An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.


Good reads

Oil Prices


ASRR and the CASA Board

The changes announced on Friday 14th by Peter Gibson, the CASA “publicist”, with John McCormick announcing [with the blessing of the Board”] his departure from CASA, opens up some very important issues for the Board and the ASRR review.

The last paragragh of the release is:

The Board has regarded it as a privilege to serve with John McCormick in the interests of “Safe Skies for All” and wishes him all the very best in his future endeavours.

This certainly indicates that Mr. McCormick has in fact resigned.

The question is now – Who holds the power??

Is it the Board on it’s own??

Does it devolve to the Assistant DAS??

What does the Minister require??

What influence is the Department head – Mrdak having in this process??

Should McCormick be involved in any selection process [as is proposed]??

How does the industry have it’s requirements implemented??


The industry wants very serious and long term change – and for the better.

The old has to go, not the current weak kneed attempt to place the industry in an untenable position, where it has spent significant ammounts of both time and money to make quite insignificant [and very costly to implement by the industry] change, that is rejected by the industry.

The AAAA [Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia] says in part, in it’s submission to the ASRR:


CASA has studiously avoided involving industry in active consideration of being more efficient – despite industry being the key stakeholder and receiver of all of the poor outcomes, delays and costs associated with CASA inefficiency – and best placed to identify shortcomings.
Much of CASA inefficiency continues because CASA does not seem to be able to grasp the benefits that may come from more strategic approaches.
For example, use of a standard operations manual – as exists for aerial application companies through the AAAA Standard Ops Manual originally approved in about 2005 – could greatly reduce waiting time and CASA resources required in assessing AOC applications.
Similarly, applying a more educated risk management assessment to entry control for aerial work operations could significantly reduce costs and speed up approvals.
Again, there is no evidence that the cost of the current Drug and Alcohol regime is warranted – especially when contrasted against the significant cost to small operators.
Much of what CASA does – especially in aerial work regulation – can be characterised as duplication, or requirements that do not improve safety but add to cost and delays.

This is not any sort of “glowing report” of CASA and is a complete opposite to the release by Gibson.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.