CASA Legislation Must Be Fixed First

[Dick Smith]

I see an ever increasing amount of whinging that CASA has reverted to days similar to those of the old Department during the “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom”. There seem to be constant complaints that there appears to be a gradual increase in regulation and, therefore, in cost.

As I point out in the attached letter to the Minister (see HERE (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/dick_smith_flyer_-_140228_ds_ltr_minister_warren_truss_re_amending_the_civil_a viation_act_to_include_participation_levels_in_aviation.pdf) ), this is because CASA staff are simply following the legislation as it has been set by Parliament.

Unless we can have a brave Minister to amend the Act so it reflects what happens in reality, I am afraid general aviation is going to be “runed”.

[tail wheel]

Dick.

If it takes twenty six years and $250 million plus - so far - to "fix" the Regulations, how many decades and fortunes will it cost if CASA is let anywhere near the Act and other civil aviation legislation? :sad:

There is also a valid argument generally that excessive regulation can be detrimental to safety.

[Cactusjack]

I am afraid general aviation is going to be “runed”.
Too late Dick, it already has been :ugh:
I believe the next step in the journey for aviation reform will be as per the below clip. What other options are left for the IOS to do??

Italians fight it out in the traditional 'Battle of the Oranges' - YouTube

[Dick Smith]

I am not suggesting CASA amend the Act. Would never happen. It's up to a progressive Minister to do it. Will need lots of support from the industry. I won't hold my breath!

[tail wheel]

It's up to a progressive Minister to do it.

I suspect Minister Truss will be as proactive, dynamic and progressive as his predecessors, Ministers Anthony Albanese and John Anderson?

But I'm with you - rational, sane regulation to preserve a practical and acceptable level of air safety.

[Popgun]

Unfortunately, its probably already too late.

I've been doing some GA flying in NZ recently.

In comparison, General Aviation in this country is ALREADY ruined.

PG

[Paragraph377]

Truss is too busy feathering his nest and formulating his retirement plans to be bothered with silly aviation matters. But the reality is that the system is close to imploding so at some stage in the near future they will be left with no choice but to face the beast head on. The verdict is in, it was in long ago. The recent inquiries plus the current review is all the evidence they need to commence immediate change. Rolling McComick and 'hard questioning' Dolan is not enough. Does Australia really need a downgrade in its safety rating to wake up the muppets at the wheel?

Mr Truss, wash your hands clean now, appoint Senator Fawcett as Junior Minister for aviation and let him get on with the job. Minister, you can then blame all and sundry - the current aviation climate, a changing industry, previous Labor shenanigans, hell even blame El Niño and climate change if you must, but now is the time for action. Fawcett is the right man for the job, with the right support and actual transparent oversight of aviation I am certain things could be turned around for the better. But the clock is ticking.

[Obidiah]

Dick,

I am not sure your (our) vision fits with that of government, the concept of increased light aircraft density within our skies probably sends a chill up a politicians spine. They believe aviating is, and needs to be a complex and sophisticated process and that the concept of increased participation by anyone less than the most bright and dedicated will be fraught with menace.

What is a politicians vision for the future?

If the steady tick tock of history is anything to go by it certainly doesn't fit with the image our forebears had. Did they ever espouse a utopian vision of the populous crammed head to toe within high density cities or 350m2 suburban blocks. While the natural environment is clear felled for food and fibre production to every last corner and the oceans denuded, all to cater to a globally swelling population. While all this is encouraged by successive government as economic growth. A growth which is as non negotiable as air is to breathing and an ever increasing population is fuel to the engine.

No Siree....my granddad never told it to me like that. :eek:

Government will undoubtedly poo poo such cynisism but it is hard to hear the words they speak for the noise of their actions.

Nicely paved streets named after trees with efficient feeder routes from our "off the plan housing" direct to our offices, in fact do away with the car to many parking and infrastructure issues, an efficient public transport system, and the masses can pay for it.

Dreams of unfettered flight are simply dreams of folly, if your are lucky the current government might tell you what they doing or about to do, but I doubt it.

As always money solves most problems, consider yourself blessed.

.........regulatory reform you say........well here you go.......25 years......yes, well it was tricky, expensive too.......so what would you like us to do next?.........

:ugh::ugh:

[dhavillandpilot]

Dick

Nothing will change until CASA Officers are made personally liable for their actions.

If personal liability was in place pulling AoCs at 4.59pm on a Friday wod be a thing of the past.

