Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Sarcs]

"Leave it to the experts!"

Othello: "...'twas strange, 'twas passing strange, 'twas pitiful, 'twas wondrous pitiful..."

Hansard - Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Actually the rhetoric recorded in the Hansard will not make it any clearer "K", so your summary IMO is spot on. To put it in context it was just an official tabling and recognition of the Minister's statement (14/11/13) on the ASRR, kind of like a tick-a-box routine.

Besides the vomitus maximus blurb by Sterle on Albo's performance as the previous Minister and the great Labor government initiative of the GWEP, the scene was set at the start by Sterle's statement:

I can say as chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for the last six years, and now as chair of the references committee, that when we do address aviation safety it is bipartisan, and done very closely in association with the Greens and the minor parties as well. I acknowledge that the new government did not make this matter a political football in opposition, and we do not intend to make it one either.

The wind was officially out of the sails of anyone that had any intention of attacking the previous government's oversight performance of aviation safety after that. So then we were left with the political posturing, empty worded rhetoric and the age old barrier of the 'mystique of aviation safety' (i.e leave it to the experts).

Senator Sterle:

As Shadow Minister Albanese recently said, this balancing is best done by experts, not by politicians. Hear, hear! I could not agree more.

All of the Senators present were ill prepared and all seemed to be tip toeing around the elephant in the room. Senator MacDonald was the only one that went remotely close :

There was also a very great concern about Australia apparently following a European model, if I can say that broadly, of civil aviation regulation and safety when perhaps we would have been better off following the New Zealand experience and regulations of recent times. I must confess I did not fully understand all of the elements of what is obviously a detailed area of learning and expertise of operations but it was clear to me that the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority did need some looking at.

Wishy washy, going through the motions and tentative at best, stark contrast to Senator X in the PelAir report where he takes the elephant head on :

1.23 It is my view that CASA, under Mr McCormick, has become a regulatory bully that appears to take any action available to ensure its own shortcomings are not made public. This poses great risks to aviation safety, and the safety of the travelling public. Equally, the ATSB—which should fearlessly expose any shortcomings on the part of CASA and other organisations to improve aviation safety—has become institutionally timid and appears to lack the strength to perform its role adequately. Both agencies require a complete overhaul, and I believe it is only luck that their ineptness has not resulted in further deaths so far. There is an urgent need for an Inspector-General of Aviation Safety, entirely independent of the Minister and his department, to be a watchdog for these agencies.

Oh well it seems we are reliant on a small contingent of good Senators, ably backed by expert IOS advice, to answer the question of...'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (Who will keep the keepers themselves)?

[Creampuff]

One Laborial hand languidly washing the other

Proof Hansard here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...lication%2Fpdf

Search “Ministerial Statements”.

There were 'Albo and white paper' songs of praise; chorus led by Stearle. Up until then I had a modicum of respect for the man but as I listened, it dawned on me. These folk have not the first blind clue. No one properly briefed could make such speeches, unless it's a game of positioning. But the rest of the speakers, even ol' McDonald, left the feeling that a well polished turd was about to be put in a glass case and parked on the posterity shelf.

Quite so. It’s merely one Laborial hand languidly washing the other, as before.

[Kharon]

Languidly languishing at the trough.

Just re read the four pages of absolute fury written yesterday as I read Hansard. I was going to post them; but won't now....

This is a result of the efforts of governments of all persuasions, which have never made aviation safety a political issue,

The notes will be distributed to the BRB at Burley Griffin on the week end; should provide some laughs/tears/ outrage. I have decided this is all, in part, my fault. I can't believe 'we' are so gullible, short sighted and disinterested after being wearied by the endless hammering during election events: that we not only vote for these people, but pay them as well. Perhaps the IOS need to start asking exactly what these highly paid people eat for breakfast or, is it something in the Canberra water?

Yup, my bad. Should never have listened to the speeches let alone follow it up on Hansard. It's disgraceful, and yet we not only pay for this, we tolerate it?

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

K - "This complete cock up is a result of the efforts of governments of all persuasions". etc.

Steam Off.

[PAIN_NET]

Just to hand. Extracted text with no guarantee of probity. My bolding.

The Royal Victorian Aero club is hosting a meeting with the review committee at Moorabbin on Friday December 13th. Mr Phillip Reiss of AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association) appears to be managing the invitations.

On the same day (Friday December 13th) AMROBA (Aviation Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Business Association) is also holding a meeting of its members at Moorabbin, with exactly the same timetable (10.00 to 15.00).

