Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

[Up-into-the-air]

We were told that the new regs would improve things aviation.

Try this for a Sir Humphrey!!

Subpart 11.B Applications for authorisations

11.020 Effect of this Subpart

The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.

11.025 Application of Part to authorised persons

If these Regulations allow an application for an authorisation to be made to an authorised person, a reference in this Part to CASA includes, in relation to such an application, an authorised person to whom such an application is made.Well???

[kalavo]

(1) No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all in whole or in part of the herein mention Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, except as authorised by the CASA.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify CASA in writing.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, CASA will immediately rewrite the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
(4) CASA may, at their option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

[Arm out the window]

Incredible, aren't they?

My guess is they draft something like this:

"The pilot in command must ensure all relevant covers and safety flags are removed and stowed before taking off."

then send it to the legal team, who change it to:

"An individual who, for the purposes of these paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, is authorised by an organisation, or is him or herself empowered to authorise him or herself to operate an aeroplane or rotorcraft as pilot-in-command, shall not allow that aeroplane or rotorcraft to move from a resting condition for the purposes of leaving the ground or water, or in the case of an amphibian aeroplane or rotorcraft, ground and/or water as appropriate, unless that individual has ensured that each item (including but not limited to covers, protective devices, streamers, and flags) made or purchased for the purpose of protecting essential items of equipment (including but not limited to probes, vents, intakes, exhausts, wicks, cooling systems and drains) has been removed from its operative position and placed in a container, locker, pocket or restraint approved for the purpose of holding that item, or group of items, for the duration of the flight and with a degree of security appropriate for the longitudinal, lateral and vertical accelerative forces that may be experienced at any time during that flight, caused by either the normal motion of the aircraft or the motion of the atmosphere as it impacts on that aircraft."

[Mr.Buzzy]

Couldn't agree more!
No more Roman numerals either!!!

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzz

[Rich-Fine-Green]

A good example of how nutty our Aviation regulators are;
Compare our many books of regs and rules to the simple and plain English USA publication - FAR/AIMS.
:ugh:

[blackhand]

Well???
Yelling certainly helps doesn't it???
It is simple English and you are purposely looking for ambiguity.

then send it to the legal team, who change it to:
And that would be because some people go to the AAT and claim that "terrain" doesn't include water.

[Arm out the window]

I'm sure we can all nut out the meaning of regs like this given time, but it must be possible to lay them out in such a way that the meanings are more readily apparent.

The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.

That's hardly simple English. As I read it, it's saying "there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones."

Something like that that tells you what they're actually driving at in a straightforward way would help immeasurably.

Maybe we need an official book that tells you in plain language what your responsibilities are, as well as the legalese book that applies in a court of law.

I don't mean something that a third party such as a flying school or maintenance training organisation writes out as their interpretation of the regs, but something released by CASA that's aimed to translate the legal stuff into real world language (with the clear caveat that the legal stuff is binding). A kind of 'what the hell we meant when we wrote this section' guide.

[blackhand]

As I read it, it's saying "there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones."

Exactly, no ambiguity

[Creampuff]

:ok:Ah yes, the oh-so-easy-to-understand FARs.

What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?

Your time starts….NOW:(4) Cross-country time means—
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section, time acquired during flight—
(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;
(B) Conducted in an aircraft;
(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and
(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except for a rotorcraft category rating), for a private pilot certificate (except for a powered parachute category rating), a commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101 (c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate (except for powered parachute privileges), time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges or a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute category rating, time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 15 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(v) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for any pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category rating or an instrument-helicopter rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges, in a rotorcraft, under §61.101(c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(vi) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
(vii) For a military pilot who qualifies for a commercial pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating) under §61.73 of this part, time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.A 600 word definition that starts with the word “except”. :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

It is simple English and you are purposely looking for ambiguity.

It's not simple English.

Get a grip Blackie.

[Wallsofchina]

The frightening thing is that some of you understand it and know how to write it.

[DancingDog]

From DM flyer: :p
Proposed Civil Aviation Regulation Act (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Proposed_Civil_Aviation_Safety_Regulation_Act.php)

Rule 1000(a). No pilot or pilots, or persons, or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or make attempt to try, to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Regulations, except as authorised by the Director or an agent appointed by the Director.

Rule 1000(b). If the pilot or group of associated pilots become aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are, or have been, beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Regulations, they must immediately within three (3) days notify in writing the Director.

Rule 1000(c). Upon receipt of the abovementioned notice of impending comprehension, the Director will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

Rule 1000(d). The Director may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot, or pilots, are too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

[blackhand]

Get a grip Blackie.Old mate, who purports to be a pilot; implicit in this is that he understands English, has sat and passed numerous exams, comes on here and pretends he can't decipher the regulations. Plus He YELLS because that makes his argument more correct.
Or perhaps he is on a certain ferry on the river Styx using transcendental medication

[aroa]

Lawyers love a time consuming sh*te-fight over the meaning of a word.
se Fice re Caper and "usually"..or was it "generally".

"terrain".... a tract of country/land. No mention of the liquid stuff there.
"water"..... a liquid compound of oxygen and hydrogen. No mention of any hard stuff there.
How a word, and/ or the use of, is interpreted can decide whether someone gets hung...or not. :eek:

If it does not specify both then the regulation is poorly thought out and badly written...whose fault is that.? And we suffer with more enough of that convoluted gobbldegook as it is.
The psuedo-legals that cobble up these crap regs are failing the requirement that the regs must be written for the layman/user/us...and not just legal vomitus for lawyers to play with.
The bureaucrapic way is "complexitization"...creates more work, takes more time, costs more money..and the KISS principle is given the kiss-off. :mad: And GA suffers accordingly.

[blackhand]

The bureaucrapic way is "complexitization"...creates more work, takes more time, costs more money..and the KISS principle is given the kiss-off. And GA suffers accordingly. Agree completely on this. In my work I have found that it is a struggle for smaller orgs in the regional/remote areas to move to the new paradigm. Brisbane office has been helpful, but still they can be pedants, although perhaps that is a requirement of the job.

[Creampuff]

The time’s still ticking on the question: What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?

It couldn’t be that hard to interpret the oh-so-simple FAR definition I quoted.

By the way, your Australian regulations have really complicated one (2(10)) that says:A reference in these regulations to height shall be read as a reference to:

(a) the vertical distance of a level or a point, or if an object is specified, that object considered as a point, measured from the datum specified in connection with the reference, or where no datum is specified, measured from the ground or water;

[blackhand]

. (iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges or a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute category rating, time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 15 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.

Wild guess, atleast 15 NM from departure

[Creampuff]

Well done, BH! You must have been able to find the correct answer because the FARs are so ‘simple’.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Is that you Kevin Rudd?

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzb

[Sunfish]

The problem for simple private pilots like me is that I have not a snowballs chance in hell of understanding the finer points of the regulations, let alone the arcane circumlocutions and operating contortions necessary to comply, in fact I even doubt that compliance is possible in some circumstances.

By way of example, my understanding is that it is a criminal offence to start an engine without switching on a red anticollision beacon - if such beacon is fitted to the aircraft.

It is therefore a legitimate method of avoiding the possibility of committing this offence by not fitting a beacon (experimental or RAA), or causing the beacon to be removed if this option is legal for a certified aircraft.

What if such beacon is unserviceable? Is this a defence?


The net result is that as a private pilot I can only operate under the following assumptions.

1. Follow common sense.

2. Avoid possible interaction with CASA on the grounds that CASA will always find a "point of order" on which to prosecute you if it feels like it on the day.

By way of example - luggage restraints in a C172. Do tie down straps or cargo nets require certification? What is the lesser penalty here? Unrestrained baggage? The fitting and use of unapproved equipment? (eg a tiedown strap purchased from Bunnings)

[Arm out the window]

That's exactly why they need to make the regs more accessible, perhaps with a 'FAQ' section, seeing as you can get them online easily these days.

Q. Can I fit commonly available cargo restraints (eg cargo nets purchased from hardware stores and the like) in the baggage compartment of my light aircraft?

A. Yes, as long as they are capable of restraining the cargo with a 4 g vertical acceleration, 2 g longitudinally ... (or whatever the real answer is). Restraints should be tested with a spring balance to establish a maximum weight capability. Refer to CAAP bla bla bla

[dogcharlietree]

I asked a simple question, Do I still have a SCPL? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Dear Mr xxx
I refer to your telephone conversation with Diane Shelback on xxxx regarding the validity of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence.

I am pleased to confirm that your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence Number xxxxxx is valid. This means that you are Authorised to exercise all of the privileges of this licence as specified in Civil Aviation Regulation 56(1)(a)(iv) of Statutory Rule 1988 No.158.

The grounds upon which this declaration is made are:

a) your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence is one to which Regulation 43 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992 applies.

b) although you have been issued with a First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence, your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence is not a "new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence" as mentioned in paragraph 43.2(b) of subregulation 43.2 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992. The significance of this point is that the issue of your ATPL has not nullified your SCPL. The considerations which lead to your ATPL not being regarded as a new ATPL are:

i) the term "new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence" is not defined in Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992.

ii) a comparison of the definitions of new and old licences in subregulation 35.1 of that Statutory Rule shows that the determining factor as to whether a licence is a new or old licence is the regulation under which the licence was issued; licences issued under subregulation 55B of the old regulations are old licences, and licences issued under new subregulation 5.09(1) are new licences

iii) your ATPL was issued in xxxx, which date was before new subregulation 5.09(1) existed, and therefore your ATPL, is not a new licence.

In regard to your old Senior Commercial Pilot Licence, my duty of care obligee me to alert you to the following aspects:

i) while the licence is valid and you may exercise all of the privileges of the licence, these privilege do not include privileges pertaining to any rating that was endorsed on the licence unless that rating has been renewed and is current. Under the provisions of regulation 59 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158, ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders. I mention this particularly because in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 a licence is defined as including any rating that is endorsed on the licence. I do not want you to be under the misconception that the privileges of the licence include privileges pertaining to a rating endorsed on the licence; and ii) subregulation 66(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158 specified that "the types and categories of aircraft for which a licence is valid shall be specified by endorsement in the licence". This means that you may fly, as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence No. xxxxx, only those aircraft that are endorsed in that licence. An endorsement of an aircraft type in another licence, (e.g. your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence), or in your pilot log-book under the provisions of CAR 5.23 (2), does not entitle you to fly that aircraft as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence. An endorsement in your pilot log-book does not apply to your SCPL because under tho terms of CAR Part 5, a SCPL is not a flight crew licence (see CAR 2, and CAR
5.08).

Should you have any further queries in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Graeme Smith, telephone (06) 268 4393 or facsimile (06) 268 4426.


Yours sincerely,

BOB COOK
Manager Flight Crew Licensing
Directorate of Aviation Safety Regulation

[blackhand]

I asked a simple question, Do I still have a SCPL? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:If you can't understand the simple answer they gave, perhaps you should hand your licence back. I do not believe that a ATPL holder would have problems with the answer.

[Arm out the window]

ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders

It is preposterous to postulate that there are any obfuscative passages in the Aviation Regulations of this fine nation, and I will expand on this prima-facie observation prior to the effluxion of my lunch break.

[Sarcs]

What's the matter Blackie missing your old combatant Kharon? Don't worry mate the ghost of K is still watching over you whilst you drown your sorrows at the local, I'm sure he'll make the return ferry trip when your time is up!:ok:

Meanwhile Blackie it appears your still rubbing shoulders with Creamy at the 'Mutual Blinkered Horse Brigade'....that should keep you somewhat amused between opening and last drinks..cause other than Frank you might as well be the invisible bloke in that musty corner of the bar!:E

[Frank Arouet]

I resemble that!:uhoh:

[blackhand]

@sarcs
Surely you see the irony of what you just said.
Or maybe pilots don't understand irony.

[Frank Arouet]

Most pilot's can't spell ironie. Ironye. Ironboard, (fkucit), let alone understand what it means. Can you please rephrase that?

Red is on the left if you are sitting in the aeroplane, that means port because it's the same colour, green is what you look like if you fly in black clouds. Sorry just thinking out aloud.... Oh fkuck that to hard. Which brings me to another point.... but that's off topic. I don't remember eating that!

[Pinky the pilot]

Arm out the window; You're Kevin Rudd, aren't you!:hmm::D

As for the subject of this thread; A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once spent a few hours going through my copy of the ANOs as they were at the time and afterwards stated that in some instances only a Lawyer would be able to understand them.:ugh:

He also claimed that he could fine several direct contradictions, ie one reg says no you can't and another reg said yes you can!

And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?

[Arm out the window]

Arm out the window; You're Kevin Rudd, aren't you!

Never mention him and me in the same sentence! Actually, Ruddy would probably say a few words in Mandarin as well, to add to the overall effect...

[Sunfish]

And the eternal refrain from the bureaucrats and lawyers:

"It means what it says".

[tail wheel]

And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?

Two months short of 23 years and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise. Don't worry, it is only our insignificant tax money.

[kaz3g]

Quote:
As I read it, it's saying "there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones."
Exactly, no ambiguity


Blackhand said: So, why doesn't it say that?


"Plain English" is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.

I'm a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn't take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.

The definition given to particular words, such as "terrain" should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn't deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.

kaz

kaz

[Pinky the pilot]

Never mention him and me in the same sentence

A thousand apologies Sir.:O

and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise

So I wonder how the sales of BMWs and Porsches have been in Canberra?:rolleyes:

[blackhand]

I'm a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying.And I'm a dumbass mechanic that failed to matriculate, and yet I can understand it.

[Creampuff]

I suspect you may have failed to matriculate around the same time I failed to matriculate. It was an era in which grammar and comprehension were taught in Primary school, to a higher standard than is reached by most university graduates these days. Sad really.

[foqa]

CASA sends the draft legislation to the Attorney General's department to be converted into the text we see in the Act and the Regulations.

[Captain Sand Dune]

The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General's website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn't it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand and work with, and turn it into something that requires a lawyer to navigate to. How fortuitous for them!:hmm:
However as Blackhand hinted at, isn't this just another symptom of the increasingly litigious society we live in? The vast majority of us are law abiding and sensible aviators, but it appears the regs are engineered to cater for the minority of idiots that fcuk it up for the rest of us.:mad:
Arm out the window; You're Kevin Rudd, aren't you! Now that's funny!:}

[Creampuff]

The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General's website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn't it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something …The lack of understanding evident in that statement is breathtaking but, unfortunately, ubiquitous. :{

CASA is created by one sentence in a law passed by the parliament.

CASA’s powers and functions are specified in laws passed by the parliament.

Delegated legislation must be made in accordance with laws passed by the parliament and the policies of the government of the day, then tabled for disallowance by the parliament. Regulations are made by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Only CAOs and small number of other legislative instruments are made by CASA. But they all have to be made, published and tabled in accordance with the same laws and policies.

The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)

The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators. :ugh:

[Up-into-the-air]

Just while we are at it, lets have a look at a real life regulation and compare the English in the CAR and that in the FAR's:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157
Low flying

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter -- 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter -- 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

AND the comparative FAR:

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

Just a bit easier to understand

[Mr.Buzzy]

Yep, a lot easier to understand and not a mention of Penalty units, Criminal codes, police, public floggings or lethal injection either!

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Captain Sand Dune]

Ooo-err! :eek: Looks like I’ve done gone and ruffled the wig of the resident lawyer. Well, it’s not the first time I’ve fallen afoul of the legal fraternity!

C.P.,
Firstly, thanks for the explanation of the legislative process. 27 years ago the rule book was less than half the size it is now. My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time. Back then a pilot was judged by their ability to operate an aircraft safely and efficiently both on the ground and in the air (anybody else remember that definition?!). These days it appears that the standard is now being able to quote chapter and verse from the ever-increasing and unnecessarily complex rules that seem to be designed to catch you out.:hmm:
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
Agree – mostly. However you have to concede that the increasingly litigious nature of our society is a key factor here. CASA are just tin-plating their asses here. And guess what – they’re not Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Not just the regulators. And don’t call me a punt.

[Creampuff]

My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time.No, it wasn’t just about that. You blamed CASA for that outcome:CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand CASA hasn’t ‘allowed’ anything. CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or - perhaps more importantly - what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.

You need to understand the metaphor about monkeys and organ grinders to understand my point.the increasingly litigious nature of our societyWhere is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?

[Captain Sand Dune]

CASA hasn’t ‘allowed’ anything OK then. CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or - perhaps more importantly - what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.] So you agree with me then?
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’? Oh you cannot be serious (spoken in my best John McEnroe voice)! You want "data"? Try the media for a start. Seems like every day there's a story about someone sueing someone else. It's becoming a national sport. I've even been threatened with legal action myself for proffering a professional opinion. They didn't have the guts to follow it through though.

[Frank Arouet]

Millions of Lawyers can't have chosen the wrong profession, surely?

I guess there must be a need for them.

[Creampuff]

You can’t tell the difference between CASA being allowed to do something, and CASA allowing something to be done, CSD? I suppose I should no longer be surprised at the number of pilots who are evidently functionally illiterate.

So ‘the media’ is your data, CSD? That would be the same media that are roundly criticized on PPRuNe, on the grounds of inaccuracy, whenever reports about matters relating to aviation are published?

‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?

[T28D]

CP


‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?

Maybe a little grand but based on the admissions adverts there surely isn't a shortage , and they all need to earn a buck , the amount of litigation is not a shrinking statistic.

[outnabout]

Sadly, it is now recognised that Australia is now the most litigious (sp?) society in the world - we have overtaken the good ole US of A in the number of lawsuits filed per head.

I also read recently in the media that Australia is one of the most regulated countries in the world. Commentators put this down to
a) our convict past (apparently we are very likely to do something unless we are specifically told not to), and
b) our enterprising spirit (even if we are specifically told not to, we will still try and bend the rules if if we reckon we can get away with it).

This means that in a bid to cover their arse, regulators then try to make sure the rules cover every potential possibility, no matter how unlikely or outlandish that possibility might be.

Sound familiar?

[Captain Sand Dune]

Seems you cant tell some people that though.:hmm:

[blackhand]

Seems you cant tell some people........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif
Oh the irony of it all, perhaps this thread should be renamed CASA and the Regs... Irony Please

[Frank Arouet]

Mentioning CASA and "the reg's" in the same sentence is like asking how goes the Regulatory Review Process.

It's probably not irony, but oxymoronic, or a waste of time.

I blame The Magna Carta for all those Lawyers.

Yes, yes. I know, a Mitsubshi Ute.

[Arm out the window]

I know, a Mitsubshi Ute.

Good one! Having a juvenile sense of humour I thought I'd heard most of those, but that's a newie to me.

Back to the debate / mud-slinging match, though; surely no-one can honestly claim our regs are produced with clarity of expression and ease of use as the uppermost priorities, can they?

If we accept that they aren't (as I do), my next question is: why not?

Yes, they must be legally tight and consistent, but surely CASA has a duty to produce stuff that bloody well works for the industry!

[Captain Sand Dune]

Yeah, but which industry?

[T28D]

The Legal Representation "Industry"

[Up-into-the-air]

There it is - Thanks T28D

Lets just be a "tosser" and toss out the old and replace them with the FAR's, with the necessary minor changes.

We would then align with the ICAO requirements [Get casa out of jail with the ICAO non-compliance's - all 2600 of them]

and

BINGO:

The GA and the rest of the avaiation community could get on with operating without fear or favour.

Do the Job??:D

[blackhand]

Get casa out of jail with the ICAO non-compliance's - all 2600 of them

Please explain

[Sarcs]

Blackie I think he meant to say 2600 'differences', although non-compliance has a familiar ring to it!:ok:

If you read the 'Final Report', see here:http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf
...it is very much written like a NCN/RCA, with applicable responses from the applicable government agency.

It would appear that unlike the Oz Maritime Laws, that are very much standardised worldwide, we have along way to go (if ever) before we adopt a similar suite of regs to either the EU or US!:ugh:

[Creampuff]

Of course there are no differences between the FARs and ICAO requirements, are there. :rolleyes:

[Sarcs]

Creamy since your so keen to defend the indefensible and as your an avid reader, I'll let you do the comparison:

http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/USA_CSA_Final_Report.pdf

...and the US score/pass mark:


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. aviation system received a score of 91 out of 100 in a new safety audit released today by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency that oversees international civil aviation.
“This audit by ICAO validates our systems approach to safety,” said Robert A. Sturgell, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “The results show that our priorities are in the right place.”
The U.S. score, which was well above the global average of 56, reflected U.S. compliance with over 9,500 international safety standards. The FAA led U.S. preparations for the audit, which also included the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The team of ICAO auditors conducted a comprehensive audit of all aspects of civil aviation in the United States, including aircraft operations and airworthiness, accident investigation, navigation services, airports, personnel licensing and legislation and regulations. The auditors interviewed technical experts and conducted site visits to government and industry facilities to assess overall safety oversight.
The Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program was established by ICAO in 1995 at the urging of the United States. It provides civil aviation authorities throughout the world with valuable information on the overall health and effectiveness of their airspace systems.


Trivia question: What was Australia's pass mark?

[T28D]

Creamy , You are being way to precious, FAA is a National body with a defined set of Regulations, ICAO is an oversight body that audits compliance Internationally.

The 2 are only coincident at the point of audit and compliance with the published international standard.

[Frank Arouet]

The latest from The CASA Briefing;

In the past month CASA has asked the aviation industry to comment on three important proposed parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. A notice of proposed rule making has been published for Part 119, which covers air operator’s certificates for passenger and cargo air transport. Drafts of Part 135 – air transport operations in small aeroplanes – and Part 133 – rotorcraft air transport operations – have also been released. In all three cases these proposed sets of rules are the culmination of years of work by both people in CASA and the aviation industry. In the case of Part 119 a total of 31 people are listed as having directly participated in the development of proposed regulations. This includes people from the major airlines, aviation academics and medium sized air operators. In addition, there has been previous broad consultation with the industry which allowed a wide range of other people to comment on the proposals. The draft regulations and proposed standards we are seeing now are the outcome of careful thought by many people about the future of aviation safety in Australia. They are most certainly not proposals created behind closed doors by CASA to be imposed on the aviation industry.

In fact, each new part of the suite of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is a piece of a mosaic designed to create an even safer aviation safety system for Australia. As far as is possible the new rules are based on International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommended practices and align with other leading aviation nations. The safety standards aim to address known risks and to improve the safety performance of organisations and individuals in aviation. In many areas of the proposed new rules there is a focus on building defences against organisational and individual failures that can jeopardise safety. Requirements for the establishment of safety management systems and the introduction of human factors training are examples of defences that we know will deliver better safety outcomes and these are being proposed where appropriate.

I understand that some people will look at the volume of proposed rules being released and feel a little overwhelmed and perhaps wonder why it is all happening now. The answer is that many of these regulatory parts are dependent on each other and only make sense when you can see the whole picture. If you are not directly affected by a set of proposed new regulations, you really only need to gain an understanding of the bigger picture, which you can quickly obtain from the summary information posted on the CASA web site. Naturally, if a set of rules impacts directly on your operations I would urge you to take the time to read the consultation material in more detail. There is more on the proposed Parts 119, 133 and 135 later in this edition of the CASA Briefing.

In summary, CASA will have the remaining new parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations made as law shortly, bringing an effective end to the regulatory reform program. CASA is very cognizant; however, that the major issue to be faced is the ability of the aviation industry to absorb change. In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.

CASA has gained significant momentum over the last few years with the establishment of the Regulatory Task Force, which was formed in concert with the Attorney General’s Department. We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative. However, CASA can and will moderate the commencement date of the new regulation suites and develop savings provisions as necessary as we assess the amount of transition that is required by the industry with the overriding caveat as explained above that many of the remaining regulatory parts are not viable as 'stand-alone' items: they must go as one package.

Once again, I urge you all to respond to our calls for comments so that Australia can move forward with a regulatory set that positions us at the forefront of the aviation industry world wide.

Best regards

John F McCormick

I particularly liked:

CASA has gained significant momentum over the last few years with the establishment of the Regulatory Task Force, which was formed in concert with the Attorney General’s Department. We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative.

[blackhand]

Whereas, after 23 years, I found this more interesting: In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.

[T28D]

Frank,
This We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative.

Translates as: We have the politicians well and truly bluffed.

[Sarcs]

Watch out Blackie "K" has docked the ferry and is off looking for lost souls!

Oh and Creamy here's a genuine letter of concern for you to send to your local MP, all you need do is cut and paste, put the applicable MP's name and address with your cursive down the bottom..then fwd on. Come on I know you want to.....certainly make's more sense than the 'skull spin' in the regulator's ripping yarns page!

To: the Member for Kickinatinalong.

Dear Member.