Companies would have redress financially if CASAs actions were deemed inappropriate.

Also a simpler appeals system NOT the AAT would go a long way to assisting the industry.

But the above is just a dream

[Ultralights]

the fix, disband CASA immediately, ask the USofA for a copy of the FAA regs, paste over the FAA parts with CAA (civil aviation association), problem solved. :ok:

[Creampuff]

I suspect Minister Truss will be as proactive, dynamic and progressive as his predecessors, Ministers Anthony Albanese and John Anderson?You left a couple of Mr Truss’s proactive, dynamic and progressive predecessors off the list, tail wheel.

One of Mr Truss’s predecessors was none other than Mr Truss, who first seved as Minister for Transport and Regional Services in between John Anderson and Mark Vaile. (Mr Vaile also had two goes, the first before John Anderson.)

[tail wheel]

Yes Creampuff. They were all proactive, dynamic and progressive Ministers, totally committed to fostering and expanding aviation in Australia.

I was simply singling out those who really excelled as Minister for Transport in recent years, in the hope Minister Truss can strive to achieve the same benefits for the aviation industry and Australian air travellers.

By all accounts he is working very hard to equal the achievements of Messrs Albanese and Anderson.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

For a start, to template our regs on EASA will guarantee the demise of aviation. The FAA regs are far easier to implement, far more user friendly and...dare I say it...proven.

[thorn bird]

"The FAA regs are far easier to implement, far more user friendly and...dare I say it...proven."

Yup, which was why those clever Kiwi's used them as a template for their reg's,
which is why their airline is ...dare I say it.... making a "profit" while our airlines make a.....errr, and their GA industry is thriving and our GA industry is errr...
Well we shouldn't complain, Australia is headed for a 100% safety record in aviation, not even the Americans can boast that, mind you they actually fly aircraft over there....lunatics!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Poor stupid Mongolia, (actually a very go ahead country with a rocketing GNP) without the "facts" known to CASA, (see. Mr. McCormick in Hansard) has adopted the NZ rules.

We all remember, don't we, that the poor bleeding Australian taxpayers paid for the PNG Balus program, which installed the NZ regs. in PNG, because the Australian rules were no longer considered useable. Needless to say, the PASO uses NZ rules.

It looks like several of the CIS states and a couple of Caribbean states will follow,

Rather puts Mr. McCormick's public statements about the NZ rules in perspective, doesn't it.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Dick, first of all thanks for writing that letter :ok: secondly, do you reckon there's any chance of change?

[Jabawocky]

Creamie and I discussed the solution last Saturday, it does require a firm, almost dictator like stance by someone with the ability to pull it off.

Plus some legislation changed to allow the alternative to work.

If I could explain that in legal terms, like I can things in Newtons and PSI etc I would.

Over to you Creamie:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Jack. I am not sure however I am convinced that if the Act is not changed no real cost reductions can take place.

I will advise when I get an answer from the Minister. If it's a typical missive with bureaucratic mumbo jumbo the industry is doomed .

[Andy_RR]

How about a bit of self-regulation? After all there's a lot of self-interest at stake with aviating, unlike many other commercial and recreational activities.

There's enough accepted practice out there to show everyone how it's done and a dose of unlimited legal liability would also concentrate the mind...

[Old Akro]

I think the first issue has got to be to get the lawyers off the board and get a broad range of people with aviation experience. THE AMSA board looks like a good model. An enlightened board and a diligent CEO could make a significant difference in a small number of years by simply picking off the relatively small number of recurring complaints.

The proper way to do it, is to throw it all out and start again. The vast majority of aircraft (airline & GA) are made in the US. Nearly all avioinics are made in the US. Most maintenance schedules are devised in the US. Most of aviation legislation around the world is based on the 1944 Chicago (US again) convention. It would seem to make sense to use the FAA regulations as a starting point.

20 years ago when the Victorian Gas utilities were privatised it was all done by the law firm Freehills as a outsourced deal with the Victorian Government. It was regarded as the benchmark for privatisation. We hear a lot about issues with the electricity privatisation, but I can't recall anything negative about gas.

So, the other option would be to create a couple more millionaires at law firms and outsource the whole job. It would probably be overall 1/4 the cost of having CASA in house lawyers do it and 4 times faster. The hard part for public servants is that large chunks need to be simply deleted. We are regulating things with legislation that do not need to be regulated at all.

