“Safety of Air Navigation as the Most Important Consideration” - Mark Skidmore
Sunfish, I just aim to say it as I see it. Thanks for your reasoned response (apart from the bit suggesting I'm a troll and the kind offer to set me straight in my thinking!), but I can't agree.
If I'm reading it right, you say that the definition (or non-definition) of safety in law and the 'accident prevention' statement are the root causes of the current woes with CASA, with the implication, I assume, being that if they are changed to something more suitable, we'll be on the path to reform.
I don't say CASA are perfect, far from it, but I find it hard to believe any re-definition of those kinds of terms would change anything much. Of course, the wording of laws is important, but it's the culture and people in the organisation doing what they do that have the impact.
As I've alluded to before, if you radically change things, what do you change them to? Whatever wording of the charter and laws, there will be an organisation charged with being the aviation rule setter and policeman. Would you have another group policing the police? Who and how?
The Australian aviation community isn't big enough to have a well-rounded pool of experts champing at the bit to fill regulatory jobs, so as with most organisations we get a mixed bag. You and others seem to suggest they're all hopeless or vindictive or both, I don't agree.
If I'm reading it right, you say that the definition (or non-definition) of safety in law and the 'accident prevention' statement are the root causes of the current woes with CASA, with the implication, I assume, being that if they are changed to something more suitable, we'll be on the path to reform.
I don't say CASA are perfect, far from it, but I find it hard to believe any re-definition of those kinds of terms would change anything much. Of course, the wording of laws is important, but it's the culture and people in the organisation doing what they do that have the impact.
As I've alluded to before, if you radically change things, what do you change them to? Whatever wording of the charter and laws, there will be an organisation charged with being the aviation rule setter and policeman. Would you have another group policing the police? Who and how?
The Australian aviation community isn't big enough to have a well-rounded pool of experts champing at the bit to fill regulatory jobs, so as with most organisations we get a mixed bag. You and others seem to suggest they're all hopeless or vindictive or both, I don't agree.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like minded !!!!
If you are running a business (Minister for Aviation) and you need to fill a position (New Director) are you going to employ someone who is going to completely disagree with everything you have done in the last few years and tear your Procedures and Policies apart? I don't think so. Enter another "YES" man. And so it goes on!!!!!
Groggy
Groggy
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
Sunfish you are a gem of clear thinking on this. 
the canadian owner maintainers have set the precedent here.
you carry out the activity illegally.
you carry it out safely.
you refuse to stop carrying it out.
you refuse, in the actual interests of safe operation, to ever do it in the manner they (CAsA) prescribe.
eventually the system carries out a safety case study to try to stamp it out and proves conclusively that it isn't dangerous at all.
then the law gets changed.
until CAsA learns to not be charismatic and starts to learn we will just continue to ignore them and fly illegally.
as discussions in another thread have shown their accident rate was astounding for people who claim to be "experts in aviation".
for if there is no aviation how can one prove that the prohibited operation was actually safe?
you carry out the activity illegally.
you carry it out safely.
you refuse to stop carrying it out.
you refuse, in the actual interests of safe operation, to ever do it in the manner they (CAsA) prescribe.
eventually the system carries out a safety case study to try to stamp it out and proves conclusively that it isn't dangerous at all.
then the law gets changed.
The first sign of incompetence is charisma, is worth remembering here. The charismatic man does not listen and consequently never learns.
as discussions in another thread have shown their accident rate was astounding for people who claim to be "experts in aviation".
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Sunny!
Arm out the window;
Your support for Skidmore is admirable, and likewise others have told me that he is a "good bloke".
But this role needs more than just a good bloke.
Skidmore's first missive to industry came up well short of the mark. IMHO it was shallow and naive, and shows he has a long way to go before he fully grasps the gravity of his task.
Yes it is early days, but it is not as though he is coming in cold. There is a great body of evidence regarding the state of CASA including the Forsyth Report to point him in the right direction.
But it is a start!
Arm out the window;
Your support for Skidmore is admirable, and likewise others have told me that he is a "good bloke".
