PAIN:
We have had many requests from overseas parties to provide a single point access to the submissions made. Unable to satisfy all requests, we have endeavoured to provide those submissions published through group web sites. For those wishing to have a submission made available, there is a simple solution.
Good initiative PAIN, maybe PP (ProAviation) or Ben (Planetalking) could be persuaded to publish and update submissions as they come in…
On the subject of publicly available submissions I stumbled across the AMROBA submission: AMROBA ASRR Submission
Although it doesn’t hold back, the AMROBA submission is not quite as heavy hitting (& laced with obvious anger) that we saw with the AerialAg submission. The 30 odd page AMROBA contribution provides an excellent historical context, is well balanced and directly addresses the ToRs while providing well thought out solutions/recommendations for the WLRP to consider. Also like the AAAA sub, the AMROBA sub is not solely addressing their main area of concern (Aircraft maintenance & overhaul) but takes a top down view of the whole industry….
Executive Summary
Aviation has been in a state of change ever since government created, in 1988, a separate aviation safety regulator to operate on economic principles and the creation of an independent air accident bureau. This followed a 1987 Parliamentary Report on aviation safety regulation and sport aviation safety. Twenty five years on and there is still no final legislative system meeting global standards?
The international and national allocation of responsibilities for safety of the safety regulator, air accident bureau and industry, are obviously still not clarified in the legislative system that is being imposed.
The ‘objectives’ of multiple aviation reviews, post 1988, that the aviation industry has been subject to, have never achieved clarity of purpose, and never will, until the Civil Aviation Act is part of what must be reviewed. Bench-marking the legislative structure against other mature aviation countries, then amending accordingly to implement an effective aviation system applicable to the complexities of Australia’s aviation activities and also compliant with the applicable Articles of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, must be done.
The Act must enable governments to make Parliamentary Regulations directing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to promulgate [civil] aviation safety standards (CASS); standards developed by adaptingand/or creating global [civil] aviation safety standards.
The promulgation of CASSs must be the responsibility of CASA but the Act must also require those CASSs to be adapted fromthe Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, comparable with North America and European Aviation Regulators’ promulgated safety standards (Regulations/Standards) with minimal differences with our closest trading countries, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
Until the Civil Aviation Act has an objective that will see the development of aviation safety requirements to support a safe and sustainable aviation industry, there will not be overall growth in a safe and sustainable air transport system for all. The current ‘Main Object’ of the Act works against safe growth in some sectors.
Aviation safety is based on continual review of past decisions, recognising which decisions have had positive effects and which decisions have had negative effects.
The regulatory reform has been continual since 1989 and industry has had to continually change their business model. The problem is today, the change process itself introduces risk elements to safety. Many participants in this industry have only known an industry undergoing regulatory change and this continual change imposes confusion, a regulatory imposed risk that has to be managed.
Rewriting the Civil Aviation Act and a three-tier system will enable the regulatory reform process to be completed within 3 years.
The AMROBA submission is definitely worth reading and cogitating over…..well done Ken & Co…
Addendum - Dick's letter to the miniscule kind of follows the rationale of parts of the AMROBA submission..
Dear Minister
Legislation Where Compliance is Not Possible
I notice in your speech in Parliament on 14 November 2013 introducing the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review, you stated:
“Safety will always remain the Government’s highest priority in aviation policy. That will never change.”
This, of course, reflects the current Civil Aviation Act 1988 which says, in relation to CASA,
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
Minister, this makes it absolutely clear that safety is a more important consideration than other considerations, such as cost and participation levels.
While you make such statements in Parliament and while the Act remains as it is, it is quite clear that CASA staff must put a one-way ratchet on the rule re-write, increasing “safety” and resultant costs at all times and not considering whether the extra costs will affect the number of people who can actually afford to buy an air ticket or to charter or own an aircraft.
Over the last five years I have asked people at CASA why they are writing regulations which are more onerous and add to costs and their answer is quite simple: “Dick, there is nothing in the Act that says we should look at cost. Quite the contrary – we have to put the safety of air navigation in front of any cost or participation level considerations”.
Minister, I also note you have been telling people we can make savings by removing “red tape”. The problem is that the cost of red tape is such a minute part of the costs in aviation that removing it will most likely have no measureable effect and, on some occasions, the red tape actually adds to safety in a small way. So under the Act it would not be able to be removed.
Indeed, if the Act is followed as it has to be and safety is given prominence over other considerations, such as the cost of complying with the regulation and therefore the cost of air tickets, then participation levels will drop. That is indeed happening in the general aviation industry and if we are not careful the same thing will happen in air passenger operations as our costs climb higher and higher as CASA follows 9A.
The result will be that fewer Australians will be able to benefit from the higher safety levels that travel by air provides.
Minister, it is absolutely imperative that you “bite the bullet” and change the Act so it reflects what has to happen in reality.
Could I suggest that Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act be amended as follows:
9A Performance of functions
(2) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation and participation levels in aviation as the most important considerations.
I realise, of course, that your advisers from the Department will tell you that the Australian public is pretty stupid and will not accept such a change in the legislation. In fact, your advisers would be quite wrong as all sensible Australians understand that in aviation safety there must always be a balance between the amount of money spent in safety compliance and the ability of the beneficiary to pay these costs.
The way things are presently going could result in a situation where the only person able to afford to participate in our industry will be James Packer.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
If you wish to join in the debate (and it is a good one) you can go to Dick's new thread
HERE