[peterc005]

If an in-house lawyer costs $100 an hour, a law firm will charge $600 for the same level of professional.

A good Victorian Legal Aid lawyer can represent someone in the Magistrates Court at a cost of a couple of hundred bucks. A private lawyer might charge $5,000 for the same work.

Law firms are sales-focused and driven by budgets. Once they find a good trough to plant their noses in, you can't pry they out with a crow bar. They will "gouge". "gold plate" and "fully service" until the well is dry.

[Old Akro]

They will "gouge". "gold plate" and "fully service" until the well is dry.

Are you telling me the CASA in house lawyers haven't been doing this for the last 10 years????

Happy to pay 6x the hourly cost if they do it 10x faster. The advantage of outsourcing is that it has a defined deliverable and end date. The problem we have with the current CASA approach to regulatory reform is that it is grinding on forever.

[Andy_RR]

The advantage of outsourcing is that it has a defined deliverable and end date.

The disadvantage is that it's still a bureaucrat making these definitions

[Guilders]

I suggest people give the Minister, Warren Truss, a go! I think we might just be pleasantly surprised where this Minister might take us. One thing is certain, it can't be down because the industry is already at the bottom and you'd need a drilling platform to go any lower!

[Creampuff]

He’s already been given a ‘go’. He’s now on his second.

On what basis do you have any confidence that he’ll do anything different this time around, given that there exist already:

- recommendations of a report endorsed by Mr Truss’s Coalition colleagues, and
- overwhelming evidence and justification for Mr Truss to take action,

but Mr Truss has already made a deliberate decision not to take action?

(If you consider announcing an inquiry to amount to ‘action’, I’d commend the Yes Minister series to you. :ok:)

[thorn bird]

Akro,

be a lot cheaper mate, to pay the Kiwi's a few million bucks, totally repeal our cluster..k reg's and install theirs. Sack the top ten % of the CAsA hierarchy, for deliberately squandering public money. We the pilloried and will possibly jail a Pollie for a few thousand on hookers, this lot got through a quarter of a billion.

[mickjoebill]

Unless we can have a brave Minister to amend the Act so it reflects what happens in reality, I am afraid general aviation is going to be “runed”.


Two of the roles of the office of the Australian Small business Commissioner is to "represent small business issues to government" and "work with industry and government to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to small business matters."

Many states have state commissioners, the federal commissioners office was established last year and deals with federal matters. The definition of "small business" includes the majority of aviation charter companies.


Welcome to Small Business Commissioner | Small Business Commissioner (http://www.asbc.gov.au/)

Mickjoebill

[Dick Smith]

By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?

Am I reading this correctly?

Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.

Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?

[thorn bird]

Dick,
I think its a given that the act must be changed.

[Paragraph377]

Dick;
Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?

Dick, as palpable as it may seem, the answer is quite simple - Because they don't have to. They have been enabled by successive Governments and given cart blanche, an open chequebook if you wish. They can re-write rules to suit themselves, they hold no personal accountability, have an open ended pot of taxpayer money to do with as they please, and operate from fortresses that are heavily guarded by politicians and political minders. Not even the Seal team that took out Bin laden could penetrate the protective sheath that ensures Fort Fumbles residents remain warm and cozy and maintain fat paunches fuelled by an endless array of troughs.
Dick, I think you will find the many of the IOS would support a change to the Act, however our trust and belief that the necessary changes would be made is sceptical and doubtful at best.

CASA and the Government do not want the Act changed as this would open them up to greater scrutiny, a level of accountability and add in layers of transparency. Can you imagine the uproar at Fort Fumble? Just imagine them all having to be honest and transparent!!!! Oh my.

Democracy and the so-called Westminster system in this country is nothing more than a party trick, a complete farce. Just look at how the Minister has buried the submissions made to an open inquiry!!

[Jabawocky]

Dick......put your glasses on mate. We all think it is necessary.

Do a search and you will find I have been harping on about taking the FARs and doing a "Find-Replace" for years, or better still dissolve CASA completely and subcontract the whole operation, in its entirety to the kiwis and save a fortune, get a better result and the kiwis could do with the income.

Win - Win - Win.

I notice a number of folk here have started to say the same. We can't all be wrong.

[dubbleyew eight]

By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?

