Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur with my learned colleague.
Cheers Creamy; and I must agree, up to a point. While not running out the bunting or dancing in the street, it did cheer me a little to see that the Senators are not following the trail of breadcrumbs to the changing rooms. I have very little faith and less time for Polly's, no matter what flavour or colour; but I can and do have an as yet untarnished faith in Fawcett, Xenophon and a couple of others on the inquiry committee. What they can still achieve will, as you quite rightly say, be seen. If it all turns to worms, then industry must accept a fair portion of blame. You all know the rest of that tune. All up, CASA and ATSB may well have won a small, insignificant battle, but look at what they have exposed to scrutiny. Even the longest journey starts with one small step. I'll hang in there for while yet. Peace in our time ?– Bollocks, not on my houseboat.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
Richard III: courtesy of Mr. Shakespeare.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
Richard III: courtesy of Mr. Shakespeare.
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Mar 2014 at 20:06. Reason: Not a full stop then, just dust on the screen. Whistles up dogs, exits stage left.
Lady McTruss!
While we're on Will...
“Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power
to account?—Yet who would have thought the old
man to have had so much blood in him?”
It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)...
For those interested here are the poohtube segments from Nick's DM CAO 48.1 debate yesterday:
[YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]
Hmm big contribution from the opposition's side of the fence..
Sarcs..
“Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power
to account?—Yet who would have thought the old
man to have had so much blood in him?”
It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)...
For those interested here are the poohtube segments from Nick's DM CAO 48.1 debate yesterday:
[YOUTUBE]
Sarcs..
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elephant Gambit.
Queen's Pawn Countergambit (Elephant Gambit, Maroczy Gambit) – C40 – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5
Sarcs #546 –"It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)
Truss may well have the Senators limited in what they can achieve; after all the miniscule has all the juice; but, that's where the buck stops. With Barnaby patting the miniscule back (to find a nice soft spot), Qantas and the rest all over his front, the opposition flanking; will he hazard his Queen to protect his Bishop?; course not. He may need to sacrifice Pawns even a Rook; his position is tenuous and Knights are regularly slaughtered to protect a King.
The Senators ranging shots have the miniscule neatly in the crosshairs and they still have at least three rounds of ordnance left to use; (i) the Pel Air response and all that entails; (ii) the CTSB report on our moribund ATSB, (iii) the WLR. Add to that CASA is on notice that unless industry is 'satisfied', each new piece of legislation can and will be challenged by the Senators. Bravo.
The question; is the miniscule part of the master plan?. He can't just pitch up and sack CASA, day one in office. If he is on the IOS team first he must be able to prove the case and win the appeal before the execution. The Senators have set this up beautifully for him; IF the WLR can establish 'facts and circumstances', presenting the miniscule with lots of wriggle room, buttons to push and levers to pull (it appears the Reverend Forsyth is doing just that); then, maybe, with a big push from behind, some of the less desirable acts committed under the smoke of safety mystique and the mirror of disinformation will be curtailed. No matter what, the clock is ticking and it is the miniscule to move next.
"We were eyeball to eyeball and I think the other guy just blinked". Dean Rusk (Cuban missile crisis).
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Mar 2014 at 18:57. Reason: Forgot the elephant, I know, I know: but I did.
Behind closed doors and the Elephant Gambit??
Nick’s thought bubble on CAO 48.1 commenced with this…
From which a QON was received from NX…
“…Senator Xenophon asked:
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.
Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.
Mr Boyd: Indeed.
Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?
Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.
Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.
Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.
Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?
Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?
Mr Boyd: Absolutely….”
Which was finally answered like this…
“….Answer:
A comprehensive briefing on fatigue and risk management systems (FRMS) and issues related to Civil Aviation Order 48 (CAO 48) was provided by CASA to members of the Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on Monday 24 June and Tuesday 25 June 2013.
Ultimately CASA must be satisfied that an airline’s FRMS meets its rigorous safety requirements and CASA will monitor and audit industry compliance with their approved FRMS.
