PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

Sunfish
23rd Jan 2014, 15:18
Cabinet has correctly calculated that nobody in Australia apart from pilots gives a **** about aviation.


.......at least until the smoking holes start appearing regularly.

Kharon
23rd Jan 2014, 21:30
Rather than incur the wrath of Tidy Bin by drifting ever closer to the ragged edge of the 'stay on topic', no poems, no chanties and definitely no laughs lecture; thought I'd shuffle further discussion of the Pel Air story across to the Senate thread. It really belongs there and anyway; the WLR is not expected to sort out CWA knitting pattern arguments, let alone this mess. The treatment of pilots in the secret world of the aftermath needs to be brought, clearly and succinctly to the miniscules attention. Not that we'd expect anything done of course; but when the Wet Lettuce Review is over and if we get another wretched thing like the 'Albo white elephant paper' delivered; there will lots and lots for the Senate to play with. Rumour has it that Forsyth and Fawcett chat, which means Xenophon in the loop, so no need to abandon all hope just yet.

The WLB (both of them) come from foreign climes, from a different mind set, from a different rule set and an entirely un-Australian attitude toward the 'pilot-in-command'. I doubt they would credit what was done and still happening to DJ after he'd passed through a normal rehabilitation program. But then I just can't see either Canadian or European pilots being treated in this manner or putting up with it. No matter, there are other dark, but not so dangerous corners into which the WLB may shine their guiding light. The advisors will undoubtedly show the way.

Jinglie
24th Jan 2014, 03:23
K, if LV is so experienced, why did he screw the flight planning figures (see Davies submission) I wonder?? Perhaps Wodger should require him to re-sit all his ATPL theory and conduct a flight test by and industry nominated ATO!
What goes around....!:ugh:

aroa
24th Jan 2014, 07:13
WE / the IOS / GA industry can now all sleep well at night knowing that Ms Peta Credlin, the unknown ...is to be "assisted" by the unmentionable.:eek: FCS!

One seriously aviation knowlegable "safety adviser" she must be to need that kind of back up. Independent???...yeah, right!

Good one, "Minister"...this is CAsA CYA 101 PhD quality blanket move.:mad:

Looking forward to the White (dunny) Paper to tell us what a wonderful aviation environment we "live" in. :mad::mad:

You cant be an eagle if you're trussed like a turkey:{

Paragraph377
24th Jan 2014, 11:08
Sarcs, post #1692 on the senate inquiry thread, well done sir :D:D
It also applies to this thread, nice bit of work. Amazing how the same names pop up consistently whenever there is CASA shenanigans going on? Sarcs, are you using that robust program Sky Sentinel to put your data together?
There are so many clues in many of Fort Fumbles writing styles. It isn't too difficult to tell when you have been targeted by the GWM, or when Flyingfiend has been doing his thing, or when you are being wogered by Woger or when you are under the spell off a Voodooist.
The treatment of Dominic James is palpable. The method in which there was an attempt to slow bake him, the audacity of the Regulator in its modus operandi is deplorable and absolutely questionable, and the freeness, ease and dexterity of the Regulators disregard for ethics and systematic abuse and 'embuggerance' of the system is breathtaking at times.
The CASA house of cards has collapsed, the Frankenstein (as Creampuff correctly puts it) has morphed into something similar to "The Thing". It is a rabid dog that needs to be put down immediately. I have seen this all before in another country, and the end game isn't pretty. Hard decisions with dramatic results need to be made forthwith before the inevitable occurs.

Finally, can anybody confirm that Crudlin is in fact Mr Truss's aviation adviser per se? I know she is chief of staff for the big eared speedo wearers inner sanctum of oinkers, which includes Truss. I thought MrDak was Truss's information and technical adviser on all things aviation, with Crudlin being more the policy and spin writer? Perhaps not, I have lost track and the trail of political shit leads from one corner of Canberra to another.

On a final note, the current malaise and spotlight rests with the Regulator, and rightly so, but don't forget that the ATSB and ASA still aren't out of the woods. ASA has a lot to answer for, particularly from the Russell era with which many effects are still being felt today. And there is the ridiculous way that the ATSB has virtually prostituted itself to CASA, not to mention its complete loss of direction, standards, capability, reputation, and independence. Once again a feeble, inept attempt at creating perfection has resulted in an ATSB Frankenstein of monumental proportions.

Forget tick Tock, VOTE 1 IOS

Sarcs
25th Jan 2014, 01:51
Well less than a week out from WLR submission due date, perhaps now would be a good time for an IOS review of industry planned involvement, possible content of individual/organisational submissions & whether or not submitters are basically singing from the same hymn sheet...:confused:

At the same time maybe we can inspire the fence sitters to take the plunge and grab the keyboard, even if it is a regurgitation of a submission they may feel akin to, with a proviso of… “I agree wholeheartedly and unconditionally with what this mob are suggesting”….
:D

However before we kick off we need to mention the now familiar elephant in the room..:=


http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Elephantintheroom_zpsd5f557692_zps7190d3cd.jpg



And much like Albo before him, the miniscule fails to address the EITR in his WLR ToRs...:ugh:


A true bona fide IOS member Maxtreight.. (however) ‘nails ’ the EITR in a comment tacked on the end of an Australian Flying article…Safety Review Open for Submissions (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/safety-review-open-for-submissions)

…“CASA needs to be completely removed from the General Aviation (GA) picture. It has shown total ineptitude with its involvement with GA, most recently with the aborted implementation of the brilliant new Part 61 licensing regulations. The structure of CASA may well be suited to the oversight of RPT operations, but as far as its involvement with GA is concerned CASA has been too far removed for far too long. CASA take a persecutorial approach to even the most minor of regulatory infractions by GA pilots and those who are on the CASA blacklist best just give up the game early or face the litigation-fest that is the CASA legal department….”

Refer to the link above for more of Max’s insightful comment…:D


{Note: Maxtreight your outstanding IOS membership fees for ’14 have been waived in lieu of this contribution}


Ok on to the IOS review…


Many of the various alphabet soup aviation organisations have expressed an interest in getting involved in the WLR, how many of those will actually make submissions is anyone’s guess..?? However a troll of g.o.o.g.l.e and organisational websites seem to suggest that there will be a healthy contribution from a large number of industry stakeholders:

FedSec Steve’s crew ALAEA - Aviation Safety Regulation Review — Submissions from members (http://www.alaea.asn.au/index.php/news/news/545-aviation-safety-regulation-review-submissions-from-members)

“..Now Open ALAEA members are invited to provide to the ALAEA any views, experiences or evidence that the ALAEA may use in preparing a submission to the Federal Govt on Aviation Safety. Our submission has to be completed and submitted to the Minister Dept by 31st January 2014. See media release below…”

The AAA (airport’s mob) - “ The AAA looks forward to contributing to the review process on behalf of Australia’s airport operators. (http://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AAA_Media-Release_Aviation_Safety_Review_14-Nov-2013.pdf)”

The SAAA – President’s Chat newsletter December 2013 (http://www.saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Presidents%20Chat/Presidents%20Chat%20December%202013%20Rev%201%201.pdf)

“..We have a relatively short space of time to put together a written submission to the panel, I would therefore ask you to have a read of the terms of reference and then put your thoughts into an e-mail and either submit it yourself directly to the Panel, or preferentially to [email protected] so that we can present a united voice to the Panel & therefore the Minister…”

AMROBA - As quoted in my earlier post # 300 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-15.html#post8278760), AMROBA well and truly indicate where their submission is going in their latest Newsletter (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol_11_Issue_1.pdf)


“… Adoption of the Kiwi aviation Act & Regulations in toto would put us in a better position to obtain these important agreements…”

{Comment: The interesting thing with AMROBA & AAA is that both organisations are also part of… ‘THE AUSTRALIAN AVIATION ASSOCIATIONS’ FORUM’…so presumably their personal submissions will strongly reflect the TAAAF Aviation Policy (http://www.aafi.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TAAAF-Policy.pdf). Hmm…wonder if the TAAAF will also be making a combined submission??}

While on the TAAAF and the letter ‘A’, it is interesting that AOPAA chose not to sign up to this ‘alliance’ for the reasons stated in this Australian Flying article: AOPA Responds to TAAAF Issue (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aopa-responds-to-taaaf-issue)

So to AOPAA…this is one submitter that has made a draft submission publicly available and therefore open to IOS scrutiny… - Submission to regulator review panel, from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, (AOPA). (http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/424/AOPA_regulatory_review_submission_V2.pdf){Hmm..is this a conflict of interest submission perhaps??}

Well there is a small cross-section example to mull over on the Australia Day long weekend…more to follow K2 (Sarcs)…:ok:

Frank Arouet
25th Jan 2014, 02:44
Well, the AOPAA individual submission goes to a 'page not found' page and the president appears to have memory loss WRT membership numbers and exactly who he represents today, (not 60 years ago). This organizational miasma purporting to represent me also have a senior member as an 'expert' advisor to the 'review' do they not? I doubt Truss knows what a TAAF is, let alone SBAS/GBAS/WAAS or wassamattermate?

Sarcs
26th Jan 2014, 00:23
Frank:Well, the AOPAA individual submission goes to a 'page not found' page and the president appears to have memory loss WRT membership numbers and exactly who he represents today, (not 60 years ago).It would appear the AOPAA link is now defunct….:{

Perhaps it was…

…the COI query that did it..??:rolleyes:

…an extreme overload of the url link due to the many thousands of IOS members interest in what ‘the voice of GA’ had to say??

…sudden realisations that maybe the proposed submission may breach the unwritten, politically correct MOU with FF??

…an IT glitch and it was never intended for the submission to be available for general (IOS) consumption??

Shame really..:{...it could have been a good promo for future membership.:rolleyes:

The draft submission may have only been five pages and somewhat diluted for impact (i.e. as per the UMOU), but the general premise of the submission was on the whole pretty good...:D

Dilemma: How are the IOS to do a proper, comprehensive & transparent..:rolleyes:..review, of committed industry stakeholders to the WLR, without documented evidence such as the AOPAA draft submission?? :confused:

Well it just so happens that I downloaded a hardcopy of the AOPAA draft submission, so maybe some cherry picked paragraphs (again unverified for veracity..;)) could be of interest to the IOS review panel…:E
{Note: Please bear in mind that this is ‘draft’ only and 3rd hand, therefore not to be relied on for veracity & true final AOPAA opinion i.e. hearsay only}

Skipping the standard couple of pages with the usual preamble, organisation priorities..etc..etc; and the problems that AOPAA believe face GA, now and into the future; we finally get to the ‘meat & veg’ section (pages 3-5): Specifically, the aspects of the regulator that we believe requires change are as follows.

1. Industry consultation. Although communication (and subsequent goodwill) between GA and CASA has improved in recent years, it is a fact that new regulations or changes in regulations are frequently presented to GA as an ultimatum.
A consultative approach is required with those contending with and introducing innovations and technical improvements in all aspects of aviation. This calls for legislative reform.
It is apparent that the CASA legal department, whilst efficient and capable in itself, has an influence which leads to preoccupation with legalistic arguments. Legalism is an arid process. Aviation is an industry of practical and constantly changing technology. Legalism should give way to practicality in the development of aviation.

2. CASA enforcement. The industry is rife with stories of individuals who have been “persecuted” by CASA. Sometimes these cases do sound like individual disagreement “payback” fights, and sometimes problems occur through an area FO making his own interpretation of rules in contrast to everyone else. Sometimes these arguments go on for years at high cost to all concerned. Justice should be seen to be done and the processes
altered to enable that to occur.

3. Aviation should be encouraged by CASA as part of its formal charter. Having its charter limited to ‘Aviation Safety’ encourages negativism, which is widely seen in practice. There is no settled standard for ‘air safety’. This leaves CASA with a poorly identified obligation, and
no obligation to act for the benefit of Australian aviation.

4. Australian LAME training standards are lower than those of NZ. Our training schools don’t align curriculums to industry requirements, and those curriculums vary from state to state.
We should support an Australasian / Pacific approach to maintenance. CASA will base future AMR licences on academic achievement, with insufficient emphasis on experience.

5. Inconsistent CASA policies: CASA must be required to act coherently across all of its officers and offices.

6. To the outside observer, sometimes CASA appears to consist of 4 organizations in one, and each part appears to believe it runs the organization in the style of the Satraps. Those 4 parts are upper management, middle management, the field officers, and the legal dept.
This may be an unfair criticism, but again to the outside observer, CASA often appears to fail to adhere to government directives, or to enforce its own regulations. Different interpretation of regulations by middle management, field officers, and by the legal dept can cause the hapless aviator considerable difficulties.
The 4 parts of CASA make consultation with industry very difficult. Many is the time that various GA organizations have thought to have come to an agreement with CASA, only to find that an agreement has been ignored or reversed by another of CASA’s “parts”. A formalized consultative procedure that overcomes this problem would be very desirable.

7. Constant regulatory changes breed confusion, mistrust and doubt. A safety case should be presented and debated prior to any alteration to the Act, Regulations and other dictums.
CASA’s regulatory changes frequently have no perceptible safety outcome, or certainly none relevant to GA.

8. Pilot licencing: This extensive topic will no doubt be dealt with by others. We limit our comment to suggest that proper accord should be given to foreign training qualifications.
We have seen highly qualified and experienced pilots required to sit for exams in Australia, even when their overseas training was from facilities recognized as the best in the world.
This can be inconvenient and costly for Australian pilots, and can make it impossible for overseas pilots who wish to fly and/or holiday in Australia.

9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, demanding specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and frequent rejection of those specialist reports Avmed has demanded. Demands have become ever more complex and expensive; opinions of DAMEs are often ignored, and opinions of appropriate specialists are often ignored. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor. It can be argued that CASA should rely more on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.

10. Passenger Insurance: AOPA calls for an industry wide insurance scheme in the manner of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act (Cth) to be made applicable and exclusively so for all passengers in all Australian aircraft, whether paying passengers, students or otherwise.

11. EASA rules. The GA industry appears to be universally against this implementation. These rules are designed for and suit airline aircraft, not private GA. They are too complex for a typical small GA maintenance organization, and thus add more expense. Most GA aircraft are FAA type-certified. It is perverse and inappropriate to adopt European Rules.

Other Pacific nations, including NZ (which has a thriving GA scene), use FAA regulations. In fact we would do well to align ourselves with NZ, in regulation of individuals (not organizations), training and qualifications, and with inspection authorizations.
{Note: The above would appear to be part of an exec summary, as there were numerous references at the end of each numbered paragraph. Presumably there is intended to be a factual addendum that addresses the individual points more comprehensively}

And finally the money shot..:E (i.e. Conclusion):D. Conclusion.


Without a radical revision, it seems that GA will follow so many other
Australian industries into oblivion, taking jobs, opportunities, and skills with it. The prospective GA pilot faces problems with access to airfields, high costs, and a far from appealing ageing aircraft fleet. The aircraft owner faces a frequently hostile airport owner, shortage of licenced maintenance engineers, rising maintenance costs, increased paperwork, and such uncertainty with both CASA and airport owners that it
is difficult to obtain finance to purchase new aircraft.
Addressing the problems with CASA would go a long way towards easing this situation, as has been demonstrated by NZ’s adoption of the FAA GA model about 17 years ago. It is fact that since then, NZ’s GA has outstripped Australia’s.
We have heard it said that where it takes a wheelbarrow to carry a copy of all regs pertaining to GA, New Zealand’s can be carried in one hand. This may be an exaggeration, but it is not an exaggeration to say that adoption of the NZ regulatory system for GA would improve the prospects of GA’s survival.
Hmm…so that'd be another tick for adopting the NZ regs..:D..Ok over to you IOS review panel….:ok:

Frank Arouet
26th Jan 2014, 01:37
In the Truss website link below he invites input on various topics. Given he is the Minister for Transport, one would think this would be high on his list of invitations for comment. What hope have we got with this bloke?


Warren Truss MP (Federal Member for Wide Bay and Leader of The Nationals) (http://warrentruss.com/yoursay.php)

thorn bird
26th Jan 2014, 23:08
Absolutely None Frank, he's a seat warmer. His lifetime pension assures him a very comfortable lifestyle, he's hardly likely to rock the boat now.

Sarcs
27th Jan 2014, 19:58
4 days and counting on the road to doom or redemption...:ooh:

Moving right along...:cool:..noticed the non-powered crew (GLF) had an invite to meet with the WLRP prior to Xmas...;)

Aviation Safety Review (http://www.glidingaustralia.org/GFA/aviation-safety-review.html)

In December last year the Vice-President and I were invited to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister’s independent aviation safety regulation review panel to discuss important aspects impacting our aviation sector. We agreed to submit a Briefing Advice to assist the Panel’s review as a fore-runner to an eventual submission to the panel. A copy of that briefing advice can be found HERE (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SBxWtueKacQ1hkanJyYjMtcDg/edit?usp=sharing).


Submissions to the panel are to be lodged by 31 January 2014 and I encourage every Australian glider pilot concerned about the future of our great interest and sport make their own submission after reading our advice to the panel.I encourage every glider pilot and supporter concerned for our future to lodge a submission to the Minister’s Review Panel and express their personal thoughts about what they think is important for our gliding Freedom to Fly.
Coupla quotes from the briefing paper (mentioned above)...

...."5. On the basis of its outstanding safety track-record of the past, the GFA agrees that the current relationship based on exemptions and delegations is better served by the proposed Part 149 Approved Organisation Model. Most important is GFA's continuing right to self-determine and administer its own culture and rule-making, its role in supporting glider pilots in command, their clubs and the maintainers ensuring the operating efficacy of the craft they fly; plus GFA’s agreed Manuals of Standard Procedures, operating rules, record keeping and audit activities..."

..."7. CASA’s respect for GFA’s role in self-administering Australia’s gliding realm and to not remove it from that role without first showing due cause and a process incorporating natural justice..." {Natural justice you say?? What's that..:confused:..don't think that falls into the vernacular in the halls of Fort Fumble..:ugh: }

Ok moving on to the common themes...:rolleyes:


.... "11. Oversight by CASA must be only via the GFA's manuals, procedures and structures, and not by direct intervention. Two recent examples of CASA officers circumventing the GFA in its dealings with its members. This undermined GFA’s authority to oversee and administer gliding in Australia with consequent negative safety outcomes. The importance of a mutually respectful and mindful oversight of gliding in Australia must be paramount.

12. Oversight and compliance is mostly achieved through a watchful and caring culture where subtle layers of fellow club members, instructors, safety officers, duty pilots and pilot peers look out for each other. It is an elegant, effective and respectful approach to mentoring and performance development. On the rare occasions (< 0.1% pa) that stronger discipline is necessary, infraction has been satisfactorily resolved over time. Criminal culpability as currently proposed by CASA is counter-productive to the just culture and safety management Australian gliding has developed and refined over decades..."

Part in red...now where have I heard that opinion voiced before...??:ugh:

Finally GFA's message for the panel :D:1. GFA recognises and appreciates the cooperation and collaboration evident within CASA through the Associate Director of Aviation Safety and the Self Administering Sport Aviation Office,

2. The Part 149 Approved Organisation model is the correct way forward,

3. Funding and the method of fair audit of GFA requires further consultation,

4. GFA is held in high regard by aviation generally and is well placed with CASA to build upon its existing administration and oversight of gliding in Australia,

5. A punitive, authoritarian and disrespectful attitude exists within the regulator’s approach to serving the best interests of Australia’s aviation industry. This is out of touch and not aligned with modalities for success, and

6. A thriving aviation sector is critical for Australia’s future. CASA’s current thrust is detrimental to this outcome and is unsupportable. A Ministerial Policy is urgently needed directing CASA to adopt a core mission to support and promote a vibrant, successful, diverse and thriving aviation sector.Anyway over to the IOSRP...:ok:

Addendum: Someone sent me a PM link to the RAA's forum site that is currently running a similar thread..thank you for that..:D

Here's a particular (pertinent) post of interest from Oscar..:D: Post # 84 (http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/is-casa-a-liability-to-an-aircraft-industry.111541/page-5#post-405547)

Frank Arouet
28th Jan 2014, 00:00
Years ago I had a serious complaint against CASA and "ministerialised" them resulting in a recommendation I take the matter up with The Commonwealth Ombudsman, as one was able to do in those days. CASA immediately pushed for an "own motion investigation" which limited my complaint to a vexatious loss of my evidence and left me with limited scope to attack them on due process and my claim of cronyism.


Today I note Fairfax newspapers and "our ABC" exposing corruption in the Unions and calling for blood. This, to my thinking was calling for an "own motion investigation" based on left leaning entity findings. I found it amazing anybody would see anything remarkable with exposure of this activity with the Unions, indeed it has been ignored in the main for six years. But the similarities struck me. See justice done under our terms.


Wouldn't it be grand to have a review into CASA as an "own motion" idea?


