Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As one who has been around for a while, I should be used to the steady expansion of the "bullxxxt quotient" that is time dependent, but not so.

What started out as an airport brief, transmogrified into an airport analysis (not the DAPs details) just another word for brief, now the exercise is called a "risk analysis".

For any airport that can take a heavy RPT aircraft in Queensland, if I can't work out how to get in an out of the place in less than an hour, there is a problem. I exclude from this the flight path analysis that must be done for some placed like Cairns, that is type specific DAP flight path analysis, that is NOT risk analysis, but CASA requires even if the highest obstacle within miles is the light in front of the terminal.

Something I have no difficulty recalling was operating G- registered B707 around Africa and the ME, we managed quite OK with the standard flight deck documentation (Airad, not Jep.) and a company brief that covered such risk critical things like where the best money changers and cold beer were to be found --- the really operationally critical things you needed to know.

I trust most of you blokes and blokesses understand that this sort of paper storm is largely peculiar to Australia, a great cost and jobs generator that has sod all to do with actual risk minimization.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Leadie, I don't disagree, most, not all, but most of the risk assessment process is a complete crock. Depending on the 'Inspector of the day' Fort Fumble are even asking for the following to be included in the risk assessment;
• List of GSE that will be used at the port, everything from how many baggage barrows, chocks and description of baggage tugs (not pushback tugs, bloody baggage tugs).
• Details of the maintenance program for the above GSE, including all details of the maintenance person (often a local farmer, the Postie, lawn mower repairer or butcher).
• List of local Motels including the exact amount of rooms incase an aircraft goes AOG. Also requested by FF are copies of written agreements between operator and motels as evidence!
• Then if you are lucky they won't ask you to do a proving flight, which they are entitled to demand, but again that can depend on the Inspector holding the keys to your file (If you have managed to piss him off at some stage in life then your workload and subsequent costs have just risen exponentially).

Society gone mad? Yep. But of course we are talking about Fort Fumble, the place certainly is an asylum. And as mentioned, depending on what part of our great country reside in the process could be fairly quick with key risks addressed or the fools could make you drill in to such irrelevant detail as how often do you sweep the dust off the step treads on your mobile stairs.

[Kharon]

Point 05 hiatus.

We do seem to have some areas of uncertainty in a couple of safety sensitive areas like aircraft maintenance and flight and duty rules. There is also a whisper of bent rules floating about on the legality of some of the 'proposed' changes. All most confusing Then there is a story that the Sleepy Hollow men will be conducting 'one on one' briefing with selected chief pilots, to explain the new part 145, which, if true seems passing strange to me; chief engineer, sure but the CP??. Clue – anyone??

I hate this piecemeal, drip feeding of 'new' rules. Publish the bloody things; allow some time to get thing sorted; allow a period of no prosecution to settle things down – then bugger off and let us get on with it. I still reckon old age and booze will carry me off before the great "regulatory reform" limps home.

Jabba # 15 – "Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi's. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the "American" label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?"

Tim Tam for Jabba....

[Arm out the window]

Up Into The Air, I haven't had anything to do with the 100.5 thing, but am just saying CASA do produce a lot of informative material.

However, as my previous post implied (I hope), they could do a great deal better in making proposed and actual rules clearer and more user-oriented rather than the legal-speak currently used.

As they need to cover their arses legally, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise, the lawyers must get involved and write loophole-closing documentation. My main point was that, along with that stuff, they should make good clear accompanying guides to help non-lawyers make sense of it all much easier.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa just do not get it!!!!!!!!!

That is the real issue.

More complexity [which is the current casa direction] does not equal good safety outcomes.

Neither does stepping on the small guys, putting peopl,e out of business for a minor infraction, telling "whoppers" to cover-up bad decisions or directions.

All have happened and casa is continuing with skull saying:

"....these people are just a bunch of whingers/ whistleblowers..."

Work with industry, not in a way that you effectively tax, levy, regulate, prosecute your actual "...community.. of interest..."

[thorn bird]

"As they need to cover their arses legally, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise, the lawyers must get involved and write loophole-closing documentation. My main point was that, along with that stuff, they should make good clear accompanying guides to help non-lawyers make sense of it all much easier."

Aotw,

To a certain point I agree with your hypothesis, but I always imagined the "regulations" were promulgated for the purpose of maintaining and improving safety, therefore, it follows, that those that are required to comply with them should understand what they mean.
Where most of the problems lie, I believe, is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's. Think of the Norfolk ditching and the fact that a poll of FOI's could not agree whether an alternate was legally required or not. There is ample examples of compliance on one side of the country may not necessarily be compliant on the other.
These uncertainties I believe are what causes so much angst within industry and can lead to unfair advantage given to one AOC holder who is required to do something and another who may not.
Your idea of guides has merit, but other regulators manage to produce plain language regulations that don't require a high court judge to interpret them, why is Australia so different?
The down side I see is that lawyers would have to be involved in producing these "guide books" because they are the only ones who understand the reg's. I could see another half a billion $$$ up in smoke and probably another twenty years to produce them so why not write the reg's in plain language to start with.

