PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - GA SUMMIT 2018 - RESOLUTIONS
View Single Post
Old 11th Jul 2018, 05:08
  #7 (permalink)  
Sunfish
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,616
2.4.1 (1) kills any hope of real reform stone dead on arrival. The phrase "the highest level of safety" is meaningless gobbledegook that allows CASA to do what it likes. the phrase should have said "the highest international standards of aviation safety". These are real concrete standards that form the foundation of an open, transparent audit able system of risk management. ICAO Document 9859 refers.

Without such standards you are wasting your time because, as the AAT has demonstrated time and again, "the highest level" trumps common sense, procedural fairness and natural justice. See Reubel AAT decision (2018) for example:

56. Section 9A deals with the performance of those functions:

(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:

(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and

(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.”
  1. It will be noted that the Act mandates the primacy of air safety over all other considerations. This obligation permeates all aspects of the civil aviation regulatory regime. It is the prism through which the Respondent, its employees or agents must focus their endeavours and calibrate their actions. However, it would be a mistake to confuse primacy with dominance or exclusivity. Although air safety is the primary consideration for a decision-maker under the Act or Regulations, it is by no means the only consideration. Other worthy public interest considerations, including cost, efficiency, effectiveness, environmental protection, noise disturbance, public access to aviation services and a viable civil aviation industry, can and should be taken into account. Civil aviation safety considerations do not exclude those matters from a decision-makers purview. However, when safety considerations are at odds with any other consideration, a decision-maker is required to recognise the primacy of safety in the hierarchy of relevant considerations.
The gist of the opinion is that, having paid due regard to the safety god(in bold) the AAT commissioner is now free to do whatever he likes as a sop to common sense, procedural fairness and natural justice because he is under no statutory obligation to give any weight to the calculations of the medical specialists at all, nor any natural rights of the pilot

This is the gist of the effing whole problem' the great god safety's pronouncements are what CASA says they are with no measurable or provable basis in fact. The system is downright pre enlightenment medieval thinking.

Well done for trying guys, but your changes to 9A are rendered meaningless by failure to change 2.4.1 (1)

...Written off the Island of Vis, Croatia and now back to swimming.


Last edited by Sunfish; 11th Jul 2018 at 05:28.
Sunfish is online now