MMSM Steve has strangely descended from the Flight Levels this week...
...maybe it has something to do with being trumped by a fellow MMSM stablemate a week before and then by the MSM opposition only three days ago, who knows?? Also surprising is that SC has not simply regurgitated the CM opinion piece but put another spin on the POTA {IOS selectively edited...
}...
:
Charity group Angel Flight battles CASA regulation bid
ANGEL Flight is appealing to local governments to lobby state and federal MPs as it moves to head off potential plans by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to boost regulation of its operations.
Founder and chief executive Bill Bristow said the community organisation had written to rural councils last week in all states except Tasmania and the Northern Territory asking them to explain to parliamentarians the importance of the service and the difficulties that shutting it down would cause.
Angel Flight co-ordinates non-emergency flights provided free to transport needy patients, relatives and carers, and medical supplies. It has about 2600 pilots on its register and has helped more than 2500 people across the country.
The charity depends on donations and, to help offset pilot operating costs, it negotiates the waiver of landing fees and air navigation charges.
“The local councils really are where the rubber hits the road,’’ Mr Bristow said.
“These are people dealing with the sick people in their community. They know them, they meet them down the street, so I’m hoping they will be an impassioned pressure group and they’ll talk to the federal politicians, ideally, and make them aware this is significant.’’
Angel Flight has also written to health professionals alerting them to a CASA discussion paper suggesting organisations under which it could be brought.
CASA says its preferred option would be to set up an organisation responsible for functions such as assessing and authorising pilots, requiring pilot proficiency checks and assessment, and approval of aircraft types.
The authority argues it could monitor safety standards under this system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.
But Mr Bristow argued there were no problems with his organisation that needed addressing.
He said he had yet to hear from CASA, although he had seen “unsatisfactory’’ responses from the authority’s spokesman to media articles.
“Disappointingly, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister whose department it is was just recently quoted as saying he doesn’t have any control over CASA,’’ Mr Bristow said.
“So he can’t help us.’’
More bad press for '
the WUSS!'
Part 61 - 'Cold War' rhetoric
While SC was strangely down in the weeds (must be a poor news week for the Sky Gods) he must of bumped into IOS lifetime members Aerialag Phil, Rotor Head Crook & some 40 year CFI/owner boffin...
:
Pilot licensing rules put aviation sector in a tailspin
Again I have used editorial privilege but this time there is a different reason, I'll call it the 20:4 ratio..
First the complainant 20:
SMALLER aviation operators say they have been plunged into confusion by new pilot licensing rules that are hard to comprehend, not backed by education and contradictory in places.
Sections of the industry representing segments such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to have Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 delayed because neither side was adequately prepared.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum described Part 61 as “an overcomplicated and overweight document’’, while the Australian Helicopter Industry Association has raised safety issues and called for a “safe, cost- effective and operationally sound” version of the new rules.
Appeals to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to intervene were unsuccessful, and less than a month after the rules were introduced, industry members say their worst fears have been realised.
Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the lack of education was a big problem.
“It’s just appalling as in CASA has been caught with their pants down not having any educational material that’s easy to understand,’’ Mr Hurst said, noting the association had raised this issue in submissions in 2012 and 2013.
Mr Hurst said there was some advisory material but people were unable to find information unless they already knew the regulations and exactly what they were looking for. “I’ve been sitting on working groups since 1999 on this issue and I’m struggling to find stuff,’’ he said. “Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’
A veteran flying training operator with almost four decades in the industry said there was a lack of background, forms that didn’t yet exist and information that was still in draft form.
“The industry is crying,’’ the operator said.
He said the industry had been promised there would be no additional cost but there were “horrific costs involved’’.
“There are government guidelines saying there should be the removal of red tape, that there should be stuff done in simple language,’’ he said.
“Everything’s been done in legal speak again that we can’t understand. There are actually things in different parts of the regs that contravene each other.’’
AHIA president Peter Crook said rotary- and fixed-wing flying schools had told the association they could not understand the new regulations because of unclear and ambiguous wording.
Mr Crook said fixed-wing schools had calculated the cost of an endorsement on basic light twin-engine aircraft would rise by about $1000 and a helicopter training organisation said they could add $7000 to each of its endorsements because of the need to hire an approved testing officer.