CASA has established a comprehensive implementation and awareness program to inform the aviation industry and its employees of the new rules. This program includes the use of:
• a wide ranging fatigue “question and answer” section on its website;
• a detailed fatigue booklet and implementation guide on its website;
• a fatigue risk management system handbook and process manual; and
• national face-to-face briefing sessions with industry and interested stakeholders which commenced earlier in May 2013….”
Interesting that on the very same day of the FF 1st day of briefing (24 June 2013) Nick put forward his DM on CAO 48.1, which was closely followed (2 days later) by the AIPA media brief in support of Nick’s DM:
Safety risked by flawed aviation rules that would result in fatigued pilots landing planes after 20 hours at the controls
Then we had this revelation in DF’s contribution to the DM CAO 48.1 debate…
“….I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”
All those bods, behind closed doors, in one room the mind boggles..
Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1; or maybe they were otherwise engaged since then; or maybe they were happy with the general consensus (bi-partisan proposal) as stated by DF…
“…Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1….”
However history shows that such panel’s recommendations/concerns almost always are ignored when it comes to final rule-making by Fort Fumble, so what is different with this case?? Was their perhaps a multi-party informal agreement?? If so why did NX not drop the DM??
Passing strange..
..that the DM still had a number of sitting days to run and yet Nick had it brought forward for debate almost at the very same time that the miniscule was introducing the board amendment to the CAA…
The Elephant Gambit:
It may be the miniscule has the next move but the good Senators have certainly cut down his available options
, while effectively outing at least one elephant on the board…
So to the division where the AYES are perhaps more interesting than the NOES- AYES: 10 NOES: 39 (The Senate divided. [13:27])
Creamy it would appear that Senator X has already established, in aviation matters at least, a loose alliance with the Greens..
Interesting times ahead come the 1st of July…
“…Senator Xenophon asked:
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.
Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.
Mr Boyd: Indeed.
Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?
Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.
Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.
Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.
Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?
Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?
Mr Boyd: Absolutely….”
Which was finally answered like this…
“….Answer:
A comprehensive briefing on fatigue and risk management systems (FRMS) and issues related to Civil Aviation Order 48 (CAO 48) was provided by CASA to members of the Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on Monday 24 June and Tuesday 25 June 2013.
Ultimately CASA must be satisfied that an airline’s FRMS meets its rigorous safety requirements and CASA will monitor and audit industry compliance with their approved FRMS.
CASA has established a comprehensive implementation and awareness program to inform the aviation industry and its employees of the new rules. This program includes the use of:
• a wide ranging fatigue “question and answer” section on its website;
• a detailed fatigue booklet and implementation guide on its website;
• a fatigue risk management system handbook and process manual; and
• national face-to-face briefing sessions with industry and interested stakeholders which commenced earlier in May 2013….”
Interesting that on the very same day of the FF 1st day of briefing (24 June 2013) Nick put forward his DM on CAO 48.1, which was closely followed (2 days later) by the AIPA media brief in support of Nick’s DM:
Safety risked by flawed aviation rules that would result in fatigued pilots landing planes after 20 hours at the controls
Then we had this revelation in DF’s contribution to the DM CAO 48.1 debate…
“….I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”
Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1; or maybe they were otherwise engaged since then; or maybe they were happy with the general consensus (bi-partisan proposal) as stated by DF…
“…Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1….”
However history shows that such panel’s recommendations/concerns almost always are ignored when it comes to final rule-making by Fort Fumble, so what is different with this case?? Was their perhaps a multi-party informal agreement?? If so why did NX not drop the DM??
Passing strange..
..that the DM still had a number of sitting days to run and yet Nick had it brought forward for debate almost at the very same time that the miniscule was introducing the board amendment to the CAA…The Elephant Gambit:
It may be the miniscule has the next move but the good Senators have certainly cut down his available options
, while effectively outing at least one elephant on the board… So to the division where the AYES are perhaps more interesting than the NOES- AYES: 10 NOES: 39 (The Senate divided. [13:27])
Creamy it would appear that Senator X has already established, in aviation matters at least, a loose alliance with the Greens..
