Bushy. Coral Sea Airlines did not operate RPT flights as defined by CAR206(1)(c). But it was a good excuse to take Mostafa out, considering the range of other issues including the amphibious Shrike.
You, while holding a significant position on the CASA Board not all that long ago was in a position to make such a change occur, why didn't you do anything about it???
Because the dopey industry members who came to the Part 135 meeting I organised at the CASA building were totally opposed to any change and no doubt got the ear of the Department.
On monday I will post a copy of the article from the CASA publication "Aiming Higher" which covered the issue.
Mr Smith didn't Qantas and the other airlines want a totally self regulated flying industry in australia. And let us not forget the removal of controlled airspace to a system of pilot's working out their own separation over their radio's. Best thing you did was resign, pity it wasn't sooner
Thankyou Mr Smith, I will look forward to reading it.
Given your previous chairmanship's of the CASA Board and the associated power that goes with it, I would be extremely surprised that you couldn't fix the CAR 206 Charter versus RPT problem if you really had wanted to.
At this point in time, simple blaming "dopey industry members" doesn't wash with me, given your perceived (by me) crash or crash through approaches with other aspects of Australian aviation.
That's exactly the point. If there were "other issues" then appropriate action should have been taken concerning the other issues. The charter/rpt ambiguity is a tool that has been used to take a number of operators out, and it can be used to take almost any charter operator out any time they wish.
No industry can operate properly with this degree of uncertainty.
This is one reason why our regulator does not have the respect of the industry.
VH-MLE, I promised I would post the article from Aiming Higher which covers the Part 135 meeting. Please note in the article the statement which says:
Quote:
Industry representatives were fundamentally opposed to the proposal for one standard, one common approach
I can only do so much as an individual – even as a Chairman. When the industry members are opposed to changes that will bring a benefit to the industry, there is not a lot I can do.
I may be showing my age here but I do remember the old "Flaming Liar" (Aiming Higher to the young folk). The bloke sitting next to Dick (Grant Mazowita) has since returned to CASA circa 2005/6 responsible for that being argued (?)
From his first representation since being back:
Quote:
4.5
Reclassification of Operations project Update
4.5.1 Grant Mazowita opened the presentation by advising that since the Discussion Paper presented at the May SCC meeting there had been further refinements to the policy.
Grant advised that a Draft policy notice was approved in principle by the CEO in October 2006, subject to further discussions with the aviation community. The paper has been posted on the SCC discussion forum and also provided to members of the Operational Sub-committee. Grant advised that the policy has been revised into three categories, and separates passengers and freight.
Grant advised that while this is not consistent with ICAO classifications, the intention is to separate passengers from freight at the policy level but to bring large freight back together with passengers in the regulations, under Part 121.
Part 91 was discussed and also the type of occupant and their knowledge level of risk will dictate what regulatory policy is applied. A question was asked why CASA was placing the freight only operations into the lower category. Grant responded that ‘passengers are more important than packages’ and that CASA wanted to recognise this at the policy level.
4.5.2 Grant advised that as well as SCC members and the Operational Sub-committee the ASF has also been briefed and a copy of the draft CEO policy notice provided to the Department of Transport & Regional Services (DOTARS). Grant advised that CASA will meet with DOTARS and the ATSB, further refine the Policy Notice (as required), then promulgate and implement. Concern was raised regarding having Aerial ambulance classified as passenger transport. However, Grant advised that these operations would still fall under Part 136. The cut-off by weight for 121/135 aircraft was also questioned.
5.1 Grant Mazowita opened this item by advising that it stemmed from an action item from the last SCC meeting, raised by Phil Hurst.
Grant indicated that three (3) short presentations would be given. These had a common theme that ‘one size does not fit all’. Grant asked that all questions and discussion be held to the end of the presentations.
We are currently having a discussion on the Civilair members site about the pros and cons of fully privatising ASA a la UK NATS, and the ability of CASA to then regulate properly, in that it wouldn't essentially be one government owned agency, saying that the other government owned agency is doing nothing wrong, it is safe to have TIBA, it is safe not to have duty times for ATC,etc,etc.
