VOCA

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

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

#casa and economic control of the aircraft industry

In 2012, the issue of casa and economic control of the aircraft industry was raised. Much of the concern, which was exposed by the Forsyth review [#asrr] completed by May 2013, which demonstrated that the regulator was not at all respected by the Australian aviation community.

The lack of trust continues today, as the new #CASA Board struggles with a belligerent #casa structure which does not want change on anything but it’s own terms.

This disconnect will be fatal to the GA sector with loss of, what has been a vibrant industry and well respected world-wide. When the Senate inquiry broke the unexpected news that #casa had not given #atsb a vital report [Chambers inquiry into the #pelair AOC], serious trust was broken.

This places a huge burden of the new #casa Board to fix a fundamentally broken system. When information was released of a bungled series of new regulation, which no amount of face saving “regulation fixing and review” will properly address, the industry started to speak up again.

The recommendation of the AHIA for the helicopter industry to remove current applications under parts 141, 142 and 143 is indicative of the issues being faced now.

For more information: PPrune – Regulatory reform and Rotor heads

Even CEO Skidmore is finally starting to see what his senior management has actually doing:

Mr. Skidmore also signaled his determination that staff at the regulator adopt the more consultative approach being advocated by upper management.

Others in the industry draw attention to the RIS [regulatory impact statement, which seriously [and maybe with malice] the cost to industry.

Here’s a quote from the RIS concerning the effect on ATPLs:

“The multi-crew flight test will have a duration of approximately 2 hours and can be performed in a suitable aircraft or flight simulator. Based on 580 pilots undertaking the test per year the annual industry cost will be $0.9m”

I have asked CASA directly how many ATPLs have been issued in the first year of Part 61, but they won’t respond. I understand following discussions with one of the few ATPL approved Flight Examiners that there have been 3 ATPLs issued.

Also interesting to note the flight test was intended for the multi-crew qualification and not the stand alone 5 hour ATPL flight test extravaganza the industry has been saddled with.

It’s also interesting to review ICAO Annex 1 to see what true harmonisation would have allowed the industry to do. eg: Unless you are delivering an integrated PPL/CPL course or multi-crew training a person holding a flight instructor rating can operate independently and does not require a Part 141 certificate. (Like the FAA)

And a direct RIS cost:

All so true, how can an industry as fragile as GA survive this.
It can’t is the answer.
$250,000 and two years to grant an AOC.
$100,000 to put a new type on an AOC

  • “In the interest of safety”??
  • Sustainable??
  • Where is the “Safety” case???

There is none its all rubbish.

So the result is serious extra costs to industry.

While on that topic, in July 2010, Albanese gave #casa an extra $89.9m for the next 4 years, which now continues as Treasurer Swan never ensured that the “extra money” stopped.

“….Within this funding strategy, additional revenue of $89.9m is forecast to be generated by the increase in the aviation fuel excise rate over the budget and three forward estimate years, based upon projected volumes of collection. CASA will use this additional revenue to fund 97 permanent positions for safety specialists, safety analysts and air worthiness inspectors and other staff, allowing CASA to expand its surveillance activities and fulfill its increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities…”

That the Minister acknowledges “……increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities…”, but does not cede to the actual fact that #casa are themselves making the regulations more complex.

This $89.9m comes direct from industry and according to #casa’s annual report, even with the extra money – around $25m per annum, #casa comes in with a loss of over $5m over two years.

This is a very poor look to a #casa that touts itself with lots of accolades.

Reporting recognition
CASA’s Annual Report 2013–14 received a gold award at the 2015 Australasian Reporting Awards. This is the third consecutive year CASA’s reporting has been recognised as having met the criteria in this sought-after category. In addition, the work health and safety section of the report won the Safe Work Australia sponsored category of the Australasian Reporting Awards.
Additionally, for the first time, CASA’s report was one of six finalists for the prestigious Report of the Year category. This achievement is a solid endorsement of the work that has been ongoing over a number of years to consolidate and improve all aspects of CASA’s internal and external reporting.

And as one observes, makes a loss.

Perhaps #casa needs to take notice of what the industry says – the aviation industry.