[LeadSled]

004,
One that some time back brought tears of laughter, or was it just tears, was a CASA claim that they should "regulate" Telstra landlines that carried AFTN and similar aviation related telex, fax etc.

I can confirm the nonsense about GSE, they are even demanding this sort of detail for a non-scheduled operation, the time and cost to produce such information, on the basis that, one day, you might go there, is beyond unrealistic.

One ripper proposal a while back ( the whole package was dropped) would have limited single engine helicopters flying any "populace areas" and would have only permitted "commercial operations" over per-surveyed CASA approved routes elsewhere --- considering what one routinely uses helicopters for, this was was off the clock on the "Stupid-O-Meter".

I expect it will prop up again sometime soon, these sorts of crazy ideas develop a life of their own in the bowels of CASA.

----- because they are the only ones who understand the reg's.

Thornbird,
Actually, such is the convoluted contradictory mess, even the lawyers can't agree what the rules mean, otherwise we would not have so many protracted AAT cases.

----but am just saying CASA do produce a lot of informative material.

ARM,
But is it lawful, ie; if you comply exactly with type of publication you mention, that CASA produces, such as a CAAP or AC, will you be in compliance.

Unfortunately, the CASA record of actions against license holders ( I am thinking of a case against a LAME, another involving a pilot who had complied precisely with his company manual, which complied precisely with the AOCM) says that you cannot rely on such documents, unlike an AC in the US, or a CAP or AMC in UK.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Leadie, perhaps we are in the midst of a 'CAsA Arab Spring', an uprising by the Regulator against all things aviation? After all, Stan has become famous for his 'safe skies are empty skies' catchphrase. There could be some methodology in all of this!

Interesting comment about the whirlybirds. Perhaps Fort Fumble will limit these pesky machines to simply taking off on a straight accent path to a flight level of 100 feet, then a straight decent path back to its landing position? (Process to be robustly risk assessed if course!)

[RatsoreA]

Food for comparison

Ok, on the news the other night...

Taxi drivers in Melbourne don't like what is happeneing to their 'profession' as far as some new (albeit State) government regulations that are going to come into force.

Taxi drivers march on en-mass to premiers office and protest. Premier comes out, agrees to meet with them in the very near future, hear their opinions on the matter.

They may effect change for the better for themselves, they may not. But at least they got as far as a meeting and few minutes at 6 o'clock.

Sitting behind a keyboard and posting on this forum won't help! Why is there not some action being planned? Squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc!

I'm not rubbishing anyones opinion on here, I am just merely stating that sitting around talking amongst ourselves won't effect any change. If it could, things would have changed by now!

[Arm out the window]

Where most of the problems lie, I believe, is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's.

I think you're spot on there, Thorn Bird. I wonder how rigorous the work is to frame some regulations, and what records of the reasoning and basis behind them are kept, let alone published? It's an old problem, and not limited to CASA, of course - a rule exists, but unless you're the one who wrote it you don't necessarily know the 'whys' behind it, leading to various interpretations being applied by different people.
I know it would add complexity to the production of new regs if this stuff (reasoning and underlying intent) had to be documented and made available to the end users in clear language, but it would surely save a lot of angst down the track.

But is it lawful, ie; if you comply exactly with type of publication you mention, that CASA produces, such as a CAAP or AC, will you be in compliance.

Very good point. I guess the caveat has to be, look at the guide material to point the way, and then go to the regulations to ensure your proposed operation complies, as much as you possibly can without knowing what was in their minds when they wrote the stuff.

[Sunfish]

AOTW, I am of the opinion now that the reasons the rules are vague is because the regulator likes it that way, because then the law means what he says it means.

[Arm out the window]

Sadly, you are probably right.

[Sarcs]

ATSB issues Safety Recommendations to CAsA??

Well...well wonders will never cease ATSBeaker have issued two SRs to FF: 'Confusion over regulations leaves ageing aircraft vulnerable'

And a quote from that news bulletin (my bold):

The ATSB has issued two safety recommendations to CASA as part of this investigation. The first recommends that CASA proceed with its program of regulatory reform to ensure that all aircraft involved in general aviation operations are maintained using the most appropriate maintenance schedule for the aircraft type. The second is to ensure that the provisions of CAR Schedule 5 are clarified in relation to the incorporation of all relevant supplemental inspections specified for the aircraft type.

