CASA - Are they doing a good enough job ?

[airportmotel]

I have edited my post , with the intent to try and list peoples problems with CASA.....

1. $75 charge for the consideration of the medical certificate.....
2. $25 charge for the reprint of a licence
3. Out of date information contained in the cyber exams specifically helicopter exams which examine fixed wing information..........
4. ASL - the assessment company awarded the contract by CASA to administer there exams.....very very inflexible with bookings ...couple the fact if you fail an exam- a time limit imposed by CASA for resit as well
5. AV-MED - aviation medicine ....delays in issuing medical certificates......taking the $75
6. ASIC cards ...waste of money
7. Cyber exams ...questions are not in plain english.......some people have no idea on what some questions are asking......
8. CAR,CAO....why have a document that says you can not do something , then an opposing document says yes you can ....
9. Shortage of Helicopter FOI in CASA ? - there seems to be an ad for these jobs very very often
10. ICAO - where is CASA ?, compared to EASA and FAA

These are some of the items raised anyway.....

[angrypalmtree]

Say boo to casa. Nek minuite. Random drug tests for everyone.

[harold]

Airportmotel,
Not sure of what your point is....noone likes parting with money BUT how short the memory is? The instigator of the user pays system was none other than our mate Dick....funny thing is he recently was overheard saying the exercise was an absolute failure!
The user pays system is here to stay and no amount of bellyaching on here will do zip about it.....if you have serious concerns about it, bring it up with either your respective association for representation to the Minister or bring it up with your local member! Griping on here will change nothing!!!

[hand in pants]

Don't want to add any thread creep, but, ASIC, can't help myself.
1. Can anyone explain to me how someone with a criminal record could hold an ASIC?
2. Airports like Coffs Harbour are said to be Security controlled, therefore you require an ASIC to be there. Where is the security on the G.A. side of the airfield. The gate is locked using the same thing as a swimming pool fence. (I would love for someone to hit me up for my ASIC there.)
3. I have only ever been asked for my ASIC at YBCG and YWLM, never at any other airport, and I've been to a few.
4. Who get the money I pay out for my card?

As far as CASA doing a good job, most of my dealings with them have been with a limited number of people who have done a good job. They are understaffed to buggery, they have more work on their plate than they can cope with.
The problems laid out by airport motel are caused by the rule makers, not the people who we deal with as an industry. Remember that next time you give someone from CASA a serve over the phone about something they have no control over.

No, I don't work for CASA, nor would I ever.

[nzflyer]

There are some great old guys/gals in CASA but no young good guy/gals coming through in my eyes.

The new generation have lost the plot on what they are actually doing there, full of industry drop outs trying to throw there weight around.

[Skeeter]

Coming from Europe I consider the service CASA provides as quite good.
Sure, its not perfect. The could work faster .

But compared to the aviation authorities I am used to they are not bad!
For example:
- to add an endorsement / rating to your licence 40-100€
- Application to start / land outside a registered aerodrome / helipad : 30-500€ (love that one)
- all exams have to be done in 3 consecutive days! (13 for a CPLH + 7 (like IR AirLaw) for an IR)
- rules are changing faster (thank you EASA) than you can adopt them

On the other hand I had my issues with them, too. So I can understand if someone is pi**** *** sometimes!

[airportmotel]

Harold,

Online forums have more power than you think , read the thread about ATPL exams , if no one voices there opinion - CASA thinks everyone is happy !

My point is about adequate cost recovery for a government department .....but Wayne Swan knows all about that .

[Banjo-Kazooie]

1. Can anyone explain to me how someone with a criminal record could hold an ASIC?

Perhaps you don't understand the purpose behind an ASIC/MSIC. - It is not to stop anyone who has ever been convicted of anything at all from being employed in either an aviation or maritime environment; it is to prevent the employment/access of people whose backgrounds make them likely to be involved in things like terrorism or smuggling.
Is it reasonable to tell a pilot who has plead guilty to a drink driving offence that he is no longer allowed to be employed in his profession because he has a conviction? (If it was, there'd be a ton of pilot jobs on the market...) Or what about the guy who is provoked into a pub fight with an off-duty NSW copper and is convicted of assault?
Think about the issue at hand before asking questions that have logical, reasonable answers.

There are a huge number of people with criminal records who hold ASIC/MSIC cards. There is even an appeal process for people who were denied a clearance due to their background and I have it on excellent authority that the majority of appeals are successful. I suspect that drug smugglers and terrorists probably don't even bother to apply for an ASIC/MSIC, in the same way that bank robbers don't apply for firearms licenses.