I am one of more than 100,000 people associated with aviation in Australia who will be voting in the impending Federal election. Like many of my colleagues I am deeply concerned about the present state of the industry, not only in terms of air safety but of the ability of the industry to remain viable under the present conditions. Could you please outline your party policy on the following important issues.

1) New Zealand, Canada and Papua New Guinea have each provided, using industry consultation, within a 5 year period an outcome based regulatory suite which has been welcomed by the national industry. Meanwhile, Australia remains internationally embarrassed by a suite of complex, prescriptive, criminal law based regulation which is legally and financially detrimental, unacceptable to and unusable by the industry, non compliant with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requirements, remains incomplete after 23 years and has so far cost in excess of two hundred million dollars.

2) The recent crash of an Air France Airbus claimed 256 lives; the report on the incident highlights many of the industry concerns related to pilot competency based training standards. These concerns were recently examined by the Senate and a 'white paper' was provided by the incumbent Minister. The industry believes the white paper to be a flawed, misleading, self serving document which solely allows the present Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to continue drafting incompetent regulation without the benefit of expert industry consultation or addressing the issues.

3) There is a strong support within the industry for dismantling the present Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and it's replacement with a Civil Aviation Administration as in other ICAO compliant countries. One major concern, amongst many, is the devastating effect the CASA is having on the industry in terms of operator, pilot and industry confidence. This is affecting the industry ability to attract investment, foster training and create employment. There exists a real, tangible need to examine all facets of the manner in which the CASA conducts business with the user pays industry it serves.

4) Air Traffic Services (ATS) to the Australian public are essential to safety. The current system has been progressively and systematically degraded to the point where, many believe the probability of a mid air collision has increased to crisis point. The service is understaffed, over managed; and, beginning to show signs of being irretrievably damaged by a shortage of skilled, qualified personnel. There exists in real time, a pressing need to provide the ATS with suitable equipment, the personnel to operate that equipment and a training system which returns Australia to a world class system for separating aircraft in the busy airspace surrounding our capital cities.

5) The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have through consultation developed an audit model which has been almost universally adapted by all responsible National Aviation Authorities. The industry believe that this model should be accepted and fully utilised in Australia. It is further acknowledged that Australia has one of the most lengthy 'differences' list with the ICAO system, approximately 2500 items, it is considered essential that this number be reduced and the industry returned to world best practice.

The points above serve to highlight just a few of the many aviation industry concerns. Would your government be prepared, through policy to announce an overhaul of the present system and return Australian aviation to its position as a world leader in safety and excellence?

Yours sincerely.

N. Aviator.

[thorn bird]

"CASA is very cognizant; however, that the major issue to be faced is the ability of the aviation industry to absorb change. In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down."

Pity their not cognizant of the "COST" and the industries ability to absorb it.
These idiots need to understand that there are limits to what people are prepared to pay for a service...when the costs get ridiculous people look for alternatives...I mean DUUH! isnt that the premise the "Ginger Ninja" is using to justify her Carbon TAX.
So Mr CASA if your few thousand pages of "B..llSh..t" drives the cost of aviation to that point where people wont pay for it what then?
You have nothing left to regulate.

[blackhand]

Looks like someone kicked over the kava bowl on the Ferry.

[Frank Arouet]

there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.

What was his name?

[blackhand]

What was his name?:ok: Frankly, that is funny. I don't think any Aviation participants would want anymore time after nearly 23 years.

[Kharon]

The latest blurb, issued by 'he who must not be named' worries me more than any of the previous scripts provided from Yes Minister; it shows a new strategy.

Just have a read of some of the current rubbish on offer, talk to the engineers (those that have stayed in business) then decide. It will do no good to whinge and whine after this mess becomes law; and, by the sounds of it, there is a whole load of 'new' law heading your way. There is a little time before the next election.

So far the 'new' regulations have provided a garbled mix of CAO and CAR loaded in favour of the regulator, larded with Draconian threats and seasoned with complex language. The next step will be to dump a load of unworkable rubbish into the industry lap and say – 'there you go boys, new regs'. Then it becomes the industry problem, not theirs. Yes Minister, we delivered, not our fault the industry can't work them. We consulted, we redrafted and we provided.

Have the regulations been reformed and remodelled in compliance with ICAO and the rest of the world? or have we just been handed a stew of the same of old crap, reformatted to suit.

[Sarcs]

Reformatted for sure gets my vote!:{

After all what do you expect from a bunch of geriatrics, who are totally disenfranchised from the mainstream industry stakeholders!:ugh:

Skull's spiel from the July edition of 'Ripping Yarns' is almost word for word from the bureaucratise book of spin, he even has the audacity to blame certain operators for current delays. Oh but haven't I heard that before somewhere??...
More time for input on new rules


The aviation industry is being given more time to consider key proposals for reform of the aviation safety regulations.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is extending the cut-off date for comments on six detailed safety reform documents.

This follows calls from many sections of the aviation industry to allow extra time for careful consideration of the reform proposals.

CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, says industry comment is vital in getting the new safety regulations right.

“The new regulations will set the framework for aviation safety in Australia for the first part of this Century, so it is critical they are the best we can achieve,” Mr Toller says.

“CASA can’t do this alone – we need to draw on the expertise and knowledge of as many people in the aviation industry as possible.

“In recent weeks a number of people have told me they are very keen to comment on these proposals but they simply need more time.

“These Discussion Papers and Notices of Proposed Rule Making are large documents and some of the issues are complex, so it is only sensible to allow as much time as possible for comment.

“I urge people in aviation in Australia to give their input to the proposed reforms so we can refine and improve on the drafts.”

CASA is extending the comment deadline until August 31 for six reform documents.

These cover pilot licensing, flying training, air operator certification, large air transport operations and small air transport operations.

The consultation documents have been issued by CASA as part of the program of rewriting Australia’s aviation safety regulations.

Oh and the proforma spiels let's see....here's one from 1999:


CASA MediaRelease - 29 June 1999
CASA's ambitious reform program


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is setting itself an ambitiousprogram of reform for the future, according to the new Chairman Dr PaulScully-Power.

Dr Scully-Power says CASA is committed to continuing the rewriting of Australianaviation regulations and to fair and consistent enforcement of the rules.

He says aviation regulations will be simpler and easier to follow and willmove closer to international standards.

"The CASA Board has a clear vision of the changes and reforms whichare required to help improve the safety record of aviation in Australia andwill work to ensure they are embraced by everyone in CASA and theindustry," Dr Scully-Power says.

"Our long term goal is to make flying as easy as possible for everyonein Australia who complies with the rules and acts responsibly.

"In the short term CASA has a number of important projects under waythat will deliver real benefits to the aviation industry and the travellingpublic.

"The most important of these projects is the continuing work torewrite the aviation safety regulations.

"This is a huge job which has been progressing for some time and willtake many more months to complete.

"Right now the new regulations governing Airworthiness Directives arebeing finalised and should come into effect by the end of October this year.
"Rules relating to Aircraft Registration and Markings will berewritten in the second half of this year."
....and 2002!

CASA Media Release - Thursday 17 October 2002
New air safety rules to help industry


A new analysis shows the restructuring of Australia’s aviation regulations will greatly simplify and clarify air safety requirements.

More than 900 civil aviation regulations and orders will be organised into 53 key categories under the new structure of the air safety rules.

This user-friendly approach will make it easier for people in the aviation industry to find the right rules for their operation.

The categories – known as Parts under the new structure – cover areas such as airworthiness, maintenance, licensing, flight rules, air transport operations and aerodromes.

At the moment people working in a small airline or charter business must follow specific rules for their type of operation, which are contained in more than 95 different civil aviation regulations and orders.

Under the new structure all the rules dedicated to small airlines and charter operations will be in a single category – Part 121B.

Large airlines currently follow rules specific to their operations which are located in more than 65 different regulatory areas. These will now be grouped into one category – Part 121A.

General operating and flight rules are now spelt out in at least 95 regulations and orders. These will be located in a single category – Part 91.

CASA’s Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Bruce Gemmell, says the new analysis of the regulatory reform programme is a real eye-opener.

“The proposed new structure has been around for a while but no-one has sat down and looked carefully at it’s impact in this way,” Mr Gemmell says.

“The good news is that the impact is very, very positive. The life of everybody involved in aviation in Australia will be a great deal easier under this simpler, clearer regulatory structure.

“Under the new rules you can go to a clear subject area to look up the regulations and requirements specific to your aviation operations. Naturally, for most people there will still be generally applicable rules that will be contained in other Parts.

“But the bottom-line is that under the new structure it will be easier to find the air safety requirements relevant to your operation.

“Of course, there’s a lot more to the reform of the regulations than just restructuring, however the benefits of this initiative alone are now obvious.”

As Kelpie would say..."more to follow!"

[Sozjot]

If the industry was represented by a single voice (the same way the medical industry have the vocal and influential AMA) CASA would not exist most likely. I mean, who is the regulator for doctors and hospitals? When did you last see the medical regulator kicking ambulance tyres and counting bedpans at a hospital and then dangling your livelihood in front of you because they were displeased?

While we continue to allow the People's Front of Judea (AIPA/AFAP) and the Judean People's Front (TWU) and the Judean Popular People's Front (ALAEA) and the myriad of other well meaning sectional interest groups to be the voice of industry there is no hope of containing the Romans (CASA).

Someone will tell me I'm wrong no doubt:(

[Frank Arouet]

It starts at "the grass roots" of general aviation before it gets to the Industrial Unions.

When you have, what used to be, a one man operation in the bush, training and doing the odd charter, turn into a multi faceted CASAcentric, paper intensive, AOC regulatory overburden operation with criminal consequences, you have what we have now. A "clusterfcuk"

I have always said, there is no democracy on the flight deck, so the concept of a large number of "alpha" males/ (females) getting together and coming to any concensus is pure fantasy.

Asking our benevolent regulator to bin those same qualifications that got them the job in the first place, is similarly fantasy. We need leaders, not psychopaths in all facets of the industry.

1) CASA should regulate as as a CAA.

2) ATSB should investigate.

3) Federal police should prosecute.

Government needs to address item 1) first, as the regulations are unworkable for the other parties.

[Arm out the window]

1) CASA should regulate as as a CAA.

2) ATSB should investigate.

3) Federal police should prosecute.


That would require a special federal copper aviation squad, wouldn't it? But I think you're right that CASA needs to be less Gestapo and more leading light.

[Sarcs]

That would require a special federal copper aviation squad, wouldn't it?

There already is an AFP aviation squad, I believe their acronym is JAIT or JAT for Joint Aviation (Investigation) Teams....and Frank I think it should be:
1) CASA should regulate as as a CAA.

2) ATSB should investigate accidents/incidents.

3) AFP investigate breaches of the Civil Aviation Act.

4) CDPP should decide whether to prosecute.


The irony of 4) is that in JQ's case the CDPP decided not to prosecute...but the regulator decided to go on with it regardless!!:ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

Before I have any faith in the CDDP, I would firstly like to see what happens with "the Slipper affair". Too many "incidents" have been buried here by higher authority.

Also one should be aware that most of the old OLC network now work for, or act for CDDP. (only a rumour, as strong as it came, but this is a rumour network isn't it)?

[T28D]

Frank, Ah the CDPP the legal hall of fame, possibly the most inept bunch in the country.

In W.A. a Prosecutor completely stuffs Andrew Mallards life who gets a life jail term but the prosecutor is subsequently found to have run the case incompetently, result = $10,000 fine after he resigned and got a $270,000.00 payout. Mallard gets released by the Supreme court after 12 years, exonerated with a State $3.0million ex gratia payout.

I know not aviation related and state based but demonstrates the breathtaking way the various DPP protect their own.

Just a demonstration of the way the Criminal Justice system operates.

[LeadSled]

---- CASA needs to be less Gestapo

Don't you mean Airstapo??

At least the new proposals to make all the raw data from ATSB incident reports available to CASA --- "for enforcement purposes" will greatly reduce the workload for both organizations, as the flow of reports to ATSB ceases!!

Tootle pip!!!

[Creampuff]

GestapoGodwin’s Law proved again! :D

[Arm out the window]

as the flow of reports to ATSB ceases!!


:D

Very amusing, but how true!

[Kharon]

Here are a small part of some of the 'new' regulations at work in a hanger near you.

Maintenance mayhem for general aviation – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/07/maintenance-mayhem-for-general-aviation/)

There are no prizes on offer for guessing what comes next .http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

This Financially irresponsible, legally incompetent and morally bankrupt system cannot, any longer be allowed to dictate or manage the industry it is paid to serve. :ugh:

[blackhand]

It appears the regulations need to be in Braille, not English.

[Kharon]

CP - Godwin’s Law proved again.

Finally, they got one that works. That just leaves us how many to go. Oh, I give up but it's lots and lots. :D

[Sunfish]

You don't seem to understand very much at all Blackhand.

The regulations are not written "in plain English".

The regulations do not "mean what they say".

This AAT decision demonstrates how one or more CASA staff perverted the meaning of the word "generally" in one of many perverse and badly written regulations to cause misery and expense to a number of operators. Anyone like to work out how much this has cost the industry?

Caper Pty Ltd T/a Direct Air Charter and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 181 (21 March 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2011/181.html)



CASA contended that Caper, contrary to its AOC, was conducting RPT operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island. CASA claimed that Caper's operation did not fall within the description of charter operations in either CAR 206(1)(b)(i) or (ii). That was because those operations were in accordance with fixed schedules, to and from fixed terminals, for the purpose of transporting persons or cargo generally.

Although I have found that Caper operated between Darwin and Bathurst Island in accordance with fixed schedules, to and from fixed terminals, that operation does not fall under the definition of RPT. That is because the accommodation on Caper's aircraft in that operation is not available for use by persons generally. In my opinion, reading the adverbial clause in CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) in accordance with its grammatical construction makes it clear that the word generally qualifies the adjective available and not the noun persons. In other words, an operation is a charter operation where accommodation in the aircraft is not generally available for use by persons. The adverb, generally, cannot qualify or modify the noun persons. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the way in which the expression has been understood by CASA. It has resulted in attempts to distinguish charter from RPT on a basis which makes no sense and is not related to the safety of air navigation. In my opinion, the correct way in which CAR 206 should be understood will alleviate those problems.

I have also briefly examined the validity of CAR 206(1)(b) in general. I have found that because that regulation is merely concerned with definitions, it has been lawfully made under s 98 of the Act. Unlike the earlier Air Navigation Regulations dealing with the licensing of air operations, following the commencement of the 1988 Act, s 28 is where CASA derives its power to control the commercial operations of AOC holders. Those matters are no longer dealt with under the regulations.

I find that the decision made by CASA on 7 September 2010 to cancel one of the authorisations contained in Caper's AOC in respect of its operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island for the purpose of conducting the Tiwi Islands tours was incorrect. I set aside that decision and instead determine that the conditions on Caper's AOC should remain unaltered. Caper should be permitted to continue with its charter operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island.


........And of course the good member Fice, cannot rule on whether this was malicious or just stupidity.

[Defenestrator]

CASA appealed this decision and won. Saw the document. Interesting times ahead for all chaRPT operators.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Interesting times ahead for all chaRPT operators.

Can you name one, just one, sham charter/RPT operator?

[Up-into-the-air]

Do you have a reference DEF

CASA appealed this decision and won. Saw the document. Interesting times ahead for all chaRPT operators.

[Creampuff]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1213 (2 November 2012)

[Up-into-the-air]

The reference for all to see is:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1213 (2 November 2012) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1213.html)

[Horatio Leafblower]

So by my reading of that, every scenic operation in Australia has just been shut down.

...Creampuff? Would you agree?

[601]

I would like to see an interpretation of carriage in a aircraft from a fixed terminal to a fixed terminal in which the seats are sold on a individual basis and that the flights are available from 08:00 until 17:00 daily.

HL, sorry about that, I should refresh before adding a post. It took a while to read the decision.

[Horatio Leafblower]

The next level of air operation is charters - both open and closed - as described in subregs 206(1)(b)(i) and (ii). These types of operation attract a higher level of regulatory attention. The risk to the public in such charter operations is limited in different ways in each category.

In an open charter, carriage of the general public is contemplated but only if it is not to be performed on a fixed schedule to and from fixed terminals.

In a closed charter, carriage may be undertaken on a fixed schedule to and from fixed terminals but the general public may not be carried. Whatever risks the passengers are exposed to in a closed charter, those risks are confined to a closed group.

So it would appear that, like all things, it is all a matter of timing. For a Bungles or Lake Eyre flight it is a matter of simply waiting for the punters to rock up, and go when they are ready. No more the massed first-light departures of 206s and 207s from KNX it seems.

What about longer trips, like the Belray tours through Argyle Diamond Mine? The inclusion of "lunch" in the price would appear to infer the operator is setting a schedule, would it not? :rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

A quick read of the decision shows us the problem. The learned judges have taken note of the purpose of the act - to prevent accidents. One way to do this, consistent with the act, is to prevent aviation entirely. There is no modifying clause such as "consistent with reasonable commercial endeavors" or suchlike.

So the judges at about sect 51 have simply said that the law requires interpretation with regard to the purpose of the act, and if CASA interprets capers operation as RPT then that trumps the grammatical interpretation used by the tribunal.

To put it another way, words mean what CASA say they mean, not what you think they mean.

[blackhand]

So by my reading of that, every scenic operation in Australia has just been shut down.
Perhaps not, fixed terminal to nother terminal maybe, once round the block and land at starting point is air work.
The Judgement wasn't about the regs, it was about the AATs incorrect grammatical interpretation of the single words rather than the whole sentence.

[Stan van de Wiel]

I find it strange that in the Caper decision no mention was made of the second reading of the Bill by Dept P.M Anderson in 1998 - it refers to CASA having a Safety role and not a Commercial one. All reference to Commercial to be removed? Wouldn't such a direction ( Acts Interpretation Act 1901) be an Original Intent overriding most that went before.

In their submission to the Court CASA have established that Charter is much more dangerous than RPT with a similar aircraft. Having established this in Court, why have they let Charter flying continue knowing it is so unsafe. Once this was discovered over 14 years ago, why didn't they immediately ground all Charter operators. I know of several cases where a Charter flight ended with fatal outcome. Does this make CASA complicit ? Any thoughts?

I conducted RPC note not RPT for nearly a year, halfway through my AOC was even renewed. When the interposed entity was changed to another, the whole of the operation became unsafe??? overnight, same pilots, same aircraft why didn't Caper use this approval ? Same situation even condoned by OLC and the CDPP.

The inter office emails soon to be released!

Stan

[Sunfish]

Blackhand, I am an occasional SCUBA diver. I always dive with a world renowned live aboard dive operator out of Cairns.

That dive tour operator advertises that a highlight part of the Seven to Ten day trip to the barrier reef and beyond is a flight either to or from Lizard Island and Cairns over the reef itself to meet or leave the boat.

These flights used to be conducted in a "convoy" in Two or Three Twins as they were the largest to land on Lizard.

Now these are RPT? The "airline" component of the price of the trip is derisory, your bar bill is bigger.

Furthermore, I question the issue of "schedule" in the case of Mike Ball Diving, and Kings the schedule is theirs, not the "airline". I wonder if the Judges might like to consider this matter?

[Creampuff]

I reckon both the AAT and the Federal Court have erroneous reasoning in their decisions, but I reckon the AAT’s is less wrong than the Federal Court’s.

But my opinion on the question is irrelevant: the Federal Court’s decision is binding unless successfully appealed or distinguished/overturned.

This is merely another example of many that have arisen – unnecessarily - from a chronically incompetent and therefore unproductive regulatory reform process.

FFS: Fix 206!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Rang my FOI to seek clarification on this one.

He seemed to infer that a "scenic" flight could occur from A back to A, but if you need to make a landing at an intermediate point before returning the same passengers to A "thats a bit too far to be a scenic flight".

Is there a new arm to the definition of RPT?
- persons generally
- to & from fixed terminals
- too far to do without refuelling.

Is it the company's place to suggest a departure time, or does that make it a fixed schedule?

Is it the company's place to suggest a route for a scenic flight, or does that make it "to and from fixed terminals"?

My FOI suggested that it will all be clearer in a couple of years. I am hugely relieved.

I could send (another) letter to my local member but I am pretty sure that a serial pest will be the one that gets the regulator's full attention! :=

[Stan van de Wiel]

He seemed to infer that a "scenic" flight could occur from A back to A, but if you need to make a landing at an intermediate point before returning the same passengers to A "thats a bit too far to be a scenic flight".

Did your FOI happen to define what that flight would then be classified as?

Several times a year Croydon Travel conduct scenic flights to Antarctica, as an interposed entity who don't appear to have an AOC but use Qantas aircraft this appears to meet the ($$$$$) requirements of the Regs. To the best of my knowledge Qantas don't have this route on their AOC. I'm not suggesting there is a safety issue, but why do they need Croydon Travel?

Another better example is Captains Choice. Flies to a schedule - fixed terminals - open to the public if you can afford it. But then it's not G.A. Stupid of me.

[blackhand]

Stan, from Croyden site - Flights aboard a privately chartered Qantas 747 are included and last approximately 12.5 hours.
Maybe because no refuel stop and once round the block, although is a big block
Sunfish - Now these are RPT? The "airline" component of the price of the trip is derisory, your bar bill is bigger. Good question and after dealing with an FOI for four hours today, who I believe dropped a tab of LSD for breakfast, they could decide anything.

[Up-into-the-air]

It took some reading, but again the effects of poorly worded legislation in reg 206 is again on us all.

From the FCA finding:


41. The effect of s 27 of the Act is that if a commercial air activity is not prescribed in reg 206 then the operator of the aircraft does not require an AOC.

It is common ground between the parties that:

(a) in order to operate a commercial air charter service an AOC is required by operation of subreg 206(1)(b).

(b) Caper holds an AOC, issued on 10 Feb 2010, authorising it to conduct passenger carrying charter operations, in Australian territory, in specified Australian registered aircraft; and

(c) Caper is not and has never been authorised under its AOC to operate RPT services as defined by subreg 206(1)(c).The effect here really becomes one where casa is regulating a commercial operation, not dealing with the underlying operation to ensure that the operation is operated safely.


and further:

48, As a result the Tribunal was required to look behind the immediate textual content of subregs 206(1)(b)(ii) and (c) and carefully consider the scheme of the statutory provisions that prescribe the “commercial purposes” for which an AOC is required. The determination of the dispute rested on a choice between two different interpretations, and in construing the two provisions the Tribunal was required to apply an interpretation that would promote the purpose of the Act rather than one that would not. In my view it did not do so.Again, is casa now to be the purveyor of the "commercial purposes"?

The effect of a completely separate entity [AAT] ringing the charter operator [Caper] and saying "We need an aircraft for a 9AM flight this week, but don't know how many persons for the tour we are running, we will advise prior" has not at all been considered, nor the potential response of "Will you let us know the numbers and weight so we can decide whether a Chieftain or the 206 is available" has not at all been considered.

That the FOI in the matter has rung AAT or Caper, to get a seat, but was told that he could only get a seat by being part of a tour indicates that the flight is available only for a specific purpose.

To provide a flight for AAT customers to "Do the Tiwi tour" - surely a charter operation and in effect similar to that of a "regular" charter [RPT] by the Fly-In-Fly-Out [FIFO\ operators as described by the FCA judge.

One of the quoted cases is worth a read as to the matter of "Head of Power", and it's relevance in this matter.

The quotation available at:

Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72 ALJR 841 (28 April 1998) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/28.html)

We can take this further, remembering that the Caper matter has gone to the Tribunal, where they were successful. casa applies "double jeopardy" and goes to the Federal Court [The AAT, stands in the shoes of the Regulator] and the learned Judge, quotes the following:

...the duty of a court is to give the words of a statutory provision the meaning that the legislature is taken to have intended them to have. Ordinarily, that meaning (the legal meaning) will correspond with the grammatical meaning of the provision. But not always. The context of the words, the consequences of a literal or grammatical construction, the purpose of the statute or the canons of construction may require the words of a legislative provision to be read in a way that does not correspond with the literal or grammatical meaning.The key words are "...the duty of a court...."

Last time I looked, the AAT was not a Court!!!

If casa wants it this way, as Harvey [the casa million dollar man] appears to, then all the evidence must be to that standard, an issue in many cases, that has not been met.

Just look at some of the pprune posts to this time.

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is another beauty:

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/soilmaster/uploads%20to%20pprune/senateQON_zps38ae228b.png

Came up in a Senate Questions on Notice []Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1213/infra/index.htm) at question 155 and at "attachment" for full document.

Just engrish mr. casa!

[blackhand]

Grade 5 English Mr Up Into The Air, should be enough to understand the memo.
Considering that it was an internal memo one hopes the staff understood.

[rutan around]

Let's have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words. First prize to be sponsored by CASA :- 1 hardbound copy of all CASA rules and regulations. You may submit more than one entry. Who's going to have a go? Winner chosen by a vote in 3 days time.