 

2nd Jan 2012, 09:12   #1 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
casa and economic control of the aircraft industry


Is this financial blackmail, Personal blackmail or simply business blackmail??
How many actions by casa are on an AOC or MA are just “economic” and not related to safety matters and could be properly dealt with on a discussion basis??
This is particularly in the case of Central Maintenance and casa [Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009) [2009] FCA 49 (6 February 2009) ]This resulted in a set of conditions, which effectively changed the relationship of Central’s ownership and business workings as a condition to allowing the maintenance authority to continue.These conditions were set out by the Tribunal as follows, [when casa disallowed the owner to be the “LAME”]:1. Central Aviation must employment on a full-time basis a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (the LAME) acceptable to CASA;2. The LAME must supervise all maintenance activities and conduct all certifications for maintenance as required by and in accordance with Schedule 6 to the CAR;3. The LAME may organise another appropriately qualified and licensed engineer (other than the first applicant), who is listed in the Register of Appointed Persons in Central Aviation’s Procedures Manual: To supervise and certify all maintenance carried out by Central Aviation during any periods when the LAME is absent due to sickness, leave or personal commitments;4. Central Aviation must employ an appropriately qualified, independent auditor (the Auditor) acceptable to CASA;5. The Auditor must conduct comprehensive quality and safety systems audits on a 6 monthly schedule and provide a report to Central Aviation within two weeks of the completion of each audit;6. Central Aviation must cause a copy of each audit report to be provided to CASA (Sydney Region Office) concurrently with the provision of the report to Central Aviation; and

7. Central Aviation must employ a technical records clerk to maintain the maintenance data necessary for all operation.

Full reference is at Federal Court: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009) [2009… Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009) [2009] FCA 49 (6 February 2009)
9 of 20 1/2/2012 10:16 AM

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 10:14   #2 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 1,891
It’s called QA.

The existing management team (whoever that may be) is obviously not doing an acceptable job.

CASA cannot be there to catch every mistake, shortcut or breach for any operator or CofA holder.

The onus is shifting onto industry to maintain its own QA processes in the belief (however correct or mistaken it may be) that a company that identifies its own shortfalls and takes action to prevent them will be safer than one that simply carries on covering things up, fat/dumb/happy until CASA turn up again.

The same approach is being applied to all sectors of the industry – You can try and fight it, but you will never win.

…and if you can’t beat ’em…

Horatio Leafblower is offline Report Post Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 11:31   #3 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
casa and economic stressors

The ultimate prescriptive control of CP’s, AOC holders and MA holders, does not necessarily lead to good safety outcomes, nor to positive co-operation by all participants. This does not include the “beating up” of participants by the regulator.

A read of previous documents says:

  1. Voluntary reporting of relevant safety information is a vital process which ensures airlines, regulators and manufacturers become aware of maintenance and operational issues and is an essential part of the process that has delivered, and continues to provide, improvements in aviation safety.
  2. That view, about the importance and effectiveness of voluntary disclosure programs, has been recognized in other jurisdictions and, in particular in a 2 September 2008 report to the US Secretary of Transportation “Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: a Review of the FAA’s Approach to safety ”.
  3. The proposition that it is essential to protect aviation related safety information from inappropriate use has been recognized as fundamentally important by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (“ICAO”).
  4. On 3 March 2006 ICAO adopted amendments to Attachment E to Annexure 13 to the Convention on International aviation safety. (Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention on International aviation safety.. Section 3A of the Air Navigation Act 1920 approves the ratification of the convention. CASA is required, by section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act, to perform its functions consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Convention.)
  5. The Convention amendments are intended to prevent the inappropriate use of information collected solely for the purpose of improving aviation safety. The attachment itself is aimed at assisting participating states to enact “national laws and regulations to protect information gathered from safety data collection and processing systems …, while allowing for the proper administration of justice.”
  6. The specific considerations expressed in the attachment are that safety information should not be used in a way different from the purpose for which it was collected.
  7. Safety information should qualify for protection from inappropriate use according to specified conditions. Those conditions include, in particular, a stipulation that disclosure of the information would inhibit the continued availability of aviation safety information.