Write your own terms of reference with as near as possible accurate complaints, refuse to include historic data and push to ensure a pre determined outcome, then sacrifice someone to appease the plebs and just continue as before. Same horse with a different jockey.


I hope I'm wrong about Truss and his agenda, but unfortunately I have no faith that he will deliver an outcome beneficial to aviation in Australia, especially to Manufacture, GA and Engineering fraternity.


We all should beware The Ides of march, not just The DAS.


I wonder, will he get a reference with his golden handshake?

Paragraph377
28th Jan 2014, 11:34
Sarcs, I always enjoy your analytical posts and well researched information. 10/10. However, and there is always a however, it is painfully obvious that the WLR is a standard 101 government exercise in massaging the turd.
Truss promised a review of CASA as part of the Liberals desperate attempt to win votes at the election. A standard empty promise, but then they won! What to do what to do?? They must continue the farce and robustly look into the current malaise, and without rehashing old material, the WLR was born. A clever concoction of spin, magic tricks, massaging, deflection and of course 'all of it kept safe, in a safe, in the safe city of Canberra'!

The Australian aviation industry, the media (except some ABC reporters, Sandilands and Phelan) and most in general have been either duped by the pony act, are sadly as dumb as a pigs anus or quite simply couldn't give a shit (that will change when 200 charred fragmented unidentifiable corpses are removed from a smoking hole by using tweezers and a small spoon :mad:)

If Truss and his chief lettuce whippers of Mrdak and Credlin were serious about safety they would never have orchestrated this 'd' grade 70's porno flick called The Wet Lettuce Review. They would have launched a clear, transparent and credible review using known industry independents with real aviation experience and who have a spine. To get the real flavour of what CASA, ATSB and ASA have done, perhaps the WLR could interview the following people, just for shits and giggles;

- Dominic James
- Nick Xenophon
- Clark Butson
- John Quadrio
- Brian Aherne
- Boyd Munro
- Shane Urquhart

Now wouldn't that be a hoot, and my wordy wouldn't we see the real Australian aviation scene exposed :D
And I am confident that if the above 7 had their chance to explain clearly, logically and succinctly their personal dealings and in-depth knowledge of working within the system it would be done without the use of limp wristed lettuce leaf slaps, stern talkings and home spun verbal diarrhea.

Kharon
28th Jan 2014, 17:52
P377 # 319 "[couldn't] give a shit (that will change when 200 charred fragmented unidentifiable corpses are removed from a smoking hole by using tweezers and a small spoon". (etc).

Just a stray thought, a twiddle with first coffee; but I wonder if anyone is truly worried about the "smoking hole", CASA least of all. The 'big one' scenario is probably the least of their worries, the 'operator', government, the whole lot will go slip quietly into the bomb shelters and wait it out. The tragic thing is they may be the only survivors after the holocaust and emerge into the new world and (here's the bad bit) start breeding. They built their bomb shelters, finest your money could buy ages ago and have had many, many years to perfect the evacuation and survival plan. The statistics, the law, the system and government all combine to ensure their survival. Nope, for first coffee thoughts, I'd scratch the big bang theory off their list of priorities.

I wonder though, as McComic toddles off home if it's not the 'smoking hole' worrying him, but a 'smoking gun'. I mean once he leaves the building, he leaves all that lovely protection behind and probably some enemies to boot; what if someone had very carefully built an extensive dossier and decided to 'challenge' the man himself, publicly and legally rather than take on the entire organisation what then?. Aye, it has all the makings of a fine novel, but it's probably a much more scary scenario than a well prepared 'smoking hole' defence and much more chance of being published. Name, shame and scandal beats the blame game and when he's no longer pack leader, how long will it be until the other jackals attack. Now I will buy a ticket for that show, front row and centre.

All bollocks, but I can have a daydream with first coffee, can't I ?.

Toot toot.

Fantome
28th Jan 2014, 17:59
well K me old dog's body . .. . . that first caffeine fix is always a wake up call , in one sense at least. If it achieves one illuminating thing it is the thought that you and the others here who are intimately and indubitably informed and thereby able to apply the Conan Doyle scrutiny and analysis to the mix and the mess, are worth your weight in . .. . . whole loads of it, out the back. My first 'hit' was two hours ago as today I shall mosey up to Bris to lunch and parley with the man writing the definitive bio (it can only be hoped) of one Patrick Gordon Taylor (Bill to his confreres). Were PGT still with us he would view the malaise that ails the industry, the chiefs and the sad culpable people who frame and administer the law , most askance.

The seven that para has come up with as potential informants is a good start. As facilitators your 'brigade' should take the thought of calling to arms the blokes listed to another stage. An integrated concerted platform consisting of these and others with like insight, need not be pissing in the wind. Brief them now so they are ready to go down on their marks when the time is ripest. Get some 4 corners type early warning system organised. Have someone like Chris Marsden supplied with a holding brief. Then start grinding them beans again, old bean.

Like 'The Games' it could morph into a droll mini-series . John Clarke could play a credible Skull . On his ear.

Sarcs
29th Jan 2014, 20:33
One more day...:rolleyes:

Hope you don't mind BL but since we're into 'share and share alike'..:D..thought your post from RAA forum was well worth regurgitating?? Kind of put's perspective on history, politics, the current malaise & future choices/actions by industry stakeholders of GA if certain actions/decisions aren't made:ok:: Firstly: We are the only ICAO signatory in the world, whose National Airworthiness Authority DOES NOT have immunity from prosecution in the course of their normal affairs - thank you the Balmain pig PM, Paul Keating. As a result, CASA has had a degree of ****-covering since 1988. Secondly, the several attempts to introduce "and foster" into the Act have all failed, thanks to luddite fools in parliament or the senate. This is a matter of record. Thirdly, Dick Smith did (and still, I suspect, does not) understand the link between "airworthiness" and engineering judgement; so Keating - via Brereton - used him to gut CASA of most of its engineering heritage. Since then, with the exception of Byron, Ministers have been appointing fighter pilots to direct CASA. In parallel, since Anderson's era, our NAA has abused its discretionary authority, flouted the constitution, and exhibited a culture of arrogance that began to lose the credibility of supporting expertise in the late 1970s.

Currently, CASA officers are trained in their responsibilities under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1988, but completely ignore their KNOWN responsibility towards natural justice, when directed by the head fighter pilot. There is no system of internal checks and balances, because CASA has neither the economic resources nor, it would appear, the moral resources* to successfully implement systemic change to the culture. It must be made clear that, at any point in time, CASA has (and has had) a significant number of highly motivated, well educated, and highly capable people, of high personal probity and good intent, who find themselves virtually paralysed in any attempt to reform or improve, due to the pervasive nature of the post-Anderson culture. CASA firmly believes that it has a near-divine responsibility to tell people what they can't do in the interests of safety, and that appointment to a position in CASA automatically imbues the appointee with moral authority, irrespective of the actual expertise. Within this culture, the few persons I have experienced who are persuing personal agendas have virtually no limits on their ability to negate the positive efforts of the most of CASA, most of the time.

*The structure and methodologies of CASA do not allow the officers any discretion to speak of, in allowing their personal probity to inform them in matters of regulatory judgement; I have a letter stating that CASA has a team of lawers to guide officers in making each regulatory judgement. it's not a lawer's bloody job to make engineering judgements, but this is the outcome of Paul Keating's all-embracing comprehension of the economics of management of hardware.

Now, CASA is - pointlessly, because Australia is very much not the US, OR the EEC - trying to emulate those NAAs, but at the same time do not have the corporate guts to recognise that the bulk of aeronautical expertise in Australia is in private industry, and can be used as a resourse to fulfil our ICAO obligations. because, as a member of CASA Engineering Services said to me (in personal conversation), "you can't trust pilots". John McCormack said to me, personally, face to face, in a room full of the operators of Approved Aircraft Maintenance organisations (LAMEs to a person), "what do these guys know about airworthiness? Nothing!". He was a fighter pilot (Mirages), so he knows.

We have a few career politicians, who have been exposed to CASA for so long, that they realise that the furphy of CASA's untouchable expertise is a Furphy; and we have a few relatively young, generally independent MPs, who are sufficiently iconoclastic to consider that CASA may, indeed, be somewhat less than perfect. Well, if they fix the frigging laws, so that CASA people can do their bloody jobs without looking over their shoulders all the time; admit that Australia deserves an aviation industry, and include "foster" as a prime directive in the CAAct; allow the reformers in CASA to work, under a director who (like Byron) was never a fighter pilot; and outsource airworthiness as the FAA so successfully has to DERs (who are members of the FAA when DERing, even if not employed by the FAA - make THAT work in Australia!)... then, in about3-5 years, our industry might start to recover.

Otherwise, we need to really work the trans-tasman bilateral, and move our industry to New Zealand. Of politics & aviation - Too little..too much??

Interesting article out of the States...;):
Congress to the Rescue?

The role of the legislative branch in aviation regulations is a troubling one.

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jan 28, 2014

How do you feel about Congress stepping in and telling the FAA how it should regulate aviation activities? Well, that probably depends on how you feel about the subject they’re weighing in on.

While it’s difficult to come up with hard statistics on the subject, industry observers believe that over the past few years Congress has taken a more active role than ever in mandating aviation regulations from the Hill, with little interference from the President when it comes time to sign them into law.

Over the past several years Congress has weighed in on pilot duty time, pilots’ rights, required experience for airline pilots, contract towers, FAA furloughs, drones, Part 23 regulation, fat pilots and a number of other issues.

Whether you agree with Congress’ views on the individual issues is not the point — we agree with some of its actions, like the Pilots’ Bill of Rights, and disagree with others, like the new ATP requirement for airline pilots. Regardless, the question is still this: How far should Congress go in writing aviation regulations?

It’s not an easy question to answer. For one, as the branch that doles out the dough for federal spending, it is smack dab in the middle of the FAA’s business. Which programs get funding, which ones don’t, which ones get more than their share and which one’s get the shaft, is all in Congress’ power and within its constitutionally delegated duties.

Still, the issue is similar in nature to juries deciding fault in aviation accidents. How can 12 lay-citizens be expected in the course of a couple of weeks to develop a sophisticated enough understanding of aviation issues to render a fair judgment on who was at fault for an accident that was likely so complex that veteran investigators would disagree on the root causes? The answer is they can’t be expected to be good judges, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

The same could be said for Congress. How could 535 non-aviation professionals (with a few exceptions) be expected to create laws requiring aviation regulations that make sense in the complex aerospace world in which we live? The answer again is that they can’t be, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

Of course complicating the matter is the fact that the FAA needs a babysitter. The agency is so entrenched and unresponsive to the needs and rights of the industry it regulates that Congress often has to step in to set the bureaucrats straight.

Read more at Congress to the Rescue? | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/congress-rescue#XWea8c2D27JSGe3M.99) Hmm think I'd prefer the Yanks conundrum than ours...:ugh:

Paragraph377
30th Jan 2014, 11:17
Great post Sarcs. A very succinct description of the CASA, and this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
One of the greatest concerns is the power, obstinance and free will of the LSD. Although they purport to be relatively hands off from most non legal decisions made at CASA that simply isn't true. And their powers, authority and decision making is not clear whithin CASA's charter or structure. When you research their function and basically who is calling the shots they won't answer you, neither will the Miniscules department and nor will the AG's department.
But don't forget the now LSD has had over 20 years of influence and plenty of time to structure themselves just where they want to be. And of course Dr Voodoo, Number 3 at CASA, ensured his 'system' remained solid and in place after he climbed the greasy pole, because he handed the reigns on to his long term apprentice, Mr AA.

But going back to the pathetic $230 million reg reform Frankenstein, it would be alleged that the Skull has stated that it will be completed come hell or high water and what is introduced is here to stay! A regulatory nightmare, unworkable and a Frankenstein of gigantic proportions is what we have.
Leroy Keith didn't do a bad job as Top Dog, but of course members of the Iron Ring did not like his methods and ensured he got pineappled. But he did manage to roll some of his plotters. Bruce Byron for all his faults also tried to end the regulatory reform debacle by adopting European ways, and this too upset the Iron Ring immensely and they immediately started undermining him. He too survived for some time, and managed to kneecap some of his plotters but eventually he also walked the green mile. Which leaves us with McCormick. A curious individual and certainly one could speak for days on the topic of 'he who must not be named' but the upshot is that he is trying to rush through the remainder of the reg reform folly for no greater purpose than to please his Masters. He knows it is shite, but again we have a situation where the Director does not call the shots. I am surprised he has lasted the 5 years as generally he does not like being somebody else's bitch! And at CASA the largest degree of power never lays with the Director :=

But anyway, it's all fun to watch, beer and popcorn stuff really, maybe a dash of lettuce thrown in for good measure would spice things up, and a few slices of pineapple wouldn't go astray, but the outcome will be soft, very soft, a bitch slap from a limp wrist. That is inevitable, no government in Australia will ever admit it has created, contributed to or 'fostered' a hybrid species, a DNA clusterf#ck, an abomination that grows, morphs and assimilates daily, CASA.

Sarcs
31st Jan 2014, 01:05
Top post P377....:ok:

..."One of the greatest concerns is the power, obstinance and free will of the LSD".. A fascinating subject matter but perhaps the LSD power base history; the Voodoo doc's legal interpretations of the CASRs/CAOs and; the criminalisation of the CAA discussion would be best carried across to the Senate thread...:rolleyes:

The Boss (slightly edited): “The Skyways jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive… Everybody's out on the run tonight but there's no place left to hide….”


P377:A curious individual and certainly one could speak for days on the topic of 'he who must not be named' but the upshot is that he is trying to rush through the remainder of the reg reform folly for no greater purpose than to please his Masters. He knows it is shite, but again we have a situation where the Director does not call the shots. Interesting observation that you make Para..:sad: Especially in light of the DAS's latest, first and (hopefully) third last missive for '14 (CASA Briefing January 2014 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101882))...:confused:

Passing Strange: It is almost like this missive has been penned (keyed) by someone else...?? Gone is the swagger, the bravado, the "my way or the highway " or the parting tautological IOS comments, that we've all come to expect and grudgingly admire (my bold):I appreciate and value the effort made by everyone who takes part in regulatory development because CASA cannot do this job on its own. We need the expertise and practical knowledge of people working in the aviation industry to test ideas, translate concepts to safety regulations and to ensure the best possible safety outcomes are achieved with the appropriate level of regulation.

I understand the regulatory development process can at times seem cumbersome and drawn out. However, like many things in life, the devil is in the detail, and we must get the rules right. At times this means revisiting sets of rules to make improvements to ensure the right safety outcomes are being achieved with regulations that do not place inappropriate burdens on the aviation industry. It is largely feedback from aviation people and organisations that informs the review and improvement of rules and this was the case with important amendments made in December 2013.
And finally:These changes flow directly from the feedback CASA has received from aviation people and organisations. By listening and acting CASA has created better regulations that still strive for the best possible safety outcomes while reducing costs and red tape where possible. One gets the impression that the DAS has been given the unofficial nod and his glory days are now well and truly behind him...:{

Oh and the red tape comment didn't go unnoticed by the IOS...:ok:

thorn bird
31st Jan 2014, 08:07
Sarksi??? red tape?? what red tape??
OH that

RED TAPE !!!!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit
31st Jan 2014, 08:48
Red tape challenge. Sounds familiar, I'm guessing a trip to the UK has happened? Perhaps the Brit on theTruss review has brought up the CAA red tape challenge.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1123%20CAA%20response%20to%20GA%20Red%20Tape%20Challenge. pdf

denabol
31st Jan 2014, 09:54
Ben's blog has jumped on India being busted to level 2 over a failed FAA audit and is asking the question if we are next?
FAA busts India's air safety rating, Australia next? | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/31/india-busted-to-level-2-safety-rating-is-australia-next/)

This may not be enough for Australia to avoid suffering a similar fate to India, mainly because of the gross failures of integrity and competency displayed by CASA and the ATSB in relation to the failed oversight of of Pel-Air’s aerial ambulance work with Westwind corporate jets before and at the time of the crash of such a flight near Norfolk Island in 2009, and the appallingly flawed crash report that was exposed by a Senate inquiry that the new Minister for Transport has yet to respond to.
The consequences for Qantas and Virgin Australia of such US sanctions on their American code-shares and services would be costly and serious. While some argue that such an outcome is unlikely, the FAA’s sanctioning in the past of Israel and now India makes it possible.
Pel-Air is a scandal that keeps on stinking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/11/15/pel-air-fiasco-about-to-be-dragged-back-into-spotlight/), as does the failure of CASA to do anything material to fix the rules that applied to the fuel and flight planning of such missions for more than four years, even thought it has admitted that changes need to be made.
If very decisive action isn’t taken over deficient or ineffective public administration of air safety standards and operator oversight in this country, Australia will-get-busted, just like Israel and now India.

Paragraph377
31st Jan 2014, 12:20
Passing Strange: It is almost like this missive has been penned (keyed) by someone else...?? Gone is the swagger, the bravado, the "my way or the highway " or the parting tautological IOS comments, that we've all come to expect and grudgingly admire
Sarcs, I once knew an individual very similar in nature to Mr Skull. Occasionally he would pop some new pills, attend anger management classes, 'clear the pipes' down at Kangaroo Point, things like that. On even rarer occasions he would indulge in a bar fight or cruise around town aggressively in his convertible displaying road rage skills that would impress Mike Tyson! Perhaps that is one of the reasons why 'he who shan't be named' appears suddenly subdued?
Then again somebody might have laced his stoogies with wacky backy, or perhaps planted an aphrodisiac in his office pot plants? Perhaps Dr Hoodoovoodoo has placed a happy spell on him? Or maybe he has become aware of a tragedy that has befallen a member of the IOS and that has mellowed him and cheered him up?

On the streets of Can'tberra last week a robust rumour was circulating that Mr Angry wanted to resign his post in February and sail off into the sunset with a golden TRIM file and a hug, onboard the S.S Styx. But allegedly the Miniscule refused this request and has demanded that Mr Angry remain with Fort Fumble until the wet lettuce review has been completed.
Interesting rumour if it is true, because a rumour of such nature could indicate that the Miniscule is currently sharpening the Pineapple and getting ready to insert it?

Oh well, the streets of Can'tberra can be a strange place at times, and with the amount of crowded street corner troughs, free roaming pigs and endless supply of pineapples it becomes a complex confusing place for one to roam around.

Frank Arouet
31st Jan 2014, 21:16
I can't work a wet lettuce in, but Dr Hoodoovoodoo and Herr Skull are like apples and oranges. Adding the pineapple has the making for a really good fruit salad.

Creampuff
31st Jan 2014, 21:25
On the streets of Can'tberra last week a robust rumour was circulating that Mr Angry wanted to resign his post in February and sail off into the sunset with a golden TRIM file and a hug, onboard the S.S Styx. But allegedly the Miniscule refused this request and has demanded that Mr Angry remain with Fort Fumble until the wet lettuce review has been completed.Utter tosh. :*

The Minister can’t make anyone who wants to leave, stay.

Sarcs
31st Jan 2014, 21:44
P377: On the streets of Can'tberra last week a robust rumour was circulating that Mr Angry wanted to resign his post in February and sail off into the sunset with a golden TRIM file and a hug, onboard the S.S Styx. But allegedly the Miniscule refused this request and has demanded that Mr Angry remain with Fort Fumble until the wet lettuce review has been completed. Interesting rumour...:rolleyes: Maybe, reading between the lines, the DAS missive indicates a prelude to the main event, where the DAS will be presented with a pineapple nicely wrapped in a wet lettuce...however Creamy's post would suggest otherwise?? :confused:

denabol good catch...:D Have been monitoring the FAA audit of India for sometime...:cool: Although the Indian DGCA makes the FF trough swillers look like naughty choir boys..;), there was significant parallels in the findings by the FAA with our last ICAO audit...:=

The most alarming aspect, for the Miniscule and his minions, of the Indian Audit is the speed in which the FAA has acted. Maybe this is because the Indian avsafety admin is a more serious basket case than here in Oz...hmm or maybe the FAA are sick of certain NAA's taking the piss?? :=

Either way it would appear that the FAA are not interested in brokering diplomatic deals (unlike the reprieve we received in the past). Here is an article on India's attempts to placate the FAA: All safety issues addressed, says DGCA's report to FAA (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-22/news/46463012_1_flight-operations-inspectors-dgca-faa)Among the concerns raised by the FAA over 33 issues were filling up of several senior positions including those of fulltime Flight Operations Inspectors (FOIs), beefing up of aviation safety training programmes and preparing manuals and documentation on certain safety issues.

FOIs are senior pilots who would be taken on contract and paid salaries consistent with the industry norms that could be higher than that of the DGCA chief himself. An estimated Rs 40 crore would be needed annually for this purpose. Another concern highlighted by the FAA about training DGCA officers on the new types of aircraft entering the Indian market, including the Boeing 787 Dreamliners, would be addressed soon, they said.