Interesting times ahead come the 1st of July…
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even Korea outclasses the Australian Skull and Beaker!
Interesting article linked below. It took an aviation 'kick in the pants' by means of a safety downgrade for the Koreans to get things together. Perhaps Australia can learn a lesson or two from the measures that they adopted? It is very obvious that the Skull and the Beaker show has not done anything to improve Australia's safety.
http://www.isasi.org/Documents/Event...e%20No%206.pdf
http://www.isasi.org/Documents/Event...e%20No%206.pdf
While the Miniscule etc get the week off...
Submission update: While we continue to wait for the miniscule to make his next move..
..there is a couple more submissions that have come to light..: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia - Submission to Aviation Safety Regulation Review
The SAAA submission IMO gets the IOS tick of approval..
Coupla quotes...
"...Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are supposed to work together to administer aviation in Australia. Is this effective? The answer, in our opinion, is it could be a whole lot better. It is our opinion this may be because of the lack of a functional government mandate for the management of aviation in Australia...
...Other areas of CASA appear to be suffering high staff turnover, or have staff that cannot differentiate between commercial & private operations, and/or have no-one in charge willing to make any decision for fear of repercussions from other departments. CASA is therefore unable to manage outcomes in our sector of aviation (that have been identified by us and the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as desirable safety outcomes) that are well within the capability of the SAAA to deliver...
....then had to start all over again with a new CASA staff member who has not been fully briefed. This leads to delays that are measured in years due to corporate knowledge at CASA being lost in the transition of staff. Meanwhile, CASA demands management stability of our organisation as a condition of a small amount of funding for the hard work that we do for aviation safety, but is not able to offer us the same in return..."
Interesting take on ToR 2) and the Oz SSP:
I could go on but because it is well reasoned and easily readable (14 pages) I'll let those interested do the reading..
So finally to the SAAA recommendations:
Next was the Warbirds contribution, which was really a 'in support of' submission but does make some worthy points: Australian Warbirds - Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel
"...We strongly believe that, as part of its charter, CASA should be tasked with the support and promotion of Australian aviation. This would include but not be limited to protection of the nation’s airport infrastructure from overzealous or neglectful councils and landlords, the crafting of regulations that are conducive to investment in the industry and which eliminate a large amount of the red tape that currently exists, and efforts to bolster ties and cooperation with other nations and their respective national aviation agencies. With its sole stated purpose currently being aviation safety, CASA is in a perverse way fostering an environment that is in our opinion both less safe and overly consumed with regulatory compliance masquerading as safety. As more emphasis is placed on paperwork and more compliancy requirements pile up as part of the everyday operating demands of Australia’s general aviation sector, the incentives increase on otherwise professional businesses to cut corners and/or conduct things "off the books". These requirements are also leading to a dramatic increase in costs for operations such as flight instruction with very little or no benefit...
...The current environment has deteriorated to the degree that the general aviation community on a whole has lost faith in CASA in its present form to effectively regulate. Where a clear, well-understood, and accepted foundation for regulations should exist; we instead have a disjointed and inconsistent model. As a solution, the Australian Warbirds Association feels adoption of the New Zealand regulatory model for general aviation presents the best way forward. This will not solve all the problems currently affecting Australia’s aviation sector, but it will in our opinion put us on the right track. New Zealand, in contrast to Australia, has a vibrant aviation community. We hope to see the same here.."
Again (IMO) the AWA submission gets the IOS tick of approval...
..there is a couple more submissions that have come to light..: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia - Submission to Aviation Safety Regulation ReviewThe SAAA submission IMO gets the IOS tick of approval..
Coupla quotes...
"...Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are supposed to work together to administer aviation in Australia. Is this effective? The answer, in our opinion, is it could be a whole lot better. It is our opinion this may be because of the lack of a functional government mandate for the management of aviation in Australia...