Source: ATA asta and Anor and Civil Safety Authority [2010] AATA 499 (6 July 2010)

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 14:00   #4 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,962
Folks,
I don’t believe this is a case of CASA exercising “economic” management of the industry. This case is quite well known at YSBK, and in similar cases, similar conditions have been imposed.Having said that, I am of the view that CASA ( or probably more correctly, some individual employees of CASA) exercise a level of defacto economic control, despite the Act clearly prohibiting CASA from making decisions on other than safety grounds.Predecessors of CASA have had power to regulate the commercial activities of the aviation sector, old habits die hard.Then, of course, there are always a steady flow of allegations of what is “favoritism”, but sometimes probably bordering on low level corruption, where some operators (regarded by their peers as being rather spotty operators) seem to have a dream run, while their competitors are in never ending trouble.The matters of which I am aware in detail, that turned out to be justified complaints, were very smartly resolved by the then CASA CEO, particularly Bruce Byron. In each case, the problems came about by the actions of individual FOIs or AWIs, and previous employers or “friends”.Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline Report Post Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 14:44   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 546
Quote:
Then, of course, there are always a steady flow of allegations of what is “favoritism”, but sometimes probably bordering on low level corruption, where some operators (regarded by their peers as being rather spotty operators) seem to have a dream run, while their competitors are in never ending trouble.

Is this a failing of CASA where different inspectors or offices have differing views on an individual or operator for example. In previous threads numerous people have stated we do not have clear rules but ‘opinions’ open to interpretation. Clearer regulations and better training of staff would result in a more consistent approach. The FAA also has a rule to stop individuals dealing with previous employers (or other conflicts) for minimum of 2 years.

halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline Report Post Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 15:52   #6 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,962
Halfman—
And the FAA has very clearly laid down standards for all its inspectors, the various handbooks are available on-line, and FAA do a more than reasonable job in training and standardizing inspectors.nJust as important, FAA have quite high minimum experience requirements for employment as either a (their equivalent of) FOI or AWI.Most of the “new” CASA inspectors I have recently come across are not within a bulls roar of the minimum FAA standards, quite apart from the lack of training and standardization —- of which FAA made a point in its CASA audit some little time ago.Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline Report Post Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 16:14   #7 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
There are rival operators until someone’s CASA mate comes along and all bets are off. “CRONYISM” is the word that keeps coming to mind.
Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 21:13   #8 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 52
Posts: 1,437
Clowns

Biscuit, there is a good reason why the rules aren’t clear. There is a good reason ‘opinions’, ‘personal interpretation’, and ‘intent’ are so prevalent with CASA. The current structure of Australian aviation is a hybrid monster, it is a lawyers creation that has been created with the intent to protect the regulator and government at any cost and prevent them being found to be wrong on any matter. It is a game of stacking all the cards in their favor, they cannot lose.

CASA is not about safety or regulations, it is about individuals self gain, what THEY can get out of the system at any cost. Passenger safety is the last thing on their minds. It is about personal vandettas, payback, persecution and punishment of anybody who dare prove that they are in the wrong or incorrect on a matter. In fact they are a government sanctioned and accepted public service entity granted full power to quite simply do whatever they wish, whether it be right or wrong, fair or unfair, justifiable or unjustifiable, with no accountability to anyone. Here lies the heart of the problem.

Only two things will fix this problem. Some miracle stemming from the senate inquiry or a smoking hole. That is the point we are at. It can be avoided. To use a CASA analogy you need to be proactive not reactive. Well the voices have been shouting out loud from within industry for some time now – FIX THE PROBLEM. CASA has to go. Sadly that would take a proactive approach and the government prefers the reactive approach, so we sit back and await the ‘coming day of change’, the day that will make everybody from bureaucrat to critic sit up and listen, yep a hole full of smoldering torso’s.

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

gobbledock is offline Report Post Reply
Old 3rd Jan 2012, 06:30   #9 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,058
The root of all Evil

Ah, but there is method in the madness; now we see there is a good reason for the P. P. Performance. We are being protected from over spending on the bonus system. You can see it; if they turned in a stellar performance we simply could not afford to keep the little darlings. Yup, it all makes sense now.

 

Quote:
Performance bonus.
2010 – $458,704.
2011- $643,516.
Quote:
Source – Willyleaks;
CASA 2012 Bonus Points system.