Here are links for report AO-2011-115 and FF proposed safety actions AO-2011-115-SR-049 (SI-02) & AO-2011-115-SR-050 (SI-01).

Maybe the worm has turned and AMROBA, Senate Committee and IOS protagination/scrutiny is finally making an impact??

[Kharon]

Toothless tigers in wet lettuce enterprise.

As the orchestra warms up it covers the noise of the smoke machine starting up, the mirrors being polished and the scenery being changed back stage. Oh roll up, roll up for the great cover up of the cover up, which was intended to cover up the initial cover up, which strangely enough - everyone seems to have forgotten.

Believe it if you like.

[LeadSled]

----- because then the law means what he says it means.

Sunny,
If you haven't already done so, google Robin Speed and the difference between the "Rule of Law" and "rule by law".

CAR Schedule 5 are clarified in relation to the incorporation of all relevant supplemental inspections specified for the aircraft type.

If a proper inspection is carried out using Schedule 5 (aka FAR 43, appendix D) and the proper advisory material used, such gross defects as revealed in the C210 would have been revealed without the need for an SID type document.
In fact, if a light aircraft is subject to what FAA classify as a "severe" operating environment (look it up, you might be surprised) such defects as described by ATSB in this case will happen long before any SID hours or calender limits are reached.

----- is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's.

If only it was that easy, but it ain't. If battalions of high priced lawyers cannot agree on interpretations that have long been acknowledged as "complex, convoluted or contradictory", how is pilot or mechanic, employed as an FOI or AWI going to cope.

Incidentally, some attempts at "standardization" of regulatory interpretation, such as by way of "policy" documents, has been found to be unlawful --- ie: the chosen agreed CASA interpretation has been found to be contrary to law by the courts.

Our so called "reformed" regulations are anything but, if anything they are worse than the regulations being repealed, this is certainly so for the maintenance of light aircraft, based on the present drafts.

As has already been covered elsewhere, some provisions of draft CASR Part 91 defy legal compliance by pilots, so incompetent is the drafting ---- to CASA drafting instructions.

Why is there not some action being planned? Squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc!

Spot on, but unfortunately almost all the alphabet soup organisations receive CASA funding to some degree, plus there is a seriously misguided view that, with sucking up the CASA, the outcomes will be less worse than they would be by taking serious political action ---- despite the fact that the only real aviation "reform" in the last almost 20 years has come from direct political action.

The triumph of naive hope over hard won experience.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

If a proper inspection is carried out using Schedule 5 (aka FAR 43, appendix D) and the proper advisory material used, such gross defects as revealed in the C210 would have been revealed without the need for an SID type document.

Hear! Hear!

Beware Sarcs. It’s easy for ATSB to be hairy-chested in the face of the disunited bunch of glorified social clubs that pass for representative bodies in Australia. All of this is merely part of a pantomime intended to justify compelling almost all of the GA fleet to move off the CASA maintenance schedule.

… The manufacturer’s maintenance schedules are generally considered to be the most appropriate for the maintenance of most aircraft types. …

Considered by whom, on the basis of what data?

Who is saying that the manufacturer’s maintenance schedules are anything other than a pluck? (I know: It’s the manufacturers … who make money out of scheduled obsolescence. Plus all the other people who think something can’t run properly unless it’s constantly fiddled with …. and who happen to have a financial interest in being employed to fiddle with things or to make sure that things are constantly fiddled with.)

… Maintenance information issued by the aircraft and component manufacturers (including special and supplemental inspections) is taken to automatically form part of the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, and as such, forms a mandatory part of the maintenance regime. …

Misleading.

Maintenance “information" issued by the aircraft and component manufacturers may or may not form a “mandatory part of the maintenance regime”.

… Instructions for the periodic inspection of the aircraft empennage (Part 2, Section 1 of Schedule 5) were to ‘Inspect the wing and empennage to fuselage attachments and surrounding structure’. The schedule specified that the inspection was intended as a thorough check of the affected part to determine whether or not it would continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. …

Incomplete and misleading.

Schedule 5 does not specify what the inspection is “intended” to be. Schedule 5 specifies what the inspection is required to be. It is required to be a thorough check to determine whether the thing inspected will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. If that cannot or does not happen, an inspection against Schedule 5 must not be certified. If it is, that's a breach of the law.

Schedule 5 requires more than just the “mainplane [wing] and empennage to fuselage attachments and surrounding structure” to be thoroughly checked to determine whether they will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. Schedule 5 also requires the “internal structures and spars”, among other components, to be thoroughly checked to determine whether they will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.

In the case of the aircraft the subject of the report, I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that the wing and empennage to fuselage attachments and surrounding structure, and the internal structures and spars, had been the subject of a thorough check to determine whether they would continue to be airworthy, this side of the start of this decade. Have a look at the pictures in the report and tell me all those cracks and failures occurred within the last 109 hours’ normal TIS.