Am I reading this correctly?

absolutely incorrect dick.
most of us would like to see an end to the total safety smoke and mirrors act that has been the central theme of the core of casa.
they have relentlessly pursued a path of instilling fear and uncertainty in the minds of their overseers and have been snowing the parliament for decades.

we would like the entire show dismantled and replaced by something sensible.
the new zealand regs would be a good start.
the canadian regs would be my preference though because of the owner maintenance provisions.

people write on the ends of posts tick tock. I hope change occurs before the need to glock the buggers.

oh that you had been successful in changing the culture when you had the chance.

[Paragraph377]

oh that you had been successful in changing the culture when you had the chance.
No disrespect intended here for Dick, but he stood very little chance of making the necessary changes, particularly when the Iron Circle found out that Dick was actually interested in making a change for the better. And yes, the foundations of the Iron Circle remained intact when Dick started at the CAA, and a new breed with additional members have since been trained and mentored to cohabit in the realm their forefathers left them.

Doubleyew and Jabba are correct - take out the wrecking ball and level it to the ground. But we warned, that would only take out CASA, not the bloated bureaucrats who have been the ones who keep electrically charging the Frankenstein.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Dick Smith

By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?

Am I reading this correctly?

Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.

Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?

I believe this is where Byron really struggled to get change. What are casa staff to do? Regulate to present rules or proposed rules without legal power. This is the real issue of never ending reg reform. Why did most of the safety systems people leave?

If you guys haven't read latest casa briefing have a read. Apparently all is well. Oh, don't spit coffee or wheetos at screen.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Typical!

Something that would actually do something that results in cultural change and Dick goes AWAL.

Wake Up! The posters of pprune are behind you....for a change:}

[Old Akro]

No disrespect intended here for Dick, but he stood very little chance of making the necessary changes, particularly when the Iron Circle found out that Dick was actually interested in making a change for the better. And yes, the foundations of the Iron Circle remained intact when Dick started at the CAA, and a new breed with additional members have since been trained and mentored to cohabit in the realm their forefathers left them.

I've read (in Organisational development papers) that in order to make sustain cultural organisational change you need to change 1/3 of the management. This seems about right in my experience.

The trouble with government bodies like CASA is that we change the guy at the top; make it very hard for him to change the two levels below him but expect that changing one guy at the top will fix everything.

Without knowing any of the personalities involved, its pretty clear that CASA's problems start with the board. It needs a new board with more board members, more aviation experience, more regulatory body experience and more diverse experience and LESS LAWYERS (if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail).

In my experience in turnaround situations nearly all the people reporting to the CEO have to go. There might be one good guy, but they will be entrenched in the old ways. Its the third level which usually has some good guys frustrated by the two levels above them, but there will be some guys need to go at this level too.

What are the chances that any government will restructure a board, change CEO's then allow him to (one way or another) dismiss maybe 8 senior managers?

Meanwhile the hamster wheel does another lap.

[Creampuff]

Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!

[T28D]

I wonder if the CEO will be caught up in the responsibilities of a Director in a Government Qango, surely if it were a Company he would and thus he would be in a much more exacting position re: Governance.


Will this pull him into line ?

[Creampuff]

Again in English please? :confused:

[triton140]

I wonder if the CEO will be caught up in the responsibilities of a Director in a Government Qango, surely if it were a Company he would and thus he would be in a much more exacting position re: Governance.

Unfortunately, CAsA is a stat authority not a company, so not subject to Corps Act. So it's not a real Board, and he's not a real Director.

Pity, because Directors' responsibilities are extremely onerous, if seldom successfully enforced (due lawyers).

[dubbleyew eight]

I think creampuff has been right all along.

the hard core of casa have the politicians above them well understood and know that if they keep up a sufficiently complex smoke and mirrors act "in the interests of a higher sense of safety" then the politicians will be as dumb as dog **** and pass it all into law.

gone is all the common sense wisdom in aviation.

there were Tee shirts in bangkok that seem applicable to casa.
"do not believe what you know,
do not believe what you see.
believe what you are told.
OBEY"

the sad thing in all this is that the core of casa seem to believe what they publish. and of course they would they don't own aircraft and never fly as we do so they have no clue.

what I find most disturbing is that casa and safety are looking more and more like an islamic religion. the parallels are disturbing.

[Andy_RR]

Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!

Does this meet Old Akro's requirement that 1/3 of the management should be new...? :p

[Creampuff]

No. It means there are a couple of new positions vacant for Coalition ‘friends’. :ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is the latest skull monthly "rant".