Talk believable bollocks at the Senate – 200. (Conditions apply).
Develop a long delay tactic for regulatory reform. – 199.
Develop a short delay tactic for regulatory reform. = 198.
Defer ICAO downgrade – 197. (Conditions apply).
Delay FAA downgrade – 197. (Conditions apply).
Invent new money wasting project – 196. (Refer Spin rules)
Totally Wreck a business – 195. (Variable scale).
Partially destroy a business – 194.

N.B. Additional points for each Pilot of LAME crucifixion. Additional points may be awarded on a variable scale against the perceived qualities of your efforts against the industry. Spin must be supported by policy.

Pork crackling and bacon sambo’s anyone.

CASA Integrity Poll

Kharon is offline Report Post Reply
Old 3rd Jan 2012, 09:34   #10 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
More casa data

From the casa 2009 – 2010 – 2011 annual report [in millions]:

Balance Sheet items from casa’s annual report:

and casa sought a further $89 million from the GovernmentIn raw terms, some $189,173 per employee.And as for ATSB, who are responsible for investigations of life’s problems, have a budget as follows:

Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 6th Jan 2012 at 13:03.

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 4th Jan 2012, 06:58   #11 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
casa and Conflict of Interest


SUGGESTION 1 for a positive change to go forward in 2012.
The US – FAA regs provide for a seperation of employment by a period of two years in FAA employees who seek work in the private sector, then have dealings on the part of an employer or in a contractural sense with the FAA.This makes sense, as it would go a long way towards dealing with preferential treatment as already seen in Australia in operators having AOC’s granted or preference shown to AOC holders or applicants in other matters by casa.

—————————————————————————————————

The FAR [119.73] is as follows:§ 119.73 Employment of former FAA employees.(a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years—(1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and(2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder.(b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector.(c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before October 21, 2011.

[Doc. No. FAA–2008–1154, 76 FR 52235, Aug. 22, 2011]

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 4th Jan 2012, 08:24   #12 (permalink)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 774
This will never see the light of day here, too many snouts in the trough, post employment contracting is a CASA way of boosting superannuation for its loyal jackboot group.
T28D is offline Report Post Reply
Old 4th Jan 2012, 09:21   #13 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 546

119.73 wasn’t mentioned in the Senate Inquiry despite such a situation being discussed. One person had two hats on during questioning, previous role as CASA manager of office over sighting the airline he joined.

It may not be on the agenda here although bet it is on the agenda for FAA audits of overseas NAA’s.

halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline Report Post Reply
Old 4th Jan 2012, 09:58   #14 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Aloft
Posts: 39

Is CASA supposed to make a profit? A government regulatory authority? Why bother reporting EBIT?

Needless to say, this is not a good measure of dollars spent vs safety outcomes!

roulette is offline Report Post Reply
Old 4th Jan 2012, 11:54   #15 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 52
Posts: 1,437
Snort snort

Biscuit, Good pick-up. Glad to see somebody else apart from myself noticed that joke.

Quote:
119.73 wasn’t mentioned in the Senate Inquiry despite such a situation being discussed. One person had two hats on during questioning, previous role as CASA manager of office over sighting the airline he joined.

Lets call this airline person Mr X. Now, when employed at CASA Mr X worked alongside another CASA colleague whom we will call MR Y. Now after Mr X leaves and goes to work for the airline in question Mr Y resigns from CASA for other reasons. Not long afterwards Mr Y returns to CASA as a ‘consultant’ of course. Mr Y then goes and participates on the AOC audit of the airline in question, where Mr X is of course working!!
And no, they were not miles apart during the audit, they were very close together as previously at CASA both Mr X and Mr Y worked hand in hand.

Nothing unusual in that. One chump in Brisbane was also allowed to take LWAO from CASA for several months and go and set up an AOC holders SMS, then return to CASA. He also had building access at CASA during that time frame and used to come in and check his emails etc!! No conflict of interest in that one!
I am still waiting for all the dirty laundry to be aired as to why the HR Manager left! I know why, but waiting for the dirt to slide out from under the carpet…It will gradually. Senior management are a joke.

