I smell a bulls*4t corporate statement from 100ft

[froginasock]

From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore

"CASA's activities must pass the test of making a positive impact on maintaining or improving aviation safety. With safety at number one there are four other principles I will use to ensure CASA is an even more effective aviation safety regulator, while building our relationships with the aviation community. These principles are [i]communication, cost, complexity and consistency."[/i] ... (easy to say after the fact ... we've already had a poorly communicated, costly, complex and inconsistent upheaval .. with a no 'safety case' presented)

"When CASA makes changes or takes decisions and actions we must consider the financial impact on both the aviation community and CASA and seek to keep it as low as possible-without of course compromising the achievement of optimal safety outcomes" ... (no runs on the board here either)

"we must do our very best to minimise complexity and provide clear explanations of what we require that are free of jargon and confusing language" ... (Part 61 springs to mind .. not to mention a complete change in the terminology for licensing requirements (think 'endorsement' etc etc)

"I am personally a great supporter of aviation and want to see as many people flying as possible" ... I won't be holding my breath .. especially while we are still spending so much time and effort dealing with the current debacle - keeping me tied to an office rather than flying.

Full statement here: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?W ... =PC_102365

[Hello Pilots]

If CASA had their way, they would I'm sure gladly wipe their greedy hands of GA altogether.

[Evil Twin]

If this bloke has got any stones at all he'll stop the whole Part 61 debarcle right now and roll back to the system that wasn't broken. After that he should be then consulting with industry and looking at global systems to see what could be adopted with minimal changes and disruption to aviation in Australia. CASA should be buying a system from an agency that is already working instead of trying to patch up the absolute abortion of the Australian rules system. Just think about it, an off-the-shelf rule suite that needs only minimal attention FAA or NZ CAA for example. As opposed to the anti-aviation ploicies of EASA.

Come on Mr Skidmore put your money where your mouth is and show the blinkered at CASA that there is another way.

[arrrj]

As someone recently said in the press (apologies for not being able to quote), and I paraphrase now..."why would we want to introduce the European rules when most of the aircraft we fly are American !".

I haven't seen it written so simply.

CASA will not reverse their decision, as they will lose face, and no public servant wants to admit they are wrong.

Arrrj

PS - I spoke to some lovely people at CASA last week about a matter with part 61, and one of them promised to email me the answers...still waiting...one week later. He did say that there was only one bloke who knew the helicopter answers...and he was really busy ! Not surprised !

[Evil Twin]

CASA will not reverse their decision, as they will lose face, and no public servant wants to admit they are wrong.

But! That's the whole point. CASA should not be worrying about saving face or the feelings of any of their employees. They should be doing what is right for aviation in Australia, end of story!

[ChicoCheco]

I'll say it again. The supposed 'EASA harmonisation/streamlining/whatever' isn't what they started/changed here. Yes, they upped some hours of heli ATPL to have night time, which is more of an ICAO thing, but for rotary commercial, the hours and cross crediting just don't 'add up' to EASA CPL(H). It's more FAA now, sans the mandatory night training for either private or commercial. Not saying it's sufficient for flying in pitch black night 'VFR' as experienced in Australia. As repeatedly seen in the crash reports, rules don't matter to those who break them blatantly.

[hand in pants]

Don't want to side track this, but there wasn't much wrong worth the NVFR system before. All it needed was a regular flight review.

CC, when it's "pitch black night 'VFR' as experienced in Australia", that's IFR, any way you look at it it's IFR and the pilot and aircraft should be equipped/rated to do that.

[froginasock]

Don't want to side track this, but there wasn't much wrong worth the NVFR system before. All it needed was a regular flight review.

CC, when it's "pitch black night 'VFR' as experienced in Australia", that's IFR, any way you look at it it's IFR and the pilot and aircraft should be equipped/rated to do that.

Couldn't agree more ... and the significant change to NVFR 'rules' has been the removal of the 30mins without visual reference (i.e. IMC) .. the proposed CAAP has more limiting factors with respect to illumination etc - but there's a whole other thread there.

[ChicoCheco]

Didn't mean to drag night flying reality in Oz here.

Was pointing at changing crew licensing supposedly towards EASA, yet the CPL minima not really same as Europe. ATPL isn't just day VFR thing in Oz anymore now either.

Normally agencies/companies/etc pick the best of others and implement it with overall benefit to existing system and conditions and realities of industry. That's the theory of 'common sense'.

[hand in pants]

Wasn't having a shot at you CC.
It's just too many people think that a night rating means you can fly at night, any night, with no regard to conditions. They don't seem to realise the "V" in NVFR is for "visual".

[ChicoCheco]

No worries. Even with decent NVFR conditions, the light pointing 'more down' in R22 etc, shows where one's going to hit in auto few seconds before. Not a nice thought, even without considering any IIMC or unusual attitude risk.

[hand in pants]

Actual engine failures in most helicopters are rare as rocking horse poop, it's the UA's that will kill you. If you look at the weather before you leave you shouldn't be in a position where IIFR will happen.

[Yakking]

.... Just think about it, an off-the-shelf rule suite that needs only minimal attention FAA or NZ CAA for example. As opposed to the anti-aviation ploicies of EASA.

Come on Mr Skidmore put your money where your mouth is and show the blinkered at CASA that there is another way.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't CASA's Part 61 moving towards FAA's Part 61?

Was pointing at changing crew licensing supposedly towards EASA, yet the CPL minima not really same as Europe. ATPL isn't just day VFR thing in Oz anymore now either.

Nor should ATPL be directed towards Day VFR. CPL is adequate enough for that.
ATPL is geared towards IFR, MCC

I will pull my head in now, but just some 'food for thought'

[Evil Twin]

.... Just think about it, an off-the-shelf rule suite that needs only minimal attention FAA or NZ CAA for example. As opposed to the anti-aviation ploicies of EASA.

Come on Mr Skidmore put your money where your mouth is and show the blinkered at CASA that there is another way.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't CASA's Part 61 moving towards FAA's Part 61?

That may well be true however, changing one rule every 2+ years will take an awfully long time to complete the task.

[ChicoCheco]

Yes, you don't have true MCC course separately in US/FAA system, AFAIK. It's part of any big stuff multicrew training. Just that in Europe, they thought it was important to have it separately. Up until recently, there wasn't even rotary specific MCC course! People could do heli MCC in FW sim.

Now I'm hearing of new ATPL format near impossible to achieve in this transition mess.

I never said ATPL(H) should only be day VFR. It's probably Australian specialty/anomaly past till recently. The hours required now are still less than EASA or FAA anyway, so again, so much for equivalency.

Wanna copy EASA? Heli CPL (not integrated) is 185hrs total, 50h PIC/solo, credit of PIC time from other categories/classes to rated pilots, not any aeronautical experience/dual received, towards licence issue total minima.

How would that work in already high cost of training in Australia?

[crow]

I hate to be negative but ...

If it takes as long for casa to take on board what Mr Skidmore is saying as it is taking for them to sort out the part 61 mess, I'll be long retired before any change in culture is realised.

[Eric Hunt]

That's why I am glad to be away from that smelly pile of cow excrement, and happily retired. And away from CASA, too. Evil, you know which pile I refer to!