DGCA's oversight on training schools and schedules would also be beefed up. The FAA, which has over the years downgraded several nations including close ally Israel, Mexico, Venezuela and Philippines, uses 'downgrade' as more of a tool to pressurise countries to shape up their regulatory schemes but not as a warning of imminent safety problems, they said.
Now to the linked article in Ben's piece: FAA downgrades India’s aviation safety rankings (http://www.livemint.com/Companies/VBs85pY9lO5OD6nTSX5akJ/US-downgrades-Indias-air-safety-rankings.html) Quotes of concern for the Miniscule & his head bureaucrat Mrdak...:( : The decision reduces India to a safety category that includes Ghana, Indonesia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe, and means that Air India and Jet Airways—the two Indian airlines that fly to US destinations—wouldn’t be allowed to expand flights and their existing flights would be subjected to additional checks. They would have to snap ties such as any code-sharing arrangements with US airlines.

Jet has a code-share agreement with United Airlines while Air India is joining Star Alliance, the club that includes American airlines.

Shares of Jet Airways, India’s largest listed airline, plunged 3.94% to Rs.236.45 each on BSE on a day the benchmark Sensex edged up 0.08% to 20,513.85 points.

A category II safety rating means that the civil aviation authority does not comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) safety standards and is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel and record-keeping or inspection procedures, according to FAA.

While a downgrade does not reflect on the safety of India’s airlines—the rankings measure the ability of the Indian regulator to follow safety processes and not that of the airlines—India risks being perceived in a negative light by aviation authorities in other countries.

“The only area in which India lacks marginally in effective implementation of a critical element is ‘organization’. For this, India has already created 75 posts of chief flight operations inspector (CFOI), deputy CFOIs, senior CFOIs and FOIs. After the recruitment, it is expected that effective implementation in this element also would rise much above the global average,” Singh added. Most disturbing parallels
- Perhaps a look into the crystal ball??A member of the government-mandated safety council, formed in the aftermath of the Mangalore air crash that killed 158 people in May 2010, said the government had not heeded several letters sent by the council about the risk of a downgrade in India’s safety ranking.

“I am not surprised,” said Mohan Ranganathan, who sits on the Civil Aviation Safety Advisory Council.

“The deceit of DGCA and aviation ministry has finally been exposed. Blatant abuse of regulations in safety and flight standards...were swept aside for political and commercial considerations. The last two years have seen the lowest in integrity levels. Persons responsible should be held accountable and not let off lightly for bringing this shame upon India,” he said. No comment...except TICK..TOCK! :ok:

Addendum: WLR update courtesy of the MMSM yesterday...;)Opinions pour in for regulation review (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/opinions-pour-in-for-regulation-review/story-e6frg95x-1226814143039#)

REGULATORY reform is emerging as a key issue in the federal government's aviation safety review as submissions officially close tonight.

The panel is expecting up to 150 submissions and has already met about 100 people as it works through the concerns raised by a wide-ranging cross-section of the industry.

Submissions were still coming in "thick and fast" yesterday and chairman David Forsyth said he expected that to continue today and through the weekend.

"We reckon we're probably going to finish up with between 120 and 150 submissions, which is good," Mr Forsyth said. "Most of them have been really constructive; there's a lot of really good information in there. A lot of people took a lot of time (over the) recommendations, so we've just got to go through and digest all of that."

The panel of Mr Forsyth, Roger Whitefield and Don Spruston will reconvene in the second half of February to discuss the submissions and the issues stemming from them.

The review, ordered by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, was tasked with taking a detailed look at aviation agencies such as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia.

The inquiry was prompted by dissatisfaction in sections of the aviation industry about the aviation regulatory regime and problems with the ATSB and CASA highlighted in a Senate report into a crash off Norfolk Island involving Pel-Air.

The government was also worried that the agencies were not working together effectively.

Mr Forsyth said there was a consistency among most of the issues aired in the submissions, including the relationship between the various safety agencies and the effect of regulation on small business.

"The hardest job by far is the regulatory reform program," he said. "That's been going on for so long, it's such a big issue and any potential solutions for it have such huge implications, it's going to require a lot of thought and lot of discussions with people and industry and government."

The panel chairman said there had been few surprises in the submissions, but people were passionate about the issues.

He said there was a huge amount of pride in the industry but also a lot of concern about its future and worries at the small business end about its ability to change in line with the new regulatory regime.

"So, early days yet, but it certainly has been interesting," he said. "We've been really pleased with the response we've had wherever we've gone. The industry has been very good, it's been articulate, a lot of people have put a fair bit of work into it."

The panel now intends to change tack somewhat after conducting interviews based on the terms of reference, and will start to home in on key issues such as regulatory reform.

Members will go through the submissions to nail down the issues and Mr Forsyth said he expected some, where there was agreement on what needed to happen, could be dealt with reasonably simply in terms of recommendations.

But there would be others where there would not be agreement, and those would need a lot of thought and discussion.

"Those targeted type of interviews is what we've started and when the panel's back here in the second half of February, we'll be doing more of that," he said. "We'll be going out again to selected people in industry."
The panel may hold a couple of general discussion meetings in Western Australia and Queensland to complement those held in NSW, Victoria and South Australia.

"We have spoken to people in those states but we think at some point we'd like the panel to get out and get the lie of the land in couple of those places," he said.

The panel does not plan to post the submissions online, mainly because many people wanted to keep them confidential, but expects to quote in its report from some that people are happy to make public.

Mr Forsyth said the panel was "looking pretty good" in terms of meeting the May deadline for submitting the report to Mr Truss.

"The reg reform program's the only one that is threatening that, but we're still pretty confident we'll be able to work our way through that and come up with some recommendations," he said.

Frank Burden
31st Jan 2014, 23:21
Until the Minister is at risk players such as MM, JM, MD and the various advisers are on safe ground until their contracts come up for renewal. The Minister has mitigated his risk by appointing a committee of review (with appropriate terms of reference) and any recommendations coming from that process will be stated in broad terms allowing the Government to take appropriate action (read slow, purposeful and limited).

Given that the Minister is not at risk, it would be surprising if someone below him in the hierarchy (regardless of their personality type) considered resigning unless there were dire personal rather than work circumstances present.

I am surprised that people continue their broad ranging personal attacks on this forum.

While it makes interesting reading, it only increases the resolve of the current players (most of which have won many campaigns before) to stare the opposition out.

Sun Tzu talked about the importance of knowing your enemy. In his day 'the enemy' was relatively easy to identify.

In a contemporary Australia, the enemy is not the inner circle of departmental and agency heads, advisers and personal hand maidens, but the Minister himself.

Australian Governments operate on the Westminster principle. This principle is a constitutional convention, under which ministers are the link between Parliament and Gov- ernment action. Public servants carry out the activities of Government through their work in departments and agencies, and the Government directs them through ministers responsible for their activities.

Stop wasting your time on the also rans and sharpen your swords for the right purpose.

One Minister slipped away unscathed and the second is planning on doing the same.

Until the Minister is at risk, not much will change!

The former cranky but now reformed Franky!

ozaub
31st Jan 2014, 23:56
Further to DENABOL's quote of Ben Sandilands’ Plane Talking blog, and the downgrade by FAA of India to a second tier aviation authority, the downgrade is by FAA but ICAO provides a handier tool to compare safety capabilities at http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx (http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx).
Looking at the results of ICAO audit of Indian DGAC versus results for CASA, it’s clear that both perform better than global average. That’s not surprising because ICAO average is pulled down by many small states that have no pretensions of ever flying to the US. Note that India ranks better than Australia against half of audited performance criteria. Note too that ICAO last audited Australian in 2008 whereas India was reaudited in 2012.
So Australia’s vulnerability hinges on whether it has improved over past five years. Make your own judgement.

Paragraph377
1st Feb 2014, 11:45
Frank (Burden), I agree with you, but here's the thing 'Ministers are never at risk'. If it were you or I we would be hung in the gallows, but never ever will that happen to a politician. They are virtually untouchable, non accountable, and free to act with impunity and in complete disregard to the rules that the rest of society must adhere to. The pathetic Craig Thomson affair is just one example.
No Minister such as Truss, Albo, or any other will ever fall on their sword. It's one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everybody else. All until a revolution comes along anyway.

Creampuff, I disagree. If the Minister 'has the goods' on an individual, he can use that as leverage, in several ways. I can't go into detail publicly but rest assured a politician with power is capable of performing many tricks using his abundance of aces up his sleeve. C'mon Creampuff, you've served time on the inside of a bureaucracy, surely you have seen that sort of game played out before? If you haven't then you have only worked within the fringes of a bureaucracy!

Sarcs, considering the seriousness of the FAA findings against Fort Fumble 5 years ago, it certainly does seem like a long time in between the drinks breaks doesn't it? I wonder what sort of risk framework the FAA use? It must be one made from wet lettuce because I cannot believe they haven't been back for a thorough audit in that period of time under the circumstances?
A lot has happened in 5 years, CASA has become a bigger joke, the Beaker has put his personal wrecking ball through the ATSB, the regulatory reform program has......aagh well, nothing new to report on that one!! Let's see what else? Oh yes, a damning senate inquiry took place that has been ignored, there were some international incidents with Australian airlines, Pel Air and Canleyvale occurred, CASA's pot plant watering budget hit the six figure mark and the very man who the industry should be able look up to, respect and trust for safety leadership has done nothing but take QON's, continued his attack on anyone who speaks out against his dictatorship (AMROBA) as an example and refused to stand up and be counted, regardless of what his puppet masters threaten to do.
Yep, time for the CASA to undergo another audit I reckon.

Creampuff
1st Feb 2014, 20:34
So Mr McCormick wants to leave, but the Minister 'has the goods' on Mr McCormick and is using them to 'force' Mr McCormick to continue to endure the living hell of a circa $500k no-risk salary, Business Class travel and Five Star accommodation at the top of a high profile government agency, rather than take the opportunity to replace him?

Wow. Clearly my knowledge of the machinations of government is sadly lacking.

My guess had been that the Minister is very happy with Mr McCormick's performance and wants him to stay. :confused:

No Hoper
1st Feb 2014, 21:55
CREAMPUFF post#4 - - Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government.
And then it will be aviation Nirvana.
Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap.
I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish. Worth considering by the four amigos who keep posting here.
I can't go into detail publicly but rest assured a politician with power is capable of performing many tricks using his abundance of aces up his sleeve. Come on Oleo, go into it publicly, there is no law against it shirley

Frank Arouet
1st Feb 2014, 23:02
That challenge should be ignored. It's Lawyer bait and thinly disguised.


You may be half right however. If we consider for example, how it would look for Cardinal George Pell to 'defrock' himself during a Royal commission. An assumed admission of guilt would apply as would any other person holding a senior role in The Bureaucracy. Threatening to sack that same person before the results are in would put the 'ace' firmly in the wielders hand. Reverse psychology and all that.


Also it may be advantageous that he stay so the wielder can use his 'ace' against him thus protecting his bum and making the person accountable for his actions or non actions. The word scapegoat comes to mind.


At present I can't see why the DAS would want to hang around any longer than he has to, thus giving me the impression there is purpose to his extension of tenure for such a short period.


But I was wrong once before.

No Hoper
1st Feb 2014, 23:04
Superannuation comes to mind Frank

Sarcs
1st Feb 2014, 23:24
ozaub the ICAO link provides an interesting comparison that hopefully does not go unnoticed by the powers to be in Can'tberra..:rolleyes:

I noticed you also posted your last on Ben's article..:D: aubury martin (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/31/india-busted-to-level-2-safety-rating-is-australia-next/#comment-21086) Perhaps Comet's post (a couple above) goes to the real risk, that the Miniscule should be concerned with when the FAA casts their roving audit eyes our way..:cool:: comet

Posted February 1, 2014 at 10:01 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/31/india-busted-to-level-2-safety-rating-is-australia-next/#comment-21071)

A downgrading of Australia would produce short-term pain, but long-term gain.

It would force Australia to improve its aviation regulation, just like India is now taking action to improve the way it regulates aviation. The improvements that India is now making would not have happened without the downgrade.

In Australia, the Labor government failed to take action when needed. Now it has become clear that the Abbott government is also not taking decisive action.

Therefore, an FAA downgrade is the only thing that will force Australia to get its house in order. A downgrade is preferable to a downing of an aircraft.
:D:D

But moving along & reference Forsyth's WLR update...;) Coupla noteworthy quotes...

Mr Forsyth said there was a consistency among most of the issues aired in the submissions, including the relationship between the various safety agencies and the effect of regulation on small business.
Read RED TAPE TB..:E

And the RRP headache..:ugh:

"The hardest job by far is the regulatory reform program," he said. "That's been going on for so long, it's such a big issue and any potential solutions for it have such huge implications, it's going to require a lot of thought and lot of discussions with people and industry and government."


"The reg reform program's the only one that is threatening that, but we're still pretty confident we'll be able to work our way through that and come up with some recommendations," he said.
Well Mr Forsyth perhaps you need only refer to your GA panel support team's final submission for helpful hints...:E (c/o Australian Flying) AOPA Advocates Kiwi System
(http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aopa-advocates-kiwi-system)
30 Jan 2014

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA) is advocating the New Zealand system of regulation be adopted in Australia.

The statement was made in AOPA's submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review and posted on their website.

Dealing specifically with the issues general aviation has with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the submission stresses that dealing with individual problem would help the situation, but that a larger solution was needed.

" ... it is with some regret that our organization has come to the conclusion that continuing to patch up problems is like renovating a house with rotten foundations," the submission says. "You spend twice as much time and money and at the end of the day you still have an old house.

"We now believe in nothing short of a clean sweep of the old, and adoption of FARs [Federal Aviation Regulations], as has been demonstrated by NZ’s adoption of the FAA GA model about 17 years ago. It is fact that since then, NZ’s GA has outstripped Australia’s.

"We have heard it said that where it takes a wheelbarrow to carry a copy of all regs pertaining to GA, New Zealand’s can be carried in one hand. This may be an exaggeration, but it is not an exaggeration to say that adoption of the NZ regulatory system for GA would improve the prospects of GA’s survival.
Or maybe refer to the AMROBA submission which should have similar sentiments...(reference: Vol_11_Issue_1 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol_11_Issue_1.pdf)AMROBA newsletter )

Act: An Act is required to enable the setting up of an aviation regulator to meet Australia’s obligations under international treaties,
especially the Convention and subsequent Protocols.

Regulations: Provide Head of Power for Aviation Safety Standards that were previously promulgated as ANO/CAOs. Abandon the two-tier legislative system for the three-tier legislative system that has a proven
legislative record and safety outcomes.

Standards: The Act provides for CASA to promulgate Aviation Safety Standards (ASS), not Manual of Standards or CAOs. Adapting EASRs/FARs, as applicable, as Civil ASS aligned with NZ Rules would adapt a safe aviation legislative system.I'm sure there will be many other submissions with pretty much the same solution...so Mr Forsyth the RRP recommendation should be a no-brainer..:ok:

Paragraph377
2nd Feb 2014, 00:06
Frank, you got it one mate :ok: But shhhhh, don't tell the others.

Frank Burden
2nd Feb 2014, 22:28
The perfect bureaucratic outcome is for a solution where there is no accountability attributable to any of the major players (especially the Minister) as the deck chairs are re-arranged.

The Minister will herald any changes as regrettable but necessary due to the inactions of the previous Labor Government. He will make a strong statement that under the Abbott Government action is now being taken 'to greatly improve aviation safety in Australia for the long term'.

I would not rule out organisational changes and responsibilities as a likely political strategy to get past the current situation. For example: CASA and ATSB returning to the public service and being part of a mega Department of Infrastructure. This way Mr Dak will have a much larger empire while assuring the Minister that this approach will resolve the personality induced events that have occurred in the past. (Interestingly, they will leave AMSA as an independent statutory authority arguing that the current model works for this mode of transport.)

Another approach would be for the department to take over setting aviation safety regulations (and accident investigation) while a much smaller CASA would have a very limited responsibility for enforcement. However, there would be performance indicators for this 'policing' agency to meet.

Interesting times but to quote Cold Chisel: 'I've had a bellyful of livin' on the same old merry-go-round.'

The former cranky but now reformed Franky!

Frank Arouet
2nd Feb 2014, 23:18
If CASA draft the regulations, (appallingly I admit), they have no right policing those laws and claim any independence or statutory authority under the mantle of safety.


1) CAA, (omit the safety), should draft the regulations based on FAR's.


2) A new branch of Commonwealth Police should enforce those rules, carry out investigations aided by an in-house ATSB and,


3) The DPP prosecute any breeches.


4) Get rid of the AAT and give The Commonwealth Ombudsman more open terms of reference to enable third party investigations outside the umbrella of government and give him powers to make findings not just recommendations.


As for smoking big holes, the buck stops with The Minister and his Advisors.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Feb 2014, 07:46
in my neck of the aviation woods the only reason the rules seem to work is that they aren't policed and you can use common sense instead.

the thought that we would actually have to adopt the rules chapter and verse is intolerable.

I think I might retire to new zealand just to be able to fly somewhere sensible.
....or canada.



just how many nutters make up a CASA?

aroa
3rd Feb 2014, 23:15
Hey, Roy,...what have you been up to for the passed six years? Do tell.

Seems like "progress" on CASR 175 Aeronautical Information Management has been somewhat glacial.

Seems very strange to me that an "agency" that can't even manage itself and its staff properly has the temerity to postulate 175. ! FFS:mad:

Still, we the taxpayers must remember that these important "safety" issues must be considered, on and on and ongoing forever to keep people "employed" and in a career for life. All part of the empire building process.

For example...heard the anecdote years ago that in changing from the bound log books, with numbered pages to the coloured tab, loose leaf file arrangement...the design of, took two years to finalize.
Yep...no doubt about it if you have the right contacts in CAsA ...there's bucks to be made. Yours.:mad::mad:

thorn bird
4th Feb 2014, 00:48
Damn it all!!! just renewed my Jepp subscription.
Oh well back to DAP's, can't see anyone else bothering to try and comply with that cr..p.

aroa
4th Feb 2014, 09:20
Cactus...thanks for the cackle :ok:

The CAsA Bali puppet show is characters on a stick,or sticks stuck up a few characters, with lots of activity, alas casting but shadows, mate, just shadows.

That's why we never get anything concrete out of the place...its all myth, make believe and ephemeral.

Time to bring in Punch and Judy.!:ok:

Sunfish
4th Feb 2014, 20:33
CASR 175 is called " A licence to print money".

It is in Jeppesens interest, for example, to ensure that the process of becoming approved under CASR175 is as difficult, complex and expensive as possible, as well as maximising the costs and complexity of maintaining approval. This process is called building a "barrier to entry".

By doing that you will deter would be competitors from entering the market and can therefore charge exorbitantly for your product.

CASA needs to have clauses inserted into its rectum that require it to promote the aviation industry as a whole. One corrolary of such a clause is that you don't build unnecessary barriers to entry into aviation related markets.

To put that another way, does anyone think pocket FMS, Ozrunways or anyone else is going to spend the money to become CASR175 compliant? I can see myself buying paper charts for years to come even though I wont be using them at all. ....Just bought a Garmin D2 watch last week as well:E

aroa
5th Feb 2014, 02:48
Just love it!!:ok:
Real expert legal people in CDPP pointing out to CAsA pretend lawyer "experts" the error of their wordy ways.
What a crock of dodgy legalese CAsA loves to entertain...!

"technical" amendments ?...sounds like a serious legal correction to me.

CAsA must be pissed!.... remember these are the people that have made the statement .." the courts sometimes don't give us the results we require"
( or words to that effect)
Oh bugger...the rule of law.:eek:

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 02:48
You watch: It’ll start raining aluminium because now everyone can get drugged or p*ssed to the eyeballs and not get prosecuted. Just like they did before. :rolleyes:

It’s surreal.

All of the time, cost and aggravation to make and implement Part 99 in response to theoretical rather than substantial safety problem, and it’s fundamentally flawed.

Two words to fix Part 99 properly: “Re” and “Peal”.

dubbleyew eight
5th Feb 2014, 03:08
CASA's drug and alcohol push fascinated me. the entire thing was bought in on the basis of american statistics.

american statistics apply to the american population, not australians.

in 40 years in and around aviation in this country I have heard only two tales of alcohol and aviation.

one concerned a tiger moth pilot who flew lubricated all the time. he experienced a number of crashes during his time and all occurred when he was sober.

the other was a group of guys including one of my instructors who went for a fly in a twin after a party one night. they were all pilots. in the air they realised that none of them was sober enough to land the aircraft. the harrowing part of the tale was them trying to work out who was the least affected. my instructor drew the short straw. they survived ...just.
that story of horror told in the hangar must have been far more effective than anything casa has ever achieved.

it is all nonsense.

the technique seems to be
1. create a mythical fire breathing monster.
2. terrify all the kids with lurid stories of doom.
3. set up an authority to conquer the mythical monster.
4. perpetually seed the world with lurid tales of derring do.
5. pay themselves high wages as evidence that it is all serious stuff.
6. prohibit anyone from forming a contrary opinion.