...Other areas of CASA appear to be suffering high staff turnover, or have staff that cannot differentiate between commercial & private operations, and/or have no-one in charge willing to make any decision for fear of repercussions from other departments. CASA is therefore unable to manage outcomes in our sector of aviation (that have been identified by us and the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as desirable safety outcomes) that are well within the capability of the SAAA to deliver...
....then had to start all over again with a new CASA staff member who has not been fully briefed. This leads to delays that are measured in years due to corporate knowledge at CASA being lost in the transition of staff. Meanwhile, CASA demands management stability of our organisation as a condition of a small amount of funding for the hard work that we do for aviation safety, but is not able to offer us the same in return..."
Interesting take on ToR 2) and the Oz SSP
:
a) The State Safety Program (SSP)
i) While there is a published SSP document which as of November last year is out of date due to the implementation of Annex 19.
ii) The document reads like a text book about SMS in parts but mostly it reads like a self-reflective feel good novel.
iii) The ICAO SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
iv) Such a SSP Program Document should articulate who is accountable and in the sub parts who is responsible for the component parts. The Document should state how the Program will work, what the component parts are and the overall performance goals are set and measured. It will state the role of CASA and other Departments in the overall delivery.
v) If an effective SSP existed any inter departmental ‘turf wars’ as we have witnessed in the past few years will be evident immediately and action taken to remedy the situation.
i) While there is a published SSP document which as of November last year is out of date due to the implementation of Annex 19.
ii) The document reads like a text book about SMS in parts but mostly it reads like a self-reflective feel good novel.
iii) The ICAO SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
iv) Such a SSP Program Document should articulate who is accountable and in the sub parts who is responsible for the component parts. The Document should state how the Program will work, what the component parts are and the overall performance goals are set and measured. It will state the role of CASA and other Departments in the overall delivery.
v) If an effective SSP existed any inter departmental ‘turf wars’ as we have witnessed in the past few years will be evident immediately and action taken to remedy the situation.
So finally to the SAAA recommendations:
1) Minister intervention to force timely and correct change;
a) The SAAA requests CASA revisits the Project CS 13/01and apply some of the logic that allowed non TSO EFB in the cockpits of all the high and Low Capacity RPT aircraft in Australia.
b) Resource and direct a project to consider the application and empower the SAAA deliver the Flight Training project it initiated in 2008.
c) Resource and direct a project to consider SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to deliver trained Authorised Persons for the issue of Certificates of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft.
d) Resource and direct a project to consider S SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to issue Maintenance Authorities to members.
e) Mandate that all Amateur Built Aircraft builders and operators operate within a management stream of SAAA or a like organisation so that adequate standards are maintained and thus funds are available to deliver the proposed programs.
2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)
a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
a) The SAAA requests CASA revisits the Project CS 13/01and apply some of the logic that allowed non TSO EFB in the cockpits of all the high and Low Capacity RPT aircraft in Australia.
b) Resource and direct a project to consider the application and empower the SAAA deliver the Flight Training project it initiated in 2008.
c) Resource and direct a project to consider SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to deliver trained Authorised Persons for the issue of Certificates of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft.
d) Resource and direct a project to consider S SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to issue Maintenance Authorities to members.
e) Mandate that all Amateur Built Aircraft builders and operators operate within a management stream of SAAA or a like organisation so that adequate standards are maintained and thus funds are available to deliver the proposed programs.
2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)
a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
"...We strongly believe that, as part of its charter, CASA should be tasked with the support and promotion of Australian aviation. This would include but not be limited to protection of the nation’s airport infrastructure from overzealous or neglectful councils and landlords, the crafting of regulations that are conducive to investment in the industry and which eliminate a large amount of the red tape that currently exists, and efforts to bolster ties and cooperation with other nations and their respective national aviation agencies. With its sole stated purpose currently being aviation safety, CASA is in a perverse way fostering an environment that is in our opinion both less safe and overly consumed with regulatory compliance masquerading as safety. As more emphasis is placed on paperwork and more compliancy requirements pile up as part of the everyday operating demands of Australia’s general aviation sector, the incentives increase on otherwise professional businesses to cut corners and/or conduct things "off the books". These requirements are also leading to a dramatic increase in costs for operations such as flight instruction with very little or no benefit...