But this role needs more than just a good bloke.
Skidmore's first missive to industry came up well short of the mark. IMHO it was shallow and naive, and shows he has a long way to go before he fully grasps the gravity of his task.
Yes it is early days, but it is not as though he is coming in cold. There is a great body of evidence regarding the state of CASA including the Forsyth Report to point him in the right direction.
But it is a start!
Sunfish, I just aim to say it as I see it.
All I can say is you must have severely impaired vision.
What Sunfish has to say is spot on.
Aviation is one of the few (if not the only) technical areas of Australian industry, where highly detailed and prescriptive regulations have not been succeeded by risk assessment based performance (outcome) regulations. The modern construction industry could not exist in Australia, at any price we could afford, if performance /outcome based regulation has not superseded the old prescriptivist regulations, and the latter (like aviation) had remained in place.
Sound familiar, we have aviation rules that we cannot afford, are not outcome/performance based, make little contribution to risk reduction (safety, if you insist) but hamstring the industry at all levels, and not just with the costs.
Fact is, if risk assessed performance regulations were applied to maintenance, the regulations/MOS would be about 10-15% of what we have.
How do I make this claim: because within CASA, in about 1999, we carried out a major exercise with the then existing regulations, it was quite amazing what we could dump, needless to say, the "iron ring" has a fit of the vapors and took over, the very idea was all too much for them.
Indeed, to quote a senior CASA legal person of the day:"Neither the Australian aviation nor CASA is sufficiently mature for outcome based regulation".
The sad call, recently, by a number of aviation associations, for yet more (a third level of) prescriptive regulation probably means there was some truth in said legal person's views. The fact is most Australian industry and commerce (and aviation virtually world wise) use two level legislation, and Act, and Regulations made under the Act, and here is the aviation community calling for (and, as a result the Forsyth Report recommending) a third level of regulation. Which, by the way, we already have, in the MOS, so we will probably wind up with four levels of legislation.
CASA will have a field day, I am certain CASA can't believe its luck, with the industry calling for yet more regulation.
Some of you probably think that the current rules for maintenance as EASA based, because CASA keeps saying so, but in fact they are nothing like the equivalent EASA regs, which are a very good effort at outcome based regulation.
Few of you will know that CASA was the last Commonwealth instrumentality to adopt competency based assessment --- but look at what they have done to it, once adopted ---- indeed, I am of the view that a number of the ways competency is to be demonstrated for Part 61 is just plain dangerous, and fly in the face of current knowledge, and manufacturer recommendations.
But, Hey!!!, what would the manufacturers and the rest of the world know, compared to CASA.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 26th Jan 2015 at 04:12.
Paul O'Rourke,
Yep, add that one, it is an impressive total of bent and broken aluminium.
As one poster has already said, perhaps the greatest single contribution to air safety in Australia was the grounding of the "Department's" flying unit, and having contractor do the navaids calibration work.
Tootle pip!!
Yep, add that one, it is an impressive total of bent and broken aluminium.
As one poster has already said, perhaps the greatest single contribution to air safety in Australia was the grounding of the "Department's" flying unit, and having contractor do the navaids calibration work.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled, the third tier of regs being called for, as I understand it, is that the convoluted legal waffle that is Part 61 etc be translated into plain English, so bring it on, I say. Nobody wants more regulation; I just want whatever we have at any given time to be clearly expressed.
We already had that kind of thing with the Act, CAR and CAO, but something more straightforward would be welcome.
Sunfish said something along the lines of 'CASA will issue / approve etc' would be used in a sane country; in fact a fair number of the new regs do read along those lines.
The Part 61 MOS is pretty shabby in places, but they're reviewing and re-issuing it soon apparently, so I'd expect some of the clearly wrong bits to be fixed.
We already had that kind of thing with the Act, CAR and CAO, but something more straightforward would be welcome.
Sunfish said something along the lines of 'CASA will issue / approve etc' would be used in a sane country; in fact a fair number of the new regs do read along those lines.