[Arm out the window]

Let's have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words

If I was to attempt to interpret it, I'd say it means 'If you get information from anyone you mustn't tell them you won't use it.'

Sadly, it's clearly a legal arse-covering statement rather than a simple informative message. I can see why legal documents get so complex, eg:

"Were you aware you shouldn't make an agreement not to divulge this information?"
"Yes, but I didn't make an agreement, I gave him a nod and a wink."
"Ah yes, but as clearly stated in this Minute dated 27 July 2011, that would imply an agreement, would it not?"
"Take me away, guv, you got me.",

but f*#& me, that's no way to write operating rules. Of course you need the legal basis, but as anyone who has had to read a legal contract knows, the language can be damn near impenetrable sometimes.

[tecman]

As a sentence, it's complete crap. A reasonable reader has to scan it several times to figure out which are the subjects, and which the objects. Plainer language, shorter clauses and a few dot points would make the message much clearer. It amazes me that legal folk can still peddle a mess like this and get paid for it.

And yes, the intention is pretty dubious, too!

[Stan van de Wiel]

In its SAFETY function it simply means that:

"CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense. any communication shall be in the normal illegitimate manner". (25 words)

There shall therefore be no "show cause notices" or "Christmas cards" or Licenses or AOC applied for or issued.

It is quite straight forward, no hiding behind excuses, business as usual.

I thought German and Dutch had long sentences! but this must be a world record for Engrish.

Should my entry be the winning one, what assurance have I got that I wont have to take the sponsor to Court?

[Stan van de Wiel]

wouldn't this be a great statement for Fice to decipher as he did in the "Direct Air" case, his decision only to be overturned in the Fed Court appeal on the basis of the "original intent" -

The original, "original intent" was the protection of a Duopoly under the Two Airline (Act) the hearing never got that far. Too much information for his Honour, CASA never raised it as it would only prolong the hearing and cost the "victim" more money! very considerate!

My earlier response clearly allows for such intent. Same has been established case after case - CASA's original intent has always been to get rid of their "victim"

"empty skies are safe skies"

[Arm out the window]

"empty skies are safe skies"

:D Nice one Mr van de Wiel

[Frank Arouet]

Stwange is the JUL of 11 minute, that it is from The Office of Diwecter Aviation Safety to all Exec Managers, which I assume is The Execututive Diwecter, and cc to himself and the deputy Diwecter.

Why is he writing letters to himself?

Was this discussed over morning tea and why was it presented in minute form?

(no quorum perhaps)?

Just how many Diwercers do we need?

Weelly and twoolley, this is just too much!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Is that statement consistent with principles of a 'just culture'?

Say somebody reports an issue as concerned of a wider safer risk in the industry.

CAA reporting system defines 'Just Culture' | CAA Newsroom | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=1975)

[601]

CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense.

So that is why I cannot get a straight answer:ugh:

[Sunfish]

"No one in CASA is ever to sign a confidentiality agreement or verbally agree to the same."

Sound principle, I've seen some real shockers. Usually the more bloodthirsty the penalties in the confidentiality agreement, the shonkier the proposal. People like the venture capital arm of N. M. Rothschild won't sign them either.

[rutan around]

Let's have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words

My interpretation, after 23 readings and only one fight with Mrs RA:

Oi, all yous CASA mob, don't promise nobody nuffing. (9 words)

[Up-into-the-air]

Here's another one, just published on 20th February 2013:

Project AS 12/45
Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007)

Issue

The Airspace Regulations require amendment to remove ambiguity, enable applicability in the operational environment and to cater for the needs of Australia's security authorities.

Without action, the validity of the delegation powers in use could be questioned, the validity of the application of the ARs to certain security scenarios could be questioned and complicated systems of legislative action will continue to be required to achieve simple safety outcomes operationally.

Project Objective

To make amendments to the Airspace Regulations in two (2) phases:

PHASE 1:

Clarify the delegation powers:

The Airspace Regulation delegation powers are unclear and require amendment to remove all doubt. Regulation 13 should make specific that the powers may be delegated to CASA airspace regulation officers and Military airspace regulation officers.

Cater for the needs of Australia's Security Authorities:

The Airspace Act (Part 1, Section 3) identifies certain matters that are to be taken into account to ensure that Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely. This includes "national security". This term is insufficient to cover the various security needs that the OAR has been requested by the Government to enforce through the exercise of the Airspace Regulations. The changes made will remove any ambiguity.

PHASE 2:

1. Legislative Instruments Regulations Exemption

An exemption is sought under the Legislative Instruments Regulations 2004, Schedule 1, Part 2 (1A) for designations/directions made under Regulation 11/12. Air Traffic Control (ATC) providers may describe air routes verbally if operationally required. The air routes which are legislated do not cover flex routes or those made verbally by ATC providers, and are therefore incomplete. Pilots may request any particular way of reaching a destination as ATC has the ability to approve this.

Therefore, registering a small and incomplete set of air routes is of little value. Aviation maps show the common air routes in use and this is sufficient as a guide. The changes proposed are in accordance with ICAO Annexes, the Airspace Act and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.

I hope this one is clear as well - I won't read the docs as these will only confuse me further.

About time to get rid of this lot then???

[Up-into-the-air]

Another one for the Engrish:

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/soilmaster/uploads%20to%20pprune/casainstrumentoar081June2012_zpsd2cae465.png

[Up-into-the-air]

Thanks to Compressor stall [http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/509636-given-casa-photo-recently-no-stump-up-5500-a.html], try this:

61.370 Provision of photograph

(1) The holder of a flight crew licence commits an offence if:

(a) the holder exercises the privileges of the licence after the end of 10 years beginning:

(i) when the licence was granted; or

(ii) if the holder holds more than one flight crew licence—when the holder's most recent licence was granted; and

(b) the holder has not, before the exercise of the privileges, given CASA a photograph of the holder:

(i) showing the holder's full face and his or her head and shoulders; and

(ii) taken not earlier than 6 months before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is another one, this time what is on the casa web site and what FF's CEO told the Senate inquiry in February.

See: CASA – Actions against Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=352)

Just have a look at who the author is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

About this charter

The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.

We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.

We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.

The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.

The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.

Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.

This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’.

It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.

We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.

[aroa]

and the crapspeak. Ggrrrr!! :mad:

This is how CASA persons and others while away their time, writing meaningless sh*te that nobody takes any notice of. :mad:

Millions of person hours and squillions of dollars for what. Its a bit like a dole office really paying people to do "pretend" work. :mad:

Benefit to the Common wealth is......????
Keeps them off the streets. Recycles tax funds. Any others?? :eek:

[Up-into-the-air]

Another one for you all:

Post Implementation Review of CASR Part 99.B - Drug and alcohol management plans

Issue

In March 2009, Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 was introduced to cover drug and alcohol management plans (DAMP) and testing.

Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA. Since its original conception, there have been various implementation issues raised that require regulatory amendments to ensure transparency and continued high safety standards.

Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:


Definition of safety sensitive vs safety critical activities/ roles that are required to be covered by DAMPs and DAMP testing
Definition of SSAA employee to be covered by DAMP
Definition of post-accident or serious incident as this affects testing requirements


DAMP responsibility and coverage issues e.g. contractors The Drug and Alcohol Education Program requirement - should CASA supply this program?


The requirement for pre-deployment testing
Ensuring DAMP testing is meeting the relevant Australian Standard
Should there be an industry requirement for random testing?
Reporting requirement from organisation to CASA following a confirmed positive test
Improving the return to work 'response program' model

These are primarily regulatory amendment issues to be clarified that will help increase regulatory understanding from industry. The amendments will also improve unnecessary costs and resourcing issues that are faced by DAMP organisation which will in turn increase compliance while maintaining the same safety standards.

The last para is a "doosey"

and those involved:

Project management

Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe - Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division

[my oleo is extended]

Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe - Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards DivisionHmmmm. Some of the usual project persons in that lot!
It all sounds like a load of pony poohshan to me!

I am surprised one of the other bald Camberra'ites isn't involved in this project as a sponsor? The one who normally likes to surround himself with people who get their hands dirty while he wins all that accolades.

Anyway, its all bollocks.

[Up-into-the-air]

I thought I recognised them as well!!!

The "usual suspects" EH!!

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is another, but look at the apparent kick in the tail:

Project SS 13/04
CASR Part 117 - Representations and surveys Issue

Creation of a part in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) - Part 117 to deal with regulatory requirements [I]that don't precisely fit into the CASR Parts.

This part will also serve as a future home for some new regulations with respect to proposed amendments to the Act that will provide a new head of power for matters currently unregulated.

Project Objective

The development of Part 117 will involve the relocation of CAR 210 from the CARs to the CASR's, consolidation and updating of the survey requirements as a result of the Part 141 amendments.

Status

This project was approved by Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division on 18 March 2013.

Rules affected

CAR 210

Project management

Project Leader/s: Grant Mazowita
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Grant Mazowita
Project Priority
High

Project SS 13/04

History
SCC

My bolding - Comments??

[my oleo is extended]

Comments?? Ok, here is one - 'Its sh#t'.
And I see Herr Boyd has a different lapdog on this project! He goes through project people like the Skull goes through stoogies.
Rumour is that those who do all of his work but produce bad results are cut loose, those who make him look good are kept along for the ride until no longer needed!
That's today's lesson from 'CASA Management 101'.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The big mistake was having half based on FAR's and half based on EASA regulations. EASA and FAA probably advised use one or the other we don't care which one. It now looks like there is going to be middle reg's to join the mismatches.

Is it true that maintenance reg's were not going to accept APMA, which is a fundamental part of Part 21?

[Volumex]

Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA.
How long has "oversighted" been a real word!
They might have been looking for "overseen", or perhaps their considered opinion was that "oversight" might be far more appropriate. (as in "that was an oversight on CASA's part")

[Arm out the window]

You have to love officialese, don't you? Without derailing this into a grammar rant, people 'have oversight' of things these days, they don't supervise them.

They also 'sign off on' things, rather than just sign them.

Good, I feel better now!

[Up-into-the-air]

Here's the latest on the update at post # UITA Project: SS 13/04

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100199/draft-proposed-casr-part117.pdf

117.015 Safety-related surveys or questionnaires—holders of certain civil aviation authorisations
(1) CASA may, by written notice given to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), direct the person to:
(a) complete a safety-related survey or questionnaire by accurately answering all questions in the survey or questionnaire; and
(b) submit the completed survey or questionnaire to CASA within the time stated in the notice.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are the following:
(a) the holder of an AOC;
(b) a Part 141 operator who conducts flight training in aircraft.
(3) The person may, before the end of the time stated in the notice, apply in writing to CASA for an extension.
(4) CASA may, by written notice given to the person (the notice of extension), grant the extension.
(5) The person commits an offence if the person does not comply with the direction within:
(a) if CASA grants an extension under subregulation (4)—the time stated in the notice of extension; or
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the time stated in the notice under subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(6) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.How can this be done??

(a) complete a safety-related survey or questionnaire by accurately answering all questions in the survey or questionnaire;You all know the pass rate in the ATPL is about 50% - A questionaire, by definition does not have specific answers!!

[aroa]

According to the Rule of Law Institute, coercive powers are the new tool , and most sort after power for crazy bureaucrats, bureaucrazies and others.

Is 117.015 in fact, legal. ??

Does CASA have proper laws to legally blackmail a person into answering a questionaire with the threat of 50 penalty points under strict liability?.:eek:

Probably not..but BS rules.OK

What happened to the right to remain silent.? One doesn't have to say anything that may incriminate yourself or others

You could make some deliberate or accidental wrong answers and you are still not off the hook because CASA specifies.."accurate answers"
Who decides whether an answer is "accurate" or not?.
Some office plonker who doesnt comprehend the meaning of the question either.? Or just doesnt like the answer, or it's not considered "correct" in their opinion? WTF! :mad:

IMHO this is yet another example for a)... getting yr rights trampled, :mad:
..and b) ... telling CASA to FCUK OFF.:ok:

Unless the Industry fights back, this sort of thing will get steadily worse.
As if it isnt bad enough already ! :mad:

The rule of Law ? ...or the "Law" of Rules. Your call.

[thorn bird]

Aroa cant understand why you have your knickers in a knot???
Everything is "Fine" in Australia......
There's a fine for everything!!!!

[my oleo is extended]

How long has "oversighted" been a real word!
They might have been looking for "overseen", or perhaps their considered opinion was that "oversight" might be far more appropriate. (as in "that was an oversight on CASA's part")
You forgot 'over the hill', which aptly describes the silly old tosspots at the helm of the 'S.S CASA'........

"Aviation, what aviation?"

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is the latest - Someone, please explain this to me.

28 March 2013
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013

PART 1 GENERAL
1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013.
2 Commencement
2.1 This instrument commences on 30 April 2013.
2.2 Despite paragraph 2.1, the provisions of this instrument take effect for an AOC holder and an FCM in accordance with subsection 4.
3 Repeals
3.1 On 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) is repealed, namely CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4.
3.2 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Amendment Orders (CAAOs) is repealed, namely CAAO (No. R47) 2004, CAAO (No. R48) 2004, CAAO (No. R49) 2004, CAAO (No. R50) 2004 and CAAO (No. R51) 2004.
3.3 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each CAO mentioned in paragraph 3.1, and each CAAO mentioned in paragraph 3.2, as continued in force by subregulation 335 (2) of CAR 1988 as if it had been made on 4 December 2013 under regulation 210A of CAR 1988, is repealed.
If you would like to read it all:

Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00628)

[Up-into-the-air]

Here's the latest "casa speak" released today [""there is a need........"", "....as a matter of interpretation...",".....minor formatting errors...."] etc, etc Obviously, not good enough for an organisation that has sepnt $250m plus and counting, and still needs work:

Project MS 12/39
Amendments of the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Training Requirements and minor amendment to Part 147 MOS - Facility Requirements

Issue

The following issues require addressing in this project.


There is a need to clarify the practical training elements required by a Part 66 LAME to gain a first type rating on their B1 or B2 licence.
As a matter of interpretation, the intent of the meaning of the expression "carry out maintenance" in subsection 20AB (2) of the Act is taken to also include the supervision, by a technically qualified person, of maintenance carried out by others. The Part 66 MOS does not currently provide that detail.
There is a need to clarify that category B1 licence holders have category A licence privileges in addition to their B1 privileges, but only for aircraft for which they hold a type rating.
There are some minor number formatting errors present in paragraphs 66.A.30 (e) and 66.A.45 (h) of the Part 66 MOS and requirement for clarification of the practical training options.
The identifying numbers for the units of competency required for a category or subcategory of licence listed in Appendix IV of the Part 66 MOS, and taken from the MEA07 Aeroskills training package require further updating to match the unit numbering that exists in the current version of the Aeroskills training package - MEA11 released on 25th January 2012.
There is a need to provide detail to Part 66 LAME licence holders of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) competency unit(s) required for removal of a particular exclusion from a LAME licence.
There is a need to clarify in the Part 147 MOS that maintenance training organisations (MTO) that provide aircraft type training courses consisting of theory and practical elements of training, must also give students access to the appropriate aircraft type for the practical instruction appropriate to the training course.

[Up-into-the-air]

Well, here's an admission that casa got it wrong, in the current DAS emission:

Drug and alcohol rules to be made clearer

A range of issues relating to the aviation drug and alcohol program are to be clarified to help the aviation industry better understand the regulatory requirements. CASA has established a project to review Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, which sets out the drug and alcohol management requirements. These regulations took effect in March 2009, introducing random testing and the need for aviation organisations to have drug and alcohol management plans.

During the implementation of the new rules CASA has identified a number of issues that require regulatory changes to improve the way the drug and alcohol program operates. These changes will assist in reducing the cost of compliance to the aviation industry, as well as addressing resourcing issues. In turn, this will increase compliance with the drug and alcohol regulations while maintaining the same safety standards. Issues to be examined include the definition of a safety sensitive employee, the coverage of contractors under drug and alcohol management plans, the requirement for pre-deployment testing and improving the return to work model. The question of should there be a requirement for industry to conduct random testing will also be reviewed.
Find out more about the drug and alcohol (http://casa.grapevine.com.au/lists/lt.php?id=f0UCAQ0HBAEHUh9VBwEETA0IBQgE) review.


Not bad for a $250m plus regulation re-write!!

[thorn bird]

UITA, aint it grand. They created reg's and Inflicted significant costs on the industry to fix a problem that didnt exist. Now they tell us they screwed up??
I believe CASA's costs alone amound to around six million dollars for every person caught..very effective use of tax payers money!!

[Up-into-the-air]

Here we go again thornbird, just another little "fix"

Project MS 13/08
Amendment to CASR Part 42 Manual of Standards (MOS)

Issue

A number of minor amendments to CASR Part 42 regulations, which deals with continuing airworthiness requirements for aircraft and aeronautical products, are in the final stage of making. These amendments have been found to be necessary since the introduction of CASR Part 42 regulations on 27 June 2011. CASA has already consulted with the aviation industry on these amendments.
Under the amendment a new regulation has been added to provide permission, under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), for maintenance organisations to carry out maintenance on an Australian aircraft (to which Part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory. The permission is subject to the following conditions specified in the regulation:


the organisation is approved by the National Aviation Authority (NAA) of the foreign country to carry out the maintenance;
there is an agreement between CASA and the NAA that permits the organisation to carry out the maintenance;
the country is specified in Part 42 MOS;
the maintenance is carried out in accordance with the agreement.

An amendment to the Part 42 MOS is needed to include a list of countries that are parties to such agreements.
Another new regulation provides permission, under the Act, for maintenance organisations approved under the law of a foreign country to carry out maintenance on aeronautical products for Australian aircraft (to which Part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory, if the country is listed in Part 42 MOS. The current legislation provides acceptance of such maintenance by recognising authorised release certificates for maintenance carried out on the products under the law of a number of foreign countries; but exclusive permission to carry out the maintenance is necessary to comply with requirement of the Act. The recognised authorised release certificates and the related foreign countries are currently listed in Chapter 12 of Part 42 MOS. However, for regulatory completeness, Part 42 MOS will have to be amended to clarify that that these foreign countries are also permitted to carry out maintenance on aeronautical product for Australian aircraft (to which part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory.
Project objective

The objective of the project is to amend Part 42 MOS to include a list of foreign countries that are permitted to carry out maintenance on:


Australian aircraft, to which Part 42 applies, outside Australian Territory; and
Aeronautical products for Australian aircraft, to which Part 42 applies, outside Australian territory.

Rules affected

CASR PART 42

[kabukiman]

I larfed.

Very good

[thorn bird]

UITA,
Oh good grief,
Now here's an opportunity.
Since NZ has sensible FAA aligned maintenance regulations where maintenance costs around 2/3 less than in OZ illustrated by the boom
currently under way there,unlike here, where its sinking into oblivion.
Maybe there's a chance to fix a few problems.
NZ is a tad too far away for everyone to get their maintenance done in a cost effective way.
Tassie however is do-able. Its economy is screwed since the greenies took over but!!
If Tassie was to secede from the commonwealth, adopt NZ regulations...
jeez they could forge a trans bass straight agreement!! everyone could head down there for maintenance...god the place would boom they could be lending money to the worlds greatest treasurer to prop up the australian economy

[Up-into-the-air]

Here's another, just released today. Remember these AC's don't have a "head-of-power"

AC-145(4) | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1458)

6. CATEGORY A TRAINING AND AUTHORISATION

6.1 Before a category A licence holder can carry out and certify for any of the category A licence tasks listed within Appendix II of the Part 145 Manual of Standards (MOS) they must be type and task trained and authorised by the Part 145 AMO. Type and task training may be carried out by the Part 145 AMO or a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO). In either case, the way in which the category A is to be type and task trained and subsequently authorised needs to be described within the Part 145 AMO’s exposition.

6.2 A regulation 30 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) aircraft maintenance organisation – via instrument CASA 180/11 – Authorisation – category A maintenance authority holder in a CAR 30 organisation – Exemption – from regulation 66.130 of CASR 1998, may also utilise the services of category A licence holders to carry out and certify for any of the category A licence tasks listed within Appendix II of the Part 145 MOS. The Certificate of Approval (COA) holder needs to seek CASA delegations and authorisations to authorise category A personnel post type and task training.And it goes on!!!

[Up-into-the-air]

Here we go with another classic:

Project MS 13/11
Allow an applicant for an CAMO to include other than Regular Public Transport (RPT) aircraft in the CAMO application

Issue

Aircraft operators with a CAMO may have responsibility to manage the airworthiness of non-RPT aircraft. Currently Part 42 of the CASR only applies to aircraft authorised to operate in RPT.
This current regulatory situation, in addition to the CAMO, requires the operator to have (for the aircraft to which Part 42 does not apply) a Maintenance Controller, Maintenance Control Manual and policy/procedures to meet CAR 1988 requirements.
If the higher regulatory requirement of a CAMO, on a purely voluntary basis, can be allowed to cover the operator's non-RPT aircraft, the expected outcome is reduced costs, improved safety and efficiency gains. Legislative change, in an adjustment to the Part 42 application statement would be required to effect the proposed change. The change would allow the CAMO to add non-RPT aircraft to their approval - on a voluntary basis.

read it here:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project MS 13/11 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101458)

[601]

Wasn't it a bird that chased it own tail until it disappeared up it own @$$

[Creampuff]

From the Proof Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005, pages 124/5, at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S8083.pdf Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?

Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.

I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.

Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?

Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.[My bolding]

According to Table C of CASA’s Cost Recovery Impact Statement (available here: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/corporat/fees/cris_final_2013.pdf) the estimated costs of “Safety Standards” “Development” for FY 12-13 was $18,077,908.

A conservative estimate of the cost, so far, of the regulatory reform program is $200 million.

A rough estimate of the pages of regulations produced in the last 20 years is 2,000.

That’s about $100,000 per page.

Safety improvements arising from 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.

Efficiency improvements for industry arising from the 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.

Clarity achieved? Quite the opposite.

When will it end? Given the rate of ‘progress’ so far and the list of ‘active’ projects still to be completed, never.

The regulatory reform program will drift around forever.

This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.

[A plea to potential posters: Please don’t post material that will get this thread locked.]

[Wally Mk2]

'Creamy' such things as this are a self feeding machine, there cannot be an end to it otherwise it defeats the original purpose.

Hope the thread lasts but I don't like yr chances.

Wmk2

[aroa]

he wanted the rules to be 'right' and have 'quality' Typo...?? because what we actually get is QUANTITY. CASR pt 61....592 pages !!!!! :mad:

There have been other examples posted on pp that show the goobledegook and incomprehensibility of some/most of the reg avalanche.

CP you have a typo as well....
"This Frankenstein must be put out of OUR misery"

The bureaurats are certainly not miserable about on-going endless 'troughing"

All their wordy junk has kept Oz extremely safe from falling aeroplanes or havnt you noticed?

[Tidbinbilla]

It's fairly simple, Wally et al:

As long as people refrain from:


1. Posting in riddles, sea shanties and other spruiks of fantasy that seem to dominate these kind of threads, and;


2. Engaging in direct slander and character assassination (see the post by the owner at the top of both our forums);


the thread will remain.


Find it difficult to respect our wishes (on behalf of the owner)? Find somewhere else to peddle your cause, or expect action from the mod team :)

[Wally Mk2]

Good onya 'Tid' we can always rely on you to keep the stick close by.


Wmk2

[RatsoreA]

Creampuff,

Excellent post. The last bit of the quote in your bold could have been lifted from Sir Humphries from 'Yes Prime Minister'.

But....

How will change be effected? B!tc#!ng about it on line here? I don't see that making much difference?

As pointed out on another thread, there is a 'contact the director' link on the casa website (which I have used). I suspect that will be given as much heed as the guy asking for spare change out the front of the casa building in Canberra.

I guess it's a start though.

But, what is the answer? How do the people that these (over) regulations affect the most, bring about a change?

Seriously!

:bored:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Field an independent Senate candidate in QLD and NSW (biggest Aviation states) for the Hangar Party.

How many people are employed in Aviation in these two states?

...enough to get one senator up in each?:confused:

[Creampuff]

HL is on the money: Elect and lobby independents. :ok:

The Laborial party machines have demonstrated their respective lack of willingness to do anything meaningful.

[004wercras]

And the purpose of this thread is???

Creampuff, you always post facts that we already know - Reg reform has taken almost 25 years, has cost $200 million, will never be completed and requires neutering. Fair enough. But we already know all this.
Whenever somebody posts a suggested fix, reasonable argument, something out of left field, or heavens above something that contains riddles they are either shut down, torn asunder or ridiculed. Fair enough.