...The current environment has deteriorated to the degree that the general aviation community on a whole has lost faith in CASA in its present form to effectively regulate. Where a clear, well-understood, and accepted foundation for regulations should exist; we instead have a disjointed and inconsistent model. As a solution, the Australian Warbirds Association feels adoption of the New Zealand regulatory model for general aviation presents the best way forward. This will not solve all the problems currently affecting Australia’s aviation sector, but it will in our opinion put us on the right track. New Zealand, in contrast to Australia, has a vibrant aviation community. We hope to see the same here.."
Again (IMO) the AWA submission gets the IOS tick of approval...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Behind Closed Doors
Sarcs,
You intrigued me with your take on things (dunno about elephants though), so I made some calls.
What I was told was - watch the smoke and mirrors!
The meeting was brokered by Senator Fawcett with the genuine intention of trying to negotiate an outcome that avoided the need for Disallowance. The "position" he read into Hansard was the position that he took to the meeting and it was never going to change. Albo's mob were never interested anyway and CASA were there because they were told to be. Truss wasn't there, but I gather his "position" on the subject was whatever DF advised him it would be. Importantly, neither AIPA nor Senators Xenophon and Rhiannon agreed or adopted DF's "position". CASA, led by the Skull, had no interest in the discussion other than the standard "trash the opposition" approach.
My reading of the tea leaves is that it was a meeting held so that it could be said that a meeting took place - as the Hansard now reflects, implying that it was a meeting of like-minded people genuinely trying to solve a problem. The real issue is that only AIPA,Senator Xenophon and Senator Rhiannon were trying to solve the CAO 48.1 problem - the others were trying to remove a 'machinery of Government" problem!
As for your:
I am also told that the only "quiet" that occurred was due to the election and the need to start the Disallowance sequence all over again. AIPA apparently has continued to lobby for the disallowance right up to the debate, which occurred as originally schedule. I also understand that the "out of the public eye" approach, in stark contrast to Chicken Little Joyce's megaphone bullying, has garnered lots more listeners and believers.
I suggested that it obviously didn't work, because the motion was voted down. The response was that the ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.
For what it is worth, I was also told that "while this might have been a major battle, it isn't the end of the war"
You intrigued me with your take on things (dunno about elephants though), so I made some calls.
the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”
The meeting was brokered by Senator Fawcett with the genuine intention of trying to negotiate an outcome that avoided the need for Disallowance. The "position" he read into Hansard was the position that he took to the meeting and it was never going to change. Albo's mob were never interested anyway and CASA were there because they were told to be. Truss wasn't there, but I gather his "position" on the subject was whatever DF advised him it would be. Importantly, neither AIPA nor Senators Xenophon and Rhiannon agreed or adopted DF's "position". CASA, led by the Skull, had no interest in the discussion other than the standard "trash the opposition" approach.
My reading of the tea leaves is that it was a meeting held so that it could be said that a meeting took place - as the Hansard now reflects, implying that it was a meeting of like-minded people genuinely trying to solve a problem. The real issue is that only AIPA,Senator Xenophon and Senator Rhiannon were trying to solve the CAO 48.1 problem - the others were trying to remove a 'machinery of Government" problem!
As for your:
Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1
I suggested that it obviously didn't work, because the motion was voted down. The response was that the ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.
For what it is worth, I was also told that "while this might have been a major battle, it isn't the end of the war"
[T]he ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.
I’ll start with a Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Fawcett’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?
A second Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Xenophon’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?