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 03:19
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

Sarcs
5th Feb 2014, 05:45
...the 36 Red Rats & 11 Vestile Virgins that went to a NYE piss up??
Well now they're all apparently in rehab...:rolleyes:

[YOUTUBE]Amy Winehouse - Rehab - YouTube

Fifty Qantas and Virgin airline and alcohol drug testing (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/fifty-qantas-and-virgin-airline-and-alcohol-drug-testing/story-fni0cx4q-1226800199631)

Love this bit..because according to the experts (WHO & the AODCA) we're all doomed to a life of tea totalling (& no more snorting lines on the tarmac) or else?? :{ Last year a survey of more than 300 members of the Australian and International Pilots' Association pilots revealed a culture of heavy drinking.

It found one in seven was at risk of significant life problems because of excessive alcohol consumption. Eight pilots scored above the cut-off for alcohol dependence, according to a World Health Organisation scale.

The report compiled by former Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia chief executive Dr Donna Bull found three-quarters of international pilots drank at hazardous levels.

Forty per cent admitted to imbibing six or more drinks in a single occasion at least once a month _ the accepted definition of binge drinking.
Hmm...heard through the grapevine that this is just the tip of the Avmed iceberg in relation to the big end of town airlines, who are consequently..."NOT HAPPY JAN!":(

Oh the FF PMO will be rubbing his hands in glee...:E

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 07:19
UITA and Cactus

If it’s possible for you to set aside your blind prejudice and be a teensy bit objective just for a little while, you might be able to comprehend the fact that:

- no one in CASA drafted Part 99, and

- no lawyer in CASA or elsewhere decided that Part 99 was good policy.

Think about it. ;)

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 18:53
No, because it is wrong.

Regulations are drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, on instructions from the relevant policy makers. Office of Parliamentary Counsel - About OPC (http://www.opc.gov.au/about/index.htm) (Regulations used to be drafted by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publication, but it was recently ‘absorbed’ into the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.)

Office of Legal Counsel in CASA hasn’t draft any regulations for a looooooong time.

Office of Legal Counsel in CASA doesn’t have authority to decide the policy around D+A testing.

But feel free to blame OLC: That’s exactly what the organ grinders want you fools to do. :ok:

Sarcs
5th Feb 2014, 23:04
Perhaps UITA you should change your name to Nutrigrain & carry on your Cereal Wars with Creamy elsewhere...:rolleyes:

Interesting AQON (in part) to the former Miniscule for Ag Senator Ludwig (who you will remember right royally buggered up the live Cattle export trade to Indonesia..:ugh:) which is relevant to the thread..:E: Senator Ludwig asked:

1. Since 7 September 2013, how many new reviews have been commenced? Please list them including:

a. the date they were ordered;
b. the date they commenced;
c. the Minister responsible;
d. the department responsible;
e. the nature of the review;
f. their terms of reference;
g. the scope of the review;
h. whom is conducting the review;
i. the number of officers, and their classification level, involved in conducting the review;
j. the expected report date; and
k. if the report will be tabled in parliament or made public.

2. For any review commenced or ordered since 7 September 2013, have any external people, companies or contractors been engaged to assist or conduct the review?

a. If so, please list them, including their name and/or trading name/s and any known alias or other trading names.
b. If so, please list their managing director and the board of directors or equivalent.
c. If yes, for each what are the costs associated with their involvement, broken down to each cost item.
d. If yes, for each, what is the nature of their involvement?
e. If yes, for each, are they on the lobbyist register? Provide details.
f. If yes, for each, what contact has the Minister or their office had with them?
g. If yes, for each, who selected them?
h. If yes, for each, did the Minister or their office have any involvement in selecting them?
i. If yes, please detail what involvement it was.
ii. If yes, did they see or provided input to a short list.
iii. If yes, on what dates did this involvement occur.
iv. If yes, did this involve any verbal discussions with
the department.
v. If yes, on what dates did this involvement occur.

Answer:
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Aviation Safety Regulation Review

1. Yes, Aviation Safety Regulation Review

a. The review results from a 2013 election commitment.

b. 14 November 2013.

c. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

d. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

e. External review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

f. See Attachment A.

g. See Attachment A.

h. Mr David Forsyth AM, Mr Don Spruston and Mr Roger Whitefield.

i. SES1 x 1, EL2 x 1, EL1 x 1, APS6 x 1, APS4 x 1.

j. May 2014.

k. This is a matter for Government.

2. Yes

a. Mr David Forsyth AM, Mr Don Spruston, Mr Roger Whitefield, Mr Phillip Reiss (trading as Reiss Aviation).

b. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged as an individual or sole-trader.

c. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged at a rate of $1,500.00 per day ex GST plus reasonable expenses incurred.

d. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged to provide advisory services.

e. None of the people listed at 2.a above are on the lobbyist register.

f. The Minister met all four people listed at 2.a. above on 9 December 2013.

g. The Minister approved the selection of all four listed at 2.a. above on the basis of advice from the Department.

h. Yes.

i. The Minister approved the engagement of all four people on the basis of advice from the Department.
ii. Yes.
iii. Various dates in October/November 2013
iv. Yes.
v. Various dates in October/November 2013
Hmm AQON at 2(c)...:confused:..not bad coin if you can get it...:E

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 23:20
UITA: You continue to conflate the ‘idea’ (the policy) with the activity of drafting the words giving effect to the idea (the Regulation). You said:You well know as others on the thread that the individual departments write and hone the material, submit it via OLC then via AG's for approval then mrdak [Head of Department].

The part is then tabled usually sliding via parliament without notice for foisting on the great unsuspecting unwashed.The individual departments don’t write and hone the material. They come up with the bright ideas (policies) and tell OPC about them. OPC then drafts the Regulations to give effect to the bright ideas.

Someone in CASA now has to do the boring as batsh*t job of explaining to OPC why Part 99 has to be changed to address the problems identified by CDPP, so that OPC can draft a Regulation to amend a Regulation. How many pilots and engineers in CASA do you think volunteered for that?

If it makes you feel good to believe that CASA’s OLC dreams up all the evil policies and drafts all the regulations that you don’t like, so be it. The ignorance of industry is one of the reasons the regulatory reform program is where it is.

Frank Arouet
6th Feb 2014, 00:21
I'm beginning to believe it' just a twenty three year combined clusterfcuk that happened in the usual course of events, but you have to admit working backwards someone must have been a catalyst for the end result.


I'm also getting strong 'vibes' about some functionaries that were wearing black hats now wear white hats out of frustration of how it all arrived at the morgue platform instead of the interstate express platform. As for someone now having to do a boring as bat$hit job, well we all reap what we sow. If a white hat got that job I feel sorry for him. If he's a senior functionary with a white hat, I feel sorry for him, but I hear the wages are pretty good without getting 'feeling sorry for yourself' penalty rates.


Apologies if the metaphors are vague but I'm attempting to give one alleged white hat the benefit of the doubt for now and don't intend to compromise him. He should be cognizant of exactly who invented payback however, if he intends to do harm to my most trusted friend who is doing likewise. Enough said, so don't PM me. I won't tell.

Frank Arouet
6th Feb 2014, 02:33
I think it means your a Queensland supporter. The boobs are a dead giveaway. Anyone in business would probably stump up for the caps if they are in CASA's jurisdiction.

aroa
6th Feb 2014, 03:43
caps are easy.
How about a T shirt?
...The wearer is one of the Ills of Society,due to of overdose of bureaucratic bullsh*t

ps neither the GG or the PM do regulations...as some CAsA persons suggested to me that they did ! :ooh::confused:

Does IOS have a logo ?

Frank Arouet
6th Feb 2014, 04:43
'We're here to help'

Sarcs
6th Feb 2014, 07:00
aroa: Does IOS have a logo ? Perhaps a pic with a pineapple sticking out of the cargo door of VH-NGA..hmm on the back you could have It's the PIT(s) {PIT- Pineapple insertion team}...:E

On ToR 'any other safety related matters' I noticed the AAA have made their submission publicly available..:D

AAA- SUBMISSION TO THE AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW (http://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Submission-to-the-Aviation-Safety-Regulation-Review-Jan-20141.pdf)


And Australian Aviation provides a summary of that submission..:ok::AAA calls for aerodrome safety regs review

1:35 pm, Thursday February 6 2014

The Australian Airports Association (AAA) has called for a full review of the CASA regulations governing the operation of Australian aerodromes as part of its submission to the government’s review of aviation safety regulation.

Specifically, the industry body says MOS Part 139 should be reviewed as a matter of priority to bring the standards up to date with current systems and technologies. The Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139 – Aerodromes is the set of regulations established and maintained by CASA which covers all aspects of the operations of aerodromes.

“Industry has identified a number of serious issues with MOS Part 139, including the need to update the text to reflect the latest developments in aircraft technology and airport operations,” Caroline Wilkie, CEO of the AAA said in a statement. “MOS Part 139 contains many conflicting rules and definitions, right down to the most basic interpretation of an ‘aircraft’. The lack of clarity and consistency in MOS Part 139 has the potential to cause safety risks at aerodromes.”

An AAA standards group has made several other recommendations, including:


CASA increasing their stakeholder engagement in relation to regulation and audit process changes;
All future changes to safety regulations be made using a risk based approach;
Implementation of a clearly defined and documented change management system to track any changes made to key safety and compliance processes;
Establishment of a joint working group between CASA and industry to work on future regulatory requirements for aerodromes;
Development of training programs in the areas of airport and airport operations;
Separation of responsibilities for the policy making and regulation of aerodromes;
The timely release of safety reports into incidents that have occurred;
Increased capacity for CASA to approve or not approve developments that could impact on airport safety;
An increase in staffing levels for the Aerodromes section of CASA to meet growing industry demands; and
The increase of the CASA board to eight members and to include experienced aviation industry professionals.

The AAA’s full submission to the aviation safety review can be viewed at Submissions | Australian Airports Association (http://airports.asn.au/policy/submissions/)

Further to India ICAO Category 2 story - The following is an article that highlights the potential knock on effect if we were ever to be bumped to Cat 2 by the FAA :{...

Singapore Raises Inspection of Indian Planes After FAA Downgrade (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/singapore-raises-inspection-of-indian-planes-after-faa-downgrade.html)

Addendum: Although I am fully supportive of the AAA submission I thought the following (real AOPA) , from the yanks, makes for a feel good read...:ok:

Perhaps shows (much like Archerfield's Tenancy group..:D) what can be achieved by small, committed, like-minded individuals if they combine and put their collective efforts to a common cause...:ok::
'Benign neglect' (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/January/22/VeniceAirport.aspx)

Venice Airport has a new lease on life
January 22, 2014

Venice Municipal Airport in Florida, once a victim of “benign neglect” according to its supporters, is in trouble no more. The historic former army base on the Gulf Coast of Florida has turned itself around, thanks in great part to a small cadre of supporters who never stopped believing.

AOPA Manager of Airport Policy John Collins saw firsthand the accomplishments at Venice Municipal Airport Jan. 15 as he toured the 835-acre airport, spoke before the city’s economic development advisory board, and was a guest at the monthly meeting of the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI). “You have a very valuable and economically viable airport here,” Collins told the advisory board. “The differences between my visit in 2010 and today are incredible—the rehabilitation of Runway 5/23, the new fencing, the obstruction removal, the realigned taxiway. We can’t thank you enough for your support of your airport.” He conveyed the same message to city council members and VASI members in the audience at the VASI meeting as well.

Venice Municipal faced opposition in this small resort town (population 21,000), which welcomes “snowbirds” January through March, when northerners trek south to Florida’s sunny shores. Venice is a charming and quaint small town bordered by the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway. The airport, established in 1947, was a training base and later an active general aviation airport. But as the city grew and economic belts tightened, the airport began to suffer from “benign neglect,” according to Paul Hollowell, a member of the VASI board of directors.

And because of the city’s neglect of its airport, its detractors started to nibble at the airport's 835-acre footprint. They wanted to shorten one of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways. They wanted to deny new business. They wanted to take airport land—the golf course and the mobile home park, and the restaurant, and the former Barnum & Bailey Circus winter headquarters—all airport land tenants. Even though the airport was self-sustaining and an economic boon, detractors started a smear campaign, which called out the airport for noise, jet traffic, and being a bad neighbor (one of the terrorists of the 9/11 attacks had trained at the airport).

It worked. The most vocal detractor and two of her friends were voted onto the city council. One was the mayor.

Noise reduction signs were installed by the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI) in 2009. The “Always Fly Friendly” signs verbally and graphically depict noise-reduction flight procedures at the departure ends of each of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways.

Noise reduction signs were installed by the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI) in 2009. The “Always Fly Friendly” signs verbally and graphically depict noise-reduction flight procedures at the departure ends of each of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways.

VASI President Emeritus and AOPA Airport Support Network Volunteer Nick Carlucci calls these times “The Troubles.” When the airport detractors stirred up the citizens, they picketed landing jets at the airport and stood on the island’s bridges with signs telling visiting pilots to go home. They forced legislation and worked to close the airport.

Carlucci, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a Cessna 172 owner and pilot, hasn’t lost his Brooklyn accent, nor his Brooklyn brashness. The former Marine Corps colonel joined forces with Hollowell and some others and activated VASI. They worked with AOPA and the FAA. Carlucci’s tenaciousness is a key factor in why Venice Municipal is no longer under attack.

“Tremendous advocates,” is the phrase Venice Mayor John Holic uses to describe Carlucci and the VASI members. “They love flying above just about everything else, but the love they have for the city has turned out positively for Venice and its airport.”

The situation at Venice Municipal was so poor that when airport manager Chris Rozansky accepted the job in October 2010, a friend said he wouldn’t wish that job on his worst enemy. And, initially, Rozansky suspected his friend might have been right. He was harangued and badgered, but with the help of the team from VASI and a new mayor and council members, he slowly was able to “tell the airport story.” A story of how much income the city derives from its tenants and users, how only three percent of the 60,000 takeoff and landings are from jets, and that the FAA wasn’t planning on taking residential housing.

“Often the stated concerns like noise are symptoms of a larger, unrealistic fear,” Rozansky says. “I listened—we listened—and when we could get to the root problem, which was usually unrealistic fears, we could get people on our side.”

With a supportive mayor and council, the vigilant work of VASI members, support from the FAA, and silenced detractors, Venice Municipal recently opened a reconstructed noise-mitigation Runway 5/23 (there’s a plaque outside the airport manager’s office that says Rest in Peace for the old runway). There are 220 based aircraft, an FBO, avionics shop (Sarasota Avionics, which has contributed to AOPA sweepstakes aircraft projects), two flight schools, and maintenance facilities. The Sarasota County Sheriff’s helicopter, providing law enforcement and firefighting support, and Agape Flights, a missionary organization, are based at the airport.

“Venice Municipal Airport has gone from the poster child of neglected airports to a business case in one turning around,” proudly states Brett Stephens, VASI president.

Council Member Kit McKeon, who served on the past council and was re-elected for a second term said, “We’ll remain vigilant against those who might try to diminish our airport, but let me assure you that the modernized Venice Municipal Airport is open for business.”

Paragraph377
6th Feb 2014, 11:03
Creampuff,
The individual departments don’t write and hone the material. They come up with the bright ideas (policies) and tell OPC about them. OPC then drafts the Regulations to give effect to the bright ideas.
Creampuff, you are a bright individual, and obviously somebody with a passing interest in legal things, tell me, would organisations such as AMSA or NOPSEMA also operate in the same said manner as what you mention above in relation to CASA? Just curious really.

Creampuff
6th Feb 2014, 19:27
Precisely the same manner.

Instructions for Regulations go from them to OPC (nee OLDP).

You might be getting confused with Civil Aviation Orders, Marine Orders and delegated legislation other than Regulations. :confused:

Sarcs
7th Feb 2014, 05:43
Have been reliably informed that there is a number of submissions, some requested by the panel themselves, from some very heavy hitters in the Aviation legal fraternity. Here is a couple of publicly available submissions that I have been able to find thus far...:cool::

Submission of the Australian Lawyers Alliance (http://www.aviationlaw.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Australian-Lawyers-Alliance_ASRR-Submission.pdf)

In brief, the Australian Lawyers Alliance recommended that the Panel should advise Government that:

1. Guidance material on CASA’s enforcement policy which guides CASA decision makers should be legally binding and itself enforceable under an Ombudsman-type arrangement akin to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
2. Strict adherence to AAT expert evidence guidelines and procedural rules be demanded of all litigants in aviation administrative matters (both CASA and represented applicants).
3. Australia’s fatigue risk management system rules should be further developed by CASA in light of the merits of the US FAA approach which came into effect on 14 January 2014.
4. Australian aviation drug and alcohol management (DAMP) policy should be clarified by adding an “Objects” section to either Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth), or Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), to reflect Parliament’s intention that DAMP rules operate to minimise harm in aviation, not punish.
5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
6. CASA should undertake as a priority, a review of the need for regulations on cockpit automation and adapt and implement relevant recommendations of the FAA in its comprehensive September 2013 report on this subject including, in particular, a proposed requirement for Australian AOC holders to create explicit flight path management policies.
And from a solely victims perspective..:D:

Shine Lawyers submission (http://www.aviationlaw.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Shine-Lawyers_ASRR-Submission.pdf)In turn, Shine Lawyers recommended to the ASRR Panel that it should advise the Government to:

1. Extend the concession Commonwealth employees travelling on Commonwealth business enjoy under Part III of the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act 1963 (Cth) (AACL Act) to all Australians, or repeal Part III of the AACL Act; or
2. Review the AACL Act’s consistency with the policy behind the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) (CACL Act), and update the AACL Act to reflect its original intent as expressed by Parliament in 1963; and
3. Remove all references to the term “personal injury” in s.12 of the AACL Act (or return that term to the wording of the CACL Act for consistency); and
4. Legislate for the imposition of adherence to the IATA (or some other suitable) intercarrier agreement as a condition for non-Australian airlines which service Australia (as recommended at Preliminary Finding 4 of the 2009 DOIRD Discussion Paper).
Just can't go past supplying a couple of cherry picked quotes from the ALA submission...:ok:

On Fort Fumble in the AAT:ugh::
"...Anecdotally, confidence in decision making by CASA is at an all-time low. Furthermore, there have been several indications from Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) members indicating that the AAT has been the (erroneous) venue for criticisms of CASA’s investigative or decision making processes.20 Unless an independent alternative forum for such critique is available, Tribunal resources and CASA resources will be wasted in the pacification of litigants who claim misfeasance or similar civil wrongs, and/or decide to use particular decisions of CASA as springboards to attack CASA policies. This assists no-one.

It is recommended that the decision making processes and considerations outlined therein be reduced into a legislative instrument to ensure accountability by CASA decision makers as a matter of right, and that this oversight be the responsibility of an independently established Ombudsman in the vein of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO).

We submit that the EM is so precise that it lends itself to independent oversight for contravention. This would reassure aviation stakeholders that potentially incorrect or “not preferable” decisions would not just be reviewable in the case of individually affected or aggrieved stakeholders, by virtue of an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Thus, independent oversight as proposed here is not intended to supplant proper access to administrative review in the AAT. Rather, the mechanism proposed below or any variation of it, has the capacity to reduce costly litigation in the AAT and Federal Court which can sometimes be motived by allegations of erroneous or misapprehended decision making, to a forum of its own, where compliance by CASA officers with the EM can be addressed practically and openly to ensure future adherence with the policies underpinning it...

"...3. In our opinion the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner is not a suitable entity for such oversight, given its strictly limited and dissimilar roles under its own Terms of Reference.22 Rather the oversight of regulatory decision making should lie with an entity which is particularly charged with the singular and unfettered role of examining regulatory decision making by reference to CASA’s own policy, and setting suitable penalties for noncompliance in instances where the policy has not been adhered to…"

On Fort Fumble MLR obligations:yuk::
"...A matter which has bolstered aviation operators’ lack of confidence in administrative decision making, which criticism has been relayed to the ALA, together with our own examination of decisions on CASA decisions reaching the AAT, results in the identification of a further issue which should be considered by the Panel.

The AAT recently set aside the decision of CASA to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after suffering an attack while out with friends in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).In this decision what is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action…"

On FRMS :rolleyes::
“…The relevant CASA surveillance which resulted in the requests for corrective action predated the existing FRMS requirements, but post-dated the commencement of CASA’s original Civil Aviation Order 48.1 which prescribes duty flight time limitations.36 This means that minimum rest time for pilots was set by CAO 48.1 and not strictly the subject of a formal risk management system as it might be argued might now applies to such an operator. The issue then becomes less one of FRMS per se, but one of FRM regulatory oversight. Is a prescribed duty time limit easier to enforce and better than a FRMS which leaves such decisions to pilots and operators in the high demand environment of commercial aviation?...

