Jim McDowall

So what is the point of Human Factors training? We are regarded as being responsible enough to have a licence/certificate - without publication of detailed RBT outcomes CASA hasn't got a leg to stand on.

CASA doesn't comply with international rules when it suits. For example, ICAO Annex 7 deals with registration of aircraft and details the categorization of aircraft. In the rest of the world any aircraft with an engine is an "aeroplane" so powered gliders, self launching sailplanes and touring motor-gliders are "aeroplanes". Yet in Australia where CASA and the GFA have some sort of special relationship which ensures the GFA of the maximum possible membership (income) these aeroplanes are excised from the international definition. Recent changes that accompanied Part 149 consolidated this position. International rules only really apply to aircraft that fly internationally and across the globe there are plenty of examples where local rules that are not ICAO compliant and guess what - the sun still comes up in the morning. Safety Management Systems are promoted by CASA as a requirement for all aviation but in reality the ICAO requirement only applies to international airlines. Even EASA has realised that SMS have no practical application in private GA and is moving the abolish SMS for private ops. In summary ICAO compliance is only an excuse.

The CASA 2016/17 annual report claims that 10,000+ drug and alcohol tests were performed in that year. However, no results were recorded. Does that mean that there were no positives. Surely if the report of how many tests were performed, the effectiveness of those tests should also be reported. The Victorian Transport Accident Commission reports (Drink driving statistics - TAC - Transport Accident Commission ) that 99.7% of the 24 million tests conducted 1997-2016 did not exceed the .05 BAC. Applied against the 10,000 tests conducted by CASA I would suggest that a maximum of 30 people tested would have returned a positive test. Why a maximum? many of the tests would have been carried out in the hours of darkness. the South Australian DPTI reports that "the majority of drink driving crashes occur between the hours of 6pm and 6am (79%)". In addition, many people who are tested under the CASA regime are just on the airfield, maybe not even pilots or as Bruce and I experienced, just picking up some tools to take home. So the proposition remains that without clear evidence to support effectiveness of the random testing regime, it is at best an unwarranted intrusion of the State and at worst window dressing by an organisation looking to show it is "doing something". However organisations with DAMP have other reasons to undertake testing - if indeed many of them do!

Not that hard - look at the current lot!

But has there been any cause for concern raised as a result of autopsies of dead GA pilots (as a result of aircraft crashes) showing that they were intoxicated? I do not believe any showed up in the data delivered in the recent( CASA's definition of "recent" not the man in the street's) medical NPRM consultation. The Governments guidelines for regulation require the need for regulation to be evidence based. I suggest that there would be nil evidence in the GA that demonstrates the need. On the other hand mandatory pre-flight testing of ATPL in RPT operations may be justifiable as is the case in many workplaces under the guise of WHS.

Had the same experience - the guy told me had only done 5 tests the day before! And never had a positive test. What a costly, ineffective waste of resources.

There has NEVER been a sociologist good at developing cities. Ever since the days of the "Garden City" movement which led to the "planning system" we have today, planning for our communities has been focused on the "touchy feely" rather than the development of infrastructure to reflect the future growth of our towns and cities which has left us with the infrastructure mess we have today. At least engineers with vision like Brunel provided infrastructure which is still fit for purpose today.

I meant the self administration model not the method of incorporation The only people at the table were CASA and some of the self administering bodies - and some of the CASA folk were GFA sycophants.

Natural justice is a concept that many have not experienced in GFA - people just give up and go away - often pissing up tens of thousands of dollars invested in aircraft against the wall. Remember it is the GFA model that this whole show is based upon. No one has ever really put alternative methods of management to real examination - look at the SCC committee minutes of the day. CASA is compromised from within by employees who are closely associated with GFA

I would have no problem with part 149 if the organisations were "fee for service" and did not require memberships (ie the same a GA) - any delegate can revoke an authorisation in the event that the conditions of that authorisation were proven to be violated. This would permit multidiciplinary authorisations without attendant membership costs.(GFA+RAA is about $1000 per annum before you turn a wheel). Also the possibility that your flying "privileges" could be removed for a non-aviation related matter such a "bringing the organisation into disrepute" would not exist. "Surveillance" would be left in the hands of the regulator who has proper investigatory powers and who acts on reports from the public. All this can be handled by existing branches of CASA (such as the Office of Delegate Oversight) without the costs to CASA of managing relationships with a dozen or so organisations largely managed by a revolving door of volunteers who, as well meaning as they may be, will be putty in the hands of professional bureaucrats.

I too have to deal with planning law but as any practitioner will tell you it is not "black letter" law. The High Court has repeatedly found that a planning consent is an offer subject to acceptance by the proponent- a proponent can choose to accept it or effectively give up - acceptance is essentially the creation of a contract. Aviation law needs to be prescriptive in order to prevent the balancing of interests which occurs in planning law ultimately to produce inconsistent outcomes across a community. Better question is why do we need Part 149 ? - US deals with this effectively - CASA needs only to provide for the various sports aviation groups in the regs eg under 600 kg, gliders etc. and then make delegations to individuals / organisations as they do for the rest of aviation.