In my view, the problem isn’t the CASA maintenance schedule. The problem is, in my view, compliance with the CASA maintenance schedule.

Yes: The out of control Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program is inexorably increasing the level of confusion.

No: The answer is not to mandate systems of maintenance or manufacturers’ maintenance schedules.

A failure properly to inspect is a failure properly to inspect, whether it’s done under a system of maintenance, the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule or the CASA maintenance schedule.

[LeadSled]

… The manufacturer’s maintenance schedules are generally considered to be the most appropriate for the maintenance of most aircraft types. …

Folks,

There you have it, in black and white: A living breathing example of the lack of knowledge that resulted in such a grossly incorrect statement.

In black and white --- a demonstration that whoever was involved at any stage in this report has no idea about the certification of CAR3/FAR 23 aircraft, and the "system of maintenance" by which the great majority of these aircraft --- which are the great majority of Australian registered aircraft ----- are intended to be maintained.

As a generalization, (there are probably some exceptions) the above aircraft are intended to be maintained as per the maintenance provisions of FAR 91 or FAR 135 (what has to be done), using FAR 43 (how to do it).

Consequently, the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manuals only contain information pertinent to that particular type and variant, and does not repeat all the information in FAR 43 and associated Advisory Circulars that comprise what we grandly call "approved maintenance data".

In particular , have a look at FAR 43, Appendix D, and AC43.13A & 43.13B.

Clearly, (except to many in CASA and ATSB) if you use "only" the manufacturer's MM, the "maintenance" will be very deficient.

Tootle pip!!

[Up-into-the-air]

The Kafuffula Bird!!!

The latest from the casa web site:

Changes to CAO 100.5 explained 7 August 2013

Read an explanation of recent changes to CAO 100.5 relating to certain maintenance issues and the complete CAO 100.5.

And the explaination by casa is as follows:

Briefing: amended Civil Aviation Order 100.5

The amendment to Civil Aviation Order 100.5 and the cancellation of AD/INST/8, INST/9 and RAD/43 was published for comment in September 2011, with the comment period closing in November 2011.



The intent was to ensure the maintenance of altimeters, air speed indicators, pitot-static systems, and fuel gauges was done to a single standard for VFR and IFR aircraft when they both operate in the same airspace. Aircraft that have existing systems of maintenance, or maintenance schedules that incorporate the standards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Order, are exempt from compliance.


For aircraft that have been maintained in accordance with the cancelled ADs and are affected by the transitional arrangements, the operators may request an extension to the transitional time limits to align with the planned retest.

To clarify terminology CAO 100.5 has introduced the term "Certification Maintenance" (CMRs) and Airworthiness Limitations (AWL). CMRs arise from the aircraft type certification process. FAR 25.1309, for example, requires a System Safety Assessment (SSA) to ensure that failures are categorized on their consequential severity and within defined bounds of probability. A CMR is a required periodic task, established during the design certification of the aircraft as an operating limitation of the type certificate. CMRs usually result from a formal, numerical analysis conducted to show compliance with catastrophic and hazardous failure conditions. A CMR is intended to detect safety significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.


AWLs are structural items that the certification process has defined as critical from a fatigue point of view during the damage tolerance assessment. The inspection frequency of such items is mandatory. Many older aircraft include AWLs in the same chapter of the maintenance manual where they included recommended overhaul period.


A more comprehensive description of these issues will be published in an Airworthiness Bulletin.


This amendment to CAO 100.5 does not affect the application of existing Airworthiness Directives such as AD/ENG/4, AD/PROP/1 etc.
View a copy of the complete CAO 100.5

More new acronyms!! and to what end???

[004wercras]

Lovers of acronyms, CAsA and bird Pooh

It's all part of that 25 year/$200 million white elephant called regulatory reform. When you have nothing to offer, or in CAsA's case desperately need to waste money on something, invent a new acronym! That way they look busy!
Personally, I have a few of my own acronyms for Fort Fumble, but none that can be printed here.
UITA, CAsA are more like the a Brown Pelican. It drops massive stools that are often runny and unsightly, very much like what FF have produced for a quarter of a century now. Actually Saturday night was a robust occasion with the BRB onboard the Styx houseboat. 11 Crownies and a spicy Thai took its toll, and Sunday morning produced......well, suffice to say the end result was something that looked like a cross between a CAsA risk assessment, the Skulls blue Hawaiin Friday shirt and a giant brown Termite hill !

'Safe Aves For All'

[CASAweary]

TICK TOCK

TICK TOCK goes the CASA clock. A major hull loss is coming.
Either CASA is dismantled or this country will end up being on the end of a major trajedy.