In support of Dick Smith's and AOPA's initiatives to try to reform aviation regulation, I think I do have to spell out why the first priority is changing the Aviation Act or whatever its full title is. This comes down to what is called in business "The Vision Thing" - the corporate vision a much cynically abused concept.
It is a truism to state that unless you know where you want to go, any place is as good as anywhere else. You need a direction, a vision, of where you want to end up. So far so good. What then has to happen, and this is where the abuse of the concept occurs, is that we need a mission statement that explains how we are going to achieve the vision - what we have to do. Out of that falls a strategic plan by the relatively simple process of asking ourselves what do we need to do now, in six months, twelve months, etc. to achieve the mission. The mission and vision are the powerful tools that allow you to focus on what really matters and filter out the BS that doesn't matter.
This process is often cynically abused by management; e.g 'our people are our greatest asset' says the vision and mission, this is followed a month later by mass sackings. There are many other traps such as setting impossible goals but the main conclusion is clear; unless you have a very firm focus on what you are trying to achieve, you will lose your way and fail.
When we get to Government the situation is the same, just that the terminology is different. The Act lays out its own purpose - the mission. The preamble to the Act lays out the vision which is important to the courts on occasion when an act is challenged. The Act lays out the reasons for its existence, it's purpose and its authorities. All the powers of CASA, all the reasoning of CASA, all the regulations of CASA have the Act as their foundation. It is the bedrock.
To put that another way, if it ain't in the Act, it ain't happening.
The current Act allows CASA to satisfy its mandate by preventing aviation at all. This is akin to a business satisfying its business mission by getting rid of its customers, firing all its staff and leaving its money in the bank. Neither CASA or such a business is doing much for Australia.
It is interesting to read the preliminary and CASA establishment parts of the Act.
I note that the title is; " An Act to establish a Civil Aviation Safety Authority with functions relating to civil aviation, in particular the safety of civil aviation, and for related purposes."
The functions section is a long laundry list including;
........developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
..........developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
The laundry list contains at least 20 functions for CASA. Promoting the development of the Australian aviation industry is not among them.
However there is an even bigger problem. "Safety" is not a defined term in the Act. I've looked.
That means that CASA gets to tell the industry what 'safety' means. No 'affordable safety', no risk management based approach based on probabilities and costs. No nothing. That is why CASA can get away with criminalising a log book error, refusing approvals for color blind pilots and prosecuting exuberant helicopter pilots - it's all about safety you know! Worse, as ppruners have pointed out many times what is "safe' for one CASA operative is "unsafe' to another.
The CASA mission statement is no help:
To enhance and promote aviation safety through effective safety regulation and by encouraging industry to deliver high standards of safety
"safety" is undefined as is "effective". There is no 'road map" in the mission nor is there any vision thing.
So we have 2 problems; there is no definition of what "safety' means in practical terms and there is no requirement to allow the industry to survive, let alone prosper.
To put that yet another way if CASA was staffed by angels they have no budget to do anything to foster the industry and they will be perpetually perplexed by the meaning of that word "safety".
Do you now not see why the entire 'reform ' movement is building on sand unless the Act is changed?
For comparison, the FAA Mission statement:
Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.
Our Values
- Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
- Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
- Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
- People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
- Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.