…In our submission the criticism for the Panel to note is that the FRMS rules now applicable by virtue of the commencement of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (No. 1)38 on 30 April 2013 are not only subject to major contrary views but this view was acted upon by a motion to disallow in the Senate which lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 prior to the Federal Election. Since that time, and following the opening of submissions to the present ASRR, a second motion to disallow was made, and is presently pending for resolution in the Senate by 24 March 2014. These indications of public discontent must not be forgotten in determining a way forward for resolving the debate on flight time limitations…”

On systemic oversight beyond LHR..:=:
“…No submission to a review of aviation safety regulation would be complete without addressing the regulatory safety factors identified by the ATSB in its investigation report of Australia’s worst modern air crash disaster, the collision with terrain of a Fairchild Aircraft Inc aircraft operated by Transair north west of Lockhart River in Queensland on 7 May 2005.

In the report, just as with the Pel-Air report, 43 deficiencies with industry surveillance and consistency of oversight activities with CASA’s policies, procedure and guidelines were implicated in relation to the lack of detection of fundamentalproblems associated with Transair’s management of regular public transport flights operations (such as pilot training, checking, supervision of line flight operations, standard operating procedures, risk management processes etc).44…

….The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).

Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”:D:D

I could cherry pick more but then I would destroy the intrigue for the avid IOS readers.:zzz:.


IMO it is well worth the time..;)..more to follow K2 (Sarski) :ok:

Paragraph377
7th Feb 2014, 11:21
Interesting that you should raise this one Sarcs:
On systemic oversight beyond LHR..:
“…No submission to a review of aviation safety regulation would be complete without addressing the regulatory safety factors identified by the ATSB in its investigation report of Australia’s worst modern air crash disaster, the collision with terrain of a Fairchild Aircraft Inc aircraft operated by Transair north west of Lockhart River in Queensland on 7 May 2005.

In the report, just as with the Pel-Air report, 43 deficiencies with industry surveillance and consistency of oversight activities with CASA’s policies, procedure and guidelines were implicated in relation to the lack of detection of fundamentalproblems associated with Transair’s management of regular public transport flights operations (such as pilot training, checking, supervision of line flight operations, standard operating procedures, risk management processes etc).44…
This remains a travesty. Fort Fumble could've learned from this. Tombstone technology to coin a phrase. An accident happens, it gets properly investigated and lessons are learned. Unfortunately the only lesson CASA learned from Lockhart was one of CYA. If anything the stakes have gotten higher and the system more dysfunctional and of a higher risk. Justice still awaits the loved ones of those killed, and a different form of justice still awaits those with blood stained hands.

Australia's two biggest in around 40 years - Transair and Pel Air and yet the regulator still obsfucates, ignores, eludes, hides, weaves, denies, distorts and distances itself? Vile individuals.

Sarcs
7th Feb 2014, 22:35
“...All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not....”


Or basically put "do as I say not as I do" is no longer going to be accepted by IOS as legitimate excuse for bureaucratic spin & obfuscation at any level...:=


Yes Para the ALA recommendation 5 provides a subtle but clear message that even a simple knuckledragger, tinpusher or gingerbeer can understand …;):5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
Comment: The IOS ‘Great Unwashed’, with elephant memories :oh:, may recall that Annex 19 was a topic of discussion way..way back on the first but ‘CLOSED’ (RIP ‘lest we forget’:{) Senate thread on about page 85. {Note: For those that need a refreshing of the neurons Annex 19 references started around.... post #1682 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-85.html#post7831962)}

But back to ALA R5 it is worth bringing up the footnote #52 link provided, which will lead to a pdf version:

AUSTRALIA’S STATE AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM APRIL 2012 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/files/Australias_State_Safety%20Program_2012_FA7.pdf)

Then it is well worth reflecting on the Foreword to that document:FOREWORD

The safety of the aviation industry is paramount to its ability to maintain the confidence of the travelling public as it continues to grow and to connect people, communities and nations.

Australia has an excellent aviation safety record with a mature regulatory framework and a broadly accepted and industry-supported safety culture.
Even a mature safety system must include processes for ongoing improvement. Continuing rapid advances in navigation and aircraft technology and the intense commercial pressures of the aviation industry require the continuing improvement and refinement of our aviation safety systems.

Australia supports the efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish Safety Programs for member States to better ensure effective integration of aviation safety standards and practices. This builds on the approach endorsed by ICAO to have air transport operators, airports, air navigation and maintenance service providers and other critical aviation operations establish comprehensive safety management systems to guide the management of the range of activities involved in ensuring safety.

Australia’s State Safety Program plays an important part in identifying, monitoring and maintaining the effectiveness of the various elements of our safety systems. The Program identifies and describes current arrangements and outlines the steps we need to continue to take in order to respond to safety challenges in the future.

The history of Australia’s formal oversight of its civil aviation operations dates back to the enactment of the Air Navigation Act by the Commonwealth Parliament in 1920.

Over the ensuing 90 years, regulatory oversight of the safety performance of civil aviation operations has required continual revision and modernisation in response to, and on occasion in anticipation of, a range of technological advances and changes in the operational environment.

Australia was a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) in 1944, and has been a member of ICAO since its establishment. From the outset, Australia has been an active participant in, and a strong supporter of ICAO’s activities, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to the enhancement of the safety, security and environmental sustainability of civil aviation. As a large island nation, the availability of safe, regular and efficient air services within Australia and between Australia and the rest of the world is critical to our national interest.

A number of Australian Government agencies have responsibilities for aviation safety including the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Department of Defence, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. These agencies have now produced the first revision of Australia’s State Safety Program. I would like to acknowledge all of these agencies for their contributions to this Program and for their continuing commitment to aviation safety in Australia. The State Safety Program will be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects evolving aviation safety standards and practices.

Mike Mrdak

Secretary

Department of Infrastructure and Transport

April 2012
Then quietly remember that this bureaucratic masterpiece was promulgated prior to the PelAir sh#t storm…:ugh: :yuk:

Hmm..do you reckon the Department boys’n’gals..:rolleyes:..(& possibly PMC) are going to be very busy over the next year..while dreading the knock on the door from Mr FAA {ICAO} :{?? :E

Prince Niccolo M
8th Feb 2014, 04:38
Back in the closed thread at #1772, I said http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-87.html#post7839442

Annex 19 - Panacea?


All this enthusiasm for Annex 19 as some form of panacea for the ills of Australian aviation is a little bemusing. My understanding of Annex 19 is that it is a collection of existing provisions, edited only for document continuity. As I further understand it, there will be no new provisions for a number of years.

Any existing shortfalls in Safety Management at a State level will continue as shortfalls when measured against Annex 19 (when it transitions from the current 'green' version to a fully-fledged 'blue' version).


Well, it is now a blue version and the foreword reconfirms:

This Annex consolidates material from existing Annexes regarding SSP and safety management systems (SMSs), as well as related elements including the collection and use of safety data and State safety oversight activities. The benefit of drawing together this material into a single Annex is to focus States’ attention on the importance of integrating their safety management activities. It also facilitates the evolution of safety management provisions

So, all of the compliance issues that may exist are old, meaning everyone waving Annex 19 around like the Sermon from the Mount should have previously identified and complained about any shortfalls with the pre-existing SARPs :ooh: :hmm: :uhoh:

Frank Arouet
10th Feb 2014, 04:44
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/skulldigging.jpg

Blue Ruin
10th Feb 2014, 15:03
FWIW, the AFAP submission is located here...

http://www.afap.org.au/files/nrteUploadFiles/92F022F201443A453A25PM.pdf


OVERVIEW
The Federation's submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR or Review) is structured in accordance with the Review terms of reference. Our submission supports that:

1. All aviation agencies and responsibilities be brought back under the oversight of a single Aviation Minister or, at a minimum, the Director of Aviation Safety should not be able to operate independent of a Board structure.

2. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should be better resourced. That programs and initiatives aimed at greater self-regulation do not come at the expense of internal expertise within CASA. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular is in need of an overhaul to ensure clearer processes and that specified service standards are delivered.

3. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) remains independent and purely safety focused. In line with this, that legislative immunity is provided for flight crew who raise safety concerns and the material gathered by the ATSB during investigations is protected from any other party.

4. Airservices Australia (AsA) improves its methodology to ensure appropriate service responses to rapid changes in traffic movements. AsA should also conduct a review of radio and operational procedures for all airports in G Airspace that involve regular public transport operations.

5. The operations of the Office of Transport Security (OTS) are an excessive cost burden on the industry and that many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary.

6. The recommendations of Senate Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations be revisited and implemented as a matter of priority.

7. In accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annex 13, information gathered in safety investigations or mandatorily supplied be protected and not shared between agencies.

8. The Regulations be re-written in plain English, targeted at and comprehensible to the industry.

9. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process be reviewed such that sensible and defensible timeframes are provided and adhered to.

10. Jurisdictional issues regarding Australian aircraft operating in New Zealand and New Zealand aircraft operating in Australia needs to be clarified.

11. Fatigue management legislation encompasses all safety sensitive personnel.

12. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) surveillance is implemented in all Australian airspace above 10,000 feet.

13. The upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) to Cat 3 at all Australian capital city airports.

14. Flight data is provided with legislative protection that ensures it may only be used for safety purposes and prohibits the use of this information in civil or criminal actions.

15. The recommendations of the 2000 Senate Inquiry into the incidents of contaminated cabin air are revisited and implemented as a matter of urgency.

16. Land use planning around airports be controlled and coordinated to ensure airport capacity is not restricted or that development does not adversely impact on existing operations.


A few quotes from the submission...

Whilst we do not object to a user pays model to cover the costs incurred in providing aviation services, we believe it is necessary to accurately quantify those costs and identify who the end users are to ensure that they contribute a fair share rather than attempting to recover the full cost of service provision from the industry. This applies to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia (AsA), the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Office of Transport Security (OTS). In this light it is somewhat disturbing that CASA reported a $12M profit over the last year.


The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue1. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.


The security screening processes applied to pilots are arbitrary and unnecessary. Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit seat beggars belief. Particularly when other airside workers, such as baggage handlers and catering staff, are not subject to the same screening processes. In addition, pilots are also subject to continual “random selection” for bomb trace detection tests in airports. This practice not only inconveniences aircrew, but also devalues the testing regime by targeting testing away from ordinary passengers. These measures appear driven by political and public relations concerns rather than any safety case.

Fantome
10th Feb 2014, 15:21
so is there any sign of avmed getting its act together?

Creampuff
10th Feb 2014, 19:27
From the “Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013” page 17:CASA is determined to improve the delivery of medical certificates. One initiative being examined is the capability to issue a class 2 medical certificate at the time of the of the DAME’s office, right then and there. …”It just shows how weak the fabric of government has become.

A regulator can, at a whim, stuff up a system that was working well, then, without even a hint of embarrassment or irony, print a glossy magazine nominating that as a system the regulator is determined to improve.

But they can’t make a decision and implement it. Oh no. It’s an “initiative being examined”. Some very important matters have to be considered (and objective safety data have to be ignored). First step will have to be drafting a plan as to when they plan to complete the examination of the initiative. By the end of 2006, perhaps?

And they couldn’t contemplate giving up the capacity to stuff at least someone around. Hmmm, how can we create the most mayhem for the least effort? I know: Class 1s. Let’s keep them! Yay! Class 1 medical holders can continue to pay us to stuff them around. What a hoot!

Here’s an idea for an initiative, CASA: Get out of the way and leave medical certification to people who know what they are doing.

Sarcs
10th Feb 2014, 21:31
Blue Ruin thank you for that, not being a member of the AFAP I was unable to access what appears to be another significant contribution to the ASRR...:D {Q/ BR what is the current membership number for the AFAP?}

IMO AFAP members should be (especially given the short time to prepare) suitably happy with the end result, as the submission appears to encompass many of the main membership concerns while providing historical, simple examples and practical solutions/recommendations with strong adherence to the ToRs...so bravo AFAP...:ok:

Supplementary to BR quotes (same hymn sheet..:rolleyes:):

7. Alternatively, we believe that the Director of Aviation Safety should not be able to operate independent of a Board structure.


8. We consider it imperative that all senior appointments to any agency with a safety related role should have significant prior experience in a relevant field.
Further to CAsA, other than Avmed debacle (my bold):11. Policy changes aimed at greater industry self-regulation than currently exists should be opposed. In a climate of reduced resources a philosophy of self-regulation may appear to be an attractive short term option. However, self-regulation is a self-fulfilling principle; the more that CASA devolves to industry, the less expertise resides within CASA to identify shortcomings, the less CASA is seen as ‘the Regulator’ and the less it accepts that responsibility.

12. The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turn-over and low morale from within. Whilst we understand any regulatory authority will continually review its internal policies and administrative operations to improve service delivery and efficiency, there is a need for a clearly articulated long term goal of what the Regulator wants to achieve and how this will be done.
On the ATsB & PelAir report:16. We support legislative immunity for flight crew who raise safety concerns and measures that allow flight crew to report directly to a better resourced and independent ATSB.


17. We oppose any relaxations which may allow greater access to information obtained by the ATSB during safety investigations.
25. We note that the Minister whilst in opposition supported demands for the immediate implementation of those recommendations and request that this Review revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend the implementation of those recommendations as a matter of priority.
28. This is contrary to the intent of ICAO Annex 13 which states that "the objective of an investigation of an accident or incident is prevention of future events" and the ICAO Safety Management Manual which states that "information should be collected solely for the purpose of aviation safety and information protection is essential in ensuring the continued availability of that information". It follows that ATSB reports on accident or incident investigations or any information from the mandatory reporting process should never be made available for regulatory enforcement purposes or civil actions.


29. For a safety reporting regime to operate effectively people must be confident that disclosure will not result in punitive action unless the action was deliberate or reckless.
Finally on RRP, I could quote the whole lot..:D..but to summarise:41. In contrast to Australia’s CASRs 1998, the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules are clear and comprehensible. While in no way endorsing the content of the New Zealand legislation, we would support clear plain English regulations aimed at and comprehensible to the industry, not just lawyers.


42. We therefore request that the regulatory development process be reviewed in the interests of achieving the goals of clear, concise and unambiguous regulations delivered in a timely manner.
{Comment: Especially liked the 'Aeroplane' definition example from para 35-39..:E}

I could go on cherry picking but this submission has already got the IOS tick of approval...again bravo AFAP!:ok:

Note: AFAP sub quote at the end...

"...As previously stated, the Federation would welcome the opportunity to supplement the above written submission via verbal submissions to the Review Panel..."
Although the time frame is still limited, it would appear that the panel would be willing to accept further supplementary submissions in support of original submissions, see here...

Submissions are now closed
The formal submission period has now closed. However the Panel will endeavour to consider late submissions.
To make a late submission please use the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx)

Addendum: Noted this short summary article from Australian Flying on the RA-Aus submission, where it seems the primary membership concern is the imposition of the ASIC: RA-Aus Weighs into ASIC Debate (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ra-aus-weighs-into-asic-debate)

aroa
10th Feb 2014, 22:24
Had a visit to this regional field, no RPT, by some young AFP chappies recently who left a card which states ..."you are the eyes and ears of the airport, and if you see something suspicious call 131 AFP
And on the front See it, hear it Report it.

Quite fascinating that this was the very attitude taken in the USA after 9/11 and they DID NOT institute cards because they said the very words of the above...you are the eyes and ears etc..and those people at the field are part of the solution...seeing what goes on.

Its only taken 13 years then ?

So...is your "security " card ASIC soon to be changed to an ASAW, Airport Security Amateur Watchdog with a cheque for $200 to encourage you to keep a look out.:ok:
Dont think so somehow.

Paragraph377
11th Feb 2014, 09:36
Latest ICAO release;
ICAO and Singapore Forge New Agreement on Leadership and Management Training (http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-and-Singapore-forge-new-agreement-on-leadership-and-management-training.aspx)

Cherry picked out of the press release (my bold);

SINGAPORE, 10 February 2014 – The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Government of the Republic of Singapore signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
“Singapore is a strong advocate of developing aviation leadership and human capital, which are key to addressing the challenges facing global aviation.

Director General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. “Singapore’s partnership with ICAO in leadership and management training affirms our commitment to contribute in a meaningful way to advancing international civil aviation.”

ICAO-Singapore collaboration under the new MOU will be focused around the development and delivery of leadership and management training and professional programmes, joint conferences, seminars and courses, the sharing of speakers, moderators and instructors and the exchange of information in areas of mutual interest in the field of civil aviation.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Stasi CASA could even remotely consider such a non punitive approach? Instead we have a legacy of incompetence and disgraceful abuse of unlimited power.
Dear Mr Truss and your Wet Lettuce Review team, please go talk Messrs Quadrio, Butson, Fernandes, James and Davy to name a handful. Then look at how most involved in causing these operators so much pain then got promoted to where they are today.
Sorry, at this point in time the review is a complete crock of shit.

Sunfish
11th Feb 2014, 16:45
...and Qantas thinks it has something to teach Asia?

Sarcs
11th Feb 2014, 22:12
The headline on Australian Flying's article that summarises the AAAA’s WLR submission,is spot on…:D
Aerial Ag Gives CASA a Spray (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aerial-ag-gives-casa-a-spray)

The Ag crew do not hold back, the submission is akin to dumping water on Fort Fumble with a DC-10 fire bomber..:E
AAAA WLR Submission (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Portals/0/AAAA%20Sub%20Av%20Safety%20Review%20Jan%202014(1).pdf)

Standby for some overspray quotes…
“Dear Miniscule, …noxious weeds are out of control”
CASA is now performing so poorly as to demand significant change of its internal management and its relationship with industry so as to implement practical systems that will lead to commonly accepted benchmarks of practice and outcomes. CASA is dysfunctional at nearly every level, its relationship with industry has been junked, and it is suffering from such a pathological culture that major surgery will be required to realign the organisation with the common hallmarks of a sound safety regulator. CASA must walk the talk.
There has been a complete breakdown in the relationship with industry at the highest levels, an example which has now cascaded throughout almost the entire organisation.

There are many good people working in CASA who are simply unable to make headway against the prevailing culture. They are increasingly isolated and powerless.

There are also some who delight in the culture of ‘gotcha’ that exists and is encouraged at various levels, where the ‘zero-sum game’ against industry is strongest. The lack of systems and confidence to allow the free flow of information both up and down the chain of command within CASA sustains the negative aspects of the CASA culture, and reinforces and encourages behaviour that in a healthy, open and just culture, with a clear focus on cooperation with industry and positive safety outcomes, would simply not be tolerated.

As with all cultures, the problem starts and is sustained at the top.
CASA demonstrates no strategic engagement, with industry withdrawing from meetings and discussions that involve senior management due to fatigue from being lectured to.

There appears to be a complete disconnect between words spoken by senior CASA management and what happens on the ground – with no consistency of policy or interpretation being a long-standing concern. CASA encourages industry to adopt sound management principles and systems such as SMS, ‘just’ cultures and strong executive control of aviation companies, but is hypocritical in not applying these same principles and practices to its own operations.

CASA does not have ‘aviation issues’ – it has management and cultural issues. A resetting of the CASA/industry relationship is critical to establishing a more mature regulatory safety culture in Australia.
“He’s not the Messiah..”:ugh:
Many people in aviation believe that the critical component in sound aviation regulation is to have the ‘right’ person in key jobs, such as the CEO of CASA.

Unfortunately, this ‘messiah’ approach is fundamentally flawed if not supported by longer-term strategic approaches, systems and checks and balances, as demonstrated by the history of CASA and its predecessors.
When industry first heard of the shift of CASA to being a ‘Big R’ regulator, industry accepted that clearly that was the right of the regulator and, industry assumed, was being done with the support of the CASA Board and the Minister. What industry did not anticipate was that the move to a ‘Big R’ regulator was code for the introduction of a bullying and intimidatory culture that would lead to a breakdown in relationships between CASA and industry, a significant reduction in the focus on innovative safety programs and increasingly shrill policing activities that are not delivering real safety improvements.

As previously stated, no aviation association has the track record of AAAA of working positively with CASA for the improvement of aviation safety and regulation. But it is not possible to continue to return to the table when it is clear that there is no trust and no respect being shown for industry’s genuine concerns and its innovative suggestions for improvement.
On RRP spray ‘drift’ problems..:{The regulatory reform program is certainly not ‘reform’ any longer.

There is no overall goal in play – ‘safety through clarity’ has been abandoned and there is no real reason for regulatory reform other than for its own sake. Key outcomes, goals, timelines (ie strategic planning) must be established.