Roulette,

Quote:
Is CASA supposed to make a profit? A government regulatory authority? Why bother reporting EBIT?

No, they cannot earn a profit, that is a no no. The reason for EBIT is the usual government bullshit – to produce financial facts to show the ‘taxpayer’ that there hard earned money is being used in a ‘clear, transparent, robust, effective and correct manner’, which is a crock of shit when you look at how much they are wasting on luicrous salaries, international buiness travel, jollies, folly, bonuses, failed projects, failed reg reform, and unnecessary legal actions against innocent people.

gobbledock is offline Report Post Reply
Old 4th Jan 2012, 15:05   #16 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,058
“Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”

“Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
To rear me was the task of Power divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
(Dante Alighieri; 1265-1321).Seems very appropriate to me.Translation – You’re stuffed mate, whichever way you wriggle.

Last edited by Kharon; 4th Jan 2012 at 15:07. Reason: / por le pedanitca.

Kharon is offline Report Post Reply
Old 5th Jan 2012, 22:35   #17 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,058
Bump then.

I know it’s all numbers, but should a large profit be made in an environment where industry makes very little profit (ask Alan he’ll tell ya).

Never was so much given, by so many for the benefit of so few.

My sincere apologies to Winny and his Black Dog.


Last edited by Kharon; 5th Jan 2012 at 22:51.

Kharon is offline Report Post Reply
Old 5th Jan 2012, 23:14   #18 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 256

Gobbledock, what is LWAO?

I’m assuming it is some sort of Leave if it was for several months.

DB

Dangly Bits is offline Report Post Reply
Old 6th Jan 2012, 06:44   #19 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 52
Posts: 1,437
Dangler, basically it is leave without pay while still employed at Fort Fumble. It was for approximately 3 months.
At the time this occurred it was agreed upon and approved because a very senior person was good mates with a very senior person at the Operator in question.
gobbledock is offline Report Post Reply
Old 6th Jan 2012, 10:09   #20 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 256
Thanks Gobbledock.
Sounds a bit like the FOI in the same office selling Synthetic Trainers to the schools he oversights! Conflict of interest means nothing to some.
DB
Dangly Bits is offline Report Post Reply
Reply
7th Jan 2012, 18:12   #21 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,058
Not me Guv.

Quote:
Wasn’t this the site that was advertising no confidence in CASA?


I wonder
. Which one does he mean ??. I mean there are so very many options to choose from. Here are but two.

CASA integrity survey.

No confidence in CASA.

Puzzled now. (Not being too bright at all). Why does he wonder how all this occurred ?; after all the Senate swallowed the last lot of pony pooh, didn’t they ??. Huh, they did, yes, yes ??.

They did, it’s all cool boys, so back to the trough.

High Ho – away we go.

Kharon is offline Report Post Reply
Old 14th Jan 2012, 16:24   #22 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
How much to put an aircraft on an aoc

Heard an interesting one this week – casa was asked for a quote to put a Fokker jet on an existing AOC

Estimate ???

Over $1,000,000

Reasonable??????

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 14th Jan 2012, 17:46   #23 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 52
Posts: 1,437
Oink oink.
That will help them cover the costs of executive bonuses for 2012 plus it will provide them with additional trough money for trips to Montreal and other select destinations. Perhaps it will even cover anger management course costs for the Screaming Skull and maybe pay for the Voodoo Lawyer to gain another doctorate in jungle voodoo or some other folly unrelated to aviation?
gobbledock is offline Report Post Reply
Old 14th Jan 2012, 18:53   #24 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 546

Over $1,000,000

Charge out rate $200 per hour. Would equate to 5000 hours. Now assume each employee does 2000 hrs per year this would mean 2.5 ppl full time for a year or 10 for 3 months!!!!!

Casa are required to give a detailed and costed quote. Existing AOC and Fokker would be automatically accepted into oz if not already.

One company going through a legal name change was being tret as a brand new applicant.

This estimate can’t be right surely perhaps just a rumour.

halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 12:02   #25 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
casa and the real number of pilots

I finally had time to look at the 2012 casa annual report. The pilot numbersw bear some careful note – still falling, when you consider the active medicals.