The Part 61 MOS is pretty shabby in places, but they're reviewing and re-issuing it soon apparently, so I'd expect some of the clearly wrong bits to be fixed.
Arm out the window,
Clearly, in my opinion, you (and many others) do not understand.
We do not need any third (and fourth) level, no matter what they are called.
In 1996, the then Minister took a decision to move to an aviation legislative format that mirrored the FAA system.
Parts 21 to 35 went into the books in mid-1998, the only reason they have not worked better is CASA buggering around and frustrating the fact and the spirit of the changes.
Perhaps you would like to explain why Australia needs three ( or four, including the MOS) tiers of aviation legislation, when the sane world only needs two.
Explain why Australian aviation needs three (or four) tiers when the rest of Australian industry only needs two --- there is nothing particularly special about aviation. Many other industries have a far greater capacity to cause death and destruction than aviation.
Actually, I know the answer, but another tier of legislation inserted between Regulations and MOS is not the answer to the problems created by CASA style enforcement. You do understand that MOS are legislative, do you.
Tootle pip!!
Clearly, in my opinion, you (and many others) do not understand.
We do not need any third (and fourth) level, no matter what they are called.
In 1996, the then Minister took a decision to move to an aviation legislative format that mirrored the FAA system.
Parts 21 to 35 went into the books in mid-1998, the only reason they have not worked better is CASA buggering around and frustrating the fact and the spirit of the changes.
Perhaps you would like to explain why Australia needs three ( or four, including the MOS) tiers of aviation legislation, when the sane world only needs two.
Explain why Australian aviation needs three (or four) tiers when the rest of Australian industry only needs two --- there is nothing particularly special about aviation. Many other industries have a far greater capacity to cause death and destruction than aviation.
Actually, I know the answer, but another tier of legislation inserted between Regulations and MOS is not the answer to the problems created by CASA style enforcement. You do understand that MOS are legislative, do you.
Tootle pip!!
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
Aviation regulation in Australia is casuistry based and adopts some rare but similar protocols to "Ignation Spirituality". Indeed obedience ranks very high in their case based reasoning.
----- and adopts some rare but similar protocols to "Ignation Spirituality". Indeed obedience ranks very high in their case based reasoning.
Love it!! St. Ignatius would be proud of you.
Tootle pip!!
Clearly, in my opinion, you (and many others) do not understand.
LeadSled, I don't care how many tiers there are as long as there's a tier that explains the rules plainly.
The Part 61 MOS is little more than a list of competencies; it doesn't make Part 61 regs any easier to understand, written as they are in legalese with an overabundance of jumping between tables and paragraphs to pin down a simple point, so another manual of some kind telling it like it is would be good.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop the press!!!
You boys are just so negative. What about all the good things that Australian aviation has achieved such as Angus Houston receiving a knighthood, in part due to his work on MH370! And dont forget all the work that Dolan is contributing to that search and investigation. Then you have Jonathan Alecks endless contributions at seminars on topics like Just Culture and other assorted legalese! What about Terry Farq'u'hard'son and the introduction of Sly Sentinel, and of course how could we forget Greg Russell signing off on a billion dollars worth of ASA gizmo gadgetry, all clear and transparent of course 
So c'mon you guys, let's see some more Positive Mental Attitude (PMA), that glass is half full you know
So c'mon you guys, let's see some more Positive Mental Attitude (PMA), that glass is half full you know
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
Actually LeadSled, you can add 'poverty' and 'chastity' to the 'obedience' for the full Jesuit mantra because CAsA have sent nearly everyone broke and many don't get any, because of marital and family bust ups in the ensuing emotional dramas.
Arm Out the Window:
I don't call you a troll and I think you have never had to develop policy or strategic plans or business plans because the words do matter, in fact they are the only thing that matters.
Every action CASA takes or does not take, every plan, every policy must ultimately be shown to be directly related to the achievement of the goal set out in that opening statement: "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
In military terms this is called "the mission" and your activity MUST be directly related to achieving the mission, the corollary is also that you don’t do anything that is not related to achieving the mission.