Key goals for regulatory reform should include increased safety, reduced cost, simplification and harmonisation.

Key regulatory triggers or thresholds must be established – ie if CASA staff have a good idea, that does not mean, ipso facto, it becomes law. It should have to meet the key goals identified as a trigger for reform. Similarly, if it adds considerable cost for little or no safety benefit, it should not become law.

Regulation should be seen as the final option when other approaches have been exhausted – such as education and safety promotion including joint ventures with industry associations – rather than the default setting and starting point for guiding all aviation activity.

This is a fundamental shift in CASA’s worldview. It is the view of best practice regulators the world over. Of course there need to be rules, but there do not need to be rules for every possible eventuality.
I could go on and on (it's that impressive..:ok:) but I guess the real message here is…:rolleyes: …“Dear Miniscule, noxious weeds eradication program urgently needed!!”:E

Frank Arouet
11th Feb 2014, 22:51
you've got to lance the boil before you can squeeze the puss out.

Creampuff
11th Feb 2014, 23:48
Hats off to the AAAA. :D:D Australia would be better off outsourcing aviation safety regulation to them!

Just one more gem in its submission that I can't resist highlighting: AAAA expressed strong concerns to ATSB management with previous attempts during investigations to attempt to mould evidence to fit a theory, rather than objectively analysing and presenting the evidence available.Seems to be a pattern of ATSB behaviour! :=

brissypilot
12th Feb 2014, 01:07
so is there any sign of avmed getting its act together?

It appears not... :ugh:

Also in the AAAA submission:

One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose.


The ability of the branch to hide behind the façade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.

Paragraph377
12th Feb 2014, 03:53
Excellent submission by AAAA, perfectly worded, straight to the point, factual and truthful. This is just one example of what group consensus about CASA is. Surely it is not possible for such an overwhelming percentage of the IOS to be categorically wrong? The fact is that the Australian aviation industry has voted, the results are in, and it is a big ‘VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE’ in CASA and its legacy of Minister puppets. The facts speak for themelves. The industry has had a gutful. And similar feelings are expressed towards the once respectable ATSB. I cannot speak for others but this spiralling mess is getting worse by the week, the Department has lost control (never had any really) of its wayward hybrid abomination.
I think that group submissions, much like what has been submitted to this weak handed Wet Lettuce Review group and previous senate inquiries needs to be submitted directly to:
· ICAO
· United Nations
· Top end Legal firm

The regulatory reform program needs to be halted immediately. It is now officially The Regulatory Deform Program. It has failed. The money is gone, class it in the same category as the pink batts scheme or the BER – It failed, the money is gone, no results are to be gained, end of it. It is time to kick back off where Byron was headed before the Iron Ring castrated him and many likeminded before him. The lunatics in charge of the asylum have also lost all control. They contradict each other, bully industry and in some instances do it with malice, contempt for law and ethics, with impunity and in a way that would indicate some have severe psychological and sociopathic issues.

The countless millions spent on junkets, rorts, legal pursuits of the innocent, the reg reform mess, abuse of power, unjustified salaries, ‘field excursions’, hypothetical discussions and almost everything else they do has to be stopped. As the AAAA has stated, what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Where is CASA’s SMS? Where is CASA’s change management process? Why doesn’t CASA adequately review its own risks? Where is CASA’s accountability? Why do CASA keep stuffing up, redacting, changing and repairing mistakes? Where is CASA’s just culture? Where is CASA’s ‘robust’ SSP, why is it flawed, a mess, created and implemented by an admin Johnny (should be Juliette as it is a ‘she’) who has taken off to VA? Absolute hypocrites. Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank Arouet
12th Feb 2014, 04:09
That's easy for you to say. Thank God you don't stutter.


I've been advocating public disobedience for years. After all, they started it.

Creampuff
12th Feb 2014, 04:56
More solid gold from the AAAA submission: The most recent incarnation of the pathology of CASA’s relationship with industry was when CASA attempted to blame industry for the deferment of the start date for CASR Part 61 – Pilot Licencing.

In fact, it was clearly CASA that had failed to produce the essential Manual of Standards in time, CASA that had failed to map out a coherent transitional plan for existing pilots, CASA who had no advisory material in place to support implementation, CASA that was unable to provide adequate training to its own staff on the operation of Part 61 so that industry could in turn be educated, and CASA who did not have the approval system in place for the supporting CASR Part 141/142 training organisations.

Unjustifiably trying to scapegoat the ‘regulated’ for the failures of the ‘regulator’ is a novel approach to building good relationships, especially after industry has contributed – at its own cost – thousands of hours of support, experience and advice through the various Standard Consultative Committee and working groups. AAAA alone has been involved in more than eight CASA working groups and committees since 1999 and many of the issues identified back then remain current today because CASA appears to be incapable of positive, progressive outcomes.:D :D

Sarcs
12th Feb 2014, 05:31
Maybe if Aerial Ag Phil was to replace the other, Department picked, Phil (:yuk::yuk:) as the GA expert adviser to the WLR we may end up with a well-tended lettuce & pineapple crop for ’14 :D, we could certainly expect Pete the pot plant to get some respect…:E
Again I question the legitimacy of the other Phil’s mob…especially after reading this disturbing bit of the AAAA submission..:{: AAAA was aghast when the CEO of CASA unilaterally cut sponsorship support of a number of Associations and then linked that action to criticism of CASA by those Associations. AAAA has no problem with CASA spending its sponsorship dollar where it thinks it will get the best return – after all, most of the ‘dollars’ come from industry.

While the size of support AAAA received was immaterial ($9,000 per annum to support the National Convention – for which CASA received considerable commercial sponsorship benefits) the principle of trying to intimidate Associations by manipulating funding was simply disgusting.

To draw a direct line between CASA patronage and intimidation of free speech not only flows against public service guidelines or good practice, it is an unethical approach to managing the relationship between CASA and representative industry bodies that have previously worked genuinely with CASA over many years to deliver regulatory change and safety promotion.

The main reason many Associations have purposefully withdrawn from any contact with the senior management of CASA is because it is a completely unfruitful and hostile environment. AAAA certainly feels that the resources of members are more usefully applied in areas other than trying to maintain a clearly failed relationship with the current senior management of CASA
That passage beggars belief :(, sort of like what you would expect to hear coming out of a dictatorial or socialist bureaucratic regime….FFS! :ugh:

VOTE 1 for Aerial Ag Phil (not the other Phil..:=) :ok::D:D

Creamy I'll raise your two clapping hands with a thumbs up for the AAAA submission..:E

Creampuff
12th Feb 2014, 08:29
I have to say that even cynical ol’ me is starting to believe the government is going to have little choice but to take real action in response to all this.

There appear to be too many people with too much credibility using too much blunt language. A wet lettuce response is unlikely to be tolerated by lots of people who have to date been prepared to tolerate lots.

My main point of disagreement with the gist of AAAA’s proposal is that I don’t believe the (reinstated) Board makes much of a difference, whether or not it’s stacked with people with ‘industry experience’.

The fundamental constraint that ‘outsiders’ overlook is that the CASA Board can’t make or unmake decisions to e.g. refuse, suspend or revoke an AOC. The CASA Board can’t direct a delegate to make or not make a regulatory decision.

A CASA Board could have prevented some of the output of the regulatory reform Frankenstein that successive governments have allowed CASA to create. But a properly qualified and experienced CEO and executive team could have prevented the same outcome without the benefit of a Board’s guidance.

Whatever the reasons, the regulatory reform Frankenstein exists, and the review panel, at least, can’t ignore the mayhem left in the monster’s wake.

Interesting times.

LeadSled
12th Feb 2014, 14:38
Folks,

Over the last 15+ years, nobody has worked harder to be reasonable with CASA in dealing with CASA, to the degree that AAAA Phil and several I could name have crossed swords, believing him to have taken too soft an approach ---- AAAA were buggered around for 10 years over Part 137 --- the level of "regulation" of aerial application here, compared to, say, NZ or US, borders on the ridiculous, just look up the page counts for the Part 137 for each of the named countries.

That the AAAA submission is as it is, just shows just how the most reasonable and reasoning person will finally just give up, as the reasonableness is only interpreted by the "CASA Culture" as weakness.

Well done AAAA, a pity the AOPA submission didn't have a bit of backbone, but that would have have imperiled CASA funding of some AOPA activities.

Long gone are the days when a central AOPA policy was "pay your own way, have your own say".

by close of business 25 February 2014.

Hardly serious consultation, is it, it's token consultation. Barely two weeks to comment on something that is core to one of the few areas of light aviation not bordering on comatose.

Tootle pip!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit
12th Feb 2014, 19:11
According to Stephen Fry Vogans are the most bureaucratic people in the universe.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy-Vogons - YouTube

Sarcs
12th Feb 2014, 20:24
Not quite the headline statement of the AAAA (Aerial Ag Phil) submission, nonetheless of substantial quality and still singing from the same hymn sheet, is the submission from ALGA (Australian Local Government Association). This submission also strongly backs up the AAA (who is also in alliance with the AAAA through TAAAF) submission:D:

ALGA ASRR submission (http://alga.asn.au/site/misc/alga/downloads/submissions/2014/ALGA_Submission_Avn_Safety_Regulation.pdf)

5 Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of Australian airports are owned and operated by local councils for the regional and remote communities that they serve. For many regional communities, access to air services is essential for their social and economic wellbeing. These air services provide access to major cities and other major regional centres facilitating out-bound and in-bound tourism, personal and business travel, personal and business freight and importantly access to social and community services that are less readily available in regions, such as education and health services.

Australia’s agricultural production is also considerably enhanced by aerial agricultural services like crop dusting and mustering operated from regional and remote airports. Further, some regional airports also provide pilot training facilities which assists with sustaining the aviation industry. In addition, other regional and remote airports provide a valuable service in enabling fire-fighting to be undertaken in areas where road transport is not possible or is too slow.

The economic contribution of Australia’s regional and remote airports is significant, estimated (in 2011) at $329m with $216m in gross operating surplus (GOS) and $113m in wage payments accumulated from the activity generated from regional and remote airports, although this is conservative estimate of this sectors contribution, for reasons explained earlier in this submission.

However regional and remote airports face considerable challenges in maintaining, let alone growing, the service they provide to their local communities. Maintaining and developing the capacity of these airports is expensive. This situation is compounded by the fact that the costs of regulation at these airports are disproportionately greater than for capital city airports – often by a factor of three.

Therefore, there is a serious need to review and address safety, security, environmental controls, as well as development planning and control regulations which may not be fit for purpose. ALGA looks forward to working with the Commonwealth to address unnecessarily complex and inconsistent regulatory requirements which are not sufficiently sensitive and flexible to the challenging circumstances faced by our regional and remote airportsFound a ‘V’ in my alphabet soup??:rolleyes:

While on the subject of airports it would appear that one of the VIPA WLR submission’s focal points, along with the CAO 48.1 debacle, revolves around Sydney Airport, Ben’s Article yesterday...

Virgin pilots highlight Sydney Airport’s serious problems (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/02/12/virgin-pilots-highlight-sydney-airports-serious-problems/)The association will make the congested airport’s problems a part of its submission to the federal government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review when it meets with its panel in Brisbane this Thursday.

VIPA is also calling for a restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), measures to reduce pilot fatigue and other aviation regulation reforms.

The association’s president, Captain John Lyons, said “For pilots, the issue of a second Sydney airport is faster becoming an urgent debate about safety, rather than economics.”
Still on airports I heard a rumour..:cool:..that the Archerfield’s tenancy group submission is as equally heavy hitting as the AAAA sub…hmm wonder if I can get a copy??…:E

LeadSled
13th Feb 2014, 02:43
SARCS,
The Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce submission, as I understand it, largely draws on the major legal action initiated by the AACC, much of which is in the public domain.

See if you can find a member of the AACC and ask them for a copy

<http://www.aacci.org.au>

Tootle pi[p!!

CASAweary
13th Feb 2014, 04:36
So why have the taxpayers forked out around $40k so that Terrence can have an A380 endorsement? Is this an accompliment to Sky Sentinel?
Why does a near 80 year old geriatric who couldn't even move his arthritic bones into the flight deck need such an endorsement? Is it for ego, out of boredom, some perverted sense of pride or just an addiction to wasting taxpayer money?:=:=

CAsA executive management's nosewheel has hit the ground and the remainder of the organisation has skidded to a halt (Oops, Creampuff know's all about nosehweel scrapings:D).

Why do bullies like Terry, Herr Campbell and Flyingfiend get promoted through the ranks? C'mon Flyingfiend, come out and play. What, scared of the AFP? Not so brave anymore old chap are you.

Why is 'the Doc' gaining behind the scenes votes? A showdown coming? Is he working with the department to rid the Skull? MrDork must be desperate, but then again he is the main problem. Get rid of all the DAS, MrDork, Truss, The Board, the lot of them. CAsA is a bunch of arseclowns
and are supported by the department and the Ministers office. What a shonky bunch of muppets and serial trough abusers.

C'mon Gaunty, Flyingfiend and Clinton, come out and play!!

thorn bird
13th Feb 2014, 06:57
Casaweary, please tell us!! their not actually going to let him fly a real airplane are they?? by that I mean actually sit in a control seat and play
"I'm an airline Captain"?? surely not....I mean think of the risks!!..If he's just going to sit on the jump seat not so bad but I can envisage a raft of NCN's for improper operation against the operating crew because he is now an annointed expert, hell even if they are not endorsed FOI's direct how operations are to be conducted.
Thats up until a ding happens because of their insane procedures, then of course..."ME your honour?? Absolutely not!! these "Not fit and proper persons, criminals really" totally misconstrued what I was forcing....err suggesting they do".
We had a Captain sheik once, son of one of the rulers, decided to be an airline captain because he thought thats where the chicks were!! His country had to underwrite the insurance every time he flew...paid out a few mil in heavy landings and screwed engines its rumoured.
So who underwrites the insurance if this geriatric has a brain fart somewhere and bends an A380??...Damn it all my daddy said I should have been a lawyer!! Why didnt I listen!!

LeadSled
13th Feb 2014, 07:17
Industry often comments that it is not possible to make this stuff up – only CASA has the prerequisite levels of incompetence to create and sustain such regulatory nonsense.

Folks,
Of all the quotable quotes from the AAAA submission, the above is just about my favorite.
Tootle pip!!

Paragraph377
13th Feb 2014, 10:15
My favourite part of Casaweary's post:

CAsA executive management's nosewheel has hit the ground and the remainder of the organisation has skidded to a halt (Oops, Creampuff know's all about nosehweel scrapings).
Seems Casaweary knows a lot of history? Creampuff care to respond?
As for the quote about the deputy DAS, if this is true then whoever authorised his endorsement is not only an idiot but obviously a fellow abuser of the taxpayer purse. These blokes really are disconnected from reality aren't they? No wonder industry has started to revolt.

Thorn bird, no A380 will be bent. The old geezer can only bend the taxpayers purse by becoming endorsed. I doubt he could see all those gauges, colours or words on the FMS anyway. Plus incontinence is a problem for the elderly too so the flight deck is not the place to be!
Wonder if signed him off as being medically fit, Hemples doctor? Or maybe Terry is one of those blokes from the movie 'Cocoon'?

Creampuff
13th Feb 2014, 19:24
Creampuff care to respond?My parents always advised me not to make eye contact with lunatics.

Jeremy Clarkson cautions against trying to engage in intelligent conversation with mouth-breathers.

So I’ll pass. :ok:

thorn bird
13th Feb 2014, 22:32
Para, all is well. no need to worry about A380's landing on the house.
Apparently the endo for Terrence was not so he could play "I'm an airline captain", just put a bit of icing on his retirement cake, something about being based on his last years salary which should be the equivalent of what a real A380 check and trainer earns, which is fair enough now he's an A380 expert.

Frank Arouet
13th Feb 2014, 22:46
How come Gaunty got a mention. Is he part of the iron circle?

LeadSled
14th Feb 2014, 04:13
Folks,
I have a bit of a problem with this A380 story.

If the said gentleman's pension is to be based on an (presumably QF, as the only Australian example) A380 Check and Training Captain, I would have thought that was a reduction, compared to the CASA senior executive salary levels.

Tootle Pip!!

Boratous
14th Feb 2014, 05:43
Creampuff

I agree with your comments about the AAAA submission. It's very perceptive and accurate.

However, I'm not sure about your comment that:

"The fundamental constraint that ‘outsiders’ overlook is that the CASA Board can’t make or unmake decisions to e.g. refuse, suspend or revoke an AOC. The CASA Board can’t direct a delegate to make or not make a regulatory decision."

I think it's true that the Board can't direct delegates how to exercise their delegated powers. But I think that the Board can probably issue, suspend, revoke AOCs etc. This is because such regulatory powers (and most powers) are given to "CASA".

Subsection 53(3) of the Civil Aviation Act unambiguously states that -

"(3) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Board are taken to have been done by CASA."

So if the Board issued an AOC (or refused to issue or revoked an AOC) in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then that would be a lawful exercise of CASA's power. However, no doubt the Board would not want to actually exercise any regulatory powers for fear of getting it wrong and being accountable.

This is the same sort of power that the Director uses under s 73(2) of the Act which says that:

"(2) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Director are taken to have been done by CASA."

What do you make of subsection 53(3)?

LeadSled
14th Feb 2014, 06:06
CASA Media Release - 14 February 2013
Director of Aviation Safety
The Chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board, Dr Allan Hawke, has today announced that Mr John McCormick will not be seeking a further term of appointment as Director of Aviation Safety.
Mr McCormick has, however, agreed, to the Board’s request to stay on in the position until 31 August 2014.This will allow for an executive search process to fill the position and enable the Director to assist the Board’s initial consideration of the Government’s Independent Review of Aviation Safety Regulation scheduled to be completed around the end of May.
Mr McCormick’s leadership over the last five years has been the critical factor behind the significant improvements to Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime and CASA’s performance. The aims he set out when taking up the position have been largely achieved, including:


refocussing CASA on regulation of aviation safety as its core activity;
improving CASA’s governance by restructuring it around functional lines;
ensuring CASA staff are properly trained and deployed through the Brisbane-based training school and establishment of the Central Region and satellite offices at Broome, Gove, Horn Island and Kununurra;
addressing emerging issues such as remotely piloted aircraft and Australia’s ageing aircraft;
completion of the major part of the modernisation of aviation safety standards in a most expeditious manner and the attendant improvements in industry performance through the regulatory reform program;
introduction of advanced air traffic navigation and surveillance equipment;
reform of CASA’s surveillance and safety management systems oversight; and
enhancement of air traffic services at major regional and capital city secondary airports.

These improvements have come at a time of increasing and more complex demands on CASA with major growth in Australia’s diversified aviation sectors and record numbers of domestic and international passengers flying in Australian skies.
Australia’s outstanding international reputation for aviation safety owes much to John McCormick’s stewardship and the reforms and initiatives undertaken on his watch.
Dr Hawke acknowledged that CASA had had to take significant regulatory action in relation to a few aviation operators, aircraft types and aircraft equipment over the last five years. Dr Hawke praised Mr McCormick’s key role in ensuring that these actions were taken by CASA to protect the travelling public and industry operators.
The Authority has also developed a more stable funding model under Mr McCormick’s direction to underpin sustainable and effective operations for CASA.
The Board has regarded it as a privilege to serve with John McCormick in the interests of “Safe Skies for All” and wishes him all the very best in his future endeavours.
Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected] ([email protected])
Ref: MR1214


Folks,
Don't you just luuurve spin doctor's press releases, when about 95% of the aviation community agree to a large degree with the views of the AAAA, RAAA etc., (except for AOPA, sadly, but he who pays the piper calls the tune))
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
14th Feb 2014, 09:25
Boratous: You are conflating the consequences of what the Board does with what the Board has power to do. Section 53(3) does not determine what the Board has power to do (just as section 73(2) does not determine what the Director has power to do). A Board has functions. They are set out in s 53.

If the Director says "I claim this Island in the name of CASA", or "I purchase this casino in the name of CASA", I'm confident CASA won't own the Island or be obliged to pay for the casino.

But I could be wrong: Submit your next AOC application to the Board and let us know if the Board resolves to issue you with, and issues you with, an AOC.

Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution.

Interesting times.

Boratous
14th Feb 2014, 22:13
Creampuff
I’m not sure that your example is a valid example. Of course, neither the Board nor the Director could simply say “on behalf of CASA I grant you a passport”. This is because CASA itself does not have any statutory power to grant passports – or to claim an Island or casino (as in your example). Section 53(3) clearly only works in the context of CASA’s statutory powers. On this basis, if the Act or regulations give "CASA" a power to do something, then section 53(2) expressly states that if that thing is done by the Board in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then it is taken to have been done by CASA (similarly with the Director under 73(2)).