Similar meetings are planned for two other general aviation airports - Archerfield and Bankstown, and that Phillip Reiss of AOPA is organising the invitations. An extremely large percentage of aircraft owners and pilots are not members of AOPA and would not be aware that AOPA has been nominated as an industry representative body.

P4. a.k.a. The Ferret.

[Frank Arouet]

AOPA is an American organization.


AOPAA is an Australian organization.


Exactly who is purporting to represent me? I'm a member of neither.

[Sarcs]

PAIN post can't be true...can it??

PAIN:

The Royal Victorian Aero club is hosting a meeting with the review committee at Moorabbin on Friday December 13th. Mr Phillip Reiss of AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association) appears to be managing the invitations.

Before the announcement of the TASRR I had never heard of this NOAOPA character...so who is he and what possible credibility does he have?? {Hmmm..might have to put my research cap on, not big on conspiracy but there sure looks like some incestual behaviour going on here??}

If the above rumour is true and this bozo is holding a meeting with the review committee on the same day and time that AMROBA are holding their meeting (with Senator Fawcett in attendance)...FFS what gives??

Or maybe the tapmaker (I know different spelling) is so out of touch with the industry that he hasn't the first clue that some real bona fide industry stakeholders are holding a similar style meeting not two blocks away...

Benefit of the doubt..nah I don't think so!

My bet...'conflictus de causa!'

psMinister I know your quite busy right now, what with working on your response to the PelAir report etc, but could you slide a memo to Kingcrat to put out an address for submissions as my draft box is nearly full of final edit submissions from some real bona fide industry stakeholders..cheers Sarcs

Dated today see link: TASRR

Information on how to make a submission to the review will be available on this website in the near future.

pps And Minister forget that NAOPA character...hmm I heard that Mr Kilin a former FF employee and GA industry stalwart has plenty of time on his hands...

[Kharon]

And so begins the Forsyth Saga - Episode 1.

Regulation Review is up and away

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review announced by Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss on November 14 will open at the end of this week when Chairman David Forsyth is joined on the ASRR panel by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the United Kingdom. The two visiting panellists are expected to arrive in Australia this weekend.

The minister will announce the launch officially this Friday (January 6), and submissions will be open until the end of January 2014.

The Review Panel is planning to meet in the first week with members of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport because of its engagement in a range of aviation issues.

Mr Forsyth says he is looking forward to a busy few months engaging with interested parties from all aviation sectors: “The Panel wants to hear views from across the aviation sector to understand how the system works, what the issues are and how improvements can be made. Your experience is important and your input will be appreciated,” he says.

The program will be supported by print and on-line advertising in a range of aviation press through December and January, and submissions should be made against the Terms of Reference. Submissions can be made through the Aviation Safety Regulation Review webpage from the end of this week.

The Review Panel has already planned a quick round of scoping consultations in the week of 9 December 2013 in Canberra, Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne with airline and general aviation stakeholders. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they will meet with Senate committee members including Sen David Fawcett, Bankstown stakeholders and government agencies including CASA and ATSB. The schedule then takes them to Parafield on Thursday, where they will meet South Australian and Western Australian operators, and to Moorabbin on Friday 13.

These are introductory meetings to allow the panel to gauge some of the industry’s views early in the review process. Mr Phillip Reiss, who has been engaged as a specialist adviser on issues affecting the general aviation sector, has assisted in arranging some of the meetings, but invitees have not been limited to AOPA members.

Unfortunately the panel’s Moorabbin meeting was planned before Department organisers were told that the Aviation Maintenance and Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) had already scheduled a meeting with Victorian stakeholders at Moorabbin on the same day, chaired by Senator Fawcett, who has a keen and constructive interest in regulatory affairs. However, the panel will almost certainly have separate sessions with AMROBA at some other time, and Mr Forsyth has already spoken with its Executive Director Ken Cannane.

At this stage, the Review Panel is proposing to undertake extensive face-to-face consultation across all States and Territories once the public submission process has closed and the key strategic or systemic issues have been identified. Whilst it won’t be possible to meet with every aviation business and association during the review, Mr Forsyth says the Panel would welcome suggestions as to potential meetings. These suggestions can be made through the public submission process.

Wow, that was quick; and so the Forsyth saga gets on the road. Does this mean that the Murky Machiavellian department of dirty tricks are already out there, muddying the water, changing the road signs, draining petrol tanks and issuing dodgy invitations to the carefully selected chosen few. We shall see.