This is the same principle as is used in strategic business planning, some people sneer at "mission statements" but it is critical that you define very precisely exactly what business you are in and just as importantly what you are NOT in. Many businesses - even mega businesses have foundered because they lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing.
The Act under which CASA operates uses a deliberately flawed and vicious mission statement and as a direct result it produces and delivers a flawed and vicious regulatory product.
Every policy and procedure CASA produces has to be tested against the purpose/mission written into the Act. The way the Act is written, CASA is allowed to achieve its mission by preventing aviation and is not required to take into account the health of the industry at all. This allows them to be total bastards with complete impunity - as they have demonstrated time and again as evidenced by the submissions and findings of the Senate report.
True, merely changing the words aren't going to change things overnight, but until they are changed then no improvement is possible because CASA is today prohibited by the Act from taking account of the impact of its regulations and actions on jobs, growth and investment.
I don't say CASA are perfect, far from it, but I find it hard to believe any re-definition of those kinds of terms would change anything much. Of course, the wording of laws is important, but it's the culture and people in the organisation doing what they do that have the impact.
As I've alluded to before, if you radically change things, what do you change them to? Whatever wording of the charter and laws, there will be an organisation charged with being the aviation rule setter and policeman. Would you have another group policing the police? Who and how?
The Australian aviation community isn't big enough to have a well-rounded pool of experts champing at the bit to fill regulatory jobs, so as with most organisations we get a mixed bag. You and others seem to suggest they're all hopeless or vindictive or both, I don't agree.
As I've alluded to before, if you radically change things, what do you change them to? Whatever wording of the charter and laws, there will be an organisation charged with being the aviation rule setter and policeman. Would you have another group policing the police? Who and how?
The Australian aviation community isn't big enough to have a well-rounded pool of experts champing at the bit to fill regulatory jobs, so as with most organisations we get a mixed bag. You and others seem to suggest they're all hopeless or vindictive or both, I don't agree.
Every action CASA takes or does not take, every plan, every policy must ultimately be shown to be directly related to the achievement of the goal set out in that opening statement: "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
In military terms this is called "the mission" and your activity MUST be directly related to achieving the mission, the corollary is also that you don’t do anything that is not related to achieving the mission.
This is the same principle as is used in strategic business planning, some people sneer at "mission statements" but it is critical that you define very precisely exactly what business you are in and just as importantly what you are NOT in. Many businesses - even mega businesses have foundered because they lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing.
The Act under which CASA operates uses a deliberately flawed and vicious mission statement and as a direct result it produces and delivers a flawed and vicious regulatory product.
Every policy and procedure CASA produces has to be tested against the purpose/mission written into the Act. The way the Act is written, CASA is allowed to achieve its mission by preventing aviation and is not required to take into account the health of the industry at all. This allows them to be total bastards with complete impunity - as they have demonstrated time and again as evidenced by the submissions and findings of the Senate report.
True, merely changing the words aren't going to change things overnight, but until they are changed then no improvement is possible because CASA is today prohibited by the Act from taking account of the impact of its regulations and actions on jobs, growth and investment.
Mr Skidmore’s answer to this question will reveal whether he has the necessary mix of experience and integrity to do the job in the public interest:
When will the regulatory reform program be completed?
Mr Skidmore’s predecessor’s predecessor, Mr Byron, gave this answer in February 2005:
That statement was made ten years ago.
Mr Skidmore’s predecessor, Mr McCormick, gave this answer in the "Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013":
By my calculations, the next year after 2013 was 2014, and 2014 has ended.
The remaining rules have not been completed.
Here’s what I consider to be an objective assessment of the circumstances, by the then Chairman of the Regional Airline Association of Australia, Mr Jeff Boyd, at the Association’s 2013 conference:
Anyone who says the current trainwreck is anything other than a regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose is, in my opinion, either dangerously naďve, delusional or a paid apologist.
Mr Skidmore was at least smart enough not to mention “regulatory reform” in his January 2015 missive. However, he won’t be able to avoid confronting the issue for very long.