The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions. This does not seem to be relevant to the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers.

This seems to be the basis on which the DAS, for example, makes Civil Aviation Orders, eg:

“I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
22 March 2011”

The power to make Orders is given to CASA not the DAS. But acting under 73(2) the DAS can on behalf of CASA make an Order. If it was minded to, I think that the Board could also make Orders and do anything else that CASA was empowered to do. etc. But it obviously chooses not to do so for whatever reasons – probably fear of having to accept responsibility for any such decisions.

Sarcs
14th Feb 2014, 23:00
Creamy: Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution. That might be so Creamy but it is interesting that, so far at least, the only government site (including the Miniscule’s office) that is publishing the Hawke rubbish is Fort Fumble...:rolleyes:

Maybe, in some bizarre way, Hawke is right and Skull has done the industry a huge favour..:confused:, after all where would we have got the term…“Ills of Society”…from if not for the, soon to be former, DAS??:ok: Would industry groups have been quite so motivated to produce excellent submissions, like the AAAA one…:D , if we had a lesser sociopath at the joystick?? :E

As for the WLR solution from the Miniscule, well it is fast becoming a rather forlorn hope while submissions like the following from ALAEA (FedSec Steve’s mob) keep popping up..

ALAEA WLR submission (http://www.alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/548/ALAEA_Aviation_Safety_Regulation_Review_Submission_20140214. pdf)

Although obviously somewhat more subjective, the ALAEA submission still contains the same underlying & strong message (i.e. ‘same hymn sheet'), here are their recommendations: Part 4 - ALAEA Recommendations

1. Based upon extensive professional experience Australia’s Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers recommend:

2. That CASA realign its organisational structure and priorities to the primary auditing and oversight role required as the supervisor of an outcome based aviation rule framework;

3.That in order to address the inherent conflict arising from outcome based approaches in a liberalised (commercially focused) industry, CASA must increase the strength of its enforcement activities and penalties (similar to the enforcement policy of the US FAA);

4.That CASA be required to respond in an official, open and timely manner to breaches and safety concerns brought to its attention and advise the outcomes of investigations or the reasons for non-action;

5. That the Government develop legislation supporting an aviation Whistleblower Protection Program. And that CASA develop the policy for the WPP and administer the program and an associated Whistleblower Hotline service;

6. That the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner be established as a separate statutory office and be given powers to investigate and report to the CASA board and Minister on complaints in regard to aviation safety regulation administration;

7.That the Government consider amendments to the Fair Work Act to support employees acting in accordance with their professional reporting obligations under the Civil Aviation Act 1988;

8.That the government and CASA ensure reciprocity of Australian Part 66 engineering maintenance licensed with the EU or remove the recognition of the EU aircraft maintenance license as the basis for issue of an Australian part 66 license;

9. That the government reassess the replacement of Australian regulatory content with EASA rules where the Australian rules are more appropriate for our specific national requirements and industry;

10.That in any ongoing process of ICAO regulatory harmonisation, Australia adhere to the longheld principle of independent professional license holders and not allow the transfer of certifying authority from license holders to non-licensed personnel or company authorisations;

11. That CASR 42 should require a CAMO to ensure that any system of recording certification formaintenance (including an electronic system) must be able to delineate and identify a person and their authorised certification privileges in relation to the work being certified; to ensure unauthorised persons are not certifying for work outside their scope of qualifications and authorisation.
{Note: It is also worth perusing some of the member’s submissions/comments from pages 36-40}


FedSec Steve’s mob are also strongly supportive of the ‘small end of town’ GA operators..;)..and were quite disturbed by what they witnessed at the, now infamous, AMROBA 2013 meeting:

26. The ALAEA is concerned about reports that some CASA officers have exercised a heavy handed approach to regulatory enforcement on a large number of smaller General Aviation operations. The ALAEA attended a meeting of small maintenance organisations and operators in 2013 (also attended by Senator Ian McDonald) where a number of these actions were discussed. Some organisations had said that they were going to close down because they could no longer bear the stress and financial burden of meeting vague and often contradictory new standards. Aircraft were being grounded late on Friday afternoon over administrative errors and reputations were being trashed.

27. GA operators were finding that issues that had been sanctioned by CASA officers for decades had suddenly become no-go items with CASA taking an increasingly hard and inflexible line. On the other hand, CASA appears to be allowing larger operators to regulate themselves and seems extraordinarily concerned with any cost imposition the more powerful operators might have to bear. ALAEA questions the disparity in enforcement activity that appears to be taking place between the industry’s segments. Unfortunately for Hawkey the ALAEA submission (along with many others) does not paint the same, rose coloured glasses, exemplary picture of the current FF (Skull led..:yuk:) regime..:ugh:..more to follow K2..:ok:

dubbleyew eight
15th Feb 2014, 00:23
item 4 in their submission is an item that is a bit of a concern.

the regs are a pox because a few of the underlying assumptions are wrong.

australian regulations have never really been in synch with private property rights.
we have the concept of "private property" in this country.
an owner has the inalienable right to use, enjoy and maintain private property.
that is what ownership is actually about.
except in aviation the regulatory mindset is observably ex-RAAF, an environment where private ownership was totally unknown, where one never did one's own maintenance and where subservience to "orders" was the operating method.

Australian aviation laws have it wrong. The canadians had the penny drop after a safety case they ran and they introduced two things. Canadian Private Owner maintenance and the facility to de-certify a production aeroplane and there after maintain it on a stand alone basis if it was in private use.

The ALEA demand that CASA act on reports is all well and good until you realise that australian law doesn't adequately recognise private ownership concepts. Seeking to preserve the LAME mandate over private owners just impinges on an area where the laws are observably deficient.

Of course what actually is General Aviation?
there is a whole area of GA that is nothing to do with commercial operation.
their voice seems totally drowned out in all the angst.

Frank Arouet
15th Feb 2014, 01:43
The Liberal Party denied any liability that may arise from saying sorry to the traditional owners, (who reckon to have some sort of a claim against my property), in much the same way that CASA rarely, (I can't think of one actually), admit liability to anything they may have caused by their own negligence, incompetence or vexatious means. Rudd did and I don't feel any more guilty than I did before although it is touted as 'statesmanship' at its finest. Probably beats the Gillard rant about Abbott hating women when he was attacking Slipper for the same thing, but the end result is probably manna from heaven for our legal brethren.


No, I doubt Truss will find anything that could lead to such an avenue being opened up as a result of his 'review'. Worms everywhere and the government is fiscally broken.


The best one can hope for is to rid ourselves of some floating and available slime and put an end to the RRP and introduce FAR's in such a way as they can be manipulated to suit the snouts in the troughs.


Someone once called me an anarchist, but seeing as I don't understand the law as it is writ, I don't know how to break it. Perhaps the FAR's will be more understandable and I can break them with a clear understanding of what I hate about authority.

Creampuff
15th Feb 2014, 03:18
The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions.And what are the Board's functions, Boratous?

Re the ALEA submission, Sarcs, I'm not as big a fan of the ALEA submission as I am of the AAAA submission. I suspect a lot of ALEA members haven't heard of the Waddington Effect or its causes.

Creampuff
15th Feb 2014, 20:50
PS

I'm intrigued to find out what everyone believes these Boards can do that results in so much faith being put in a Board as part of the solution?

In regulatory regimes like aviation safety regulation, the exercise of delegated powers is determined by the relevant criteria in the legislation and the general law of administrative decision-making. The Board can’t override or change any of that. The Board may make or endorse policies that are relevant to and within the narrow scope permitted by the legislation, but these are generally very broad statements of strategic principle – dare I say motherhood? CASA has an ample supply of warm and fuzzy policies.

My view is that the only practical thing a competent CASA Board could have done is prevented the creation and growth of the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program. But the far better way to have achieved that outcome was to not have given CASA the job in the first place.

You’ve seen the experiment right before your eyes: CASA with a Board and CASA without a Board. What difference did it make? One of those Boards had Dick Smith and Bruce Byron on it (among other people with business and aviation expertise). What difference did it make?

Board or not, CASA’s functions and powers must be constrained to a very narrow and simple regulatory role (which does not include managing the regulatory reform process), and the senior executives of the organisation must be qualified and experienced in managing regulatory organisations.

Kharon
15th Feb 2014, 21:45
At very little expense, the WLR has been gifted, once again the benefit of hundreds of collective years current, valid operational and legal experience. The old Kenwood fridge, posing as a security system must be bursting at the seams if current estimates of between 150 and 200 submissions are to be believed. This is significant, not only in the amount of paper and words but in the value to gummermint.

For example, the Australian Lawyers submission runs to 30 pages of first class opinion, if the WLR had commissioned such a report, the invoice would be significant. Here is a yet another submission provided by professionally qualified, competent people prepared to support their arguments at very little cost to the public. I always feel the 'legal' eagles are a bit like the ambulance, fire and police crews attending a nasty prang on a highway; they get to see, on a regular basis the darker side of life, the bodies and the aftermath. These folk deal with reality everyday. The legal folk, whilst not attending the crash must deal with the fall out. Their concentrated knowledge is of value; most here may be involved once in a lifetime with a CASA aberration and occasionally, vicariously get some sense of the trauma someone like Quadrio or James are enduring. To aviation lawyers this is the stuff of life, they live and breathe this on a daily basis. Their opinions are valid, their time and effort is appreciated.

The same is true of the majority of 'organisational' submissions, the writers are immersed, professionally on a daily basis with 'their' speciality area and with the exception of a couple of no hopa groups can justly claim to represent their tribe. A small amount of self interest and own agenda is, on consideration, forgivable. Their expert opinion is of value and, once again, provided to the WLR – pro bono.

I just wonder, does the Vicar hosting this tea party fully understand that this is not the first time that candles have burned late into the night, lighting the desks of those who, after a long day sit down to voluntarily draft and edit a submission. Miniscule – the real expertise resides within the industry: you must thank your gods everyday that the continuing safety record of Australia rests with folks who bet their own time, money, talent and expertise to maintain that record; despite the lack of tangible safety advice from those paid handsomely to provide it or those paid equally as well to administer that advice.

Just for fun, compare the AAAA submission to the Chambers report. Carefully examine the pathway each of those documents have taken to end up on your desk and the motivation for them being there. One is a heartfelt, intelligent, comprehensive assessment, the other simply beggars belief.

Ask yourself miniscule, which is the one you paid for and which one was provided gratis?

Ask yourself miniscule, which is the one that rings true and which is a plagiarised, self serving, cynical hidden document.

Ask yourself, which is the better value to Australia, the industry, the people who work in aviation and those who depend on aviation for business or pleasure.

Then ask yourself, would I sleep better at night with the Ills of Society running the industry or the likes of the McComic/ Farq-u-hard-son team supported by those creatures named and shamed in the Senate committee response to Pel Air. Forgotten those names?, well we haven't. There are 150 + submissions which may provide the answer to that riddle; I'd suggest that there are just a little more honest folks providing answers than an alleged 'few' disgruntled, tendentious bloggers having a whinge. Do we have a problem here ? – Oh yes miniscule and you are parked right on top of it.

Selah.

Sponsored by the IOS benevolent fund for Safe Elephant and Pot plant Transport Inculcating Catastrophe. (SEPTIC).

Kharon
15th Feb 2014, 23:34
The current board is insignificant; equally damned if it do or if it don't do; being, to a lay point of view, either complicit or negligent. No doubt they are aware of this and have taken steps to limit the damage. They may well be legally capable of defending their individual positions and no doubt will; however in any national discussion on the well being of industry, they must, collectively hang their heads in shame. In any event, they become a spent force, distrusted and suspect.

The Minister has committed to enhancing the CASA Board with two additional board members, both with aviation experience. Although in theory this is a good start, the likelihood of redressing the present situation where CASA is perceived to be 'out of touch' with the Australian aviation community, is questionable.

The chronic, endemic problems are considered to be more fundamental, requiring much more than a simple restructure of a board which is obliged to; "ensure that CASA conducts its activities in compliance with government policies and its governing laws, the Civil Aviation Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act".

It is noteworthy that the Board has significant legal qualifications, this may be one desirable attribute. Regrettably, the net effect, visible throughout all levels of CASA, promotes a “legal bias” first approach, rather than a tight focus upon safety related outcomes. Hopefully, with Board who's skills are biased towards a higher level of technical competence the whole organisation would become more safety outcome focused, rather than being simplistically totally reliant on 'legal' (black letter) compliance.

The previous Board has been let down by poor quality legal and technical advice from the CASA executive. The current CASA senior management structure is ineffective, an unnecessary extravagance and clearly a hindrance to the efficient operation of the organisation. The Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), with the luxury of a board should be able to run CASA with, at most, a deputy responsible for the corporate aspects of managing CASA. The present structure, with a board, a director, a deputy director and an associate director is simply excessive, conveniently diluting both the responsibility and accountability of the director.

It is noteworthy that the predecessor to CASA (CAA) was efficiently and economically run by a general manager within the Civil Aviation Authority. The current arrangement is an onerous burden and unnecessary impost on industry.

The board represents but a small problem to industry compared to the problems which are left behind, the management level must be completely gutted and cauterised. Mark my words in some dark, damp corner the monsters are waiting for the storm to blow over. Changing a DAS is a band aid, little more than a cheap publicity stunt. If the government will not lay bare the dreadful truth, then it falls to the IOS to ensure that every single act of malice, every untruth told in court or the AAT is exposed and those who initiated or are associated with those acts are ruthlessly, vigorously and very publicly prosecuted. The board has a duty of care which honourable men would accept along with being suitably recompensed for exercising that duty.

Enough of the board with a lower case b and a regulator with a capital R – it's all bollocks; we know it, they know it and now the miniscule knows it. Will he get off of his arse and take the opportunity offered for the second time now to actually do something??.

All aboard – Toot toot.

triadic
16th Feb 2014, 01:07
Well said!!

One of the options, which may not be that far fetched is to put the knife through the organisation and start again. There are no doubt many options that the Minister might consider, however one that places safety first and not 'R'egulation (as I don't believe you can regulate for safety)... If this means splitting up the existing CASA then so be it. Safety promotion and education should go to the ATSB or be outsourced with a similar budget. Other areas could also be moved elsewhere. The "S" in CASA is not what we are seeing right now! More like an "R":ugh:

Sarcs
16th Feb 2014, 21:08
Note: Slight drift from boards, directors & IOS submissions..:ok:

From post # 297 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/490723-merged-casa-regulatory-reform-15.html#post8261767) of the Reg Reform thread..

sprocket: If CASRs were supposed to be in plain English, why is there a dictionary as Part 1? Surely plain English words are sufficiently defined in Webster's or Oxford and one should not need to invest in Black's? Well according to the 1072 page, 1 July 2009 version, on ‘How to use the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998’ (http://my.lawlex.com.au/tempstore/consolidated/10211.pdf) {Note: Which as a point of interest was around 6 months after the Skull’s appointment :rolleyes:}, under the heading of…

“…Definitions and meanings

30. A piece of legislation often includes definitions of terms used within it. The terms defined are principally the ones that are specific to the legislation in some way — for example because they have been specially invented. Ordinary dictionary words are not normally defined; they are assumed to take their ordinary dictionary meanings. Terms defined in the Act take the same meanings in the Regulations unless redefined in the Regulations. Legal terms also are not normally defined; again, they are assumed to have their ordinary legal meanings.

31. Naturally, the Regulations use many technical terms. A term of which the meaning is well known within aviation and generally accepted is usually not defined. If an unfamiliar word or term occurs in the Regulations, it may be defined in a general dictionary. For example, chord, empennage, fuselage, and longeron are all defined in the Macquarie Dictionary.

32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise. For example, although everybody knows what ‘take-off’ means, it may be necessary, in a particular case, to treat taxiing as part of a take-off. It is not certain whether the ordinary meaning of ‘take-off’ includes taxiing or not. In cases like this there will be a definition in the Regulations.

33. Definitions may be either in the Dictionary at the end or in the text of the Parts.

34. A few terms that are used in the Regulations and that are not defined either in the Regulations or in standard dictionaries are discussed in the Note on Terms at the end of this Guide.

35. Although the Dictionary is not called a Part of the Regulations, and is not numbered, it is as much part of the Regulations as any of the numbered Parts.

36. If a definition that applies throughout the Regulations is in the Regulations but not in the Dictionary, there is a ‘signpost’ in the Dictionary to the regulation where the definition is. For example: major change, for a type design — see regulation 21.093.

37. The standard definitions of aviation terms are those laid down by ICAO and published by it in International Civil Aviation Vocabulary (ICAO Document 9713). Generally, terms defined by ICAO are used in the Regulations with the meaning given by ICAO. There may still be a definition in the Regulations, but the definition will usually be followed by a note to the effect that the source of the definition is the ICAO definition. (The ICAO definition will either be used unchanged, or rewritten in minor ways to be clearer and easier to read.) Often, where a term defined in the Regulations is used, there will be a note nearby saying where to look for the definition.

38. See Subpart 1.A for general provisions about interpretation and definitions.….”

Well that should clear it all up for all those muddle-minded AOC holders, gingerbeers, skygods & knuckledraggers….:E

We all know the tale now on how the CASR 1998 has grown from a paltry 190 pages, back in 1998-9 to (at last count) 2186 pages and that it all originally came about (the need :ugh:) because of the desire to…

….“ 1.003 Harmonisation with FARs

(1) These regulations contain provisions based on the FARs.
(2) An object of these regulations is to harmonise certain parts of Australia’s aviation safety law with the FARs.
(3) The words ‘Source FARs’ below a regulation indicate that the regulation is based on the section of the FARs, as in force on 1 January 1997, stated after the words and, if the section number is followed by the word ‘modified’, the word indicates that the FARs section has been modified for the regulation..." {Q for WLRP: Hmm how do you think we are going with that original endeavour??:confused:}

I’m sure the WLR panel are all over this..:D..but for those of us that were contemplating suicide while studying ATPL Air leg, or trying to apply for an AOC, or just finding out whether they’re operationally legal or not :{; the HG to the CASRs put out by the OLDP should have a powerful sedative & anti-depressant effect…;)

Hmm wonder if there is a QRH version to simplify the task for the WLR panel..?? :E


OK back to boreds and other areas of significant contemplation for the WLRP...:ok:

Kharon
17th Feb 2014, 17:16
You can tell, the drafter really has a good grasp on matters aeronautical:-

32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise. For example, although everybody knows what ‘take-off’ means, it may be necessary, in a particular case, to treat taxiing as part of a take-off. It is not certain whether the ordinary meaning of ‘take-off’ includes taxiing or not. In cases like this there will be a definition in the Regulations.

TWR – ABC Clear for immediate take off.

FO. – Wodger that – now, standby whilst us defines if you have actually cleared us to taxi and then take off; should we not have been cleared to taxi to the threshold, then pwoceed??. (Extracts manual from flight deck library thumbs through index to find the appropriate regulation before proceeding to correct definition section).

TWR – For FS ABC - get rolling.

FO. – Well !, how very un PC of you. The Captain advises that this will be reported. I am, after all only asking for you to clearly define what precisely you expect us, as a fully qualified legally compliant flight crew to do.

Segue to tower windows shattering multiple controllers, headsets, chairs and coffee mugs flying into space, pursued by an eerie, blood curdling primal scream. Monty Python (or Stephen King?) eat your heart out. In Australia we have weality.

Creampuff
17th Feb 2014, 19:29
My favourite:car, in relation to a lighter-than-air aircraft, means basket whenever, in the case of any particular type of such aircraft, a basket is a constructional feature of that type.That, and the definition of “aeroplane” in Part 61.

Fantome
17th Feb 2014, 19:48
32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise.
a UDF has been defined as an unducted fan

in this context, Dick Rutan ('Voyager') was one who bemoaned the tendency to define things in terms of what they weren't instead of what they are.

we are now going to roll a joint. . . which will not be a chiropractic manoeuvre

and to be more specific -

we shall require a receptacle for the denuded weed. . . . .
or more precisely . . . an ashtray

and when you are ordered to cease what you are doing . . ..
think "stop it'

(else you go blind?)

a well known CFI, a redhead incidentally, had this notice on his desk for years -


WARNING - When one has reached my age, noise and non-concurrence cause hyperperistalsis of the gastric mucosa and I become .. .
A NASTY BASTARD

dubbleyew eight
17th Feb 2014, 23:52
car, in relation to a lighter-than-air aircraft, means basket whenever, in the case of any particular type of such aircraft, a basket is a constructional feature of that type.

I wonder if that is an admission that the CAR's (civil aviation regulations) are a basket case.:E

Paragraph377
17th Feb 2014, 23:57
Creampuff,
Utter tosh. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif
The Minister can’t make anyone who wants to leave, stay.