[SIR_SMP]

I recently sat the commercial aeroplane exam for performance and loading

here are two critical errors, sorry Casa don't make errors, some interesting points to which the error is clearly my interpretation

1. nowhere in the day vfr book does it actually state which fuel the aeroplanes use, this critically affects all fuel / weight / endurance etc questions, ok we accept that we assume its avgas so we use those figures, no big deal. Considering how anal Ca$a is though this is technically not correct. The only reference to the type of fuel is the CG craph for Charlie loading system which states the specific gravity of avgas

2. Amongst the permitted material is CAAP 234-1(1) guidelines for aircraft fuel requirements

Now as we all know (or should know) private and aerial work require no variable reserve as published in the CAAP and 15% for RPT and charter for a piston engined aircraft (again we assume as we assumed that the aircraft is running on avgas we assumed it is a piston engine) Of course a companies ops manual may state different to this but we are talking about the exam environment here

Additionally page 3 of the day VFR book has a company extract saying that fuel reserves policy is in accordance with the CAAP. However also nowhere in the exam does it state this reference (page 3)

Ok no problems, now some questions state the aircraft is conducting a charter flight, some say if or if not you need a VR, ok no problem but not all questions do. Some questions don't say what the flight is or contain information that means that it could be in either category or describes an operation that is CLEARLY "air work"

now of the multiple choice questions both answers are presented for wether you add the 15% VR to your calculations or not. So what is the most correct answer? the most correct answer for a non RPT or charter is to calculate based on no VR, guess what.... WRONG

Nearly every exam has some sort of twist like this, how can you complain, you can't, who will listen no one, if you made a submission to casa and recited the exam question (from memory) they will determine that you have removed exam knowledge and defunk your results (this HAS happened) and ban you for a year for cheating

Maybey I am getting grumpier in my old age but I don't expect anything to ever change, no point fighting it, just keep going through the motions and hope you keep passing those exams or hope you keep understanding what they are trying to say not what they are actually saying

[stratford]

I work for CASA. It's actually a pretty rewarding job. I'm not a dropout from the industry, nor do I want to throw my weight around. Some people need to look at the big picture, the industry is bigger than your corner of the tarmac. Like any Govt agency, CASA isn't perfect, but you would be surprised at how people will go the extra mile to solve an issue for an operator. But, like everything, you can't please everyone all the time.

Of course, CASA is always looking for experienced helicopter folk. If you want to put some of your experience back into the industry, call up the CASA switch, or have a chat with your local office.

[Banjo-Kazooie]

you would be surprised at how people will go the extra mile to solve an issue for an operator

I can honestly say that whilst my initial AVMED experiences with CASA were hugely irritating and nonsensical e.g. Dr. Pooshan Navathe's underlings demanding that I provide a note from my doctor to prove that I was no longer taking Champix (how would he know?!) but then issuing me an AVMED before I could obtain said note, my other experiences with CASA staff have ranged from either no worse than any other government employee to actually quite pleasant.

I think it is mostly the imported senior CASA people who like to throw their weight around and be difficult. I had a good laugh when a certain non-Australian ATO turned up at an aerodrome, full of brag and bounce, only to be told that he wasn't allowed to fly anything there because the insurance wouldn't cover him.

[stratford]

ATO? Do you mean an FOI?

[hand in pants]

BK, did think about the issue at hand, and I think that there should be no place in the industry for thieves or drug users, let alone the one's who have been caught and convicted. If they hand them out to criminals, why call it an Aviation SECURITY Identification Card??????????????????????

[SIR_SMP]

Some people need to look at the big picture, the industry is bigger than your corner of the tarmac.

Typical grain fed attitude

Ok so I presented one example (and I could have been here for 6 months presenting others) of an exam system that has critical errors that can be the difference of a person failing or not failing a subject, based purely not on the fact that person has knowledge deficiency but based on the fact that caSa has made errors

Now this rigid system provides no place for feedback and punishes those that actually try to give feedback or question something. This gets my goat up because I actually failed the exam first time around for using the CORRECT fuel calculations as stated by the ACTUAL permitted material, second time around I used the INCORRECT calculations and passed!

The errors and discontent surrounding the exams are many and considering how every person who flies has to go through these in my opinion is a pretty big picture. Ca$a obviously has plenty of manpower to keep reviewing and changing material as we get updates to the documents just about every other day and yet the entire exam system is a shambles

The original posters question "is Ca$a doing a good enough job?"