Why don't you tell us how you would suggest fixing this CAsA regulatory reform issue as well as the ATsB? It's a genuine question, not a piss take and with no strings attached. Something like a 20 or 30 step plan or more if need be, detailed and workable (and without riddles). Because a number of us have tried many angles over the years and to date have achieved very little, acknowledged.
Your work may also assist the independent Senators considering some of them are proving to be the only ones who give a rats testicle about aviation matters that don't pertain to business class seating and chairmans lounge priveledges.

004/Oleo

P.S
I have tried very very hard to 'self moderate' my comment and refrain from emotive language, riddles, direct insults at CAsA personnel or basically speak my mind fully. It doesn't fit within the context of who I am, but out of respect for this thread I will continue to show restraint.

[RatsoreA]

Well, I'd vote for them.

But I only see that doing a fraction of what needs be done...? Any senators that support aviation need a very public cause to hang their hat on.

As Creampuff quoted in the original post, a senator (Mark Bishop), asked a direct question with very little room for interpretation or ambiguity, and got a load of political double speak about scheduling a meeting to get a plan to tell them about their plan, and that won't happen for a few months?! :ugh:

When truckies don't like how things are being thrust upon them, bam, road blockade of Parliament House, go slow, news coverage, 60 minutes cover story etc etc.

Nurses down tools (bedpans?) for a stop work meeting and it gets the first 5 minutes of nightly news on all channels, and they get change effected.

Now, I'm well aware that pilots haven't had the best of luck with large scale industrial action (pilots strike, qantas grounding) but something more needs to happen to make an essentially unaccountable, unelected public servant, change this dogs breakfast of regulation into something simple pilots can understand!

I can see the AFAP pilot jobs website of the future if this continues -

Pilot wanted.
MECIR
1000 multi
Masters degree in law with a 55% case win ratio
QC preferred

I dunno... Maybe I'm just dreaming... :uhoh:

[Sunfish]

What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.

The numbers that need to be calculated include off the top of my head:

Regulatory cost per aircraft.

Regulatory cost per:

- Aircraft hour flown

- Miles flown.

- per flight.

- per passenger km.

Representative aircraft operating costs per hour, preferably broken down by cost category

These need to be calculated per year, per decade, Also in long term moving averages.

The data needs to be referenced as to source.

Then there needs to be some discussion of the comparisons and results.

If Australia shows up well as an efficient regulator - well, you have just lost your argument about how bad the Australian system really is.

How do costs compare? That should tell you who is screwing who. We can then delve into how and why they are screwing you..

If, perchance, as some of you suspect, the data shows that CASA, ATSB, etc are bloated non performers, be prepared to discuss the following statement:

"We aren't really bloated, it's just that Australia is different".

"The data is wrong".

"Our costs include stuff that others don't".

"But we've already changed, your data is too old".

"It's not our fault, the Government made us do it this way".

I first did part of one of these for Econometrician Robin Hocking who was instrumental in destroying the Two airline domestic policy.

At Coopers and Lybrand I did this for Telecom (Telstras predecessor) that conclusively demonstrated how bloated that institution had become. The Board didn't like that result, unfortunately for me.

With a little bit of luck, ICAO will have done all the data collection for you, the International Telecommunication Union certainly had it by country when I "did" Telecom.

Unless and until you can produce these facts and a cogent argument for change, and the money it will save, you are wasting your time.

[Sunfish]

I note that Airservices are NOT a member of CANSO (Civil AIr Navigation Services Organisation) who have been benchmarking their performance against each other for years.

Since memberhsip and benchmarking would no doubt entail lots of visits to CANSO HQ in Holland, one has to wonder if the potential pain caused by joining the benchmarking exercise outweighed the joy inherent in all those overseas trips?


Link to 2012 benchmarking report:

www.canso.org/cms/streambin.aspx?requestid=92AF6FDB-1EDB

list of participating members:

AAI (India)
Airports Authority of India (http://www.aai.aero)
Airways New Zealand
Welcome to Airways - New Zealands Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) (http://www.airways.co.nz)
DCAC (Cyprus)
????????? ???????????? ??? ????? (http://www.mcw.gov.cy)
Dutch-Caribbean
dc-ansp.org (http://www.dc-ansp.org)
Page 18 of 115
AENA (Spain)
http://www.aena.es
ANS Czech Republic
Air Navigation Service (http://www.ans.cz)
DHMI (Turkey)
Devlet Hava Meydanlar? ??letmesi Genel Müdürlü?ü (http://www.dhmi.gov.tr)
EANS (Estonia)
Lennuliiklusteeninduse AS (http://www.eans.ee)
AEROTHAI (Thailand)
Aeronautical Radio of Thailand LTD (http://www.aerothai.co.th)
ATNS (South Africa)
Air Traffic and Navigation Services - ATNS (http://www.atns.co.za)
Dubai Air Navigation Services
http://www.dubaiairnav.gov.ae
FAA ATO (USA)
FAA: Home (http://www.faa.gov)
CANSO Global ANS Performance Report 2012 – Main Report
Finavia (Finland)
Etusivu ? Finavia (http://www.finavia.fi)
LFV (Sweden)
Välkommen till LFV - www.lfv.se (http://www.lfv.se)
NATS (UK)
NATS | A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance (http://www.nats.co.uk)
NAVIAIR (Denmark)
Naviair - FORSIDE (http://www.naviair.dk)
SENEAM (Mexico)
Servicios a la Navegacion en el Espacio Aereo Mexicano - SCT (http://www.seneam.gob.mx)
1.1.
HungaroControl (Hungary)
HungaroControl (http://www.HungaroControl.hu)
LGS (Latvia)
LGS - - Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (http://www.lgs.lv)
NAV CANADA
NAV CANADA (http://www.navcanada.ca)
ROMATSA (Romania)
ROMATSA (http://www.romatsa.ro)
SMATSA (Serbia & Montenegro)
http://www.smatsa.rs
IAA (Ireland)
http://www.iaa.ie
LPS (Slovak Republic)
http://www.lps.sk
NAV Portugal
NAV (http://www.nav.pt)
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd (Georgia)
Sakaeronavigatsia (http://airnav.ge)

[Kharon]

I dunno Sunny, a simple page count aught to resolve the matter.....:D

It's not so much that the 'reform' has been costly or taken a while to get to critical mass. For mine, it's that there is no 'reform' to speak of; we seem to have the same old stuff, re hashed and larded with traps for the unwary. All that seems to have been done is to roll the CAO up into the CAR, warts and all, tighten the loop holes and launch.

I don't see simple, clearly defined outcome based resolution i.e. R101 - Don't run out of fuel. The onus is then on the company (individual) to produce a fuel policy within the prescribed minimums which ensures that silence will not prevail. The rules are basically simple enough.

What I find is that it's not the "rules" per se that cause the problems; but the application. It's a simple enough matter to write an operational policy for compliance; but the monster is revealed when some FOI or AWI has had a blue with the missus and decides that today, you are the anti Christ of aviation - then the fun begins; ask Quadrio, Butson or Kilen, they will explain your own elegant expression – Embuggerance in robust, basic Anglo Saxon.

Reform the regulator, the rules will surely follow.

[LeadSled]

What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.

Sunny,
Why didn't we think of that during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review?? --- Hang on, I remember, we did!!

I still have copies of all the documents somewhere for Part 91, where we did (item by item) a comparison, side by side spreadsheet, of the equivalent sub-regulation from (from memory), as well as AU,NZ, CA,US,UK and ICAO.

Not surprisingly, beside quite a number of Australian regulations, some or all of the other countries' lists were a blank space.

One of the ones that sticks in my mind was the AU regulations/orders about dropping things from aircraft (you know the ones -- they put paid to Sunday morning flour bombing and streamer cutting competitions at the local aero club) AU -- about 9 pages of regulation and orders, most others countries, one or two paragraphs, plus advisory material.

The Review recommendation was a one paragraph regulation, outcome based, with advisory material as to how to comply.

9 pages of regulatory material reduces to about 30 easily understandable words.

Later, long after the PAP had gone, Bruce Byron actually produced a policy directive, binding on CASA staff, as to how all rules were to be justified -- based entirely on the principles used by the PAP/CASA Review --- which in themselves were nothing new, just lifted straight from the recommendations of the Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation handbook, the then Australia/NZ Standard for risk management, and other similar sources from Attorney-General, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, etc.

As I recall (it's no longer on the CASA web site) the first requirement of the Byron directive was to establish that there was an air safety problem that required a regulation (as opposed to less draconian methods of securing compliance). If that was established ( as opposed to something that was for administrative bureaucratic convenience -- a regulatory nono that CASA routinely ignores ) the next step was quantitative cost/benefit analysis (not cost/ effectiveness --- CASA can't tell the difference), including factoring the CASA claimed "benefits" for "proponent bias", which various Canberra based guidelines put at up to 50%, ie; the claimed financial/ societal etc. benefits of a measure are commonly overstated by up to 50%.

Unsurprisingly, by this stage, a large number of regulations were knocked out, to the distress of those in CASA who believe "regulation" is the only answer (as in the new proposals for SAR/EMS operations NPRM --- to be regulated to the greatest possible extent --- as RPT).

By this stage, draft regulations were starting to look remarkably like NZ or CA or FAA --- but simpler and easier to read.

One "person" in the the CASA Office of Legal Counsel actually put forward the proposition that "outcome based" rules, that were Government policy, would not work in Australian aviation, because, unlike NZ/CA/US/UK. neither CASA nor the Australia aviation industry were "mature enough" for anything other than highly detailed and absolutely prescriptive regulation.

As we well know now, all of the above drafts has been dropped --- it is even claimed now that such activities as risk justification and cost/benefit analysis are contrary to the Civil, Aviation Act 1988. Strangely, all the lawyers involved over the years, including several lawyers on the Board, including a Supreme Court Judge as Chairman, apparently missed what has apparently been so blindingly obvious to the present day CASA Board and management.

As for ATC, have a look at the Airspace Act, and particularly the first "airspace directive", signed off by Truss. Now emasculated under the present Government --- and look at the mess Airservices are in!

It is a very sad story, that has cost Australia far more than the $2-300M directly spent by CASA, we have lost a large segment of the industry, either gone offshore or just gone.

And here was Albo, just last week, at the CAPA conference, saying what a great place Australia is, to do aviation business, with all these beaut. country aerodromes where we could be training foreign students.

I wonder why the training industry didn't think of that --- Hang On!! , I remember, they did!!

---- but have been largely put out of business, with excessive costs and regulation, compared to competitor countries. CASA isn't the only offender here, there are plenty of other Australian government entities who have done their bit to help boost pilot training in NZ/US/CA/etc.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

My $0.02c+GST worth.

Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi's. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the "American" label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?

Sounds silly I know, but how hard would it actually be to do, compared to the collective hardship we suffer now?

I once thought it was a silly idea, but the more I talk to smart people in industry the more it sounds like the right thing to do.

If I were king for a day.....they say.

[LeadSled]

Jaba,
Once again, I agree with you, including not just the "regulations". but a re-write of the Act along NZ lines, particularly S.14 of the NZ Act, Functions of the Minister.
Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Minister, what Minister?

[Arm out the window]

If they must write the regs to cover all legal possibilities (I'm sifting through draft CASR 161 and its associated 'explanations' as we speak), why don't they produce straight-talking guidebooks or similar to go along with them?

Have a plain language 'what can and can't I do' guide for each main set of rules, with clear disclaimers along the lines of:

'this isn't the regs, it's just a guide, so check the real thing before you act.'

That way, you could be quickly and simply reminded of the basic requirements and directed to the appropriate legislation for further reading, rather than having to sift through miles of garble to ferret out the good gen.

I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good, but wouldn't it be great to have concise, clear guides coming from the source of the legislation explaining what they're on about?

[004wercras]

Sarcs, when Macair went tits up, the QLD government hit the panick button as to how they would service western Queensland routes that were serviced by the now defunct airline. The paperwork I have seen indicates that to cover this gap the Queensland government approached Skytrans and basically handed them the work. Fort Fumble was then asked to do a risk assessment on each port (desktop only due to time constraints) and I believe between 8 - 11 ports were fully assessed in less than one working week. (I am sure an FOI request would confirm all the dates, locations and details in a comprehensive transparent way. Perhaps all the pages will be there as well?) Anybody who is skilled in the methodology of conducting comprehensive risk assessments would know that up to 11 ports in under 5 working days, via desktop for an operator who wasn't flying there already, had different aircraft type and a host of other differences would know that this is a crock and an impossible task. Paperwork was filled out simply to provide an audit trail that the process had been undertaken prior to operation. A box ticking exercise and another display of FF jumping to attention when a minister or state government tells it to.

As for the Lockhart investigation, your comments are precise Sarcs. Alan Stray may have been at the ATsB at the time, but it is the events beyond his control that I refer to that I express dismay at. Alan certainly knew CAsA was a two bit shonky outfit not to be trusted, and subsequent inquiries have proven that. CAsA escaped a pineapple over Lockhart, and that fact was beyond Alan's power and influence range. After all, Alan was only a very small piece of a giant jigsaw. Even in that time period Messr Stray had internal politics knocking at his door. Honesty and integrity are not the favored approach when Ministers and bureaucracies are not painted in robust light.

[Up-into-the-air]

AOTW

I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good


Don't know what you are on, but any reasonable look at the regs:ugh: :mad: and particularly recently with the 100.5 debacle.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As one who has been around for a while, I should be used to the steady expansion of the "bullxxxt quotient" that is time dependent, but not so.

What started out as an airport brief, transmogrified into an airport analysis (not the DAPs details) just another word for brief, now the exercise is called a "risk analysis".

For any airport that can take a heavy RPT aircraft in Queensland, if I can't work out how to get in an out of the place in less than an hour, there is a problem. I exclude from this the flight path analysis that must be done for some placed like Cairns, that is type specific DAP flight path analysis, that is NOT risk analysis, but CASA requires even if the highest obstacle within miles is the light in front of the terminal.

Something I have no difficulty recalling was operating G- registered B707 around Africa and the ME, we managed quite OK with the standard flight deck documentation (Airad, not Jep.) and a company brief that covered such risk critical things like where the best money changers and cold beer were to be found --- the really operationally critical things you needed to know.

I trust most of you blokes and blokesses understand that this sort of paper storm is largely peculiar to Australia, a great cost and jobs generator that has sod all to do with actual risk minimization.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Leadie, I don't disagree, most, not all, but most of the risk assessment process is a complete crock. Depending on the 'Inspector of the day' Fort Fumble are even asking for the following to be included in the risk assessment;
• List of GSE that will be used at the port, everything from how many baggage barrows, chocks and description of baggage tugs (not pushback tugs, bloody baggage tugs).
• Details of the maintenance program for the above GSE, including all details of the maintenance person (often a local farmer, the Postie, lawn mower repairer or butcher).
• List of local Motels including the exact amount of rooms incase an aircraft goes AOG. Also requested by FF are copies of written agreements between operator and motels as evidence!
• Then if you are lucky they won't ask you to do a proving flight, which they are entitled to demand, but again that can depend on the Inspector holding the keys to your file (If you have managed to piss him off at some stage in life then your workload and subsequent costs have just risen exponentially).

Society gone mad? Yep. But of course we are talking about Fort Fumble, the place certainly is an asylum. And as mentioned, depending on what part of our great country reside in the process could be fairly quick with key risks addressed or the fools could make you drill in to such irrelevant detail as how often do you sweep the dust off the step treads on your mobile stairs.

[Kharon]

We do seem to have some areas of uncertainty in a couple of safety sensitive areas like aircraft maintenance and flight and duty rules. There is also a whisper of bent rules floating about on the legality of some of the 'proposed' changes. All most confusing Then there is a story that the Sleepy Hollow men will be conducting 'one on one' briefing with selected chief pilots, to explain the new part 145, which, if true seems passing strange to me; chief engineer, sure but the CP??. Clue – anyone??

I hate this piecemeal, drip feeding of 'new' rules. Publish the bloody things; allow some time to get thing sorted; allow a period of no prosecution to settle things down – then bugger off and let us get on with it. I still reckon old age and booze will carry me off before the great "regulatory reform" limps home.

Jabba # 15 – "Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi's. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the "American" label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?"

Tim Tam for Jabba....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Arm out the window]

Up Into The Air, I haven't had anything to do with the 100.5 thing, but am just saying CASA do produce a lot of informative material.

However, as my previous post implied (I hope), they could do a great deal better in making proposed and actual rules clearer and more user-oriented rather than the legal-speak currently used.

As they need to cover their arses legally, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise, the lawyers must get involved and write loophole-closing documentation. My main point was that, along with that stuff, they should make good clear accompanying guides to help non-lawyers make sense of it all much easier.

[Up-into-the-air]

That is the real issue.

More complexity [which is the current casa direction] does not equal good safety outcomes.


Neither does stepping on the small guys, putting peopl,e out of business for a minor infraction, telling "whoppers" to cover-up bad decisions or directions.

All have happened and casa is continuing with skull saying:

"....these people are just a bunch of whingers/ whistleblowers..."

Work with industry, not in a way that you effectively tax, levy, regulate, prosecute your actual "...community.. of interest..."

[thorn bird]

"As they need to cover their arses legally, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise, the lawyers must get involved and write loophole-closing documentation. My main point was that, along with that stuff, they should make good clear accompanying guides to help non-lawyers make sense of it all much easier."

Aotw,

To a certain point I agree with your hypothesis, but I always imagined the "regulations" were promulgated for the purpose of maintaining and improving safety, therefore, it follows, that those that are required to comply with them should understand what they mean.
Where most of the problems lie, I believe, is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's. Think of the Norfolk ditching and the fact that a poll of FOI's could not agree whether an alternate was legally required or not. There is ample examples of compliance on one side of the country may not necessarily be compliant on the other.
These uncertainties I believe are what causes so much angst within industry and can lead to unfair advantage given to one AOC holder who is required to do something and another who may not.
Your idea of guides has merit, but other regulators manage to produce plain language regulations that don't require a high court judge to interpret them, why is Australia so different?
The down side I see is that lawyers would have to be involved in producing these "guide books" because they are the only ones who understand the reg's. I could see another half a billion $$$ up in smoke and probably another twenty years to produce them so why not write the reg's in plain language to start with.

[LeadSled]

004,
One that some time back brought tears of laughter, or was it just tears, was a CASA claim that they should "regulate" Telstra landlines that carried AFTN and similar aviation related telex, fax etc.

I can confirm the nonsense about GSE, they are even demanding this sort of detail for a non-scheduled operation, the time and cost to produce such information, on the basis that, one day, you might go there, is beyond unrealistic.

One ripper proposal a while back ( the whole package was dropped) would have limited single engine helicopters flying any "populace areas" and would have only permitted "commercial operations" over per-surveyed CASA approved routes elsewhere --- considering what one routinely uses helicopters for, this was was off the clock on the "Stupid-O-Meter".

I expect it will prop up again sometime soon, these sorts of crazy ideas develop a life of their own in the bowels of CASA.

----- because they are the only ones who understand the reg's.

Thornbird,
Actually, such is the convoluted contradictory mess, even the lawyers can't agree what the rules mean, otherwise we would not have so many protracted AAT cases.

----but am just saying CASA do produce a lot of informative material.

ARM,
But is it lawful, ie; if you comply exactly with type of publication you mention, that CASA produces, such as a CAAP or AC, will you be in compliance.

Unfortunately, the CASA record of actions against license holders ( I am thinking of a case against a LAME, another involving a pilot who had complied precisely with his company manual, which complied precisely with the AOCM) says that you cannot rely on such documents, unlike an AC in the US, or a CAP or AMC in UK.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Leadie, perhaps we are in the midst of a 'CAsA Arab Spring', an uprising by the Regulator against all things aviation? After all, Stan has become famous for his 'safe skies are empty skies' catchphrase. There could be some methodology in all of this!

Interesting comment about the whirlybirds. Perhaps Fort Fumble will limit these pesky machines to simply taking off on a straight accent path to a flight level of 100 feet, then a straight decent path back to its landing position? (Process to be robustly risk assessed if course!)

[RatsoreA]

Ok, on the news the other night...

Taxi drivers in Melbourne don't like what is happeneing to their 'profession' as far as some new (albeit State) government regulations that are going to come into force.

Taxi drivers march on en-mass to premiers office and protest. Premier comes out, agrees to meet with them in the very near future, hear their opinions on the matter.

They may effect change for the better for themselves, they may not. But at least they got as far as a meeting and few minutes at 6 o'clock.

Sitting behind a keyboard and posting on this forum won't help! Why is there not some action being planned? Squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc!

I'm not rubbishing anyones opinion on here, I am just merely stating that sitting around talking amongst ourselves won't effect any change. If it could, things would have changed by now!

[Arm out the window]

Where most of the problems lie, I believe, is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's.

I think you're spot on there, Thorn Bird. I wonder how rigorous the work is to frame some regulations, and what records of the reasoning and basis behind them are kept, let alone published? It's an old problem, and not limited to CASA, of course - a rule exists, but unless you're the one who wrote it you don't necessarily know the 'whys' behind it, leading to various interpretations being applied by different people.
I know it would add complexity to the production of new regs if this stuff (reasoning and underlying intent) had to be documented and made available to the end users in clear language, but it would surely save a lot of angst down the track.

But is it lawful, ie; if you comply exactly with type of publication you mention, that CASA produces, such as a CAAP or AC, will you be in compliance.


Very good point. I guess the caveat has to be, look at the guide material to point the way, and then go to the regulations to ensure your proposed operation complies, as much as you possibly can without knowing what was in their minds when they wrote the stuff.

[Sunfish]

AOTW, I am of the opinion now that the reasons the rules are vague is because the regulator likes it that way, because then the law means what he says it means.

[Arm out the window]

Sadly, you are probably right.

[Sarcs]

Well...well wonders will never cease ATSBeaker have issued two SRs to FF:D: 'Confusion over regulations leaves ageing aircraft vulnerable' (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2013/confusion-over-regulations-leaves-ageing-aircraft-vulnerable.aspx#.Ug1ynt6tW_c.twitter)

And a quote from that news bulletin (my bold):
The ATSB has issued two safety recommendations to CASA as part of this investigation. The first recommends that CASA proceed with its program of regulatory reform to ensure that all aircraft involved in general aviation operations are maintained using the most appropriate maintenance schedule for the aircraft type. The second is to ensure that the provisions of CAR Schedule 5 are clarified in relation to the incorporation of all relevant supplemental inspections specified for the aircraft type. Here are links for report AO-2011-115 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4180954/ao-2011-115-final.pdf) and FF proposed safety actions AO-2011-115-SR-049 (SI-02) (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-115/si-02.aspx) & AO-2011-115-SR-050 (SI-01) (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-115/si-01.aspx).

Maybe the worm has turned and AMROBA, Senate Committee and IOS:ok: protagination/scrutiny is finally making an impact??:E

[Kharon]

As the orchestra warms up it covers the noise of the smoke machine starting up, the mirrors being polished and the scenery being changed back stage. Oh roll up, roll up for the great cover up of the cover up, which was intended to cover up the initial cover up, which strangely enough - everyone seems to have forgotten.

Believe it if you like.

[LeadSled]

----- because then the law means what he says it means. Sunny,
If you haven't already done so, google Robin Speed and the difference between the "Rule of Law" and "rule by law".

CAR Schedule 5 are clarified in relation to the incorporation of all relevant supplemental inspections specified for the aircraft type. If a proper inspection is carried out using Schedule 5 (aka FAR 43, appendix D) and the proper advisory material used, such gross defects as revealed in the C210 would have been revealed without the need for an SID type document.
In fact, if a light aircraft is subject to what FAA classify as a "severe" operating environment (look it up, you might be surprised) such defects as described by ATSB in this case will happen long before any SID hours or calender limits are reached.

----- is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's. If only it was that easy, but it ain't. If battalions of high priced lawyers cannot agree on interpretations that have long been acknowledged as "complex, convoluted or contradictory", how is pilot or mechanic, employed as an FOI or AWI going to cope.

Incidentally, some attempts at "standardization" of regulatory interpretation, such as by way of "policy" documents, has been found to be unlawful --- ie: the chosen agreed CASA interpretation has been found to be contrary to law by the courts.

Our so called "reformed" regulations are anything but, if anything they are worse than the regulations being repealed, this is certainly so for the maintenance of light aircraft, based on the present drafts.

As has already been covered elsewhere, some provisions of draft CASR Part 91 defy legal compliance by pilots, so incompetent is the drafting ---- to CASA drafting instructions.

Why is there not some action being planned? Squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc!
Spot on, but unfortunately almost all the alphabet soup organisations receive CASA funding to some degree, plus there is a seriously misguided view that, with sucking up the CASA, the outcomes will be less worse than they would be by taking serious political action ---- despite the fact that the only real aviation "reform" in the last almost 20 years has come from direct political action.

The triumph of naive hope over hard won experience.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

If a proper inspection is carried out using Schedule 5 (aka FAR 43, appendix D) and the proper advisory material used, such gross defects as revealed in the C210 would have been revealed without the need for an SID type document.Hear! Hear!