When will the regulatory reform program be completed?
Mr Skidmore’s predecessor’s predecessor, Mr Byron, gave this answer in February 2005:
We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Skidmore’s predecessor, Mr McCormick, gave this answer in the "Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013":
[O]ur current schedule will see the remaining rules completed by the end of next year.
The remaining rules have not been completed.
Here’s what I consider to be an objective assessment of the circumstances, by the then Chairman of the Regional Airline Association of Australia, Mr Jeff Boyd, at the Association’s 2013 conference:
I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting in the middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
Mr Skidmore was at least smart enough not to mention “regulatory reform” in his January 2015 missive. However, he won’t be able to avoid confronting the issue for very long.
I don't care how many tiers there are as long as there's a tier that explains the rules plainly.
Wonderful idea, we could have four, five, six levels of legislation.
Say:
Act,
Regulations,
Manuals of Standards,
Statutory Interpretations of the Act, Regulations and MOS,
Plain Language (according to lawyers) Explanatory Guidance of Statuary Interpretations.
Then,
Temporary Guidance Documents:
to tide us over, while Explanatory Guidance of the Statutory Interpretations of the Act, Regulations and MOS are run through "the system", at each amendment of the Act, Regulations and MOS.
Clarification and explanation of Temporary Guidance Documents.
and so on.
Just think of the additional employment opportunities in CASA and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Or, we could do what the Government intended and commenced in 1996, harmonise with the rest of the world, but particularly US and NZ.
The savings in forests being turned into paper, alone. would be worth it.
EASA and supporting general Aviation with outcome based regulations? Which EASA are you reading?
Aviation regulation, it seems to me, is a bit like religion, the basic texts are fairly simple, but after the bureaucracy has got at it, whether it be clerical or "public servants", the outcome bears little or no relation to the best of intentions.
Tootle pip!!
PS1:Arm, sorry, if you find my tone patronising, but in my view you clearly do not understand the root cause of the regulatory problems Australian aviation suffers.
PS2: With apologies to EASA, the above is very roughly based on the JAA/EASA tiers/mountains of paperwork.
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Jan 2015 at 04:38.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The savings in forests being turned into paper, alone. would be worth it".
Maybe CAsA should have to apply for EPA approval before promulgating any new regulations. Given the current requirements for paper work Tasmania's old growth forests are in real danger.
Hopped in an aircraft the other day for a two hour flight.
Wondered why I couldn't get my seat back where it would usually be (Long legs).
Seems like CAsA had decreed that the huge volumes of shelfware, that nobody looks at, must be accessible to the flight crew, not down the back under the luggage, so they were jammed behind my seat.
Spent a very uncomfortable two hours with my knees in my ears, my right leg completely numb, to a point I could hardly walk when we finally landed and the pins and needles were excruciating.
We now apparently required to carry the entire ops manual, thus limiting fuel uplift by a couple of hundred kilo's, and removal of a passenger seat to accommodate it.
If I get deep vein thrombosis out of this can I or my dependents sue CAsA??...Probably not given what has happened to the Pel Air flight nurse.
Maybe CAsA should have to apply for EPA approval before promulgating any new regulations. Given the current requirements for paper work Tasmania's old growth forests are in real danger.
Hopped in an aircraft the other day for a two hour flight.
Wondered why I couldn't get my seat back where it would usually be (Long legs).
Seems like CAsA had decreed that the huge volumes of shelfware, that nobody looks at, must be accessible to the flight crew, not down the back under the luggage, so they were jammed behind my seat.
Spent a very uncomfortable two hours with my knees in my ears, my right leg completely numb, to a point I could hardly walk when we finally landed and the pins and needles were excruciating.
We now apparently required to carry the entire ops manual, thus limiting fuel uplift by a couple of hundred kilo's, and removal of a passenger seat to accommodate it.
If I get deep vein thrombosis out of this can I or my dependents sue CAsA??...Probably not given what has happened to the Pel Air flight nurse.