The argument was that ASA are bonus driven now ,what would happen if they were fully privatised.
I threw in there seemed to be the same perception of Qantas(privatised) and CASA, i.e. CASA saying everything is OK, Qantas are looking after it and we are keeping a close eye,blah,blah,blah.
This got me to thinking (theres some big holes in this I know , but might foster discussion) that maybe the one to PARTIALLY privatise would be CASA. Bring in the bonus system for when they successfully prosecute an infringement or create a JUSTIFIABLE safe practice,etc. (Later on I will tell you who is doing the judging)
That would move them to wrap up their regulation reform and get moving. Also to have a good look at the big end of town, they wouldn't 'waste' resources on 'dubious' claims against small operators that they had slim chance of winning, but sending the poor bugger broke in the meantime, just to say they tried for a scalp.
Big scalps means big bucks, and might cause to temper the bonus driven culture of those they are supposed to be regulating.
e.g. Chairman to CEO "Your 'inventive' way of shaving the safety margin to the bone cost us $X, its coming out of your pocket, and every bonus down the line". This $X dollars then goes into a fund to pay bonuses for CASA.
We then create an Aviation Ombudsman ( Yes, I know more bureaucracy )who is an INDEPENDENT third party.
At the moment CASA is policeman, and pretty much judge and jury. Appeals are through the courts, going through CASA is like complaining to your mother-in-law about your wife.
This Ombudsman would be legislated as separate from CASA, and take complaints and input about, contentious regulations or practices, disputed hearings, etc, direct from the public,industry employees, flying Associations , etc and give directions to CASA to justify decisions and regulations, investigate practices etc. They would set timeframes for CASA to investigate and report back with PENALTIES for non-compliance. These penalties would come out of the CASA bonus pool of money quoted above. The Ombudsman WOULD NOT make or suggest regulations, it would be up to concerned people to ask the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman could ,may be, appointed after Senate hearings like they do in the USA when handing out contentious jobs, and voted on in a bipartisan way. Try to avoid political flunkeys.
I just thought that with a bonus driven culture for a profit driven industry that may 'shave' safety to save a buck , that maybe it was time for a bonus driven safety culture. Nothing else seems to be prodding some of these buggers along.
My ramblings were just a thought for discussion.
xinhua2,
You state if you cannot measure you cannot manage.
Unfortunately in some cases the measurement becomes the goal, rather than the result. The way management works is driven, in a bonus environment, to always have an improvement on these measurements.
An example given by a friend whose wife worked in a social services area. The manager measured the workload and was judged on how many 'clients' the social workers saw in a week, this number climbed and climbed. In the end they were no longer able to do their job effectively, as it became a race around with box ticking exercises. Targets were met, but actual outcomes were seen as secondary.
When you have a CEO whose bonus is predicated on their ability to cut costs those underneath must also adopt this mindset. Cut rosters, cut training, hold meetings with 'stakeholders that resolve nothing but can be measured, allow others to self regulate (not MY measurement then),assign every area of business a cost even if that cost is intrinsic, this may cause long term damage to the company but is ignored.
I agree that if you cannot manage you cannot measure, but there are some things you can't measure and a good manager needs to also be appreciative of these areas and prepared to argue UP the line, the risks of focusing on KPIs,targets, etc. Just managing with measurements is a dangerous business.
Another example, when travelling years ago I worked in a pub in London that was one of many run by a large corporation. They decided to bring in a measurement system that counted how many punters each bar staff served. You punched in a personal PLU number at the till on each transaction. There was a lovely older lady there who knew everyone and spent most of her time chatting. The guvnor was told to get rid of her, he fought and lost. She moves to the pub down the road and all the regulars go with her.
Having said all that , I would love to see how the regulatory reform area measures things. Is it how many meetings they have held?
Linear Mode