Beware Sarcs. It’s easy for ATSB to be hairy-chested in the face of the disunited bunch of glorified social clubs that pass for representative bodies in Australia. All of this is merely part of a pantomime intended to justify compelling almost all of the GA fleet to move off the CASA maintenance schedule. … The manufacturer’s maintenance schedules are generally considered to be the most appropriate for the maintenance of most aircraft types. … Considered by whom, on the basis of what data?

Who is saying that the manufacturer’s maintenance schedules are anything other than a pluck? (I know: It’s the manufacturers … who make money out of scheduled obsolescence. Plus all the other people who think something can’t run properly unless it’s constantly fiddled with …. and who happen to have a financial interest in being employed to fiddle with things or to make sure that things are constantly fiddled with.)… Maintenance information issued by the aircraft and component manufacturers (including special and supplemental inspections) is taken to automatically form part of the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, and as such, forms a mandatory part of the maintenance regime. …Misleading.

Maintenance “information" issued by the aircraft and component manufacturers may or may not form a “mandatory part of the maintenance regime”. … Instructions for the periodic inspection of the aircraft empennage (Part 2, Section 1 of Schedule 5) were to ‘Inspect the wing and empennage to fuselage attachments and surrounding structure’. The schedule specified that the inspection was intended as a thorough check of the affected part to determine whether or not it would continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. …Incomplete and misleading.

Schedule 5 does not specify what the inspection is “intended” to be. Schedule 5 specifies what the inspection is required to be. It is required to be a thorough check to determine whether the thing inspected will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. If that cannot or does not happen, an inspection against Schedule 5 must not be certified. If it is, that's a breach of the law.

Schedule 5 requires more than just the “mainplane [wing] and empennage to fuselage attachments and surrounding structure” to be thoroughly checked to determine whether they will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. Schedule 5 also requires the “internal structures and spars”, among other components, to be thoroughly checked to determine whether they will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.

In the case of the aircraft the subject of the report, I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that the wing and empennage to fuselage attachments and surrounding structure, and the internal structures and spars, had been the subject of a thorough check to determine whether they would continue to be airworthy, this side of the start of this decade. Have a look at the pictures in the report and tell me all those cracks and failures occurred within the last 109 hours’ normal TIS.

In my view, the problem isn’t the CASA maintenance schedule. The problem is, in my view, compliance with the CASA maintenance schedule.

Yes: The out of control Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program is inexorably increasing the level of confusion.

No: The answer is not to mandate systems of maintenance or manufacturers’ maintenance schedules.

A failure properly to inspect is a failure properly to inspect, whether it’s done under a system of maintenance, the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule or the CASA maintenance schedule.

[LeadSled]

… The manufacturer’s maintenance schedules are generally considered to be the most appropriate for the maintenance of most aircraft types. … Folks,

There you have it, in black and white: A living breathing example of the lack of knowledge that resulted in such a grossly incorrect statement.

In black and white --- a demonstration that whoever was involved at any stage in this report has no idea about the certification of CAR3/FAR 23 aircraft, and the "system of maintenance" by which the great majority of these aircraft --- which are the great majority of Australian registered aircraft ----- are intended to be maintained.

As a generalization, (there are probably some exceptions) the above aircraft are intended to be maintained as per the maintenance provisions of FAR 91 or FAR 135 (what has to be done), using FAR 43 (how to do it).

Consequently, the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manuals only contain information pertinent to that particular type and variant, and does not repeat all the information in FAR 43 and associated Advisory Circulars that comprise what we grandly call "approved maintenance data".

In particular , have a look at FAR 43, Appendix D, and AC43.13A & 43.13B.

Clearly, (except to many in CASA and ATSB) if you use "only" the manufacturer's MM, the "maintenance" will be very deficient.

Tootle pip!!

[Up-into-the-air]

The latest from the casa web site:

Changes to CAO 100.5 explained 7 August 2013

Read an explanation of recent changes to CAO 100.5 (HTTP://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101622) relating to certain maintenance issues and the complete CAO 100.5 (HTTP://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91044).
And the explaination by casa is as follows:

Briefing: amended Civil Aviation Order 100.5

The amendment to Civil Aviation Order 100.5 and the cancellation of AD/INST/8, INST/9 and RAD/43 was published for comment in September 2011, with the comment period closing in November 2011.



The intent was to ensure the maintenance of altimeters, air speed indicators, pitot-static systems, and fuel gauges was done to a single standard for VFR and IFR aircraft when they both operate in the same airspace. Aircraft that have existing systems of maintenance, or maintenance schedules that incorporate the standards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Order, are exempt from compliance.


For aircraft that have been maintained in accordance with the cancelled ADs and are affected by the transitional arrangements, the operators may request an extension to the transitional time limits to align with the planned retest.

To clarify terminology CAO 100.5 has introduced the term "Certification Maintenance" (CMRs) and Airworthiness Limitations (AWL). CMRs arise from the aircraft type certification process. FAR 25.1309, for example, requires a System Safety Assessment (SSA) to ensure that failures are categorized on their consequential severity and within defined bounds of probability. A CMR is a required periodic task, established during the design certification of the aircraft as an operating limitation of the type certificate. CMRs usually result from a formal, numerical analysis conducted to show compliance with catastrophic and hazardous failure conditions. A CMR is intended to detect safety significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.


AWLs are structural items that the certification process has defined as critical from a fatigue point of view during the damage tolerance assessment. The inspection frequency of such items is mandatory. Many older aircraft include AWLs in the same chapter of the maintenance manual where they included recommended overhaul period.


A more comprehensive description of these issues will be published in an Airworthiness Bulletin.


This amendment to CAO 100.5 does not affect the application of existing Airworthiness Directives such as AD/ENG/4, AD/PROP/1 etc.
View a copy of the complete CAO 100.5 (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/orders/cao100_5.pdf)



More new acronyms!! and to what end???

[004wercras]

It's all part of that 25 year/$200 million white elephant called regulatory reform. When you have nothing to offer, or in CAsA's case desperately need to waste money on something, invent a new acronym! That way they look busy!
Personally, I have a few of my own acronyms for Fort Fumble, but none that can be printed here.
UITA, CAsA are more like the a Brown Pelican. It drops massive stools that are often runny and unsightly, very much like what FF have produced for a quarter of a century now. Actually Saturday night was a robust occasion with the BRB onboard the Styx houseboat. 11 Crownies and a spicy Thai took its toll, and Sunday morning produced......well, suffice to say the end result was something that looked like a cross between a CAsA risk assessment, the Skulls blue Hawaiin Friday shirt and a giant brown Termite hill !

'Safe Aves For All'

[CASAweary]

TICK TOCK goes the CASA clock. A major hull loss is coming.
Either CASA is dismantled or this country will end up being on the end of a major trajedy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Tick_Tock.jpg

[Frank Arouet]

And it will give nobody any pleasure in saying "I told you so".

Lets hope it never happens despite the signs.

[Sarcs]

From today's Australian:

Red tape has chopper schools flying blind

by: Rob Rich
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
August 23, 2013 12:00AM
FOLLOWING the demise of the Helicopter Association of Australasia in 2008, there has been little collective effort from industry in reviewing draft legislation.


Proposed changes have been steadily flowing out from CASA for industry comment. As a result, the helicopter industry "has dropped the ball" by not providing CASA with meaningful feedback during the past notice of proposed rule making processes. Some of these draft NPRM papers are now law; to change the legislation now requires parliament's approval - a slow process.

The industry having no collective representation to provide feedback on the new European Aviation Safety Agency rules provided the catalyst to form the Australian Helicopter Industry Association in November last year.
AHIA president Peter Crook quickly noted the concerns of key players in the industry about proposed regulatory changes. Some had given up and said the changes to new EASA legislation were overwhelming due to the verbose and legal nature of the documentation.

AHIA's greatest concern is civil aviation safety regulation part 61 (flight crew licensing) and the relevant manuals of standards (MOS). CASR 61 is 511 pages long, supporting MOS is 707 pages and explanatory notes bring the total to 1299 pages about training - not the usual after-hours review project.

Mr Crook was told the 33 active flying schools would have trouble transiting to the new system, which starts on December 4.

It has been suggested the country may lose one third of its schools; not a good situation as a shortage of pilots and instructors is looming.

To complicate matters, the training legislation overlaps with pending changes to commercial operations, in particular passenger-carrying flights.

Further, CASR part 141 and 142 rules governing the structure of flying schools will require an overhaul of training (course design); the need for more advanced training aircraft; and the complex re-qualifying of flight instructors, testing officers and examiners.

Some schools operating under CASR 141 legislation will not need an AOC; which means minimum supervision by the regulator, despite having to provide an "exposition" for CASA's approval.

The main concern is the need to provide 10 hours of basic instrument training in the commercial helicopter pilot course.

This new standard requires industry to requalify staff and obtain new aircraft and approved simulators. To quickly meet CASA deadlines for comment on the MOS for CASR part 61, Mr Crook asked AHIA vice-president Mark Scrymgeour to form a working group to collect industry's comments for CASA. Mr Scrymgeour enlisted help from leading chief flying instructors and started a series of conference calls and use of a web-based facility to avoid duplication of effort as each member of his team could see what the others were doing.

Mr Crook recently remarked on the enormous effort made by the volunteer working group and commended Mr Scrymgeour for leading the team consisting of Ray Cronin, Kestrel Aviation Mangalore, Colin Clarke, Heliwest Toowoomba; Graeme Gillies, Blue Tongue Helicopters; Brett Newman, Professional Helicopter Services, Michael van der Zypp and The Helicopter Group.

In my opinion, CASA legislators have put the cart before the horse. Normally MOS are sorted out before the overarching legislation is made law.

The working group is struggling with the mismatch between CASR 61 and the MOS. Further confusion exists due to problems with regulations for integrated and non-integrated flying schools, which now have vast differences in training requirements.

Mr Scrymgeour said the review was raising more questions than answers; and CASA regional offices differed with the interpretation of the difficult-to-read legislation.

This makes the work of the AHIA Australia-wide team difficult as the members are also being confused by well-meaning local regulators, who are also having problems with understanding the intent of the new rules.
Most schools are unable to calculate the costs of compliance.

The promised time-based transition process is flawed and unworkable in its present form. The extra costs will be substantial and may push the helicopter industry into a situation where the present 10 per cent annual growth reverts to a depression. Many ask what is the case for safety versus cost?

Rob Rich is secretary of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association.
Rotorheads join the ranks of the IOS!:ok:

[004wercras]

Indeed Sarcs, those pesky whirlybirds are a pain in the ass.
Who needs them? Why have them? All they do is contribute to the growth in 'ills of society'! And heaven forbid the operator if they take a photo from onboard the noisy craft, that is totally unacceptable. Besides, it is only a helicopter, that's not a real mans toy, just ask Commandant Skull, to hell with small turbine or rotary powered boxes on skids, only the big tin (and Qantas) count!

Grab the noose, phone up the Chief Hangman Minnie, we got a job to do! Whirlybirds must go!!!

[Creampuff]

From page 6 of Volume 02/ Issue 08 / September edition of Airwaves (here: http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/wp-content/post_images/PDFs/05013C09-2.pdf) … However probably the biggest threat now facing the future of the regional aviation industry is one that should not be a threat at all. It is one that is not controlled by the vagaries of the European economy or the threat of international terrorism. It is in fact a process that should and could provide great opportunities for our industry, - that is the regulatory reform of the Australian Civil Aviation regulations.

This process has been going on for almost as long as I have worked in the industry. It has gone on for decades and cost millions of dollars. Some people have literally made a career out of drafting and redrafting the same regulation over and over again. It has gone through several incarnations under several different names of the industry regulator and even more Directors of the regulator. It had an American accent for a while before taking on a more European brogue. Now it would seem to be trying to develop an accent all of its own. This is an area where I believe one the biggest threats lies.
…
I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these 3 parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting in the middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
…Hear! Hear! Mr Jeff Boyd.

[004wercras]

Seems Mr Boyd (Jeff that is, not Peter) has just joined the IOS! Welcome Jeff. Your membership card, NCN, and lounge access at the ICC is in the mail :ok:

How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations?
Hmmm, nice choice of words, particularly 'iron'. You see the 'iron ring' has indeed spent decades (almost 25 years) and millions (around $250 million which excludes pot plant maintenance and cab fares). And at this point in time the 'iron ring' remains firmly established within the bowels of Sleepy Hollow, and it has even done what any good Sith Lord has done and has been training apprentices, ones who are ready to come to the fore if ever the 'iron ring' is broken, yes the call for a regulatory Jihad goes out in which the IOS must be silenced.

Creamy, as you are well aware, Mr Boyd, like many others, has taken to licking the toffee off the toffee coated turd. He too has tasted what lies beneath that sweet coating, and nothing tastes worse than biting into a steaming brown chunk of CAsA. Hell some of us have been picking the peanuts out of our teeth for years :(

Anyway, its good to have a new member within the IOS. Mr Boyds stay will be memorable, and if he is lucky he may get to chat with Deputy PM Warrens Trust, and get to express his succinct concerns in person :ok:

[outnabout]

I hear a rumour (and this is a rumour network) that Part 135 will not be introduced for at least another 5 years.

I heard this from a usually reliable source.

:ugh:

All aboard the gravy train??

(or is it Welcome to GA, the fantasyland where the regulations aren't clear, will continue to remain unclear, and may be interpreted in any one of a number of ways depending on the individual staff member consulted?)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
It is self evident Part 135 in its present form (or anything like its present form) will destroy GA Charter --- it is as simple as that.

Just have a look at the minimum requirements for an "Air Transport Operation" airfield in Part 135 --- that alone eliminates a large proportion of what we do now.

Virtually none of the new and severe restrictions are based on a rational risk management approach to a genuine safety problem --- because CASA says they don't need to be.

As 400 and some probably know, the ultra simplistic -- even fundamentalist extremest ( the aviation Taliban??) -- approach to the interpretation of the Act, that accidents and incidents are required to be minimized, without regard to cost or impact on the sector, has given rise to this nonsense.

But never mind, even if Part 135 wasn't so bad, the new maintenance regulations (in draft for your entertainment and education --- see the CASA web site) are unaffordable in the extreme.

Somebody described them as "maintaining a C-172 like a jumbo" but it isn't like that (silly as that would be/is) but much worse.

Not that the GA maintenance rules apply to "air transport", if your C-172 is used for Part 135 operations, it's the full on Part 145 for you.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Starting to dread reading this thread; the stark cynicism, blatant exploitation of the reform program is becoming clear. You wanted reform – well here it is, what – don't like it?, well tough titty. They know full well the package is a crock, they know full well that rejection and complaint will follow, they know full well that by sitting back and watching the fun any government will accept and support "the expert".

Gods help us everyone - (apologies to Dickens).

[Sarcs]

From Proaviation.. A Bridge Too Far (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1650):Jeff Boyd

By kind courtesy of Aviation Trader‘s Tony Shaw and of Jeff Boyd, we’re re-publishing Jeff’s recent Commentary on the regulatory scene, first published in Aviation Trader‘s September issue, for the benefit of those who haven’t yet seen it.

In my 33 years of working in the regional aviation industry I have seen the whole gamut of industry ups and downs.
I came into this industry at the end of the 1980’s boom. I worked through the recession that we had to have. I have seen the Aussie dollar get down to less than half of a US dollar and then rise to above parity, interest rates jump to crippling levels and now sink to record lows, and who would have ever believed we would be paying well over $2 a litre for aviation fuel. We have worked our way through industry skill shortages and along the way provided the major airlines free training for thousands of pilots and engineers.
http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Jee-Boyd-image.jpg (http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Jee-Boyd-image.jpg)Jeff Boyd addressing RAAA’s 2012 conference

We have paid for barbed wire fences around country airports, hardened cockpit doors for aircraft so small that they would bounce off the side of a building, and checked bag screening in places a terrorist would be hard pressed to find in an atlas.
We have enjoyed the work a healthy mining industry has bought us and we have worked hard to keep services to regional towns that don’t have the economic benefit of the mining industry.
But with all its highs and lows, overall for those who have worked hard and worked smart, the regional aviation industry has been a great business to be in.
For me it has taught me and taken me to places that as a young fellow growing up in the Western suburbs of Sydney I could have never imagined. It has provided economic security for myself and my family along with the hundreds of people who have come and gone from our employment over the years.
However probably the biggest threat now facing the future of the regional aviation industry is one that should not be a threat at all. It is one that is not controlled by the vagaries of the European economy or the threat of international terrorism. It is in fact a process that should and could provide great opportunities for our industry, – that is the regulatory reform of the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations.
This process has been going on for almost as long as I have worked in the industry. It has gone on for decades and cost millions of dollars. Some people have literally made a career out of drafting and redrafting the same regulation over and over again. It has gone through several incarnations under several different names of the industry regulator and even more Directors of the regulator. It had an American accent for a while before taking on a more European brogue. Now it would seem to be trying to develop an accent all of its own. This is an area where I believe one the biggest threats lies.
All along we have been told that our Australian regulations had to be rewritten because we needed to harmonise with the rest of the world and become ICAO compliant. I don’t believe that has happened as what I am seeing are Australian-specific rules and regulations being drafted. The new part 66 engineer’s licence for example is absolutely an Australian specific licence. Originally we were told, in fact I even saw it in CASA print, that we were going to get an EASA licence. What we actually ended up with is what CASA describe as an EASA style licence. Most engineers I speak to have found it completely confusing and it is not recognised anywhere else in the world.
CASA has just finished implementing the Part 145 and Part 42 maintenance regulations for RPT operations. This has been a massive task for many of our members, – just as massive I am sure for the people in CASA working to bring these regulations on line. These regulations were brought in on a time line that was too short and very difficult to meet. In fact most 145 and 42 approvals were only issued in the last couple of weeks and days before the cut off date. The pressure this line in the sand placed on many of our members was ridiculous. I believe the level of stress that was placed on both industry and CASA staff could have resulted in serious safety implications. It certainly caused a level of stress on individuals that I would consider harmful.
Now that we have these new maintenance regulations we have actually and unnecessarily divided our small Australian aircraft maintenance industry in two. This has had huge repercussions in the Regional Aviation industry where RPT and non RPT operations generally work side by side. We now have the situation where someone with a CAR30 approval cannot work or provide overhauled or repaired parts to a 145 organisation, however someone in another country automatically approved by CASA that does not necessarily have all of the processes and systems in place as required for an Australian Part 145 approval can do so. I feared when these regulations were proposed that some organisations would see the 145 process as too daunting and would walk away from the RPT industry. This has actually happened with many organisations deciding not to go 145 or worse, just closing down their services all together. I have spoken to several Australian RPT organisations who are now sourcing overhauled or repaired components from overseas instead of the Australian workshop they previously used.
There is also much ambiguity in these regulations with as many interpretations as there are CASA field offices. I believe this can be attributed to a lack of real guidance material for both CASA and industry. This guidance material should have preceded the rolling out of the regulations instead of CASA now playing catch up.
I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will ittake to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting inthe middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
From where I am writing this on the Eastern side of Australia I am actually closer in distance to New Zealand than I am to Perth. So I wonder why we are not doing as almost every other country in the Pacific, and some in South East Asia have done, and adopt the New Zealand regulations. Here are a set of rewritten ICAO compliant regulations, written for and by a country with aviation operations basically the same as us. I would doubt that there would be an area of operation that would not match ours. There is also the huge upside that their “new” regulations were implemented over a decade ago and have now reached a mature state.
For the critics who will say that I am over simplifying things, or that it would not be constitutionally possible to take up my suggestion, I remind them of a set of aviation regulations called EASA designed and implemented by a large and diverse group of countries all operating within the same geographical region.
Imagine the real benefits to our local aviation industry of having our entire region operating on the same set of regulations. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so I look forward to someone smarter than me telling me what that is, but in the meantime, whoever our next Federal Government Minister may be, I implore them to consider and research my Pacific Solution.
Jeff Boyd is current Chairman of The Regional Aviation Association of Australia, and also Managing Director of Kite Aviation. The RAAA is a not-for-profit organisation formed in 1980 to protect, represent and promote the combined interests of its regional airline members and regional aviation throughout Australia. The RAAA has 29 Ordinary Members (AOC holders) and 72 Associate/Affiliate Members. The RAAA’s AOC members directly employ over 2,500 Australians, many in regional areas and on an annual basis jointly turnover more than $1b. Its members also carry well in excess of 2 million passengers and move over 23 million kilograms of freight each year. More information including categories of membership can be found at RAAA: Regional Aviation Association of Australia (http://www.raaa.com.au).:D:D

[Frank Arouet]

Nobody has listened to me or a plethora of others beating the same drum, so perhaps one should use THIS as a catalyst for future advancement of what was once a vibrant industry but now destroyed by borderline sociopath "pissants" yielding unfettered power with no mandate to do so.

It's time for a reckoning, but it won't come from Fort Fumble because it's infested with over paid narcissists without a conscience.

A pox on them all!:*

[T28D]

frank, I think you should tell us what you really think !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sarcs]

T28D: frank, I think you should tell us what you really think !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll second that Frank...but add I love it and oh so true!:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

This bloke summed most of our troubles;


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
While apathy rules within the industry the "stupid" rule supreme.

Any organization is only as strong as it's opposition is weak.

We are weak by definition.................:(

[Sarcs]

The FF Part 145 debacle kind of reinforces Frank's last couple of posts :E...and here's the latest update on consultation of proposed amendments...:ugh::ugh:

Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to Part 145 Manual of Standards (MOS) (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/145/download/part145-mos-briefing.pdf)

...it would appear that those concerned with these proposed amendments better get a wriggle on as you have less than 3 weeks to submit comments/concerns:rolleyes:

[LeadSled]

CASA policy is that holders of licences issued by any Chinese NAA will be acceptable for authorisation by any Chinese AMO.

Folks,
Re. the last post and CASR 145 MOS ---- great stuff, CASA AU "policy" determining the "law" in PR China and its SARs.
Keep it up, CAAC/CAD/CAA will find this most helpful. A certain Mr. Li in Beijing will be particularly impressed.
Tootle pip!!

[Sarcs]

Slight thread drift but there is relevance:rolleyes:

While we all have concerns for the total clusterf*#k that is the reg reform program (20+ years and counting!:ugh:), spare a thought for the yanks at the moment as it appears that the Obama administration is playing politics with FAA and NTSB furlough of, Obama defined, non-essential staff: Politics Behind FAA Closures? (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3a36879bec-3e1d-44b9-a7e5-7b1199908b2d)


The U.S. government's shutdown clearly was triggered by House Republicans who are taking appropriations hostage in a last-ditch effort to hold off Obamacare. But some decisions on what government services are "non-essential" suggest the Obama administration is playing politics as well by making sure the pain is felt far and wide. Take the FAA's move to close its registration branch in Oklahoma City. The decision already is delaying deliveries of passenger jets, business jets and general aviation aircraft. Airbus was unable to deliver an A321 jet to JetBlue Airways on Oct. 1, and two U.S. Airways-bound A330-200s could soon be held up. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association says scheduled deliveries during the next two weeks of about 135 aircraft worth nearly $1.4 billion are at risk if the registration office remains closed.
The office was deemed essential during government shutdowns in the 1990s and continued to operate. So what has changed? "To declare the FAA registry non-essential flies in the face of logic," David Warner, a Seattle-based aviation attorney, tells Aviation Week. "But if you're trying to make the dispute as painful as possible for the American people, then yes, you close it."

Investigating air crashes also seems to be non-essential. The National Transportation Safety Board inspection team has furloughed all but three of its 135 workers. The board pulled back a team that was investigating the crash of a Cessna CJ2+ business jet last week at Santa Monica Airport in California. All four passengers on board were killed.

To the outsde world, America's vaunted democracy must not look very appealing

& this link: When Airworthiness Became Non-essential (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3a5f1140a2-aec0-46b5-a452-7fd738d79682)
Yes indeed the US democratic system seems bizarre sometimes but at least the Federal Government and it's agencies are very much held to account by the American people and the constraints of the Constitution/Bill of rights:=.

Hmm...there would probably be a number of posters on here that would jump for joy if the Govt decided to furlough all non-essential staff at Fort Fumble!:ok:

Q/ Could we define the FF executive as non-essential?:E

[Sarcs]

First embuggered reg reform (draft consult proposal) that is addressed to the new Minister would appear to be Part 61:

Part 61 consult draft (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/061/download/part61-consult-draft.pdf)

Hmm...a bit bemused by the 140 character FF message though??:E:Proposed amendments to new pilot licensing regs. Comment by 25 October (https://twitter.com/CASABriefing/status/386995360733728768). Again those concerned with the proposed amendments better get a wriggle on...:ugh::ugh:

[LeadSled]

Sarcs and all,
Be very clear, this is not consultation about the horrendous Part 61, this is just a few of the errors and omissions being corrected.
Part 61 is already L.A.W. law, comes in to effect early December, a real sadists Christmas present.
Tootle pip!!

