PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
View Single Post
Old 27th Aug 2014, 06:51
  #1171 (permalink)  
Sarcs
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAsA thumbing nose at Govt policy - Examples please

AMROBA Ken request from members -

"What I need to create is a submission to government with examples of recent costs for regulatory services. If any member is willing to provide me with the costs and the service provided that is seen as excessive, then I will collate as evidence of over charging."

Ken can the IOS membership put their two bobs worth in???
Increasing Costs & Red Tape

Recently some of our members have been bringing to my attention the massive increase in red tape and costs, costs that we find are far beyond what the regulatory service should cost. It is obvious that CASA has not yet come under the influence of this government. It is to be expected based on their track record to ignore previ-ous government and judicial recommendations.

Back in 2013, the LNP Aviation Policy stated that the Coalition would support the growth of the aviation industry by reducing red tape, reform the structure of CASA, establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council and, among other promises, establish a high level review of aviation safety and regulation.

So far the government has only met one promise. The Forsyth Report achieved what had not been possible in the past, a government review of safety and regulation whose outcomes are industry supported. The govern-ment has issued Guide for Better Regulation but, based on what CASA continues to produce, the government Aviation Policy and Red Tape Reduction processes are being totally ignored. Red Tape Principles:

1. Regulation should not be the default option for policy makers: the policy option offering the greatest net ben-efit should always be the recommended option.
2. Regulation should be imposed only when it can be shown to offer an overall net benefit.
3. The cost burden of new regulation must be fully offset by reductions in existing regulatory burden.
4. Every substantive regulatory policy change must be the subject of a Regulation Impact Statement.
5. Policy makers should consult in a genuine and timely way with affected businesses, community organisations and individuals.
6. Policy makers must consult with each other to avoid creating cumulative or overlapping regulatory burdens.
7. The information upon which policy makers base their decisions must be published at the earliest opportunity.
8. Regulators must implement regulation with common sense, empathy and respect.
9. All regulation must be periodically reviewed to test its continuing relevance.
10. Policy makers must work closely with their portfolio Deregulation Units throughout the policy making pro-cess.

Why is industry still being subject to all the negatives that the Forsyth Report identified, and industry had also identified to the LNP prior to becoming government? - most now feel deceived because of the lack of govern-ment action. It is almost 12 months since the government was elected.

For instance, British GA will benefit from a GA system that will be closer to the FAR system than Australia, even though the non-airline sectors have been lobbying for the FAR system for the last decade. CASA consultation is a joke in that it does not listen to their own industry because "they know best" ????

CAA(UK) Red Tape Reduction program has commenced—it will be completed within two years.
The CAA(UK) Performance Based Regulation program will also be completed within two years.

For CAA(UK) future work there will be two guiding ambitions and principles:
deregulation and delegation to remove the bulk of GA from the current regulatory oversight of the CAA.

Since September last year when the government was sworn in, this industry has been patiently waiting for CASA to start to be seen as adopting and implementing government’s policies and directions. However, the industry has seen CASA continue with increasing prescriptive regulations and red tape.

Under the government guidelines, all regulations proposed and made during the past 5-10 years also need to be totally reviewed.

What I need to create is a submission to government with examples of recent costs for regulatory services. If any member is willing to provide me with the costs and the service provided that is seen as excessive, then I will collate as evidence of over charging.

Other government departments/agencies are working to reduce regulatory costs, if the principles were properly applied, not only would costs be lowered for industry but improved productivity would benefit all.
Here's one example nicely outlined in a RAAA briefing paper titled - ISSUES WITH CLASSIFICATION OF AIR OPERATIONS
VI. EFFECTS ON THE INDUSTRY

The case raises significant issues for operators of air tourism and similar flights. There may now be operators who have been safely conducting air tourism flights for many years as charters who are now considered to be unlawfully conducting RPT operations.

Prior to the decision being handed down this was a grey area, but now it is clear that any flights operating to fixed times/schedules on which members of the public can acquire tickets are likely to require an RPT licence.

In addition, not all air operations can actually comply with RPT standards.

For example, the rules for RPT impose certain minimum standards for runways and security screening at airports. However, many small airports from which air tours operate do not have these facilities and compliance may require structural upgrades which are not possible.


In the wake of the Direct Air decision, CASA has issued a notice to all charter operators which suggests a partial solution to the problem. CASA has stated that it will consider providing RPT AOCs with exemptions or deviations from otherwise applicable requirements, provided that an acceptable level of safety is maintained. However, this opportunity has only been offered for aircraft with 9 seats or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 8,618 kg or less. This does not provide a solution for the whole of industry and it is difficult to see why it should not be extended to other operators.
This paper is extracted from the RAAA - MAJOR ISSUES - webpage, where you'll find several more examples of Government Policy non-compliance (NCN) by FF i.e. Red Tape Reduction, I'm sure the IOS can contribute many more...


MTF...


ps The RAAA (as previously mentioned on here) also wrote to the PMC on the subject -CUTTING RED TAPE

Last edited by Sarcs; 27th Aug 2014 at 07:39.
Sarcs is offline