My suggestion: To avoid eventually feeling like a patsie, don’t judge Senators by what they say. Judge them by how they vote.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem is easy to see. the nutters in the government agencies are so effing cluelessly incompetent that they are totally unable to understand what needs to be done.
kick into the mix an unspoken fear of death by flying, illusions regarding terrorism and the need to be seen to be doing something (we don't know what but for christs sake do something!!!) and you have what we see.
a clueless minister
ineffective politicians
an embuggerance of a statutory authority.
it is the incompetent leading the fearful in an endless milling frenzy.
as a guy who flies an aircraft he maintains himself and has absolutely no fears from a sound understanding of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering, I must seem like a martian to these people.
we all know that martians are to be feared and need to be killed.
kick into the mix an unspoken fear of death by flying, illusions regarding terrorism and the need to be seen to be doing something (we don't know what but for christs sake do something!!!) and you have what we see.
a clueless minister
ineffective politicians
an embuggerance of a statutory authority.
it is the incompetent leading the fearful in an endless milling frenzy.
as a guy who flies an aircraft he maintains himself and has absolutely no fears from a sound understanding of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering, I must seem like a martian to these people.
we all know that martians are to be feared and need to be killed.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summary of Publicly available submissions
You're being a little naughty, Gaunty! 
You don't know that the content of the other 220 submissions is supportive of the output and direction of the regulatory reform program. Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.
Or do you disagree? If yes, on what basis do you disagree?
You don't know that the content of the other 220 submissions is supportive of the output and direction of the regulatory reform program. Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.
Or do you disagree? If yes, on what basis do you disagree?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.
One can only imagine what is contained in the other 203 submissions, but of course Miniscule Truss, Mrdak and the assorted advisory turd polishers know exactly what the context of those reports say about Australia's aviation bodies and their Government masters
Somehow I think Gaunty and Creamy already understand this
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy me old, who me, naughty ?:roll eyes:
I agree, my point was ONLY that the conclusions drawn by Up into the Air, are not based on a large enough sample of the total to be statistically significant.
And no I don't know the content of all of the other submissions.
I absolutely agree that in terms of regulatory reform and the regulators behaviour it has been like watching a train smash of epic proportions in super slo mo with a peripatetic in charge of the jogging control with a melange of Groundhog Day thrown in for good measure.
I don't believe ANY of the other like minded or culturally aligned NRA suites are fully compliant with the ICAO, nor do not, in one way or another, have maybe a similar number of oddities as does the CASA suite.
So grabbing at any of them holus bolus is not IMHO the answer and would bring more trouble than in we are already.
Difference is and its only IMHO, the other NRA's (definitely not EASA) at least share a coherent structure with a reasonably rational philosophical foundation for their being.
They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?
We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.
it is not and we are not, by any definition.
What we do have is a reasonable base from which to work. Its not perfect but we know which bits work and which do not and where to go for the missing bits. We can not nor should not throw 20 years and $250M in the bin, some of it is usable,
Its not rocket science, nor beyond the people it affects most and that is the industry who have actual real world experience.
Fox's and chickens you say? Not if it is constructed by industry people who understand that unless the result has a clear and demonstrable safety benefit, and after all thats why we have regulations, it will not work.
At the end of the day you have to have trust that good people with good will, will want to do good things. We trust our "licensed" personnel to exercise the privileges of heir "license" to do the right thing. its how its supposed to work.
We're not quite there yet but with CRM and SMS now taking firm hold with higher supervisory responsibility and an increasingly transparent economic imperative that requires this behaviour is exercised to a very high level the responsible operators are almost self saucing.
My personal view from here is that we can take the overall numbering suite 1 thru 198 or so with Headings, work through them against what we already have use the best of the rest for what we haven't and the make them ICAO compliant and SMS based or justified, then we will have a world class system.
All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous
legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need.
Existing CASA staff may contribute for their individual expertise but the final result must be driven by the industry in compliance with Government policy.
