Kharon:
...considering the endless vacillation, dithering and general buggering about from the miniscule's office...
The biggest problem is with each passing day that this 'dithering' continues the more IOS speculation & anxiety grow...
In sport & politics time wasting/obfuscation only ever plays into the hands of the opposition. How many times have we watched a football match where the underdog side is grimly hanging onto a narrow lead only to be smashed & humiliated by an opposition goal right on the siren??
The longer we remain in this state of flux the more damaging the rumours/ Chinese whispers become and the more opportunity for the GWM to run, yet another, destabilising rear guard action designed to put more doubt in an ailing miniscule's office, the ominous signs are already there...
Example:
Media rumour not confirmed - "
It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations."
GWM response
Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014:
CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits
"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
The hypocrisy of this reasoning/justification by FF, to continue unabated with the Part 61 implementation, should not be lost on the IOS, given the disturbing findings documented in the PelAir report...
But the message is clear i.e. we've taken onboard those findings and we are now embracing the bureau's SRs to better enhance safety risk mitigation...
There is also another disturbing example.,in recent days, that has some bizarre parallels to the PelAir ditching investigation. However this example also shows that a leopard doesn't change it's spots, as FF simply can't hide their contempt for the Senate, particularly towards Senator Xenophon..
Australian Aviation carried this story on Friday -
Airnorth boosted pilot ranks, changed rosters after 2013 incident: ATSB.
And this was the bureau report on the incident -
AO-2013-010
From the report a 'Safety Issue' was addressed to the operator & published on the bureau website -
AO-2013-010-SI-01
Safety issue description
Although the operator’s rostering practices were consistent with the existing regulatory requirements, it had limited processes in place to proactively manage its flight crew rosters and ensure that fatigue risk due to restricted sleep was effectively minimised.
{Comment: See the parallels now?? 
}
Then we have the proactive action from the Operator..
:
Airnorth advised that, since the time of the occurrence, it had increased its E170 flight crew by about 30 per cent. This increase had resulted in flight crews doing less flight hours and providing more flexibility in rostering the flight crews.
In addition, Airnorth advised that due to changes in schedules, its rostering patterns had changed so that there were no longer any planned rosters that required overnight free of duty periods of less than 10 hours.
Occasionally there were actual overnight free of duty periods less than 10 hours when the day’s duty period was extended for operational reasons, but these were relatively rare.
Lesson learnt and job well done...
But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
Although not in response to this occurrence, on 28 March 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released revised fatigue management and flight and duty time requirements in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013. These requirements were to take effect for existing operators on 30 April 2016.
The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.
If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:
a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.
Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts.
Pretty hard to miss the 'up yours' in that statement directed towards Senator Xenophon (& by association AIPA) in his negatived attempt to disallow CAO 48.1...
But the message is very clear to the miniscule's office
..."Look what we've done to mitigate this potential safety risk!"
Of course we all know it is bollocks and is merely the last thrashings of a dying beast...
A word from Ken that more than highlights why the current FF strategy will not work:
Delays & International Practices - GA
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system.
This was also the direction of CASA before Byron/McCormick and is possible under the many recommendations and observations contained in the Forsyth Report.
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected.
Minister Truss, industry continues in damage control waiting for your decision.- The delay in appointing a new DAS
- Directing adoption of the Forsyth Report recommendations; and
- Amending the Act so the recommendations are permanently implemented.
So my advice to the IOS is to man up, hold the line and stop jumping at shadows past..