They are already off to a bad start. If this panel expect to be taken seriously they could begin by using the press as quickly to answer a couple of questions, up front. I'm sure PP would publish the answers.

Mr Phillip Reiss, who has been engaged as a specialist adviser on issues affecting the general aviation sector, etc.

What criteria was used to select Reiss as the "specialist advisor"?

What was the selection process?

Who else was considered for the lucrative little earner?

Who decided that Reiss is the Guru of all things GA?

You see I'm curious to know why a dwindling, insignificant organisation representing perhaps a few hundred private aircraft owners which essentially sells advertising and publishes a few magazines, is "the" organisation to represent GA, not to mention the potential for 'conflict of interest' creeping into the pot at a later date. Risky strategy - you bet.

Then there is this soft soap bollocks about the Melbourne meetings, the panel sitting contemplating their collective navels in one room, AMROBA and Fawcett doing the heavy lifting in the other. If this mob were fair dinkum, they would apologise and toddle along to the Ken and David show, sit at the back and listen. They would learn more there in a morning session that they ever would from "selected" invitees.

Not an auspicious beginning though, is it? Maybe my old wooden head is still reeling from the Senate dribble I forced it to wade through.

[Cactusjack]

Deryn Hinch would say Shame Shame Shame

The Smoke and Mirrors show has kicked off, ladies and gentlemen let the obsfucation begin.........
Mr Truss 'intent' in regards this review is blatantly obvious, and it accurately reflects the 'intent' of the Abbott government anyway. Same **** different day. No government wants to the fix the problems, just hide the problems. But don't worry folks, it's only innocent lives at risk.
The only thing I can hope for is that the review panels meeting with Xenophon be fully notated for publishing on Nicks website post review. I hope Nick paints a clear account of the Senators concerns to this review panel, at least that way when Sunnys dreaded smoking hole occurs we have something tabled that says 'we told you so'. Little comfort though to the deceased and their families
I think its time to consider Creampuffs view on non party aligned senators, because at the moment all we are seeing is this:

You Tube

TICK TOCK

[Creampuff]

Just re read the four pages of absolute fury written yesterday as I read Hansard. … . I can't believe 'we' are so gullible, short sighted and disinterested after being wearied by the endless hammering during election events: that we not only vote for these people, but pay them as well. …

I know it’s traumatic and the future looks bleak, but after the anger and depression will come acceptance and renewal.

Hopefully most of your colleagues will have the same epiphany, sooner rather than later. (Looks like Cactus is there….)

If most of GA realised that all governments in the last couple of decades have ‘left it to the experts’, most of GA would realise:
- who’s actually responsible for, among other problems, the Frankenstein that is the RRP, and
- more importantly, how to focus GA’s meagre electoral influence to bring about real change.

The problem is that those ‘experts’ don’t have the expertise to carry out many of the responsibilities abrogated to them.

The TASSR is merely the most recent abrogation of responsibility to another group of ‘experts’ – prompting Monday’s flurry of Laborial self-congratulation and mutual admiration recorded in Hansard.

Perhaps the next step will be a ‘Taskforce’ to ‘implement the recommendations’ of the Review? Perhaps the ‘Taskforce’ will comprise a group of ‘experts’?

Don’t peck at the feed, folks.

Those who were paying attention would have noted the government this week asked the Greens for their ‘wishlist’ in return for votes in favour of lifting the debt ceiling. Imagine if that ‘wishlist’ had included completion of actions to address the recommendations of the inquiry into aviation accident investigation. Alas, too late. This time…

The non-major party aligned Senators are the only glimmer of hope for GA. Focus your energy on lobbying them.

[Kharon]

Chooks – what chooks?

I'd blame the bloody birds on the paddock – mayhap, 'tis time to round up the strays.

These perhaps.

[Paragraph377]

Underarm bowling, Senators and the IOS

Kharon, nice footage. Taken from an era probably a decade AFTER the regulatory reform commenced?
Let's take a wander back a tad, to 1981, back before Frankenstein's monster was born in a Government lab:

You Tube

Now that is the kind of strategic move I would expect CASA to pull out of its magicians bag. What we need is a cricket team made up of IOS, real aviation experts and non party aligned Senators to counteract the 'Chappelising' of our industry.

Creampuff, no arguments from me. I agree that the pressure would have to come from non party aligned Senators. Although I still do believe in the integrity of Xenophon without a shadow of a doubt, and I believe that his intent is genuine, it's just that the horsepower doesn't appear to be there.
A smart move would be for the non affiliated Senators to pick up the Australian aviation thread and start a plan of action. They have a couple of years to learn the aviation ropes, pick up some robust advisors from the IOS and sharpen the knives and plant the pineapple seeds. It will take 2 and a bit years to pull a strong package together, but hey, reg reform has been drifting along for 25 years now, so this could be non aligned Senators meal ticket into the big sandpit. And they would garnish a lot of support from a large number of IOS voters.

[Up-into-the-air]

Is AOPA's Phillip Reiss the right man??

The following goes to the issues of representation by AOPA and Phillip Reiss

The annual report supplied to ASIC by AOPA is on this link

From the data supplied by AOPA to ASIC, there are only 781 members, not the 2877 claimed.

[Paragraph377]

Reiss Negative? Or Rhesus Negative?

UITA, well done son. Could this be yet another example, exposed, of the Governments intent to 'feed Creamy's chooks'? I believe so.
And this ties in with Kharons questions, namely why Mr Reiss? Plucked from obscurity by whom? Who and how was the decision made to involve him? The IOS would like to review and examine this process. Perhaps Sky Sentinel plucked his name out of a data base? If the smaller end of town was to be represented transparently then Mr Truss's footstool Kingcrat would have brought in Boyd Munro or someone of that calibre?
Sneaky sneaky.

[601]

You see I'm curious to know why a dwindling, insignificant organisation representing perhaps a few hundred private aircraft owners which essentially sells advertising and publishes a few magazines, is "the" organisation to represent GA, not to mention the potential for 'conflict of interest' creeping into the pot at a later date. Risky strategy - you bet.

Probably because it is the only GA organisation in Oz which has a degree of orginisation about it.

namely why Mr Reiss? Plucked from obscurity by whom?

Strange statement considering Phil has been around for a while.

[Frank Arouet]

Given it had 4,000 members in 2004, as stated under oath at Senate Estimates, and now appears to have about 700, it would seem as organized as one could get for a systemic failure. 3,300 members lost in nine years equates to an average steady loss of some 366 members per annum. Why did these people leave if they were getting a benefit for their subscriptions for representation?


Given about 20,000 pilots in Australia, the numbers don't appear to be any representation of pilots let alone the sum of engineers, Air agriculture, EMS, Recreational pilots, DAME's, AOC holders, Regional aviation, Helicopter operators, balloon operators, Ornithopter enthusiasts etc. etc.


Being head of this organization hardly qualifies for induction to any "expert" panel of advisers irrespective how long he has "been around". They lost all their "exerts" years ago in the ego wars.

[601]

Even thought it is alleged to only have has "700" members, pray tell what other organised organisation of that size is there to represent GA pilots?

[Frank Arouet]

Probably this mob. Australian Women Pilots` Association They say as much about their membership numbers on their website as does that "organized organization" you mention.


I draw your attention to post # 113 Annual report to ASIC.


Receipts from membership fees: $97,744.00 Divided by $145 average but not including non natural non voting members, non voting juniors, associate members etc. comes to 674 members. This despite the information given to Auditors there were 2,588 members?


Only members with full voting rights should be claimed. Perhaps they are claiming "lapsed members" which many are unless those members resign in writing. (read the articles of association).


Take note: they do not represent me!


Even if you add the two totals together and divide by two for a wild average there are still 1631 which is still a bit shy to be claiming to represent all of GA.


I estimate the PPRune posters networks who have made submissions to both The Senate and this enquiry have more combined members.


But what would I know?

[Sarcs]

Captain's (Kingcrat) pick for twelfth man has IOSCB approval!

Personally the IOSCB have no problem with Phil carrying the drinks, it is the prerogative of the Captain to pick the twelfth man. However let's 'play the ball' and not the man, after all it is just not cricket to sledge a player off the field of play...

601:

Even thought it is alleged to only have has "700" members, pray tell what other organised organisation of that size is there to represent GA pilots?

Hmm..interesting comment and at the risk of drifting towards the inevitable NAOPA wars (there is another thread in GA for that ) let us do a basic review/audit, say over the last 5 years, of the legitimacy of 601's comment...

Note: Before we start I think 601 has sold NAOPA short in the who?? and what?? they profess to represent, from 'An Open Letter to Everyone Involved in General Aviation in Australia':

AOPA does its best to work closely with other aviation organisations, but AOPA is the only one that truly represents the full spectrum of GA activity: IFR, VFR, helicopter and fixed-wing, aerial work and charter, owner-flown, instructional and private hire.