The industry has some seriously competent and experienced people whom led competently can be trusted to get it right.
i think maybe there has been a sufficient flushing out of the dodgy bros operators and general maturing, that we can reset the enforcement regime to a more tolerant one by changing the mindset from offence to violation and placing the liability where it belongs.
Trust, the fundamental basis on which this industry works, must be restored.
Otherwise a certifying signature is not worth the paper its written on?
Confrontation has no place in the safety agenda under any circumstances.
This will of course require a pretty vigorous retraining and re education of a goodly number of the staff, but given the will and full Government support i reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.
Rant off.
I agree, my point was ONLY that the conclusions drawn by Up into the Air, are not based on a large enough sample of the total to be statistically significant.
And no I don't know the content of all of the other submissions.
I absolutely agree that in terms of regulatory reform and the regulators behaviour it has been like watching a train smash of epic proportions in super slo mo with a peripatetic in charge of the jogging control with a melange of Groundhog Day thrown in for good measure.
I don't believe ANY of the other like minded or culturally aligned NRA suites are fully compliant with the ICAO, nor do not, in one way or another, have maybe a similar number of oddities as does the CASA suite.
So grabbing at any of them holus bolus is not IMHO the answer and would bring more trouble than in we are already.
Difference is and its only IMHO, the other NRA's (definitely not EASA) at least share a coherent structure with a reasonably rational philosophical foundation for their being.
They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?
We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.
it is not and we are not, by any definition.
What we do have is a reasonable base from which to work. Its not perfect but we know which bits work and which do not and where to go for the missing bits. We can not nor should not throw 20 years and $250M in the bin, some of it is usable,
Its not rocket science, nor beyond the people it affects most and that is the industry who have actual real world experience.
Fox's and chickens you say? Not if it is constructed by industry people who understand that unless the result has a clear and demonstrable safety benefit, and after all thats why we have regulations, it will not work.
At the end of the day you have to have trust that good people with good will, will want to do good things. We trust our "licensed" personnel to exercise the privileges of heir "license" to do the right thing. its how its supposed to work.
We're not quite there yet but with CRM and SMS now taking firm hold with higher supervisory responsibility and an increasingly transparent economic imperative that requires this behaviour is exercised to a very high level the responsible operators are almost self saucing.
My personal view from here is that we can take the overall numbering suite 1 thru 198 or so with Headings, work through them against what we already have use the best of the rest for what we haven't and the make them ICAO compliant and SMS based or justified, then we will have a world class system.
All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous
legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need. Existing CASA staff may contribute for their individual expertise but the final result must be driven by the industry in compliance with Government policy.
The industry has some seriously competent and experienced people whom led competently can be trusted to get it right.
i think maybe there has been a sufficient flushing out of the dodgy bros operators and general maturing, that we can reset the enforcement regime to a more tolerant one by changing the mindset from offence to violation and placing the liability where it belongs.
Trust, the fundamental basis on which this industry works, must be restored.
Otherwise a certifying signature is not worth the paper its written on?
Confrontation has no place in the safety agenda under any circumstances.
This will of course require a pretty vigorous retraining and re education of a goodly number of the staff, but given the will and full Government support i reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.
Rant off.
Last edited by gaunty; 11th Mar 2014 at 13:38. Reason: syntax and explication
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was put to me in a conversation that the ministerial staff were absolutely afraid of some aspects of aviation.
this casa embuggerance and smoke and mirrors complexity was a deliberate government driven ploy to stifle the life out of aviation.
I'd love to know what they are actually afraid of.
do we have some cocaine snorters in the halls of power?
that would explain a lot of the senseless paranoia.
this casa embuggerance and smoke and mirrors complexity was a deliberate government driven ploy to stifle the life out of aviation.
I'd love to know what they are actually afraid of.
do we have some cocaine snorters in the halls of power?
that would explain a lot of the senseless paranoia.
… They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?