Obviously, skull has forgotten the ICAO audit, the PelAir debacle and of course the Lockhart River problems.

Remember, the ICAO/ FAA audit of casa which gave an extremely poor outcome for casa. (http://vocasupport.com/casa-monthly-bulletin-what-truth-is-there-in-this/)

The PelAir Senate report did not give anything like the skull "glowing report".

Just who is skull trying to impress??

Not me, not the 260 submitters to the ASRR.

Is this the follow up to the p gibson rant and the board "endorsement" of skull.

Just leave John, just leave.

From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick

Most people in Australian aviation probably do not have the time or need to think about how our safety performance is viewed by the rest of the world. Internationally Australia and :eek:CASA enjoy an exceptional reputation :mad:as a leader across many dimensions of aviation safety and safety regulation. Our contributions have long been and continue to be highly regarded by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as by individual nations and regional authorities.

We work closely with ICAO on the council in which Australia has continued to maintain its standing as a tier one member for decades. CASA experts are eagerly pursued to participate in ICAO's development of global rules for aviation safety. Our staff currently serve on eleven ICAO panels, as well as ten task forces and study groups. In the Asia-Pacific region CASA provides important aviation safety related assistance to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and other Pacific island countries. We help to improve the safety of their aviation systems for the benefit of their citizens as well as the many Australians who travel in these areas.

Australia has entered into arrangements with a number of countries to ensure mutual recognition of maintenance, design and airworthiness certification processes. The most recent was with Singapore, which like Australia and a number of other Asian nations, has adopted the European Aviation Safety Agency rules as the basis for their regulations.

[Cactusjack]

UITA, there are some nice troughs on that list!
11 ICAO panels? I hope those are only advisory panels for things like:

- What fruit juice to serve at conferences
- Whether to place the ICAO logo on biro's and notepads at ICAO conferences (see above)
- Whether to use Arial 12 font or Calibri 11 font in all those SARP's and glossy brochures
- Whether to smoke Stadivarius Churchill cigars or Louixs cigars during those busy evening relaxation sessions in which 'beyond reason' type wank sessions are held.

Just as long as Fort Fumble or the Bumbling Beaker Boys aren't advising ICAO about anything related to aviation or safety they will be fine, otherwise the Holy Grail of troughs - ICAO, could be in deep pooh!

[Sarcs]

Over the Blue Mountains where old Max lives..:ok:

Safety red tape is crippling regional airlines: Dick Smith (http://www.westernmagazine.com.au/story/2186255/safety-red-tape-is-crippling-regional-airlines-dick-smith/?cs=2452)

SMALLER commuter planes are safer than travelling via road, but will never be as safe as larger aircraft and it’s a reality bureaucrats should face by lifting restrictive safety measures crippling the aviation industry, according to Dick Smith.


Mr Smith said currently the government and the aviation regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) do not understand the best way of having high safety levels in aviation was to have a profitable industry.


“You can always increase safety by spending more money, but then you end up with less people who can afford an air ticket,” he said.


“It’s a balance, but in aviation people don’t admit it’s a balance. They lie and, from the minister down, they’ll tell you that safety is in front of everything else.”

Mr Smith said he was pushing to have the act changed to show higher participation in aviation was necessary to retain a high safety level.
“Unless it does we’ll have less and less people flying and you won’t have any regional aviation at all,” he said.


Although Regional Express’s (Rex) profits have recently slumped, Mr Smith said there was no reason why country towns could not have a safe and viable air service with a profitable company.


“I think we can have higher levels of safety but with less waste, less money wasted on the regulative system,” he said.


“We’ll kill more Australians because they all be driving to Sydney they won’t be going by air and that’s criminal.”


As CASA chair in the 1990s he pushed for safety to be made affordable with a concentration on reducing costs.


He said it was tougher for regional aviators because there were less passengers, but the same safety expectations.


“If you’ve got 300 people in a 747 they can afford a higher level of safety than 15 people in a Saab,” he said.


“But what’s been happening is the do-gooders in the bureaucracy have been trying to make a Saab as safe as a 747 and you can only do that by increasing the air ticket by 10 times to get the same income as 300 people.”


Mr Smith said it was likely Brindabella Airlines could not afford to comply with the safety rules when the carrier’s fleet was grounded by CASA forcing the company into receivership.


“Flying in a small commuter plane is probably 30 times safer than going by road and flying in big airline aircraft would be 40 times safer,” he said.
“If you want to make the small commuter plane 40 times safer you’ll have no one flying.”


