CASA ignores the Yates Report
Thread Starter
CASA ignores the Yates Report
Some may remember, in 1990, with the propagation of Regulation 22A of the Civil Aviation Regulations that introduced automatic acceptance of Foreign Type Certificates. This is from an ATSB paper ;
See here for a copy of the Advisory Circular put out in March 2009, Type Acceptance Certificates for Imported Aircraft;
http://rosiereunion.com/file/casaadvisorycircular.pdf
Notice paragraph 7.2.1
Despite this really clear information - and when there is clearly no " reasonable safety grounds" , CASA has insisted Australian aircraft being imported from the USA comply with the ICAO recommendation that for aircraft over 12,500 pounds, they are fitted with a flight data recorder.
The US requirement is on passenger numbers and so aircraft like the Citation CJ3 do not have a flight data recorder as standard equipment.
Amazingly, some 26 years after Ron Yates made his incredible recommendation which has assisted aviation greatly in Australia, CASA are still insisting, if I sell my CJ3 here and it’s used for charter, a flight data recorder has to be fitted.
The quote from Aeromil, the Cessna dealer here is that for an FAA standard FDR installation, the estimated cost is US $200,000 (AUD $261,160) or if the EASA standard FDR installation is fitted, it would be US $250,000 (AUD $326,450).
For a start you can see why following EASA will further destroy our industry with higher costs!
Both of these total amounts don’t increase the earning capacity of the aircraft when it’s on charter, in fact they decrease it because you have the added weight of the flight data recorder and also the sometimes, quite high cost of maintenance.
It makes you wonder if the USA, with its very litigious society and its 330 million population and the largest manufacturer of GA aircraft in the world, can operate aircraft with standards set on passenger numbers, why can’t we?
The prime reason I have not been able to sell my aircraft here (and let a small charter operator, operate it so I can charter it from time to time ) is the fact that once you add the cost of ADSB, the flight data recorder and the extra maintenance, the whole operation becomes unviable.
All of the people that could have had some employment from my aircraft will now lose out- the air traffic controllers, the maintenance people, the head office staff at Airservices, the people who work for the airports, the mechanics and everyone else associated with the operation of aircraft - have less work available and industry is further depressed.
I sometimes despair- why did I do all the work to bring in the Yates Report when it’s simply ignored by fools. No one has ever said why we can’t accept the US standards for flight data recorders?
There has never been any discussion on this, just a one way concrete minded refusal to accept First of Type from the USA in this way.
As I have said many times before, get out of aviation before you are completely destroyed and you lose everything.
Response Text: By the end of the 1980s Australia had a large number of design standards applicable to aircraft. Most were published in Part 101 of Civil Aviation Orders. Others were published in Parts 105, 108 and elsewhere in Civil Aviation Orders. The design standards in CAO 108.26 are an example. These design standards were a controversial part of Australian aviation legislation. In the late 1980s the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority commissioned Mr Ronald Yates to investigate these design standards.
Mr Yates advised that the design standards were inappropriate when applied to aircraft which had already been certificated by competent aviation authorities and he recommended their use be discontinued. The Board accepted the recommendation and, as a result, Australia's aviation legislation was amended in 1990 to introduce the concept of automatic acceptance of aircraft type certificates issued by the aviation authority in certain recognised countries. This was achieved by promulgation of regulation 22A, and amendment of regulation 24, of the Civil Aviation Regulations. The effect of this change was to render Australian aircraft design standards ineffective when new aircraft types were introduced to Australia, even though those design standards had not been cancelled.
Mr Yates advised that the design standards were inappropriate when applied to aircraft which had already been certificated by competent aviation authorities and he recommended their use be discontinued. The Board accepted the recommendation and, as a result, Australia's aviation legislation was amended in 1990 to introduce the concept of automatic acceptance of aircraft type certificates issued by the aviation authority in certain recognised countries. This was achieved by promulgation of regulation 22A, and amendment of regulation 24, of the Civil Aviation Regulations. The effect of this change was to render Australian aircraft design standards ineffective when new aircraft types were introduced to Australia, even though those design standards had not been cancelled.