For your information, I include the last few years:

Just a mere 52% drop in active medicals and a 39% variance in casa reported Flight authorisations vs. actual active medicals – More official spin??

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 13:27   #26 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,096

What’s this “….acceptable to CASA” stuff.

Aren’t you either licensed/qualified to perform a duty … or not ?

Next you’ll see … “An aircraft may be flown by an appropriately qualified pilot (acceptable to CASA)”

peuce is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 14:30   #27 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Megiddo
Age: 51
Posts: 18
Spin and folly

Quote:
Just a mere 52% drop in active medicals and a 39% variance in casa reported Flight authorisations vs. actual active medicals – More official spin??

More spin than a Texas twister! Work those numbers boys!

Quote:
What’s this “….acceptable to CASA” stuff.

That is correct peuce. “Acceptable” is ‘the new black’. They prefer ‘acceptable’ over ‘approved’ as ‘acceptable’ removes accountability from them.
Oh those sneaky boys, sneaky sneaky boys!

Valley of Hinnom is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 15:32   #28 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,004
Peuce what makes you think that’s not the way it is already?
thorn bird is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 16:08   #29 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 113
Annual Report

I find it instructive to note that, in Director’s review, under the heading Strong Safety Oversight, the first significant safety outcome is not less accidents or providing more safety education but the grounding of Tiger Airways, followed soon after by Alligator.

Which seems to confirm (to me, anyway) that their idea of absolute safety is when zero aircraft are in the air.

I used to think safety was common sense (look left and right before crossing the road, don’t stick your fingers into the toaster/electrical socket etc.) but now we need rules with associated penalties (!) to keep flyers and passengers “safe”.

The way things are going, and at the rate of attrition in licences/medicals, we might very well achieve absolute safety sooner rather than later.

QFF is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 16:20   #30 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In a jet that’s not so shiny anymore.
Posts: 989
‘Empty Skies for All’.
Captain Dart is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 16:27   #31 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
They won’t be empty skies!!
Just empty of Australian owned & operated Aircraft.
Capt Casper is offline Report Post Reply
Old 28th Nov 2012, 22:26   #32 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 704
Quote:
One company going through a legal name change was being tret as a brand new applicant.

If the company has the same ABN, tell CASA to go jump. It is the same entity.

601 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 29th Nov 2012, 14:21   #33 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Megiddo
Age: 51
Posts: 18
CASA 2012 annual report

Here is where millions of your hard earned dollars went in 2011/2012 boys!

Quote:
The trough for 2012:

The number of non-executive directors of CASA included in these figures are shown below in the relevant remuneration bands.

Trough dwellers = 1 $30,000 to $59,999
Trough dwellers = 2 $60,000 to $89,999
Trough dwellers = 1 $90,000 to $119,999
Total number of non-executive directors of CASA 4 Total remuneration received or due and receivable by directors $322,069 $315,798.

Total expense recognised in relation to senior executive employment 2012 2011
Short-term employee benefits:
Salary (including annual leave taken) $4,364,291
Annual leave accrued $397,842
Performance bonus $581,835
Allowances $94,539
Total short-term employee benefits $5,438,507
Post-employment benefits:
Superannuation $903,166
Total post-employment benefits $903,166

Other long-term benefits:
Long-service leave $126,899
Total other long-term benefits $126,899
Termination benefits $273,199

Total $6,741,771 (up by almost $800 000)

For the year ended 30 June 2012
Note 13B: Average Annual Remuneration and Bonus paid for substantive
Senior Executives during the reporting period:

2012 Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements):
In each bracket the first figure is Salary, the second figure is bonus and the third figure is the total reaped (snorted)

Salary $150,000:
Trough dwellers =1, Salary $71,571 Super $11,213. TOTAL: $ 82,784

Salary $150,000 -$179,999
Trough dwellers =3, Salary $121,202 Super $27,384 Bonus $ 18,238 TOTAL: $166,824

Salary $180,000 –$209,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $155,716, Super $ 22,393 – Bonus $17,525 TOTAL: $195,634

Salary $210,000 –$239,999
Trough dwellers =5 Salary $178,067 Super $ 31,135 Bonus $15,996 TOTAL: $225,198