Mr Smith suggests the government should model its aviation safety requirements on the United States and does not believe spending less on safety puts people at risk.


“You can have very high levels of safety without the enormous costs and that’s what you have to be smart at doing,” he said.


Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.


“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.


“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”


Tribute to Max

He reached for the sky: Dick Smith leads tributes to Max Hazelton

MAX Hazelton is an endangered species - a true blue Aussie who’s made money and ran a successful business in the tough aviation industry, according to entrepreneur Dick Smith.



Mr Smith flew into Orange in his helicopter on Saturday to launch Denis Gregory’s book chronicling the Hazelton legacy at the aero centre bearing the aviation legend’s name.


The launch began fittingly with Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines as friends and admirers of Mr Hazelton took to the lectern to praise the aviation pioneer.


Mr Hazelton was typified as a survivor.


Not just from his famed crash near Oberon in 1954 where against the odds he trekked for six days out of rugged bushland to Cox’s River and later managed to recover his plane.


But also for building a successful and profitable business in the aviation industry.


Mr Smith said Mr Hazelton was one of few people who could fly well and had the business acumen to match.


“He did things that other people put in the hard basket ... he stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right"
He said he had recently flown over the site of Mr Hazelton’s 1954 crash and planned to take him back in a 4WD.


Mr Smith thanked Mr Hazelton for being one of few in the industry to support his reforms while he was the chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).


“We were able to change the rules so instead of Australia re-certifying aircraft [from overseas] we managed to pick seven leading aviation countries and we were able to accept their aircraft without modifications,” Mr Smith said.


“We’ve saved many, many lives because people have been able to fly in aviation from country towns compared to going by road which is far less safe.”


The Hazelton Story author Denis Gregory compared Mr Hazelton to the early explorers - charting the way for others to follow.


“He did things that other people put in the hard basket,” he said.
“He stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right.


“For me it wasn’t a matter of what to put in the book ... it was a matter of what to leave out, that was the hard part.”


'OUT AND ABOUT IN ORANGE' GALLERY: FORMER HAZELTON STAFF GATHER FOR DINNER (http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/2184308/gallery-out-and-about-in-orange/?cs=127)


Among Mr Hazelton’s many legacies he was credited with convincing authorities to lift the ban on night flying to allow crop spraying in calmer conditions.


A story of a plane’s failed-landing gear being lassoed by two speeding cars on an airstrip exemplified his daring attitude.


Mr Hazelton said he was excited about the book’s launch.


He thanked all involved and congratulated the airline’s former employees for their achievements including pilots Ben Hazelton, Jonathan Hazelton and Andrew Flanagan who had “began their career as hangar rats” and were now pilots for Cathay Pacific, Virgin and Qantas.


“Virgin Airlines employs 50 ex-Hazelton pilots,” he said.


“It’s also a pleasure to see the flying continue with my son Toby, and now my granddaughter Georgie who has commenced her private pilot licence and grandson Lachie who is also about to start flying training at Orange Airport.”

[Up-into-the-air]

Thankyou Max for welcoming me into the world of aviation some 20 odd years ago.

I know Max as the gentleman who opened the door into his business for me and then as a "fly-in" aviator for fuel.

He helped look up and down the Cudal runway for an errant lost fuel cap.

He was ably assisted by the oldest push bike I have ever seen.

Thanks Max.

[LeadSled]

CASA enjoy an exceptional reputationFolks,

This, of course could be equally true as a compliment or a condemnation.

From a speech, some years ago, from a very senior ICAO functionary (and all round good bloke) who is/was just about a close to being a household name in the aviation standards and safety business, and for those of you who might have heard the same speech, please don't pick me up on a minor misquote, it is the sentiment that counts.

" Australia has made a contribution to ICAO and aviation, out of all proportion to it place in the aviation world. In balance, aviation would be better off, if Australia had not done so".

Perhaps 'an exceptional reputation" should be interpreted in that light.


Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Dick Smith:

"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.


“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.


“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”

Small point. but if the Altimeter has to be removed to test it, then there is a good chance that testing it every Two years is actually less safe then every Five years. The reason? Infant mortality - stuffing up the reinstallation process.

The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."

Take a sample of altimeter tests at the Two year mark and calculate the failure rate and standard deviation. Do the same at the Five year mark and do the same. Now compare. I did this sort of tedious stuff at Ansett for a few years back in the 70's and relaxed a lot of inspection requirements as a result.

