PNM:
I read the McComic statements as being anti-outcomes-based and being pro-prescription, perhaps because he has comprehensibly failed to standardise his inspectors and decision-makers.
I read the McComic statements as a man desperately trying to hang on to a smoke'n'mirrors legacy that is rapidly evaporating like a distant mirage..
Screaming from a desolate office on the other side of LBG, that no longer has minions & IOS lobbyists cowering in the waiting room, will achieve bugger all cause no one is listening anymore...
Black states that principles-based regulation avoids ‘reliance on detailed, prescriptive rules and rel[ies] more on high-level, broadly stated rules or principles’
Have to agree with the Prince it is all a bit confusing for a layman (rather than lawyers & professional rule-makers) but it has always been my understanding that in the aviation world guidance (the principles) is provided by ICAO...
From AMROBA article
here:
ICAO:
“Note. — The term “regulations” is used in a generic sense to include but is not limited to instructions, rules, edits, directives, sets of laws, requirements, policies, and orders.”
“Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its registration mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuver of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respect uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention.”
Further, the Article states that: “Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.” &
“A better alternative would be to adapt the regulations to meet the aviation environment while still maintaining harmony with other States.”
To my mind that's the guiding principle to a harmonised NAA rule set, so how is it that we here (Downunda) have apparently stumbled at the first hurdle...
Diverging a little...
In Senate Estimates 29 May 2013 Senator Fawcett (in a quieter moment) said this when quizzing Mrdak on the instigation of the GWEP:
Senator FAWCETT:One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?
So the evidence was, despite the iron ring roadblock, that in the pre-Skull years we were making small steps to get back to the principals i.e. ICAO. However it is worth noting the Mrdak reply:
Mr Mrdak: To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite.
They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.
The whole Senate Estimates segment can be viewed in the following poohtube vid (it is well worth the time):
Which brings us back to the here and now with a WLR report pending...MTF Sarcs