Salary $240,000 –$269,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $186,381 Super $41,801 – , Bonus $23,567 TOTAL: $251,749

Salary $270,000 –$299,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $209,951 Super $38,658 – Bonus $ 35,549 TOTAL: $284,158

Salary $330,000 –$359,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $218,971 Super 74,024, Bonus $ 41,138 TOTAL: $334,133

Salary $360,000 –$389,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $230,205 Super $ 89,724, Bonus $ 42,488 TOTAL: $362,417

$390,000 –$419,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $269,254, Super $ 92,805, Bonus $ 46,350 TOTAL: $ 408,409

Salary $420,000 –$449,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary$ 324,635 Super $ 50,227, Bonus$ 46, TOTAL: $350 421,212

Salary $540,000 -$569,000
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $491,600 Super $ 50,000 TOTAL: $541 600

Not included are away allowances, business class fares, meetings, dinners, accommodation etc etc…….

But even more from the trough:
Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements):

Salary $150,000 to $179,999
Trough dwellers = 86
Salary $128,585 Super $30,236.06 Allowances $5.07 Bonus $2,174.79 TOTAL: $161,001.11

Salary $180,000 to $209,999
Trough dwellers = 29
Salary $149,321.59 Super $37,427.47 Allowances $16.57 Bonus $5,829.44 TOTAL: $192,595.07

Salary $210,000 to $239,999
Trough dwellers = 10
Salary $177,628.96 Super $40,228.11 Alowances$13.08 Bonus $6,321.17 TOTAL: $224,191.32

Salary $240,000 to $269,999
Trough dwellers = 3
Salary $196,273.81 Super $53,639.81 Bonus $6,396.60 TOTAL: $256,310.22

OINK OINK

Valley of Hinnom is offline Report Post Reply
Old 29th Nov 2012, 14:52   #34 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 704
Quote:
Currently any variation on AOC

If the ACN is the same and there are no changes in Directors, staff, etc., a change of company name has nothing to do with the operation of an AOC.

A two line change to the OM (for Blogs read Smith) and a new Compliance Statement would all that is required.

I would like to see references to any Regulations that requires anything else.

By sticking ya head up, it could awake CASA and trigger an audit if one has not been done within the normal cycle.

601 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 15th Mar 2013, 12:51   #35 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
casa and the effect on commercial operations

Someone has been looking at this issue as well:

CPL license holders

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 15th Mar 2013, 13:25   #36 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 50
Posts: 578

The medicals are a tricky figure to interpret, as overseas pilots would not renew medicals when they go back overseas.

That is, a surge in overseas trainee pilots would lead to an initial increase in medicals, followed by a drop as they leave the country on completion.

Anec***al evidence, from a number of recent graduates and junior instructors, is that the industry is presently quite robust. Seems like any qualified instructor could pick up a job quite easily.

peterc005 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Mar 2013, 12:17   #37 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,284
However, if (say) a PPL transferred to RAA, his (perpetual) PPL would continue to be counted in the license total, but he would no longer get medicals. I wonder if the decline in CASA medicals is mapping the rise of RAA?
Old Akro is offline Report Post Reply
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 08:00   #38 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 823
The control continues

The following comes from the 2014 annual report, which shows a major increase on a proportional basis of rejected medicals:

The below shows an up to 350% increase in 2012 of “FAILS”, which continues into 2014. Is this the PMO – Navarthe showing he is boss?? as it certainly is not a reflection of rising medical issues.

Further, there is a fall in issued medicals, no matter how reported of 29.5% between 2010 to 2014, some 7731 medicals.

Doubtless another thing to fix Mr. DAS [new] and with no spin Mr. Gobsome.

Up-into-the-air is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 11:45   #39 (permalink)

<b< div=””>

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 43
Posts: 179
UITA, I am sure they will blame the IOS/MAM’s for those statistics – Silly pilots with declining personal health attributed to debauched lifestyles, a lack of Pilots exercising enough, not eating enough fruit and veg, or a declining number of aviators giving themselves regular barium enema’s, things like that…..It’s always our fault, didn’t you know that?

Last edited by Soteria; 4th Nov 2014 at 05:47.

Soteria is offline Report Post Reply
Reply