Yesterday in the Senate the AR for FF FY13/14 was tabled with apparently absolutely zilch recognition or acknowledgement from the big "R" regulator..WTF??
Anyway I managed to track down a link, see
here but what first caught my eye was the glossy front cover, especially in light of the JO CVD case currently before the AAT...
Hmm...not much colour in the frame, one would almost say it is pretty much black and white...
Going down to page 2 and reading under the heading - Design Rationale - also made me chuckle...
Normally I'm not into fairy tales (about wascily wabbits feeding at the trough..
) but given the amusement I have found in just two pages perhaps I should take the time to read a chapter or two...
Back to other matters I noticed that AMROBA are yet to give up the ghost on behalf of their members...
"...The adage "there is strength in numbers" is absolutely true when it comes to influencing government regulations and policy. No one company, no matter how big or successful, can keep up on all the regulatory issues directly impacting businesses.
AMROBA is dedicated to serving the businesses that are responsible for the in-service continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical
products, including the manufacture of replacement parts for in-service aircraft. This segment of the industry has never had a dedicated advocate until now..." 
...and have recently published an additional newsletter for the month -
Volume 11, Issue 10A October — 2014 - which largely tackles the issue of RTR & CAsA and a proposed submission to the RTR crew:
AMROBA is making a submission to CASA’s Red Tape Reduction and Deregulation Program.Suggested changes to the burden level of individual regulations may be provided in the spreadsheet and sent via an email attachment to [email protected]. CASA has provided an excel format spreadsheet that you can use. It can be accessed at Red Tape Reduction .
The problem is that, over many years, AMROBA, and other associations and individuals have been submitting to CASA how they can reduce red tape and deregulate many aspects of the aviation industry without affecting safety. Have they the right people to meet this government initiative?
Since their decision to follow the European system, the growth in red tape and regulation has continued unabated. AMROBA has made many submissions over the years that would reduce the red tape and also reduce the size of CASA.
A major issue with the direction of regulatory changes is that CASA is purposely moving away from a “rule of law” system, where you are treated
as innocent until proven guilty, to a system where compliance is to [hidden] CASA policy, advisory material & other non regulative requirements.
Unlike the attitude of the CAA when the CARs were introduced, the reduction in administrative processes were high on the agenda. However, like every legislative change since moving away from ANRs, industry was subjected to more laws, red tape and advisory documents that were used as quasi-regulations.
To reduce the red tape, CASA really needs to start from asking: “what needs to have a regulatory requirement?” We are over-regulated.
Not all ICAO SARPs need to be in legislation. Many of the SARPs are common sense and are abided to by aviation participants but anything that industry must comply with should be in documents tabled in Parliament.
Pre 1991, GA maintenance organisations were approved by CASA and had to comply with one set of standards specified in CAOs. No AMO documented ‘quality system’ in a manual, similar approach to the FARs for GA.
Very successful for GA and relied on “direct supervision” in small AMOs.
Compliance was with legislative requirements tabled in Parliament—Regulations and CAOs. The government provided ‘legislative oversight’ of the Orders.
However, that system was discredited by senior management utilisation of “exemptions, alternative means of compliance, etc. that some saw as providing a preferential or uneven application of the requirements.
That is when it was decided to re-write the requirements so all requirements in Orders had a “Head of Power” in the Regulations that also had a “Head of Power” in the Act.
New CASA management kept changing the goals until Byron decided Europe had it right. In the last decade, industry has suffered by bad laws.
Today, industry participants are being audited to advisory material. The following is from a CASA audit finding on an AMO.
The CoA Handbook is another level of compliance — we no longer work under the rule-of-law as other citizens of Australia do. This is a return to the 1980s.
“The Handbook sets out the criteria that CASA would expect an Applicant to meet to obtain a COA. Meeting these criteria should ensure that the Applicant will have the systems, including procedures, equipment and staff necessary to ensure that aviation safety is not compromised, thus satisfying government, CASA, and public expectation.”
One would have thought the criteria and policy was set out in legislation and/or instruments made under the legislation that the government oversighted.
History will continue to repeat itself unless the Federal Government changes the Act.
Compliance should always be with legislative requirements in documents oversighted by Parliament.
Complies with the Rule of Law principles.
Perhaps KC should consider a cc or two to some of the more proactive frontbenchers like Josh&co; c/o the PMC of course...
On page 2 of the AMROBA newsletter I noticed that a useful list of past CEOs is provided so I thought (to wile away the time to oblivion..
) I should reproduce and the IOS could rate each individual from bad to even worse...
:
- CEO & GM, CAA Colin W. Freeland
- CEO, CAA J.F.S. 'Frank' Baldwin
- DAS, CAA Alan Heggen
- DAS, CAA Ron Cooper
- CEO, CAA Doug J. Roser
- CEO, CAA (Atg) Buck A. Brooksbank
- DAS, CAA George Macionis
- DAS, CASA Leroy Keith
- DAS, CASA (Atg) John Pike
- DAS, CASA Mick Toller
- DAS, CASA (Atg) Bruce Gemmell
- CEO & DAS, CASA W. Bruce Byron
- DAS, CASA John McCormick
- DAS, CASA (Atg) Terry Farquharson
Have fun..
MTF..