[Sarcs]

Leady: Part 61 is already L.A.W. law, comes in to effect early December, a real sadists Christmas present. Duly noted LS!:O
By the way in regards to the draconian Part 61 apparently there is 156 new criminal offences attached to the new reg..FFS!:ugh:

Come across an interesting article on News.com that has significant relevance to this thread:E: REGULATORS must make more effort to understand how regulation impacts small business. (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/regulators-must-improvereport/story-e6frfku9-1226735116042?from=public_rss)

Research the Productivity Commission has found small firms feel the burden of regulation more than larger businesses because a lack of staff, time and resources means they don't always understand and fulfil their obligations.

"A regulator's culture and attitude towards business can be as important as the content of the regulation itself," Commissioner Warren Mundy said in a statement on Wednesday.

"There is still significant scope for improvement in the way regulators engage with small business."

The report proposes a suite of changes which need to be implemented by all levels of government.

These include adopting communication practices with small business that focus on "brevity, clarity and accessibility of information".

Regulators should also be resourced to do their job effectively to avoid the shifting of direct and indirect costs onto business.

The commission found that regulators with effective risk-based engagement policies and procedures were more likely to be better resourced and to have senior leadership that invests in, and fosters, a business-focused culture among their staff.

"A stronger focus on risk was found to limit unnecessary intrusion on lower-risk small businesses, free up resources to improve frontline guidance and advice services, and enable them to more effectively address higher risks to communities," it says.

Government should require regulators to report back against a set of engagement principles to insure continuous improvement in regulatory performance. A more understanding, transparent regulator...yeah right that will be the day!:yuk::yuk:

[thorn bird]

Words, words and more words.
Aint these numpies fantastic at creating words!!
The indicators of performance are actions not words.
Words are used to justify and disguise corruption and if anyone is in any doubt that the aviation regulator is corrupt seriously needs some lessons in what corrupt behaviour looks like.

[Sarcs]

It seems the US Senate and Oz Senate have a few things in common when it comes to matters of an aviation regulatory nature. In particular they have a distinctly partisan (common concern) approach when it comes to aviation safety. Unfortunately that is where the political systems cease to diverge, here is a short article that shows why..:{:Senate Passes Small Airplane Revitalization Act (http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/Senate-Passes-Small-Airplane-Revitalization-Act_80375.html#.UlXa-0q4bMw)
Woodrow Bellamy III

The Senate unanimously passed the Small Airplane Act of 2013 last week, a bill that aims to streamline the certification process for smaller aircraft, sending the act back to the House where it is expected to pass.

Sens. Amy Kloubucha (D-Minn.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) introduced the Senate version of the bill in May, which requires FAA (http://www.aviationtoday.com/search/?query=FAA) to implement recommendations from FAA (http://www.aviationtoday.com/search/?query=FAA)'s Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) by the end of 2015. The ARC was formed in 2011 to identify ways to streamline the aircraft certification process for planes that fall under FAA's Part 23 category.

The committee is recommending implementing regulations for Part 23 aircraft that are performance-based and allow for greater consideration for the complexity of lighter aircraft.

General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) President and CEO Pete Bunce expressed support of the Senate passage of the bill.

“For far too long, outdated and overly burdensome regulations have impeded GA manufacturers from bringing new, safety-enhancing products to market, and this bill will help correct this problem," said Bunce. Bet you Ken & Co would love to make a similar statement to Bunce after the government had initiated a similar proactive reg change/enhancement but I don't think it is going to happen in our lifetime!:ugh:

[Up-into-the-air]

This small exeprt from the proposed part 145 changes shows how out of touch casa is.

(1) The mention of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) within subparagraph 145.A.70 (a) 1 of the Part 145 MOS has led to confusion as to who can sign off on the exposition, given the varied nature of organisation structures. CASA intends to standardise the definition of Accountable Manager between the Parts 66, 145 and 147 at the next regulatory drafting opportunity, such that it reflects the outcome required of an accountable manager position. In the shorter term CASA will remove the mention of the CEO from the Part 145 MOS provision.

Please Senators - Disallow Part 145

You can read the whole sorry lot here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/145/download/part145-mos-briefing.pdf

and more information:

Aviation Action | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=2001)

and note:

casa and part 61 changes Impact on aviation?? | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2087)

[triadic]

Talk to your contacts at major flying schools and you will hear a tail of terror in that the new part 61 will be so difficult to comply with they will choose to close down. Heli schools will be worse. I have heard that some schools will be faced with costs approaching $100k pa to stay alive. Many instructors will have numerous tests pa, some perhaps as many as 70 !! There are many holes in this change and only the Minister has the power to change or delay it and as it has already passed in Parliament then it is there that the changes should be pushed. Together with the new maint requirements it is indeed possible that GA will die over the next decade unless something is done to help make it work. Take a recent change in 100.5 in regard to transponder checks... the easy way to comply is to remove the transponder and keep flying. As we all know, TCAS does not work too well if the target does not have an operating transponder!! And CASA say it is all about safety - what rubbish!:mad::mad:

[Frank Arouet]

As highlighted in the Hempel Coroners report one must wonder as to "what were they thinking".

Take for instance the Coroners recommendation that a hit list be made available to "industry" of people with "renew by CASA only" medicals and others who may be of interest to CASA.

(you may not be interested in CASA but CASA are interested in you).

Why would anybody suffering sadness bordering on depression over a loved ones death, (for instance), go to any doctor for help knowing full well any disclosure will cost him/her their job/ investment/ joy or whatever when they can just shut up and suffer.

How many passenger carrying pilots are flying light and heavy metal with depression?

I guess we'll never know will we?

As is said by one PPRune member/ victim of CASA abuse which cost him millions;

"SAFE SKIES ARE EMPTY SKIES".

PUBLIC DISOBEDIENCE IS NOW A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION BY MANY I TALK TO. Pay attention Mr Truss.

[Jabawocky]

Leadie

How about this one;
Recency requirements for Private IFR rating: (61.920) The recency requirements for conducting instrument approach operations have been aligned with the recency requirements specified for an instrument rating. These requirements do not apply to enroute operations.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/061/download/part61-briefing-doc.pdf

Not sure if it was you or another poster who often claimed the great advantages and steps forward the PIFR made. Well I use it to keep my CIR recent when my recency gets a bit out.

I thought now that the ATO's are bailing out, including the one I use, that this might help me during the search for another good ATO. It may take a while. But it seems the rest of us non airline guys will be buzzing YBOK on weekends to keep current. Chances of a midair increased x 1000 :ugh:

Sent my FAA paperwork in yesterday so one month when they get back to work I might be one step closer to moving there!

We plane owners make a boat owner look like a genius!

[Cactusjack]

Jaba, you do raise an interesting point - moving overseas. I fly at the bigger end of town these days, but a number of good GA guys I know have already packed up and left for good. I know two who have gone to Canada and one to Europe. So the question is this, 'is it really getting that bad at the small end of town'? Seems the answer is yes. And that is a real shame when a bunch of bureaucrats can be allowed, supported and encouraged to fu#k up a once great industry so badly? Then again to those wankers on half a million per year, with their soft unworked hands, fat pensions and taxpayer supported living costs it means nothing that a struggling pilot or Gingerbeer needs to spend from a few thousand to a hundred thousand a year more to comply with **** regulations drafted by Noddy while he sits in his air conditioned/ heated office in Canberra, sipping on a strong black, being spoon fed caviar and jostling his sausage beneath his desk.
Parasites. The best politician is a dead one.

[Sarcs]

A Dear John letter from our fearless leader...:sad:OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY


Trim Ref: GI13/1091


11 October 2013


Dear Australian pilot

New pilot licensing regulations – Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations


By now I hope you are aware that on 4 December 2013 the new pilot licensing regulations – Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations – take effect. These new rules are an important element of the continuing modernisation of Australia’s aviation safety regulations and will improve and streamline the licensing of pilots, while lifting aviation safety standards. Change can be perceived as threatening, particularly if unsubstantiated rumours purporting to be fact are taken on face value. I have decided to write to you in order to dispel any concerns that may have developed within the aviation community about the impact of these new regulations on Australian pilots.

Unfortunately, there have been claims the new Part 61 rules may prevent people from continuing to hold a pilot licence. This is most definitely not the case. Most pilots will not notice any change as a result of the introduction of Part 61 licences. For other pilots there will be some changes, a number of which simplify requirements and others which introduce new or alternative requirements. For the majority of Australian pilots, the introduction of Part 61 simply means you will at some stage over the next four years be issued with a new licence with a different format and slightly different terminology.

Your current flying rights will continue under your Part 61 licence and you will to be able to operate the same aircraft in the same way after your new licence is issued. There are some changes to flight review requirements, although proficiency checks are broadly in line with current requirements. Your current licence continues to be a valid licence for the next four years or until you get your new Part 61 licence.

When flight reviews are required it will not always be necessary to undertake separate exercises for each rating and endorsement being checked. For example, if you are a private pilot flying a single engine aeroplane and have a night visual flight rules rating you will need a flight review for the single engine aeroplane class rating and the night visual flight rules rating. However, you can undertake one exercise to satisfy both flight reviews – you do not need two separate flight reviews. The new regulations provide flexibility in the way proficiency checks are conducted and the person conducting the check is able to assess the licence holder against a range of competencies. As an example, a commercial pilot licence holder flying multi-engine aeroplanes under the instrument flight rules can cover all the proficiency checks and flight reviews in a single annual exercise with the air operator they work for. Also, a flight instructor needs to pass a proficiency check for the rating and not for each training endorsement they hold. For the majority of licence holders there are no additional proficiency check requirements beyond the current regulations.

CASA is not charging any additional fee for the initial issue of a Part 61 licence to existing licence holders. You will simply be issued a new licence when you change or update your licence qualifications with CASA.

When you undertake a proficiency check or flight review, obtain a new rating or endorsement, add a new aircraft category or upgrade to a different licence, CASA will automatically send you a Part 61 licence to replace your old licence. This will happen after CASA receives notification from your flight instructor or examiner. You do not have to take any action.

Of course Part 61 does introduce a range of changes to improve safety. For new air transport pilot licence holders there is a requirement for multi-crew training and flight testing and there are increased requirements for co-pilots. There are also new requirements for low level flying and flying using night vision imaging systems. Each of these changes has been driven by the need to improve safety in specific areas where a demonstrated benefit to Australian aviation safety performance can be achieved. Part 61 aligns Australia’s pilot licensing standards with those of the International Civil Aviation Organization, making our pilots more competitive across the world and making it easier to attract foreign pilots to train in Australia. The introduction of Part 61 has also provided an opportunity to implement a number of beneficial changes to the Australian pilot licensing including:

• The new rules reduce red tape and devolve more licensing functions to the aviation industry.

• Many types of aircraft will be covered by a more flexible class rating system that reduces paperwork and costs. Pilots will not need to be issued separate type ratings for these aircraft.

• There is a new recreational pilot licence which has less onerous requirements, including the option of a different medical standard. Subject to the application of specific risk mitigations, this has the effect of permitting people meeting these new medical standards to continue flying whereas in the past this would not be the case.

• Benefiting everyone is the fact that the pilot licensing regulations are now in one location instead of spread across a number of regulations and Civil Aviation Orders.

The Manual of Standards, though large, draws together in one document all the necessary licencing standards information, allowing individuals to conveniently access only the material needed for a particular subject. It is not necessary to read the whole document, just the applicable section.

CASA consulted widely over a long period of time with people across the aviation industry to find the optimum way to modernise and improve the pilot licensing rules. When preparing the final rule CASA took into consideration the responses received from these consultative processes. The publication of Part 61 prompted a number of additional comments that were not brought forward through the standard consultation process. These inputs have been taken into account with the result that consequential amendments are being made to incorporate the most recent feedback.

To assist with a smooth transition to these new rules, CASA has already held a number of seminars across the country. To give pilots a further opportunity to understand the new rules, CASA is holding additional information sessions on 21 October 2013 in six capital cities. I urge everyone who would like to know more about Part 61 to attend these sessions. Bookings for the information sessions can be made on the CASA web site: www.casa.gov.au (http://www.casa.gov.au/)

The transition to the Part 61 environment has been planned to minimise the impact on pilots. Please do not be concerned about the change to the new pilot licensing rules. If you do have any questions or issues that need clarifying please contact CASA. Email: [email protected] To find out more about Part 61 go to: http://www.casa.gov.au/licensingregs (http://www.casa.gov.au/licensingregs)


Yours sincerely

John F McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety Well I feel better now he has cleared that all up!:oh:
Leady seems you have received a lifetime IOS membership plus a one time offer of free membership of the Tautological Society....:E

"particularly if unsubstantiated rumours purporting to be fact are taken on face value"

Hmm...where have I heard a similar line like that recently??:rolleyes:

ps Just keep banging on that tin Leady it would seem you're getting under the fearless leader's skin!:ok:

[Cactusjack]

Good to see the TRIM reference in the left hand side of the robust letter. It is unusual that CASA keep such printed correspondence on file, unless there is a pineapple attached.
Anyway, good to see that Leadie and others have stirred the proverbial CASA hornets nest up a bit. Poor LSG, they must be working around the clock at the moment dotting the 'I's and crossing the 't's, doesn't leave them with a hell of a lot of trough time :E

[LeadSled]

"particularly if unsubstantiated rumours purporting to be fact are taken on face value"Folks,

Take note that CASA have in the public domain very substantive legislative change proposals for Part 61, even before Part 61 comes into operation, to amend the sections of Part 61 that have given substantiation to the "unsubstantiated rumours".

I wonder if Mr.McCormick and his offsiders have actually taken the time to read, inwardly digest and understand the legislation that they have been responsible for putting in place.

I guess the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, AHIA, is just another segment that contributes to the ills of society, after all, it is their estimate that Part 61/1421/142 will force the closure of 40% of the helo. flying schools.

Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

I went to the briefing at the Dingley International on Wednesday night. It does't appear that CASA have much understanding of how Part 61 will be implemented. For something that has taken so long and is largely a photocopy of how things were in the 70's there are some very big unknown's 2 months out from implementation. I wouldn't like to be Charter operator, part 141 flying school or ATO right now.

One of the big ones is requiring ATO's to organise their own professional indemnity insurance. I know how much mine costs (which is over twice that which my GP wife pays) and I reckon ATO's will be more. Outside the volume markets, PI insurance is very difficult in Australia. I predict quite a few retirements at about Christmas and significant cost increases from those who remain. The Government seems to have learned nothing from when they tried this with doctors about 12 years ago.

I understood that all of the legislative changes have occurred. Its only about operating regulations and implementation now.

[Kharon]

LS#192 "I wonder if Mr. McCormick and his offsiders have actually taken the time to read, inwardly digest and understand the legislation that they have been responsible for putting in place." I would bet a hard earned pint that not only has McComvic not read 61; but could not make head nor tale of it as applied on a flight line; particularly after some of his expert crew had finished with "their" interpretation.

Just finished a review for a good mate; I swore off doing this stuff years ago (mostly due indigestion); but as a favour to a bona fide BRB member; I agreed. The background to this is fairly tasty, in short the unfortunate company after great expense was provided with an approved Check and Training manual, sold "compliant" with the anticipated Part 61. I am reliably (externally) informed that the bulk of the system and text was generated by two expert FOI. Apparently 'the company' went nuts when the potential cost, liability and heartache of implementing the new system was analysed; hence; I got the call. Not to labour the point, the manual is almost useless for any practical purpose, essentially (IMO) a badly phrased, highly subjective, legal liability on the hoof. The company was informed to either take it as given, or be prepared to argue the toss for the next few months with the experts; and loose.

For example to use a Captain as a FO, the Capt. must complete a 14 page induction process, twice, for both P1 and P2 seats. So, before we go off to the "induction" check list, we have a peep at the Training Syllabus for induction of C&T pilots; line pilots same same (ish) once you beat down the rhetoric and esoteric mumbo jumbo.

To ensure new pilots achieve competency in the operation of Company aircraft, and applicable Company operations and procedures. Captains will be inducted in the left hand seat, and Co-pilots will be inducted in the right hand seat. Captains who will also be undertaking Co-pilot duties shall be inducted in both control seats.

The Line Pilot candidate must be trained to a competent level in the relevant sections of the listed publications shown at the beginning of XXXX, and assisted in the development of the skills required in the following areas.

• Full engineering course on applicable aircraft type
• Operation and performance of applicable aircraft type
• Review Operations Manual SOPs
• CAO 20.11 procedures
• Dangerous Goods procedures
• Completion of relative paper work
Now, my old English teacher and no doubt Mr. Phelan would be tearing hair out at the abuse of language here; the company lawyer must be planning a luxury, around the world trip, first class. Then, for a laugh we go to the massive 14 pages of "Line Induction Training Guidelines and Record Form". Where we are presented with some interesting boxes to tick as being - subjectively satisfactory: for example:-

The material in this section has been included for the training and guidance of Training and/or Check pilots. It is by no means exhaustive and Check Pilots are requested to exercise common sense and discretion when assessing other points which may arise, bearing in mind that the objective is to attain and maintain the highest possible standard of pilot ability. During Line Training a pilot would need to achieve a SATISFACTORY standard for each item. (Minimum of 2 hours NIGHT training and all approaches). Carriage of log books, trip records, etc.. Keeping trip record, current times, names, reports, fuel dockets, engine readings, inspection and action on previous report on trip record.

Careful tarmac departure. Selection of best taxi paths; co-operation with tower control; consideration for other aircraft; sharp look-out for other aircraft at non-controlled fields.
Cockpit Check commenced in adequate time - avoid undue haste.Pre-start and after-start checks. followed by:-
Starting procedure. followed by:-
Action in event of failure to start.
]Smooth use of nose wheel steering. Care in manoeuvring in restricted spaces or parking area - easy parking without rocking or jarring.[/COLOR]

SMOOTH... :D ...love it to pieces:

On line up- Correct adjustment of seat and pedals for effective control with engine out; avoidance of touching brakes, correct position of feet. Check tendency to drag wing down on hold off.

I love the landing bumf – after the pilots has carefully used the brakes, we must check feet on brakes (correct placement thereof). Oh and after all this, we must Disconnection of the AP at the appropriate altitude. Stellar.

Enough – there are a further 12 pages of similar "fluff", badly defining subjective opinion of what should be occurring and when. Most of it reads like "Notes to self – what not to forget". Did Wodger write this I wonder?.

This missive goes on to a "Training Course for Induction Training" (whatever in all the hells that means). About here I'll stop; you get the picture and it's a bloody long shot away from the latest soothing noises being touted by Sleepy Hollow. In fact, just reviewing this section again, I am as confused as the poor buggers having to use it. One simple check per annum eh?. ....

Oh I wish I could put the pencil sharpeners back in the stationary cupboard; the inutile out to pasture; the dubious in remand and get this bloody mess sorted out; while there are people capable of doing it, still interested. Shambles, confused, pedantic, subjective, ill defined, badly qualified, out of control, but approved ??: all fair question for a Friday arvo chat.

Aye well - Cheer up mate, you can always amend it, once you've defined precisely which of the 177 pages you are amending....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Sponsored by the Ills of Society, Chapter - Anti Pre Beer Dribbled Matter. a.k.a FARTS - Fellows of the Aviation Robust Tuatological Society. (Courtesy Stan - the man).....:D

[Kharon]

Sarcs # 182 "By the way in regards to the draconian Part 61 apparently there is 156 new criminal offences attached to the new reg..FFS". That's only on a honest count; by the time half the industry has been prosecuted through subjective opinion, tested at law at your expense; I reckon you could comfortably double that count. What a weapon to place in the hands of your friendly local FOI and his minder...... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

"Three shall be the counting and the counting shall be three"...:D

[SIUYA]

These new rules are an important element of the continuing modernisation of Australia’s aviation safety regulations

[My emphasis]

:sad:

What is it? Over 20 years of 'continuing modernisation' so far, and then we get this crap?

The mind boggles.

MINISTER - FFS DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS 'CONTINUING' NONSENSE!

[Cactusjack]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Pretty much sums up CASA's approach - Lob a hand grenade at industry then run away.

[Jabawocky]

Fear not yee intrepid aviators.

JMAC has assured us all will be good in the world. If he is wrong we need to flood his desk with mail. I would suggest LOTS of mail, so that he personally has to deal with it.

Then a protest fly in, as many GA aircraft as can be squeezed onto the ground at Cantberra and those of us with enough fuel capacity roll in and out of the place (with a clearance of course) and fill the terminal area. When the pollies flights get delayed and cancelled, someone will start to listen.

By the time it takes them to get their act together on a TRA the point will be made.

A Truckies blockade in the sky!

[Frank Arouet]

Legal... "civil disobedience?

Next illegal civil disobedience I guess.

PM coming mate. Give me 5 minutes.

[Paragraph377]

Count me in. That means Jaba and myself are now members of the growing IOS I presume?

[PLovett]

I had a rather productive meeting with my local MP today who is certainly very interested in the issue. He is also going to link up with Sen X to discuss further both the Senate sub-committee report and what further action may be taken.

May I suggest that a similar approach be taken by others. Yes, you may get the generic brush-off letter but you may also get something more positive. We can continue to whinge and moan on this forum or we can get off out backsides and try to generate something. Its really our choice.

[Up-into-the-air]

This was released yesterday:


Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development

Opening of the Safeskies Conference
Hotel Realm– Canberra

16 October 2013

Thank you Peter Lloyd, President, Safeskies, and David Forsyth, Chairman, Safeskies and the Safeskies Executive Board for the invitation to open this conference today.

I would also like to thank all of you for attending this event, from near and far, to share and learn from each other’s aviation safety experiences.

Safeskies provides an excellent opportunity for all of us committed to best practice in safety to exchange our views and ideas about how to enhance aviation safety in Australia – and throughout our rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region.

It is a pleasure for me to address this important international aviation safety event as the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

I am very glad to return to a Ministerial portfolio that has truly engaged me through a lot of the time in Parliament.

And aviation is a critical part of my portfolio – and of Australia’s future development and economic growth.

Aviation Growth and its implications

Australian aviation has achieved strong and sustained growth over the past decade – and this growth underlines the importance of aviation safety.

More people are flying within Australia, and in and out of Australia than ever before.

Over 142 million passengers moved through Australian airports in the 12 months to 30 June 2013.

A record 57 million passengers were carried on more than 640,000 regular public transport flights around Australia within this time.

Sydney remained Australia’s busiest domestic airport with over 25 million passengers movements, followed by Melbourne with nearly 23 million passenger movements and Brisbane with nearly 17 million passenger movements.

Fixed-wing charter operators carried an additional 2.4 million passengers in 2012-13. More than one third of all charter passengers took flights either to or from Perth Airport – reflecting the strong growth of Australia’s resource industries.

However, although the aviation industry has expanded overall, this growth is not evenly shared around the country.

While parts of regional Australia have benefitted from strong growth associated with the resources sector or coastal migration, traffic levels at some smaller regional airports have declined.

International aviation continues to grow with over 30 million passenger movements into and out of Australia in the year ended June 2013 – an increase of over 5 per cent over the previous year.

Significantly, 11 million passenger movements were between Australia and South-East Asia and over 5 million between Australia and North-East Asia.

Together, these two regions contributed more than half of all passenger movements into and out of Australia.

This is a clear pointer to the future.

Asia-Pacific passenger kilometres already represent about 30 per cent of global traffic.

And the most recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) forecasts indicate that the Asia-Pacific region will continue to be the fastest growing part of an expanding international aviation market.

ICAO forecasts that the current 3.0 billion global passenger traffic movements will have more than doubled to 6.4 billion movements by 2030.

These levels of global and regional growth create challenges and opportunities for virtually every aspect of Australian aviation, including maintaining the safety of our skies.

We recognise that the Australian aviation industry is highly diverse.

The industry includes international and domestic passenger and freight carriers, smaller regional operations, charter and business services. It also includes aerial agricultural operators, emergency services, general, sport and recreational aviation.

These front-end services are complemented by other vital parts of the industry – including aircraft manufacturing, aircraft maintenance and flight training for both domestic and international flight crews.

Above all, the Australian Government is committed to providing an aviation governance and regulatory framework that helps ensure Australia’s aviation industry operates in a safe, efficient and reliable environment.

Aviation Safety

The Government’s aviation industry policy reflects the realities of the industry’s diversity.

Our policy also shows that we have listened to the issues which concern aviation stakeholders.

Our response to their concerns includes several key aviation safety and air traffic management commitments which I will briefly outline today.