The AHIA has questioned the move towards a European-influenced regulatory system given the US accident rate of 3.94 crashes per 100,000 hours compared to 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours in Australia.
Another problem raised by both rotary- and fixed-wing operators is the amount of untested material in the new regulations that relates to the competencies pilots are required to demonstrate.
The AAAA’s Mr Hurst said the association wrote many of the competencies in the new regulations for the aerial application rating and fire fighting endorsement. “But then they weren’t actually tested,’’ he said. “We expected there would be some quality assurance to say we’ve been out and we’ve tried to teach someone this sequence and we’ve found this problem or that problem.’’
Mr Hurst questioned whether the new rules were better than those they had replaced.
“I think the industry will give you a pretty firm view that this is just so overcomplicated for the task it does that we’ve actually gone backwards,’’ he said.
“I’d challenge anyone to get their head around the 800 pages of regulations and clearly enunciate how all of those rules work together.’’
Love Phil's plain language...
“Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’
Now for the respondent 4, first a pic to lighten the mood and IMO best describes the R4..
A CASA spokesman referred the operators to the authority’s website and said it was doing dozens of face-to-face presentations on the changes.
In the latest CASA briefing, acting chief Terry Farquharson said the introduction of the new rules, which heralded a four-year transition period, had happened without the world coming to a halt. “In fact, rather than a welter of problems caused by the new regulations our main challenge has been keeping up with the number of people keen to move their licence over to the new regime as soon as possible,’’ he said.
“CASA’s licensing team are doing their best to keep up with the influx of applications but I do ask for your forbearance during this initial busy period and remind everyone that it is not essential to have a new Part 61 licence immediately.’’
Mr Farquharson said CASA had engaged research company Colmar Brunton to conduct an online survey during next month about its safety promotion activities and called on the industry to provide feedback.
{Observation: Passing strange is that less than a month ago it would have been totally unheard of for their to be a 20:4 ratio from SC for the complainant??}
Finally, as noted on the Senate thread, the AQONs are out:
Addendum - AQON links
By the way for those interested the AQONs for the last Budget Estimates have finally been released...
Here are the relevant links of most interest:
229 - 240 Aviation and Airports (AAA)(PDF 180KB)QoN230A-B (PDF 106KB)
241 - 257 Airservices Australia (AA)(PDF 256KB)
258 - 262 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)(PDF 92KB)
263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB)
One AQON that I found interesting (that may give credence to Frank's Albo idea) was an answer to a QON from that loud mouth clown Senator Conroy:
Answer:
Question as clarified by SE Committee:
What areas within CASA and AMSA have been identified to assist the Portfolio with making savings in order to meet the red tape or regulatory cost reduction target of $60 million per annum?
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is progressing initiatives to change a number of regulatory and service delivery processes to minimise the regulatory compliance and/or administrative burden and costs on aviation industry participants.
These initiatives include:
- amendments to Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) to reduce the complexity of flight training organisation approvals;
- amendments to CASR Part 61 to remove the requirement for a student pilot licence and reduce requirements for pilot proficiency checks in certain cases;
- limiting the need for aerial work operators to apply for and operate under an Air Operator’s Certificate and/or other authorisations for certain low risk and non-complex operations;
- developing proposals to provide administrative relief for small aircraft operators conducting local scenic flights as well as domestic freight operations;
- amending CASR Part 21 to expand the list of recognised countries for the purpose of mutual recognition in relation to airworthiness engineering and airworthiness approvals;
- permitting CASR Part 42 and Part 145 organisations to manage and maintain non-regular public transport aircraft, in addition to regular public transport aircraft, which avoids the need for organisations to hold both approvals (CASR Part 145 and CAR 30) and maintain two sets of manuals and other documentation;
- improvements to Advisory Circulars for aviation-related manufacturing industry participants to provide better guidance on application processes and the required supporting documentation; and
- streamlining medical administrative processes including enabling Class 2 medical certificates to be issued at the time of the medical examination by a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner.
There is plenty more AQONs of interest so fill your boots...