See here for a copy of the Advisory Circular put out in March 2009, Type Acceptance Certificates for Imported Aircraft;
http://rosiereunion.com/file/casaadvisorycircular.pdf
Notice paragraph 7.2.1
“Persons intending to apply for a TAC should note that CASA may……. refuse to issue a TAC if there are reasonable safety grounds.”
Despite this really clear information - and when there is clearly no " reasonable safety grounds" , CASA has insisted Australian aircraft being imported from the USA comply with the ICAO recommendation that for aircraft over 12,500 pounds, they are fitted with a flight data recorder.
The US requirement is on passenger numbers and so aircraft like the Citation CJ3 do not have a flight data recorder as standard equipment.
Amazingly, some 26 years after Ron Yates made his incredible recommendation which has assisted aviation greatly in Australia, CASA are still insisting, if I sell my CJ3 here and it’s used for charter, a flight data recorder has to be fitted.
The quote from Aeromil, the Cessna dealer here is that for an FAA standard FDR installation, the estimated cost is US $200,000 (AUD $261,160) or if the EASA standard FDR installation is fitted, it would be US $250,000 (AUD $326,450).
For a start you can see why following EASA will further destroy our industry with higher costs!
Both of these total amounts don’t increase the earning capacity of the aircraft when it’s on charter, in fact they decrease it because you have the added weight of the flight data recorder and also the sometimes, quite high cost of maintenance.
It makes you wonder if the USA, with its very litigious society and its 330 million population and the largest manufacturer of GA aircraft in the world, can operate aircraft with standards set on passenger numbers, why can’t we?
The prime reason I have not been able to sell my aircraft here (and let a small charter operator, operate it so I can charter it from time to time ) is the fact that once you add the cost of ADSB, the flight data recorder and the extra maintenance, the whole operation becomes unviable.
All of the people that could have had some employment from my aircraft will now lose out- the air traffic controllers, the maintenance people, the head office staff at Airservices, the people who work for the airports, the mechanics and everyone else associated with the operation of aircraft - have less work available and industry is further depressed.
I sometimes despair- why did I do all the work to bring in the Yates Report when it’s simply ignored by fools. No one has ever said why we can’t accept the US standards for flight data recorders?
There has never been any discussion on this, just a one way concrete minded refusal to accept First of Type from the USA in this way.
As I have said many times before, get out of aviation before you are completely destroyed and you lose everything.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 15th Jul 2016 at 11:27.
"where there is no vision the people perish" Proverbs 29:18.
CASA has a vision alright, it's an RAAF vision. That vision regards GA, experimental, ultralight aircraft, etc. as merely air pollution.
The CASA vision specifically excludes consideration of jobs, growth and investment, let alone the current government mantra about innovation.
CASA has successfully cloaked it's corrupt, capricious, unjust, inefficient, reactive, intransigent, devious, lazy, dangerous, expensive and totally inappropriate behavior under the meaningless banner of 'safety' which is a nominative word that means nothing.
CASA needs to be broken up and the Act rewritten. the only way to achieve that is political action by those affected.
CASA has a vision alright, it's an RAAF vision. That vision regards GA, experimental, ultralight aircraft, etc. as merely air pollution.
The CASA vision specifically excludes consideration of jobs, growth and investment, let alone the current government mantra about innovation.
CASA has successfully cloaked it's corrupt, capricious, unjust, inefficient, reactive, intransigent, devious, lazy, dangerous, expensive and totally inappropriate behavior under the meaningless banner of 'safety' which is a nominative word that means nothing.
CASA needs to be broken up and the Act rewritten. the only way to achieve that is political action by those affected.
Good one Sunfish! You managed to get from Dick stating a requirement for aircraft over 12,500 pounds to be fitted with a FDR to the RAAF hating all small aircraft in the space of one post.
You should really get into politics, where you'd clearly shine at shamelessly changing the subject to your own pet peeve, e.g.
"Senator, please answer the question - did you knowingly take a bribe in exchange for approving a major project?"
"Well Fran, of course you would ask that but what I can say is this, we have done more than any other government to increase services to the public in all major areas. By the way, the RAAF are all bastards."
You should really get into politics, where you'd clearly shine at shamelessly changing the subject to your own pet peeve, e.g.