We are committed to undertaking a strategic independent review of aviation safety and regulation.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority is well advanced in rewriting Australian aviation regulations – a process that has been underway for more than 20 years – and it is not without its critics and controversy.

This review will help ensure Australia maintains best practice in aviation safety.

Australia’s aviation safety record is internationally recognised as a very good one.

However, I believe that it is time to examine our aviation safety framework and identify where improvements can be made.

The future success of Australian aviation fundamentally depends on maintaining its impressive safety record and improving on it wherever possible.

The aviation safety and regulation review will be undertaken by a qualified and experienced member of the international aviation community, who will be assisted by my Department.

The Review will be expected to consult with all interested parties to make sure we achieve the best possible outcomes.

The review will examine:

* the structures and processes of the Government’s aviation safety agencies, and how they work together;

* the outcomes and direction of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s regulatory review process; and

* the benchmarking of our regulatory framework against international best practice.

I expect to release further details, including the final terms of reference and timing of the review, before the end of this year.

When the review is completed and the Government has considered its recommendations, I will issue CASA with a new strategic direction under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

The Government is also committed to delivering improvements to CASA’s structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation’s role as Australia’s aviation safety regulator.

We will appoint two additional members to the CASA Board –and strengthen its aviation skills and experience to ensure the Board is well-placed to oversee CASA’s new strategic direction.

We will also enhance the role of the independent CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) and improve the ICC’s reporting and resourcing arrangements as required.

The Government is also aware of significant pressures being placed on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s resources.

We will ensure that the Chief Commissioner of the Bureau can request additional funding, on a needs basis, to ensure a high standard of investigations is maintained, particularly when a large number of investigations are required.

Air Traffic Management

Nothing is of course more welcome in any industry than growth – but we clearly need to ensure that growth in air traffic is safely managed in our skies and on the ground.

We are experiencing delays at our major capital city airports – especially Brisbane and Perth – as they struggle to meet growing international and domestic demand.

And of course the resources sector will continue to create challenges for our air traffic management system – especially peak period demand associated with fly-in and fly-out operations.

These and other air traffic management issues demand an integrated response from airport and airline operators and Government agencies.

The Government’s aviation policy has outlined several areas where we can help improve Australia’s air traffic management system.

Undoubtedly, the single most significant step for air traffic management in Australia in the future will be the implementation of a new national air traffic control (ATC) system.

This project is being progressed jointly by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence and a request for tender is currently out with industry.

A harmonised civil and aviation air traffic system will not only provide greater operational efficiencies, but ensure seamless compatibility with other systems in Australia’s regional neighbourhood.

These harmonised systems will accommodate future air traffic in the region – which is expected to grow by more than 50 per cent over the anticipated life of the new air traffic system platform.

Defence is clearly a key stakeholder in Australian aviation.

I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon David Johnston, in supporting our agencies joint commitment to a harmonised national air traffic system.

As part of the broader response needed to improve air traffic management, I also welcome and support Airservices’ efforts, through its Airport Capacity Enhancement program, to enhance the efficiency of airport operations especially at Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne.

I look forward to the program’s extension into other major airports – including Sydney.

Future development at Sydney Airport will of course be informed by the Sydney Airport master plan due to be provided to the Government for consideration in December this year.
Infrastructure investment is a key part of improved air traffic management – and hence a priority for this Government.

Aviation Security

Aviation security is a close companion of air safety.

The Government recognises that the ‘one size fits all’ approach in aviation security does not always produce the best outcome.

We will therefore work to ensure that security measures are appropriate to the level of risk – without imposing unnecessary cost burdens or affecting the viability of services.

Requirements should be implemented in a practical and common sense way – while of course ensuring that aviation security is not comprised.

Regulatory reform in this area will allow compliance resources to be better directed to higher-risk infrastructure as the industry continues to grow.

The Government is also committed to ensuring all agencies work collaboratively and cooperatively with industry to, where possible, remove duplicated and unnecessary regulatory requirements.

Where practicable, we will also explore the use of non-regulatory approaches. After all, this government is committed to reduce the cost of government red tape on industry by $1 billion a year.

I expect my Department to play a strong role in assisting industry to implement security requirements in a common sense manner that is fit for purpose.

General Aviation (GA)

As a regional Australian I am well aware of the importance of a healthy general aviation sector.

The sector provides a very diverse range of services – ranging from charter flights, search and rescue, surveying and aerial photography, aero medical services and pilot training.

These are all important parts of our diverse Australian aviation industry.

We note industry concerns about the state of general aviation in Australia and at the same time recognise the potential opportunities for the industry to generate jobs, stimulate economic growth and create investment opportunities.

We are committed to establishing a regulatory regime that reflects best practice safety arrangements and is appropriate to the risks.

To this end, the Government will re-establish a regular dialogue with the GA sector to address industry issues – and agree on priority areas as part of a revitalised GA action agenda.

People and Technology

The continuing growth in Australian and international aviation means that Government and industry will need to continue to invest in our people and in technology to meet future demand.

Hence the theme of this conference – People and Technology – could not be more appropriate.

This Government supports a competitive and innovative aviation sector and the vital economic role in plays in Australia particularly for our tourism and other export industries.

It is through a skilled and well trained workforce and that workforce’s effective use of technology, that we can ensure our Australian aviation industry can meet future growth in the international and domestic aviation market.

I have therefore asked my Department to undertake a study into the state of the workforce in the aviation industry to inform future skills development and training policies.

A review of skills and workforce requirements across the aviation industry will provide an evidence based and coordinated approach to training and workforce development to meet industry needs.

The review is likely to encompass a broad range of aviation occupations including pilots, cabin crew, air traffic controllers, aircraft maintenance and engineering, avionics manufacture and repair, aviation security and airport operations.

It will also assist the aviation training industry in taking advantage of international opportunities presented by the strong aviation growth in the Asia-Pacific region.

The future is likely to be challenging, and we need to ensure that we plan effectively — but we cannot do this without workforce planning and training programs to provide us with a clear overall picture of the industry.

Conclusion

The Australian Government is determined to play its part in ensuring that Australia has a safer and more competitive aviation sector – and one that will continue to advance the national interest in the years and decades ahead.

We will work with our Government agencies, all sectors, and our international partners to support best practice in aviation safety.

I wish everyone involved in Safeskies 2013 a successful and rewarding conference.

Thank you very much – and enjoy the next two days.

[ENDS]


Brett Heffernan
Senior Media Advisor
Office of the Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
P: 02 6277 7680 | M: 0467 650 020


Disclaimer

This message has been issued by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material.
Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the Department on (02) 6274-7111
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

[Horatio Leafblower]

So basically he's saying nothing will change. I love all the weasel words over GA's role & future:

We note industry concerns about the state of general aviation in Australia and at the same time recognise the potential opportunities for the industry to generate jobs, stimulate economic growth and create investment opportunities.

We are committed to establishing a regulatory regime that reflects best practice safety arrangements and is appropriate to the risks.

(My underlining)

Translation:

We've heard all your whinging, but the new rules are coming and they aint changing. So bend over.

****** :ugh:

[Creampuff]

Correct.

Like the previous government, this government does not intend to do anything substantial to change the regulation of aviation in Australia.

[Cactusjack]

What a load of wank. The speach was written by some bureaucratic footstool in a darkened room, and delivered by Truss at a conference attended by some of the worst culprits of aviation decline in this country's history. Is it April 1?
The first few weeks of this new governments term has seen a repeat of the arrogance and ineptitude shown by Labor, and is a good indicator of what is to come - NOTHING. These guys are just as pathetic as the crappiest of pathological airlines, hell bent on sweeping everything under the biggest piece of plush pile carpet they can find.
Although I am just a mere commercial pilot and only deal with the occasional FOI, I feel for those in my airline who have to meander through the regulator maze of crap on a daily basis. Comments from creampuff, horatio, lookleft and up-into-the-air pretty much sums up the feeling of where we are headed, and it isn't pretty.
So you know what, let the government and its regulatory bodies continue to apply lipstick to the pig. Let them sit back, lie and deceive to their hearts content because one day a large metal tube will end up in a firey ball in one of their electorates and lets watch them sweat it out then. I don't want to see that but I reckon it is becoming more likely by the day. We should rebrand the ICAO risk matrix and call it the Australian aviation risk matrix and see where CASA sits on the likelihood scale? Anyone thinking the red zone, at a 5A......

[T28D]

It is about votes, now they are in the object is to stay in power, so nothing controversial, keep all things that might impinge on public safety well tucked away from the public at large don't rock the boat.

Safety Road, Rail or Air will not change under Truss, it will get the same treatment as Albo did and all before him Anderson et al.

No change means no political commentary in the general press , who cares what the operators of small aircraft think.

[Jabawocky]

WE should all get FAA licences, register a company inTexas/Delaware or somewhere convenient, Cayman Islands......hey now ya thinking Jaba....and remove the entire (or as much as possible) the GA fleet to N rego.

Would do us and CASA a favour :ok:

By the way my FAA paperwork is in. Probably in a pile of 2 weeks worth of mail in OKC :sad:

Step1.

[Old Akro]

I think the main stumbling block is FAA licenced LAME's

[Sarcs]

Warning long post!

The Truss speech has the Kingcrat's grubby (and probably bloody) little paws written all over it. What it shows is that now all the rhetoric of the election campaign is over the time for getting down to governing is here and the DoIT head sherang has got the rope around the neck of his minister and is herding him towards the top paddock.

Who can blame him after all he has an awful lot to lose (namely his job) if he was to simply adopt the government stated policy as writ and allow the IOS direct control of his minister. The Kingcrat if nothing more is a true survivor, he has survived in the top job through various changes of government and has been a loyal servant to Truss before.

The DoIT head has also been around for a good chunk of the much criticised reg reform program and it would be suicidal for him to simply administer the wishes of the growing and unruly masses of industry who have the audacity to suggest that we now adopt the NZed regs....no bureaucrat could survive being partly responsible for wasting 200 million plus of taxpayers money.

That is the conundrum facing Truss because, much like FF’s exploitation of the ‘mystique of aviation’ as a tool to bluff and keep government’s on side, so too does the Minister rely on the entrenched head of DoIT. If real change was to ever occur with strong ‘political will’, then the Coalition should have been sourcing and then grooming a top bureaucrat for the job a long time before the election. When they took back government and first announced the standard be-headings of head bureaucrats,Kingcrat should have been one of them.

Well that chance has been lost but it isn’t all bad news because although watered down the Truss speech does show a shift in the Kingcrat’s standard spin and that he is accepting of the fact that there needs to be change and soon. He also knows that the dirt file is growing on him (e.g. QON 1 of the last Senate Estimates) and that he is still facing a hostile group of Senators that could continue to grow in numbers come July next year. {The Senators and Minister also know that the effect of the PelAir enquiry was to put all of them on notice and the clockis effectively ticking.}

And then there is Senator Fawcett (and despite what Creamy says about him being a Liberal stooge and beholden to party politics), a Senator is a different animal not so obligated to holding the party line and more free to speak their mind in regards to national and state interest. {Example of this in recent years would be Doug Cameron and more in the past Bill Heffernan.}

DF has already shown his intentions in numerous Senate Estimates hearings and of course in the introduction to the Senate of the PelAir report... “Australia’s travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better….I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring.”

There is also the small subject of the previous government’s aviation white paper, which the DoIT head will have some serious concerns about because he knows that the Coalition government will be amending it with some major policy changes...remember this from last Estimates:Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)In broad terms, dealing with the regulation that CASA oversights specifically, particularly in the context of a regulatory process that has now stretched over a decade, and with changes of CEOs or directors of aviation safety there has been quite a change in approach to that, not just the current but previous. I am looking to understand what strategic guidance, as in long-term vision, comes from the policy area of your department, Mr Mrdak, that guides the people who are involved in regulatory reform in how the government wishes that go forward? Which stakeholders are involved? Can you talk me through how you set the policy directions for that?

Mr Mrdak: The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.
The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.

The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.

You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?

Mr Mrdak: To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)The concern, though, is what I am hearing from certain sections of the industry—and EMS is one, on the rotary side. I did not get time to confirm this with Mr McCormick today, but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that. So my question comes back: why has there been this change to basically have CASA dictating what is going to occur as opposed to constructively engaging with industry? Is that a policy that has come from government or is it something that has just evolved with changes of personality?

Mr Mrdak: I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, I am sorry.And then there is possibly the most revealing AQON from the last Estimates that, although appearing as a full and comprehensive answer, really is just another carefully constructed, obfuscated (with no real substance) answer. This answer goes directly to the performance of the department under Albo and Labor’s aviation white paper:QON 81 Aviation & Airports
Senator Fawcett asked:
Senator FAWCETT: When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?

Mr Mrdak: We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.

Senator FAWCETT: Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.

Mr Mrdak: We would be happy to do that for you.Here’s a link for the weasel worded (lots of them) answer:yuk::yuk::AQON 81 pg 5 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1314/infra/AAA.ashx)

[Creampuff]

And then there is Senator Fawcett (and despite what Creamy says about him being a Liberal stooge and beholden to party politics) … I don’t think I’ve ever used those words to describe Senator Fawcett.

That said, the fact is that Senator Fawcett and his fellow coalition members (like Senator Heffernan) are obliged to support party policy, except in relation to the rare issues on which the party permits a conscious vote. That's not being a 'stooge'. That's being a member of a political party.

But let’s assume they start ‘freelancing’. Other than huffing and puffing at Senate Committee hearings, what do you think the likes of Senators Fawcett and Heffernan are going to actually do to bring about actual change?

[Frank Arouet]

Anyway, must go check the fax machine, 1659 is rolling around shortly

You probably beat them to it.

You seem to have covered it all.

[dubbleyew eight]

the problem is that anyone can point out that there is a problem.
what is needed is for people to point out the solution.

[Creampuff]

Creampuff, you offer more huff and puff than anybody. No solutions, no ideas, just criticism. Lame my friend, lame and pure tautology.Having reviewed your post twice (which will be removed shortly, to avoid liability for defamation), I still see all criticism and no solutions.

I was going to use that metaphor about pots and kettles, but I anticipate you wouldn’t understand it and, in any event, it’s not applicable. I have posted, on numerous occasions, my suggested solutions. :=

[601]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority is well advanced in rewriting Australian aviation regulations – a process that has been underway for more than 20 years – and it is not without its critics and controversy.


I just had a horrible thought - there could be people in CASA who think that all CASA does is write aviation regulations.

[Creampuff]

I very much doubt that.

There isn’t anyone in CASA writing regulations. There hasn’t been for a long time.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Not since about 1997 or thereabouts.
Tootle pip!!

PS; The government of PR China has announced a plan to build 240 GA airports.

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is the current list of regs being subject to change (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2186) [from FF's web site] just from July 1, 2013.

Consultation updates in 2013

Consultation updates archives (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:standard::pc=PC_93263)
List of consultation updates in 2013
Title Details Date
NPRM 1304OS - Regulations of aeroplane and helicopter 'ambulance function' flights as Air Transport operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101612) This NPRM closed for comment 11 October 2013.

14 Oct 2013 Project MS 13/06 - Amendment to CASR Part 42 Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101395) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

14 Oct 2013 Project OS 12/40 - Amendment of CAO 20.18: Aircraft equipment - basic operational requirements (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101269) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

10 Oct 2013 Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) / Guidance Material (GM) - CASR Part 42 - Continuing Airworthiness Requirements for Aircraft and Aeronautical Products (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100056/amcgmp42.pdf) This AMC/GM has been published.

10 Oct 2013 Project OS 13/26 - Amendment to CAO 29.11 Helicopter Winching and Rappelling operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101709) Project approved. 10 Oct 2013 AC 147-2(4) - Approved Part 147 Training Organisations (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100045/147c02.pdf) This AC has been published.

9 Oct 2013 Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to the Flight Crew Licensing Suite (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS061) All comments should be submitted via the Project Leader, Mike Juelg ([email protected]) by close of business Friday 25 October 2013.

4 Oct 2013 Project OS 13/19 - Transition of the Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) rule set from the Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.6 into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASRs) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101701) Project approved.

2 Oct 2013 NPRM 1213CS - Addition of Safety Based Requirements for Hardened Cockpit Doors (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101615) This NPRM closed for comment 27 September 2013.

1 Oct 2013 Project CS 12/42 - Amendment to CAO 100.28 - Aircraft weight control Authority: (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101286) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

1 Oct 2013 MS 11/50 - Provision of a CAR 30/CASR Part 145 Training and Authorisation system for aircraft of a type (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:pwa::pc=PC_100807) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

1 Oct 2013 Project MS 13/07 - Civil Aviation Advisory Publication - CAAP 104-1(0) - Maintenance of Warbirds, Historic and Replica Aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101401) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

1 Oct 2013 CAAP 104-1(0) - Maintenance of Warbird, Historic and Replica Aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/104_1.pdf) This CAAP has been published.

27 Sep 2013 NPRM 1304OS - Regulations of aeroplane and helicopter 'ambulance function' flights as Air Transport operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101612) Comments to this NPRM has now been extended until 11 October 2013.

26 Sep 2013 Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to Part 145 MOS - Continuing airworthiness - Part 145 approved maintenance organisations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101102) All comments should be submitted via the Project Leader, David Skeoch ([email protected]) by close of business 22 October 2013.

24 Sep 2013 Consultation Draft for Exemption - temporary relief period from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100162) Comments to this Consultation Draft closed 20 September 2013.

23 Sep 2013 NPC 172/05 - Miscellaneous Amendments to Part 172 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Air Traffic Services (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101599) Comments to this NPC closed 20 September 2013.

23 Sep 2013 Consultation Draft for Exemption - temporary relief period from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100162) All comments should be submitted via email to: [email protected] by close of business Friday 20 September 2013.

26 Aug 2013 Project AS 12/45 - Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101310) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

21 Aug 2013 DRAFT CAAP 166-1(2) - Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-166-1-2.pdf) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 14 August 2013.

16 Aug 2013 FS 11/ 36 - Rewrite of CAAP 5.23-(1)- Multi-engine Aeroplane Operations and Training (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:pwa::pc=PC_100707) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

14 Aug 2013 Project CS 13/24 - Development of advisory material regarding approval of design of modifications and repairs to aircraft and aeronautical products (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101632) This project was approved by: Rick Leeds, A/g EM Standards Division 14 Aug 2013 NFRM 1101CS - Performance Standard for Aircraft Pressure Altimetry and Maintenance Requirements for Certain Aircraft Instruments (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101624) This final NFRM has been published.

13 Aug 2013 Project SS 13/04 - CASR Part 117 - Representations and surveys (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101382) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

12 Aug 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed Amendments to CAO 104.0 and WHR Directions and Licence Condition (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101401) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 8 August 2013.

9 Aug 2013 DRAFT CAAP 104-1(0) - Maintenance of Warbird, Historic and Replica Aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-104-1-0.pdf) This Draft CAAP closed for comment 8 August 2013.

9 Aug 2013 Consultation Draft for Part 61 Manual of Standards (MOS) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS061) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 2 August 2013.

5 Aug 2013 NPRM 1213CS - Addition of Safety Based Requirements for Hardened Cockpit Doors (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101615) Comments close 27 September 2013.

2 Aug 2013 DRAFT CAAP 166-1(2) - Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-166-1-2.pdf) Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Craig Brown ([email protected]) by close of business 14 August 2013.

31 Jul 2013 NPRM 1304OS - Regulations of aeroplane and helicopter 'ambulance function' flights as Air Transport operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101612) Comments close 27 September 2013.

31 Jul 2013 Consultation Draft for Miscellaneous amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101458) All comments should be submitted to the Project Leader: Mike Broom ([email protected]) by close of business 14 August 2013.

30 Jul 2013 Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) / Guidance Material (GM) - CASR Part 145 - Approved Maintenance Organisation Requirements (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100056/amcgmp145.pdf) This AMC / GM has been published.

29 Jul 2013 Project CS 13/20 - Amendment to Advisory Circular AC 21.14(2) - Production Certificates (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101602) Project approved. 29 Jul 2013 Project CS 13/21 - Amendment to Advisory Circular AC 21.15(1) - Supplemental Type Certificates (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101603) Project approved.

29 Jul 2013 Project MS 13/22 - Amendment of CAO 100.5 - General requirements in respect of maintenance of Australian aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101604) Project approved. 29 Jul 2013 Project MS 13/23 - Civil Aviation Order (CAO ) 104 amendment - consequential of Part 145 MOS amendment (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101605) Project approved.

29 Jul 2013 NPC 172/05 - Miscellaneous Amendments to Part 172 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Air Traffic Services (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101599) Comments close 20 September 2013.

26 Jul 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed Amendments to CAO 104.0 and WHR Directions and Licence Condition (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101401) Comments on this Consultation Draft are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Mike Broom ([email protected]) by close of business 8 August 2013.

25 Jul 2013 DRAFT CAAP 104-1(0) - Maintenance of Warbird, Historic and Replica Aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-104-1-0.pdf) Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Mike Broom ([email protected]) by close of business 8 August 2013.

25 Jul 2013 AC 147-1(1) – Practical consolidation training (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100045/147c01.pdf) This AC has been published. 24 Jul 2013 Project MS 12/31 - Advisory Circular 66-7(0) - Provision of guidance on carrying out Practical on course Training/On the job Training and recording of evidence of recent work experience (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101056) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

19 Jul 2013 Project MS 12/39 - Amendments of the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Training Requirements and minor amendment to Part 147 MOS - Facility Requirements (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101164) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

19 Jul 2013 Project MS 13/15 - Exemption from 145.A.30 (k) 2. Ii) & (ii) 9(B) of Part 145 MOS requirement (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101475) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

19 Jul 2013 AC 66-7(0) – Practical training options for aircraft type training – POC & OJT, and the recording of evidence of recent work experience (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100047/066c07.pdf) This final AC has been published. 18 Jul 2013 Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) / Guidance Material (GM) - CASR Part 66 - Continuing Airworthiness - Aircraft Engineer Licences and Ratings (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100056/amcgmp66.pdf) This AMC/GM has been published.

18 Jul 2013 DRAFT AMC/GM CASR Part 42 - Continuing airworthiness requirements for aircraft and aeronautical products (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/042/download/draft-amcgm-part42.pdf) Comments on this draft AMC/GM CASR Part 42 closed 15 July 2013.

17 Jul 2013 Project CS 10/09 - Review of Airworthiness Standards and Testing relating to Aircraft Altimeters (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100054) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

10 Jul 2013 Project CS 11/22 - Advisory Circular AC 145-1(0) Safety Management Systems for Aircraft Maintenance Organisations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100550) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

9 Jul 2013 AC 145-5(0): Implementation procedures for the technical arrangement on aviation maintenance between CASA and CAAS (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100046/145c05.pdf) This final AC has been published.

5 Jul 2013 Project MS 13/08 - Amendment to CASR Part 42 Manual of Standards (MOS) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101434) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information. 4 Jul 2013 Project MS 13/13 - Reissue of Instruments - CASA EX 60/11 and CASA 180/11 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101471) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

4 Jul 2013 Project OS 12/44 - Amendment to CAO 95.4 .1 - Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - gliders engaged in charter operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101295) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

3 Jul 2013 DRAFT AMC/GM CASR Part 42 - Continuing airworthiness requirements for aircraft and aeronautical products (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/042/download/draft-amcgm-part42.pdf) Comments on this draft AMC/GM CASR Part 42 are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Iftekhar Ahmed ([email protected]) by close of business 15 July 2013.

1 Jul 2013 Consultation Draft for CAR 235A Amendments - Landing on and taking off narrow runways - certain aeroplanes (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100451) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 21 June 2013.

[Paragraph377]

Leadsled, if CASA hasn't written the regs in 17 years, would that explain why the Australian aviation industry rules and regs are such a basket case? A complete disconnect between those at the coal face and those writing the rules?
It's also interesting the ATSB's most recent investigation findings. It looks like 'every man for himself' and that somebody in there has whacked Dolan over the head and he is waking from his hybernation from reality, and is severing ATSB's ties with the beast and reverting to what they used to do and report factually without bias? Does Dolan smell the whiff of death in the air and has therefor decided he doesn't want to be part of the band playing on the deck of the Titanic?

And I thought NZ's focus on helicopters and balloons was ridiculous, what you guys are putting up with over there is unbelievable. Then again we have had our own issues with transparency, honesty and learning from mistakes. You do need to get rid of the bureaucrats and spin doctors who have held safety and reform to ransom for decades. These are the people who are papering over the cracks. In fact if you get rid if them I think you will find that the cracks are more like grand canyons. The irony is that you have a couple of crusading senators yet they too are treated with complete contempt?

[Selcalmeonly]

CASAweary,

I fear you protest too much about things you should normally not know about. Your knowledge of CASA (down to the last dollar) appears intimate to say the least.

May, I suggest that if you are indeed weary of your CASA responsibilities, you submit your resignation! Leave the conditioned air of the CASA Building you work in, and get a job in industry!

