D8:
listen to what warren actually said in that video clip.
the review reports back in 2 months. that is a milestone on the road.
Despite the wet lettuce delivery by the miniscule, D8 may have a point. I presume that the following is the bit that you are referring to D8..
..
"...However, there are, as was evidenced from the debate today and yesterday, a range of concerns about the operations of the regulatory system in Australia. We are therefore conducting a safety regulatory review with an international panel, and I anticipate that, arising from that review, significant reforms will be under consideration. The panel is due to report to the government by the end of May 2014. Once the government has considered the report it will finalise an updated strategic direction for CASA, which will enhance the authority's role as Australia's independent aviation safety regulator.
The shadow minister reported a little on the history of civil aviation regulation during the time he was the minister. As usual, he looked at it through somewhat rose-coloured glasses. But I am sure that even he must acknowledge that there is widespread concern in the industry about the way our regulatory system is working, the difficulties in managing and dealing with the new rules that are currently being developed and the widespread acceptance that there needs to be a simplification in the way in which we administer safety issues in the aviation industry. Also, there needs to be a substantial improvement in the relationship between the regulator and the industry. There needs to be confidence on both sides and also a willingness to work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome..."
Maybe it is all just typical "
blow it out your ar#e" political rhetoric..
, I guess (as D8 says) time will tell...
Coming back to the, well briefed by Max Scorer
, Dr Jensen debate speech...
. Part of that speech
...Mr Scorer had recently retired from CASA—at the end of June 2013—after just on 30 years of service with CASA and its predecessors as an airworthiness inspector. Prior to his appointment in 1983 to the then Department of Aviation, he worked in the field of aircraft maintenance as a licenced engineer on large airline aircraft, light aircraft and corporate jet aircraft. He also spent some time as a flight engineer and in his younger years he served with RAAF City of Melbourne 21 Squadron. So to say he is a person of great experience would be no exaggeration. Mr Scorer approached me with a view to offering his services to the aviation industry to give something back to an industry that has provided him with a living for many years. In January 2014 he clocked up 50 years of service in aviation.
Mr Scorer gave me a presentation with regard to the recently implemented Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 part 42. It is my belief that more of the aviation community should be aware of the situation as it now exists under part 42. One would obviously realise that the intricacies of government legislation can be complex, so I will try to explain the requirements as briefly as possible and attempt to give you some idea of what changing safety legislation could mean for the general aviation sector.
Under Civil Aviation Regulation [1988] 30, the regulation under which GA maintenance organisations presently gain approval, the norm has been for the operator's chosen maintenance organisation to control all the pending maintenance requirements for their aircraft. In other words, the maintenance organisation would keep concise records of what is required to safely maintain the aircraft and comply with all CASA legislation. Much of this is provided to the customer as part of maintenance services and as a normal function of aircraft maintenance. It is called continuing airworthiness control or continuing airworthiness management.
CAMOs are granted approval under part 42G. The RPT sector, which used to operate under CAR 30, now operates under part 145—the actual physical maintenance function—and part 42G—airworthiness management—two different approvals. Part 42B, specifically 42.040 (2) says that the registered operator of an aircraft operating under an air operator's certificate 'must' have a contract with a CAMO or form their own CAMO.
The requirements relating to gaining approval as a CAMO are very costly and difficult for the GA sector to achieve. For instance, a small maintenance organisation consisting of a chief engineer—quite often the owner—hangar foreman, and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, unlicensed personnel and quite often a couple of apprentices will not be allowed to utilise any of those personnel to form a CAMO. It will not be acceptable for them to carry out the two roles as they have done in the past. The CAMO must have a management structure consisting of an accountable manager, responsible manager, quality manager, continuing airworthiness manager, airworthiness review manager and so on. All of these personnel have to have formal qualifications to be acceptable to CASA to fill these positions. For instance, to fill the position of continuing airworthiness manager you would have to be a LAME or equivalent. There are not enough LAMEs in Australia to carry out aircraft maintenance as it is; pulling them out of the system and putting them into a CAM role would severely hamper the industry in available personnel and impose a huge increase in cost to the operator.
At this time CASA has not approved any independent CAMOs. All approvals have been granted within the RPT sector. There are thousands of aircraft in Australia that are affected. There are many private aircraft owners who make their aircraft available to operators under leasing agreements. This helps in two ways: it lessens the cost of ownership where maintenance costs et cetera are concerned and it makes aircraft available to operators who would otherwise not be able to finance the purchase of the aircraft. If any such aircraft are operating under an AOC then the owner will have to contract the services of a CAMO to gain an ARC—no ARC, no flying. The maintenance organisations will not be able to issue a certificate to release the service following the maintenance unless the aircraft has an ARC.
These requirements will have far-reaching implications where the GA sector is concerned. The Royal Flying Doctor Service, for instance, will have to comply with the CAMO and ARC requirements. At the moment the operation of the ESSO helicopters in Victoria ferrying workers out to the oil rigs is a 'private operation'. This operation, by the way, rivals the airlines in terms of departure and arrival frequencies. Via the new operational regs, this operation will be under an AOC.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service is funded largely by donations. The requirement to either contract a CAMO or gain their own 42G approval will entail the use of some of those vital funds. The adoption of the European Aviation Safety Agency legislation, which is what the new legislation is based on, is all very fine for airline-type operators, such as Qantas or Virgin. However, it is a bit ludicrous to expect an organisation that is operating a couple of piston-powered Robinson R44 helicopters, carrying three passengers to a remote site to view cave paintings, to provide the same infrastructure as Qantas does for the Boeing 747s. As Mr Scorer pointed out, that needs to be back at the heart of law making...
Now IMHO if more concerned industry stakeholders (IOS members) were to follow the example of
constituent Mr John Janssen, to Max Scorer and took the time to properly consult with their local MP, like Dr Jensen, then the all pervading, strangling Fort Fumble
mystique of aviation safety can be broken down. Even though the Laborial (bi-partisan)
'hands off' philosophy to aviation safety is in effect suffocating the GA industry, IOS members should be using this bi-partisan approach to their advantage.
The Dr Jensen speech is one example of how this can be done, your local MP is obliged to convey his/her concerns, across party lines, to the government of the day. So get engaged or sit on the sidelines and winge..
The clock is ticking..
TICK TOCK!
{Question for Creamy: Even though the CAA (Board) amendment bill is the subject of the current debate on the Act, is it possible (because the Act is being amended) to put forward amendments for other parts of the Act or are the non-aligned Senators restricted to the confines of the current proposed amendment??}