We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.
it is not and we are not, by any definition. …
We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.
it is not and we are not, by any definition. …
Nor is Australia’s health system the same as other countries’ and (with the stark exception of CASA recently) health risk decisions in Australia are based on truly expert opinions and truly objective data. Consequently, for example, there is no safety justification for Australia to strictly comply with ICAO colour vision standards, which are merely a hangover from the purely coincidental adoption of the maritime ‘rules of the road’ and navigation aid system for aviation, over a century ago.
I started singing ‘Kumbayah’ by the end of this paragraph:
All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need. …
[I] reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.
The RRP has been 12-18 months from completion for over a decade.
CASA’s left all of the hardest bits to last. For example, if you think classification of operations rules are going to be agreed and tied in a nice plain English bow by ‘a panel of industry peers’ this side of the end of the decade, if ever, I’ve some cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for you.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'gaunty, me old' eh!
It's good you stick your head up every now and then to remind us all how your input helped inflict 'strict liability' upon us all. It's amazing you, of all people have the hide to even pass yourself off as some sort of expert on CASA regulatory matters, let alone pass on any unbiased opinion. I also vaguely recall creampuff being some sort of 'strict liability' advocate at the time.
It may be of interest to you, gaunty, that your efforts will be mentioned in dispatches in the upcoming Attorney Generals Inquiry, as that piece of bad historical legal bastardry fits well within the terms of reference.
11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms
Unfortunately you will have to wait for those submissions to be published and hope there is no 'privilege'. As my submission will be but one of many based on fact it will be interesting to see the fallout.
The Truss 'review' may well account for some slaps with a wet shoelace and some upper and mid level bureaucrats getting a DCM with bar, but it could well lay the foundations to challenge 'strict liability' offences as illegal and lay waste to everything CASA has regulated over the last decade.
It may come to pass that if that were to occur, you would have done us a great service albeit with a lot of flotsam and jetsam along the way. Whatever, there is then a real chance that we will have to adopt a form of the FAR's for immediacy of safety, as tearing up the existing Reg's will effectively ground every aircraft in Australia.
The Brandis Inquiry has more teeth than the Truss 'review'. Whatever sample you now wish to ridicule as inadequate, they will be bookends for the paperwork to come.
It's good you stick your head up every now and then to remind us all how your input helped inflict 'strict liability' upon us all. It's amazing you, of all people have the hide to even pass yourself off as some sort of expert on CASA regulatory matters, let alone pass on any unbiased opinion. I also vaguely recall creampuff being some sort of 'strict liability' advocate at the time.
It may be of interest to you, gaunty, that your efforts will be mentioned in dispatches in the upcoming Attorney Generals Inquiry, as that piece of bad historical legal bastardry fits well within the terms of reference.
11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms
Unfortunately you will have to wait for those submissions to be published and hope there is no 'privilege'. As my submission will be but one of many based on fact it will be interesting to see the fallout.
The Truss 'review' may well account for some slaps with a wet shoelace and some upper and mid level bureaucrats getting a DCM with bar, but it could well lay the foundations to challenge 'strict liability' offences as illegal and lay waste to everything CASA has regulated over the last decade.
It may come to pass that if that were to occur, you would have done us a great service albeit with a lot of flotsam and jetsam along the way. Whatever, there is then a real chance that we will have to adopt a form of the FAR's for immediacy of safety, as tearing up the existing Reg's will effectively ground every aircraft in Australia.
The Brandis Inquiry has more teeth than the Truss 'review'. Whatever sample you now wish to ridicule as inadequate, they will be bookends for the paperwork to come.
Strict liability has been and continues to be fact of life. (Do you drive at all?)
It’s just that spelling it out repeatedly in the civil aviation rules (as a consequence of the requirements of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914) has upset the bliss of ignorance.
It’s just that spelling it out repeatedly in the civil aviation rules (as a consequence of the requirements of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914) has upset the bliss of ignorance.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was put to me in a conversation that the ministerial staff were absolutely afraid of some aspects of aviation.
Fools, bring on the revolution......
Tick Tock