresses and pillows"

 

"...almost 50,000 Americans are injured each year by pencils, pens and other desk accessories"

 

"I would also welcome a chat with almost any of the 263,000 people injured by ceilings, walls and inside panels. I can't imagine being hurt by a ceiling and not having a story worth hearing"

 

The point I was trying to make using long distance semi drivers, an occupation many people consider dangerous, comes out roughly like this:

 

300 fatalities per 100,000 Drivers

 

0.3 fatalities per 100,000 km

 

0.1 fatalities per 100,000 hours (RA 7.25 per 100,000 hrs)

 

However, another way of looking at it is:

 

300 of our population die each year from driving semis

 

85,148 die from heart failure

 

 

[Gibbo]

Sorry guys but my rant is applicable in this circumstance..

 

The problem we have is that the public servants are serving themselves and ensuring that they have a protected future. The title does not mean a thing now.

 

I have seen a couple of cases where the local 'water' authorities 'servants' are lining themselves up for a job after the money runs out by servicing the equipment they have approved for installation. They are deliberately installing equipment that requires a high level of maintenance so their retirement business plans are fulfilled. Graft / corruption sucks. None of this work is being put up for tender... Nice way to spend $350 mil of someone else's money keeping your best mate in $$ and then jumping ship at the end.

 

When we have a series of governments that are serving themselves and not the people their meant to we are all in the poo.

 

Self governance does not equal jobs for the boys just a real system that works for the people that use it, hence the CASA attitude.

 

Gibbo