Speaking of addendums Ben has one of his own in that last article (my bold)...
"This is CASA’s initial response to the new US rules.
We’re in middle of introducing new flying training rules – Parts 141 and 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations come into effect on 4 December 2013. These go to the same standards the US are talking about. But we always review our standards in the light of relevant international developments, so it will be part of the normal processes.
Info on new regs here: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_101716"....
Never fear Fort Fumble is here!
Before we launch into writing up the Department SCN, of what appears to be obfuscation of the former government's aviation policy (
the Great White Elephant Paper) and the RRP
, we need to first complete a chronology of events leading up to the alleged offending by the Dept.
IMO the initiation of the Hawke Taskforce (ARRT) should be our starting point for the SCN investigation chronology. So any handy intel, titbits, witness statements, etc (that is fully documented of course
) that could be significant to the chain of evidence would be greatly appreciated.
As an example here is a dusted off article (2008) by SC from the Australian:
FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has returned more than $10,000 paid to him for taking part in a federal government aviation review, in a protest against the Transport Department's failure to release "the important, urgent safety recommendations" it produced.
Mr Smith was part of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce set up by the Howard government to provide policy advice on the best way of reforming Australia's aviation regulation over the next five years and what should be done first.
It was chaired by Australian National University chancellor Allan Hawke and included CASA chief Bruce Byron as well as Mr Smith and industry representatives from Qantas and Brindabella Airlines. The taskforce completed its report in December, but it has yet to be released.
In a letter to Transport Department secretary Mike Taylor, Mr Smith said he was refunding the money because "keeping it would be dishonest".
"I have my copy, which contains important, urgent safety recommendations, but it is stamped 'under embargo'," Mr Smith said. "Just why such an important safety document would be embargoed is beyond comprehension to me."
Mr Smith was reluctant to elaborate on the urgent safety recommendations, but it is understood they include issues such as the need for enhanced ground proximity warning systems and collision avoidance alarms in smaller passenger planes. The report is also believed to have recommended speeding up the slow pace of aviation regulatory reform.
The millionaire aviator believes at least $500,000 was spent on the review and said it now appeared to have been an incredible waste of resources.
He said he understood the report had not been released because Mr Hawke had not been able to meet with Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.
But a spokesman for Mr Albanese said last night that Mr Hawke had met staff from the minister's office. "Minister Albanese has received the report ... and is giving it appropriate consideration," the spokesman said.
"The Government's response to the report will be announced in the near future."
Mr Albanese has ordered the nation's first white paper on the aviation industry and a Senate committee will conduct a formal inquiry into CASA's administration next month. The inquiry will look at the effectiveness of administrative reforms undertaken by CASA since 2003 as well as the effectiveness of the authority's governance structure.
Hmm familiar theme this... "
Transport Department's failure to release "the important, urgent safety recommendations" it produced.
Addendum
: Continuing on with thoughtful quotes from the 2008 Inquiry:
(AFAP's Capt Bryan Murray {sub 40} on the subject of the RRP)
With regard to CASA’s Regulatory Reform Programme (RRP), progress has been slow. The time, energy and money (both public and industry) that have been invested in this project are disproportionate to outcomes. The reasons why there has been such little return on this investment are varied and complex. We support Bruce Byron’s move towards appointing small specialist working groups for future policy development. We could learn from our counterparts in New Zealand when they undertook to recast their aviation rules in FAR format. They set a goal to complete the project and did so.
Another common theme...