My untutored guess is that the FAA would have done this. I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.

Hope to see you and Ian at Arkaroola this winter.

[Old Akro]

The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."

In my opinion, this is where our regulators are letting us down - badly. How long has CASA and its predecessors being collecting accident data, incident data, REPCON's and a host of other reports. Yet, predominantly decision making is based on hypotheticals from meetings in air-conditioned offices in Canberra.

Where do we see a learning effect? Where is there signs of continuous improvement? Surely by now we can refine regulations and practices in an evidence based manner?

[mcgrath50]

I think it's relevant to this discussion to mention at a recent CASA seminar when discussing combing RPT and charter AOCs the presenter said something along the lines of "Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207."

Most passengers I know don't expect the same level of safety in a light aircraft, in fact they are often expecting the light aircraft to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is! The presenter stressed CASA are doing their best to help AOC holders to make the transition as easy and cheaply as possible, whether that's true or not I will be very interested to see if charter accidents decrease over 5 years.

I doubt it will be significant.

[yr right]

What makes Aviation safe here is two main things. Weather and hills. We really don't have bad weather or high hills. I worked higher than anywhere here in aust.
As for Easa it's ****. Lame lic now are crap. And reasons behind the change are floored as it's a hybrid system we now have. The industry has never been in a more dangerous position as where we are now. Sad but true. We not America and we not Europe we here alone doing our on thing. We weren't dangerous to the rest of the world. But for some reason we forced to bend for them. Our system may not have been prefect but there's Aren't ethier. But no we have to bend over and take it. Casa has a lot to answer for the quicker we have a royal commission into casa the better. My two cents worth.

[Old Akro]

I think it's relevant to this discussion to mention at a recent CASA seminar when discussing combing RPT and charter AOCs the presenter said something along the lines of "Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207."

According to the ATSB statistics here:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4355945/ar-2013-067_final.pdf

Charter is already safer than low volume RPT.

Its interesting to do a benchmark against road safety. Australia has about 17 m vehicles. The ABS says they travel about 17 billion km per annum. A pretty good overall average speed is 50 km/h. This equates to 340 million hours. Last year 1188 people were killed on Australian roads. Or about 379 fatalities per million hours on the road. The equivalent charter figure is 4.2.

Why do we have such a double standard? Why isn't there any concern about making it as safe to get on a bus as a 207?

[Creampuff]

Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207But surely there’s somebody left in ‘Canberra’ – at least one person – who realises that it is impossible to achieve the same level of 'safety' on a 207 as a 747, no matter what people 'feel'.

A 207 was not built to Transport Category standards.

For example, a 747 climbs much more 'safely' than a 207, with one engine inoperative.

[Old Akro]

And an airliner is easier to find in the event of an accident........oops!

[thorn bird]

A few year ago, my company lost a regular charter client because they had to put the charges up, largely to cover compliance costs.
The clients found it cheaper to airline to a port a few hours drive from where they wanted to go and cover that in rental cars. I heard a couple of their senior exec's were killed in a road accident on that journey.
Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??

[Up-into-the-air]

From this one - Where is the safety case casa??

Yes sunny:

Dick Smith:

"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
and, where is the safety case??

My untutored guess is that the FAA would have done this.

I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.

[dubbleyew eight]

you guys are so innocent.
In australia you only ever have a "safety case" if you want to justify a preconceived idea.

if we actually went to safety cases we would see the introduction of Canadian Owner maintenance ...introduced in canada on the basis of a safety case that showed that their preconceived ideas were false.

but hell that's not the CAsA way, the "we know safety" way.
guys just admit defeat.
stop bucking the safety mantra. it's a religion you know.
now all say after me safety....obey....safety....obey....safety.....obey

now that didn't hurt did it. obey, obey, obey, obey.

:mad:

[LeadSled]

Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??

Thorn Bird,

Of course, the answer is yes, and when FAA does proper cost benefit tradeoff studies, it included just such costs.

An example, some years ago, Cabin Crew unions were demanding that young children should have a seat allocated, with a safety seat for very young children/babies, and no sitting on parent's laps.

The FAA CBA showed that the cost, in lives and injuries, from car crashes, from families that would no longer would be able to travel by air, far outweighed any remote chance of a young child surviving an air crash, because they were sitting in a seat and not on mum's lap.

Tootle pip!!