"Senator, please answer the question - did you knowingly take a bribe in exchange for approving a major project?"
"Well Fran, of course you would ask that but what I can say is this, we have done more than any other government to increase services to the public in all major areas. By the way, the RAAF are all bastards."
I have, and I don't agree with your sweeping statements. Perhaps it's because I'm an ex RAAF goon! Funnily enough, I don't hate GA though - matter of fact, I like it.
I'm an ex RAAF goon!
Ask Max Hazelton about the B1900 debacle, a perfect aeroplane for their operation but ended up being unworkable after the then CAA decided it needed to be Australianised!
Funny how it could work okay in the USA on RPT.
I also understand the Metro III was not going to be allowed on the register in Australia?
Funny how it could work okay in the USA on RPT.
I also understand the Metro III was not going to be allowed on the register in Australia?
By your record on prune, if they write it, you support it.
Grow up. I suspect your career prospects wouldn't look too bright in any organisation if you told your boss to "piss off".
When I was in the military, I had no problem disagreeing with the bosses if I thought there was an issue. I'd argue my case and present an alternative solution. The bosses welcomed that, as would most bosses in any organisation. The people that bosses dislike are those that whinge and snipe on the sidelines.
When I was in the military, I had no problem disagreeing with the bosses if I thought there was an issue. I'd argue my case and present an alternative solution. The bosses welcomed that, as would most bosses in any organisation. The people that bosses dislike are those that whinge and snipe on the sidelines.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 17th Jul 2016 at 07:39.
present an alternative solution for Williamtown - make the airspace class D like Heathrow is now.
Change is coming to the London CTR - NATS
The Williamtown CTR is currently Class C airspace, where IFR aircraft are positively separated from both IFR and VFR aircraft. Is it sensible to change it to Class D, where VFR is not separated from IFR, given the military fast-jet traffic that operates at high speed within the Williamtown CTR?
Last edited by BuzzBox; 17th Jul 2016 at 07:40.
Thread Starter
The separation can be the same in C and D if the controller so wants.
VFR pilots must follow the controllers instructions in D.
This means if Willy is class D a controller can still get a VFR to hold at Anna Bay for 30 minutes or more. Even a couple of hours for shear bastardry.
Class D empowers competent controllers to reduce separation when they can do so safely.
Our Australian Military Controllers are treated as if they are incompetent amateurs who can't be trusted to make good professional judgements to efficiently move aircraft. It's clear I am correct.
No wonder the morale is so low. Really terrible leadership.
VFR pilots must follow the controllers instructions in D.
This means if Willy is class D a controller can still get a VFR to hold at Anna Bay for 30 minutes or more. Even a couple of hours for shear bastardry.
Class D empowers competent controllers to reduce separation when they can do so safely.
Our Australian Military Controllers are treated as if they are incompetent amateurs who can't be trusted to make good professional judgements to efficiently move aircraft. It's clear I am correct.
No wonder the morale is so low. Really terrible leadership.
Thread Starter
Like Gatwick and other huge international airports.
No way. All tied up with childish insecurity by those who think the higher the classification the more skilled the controllers have to be when it is in fact the opposite
Mr Approach is correct. That would be the way to go to get the safest and most efficient low level terminal airspace in the world .
No way. All tied up with childish insecurity by those who think the higher the classification the more skilled the controllers have to be when it is in fact the opposite
Mr Approach is correct. That would be the way to go to get the safest and most efficient low level terminal airspace in the world .
This means if Willy is class D a controller can still get a VFR to hold at Anna Bay for 30 minutes or more. Even a couple of hours for shear bastardry.
Thread Starter
Already VFR aircraft are held for up to 30 minutes outside the VFR coastal lane so the military ATCs can comply with the out of date airspace and rules. It's the reason I sold my coastal property at Tuckers Rocks.
Class D would allow the competent RAAF controllers- and I am sure there are plenty of those - to simply give traffic info to an IFR Navajo approaching the runway from the west instead of holding aircraft outside the lane to protect the missed approach .
Class D would allow the competent RAAF controllers- and I am sure there are plenty of those - to simply give traffic info to an IFR Navajo approaching the runway from the west instead of holding aircraft outside the lane to protect the missed approach .