[Up-into-the-air]

And here is the list January 2013 to 30th June 2013 (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2186):

24 Jun 2013 DRAFT CAAP 235A-1(0) – Minimum Runway Width – for aeroplanes engaged in RPT and Charter operations with a maximum take-off weight greater than 5700kg (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/caap-235a-1-0.pdf) This Draft CAAP 235A-1(0) closed for comment

21 June 2013. 24 Jun 2013 Project CS 13/17 – Amendment to CASR Part 31 – Airworthiness standards for manned-free balloons (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101482) Project approved.

21 Jun 2013 Project CS 13/18 – Amendment to CAAP 215-1- Guidance to the preparation of Operations Manuals on the risk management of airworthiness and flight operations with known or forecast volcanic ash contamination (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101483) Project approved.

21 Jun 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed CAO 100.28 Amendment Instrument (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101286) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 7 June 2013.

12 Jun 2013 Project MS 13/16 – Proposed Instrument to mandate inspection of Control Cable Assemblies with terminals manufactured from SAE-AISI 303 Se stainless steel (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101476) Project approved.

11 Jun 2013 Project CS 12/41 – Amendment to CAO 100.5 – inclusion of a mandatory inspection of Control Cable Terminals manufactured from SAE-AISI 303 Se stainless steel (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101270) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

11 Jun 2013 Project MS 13/13 – Reissue of Instruments – CASA EX 60/11 and CASA 180/11 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101471) Project approved.

7 Jun 2013 Project MS 13/14 – Amendment of the CASR Part 66 MOS (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101473) Project approved.

7 Jun 2013 Project MS 13/15 – Exemption from 145.A.30 (k) 2. Ii) & (ii) 9(B) of Part 145 MOS requirement (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101475) Project approved.

7 Jun 2013 NPRM 1203OS – Extended Diversion Time Operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101470) This NPRM closed for comment 2 August 2013.

6 Jun 2013 Consultation Draft for Part 61 Manual of Standards (MOS) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS061) All comments should be submitted to the Project Leader via [email protected] by close of business 2 August 2013.

5 Jun 2013 DRAFT CAAP 20.7-1(0) – Aeroplane Weight and Performance Limitations (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-20-7-1-0.pdf) This draft CAAP closed for comment 31 May 2013.

3 Jun 2013 Draft CAAP 92-2(2) – Guidelines for the establishment of on-shore Helicopter Landing Sites (HLS) (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/caap-92-2-2.pdf) This draft CAAP closed for comment 31 May 2013.

3 Jun 2013 Project CS 13/12 – Implementation review of CASR subparts 21.M and 21.J and associated legislation (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101462) Project approved.

27 May 2013 AC 11-3(1): Electronically Formatted Certifications, Records and Management Systems (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/011/011c03.pdf) This AC has been published.

27 May 2013 Consultation Draft for CAR 235A Amendments – Landing on and taking off narrow runways – certain aeroplanes (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100451) All comments should be forwarded to the Project Leader, Miles Gore-Brown via the email distribution box [email protected] by close of business 21 June 2013.

24 May 2013 DRAFT CAAP 235A-1(0) – Minimum Runway Width – for aeroplanes engaged in RPT and Charter operations with a maximum take-off weight greater than 5700kg (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/caap-235a-1-0.pdf) All comments should be forwarded to the Project Leader, Miles Gore-Brown via the email distribution box [email protected] by close of business 21 June 2013.

24 May 2013 Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to Part 66 MOS – Training requirements and proposed minor amendment to Part 147 MOS – Facility requirements (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101164) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 20 May 2013.

21 May 2013 Draft AMC/GM CASR Part 66 – Continuing Airworthiness – Aircraft Engineer Licences and Ratings (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/066/download/draftamcgm066.pdf) This Draft AMC/GM closed for comment 20 May 2013.

21 May 2013 Draft AC 66-7(0) – Practical training options for aircraft type training – POC & OJT, and the recording of evidence of recent work experience (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/066/download/draftac66-7-0.pdf) This Draft Advisory Circular closed for comment 20 May 2013.

21 May 2013 Project MS 11/19 – Amend CAAP 42B-1: CAA Maintenance Schedule to make terminology consistent with the current regulations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100498) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

21 May 2013 Project SS 12/34 – Miscellaneous amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101081) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

21 May 2013 Project MS 13/11 – Allow an applicant for an CAMO to include other than Regular Public Transport (RPT) aircraft in the CAMO application (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101458) Project approved.

21 May 2013 CAAP 42B-1(1) – CASA Maintenance Schedule (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42b_1.pdf) This final CAAP has been published.

17 May 2013 AC 66-3(1): Engine Ground Run Training and Assessment (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100047/066c03.pdf) This AC has been published.

17 May 2013 AC 66-2(10): List of Aircraft Type Ratings for CASR Part 66 Licences (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100047/066c02.pdf) This AC has been published.

17 May 2013 Draft CAAP 92-2(2) – Guidelines for the establishment of on-shore Helicopter Landing Sites (HLS) (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/caap-92-2-2.pdf) Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Craig Brown ([email protected]) by close of business 31 May 2013.

17 May 2013 Project CS 12/25 – Applicability of Bell 204/205 Airworthiness Directives for UH-1 Helicopters (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100964) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

14 May 2013 Project MS 13/10 – Amendment to CASR Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101453) Project approved.

14 May 2013 Project MS 12/26 – Allow a Part 145 AMO provision of a CRS to meet airworthiness obligations under CAR Part 4 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100965) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

8 May 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed CAO 100.28 Amendment Instrument (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101286) All comments should be sent to the Project Leader, Ben Challender ([email protected]) by close of business 7 June 2013.

7 May 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed Part 42 MOS Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/042/download/consultation-draft-mos-part42-amdt.pdf) All comments should be sent to the Project Leader, Iftekhar Ahmed ([email protected]) by close of business 21 May 2013.

7 May 2013 DRAFT CAAP 20.7-1(0) – Aeroplane Weight and Performance Limitations (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-20-7-1-0.pdf) Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Miles Gore-Brown ([email protected]) by close of business 31 May 2013.

3 May 2013 Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to CAO 20.7.4 and CAO 20.7.1B (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100420) All comments should be sent to the Project Leader, Miles Gore-Brown ([email protected]) by close of business 31 May 2013.

3 May 2013 Project MS 13/09 – Permission for a Part 145 AMO to carry out CAR 1988 Maintenance (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101443) Project approved.

3 May 2013 AC 145-4(1) – Control and delivery of training within by a Part 145 AMO (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100046/145c04.pdf) This final AC has been published. 1 May 2013 Project MS 13/08 – Amendment to CASR Part 42 Manual of Standards (MOS) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101434) Project approved.

24 Apr 2013 Draft AMC/GM CASR Part 66 – Continuing Airworthiness – Aircraft Engineer Licences and Ratings (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/066/download/draftamcgm066.pdf) Comments on this draft AMC/GM CASR Part 66 are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Michael McGill ([email protected]) by close of business 20 May 2013.

19 Apr 2013 Draft AC 66-7(0) – Practical training options for aircraft type training – POC & OJT, and the recording of evidence of recent work experience (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/066/download/draftac66-7-0.pdf) All comments should be sent to the Project Leader, Michael McGill ([email protected]) by close of business 20 May 2013.

19 Apr 2013 Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to Part 66 MOS – Training requirements and proposed minor amendment to Part 147 MOS – Facility requirements (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101164) All comments should be sent to the Project Leader, Michael McGill ([email protected]) by close of business 20 May 2013.

19 Apr 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed CASR Part 117 – Representations and surveys (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100199/draft-proposed-casr-part117.pdf) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 16 April 2013.

18 Apr 2013 Project MS 13/07 – Civil Aviation Advisory Publication – CAAP 104-1(0) – Maintenance of Warbirds, Historic and Replica Aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101401) Project approved.

10 Apr 2013 Consultation Draft for Exemption – of component installers from CAR 42W (4) (b), (d) and (e) (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/download/consultation_draft_car42w_exemption.pdf) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 8 April 2013.

9 Apr 2013 NFRM 1202OS – Fatigue Management for Flight Crew Members – Amendment to CAO Part 48 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101397) This final NFRM has been published.

9 Apr 2013 AC 147-2(3): Approved Part 147 Training Organisations (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100045/147c02.pdf) This AC has been published.

8 Apr 2013 Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 232A-1(0) – Administration of Aircraft & Related Ground Support Network Security Programs (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101058) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

8 Apr 2013 Project MS 13/06 – Amendment to CASR Part 42 Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101395) Project approved.

8 Apr 2013 Consultation Draft for Proposed CASR Part 117 – Representations and surveys (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100199/draft-proposed-casr-part117.pdf) All comments should be emailed to Leanne Graham ([email protected]) by close of business 16 April 2013.

2 Apr 2013 Project CS 13/05 – Amendment of CAO 100.5 – to exempt WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation YMF-5 and YMF-F5C Series aircraft from paragraph 8 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101387) Project approved.

28 Mar 2013 Project FS 12/21 – Early Implementation of CASR Part 61 provisions – CASA Glider Pilot Licence (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100935) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

26 Mar 2013 Consultation Draft for Exemption – of component installers from CAR 42W (4) (b), (d) and (e) (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/download/consultation_draft_car42w_exemption.pdf) All comments should be emailed to the Project Leader, Ifte Ahmed ([email protected]) by close of business 8 April 2013.

25 Mar 2013 NPC 139/07 – Proposed Amendment to Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139 – Aerodromes – Chapter 11 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101379) Comments close of business 15 May 2013.

19 Mar 2013 Project SS 13/04 – CASR Part 117 – Representations and surveys (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101382) Project approved.

19 Mar 2013 Project SS 13/03 – Post Implementation Review of CASR Part 99.B – Drug and alcohol management plans (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101381) Project approved.

18 Mar 2013 Project CS 10/20 – Preparation of an Advisory Circular dealing with the certification of software and complex hardware systems (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100211) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

18 Mar 2013 Consultation Draft for Post Implementation Review of Airspace Regulations 2007 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101310) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 7 March 2013.

12 Mar 2013 Final CAAP 232A-1(0) – Administration of Aircraft & Related Ground Support Network Security Programs (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/CAAPs/ops/232_1.pdf) This CAAP is now available on the CASA Website.

8 Mar 2013 Project OS 13/02 – Post Implementation review of
CAAPs 166-1and 166-2 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101375) Project Approved

7 Mar 2013 Project AS 12/07 – Amendment of Advisory Circular AC 139 – 16(0) – Developing a Safety Management System at your aerodrome (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:pwa::pc=PC_100861) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

6 Mar 2013 Redrafted Consultation Draft: Amendments to CAO 104.0 – Certificates of Approval and Direction – warbird maintenance by certificate of approval holders and their employees (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100807) This Consultation Draft closed for comment 1 March 2013.

4 Mar 2013 AC 92-7(0) – Applications for competent authority approval: Radioactive material (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/092/092c07.pdf) This AC has been published.

20 Feb 2013 Consultation Draft for Post Implementation Review of Airspace Regulations 2007 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101310) All comments should be emailed to [email protected] by close of business 7 March 2013.

20 Feb 2013 Draft CAAP 232A-1(0) – Administration of Aircraft & Related Ground Support Network Security Programs (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-caap-232a-1.pdf) Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Jayson Rowe ([email protected]) by close of business 27 February 2013.

13 Feb 2013 AC 139-16(1) – Safety Management Systems for Aerodromes (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/139/139c16.pdf) This final AC has been published.

31 Jan 2013 Point of Clarification to NFRM 1105AS – CNS/ATM Plan for this Decade-Aircraft avionics equipage mandates for satellite-based IFR navigation, Mode S/ADS-B transponders and forward fitment of TCAS II Version 7.1 (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nfrm/point_of_clarification_to_nfrm1105as.pdf) This Point of Clarification has been published.

24 Jan 2013 AC 21-36(1) – Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Equipment: Airworthiness Guidelines (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c36.pdf) This AC has been published.

23 Jan 2013 Project CS 13/01 – Clarification of certification requirements for instruments and equipment used in Australian aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101318) Project approved.

23 Jan 2013 Project CS 12/06 – Amendment of Advisory Circular AC 21.14 – Production Certificates (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100830) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

22 Jan 2013 Redrafted Consultation Draft: Amendments to CAO 104.0 – Certificates of Approval and Direction – warbird maintenance by certificate of approval holders and their employees (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100807) All comments on this Consultation Draft are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Mike Broom ([email protected]) by close of business 1 March 2013.

22 Jan 2013 AC 66-2(9) – List of Aircraft Type Ratings for CASR Part 66 Licences (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100047/066c02.pdf) This AC has been published.

18 Jan 2013 NPRM 1209AS – New precision instrument approach operations (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101170) This NPRM closed for comment 14 January 2013.

16 Jan 2013 Project MS 11/18 – Review of Advisory Circulars & Development of CAAP relating to limited category and experimental aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_100507) This project is now closed
Refer to the project closure notes for further information.

15 Jan 2013 Project AS 12/45 – Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007) (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101310) Project approved.

14 Jan 2013 CAAP 92-4(0) – Guidelines for the development and operation of off-shore helicopter landing sites, including vessels (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_4.pdf) This CAAP has been published.

10 Jan 2013 CAAP 42ZC-2(0) – Maintenance of amateur built aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42zc_2.pdf) This CAAP has been published.

8 Jan 2013 Draft AC 21-36(1) – Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) equipment: airworthiness guidelines (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/021/download/draftac21-36-1.pdf) Comments on this draft AC are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Jayson Rowe ([email protected]) by close of business 21 January 2013.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Selcalmeonly
CW: You Protest Too Much
CASAweary,

I fear you protest too much about things you should normally not know about. Your knowledge of CASA (down to the last dollar) appears intimate to say the least.

May, I suggest that if you are indeed weary of your CASA responsibilities, you submit your resignation! Leave the conditioned air of the CASA Building you work in, and get a job in industry!


I know your weary of casaweary but the figures to the last dollar are exactly as CASA gave in response to the Question on notice from the last Senate Estimates hearing. I think the next one could be very interesting.

Now time for some satire, mention of a sea shanty, or perhaps a bit of Shakespeare. Opps better not - people have been banned for less.

One of the IOS signing off!

[Sarcs]

Careful Biccy you'll be blacklisted and highlighted on the growing IOS/FART list of suspects for possible future enforcement action..:E And remember that they don't need evidence of association just rumour!:=

Came across an interesting addendum to the recently released (tongue in cheek) Sup Estimates AQONs 2012: Man Made Obstacles Located Away From Aerodromes-Risk Review (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1213/infra/151_attachment_a.ashx)

This review is interesting because it would appear that FF are actually suggesting we adopt Part 77 from the US or NZ regs: FindingF2

INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION
The USA and New Zealand have developed a legislative framework that groups the regulations pertaining to the management of man made obstacles, wherever they are located, into one rule set (Part 77 –Objects that Affect the Navigable Airspace). Part 77 sets out the requirement for notification heights and the standards with which the regulator is required to assess objects that affect the navigable airspace.
And in R2 option 1:
OPTION 1 – CREATION OF PART 77 OBJECTS THAT AFFECT NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE

This option is designed to group all obstacle related regulation within one CASR Part. It is proposed that this CASR Part is designated CASR Part 77. This brings the regulation of obstacles in Australia in line with the regulatory structure applied in the United States and New Zealand.
Here is NZ CAA Part 77 (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Consolidations/Part_077_Consolidation.pdf)...hmm bet you if FF adopt Option 1 and they finally get Part 77 all drafted that our version won't be 28 pages (x 10 will be my guess..:E).

More interesting though is the fact that, if Option 1 is endorsed, FF will be setting a precedent of adopting a NZ reg....nah it would never happen:=

That would be like saying that maybe..just maybe the IOS could be right!!:{

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is a link to the casa forward plan. (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/corporat/corpplan/corpplan13.pdf)

It is not downloadable and very difficult to look at. I did one page at random.

Is this the latest way for "...transperency..."???

Read and weep.

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u608/vocasupport/CorporatePlancasa_zps122439a6.png

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and skulls comments to the Coolum meeting. (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2203)

Different with the response at Brisbane to AMROBA, with no "release".

Here is the "Latest by skull (http://www.casa.gov.au/Scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101720)":

As a result, since 2010, nearly 200 new rules, rule amendments and guidance documents have been finalised or are nearing completion, and this has been done with the active involvement and cooperation of the Australian aviation industry. and

We carefully considered the views of all interested sectors of the industry and the wider aviation community, and take all reasonable comments and submissions into account before any rules are finalised. and

I can assure you it is not CASA's intention to impose unnecessary burden on the industry.Skull finally admits the mess is here YES :yuk:

and:

That there is co-operation from industry.

Ha - Not from the stuff I have seen.:=

[dubbleyew eight]

and take all reasonable comments and submissions into account before any rules are finalised

what that actually means is that you can submit anything you want to the regulatory reform process but we will only ever do what we intended in the first place.

canadian owner maintenance works for canada and south africa.
obviousy Australians are too stupid to maintain their aircraft.

the CAAP on private owner maintenance is interesting. The approved SAAA maintenance course runs over two days. all it covers is paperwork.
one would think that if CASA lived in the real universe the maintenance course would cover maintenance issues, but it doesn't. it covers law and paperwork.
....as if that would save you.

[Kharon]

Not your average Thursday night viewing, but for students of body language, spin muffins and Wodgerisms; the clip is worth at least a fast run through.

Choccy frog for the identity of the "Mystery Blonde"

6 minutes of fame ??. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri8VCDfGMrs)

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. McBeth.

[Up-into-the-air]

BLAAAH

:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Paragraph377]

This is a long but interesting read about the methodology and mindset behind today's CASA. A sort of tale about its beginning, birth and reincarnation;
http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/45527ec4-b248-d233-c4bd-04d6470c3896/1/full_text.pdf

After reading the above work then read Dicks book 'Two Years in the aviation hall of fame'. Much of what he says is actually factual about today's modern CASA. Not pretty by any means, and the amusing and colourful descriptions of the then CAA are robust.
Either way CASA is still, and will always be, a basket case unless a minister with balls takes the beast by the horns and slaughters it.
What about you Mr Truss, got the gooleys to do the job?

[Up-into-the-air]

casa claim that there is no major effect to aviation due 100.5, yet they publish the following (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101737) yesterday:

Project CS 13/27
Project CS 13/27 - Review the requirements for the calibration for certain aircraft instruments when the aircraft is operating under the Visual Flight Rules

Issue

Civil Aviation Regulations (1988) (CAR) 39 (Class A aircraft) and 41 (Class B aircraft) require that all aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft, are maintained. Those regulations go further and prohibit operation of that aircraft unless there is a maintenance program that includes instructions for all those components included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
Three Airworthiness Directives (ADs) were published to address the needs of certain instruments to ensure consistent standards were being applied:


AD/INST/8 applicable to aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR),
AD/INST/9 applicable to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and
AD/RAD/43 applicable to any aircraft fitted with a transponder and altitude encoding equipment and operating under either the VFR or IFR.

A review of appropriateness of using airworthiness directives for maintenance directions resulted in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 100.5 being amended to include Paragraph 11, Additional maintenance requirements, which has replaced the three ADs. It is important to note that Schedule 5 of the CAR does not provide any testing parameters needed when performing scheduled maintenance on these instruments and systems.
CAO 100.5 requires that all aircraft, with some exemptions, operating in Australian airspace are to have specific maintenance tasks completed on the aircraft's pitot static system, including altimeter and airspeed indicator every 2 years and the fuel quantity indicating system every 4 years. Exempted aircraft are those aircraft which have an existing approved maintenance program that includes these specific requirements.
CAR 39 and 41 make no distinction as to the nature of operations the aircraft is to be used for. To allow aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules to be excluded from the requirement to regularly maintain certain aircraft instruments and systems would require CAR 39 and 41 to be amended or that provision included in the proposed CASR Part 91.
Concerns have been raised by some members of the aviation industry that the current universal requirements to regularly calibrate certain aircraft instruments and systems are an unnecessary cost impost on some sections of the aviation industry in Australia and are unwarranted.
By not requiring a section of the Australian fleet to perform regular maintenance on certain equipment when they are potentially operating in the same airspace as aircraft being maintained may increase the risk of loss of separation.
A Discussion Paper will be prepared and released to determine the extent of the concern regarding the costs of these maintenance actions for aircraft operating under the VFR and the associated risks. This may lead to further consultation linked to regulatory changes.
Project objective

To release a Discussion Paper to present the issues and, following review of responses, determine if further action is warranted.
Rules affected

CAR 39, CAR 41, CASR 91, CAO 100.5
Status

This project was approved by: Peter Boyd on 22 October 2013.
Project management

Project Leader/s: Charles Lenarcic ([email protected])
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Mick McGill ([email protected])
Project Priority

Medium


Is this burying the matter again??

[Kharon]

So much said, so little done - What about you Mr Truss, got the gooleys to do the job? A very valid question, I get a feeling of impending nothingness which is fully supported by the Townsville refueller's offsider's latest scurrilous gossip. Seems old Entsch has had his wings clipped by lack of party support and legal threats, Ol' McDonald (ei,ei,Oh) is miffed and hiding behind the Trusty Truss' latest piffle and McComic on 'you tube' spouting waffle (see 226 above). Gods spare us.

Digging about for something unrelated, stumbled over an interesting power-point presentation by Ron Bartsch (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raes.org.au%2Fassets%2FPresentations%2F Ron-Bartsch-Making-airlines-more-profitable.pptx&ei=MXVpUqOrIK2jiAfDmYHQAw&usg=AFQjCNHGt2ZWRrG6H1HXJyq_rrGbSiLaAw&bvm=bv.55123115,d.dGI), as the 'horse racing' theme piqued my interest, I took five to have a skim through. It's quite well done and valid.
The premise is therefore that no longer can management feel that they can remain aloof or removed from the actions of those whom they employ, and that the latent conditions or active failures built into the culture and operating practices of the organisation are an integral component of their management responsibilities.

“Regulatory compliance should not create an additional burden on an organisation if it provides little or no safety benefit, but should rather be an outcome of a system specifically designed to support the organisation’s safety operations". (Extract from CASA letter to Airline CEOs, June 2007).
Included were references and quotes from the Dick Smith (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/doom/10-chapter8-hall-of-doom.pdf)book, Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom December 1984. Out of idle curiosity I took a further five to revisit Chapter 10 of the Smith missive. Between Bartsch and Smith a very ugly picture emerges which makes you wonder if anything can ever be changed. These CASA beggars have the public service mandarins so bluffed with the 'mystique' and baffled by the 'blood's on your hands' mantra that nothing short of an ICAO downgrade will make any sort of difference. I note that ICAO have just finished kicking seven bells out of the PNG CASA and are 'in the area'; perhaps Truss should spare a few moments for tea and biccy's with the ICAO crew; get a true picture and sound advice from a team that actually know what they're on about. Yep, I know, dream on - right.

"By mentioning the word "safety" whenever they believe their unfettered control is threatened, or if anyone queries their deliberate preference for granting selective dispensations instead of updating a regulation. This maintains the enormous power base of the bureaucrats concerned.” Dick Smith. “Now there is a culture of change aversion that has effectively removed Australia from identifying and participating in improvements to air safety.” - Dick Smith Ten years of Aviation Safety Neglect July 2010. Like Dick or not, you have to admit, he does manage to hit the odd nail or two on the head.

[Paragraph377]

I agree about Dick, like him or not he knows how CASA ticks, in more ways than one. The problem for Dick is that he never fully understood who his friends or enemies were at the higher levels, and the Iron Ring knew that, so in the end Dick got dicked. You gotta feel sorry for him as his intentions were admirable and let's be honest, his strategy/vision was in many ways better than that of the current misfits. Perhaps if he had way back then invented and applied some of his robust peanut paste to the iron rings shackles he could have slipped the shackles off the government and industry's wrists earlier in the peace?

Could Bartsch be the new adviser to Trusspot? Could he be one of the new board members? Would Ron be given the mandate and support to break the iron ring and dispose of the GWM once and for all?
Either way one thing is for certain, and that is the actions of Mr Truss in coming months in relation to who the new board members are, who the new adviser is, and whether he walks the Skull prior to March, and whether he shoves that embarrassment Beaker out the door in the new year will be the defining moment and loud message of whether we are truly going to have the slate wiped clean and our industry saved, or whether we are transitioning into another chapter of the decline and destruction of Australian aviation.
I hope Mr ICAO is playing very close attention to the continued decline of aviation safety.

[Creampuff]

Mr Bartsch is now a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

[Paragraph377]

Creampuff, although I have a reasonable grasp on the AUS structure, there are some gaps for me. Serious question, could Bartsch be promoted from AAT to a DAS role, or in the least day a board position or special adviser to Trusspot?