Turbs, have a look at Aviation Safety Regulation Review and be informed. In relation to Part 103 look at https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/casr-part-103-sport-and-recreational-aviation-operations In particular: Part 103 of CASR will consolidate the rules applying to people who carry out recreational aviation private flight operations, maintenance, and training for recreational aviation in the following kinds of aircraft: gliders (including sailplanes, hang gliders, paragliders and powered variants thereof meeting defined criteria) manned balloons and hot-air airships rotorcraft that meet defined criteria and are administered by a recreational aviation administration organisation ultralight aeroplanes (defined by weight and stall speed) that are administered by a recreational aviation administration organisation. All rules relating to private or recreational use of balloons or gliders will be found in Part 103. It is hard to see how anyone can sensibly write an exposition for Part 149 without the benefit of Part 103. Anything else is a continuation of the dogs breakfast that currently exists.

I was merely pointing out that CASA is beyond the management of government. For proof you only have to follow CASA's performance in meeting the targets set by government in response to the Forsyth report. Part 149 is only about 3 years behind schedule and by their own documentation cannot be completely introduced until Part 91 is implemented which is programmed to be in December 2019! https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/regulatory-progress-timeline Part 149 is dependent on Part 103 being implemented which is dependent on Part 91 being implemented. Turbs are you a senior CASA bureaucrat?

And CASA has proven time and time again it is beyond government. No politician with an eye to the future sees any worth in bringing CASA to heel unless it impacts the major airlines. Put simply there are no votes in it.

Doesn't that depend on the exposition approved by CASA? Will they accept an audit by an external party irrespective of what any treaty says?

My point is that they have taken liability back by way of the 100million indemnity for delegates etc. They exercise effective control by way of approval of the expositions and the inherent controls within the exposition and the regulation (CASR149). The effect on us poor sods at the end of the food chain is that if the RAA loses its certificate or goes bust or no one wants to be a director is that our investments in equipment may become worthless and we cannot fly (at least the RAA way) and for that there is no liability. See also AOPA and RAA thread

Might do to have a look at page 8 of CIVIL AVIATIONADVISORY PUBLICATION CAAP ADMIN-01 v2.0 which details the indemnity for delegates etc.

No motion to disallow in either the Senate or House of Reps. I sent a 7 page letter requesting a disallowance motion to all Senators and Members. With the exception of 3 notable responses most forwarded it on to the Ministers office, or the Shadow Minister in the case of the Opposition or responded with a standard response which was obviously drafted by CASA: " I understand from the Minister’s office that there was extensive industry and public consultation on the proposed regulations which have been in development for a long time, and they are strongly supported by industry. Safety remains the primary focus for the regulation of sport and recreation activities, as it is for all aviation safety regulations. The regulations give flexibility for sport/recreation users by creating a robust framework for self-administration and they allow CASA to ensure resources are allocated effectively." Next step is to prepare an online petition. Anyone up for it?

You only have to look at what has happened in sailing with the advent of foilers to see how innovation unrestrained by regulation has created a totally new approach. If I was a teenager again I would definitely have swapped my 420 and LW Sharpie for one of these excitement machines.

it is my understanding that ELAAA is a fee for service proposition - no membership required. KP maybe you can clarify?

Maybe some direct lobbying from RA-Aus to the various LGA's would be of assistance. Recent discussions with a local council revealed that they did not know that RA-Aus aircraft made up about 40% of the Australian aircraft fleet.Up to that point they thought it was all about Rex, Virgin and Qantas plus the emergency fleet of helos and firefighters. After spending $30mill on new sports facilities (in an area where the demographics means that participation rates are falling faster than the national average!) and another couple on new boat ramps the $100,000 budget for the aifield looks a bit thin particularly given the 5-10 movements per day by RFDS.

Maybe the ATSB investigation into a glider collision on the airport has spooked the Council? Many rural councils don't collect the fees as the costs outweigh the income. If they want to get an idea of who is using the airport a few CCTV cameras could help answer that but then they would have to pay someone to monitor the feeds. Airports are community infrastructure in the main originally paid for by the Australian taxpayer and transferred to councils under the ALOP by the Feds so the local community could pay for the maintenance. Just like roads and bridges, for which no usage charge is levied airports are community infrastructure which communities find really useful in times of natural disaster. A local airport well loved can also help stimulate the local economy (eg "you never get a second chance to make a first impression"). In my experience local councils take aim at airports because of the usually negative bottom lines as it is an easy target with very little political impact.

Isn't ELAAA an alternative with its exposition already under consideration by CASA?

In the case of NZ, since the days of Malcolm Fraser there has been an agreement between Aus and NZ called the Closer Economic Relationship ("CER") which means that much of our legislation with common interest such as aviation is sought to be harmonised (bureaucratic speak for " made the same") For this and other reasons which is why the CASR's define a sport aviation body as to mean: ........... "(g) a body established in a Contracting State to administer sport aviation in that State." So in short, I can fly a NZ registered ultralight on a NZ part 149 organisation pilot certificate in Australia.