Okay Creamy got it!!
So if we take your repeated statement..”the Senate could, for example” and apply it (for example) to some of the recommendations for Act changes from the AMROBA ASRR submission (ref: pg 23-26 of AMROBA submission):
Recommendation 1:
Amend 9(1)(c) to read:
(c) promulgate appropriate, clear and concise civil (delete-aviation safety standards) specific operating rules;
(i) consistent with the standards and practices contained in Annexes to the
Convention;
(ii) comparable with North America and Europe aviation requirements; and
(iii) have minimal differences with New Zealand aviation requirements.
Amending Section 9(1)(c) of the Civil Aviation Act will empower CASA in a similar manner as their counterparts in other mature aviation countries (EASA, FAA, TCCA).
Clarifying aviation safety standards as Civil Aviation Operating Rules also meets global principles.
Recommendation 2:
Amend 3A to read similar to the NZ Objectives: e.g.
a) CASA to undertake the government's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable aviation system; and (b) to ensure that Australia’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.
And then the enabling component:
Subsequent Act Changes
To enable these two provisions to function correctly, Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act would need to be completely modernised so CASA can be properly empowered – many regulations should direct CASA to promulgate CASSs.
Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act should include the requirements of Articles of the Convention that CASA has government responsibility to manage compliance and enable the making of regulations that also direct CASA to promulgate CASS (Specific Operating Rules).
If the Government is to realise their aviation policy then there will need to be a change of thinking and attitude of not only industry but CASA personnel as well.
Everyone recognises that we are ‘over-regulated’ but do we understand what we mean by stating “over-regulation is stifling industry”.
Nobody will agree to lower ‘safety standards’ but it is possible to improve safety standards whilst de-regulating the non-airline sectors. The “language” of Acts of Parliament & Parliamentary Regulations are not akin to the ‘language’ of technical standards as used in EASA and FAA Regulations or the TCCA Standards.
Adoption of ICAO terminology that is used globally would also make the Act and Regulations more readable by those in aviation both in Australia and internationally.
Balanced Approach to Control and Supervision
ICAO Safety Oversight Manual states:
“A balanced safety oversight system is one in which both the ‘State’ and the aviation share responsibility for the safe, regular and efficient conduct of civil aviation activities. This relationship should be established in the primary legislation, regulations and requirements and put into practice as a matter of policy and methodology of the CAA.”
Hmm it would seem that Ken & Co have the hang of this re-writing legislation thing..
..maybe we can start a list of recommended amendments with explanatory notes for the non-Laborial pollies to consider??
While on the subject of AMROBA I notice an article of interest in their latest newsletter that should be read in support of the AMROBA submission by the WLR panel:
New Industry Approach
If there was ever a time in aviation for an urgent and contemporary approach to re-directing the government’s policy for the future of civil aviation, it is NOW. In 1988, CASA’s predecessor was created with expectations that have never eventuated. Unlike NZ, who had the Swedavia—McGregor Report in 1988 to guide them, CASA misguided and ever changing regulatory development has seen a decline in aviation. Access the NZ Swedavia-Report and see what we expect. A new approach to aviation.
The Minister Truss’s ASRR Report must rival the recommendations of the NZ Swedavia-McGregor Report that brought about major changes in NZ for the betterment of aviation.
Since the regulatory re-write started back in 1991, the number of individuals, AOCs and AMOs participating have drastically declined as continual changes are made to the environmental and regulatory requirements. Business bankruptcies swelled by more than half in the depths of the recession, a statistic that masks a world of heartache for the owners of the many businesses that didn’t make it.
The whole regulatory system being developed does not overlay a sustainable small business environment.
Aircraft are a mode of transport (people or freight) whether they are used privately or commercially.
Air transport is also a safe form of transport and the reasons why there is a decline in the use of air transport in rural Australia need to be identified and reversed.
Obviously the growth of regulations, not just aviation regulations, has affected businesses. To rebuild this industry it is not recommended that the current system be re-written, a new system is required.
What basic regulations should apply to a private operator of an aircraft?
• The ‘rules of the air’ controlling airspace must have clarity like road rules.
• Pilot licensing standards — harmonised with NZ & USA.
• Aircraft airworthiness standards — harmonised with NZ and USA.
• Maintenance personnel licensing standards — harmonised with NZ and USA.
Adoption of the FAA/NZ approach for private and small specified commercial operations should be implemented, within 12 months, including adoption of the US Fixed Based Operator (FBO) for private and specified commercial operations.
Commercial operators, such as charter and small airline operations need a complete new approach to encourage a complete revival in the use of aircraft, especially as a rural air transport system.
Australia has always had entrepreneurs that are willing to invest in aviation if the pilots, LAMEs and engineering support can be found to support the venture. Irrespective of how you look at the current environment, regulatory imposts are turning many entrepreneurs away from aviation.
At what stage of a declining industry do you reach a position where recovery is not possible or is extremely hard to accomplish? Are we at that stage with private aviation?
Why isn’t the same standards applied to all aircraft irrespective who registers the aircraft?
All aircraft, pilots and maintenance personnel should meet the same standards in private as well as the various commercial sectors of aviation. The USA and Canada can do it, why not Australia.
Most private owners and aviation participants would welcome is a complete new system—the current & proposed changes have not seen a safe growth in the non airline sectors.
The current aviation Acts, regulations and other requirements are from the past. New regulations are from another region of the world that has no similarities with Australia.
We need NEW aviation Acts and regulations suitable to Australia, especially our rural and remote areas.
Many of these rural and remote areas should be tourist locations serviced by appropriately sized aircraft and aircraft should be more commonly used by more rural and remote locations. It will only happen if a complete new approach is taken to regulatory development, not only in aviation, but also small business requirements.
Link for NZ Swedavia-Report
Wow..
..the WLR panel have sure got their work cut out for them…
Frank Addendum! "
Even The Greens agree to a certain extent along these lines..."
Well at least Senator Rhiannon: