developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards
Glen,
Yours and the industry’s specific problems are nothing new. Ever since the incorporation of CASA as a government business unit (GBE) (for whatever devious reason) it has taken on a life of its own. This enables CASA (among other things) to impose costly requirements arbitrarily on an individual operator without due process as to cost/safety benefit analysis, then to charge the operator for the “service” and also for ongoing compliance audits at rates that can be varied simply by altering the published charges.
A succession of incompetents, with the exception of Bruce Byron, CASA has dictated to both government and industry. My loss of TRUST started with Toller and his handling of the AvGas contamination cover-up. Instead of admitting complicity or at least incompetency, he went on to blame industry. Once the digging started the hole got bigger and bigger, maybe it’s time we filled it in. CASA getting away with such misconduct only encouraged further outrages.
The ASR Review commenced some 24 months ago, received great support from industry and its findings were conclusive; yet a few weeks ago CEO Skidmore in his “Ten Commandments” started off by stating “maintaining trust!” Strange, is it not, how the ASRR had come up with 35 out of 37 comments about “distrust”? He is either oblivious to its meaning or in denial like the rest of the organisation, instead of offering to identify where and why trust was lost. These are the “creatures” who look after the ultimate safety of the flying public? It’s true that Mark only joined the organisation recently, but the review has been around since May 2014 for all to read.
In terms of “CASA can sue and be sued,” that’s true in both cases but no one has yet been able to “plumb” the depths of their bottomless legal money pit. Politicians are just told it is all to do with “safety”.
Considering the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) re Part 61, in regard to a change from circa 100 to 2,929 pages, the reading alone without the necessary time for comprehension would take several weeks; but then CASA has now promised to supply more explanatory paperwork. No need even to start on Parts 141 and 142. The costs of application of new requirements, manuals and staffing although dealt with in the RIS, appear to be regarded as “insignificant” yet will easily run into the tens of thousands for each G.A. business. Why were the changes necessary in the first place? Certainly not “safety” as the leading global “safety” authority!
As far as I am aware one of the prime goals of the regulatory rewrite was to comply more closely with ICAO, reducing the “differences” to appear more compliant. The adaptation of ICAO Annex 1 would have saved a lot of anguish and cost. 130 pages vs 2,929. CASA claims “the changes are relatively minor.” Had they been major, how many pages/volumes would they have produced? This has become a debate of quantity over quality.
Civil Aviation Act 1988 - Sect 9 (1)(c) “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards:
CASA, by its extension of the compliance time-frame, has now admitted there is nothing “clear” about the regulations. So that leaves the matter of “concise”. A simple comparison with those of other countries will show the meaning of “concise” for legal purposes.
A telephone call to industry leaders will not gain a true picture as many will feel obliged to answer positively for fear of the all too common reprisal action from the regulator. Only a survey in writing from the PM’s office allowing for strict anonymity may elicit an answer.
With its prime focus being on “Parkinson’s law” CASA no longer needs a safety case, its own definition of “safety” being more along the lines of “job security”. There is no actual ministerial oversight of CASA, its immediate superior being the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) He who is doing such an appalling job in monitoring the “sale” of our G.A. Airports – just look at the YSBK mess and similar situations at other secondary airports.
A punitive component should not be dismissed, but should take the form of restitution of previous regulations or an immediate adaptation of FARs or ICAO annexes in an exercise to which the industry would no doubt be prepared to contribute.
Compensation should be to industry in general and this could take the form of funding on an ongoing basis of an industry representative body along the lines of GAAA established in the 70’s or AusAC 2004; a body to be consulted by CASA on an ongoing basis (not behind closed doors) It would be funded to represent “members” in contentious legal actions taken by CASA contrary to principles proposed by the Director’s “ten commandments.”
I cannot agree with the need to inject further funds. The crisis is of the government’s own making. This whole exercise of change has exposed CASA’s incompetence as an institution and although there have to be some capable people, they are stymied by the “iron ring” which has prevailed over the past decades. That ANZAC spirit apparently only applies “offshore”. Currently the only person with proven industry credentials is the Chairman of the Board, but apparently the Board is deemed to have insufficient authority, so let’s wait and see when the writs start flying.
There’s probably some regulation against that too.