Let us accept, that in GA terms, for the last 12 months the most significant event in GA circles (the one that drew the most cross-discipline, cross-association, political interest, pprune following etc..and largely responsible for triggering the TASRR) was the Senate PelAir inquiry . OK so we will use that event to establish a baseline for our brief review.

So did our truly only GA reps offer support to our Senate elected representatives on the release of the PelAir report and its damning findings back on the 23rd of May...AOPA News link for 2013.?? Err...no! {NB: I can stand correction here; but in the whole of the news listings that the PelAir inquiry was running there is not one mention that I can find}.

So did our truly only GA reps at least make a submission to the PelAir inquiry...Aviation Accident Investigations?? That would be a no!

Maybe they were involved in the other significant GA Senate inquiry...Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010?? Also a no!

In fact the last time that our truly only GA reps made a submission to a GA related Senate/House inquiry was in 2008 and that effort could only best be described as a Creamy wet lettuce response, see here:

Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters

AOPA sub 6

AOPA sub 6A

Hearing transcript from page 30
{To be fair, it is also worth noting that the Captain's pick twelfth man was not selected in that series..}

Sarcs comment: Trolling back through the history of our truly only GA reps involvement in past parliamentary inquiries, there was one submission of note back in 1999-2000 that the association should seriously consider re-badging/updating (name changes etc) and forward as their submission for the TASRR:House Committee sub 145 Hmm...on second thoughts perhaps not!

In the interest of balance of our truly only GA reps (and their 781 members), the elected committee have not been sitting on their hands, from the letter mentioned above :

Recently, on your behalf, the AOPA Committee has:
• Prepared detailed responses to CASA and attended meetings to advocate more GA-friendly provisions in the new Part 61, 91, 141, 142, 145, aviation medical, ageing aircraft and other regulations
• Actively engaged with the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group and the Bureau of Meteorology to make sure that GA, and not just the airlines, have a say on vital air traffic management, airspace planning, satellite-based navigation, weather and other services
• Re-introduced the AOPA aviation scholarships with the support of Airservices Australia
• Held seminars around the country, actively promoting general aviation safety and making contact with our members.

In summing up (and on behalf of the IOSCB) I can see no problem with the twelfth man selection, however the IOSCB would have serious issue with him taking to the field in any other position except silly mid-on or to carry the drinks!

Addendum: Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form.

Media Release WT042/2013 06 December 2013

[Up-into-the-air]

Is Phillip Reis the Right man??

The following is the front page from the current magazine of his organisation:

which shows an advertisement from casa.

How can the president of an organisation that recieves money from casa represent the industry??

Well??

[Kharon]

12th Man and all that.

I agree with Sarcs # 119; Reiss is probably a reasonable cove, certainly a good (if not the best) choice of fellah to carry the drinks and lick the invitation envelopes. But the slippery notion that AOPA; (as in the real muscle, heavy metal USA version), is representing the local domestic product at what was to be a serious review is risible.

The AOPAA, that is the Australian, non aligned version has, since 2000 slowly declined to insignificance, achieving very little of any great benefit to the unwashed, unshriven masses. The Sarcs post highlights a singular lack of performance; the diminishing membership reflects an inability to generate interest in any positive way and the lack of any sort of guidance on matters aeronautical is notable. The AAAA, AHIA, RAAA, AMROBA, have done some very heavy lifting in all areas of concern and have lead by example. The 2008 submissions mentioned for example showed a real commitment toward assisting industry in a positive, non-combative approach to dealing with the issues as they arose.

Nope: sorry, but whoever made certain that the Minister pulled the AOPAA name out of his hat is, shall we say, 'misinformed'. If we must have a specialist "GA – expert advisor" to carry the drinks, manage the dinner seating cards and arrange the flowers, there are better representatives from an extensive list organisations. Why not select the CEO, GM or CP of a fair dinkum company, there is a fairly extensive list of first class GA/Regional operations to choose from; RFDS, Police Air-wing, Sharp, Air North, Qlink etc. etc. Much more in touch with coal face issues and far, far removed from the rarefied atmosphere of what is now a small, select, specialised user of non renewable resources.

Creamy has the right of it: a one sentence email supporting any of the major players will do a lot more good than sitting back, depending on the 12th man and associated cronies.

Many people dropped their AOPA membership in years past because of instability and wasteful expenditure. The current AOPA Committee is determined not to let that happen again.

Put simply, I’m writing to ask you to give AOPA another chance.

Just about says it all for my AUD$ 0. 20.