In my opinion no, licensing, registration, exams and every other dealing that I have had with Ca$a has been less than delightful, in my opinion Ca$a is a department that operates behind closed doors without enough industry consultation, has not enough employees that have actual operational experience and provides little or no avenues to voice your concerns which even if you do, falls on death ears

peace out

[Eric Hunt]

A senior CASA helicopter FOI took a break from CASA for 3 years, and flew in the industry on several jobs.

He went back to CASA last year, and sitting on his desk was the same paperwork he left there when he departed CASA - nobody had done a thing with it. I know one of the AOC holders whose paperwork was waiting on this FOI's desk, thinking that somebody would be doing something with his questions and applications.

Do you reckon that this is "doing a good job"?

At least the AOC holder wasn't billed for 3 years' work!

[Robinsondog]

Of course, CASA is always looking for experienced helicopter folk. If you want to put some of your experience back into the industry, call up the CASA switch, or have a chat with your local office.

That's fine but how far does it go and for how long, until the next FOI comes along that's how long.

As SIR_SMP had highlighted there are or might be errors. I myself found two gross errors in the drug supervisors course, told the pimply faced kid at the answer phone, response "AW YEAH, we might get that looked at." Spare me.

Perhaps stratford you need a documented and transparent review panel from Industry in place that checks these things, so that exam candidates can take solace from knowing it has been checked rather than wondering is this another screw loose question or not. After all, a lot of FOI's come from the military and by golly heaps of them have some holes in their GA application process.

I always think of an example from my high school days in these circumstances. The text books we used in senior level were for the most part written by in house masters. One in particular was a lovable old dude, Bear Brown, who had co-authored our physics text. Come the day to sit the physics finals we are in a large classroom with BB as supervisor. Now most of us are aware that fleuro lights emit bugger all heat compared to incandescent. It's a cool day and a well aired room with fleuros and a fair bit of window space.

BB says, "Boys would you like the lights on or off in case they heat the room up too much?"

So, the message for CASA, not everyone is perfect all the time.
rd

[Banjo-Kazooie]

BK, did think about the issue at hand, and I think that there should be no place in the industry for thieves or drug users, let alone the one's who have been caught and convicted. If they hand them out to criminals, why call it an Aviation SECURITY Identification Card??????????????????????

Why do you assume that everyone with a criminal record MUST be either a thief or a drug user? If you've ever been busted for drink driving, you're a criminal. If you've ever filed an exaggerated tax return, you're a criminal. There are a thousand things for which one could be convicted that have nothing to do with drugs or theft, so what's your point?

ASIC cards are not given out to people whose backgrounds show that they are likely to engage in criminal behaviour such as drug smuggling or terrorism. That is the purpose of an ASIC clearance; it is not meant to stop ordinary people who may have made a mistake or two in their youth from pursuing a rewarding career (or even working as a baggage handler).

To answer your question: it's called an Aviation SECURITY Identification Card because a background check by the Federal Police shows that they are satisfied that the holder is not a SECURITY risk.
You may have your own opinions about who should be allowed to work in the industry but your viewpoint has absolutely zero bearing on either border security or customs issues, which is what the ASIC is about.

[CYHeli]

ATO? Do you mean an FOI?

I know of an ATO that was required to do a check ride with the Chief Pilot of a company prior to conducting a flight test on a candidate for a test.

[harold]

Banjo, problem with your logic is the person HIP is referring to actually stole a helicopter and then hid it away for some questionable use at a later stage! One does wonder how such a person could actually qualify for an ASIC let alone the consideration that he should have lost his licence under the fit and proper person provisions?

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Banjo, problem with your logic is the person HIP is referring to actually stole a helicopter and then hid it away for some questionable use at a later stage! One does wonder how such a person could actually qualify for an ASIC let alone the consideration that he should have lost his licence under the fit and proper person provisions?

1) That's not a problem with "my" logic. If HIP has a particular event in mind he ought to say so, rather than make ridiculous blanket statements like "No-one with a criminal record should be able to get an ASIC!" If he had his way, I reckon a good 25% of the pilots in Australia would not be able to get an ASIC, due to drink driving or excessive speeding offences.

2) The "fit and proper person" issue has absolutely nothing to do with an ASIC and is therefore irrelevant in this thread.

Face it: this is Australia. - Half the country has a criminal record...