Really? Well I was correct. Herr Skull wanted to leave in May but he has been 'asked' to stay until August! And Creampuff before you delve into any legal wankery definitions about the word 'asked', don't bother. It is what it is, Mr Angry wanted to bail but if he does he won't get his glowing reference and farewell pen.

Frank,
Not sure why Casaweary mentioned Gaunty, he has never been part of the iron ring, it could be because he has 'friends' in government. Either way Gaunty is irrelevant in the context of the current review. Although he has probably shared canopes with Creampuff and Flyingfiend.


UITA,
Skull has (had) a nice office, great view of the Airport, some pot plants, patched holes in his walls, conference phone, keys to the trough, things like that.

Frank Arouet
18th Feb 2014, 00:10
I hear there's silver whistle involved also.

Paragraph377
18th Feb 2014, 00:28
Frank,
The whistle is a nice gesture. He can blow it loudly to attract the attention of the Styx River Boat Captain, however something tells me that he won't need it as the Ferryman always knows where his passengers are! Toot Toot.
As for pot plant Pete, the real Pete resides in the office of Senator Nash. As for the Skulls pot plants they are withered and droopy (like other senior managements genitalia) as the poor plants have been processing carbon shite-ox-ide from his office for some time.

I am amazed at what has transpired in the past few days, and the dribble that has been preached from the bloated mouth of Mr Hawke is just plain nauseating. Why oh why won't Truss send him and the rest of his pathetic Board, and MrDak on their way with a golden lettuce and a fist pump? CASA as it is, has to go in its entirety. Keep the handful of good lower level managers and Inspectors (yes there are a couple still there) and pineapple the rest.
It's funny, Truss was warned how the IOS would react if change wasn't sanctioned by him. I am predicting Dr Voodoo will possibly get the gig, not certain though. But either way Terry must also follow suit and head to the retirement villa, A380 endorsed what a f#cking joke. Take any manager around the network who has been there over 10 years and take all of LSD as well.

The time has come for the Iron Ring to be smashed once and for all!!

TOOT TOOT

Creampuff
18th Feb 2014, 00:30
P377

Wow! Slavery must have been revived in Australia. :rolleyes:

Mr McC being ‘forced’ to stay is just a delusion that helps some people reconcile what is, to them, irreconcilable: If he’s been so bad, why is he still in the job? Answer: Because he’s been ‘forced’ to stay.

It must be devastating to be forced to tolerate circa $500k pa in the kick, business class travel and 5 star accommodation for another 6 or so months.

Get a grip. If he wanted to leave now, he’d leave now and no one could stop him. :=

Paragraph377
18th Feb 2014, 00:37
Creampuff, me, get a grip?
I noted in another thread your 'kindness' shown towards AMSA. Wonder why that is??? And somebody even supported you to become the next DAS? Second bite at the cherry perhaps?

Oh well, I am off to have a beer with some of the IOS including 'K', Gobbles, Casaweary and UITA. Frank and Sarcs are busy turd polishing today.
Promise not to talk about you mate.

Lodown
18th Feb 2014, 01:46
A new political force in power? Oh goody! Review season!
Let's put official reviewers in charge who assisted the XXXX (insert name as appropriate) Party in rising to power to thank them for their service.
Number 1 requirement of the review: have the results of the review wrapped up at least 12 months prior to the next election.
Number 2 requirement: if Number 1 is not possible, extend the results of the review until 6 months after the next election.
Number 3: do not embarrass the party in charge.
I see the usual hopefuls are lining up to have their say and extend their 10 minutes of fame.
Wake me when it's over.

Frank Arouet
18th Feb 2014, 02:23
P337: Listen carefully for I will only say this once and won't elaborate.


"whistle/ computer". (rumor only of course at this stage).


BTW By LSD are you referring to lysergic acid diethylamide or Legal Services Department. If it is the latter, they don't provide a service to anybody except CASA and I think they've changed letter heads again. If it's the former, they probably already take it.

Frank Arouet
18th Feb 2014, 06:40
you're a funny bugga Cacktus. P337 would probably agree number 46 aptly describes what they're doing to industry, but is it really an acceptable definition? Number 11, Lietuvos Standartizacijos Departamentas (Lithuanian Standards Board) is probably correct.

LeadSled
18th Feb 2014, 13:08
61.025 Definition of aeroplane for Part 61
Aeroplane means an aeroplane that has flight controls providing control of the aeroplane in 3 axes.

Folks,
Don't you just love it !!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: Bunnings Terry Hills have axes on special right now.

dubbleyew eight
18th Feb 2014, 13:39
this is like standing in a lift as an innocent tourist then slowly realising that all around you had slicked back hair, black suits and pocket bulges that matched an uzi with a full clip.

I do hope the protagonists here aren't all ex casa axe grinders.

the casa system really is fckued, overbearing and stupidly draconian.
there are a lot of good people standing their reputations in submissions to try to correct the situation.

it would truly be a shame if the efforts were able to be dismissed as just the rantings of ex casa staff. there really is a problem that needs to be fixed here.

dont fcuk it all up for civil aviation in this country.

I have been an office bearer in one of the alphabet groups, I am definitely not a supporter of CASA.

Creampuff
18th Feb 2014, 19:32
I disagree with you, W8.

Therefore, you’re a CASA stooge.

(Don’t worry: There was a full moon earlier this week and the usual lunatics went a little loonier than usual. Just nod and smile and avoid eye contact …) ;)

Sarcs
18th Feb 2014, 20:02
Opinion piece by Steve Hitchen (c/o Australian Flying), highlights the importance of getting the next DAS appointment just right to effect a 'just cultural' shift in Fort Fumble...;)

An Issue of Leadership (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/an-issue-of-leadership)

19 Feb 2014
Steve Hitchen

Opinion
The announcement that John McCormick is departing CASA in August will have several identities within aviation punching the air. McCormick has–rightly or wrongly–come to symbolise all the problems the industry has with its regulator. Therefore, his departure is also seen as being crucial to the solution.

For sure, McCormick continuing in the job would have been awkward after the Senate referred him to the Australian Federal Police over the Pel-Air investigation, so his leaving CASA is the best resolution for everyone involved: himself, CASA, the Senate and the aviation industry.

Also, the industry was watching nervously to see if McCormick's contract would be renewed. The outcome was held up as an indicator of whether or not the Aviation Safety Regulation Review was a serious attempt to get to the bottom of the way CASA is run, or just another coat of political paint from the same brush that gave us the White Paper. And so, with his departure, the aviation industry will get what it wanted.

Or will it?

It is far too simplistic to say everything will be sweet with a change in Director, because to do so is to infer that the total collapse of CASA's relationship with industry was his doing and his doing alone. Where that contention falls down is when we consider the tenure of his predecessor, Bruce Byron. The dysfunction was evident back then, and many in the industry cheered with gusto when he was replaced with John McCormick. Clearly, serious issues preceded the McCormick years.

Five years later and we're not only off the McCormick bandwagon, but also cheering just as heartily for a new top dog at CASA ... again. And if this change is the only one that happens, in five years time we will be opening our lungs to get rid of the next Director as well.

The problem the aviation industry has with CASA goes deeper than just the person at the top of the hierarchy chart; it penetrates deep in to the middle management level, and replacing the Director will work only if the embedded culture of those below is rooted out as well.

You can cut the top off the blackberry bush as often as you like, but unless you dig the roots out of the ground the dreaded prickles will come back again and again and again.

We're talking about a culture of punishment rather than encouragement, a determination to be proven right regardless of the cost to tax payers, regulatory reform that has dragged on for an unacceptable time, micro-management, bum-covering and–to some extent–incompetence or a lack of expertise.

Trust, respect and integrity have been eroded, and will erode further should the new person at the head of CASA be unable to change the culture for the better. But given that good men have failed before, what will the incoming director be able to do that others have not? How do we squeeze the CASA bureaucracy so much it changes shape?

History has a parallel from the early days of the colony of New South Wales. The rampant, powerful New South Wales Corps controlled the fledgling society for their own benefit, and for all their authority from London, Governors Hunter, King and Bligh had all failed to drag the Corps into line.

After the soldiers rebelled against Governor Bligh's attempts to restrict the Corp's influence, they arrested him and seized power themselves. The incident has become known as the Rum Rebellion because of the Corp's control over the liquor trade.

Given that replacing Governors had not worked in the past, London sought a permanent solution. In analogy, they decided to uproot the blackberry.

They sent a new Governor, army officer Major Lachlan Macquarie to oust the rebels and restore power to the crown. But, most importantly, they also sent the troops he commanded, the 73rd Regiment of Foot. The regiment replaced the NSW Corps, and because they were loyal to their commander, order was restored, the power of the NSW Corps collapsed and vested interest had to yield to proper leadership and benevolent autocracy.

With the NSW Corps broken and its leaders–including John Macarthur and Major George Johnston–in Britain defending themselves to the crown, Macquarie set about advancing the colony. He laid out the streets of Sydney again, established a bank and currency and set about a building program that included roads, bridges, a lighthouse and barracks.
He also authorised Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth to cross the Blue Mountains and is credited with being the first person to use the term "Australia" in an official capacity.

Macquarie grew the colony into what it should always have been, and he did it because he had a mandate from his superiors to deal with the NSW Corps and they gave him the tool to do it: his own regiment.

That's what the aviation industry needs the new Director of Aviation Safety to have: a clear direction to clean-up the culture at CASA and the tools to do it with. At recent industry meetings several people stressed to Senator David Fawcett the impact of the middle-management culture on the industry and the ramifications if the new Director came from the ranks of the current CASA cadre.

After the arrest of Bligh, Johnston made himself Lieutenant-Governor of NSW and the problem only deepened until Macquarie and the 73rd arrived. Likewise, if the new Director is already part of the current culture, the rift between CASA and the aviation industry will also deepen and the industry will be stifled rather than given a chance to flourish.

The new person needs to come with intelligence, passion, heart and integrity; with no qualms about what needs to be done and a clear mandate to get on with it.

It's just a pity Lachlan Macquarie died in 1824 ... he would have made a great CASA Director.
:D:D

{Comment: IMO equally as important as the next DAS appointment is the search for the next Chief Commissioner to bring back some much needed credibility to the ATsB}....:ok:

Kharon
18th Feb 2014, 20:33
W8 "this is like standing in a lift as an innocent tourist then slowly realising that all around you had slicked back hair, black suits and pocket bulges that matched an uzi with a full clip."

The trick in this situation is to not draw attention to yourself. The gentlemen will step out of the lift on the appropriate floor at the appointed time; which leaves the sensible observer a couple of options, pissing in the corner not being one. The gents are on their way to see if miniscule Truss cannot be persuaded to act honourably, to get there the forces of the murky Machiavellian must be dealt with, hence the Uzi equipment. Wet lettuce and paperwork won't work against the defensive wall, built of conceit, mortared by arrogance and reinforced by self interest, about the minuscule 's ivory tower.

W8 "dont fcuk it all up for civil aviation in this country."

Seems to me the men in black would not be needed if the industry had not allowed every travesty, injustice, fiasco, stupid decision or dictate to go unchallenged. Hell, Dolan is still standing after the Pel Air fiasco, McComic is thankfully on his merry way to perdition but there has been no apology made, not even a token Wabbit sacrificed to appease the insulted masses. This is not the fault of the miniscule, it is the fault of industry for gutlessly allowing it all to happen while they looked on, wringing their hands, shaking their heads saying "Oh me, Oh my, what's to be done" as they scuttle back to their bunkers, tails between legs should the regulator so much as break wind.

So W8, don't be a feared of the Gents in black, just stand quietly at back of the lift, listen to the muzac, and let them do the dirty work that "office bearers" have failed so miserably to do. When Truss disappoints you; as he will, perhaps you may wonder if you put enough truth and plain speaking into your submission. This is not a polite game for those who have turned the other cheek only to have been shot in the arse, while running away.

"Oh please stop rocking the boat". Bollocks to that.

Sunfish
18th Feb 2014, 20:45
The new person needs to come with intelligence, passion, heart and integrity; with no qualms about what needs to be done and a clear mandate to get on with it.

And the CASA charter has to be changed to foster the Aviation industry. This then means that the Mantra throughout CASA has to be JOBS, INVESTMENT and GROWTH for the Aviation industry.

WIth the recession that's coming down the pike now, anything CASA does that prevents the creation of jobs, investment and growth has got to be instantly stopped and replaced with jobs and investment friendly policies. This same policy mantra is going to have be applied throughout Federal and State Governments if we are to have any hope of coming out of the recession with society intact. I speak as someone who worked in the industry development field when Victoria was a wasteland after the Cain/Kirner Labor government made us the laughing stock of the nation.

Creampuff
19th Feb 2014, 01:48
The “culture” and the “roots of the blackberry bush” are entrenched in the rules.

If the rules aren’t changed, it won’t matter whether every manager and executive in CASA is tossed out and replaced with musicians from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra or skygods with squillions of hours in their logbooks. What they can do and how they can do it is driven by the thousands of pages of regulations that have become the self-perpetuating regulatory Frankenstein.

It is true that the development of the current rules was driven by the people in CASA - they had no choice but to do ‘something’ - but now the Frankenstein they have created is driving the people, including the DAS.

Don’t expect anything to change if the new DAS is yet another skygod tasked with fixing everything including the regulatory reform program. He will, yet again, turn out not to be the messiah but just another naughty boy.

dubbleyew eight
19th Feb 2014, 04:24
despite the criticism I still think Creampuff shows the legal acumen and respect for others that I would like to see all throughout CASA.

he is right about the rules. CASA passes the guff to the australian parliament in a bundle of smoke and mirrors, or is it just snow? and the parliament of australia enact all this crap without so much as a moment's reserve or doubt.

how the hell could you
1. introduce EASA synchronisation when the real reason is to allow the wholesale sacking of the australian maintenance workforce?
2. turn all of aviation law into a series of criminal offences for anyone who disagrees with CASA ?

the australian parliament needs to hang its collective heads in shame at all this crap.
if ever there was proof of total abject stupidity by parliament the bazillions of pages of crap enacted as aviation law provides it in spades.

there is much more than just the head of casa that needs sorting.
maybe I should stand for a seat in the next elections.

Frank Arouet
19th Feb 2014, 06:39
Christ, he is not.


Creampuff has his critics, (and I am not blameless in this regard). The man is genuine, has been known to have a drink with those that have given him the sword in the past. He comes with a knowledge only someone from inside the 'iron circle' would appreciate. Unfortunately he has 'baggage' and as much as I see him as friendly with accurate advice, I can't, nor will ever be, convinced he is the person to cut out and replace the cancer that is the CASA.


I'm uncertain why anybody would want the 'poison chalice' anyway.


The old DCA may have had its problems, but by and large they were respected. Nobody of recent CASA vintage can claim that handle except perhaps Mike Smith or our original ICC, Mike Hart.

thorn bird
19th Feb 2014, 06:48
Dubya, I can only agree with you, Creamie is a tad blunt, occasionally a little arrogant, but mostly when you get your eye's to focus again after the slap in the face, what he says makes a whole lot of sense.
Unfortunately us passionate types let our passion cloud reality at times, whats the old saying? couldnt see the wood for the tree's!!. Creamie with a clip over the ears, draws us back to reality.
That reality is, its very hard, if not impossible to fight entrenched bureacrats,
especially when there is no political will to force reform on the agenda.
The iron ring have regulated us into a position which makes real reform impossible, a wet lettuce minister cements their legacy.
Other than line up the tumbrils for madam guillotine, we should all seriously consider moving our businesses to New Zealand or Singapore, because there just aint no future in Australia.

dubbleyew eight
19th Feb 2014, 07:16
this is a red herring anecdote.

mike smith was presenting at the pilot forum over a decade ago in perth.
as part of the presentations a gorgeous girl from Air Services gave a presentation on their publications.
Mike introduced her as the youngest lear jet training instructor in the country and extolled at some length her instructing prowess.
the old wizened commercial pilots in the front 3 rows went into quietly vocal rumblings of frustration. there she was, young gorgeous and female. most opined that they would have killed their grandmothers for the opportunity that she had obviously wangled.
prior to the presentations I had spoken to her in my alphabet capacity so during the coffee break I searched her out on the air services counter.
I whispered in her ear "you don't look old enough to have the hours that gets you in the left seat of a lear jet"
she whispered back "I was so embarrassed up there. I don't even have a pilots licence"

now the world dealt harshly with mike.

however for the man to have the pluck to stand in front of the entire WA pilot scene and tell a "dad joke" to get them to stop being over awed by the chrome plated advertising, to me speaks absolute volumes for the quality of the man.

I'd give him a chance.

back to your original station programming....

Creampuff
19th Feb 2014, 08:05
Is it a full moon again already? :confused:

I'm sure some of you are sure you know who I am, but I can assure you I'm just an acne-stippled, wheelchair-bound geek from Hicksville USA. The chances of me being a candidate are nil.

As to actual potential candidates, government won't be silly enough to choose a popular flying messiah again.

Dangly Bits
19th Feb 2014, 08:59
W8 I was there too! The man can certainly think on his feet. I giggled my way through it as I saw her face was in shock!

I've met Mike Smith on a number of occasions and he is a genuine guy who loves this industry. I think I recall that he is a LAME, CPL, and an Instructor. Who better to revive the industry I reckon.

He has my vote too.

Kharon
19th Feb 2014, 18:38
Any new appointee would need to be someone who has significant, past experience managing change at executive level, guiding change within an aviation regulatory authority as well as qualifications in flight operations and/or aircraft maintenance.

The CEO must be known as a senior executive with a demonstrated high level of management expertise: technically competent. The CEO must also be a person who embraces reform; one who sees change as opportunity and importantly, one who has tangible experience of effecting reform. An able leader, one who can retrieve the lost respect and confidence of industry. This person needs to have the integrity, energy and enthusiasm to interact with CASA staff across the organisation and an ability to lead, with commitment in the new direction.

IMO - It is highly unlikely that such a person will come from within the ranks of existing CASA management. Indeed, it is doubtful industry would tolerate such a selection.

Now Nigeria has managed to slay the beast and is looking good; the link here – Academia (http://www.academia.edu/4088340/Aviation_Reforms_In_Nigeria_How_Well_So_Far) – is recommended reading for anyone who thinks Australia's wee problems cannot be beaten, they can with the right crew and political will. For those who prefer the potted version – Article (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channelstv.com%2Fhome%2F2013%2F05%2F11% 2Funderstanding-nigeria-aviation-reforms%2F&ei=UgEFU8LGDsnZigeR3oHACw&usg=AFQjCNGhRR9oC3NaGnJ4wah8NcX5nh7FLA&bvm=bv.61535280,d.aGc)– provides some food for thought.
“Nigeria has a robust aviation reform agenda. One of the best promising in the world” - US Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood
“This time, the whole Aviation world is praising the government of Nigeria and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) for the extraordinary way they have transformed the aviation face in Nigeria, in less than five years through a robust safety reform agenda”-Boeing’s Director for Africa and Middle East, Aviation Safety, Chamsou Andjori

hiwaytohell
19th Feb 2014, 20:14
The old DCA may have had its problems, but by and large they were respected

That is because: a) It had its own Minister who gave the industry the attention it deserved, b) It comprised mostly of competent people... remember the people of Russ Evans era! and c) They were fair!!

Sarcs
20th Feb 2014, 01:05
Kharon..“Now Nigeria has managed to slay the beast and is looking good…they can with the right crew and political will…”

Top example “K”..:D..and how embarrassing when previous & current 3rd World countries are catching up and overhauling a former bastion of high aviation safety standards, that punched well above its weight, while proactively contributing to aviation safety risk mitigation worldwide.
While we continue to sit on our hands and contemplate our navels (or have a sleep like the Hare did..:rolleyes:), here in short summary is what Nigeria has been able to achieve since their ICAO audit in 2006 (http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Nigeria_csa_Final_Report.pdf):ICAO Audit: Nigeria Makes List Of 14 Best In Africa — August 22, 2013

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has listed Nigeria as one of the 14 countries in Africa that have achieved effective air safety implementation above the global average of 61 per cent.

This rating is contained in the ICAO 2013 Safety Report (http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_2013-Safety-Report_FINAL.pdf) compiled by the ICAO auditors who investigated the compliance with stipulated international safety standards by individual countries across the world, especially its 200 member countries.

The ICAO 2013 Safety Report lends credence to the Category One certification granted Nigeria in 2011 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States of America for meeting stipulated international standards and practices on safety and security.:D
Maybe the risk is minimal of the FAA actually knocking on our door anytime soon (let’s face it they’re only up to “I” in the alphabet) but perhaps the potential effect of such an action could be the ultimate catalyst for creating the political will :ugh: for change.

The current knock-on effects reverberating from the recent Indian ICAO downgrade (to CAT 2), should provide a reasonable insight & warning to the Government/Department of what is really at risk if the current status quo is allowed to drift without any effective, ruthless & proactive change.

Lengthy but educational article worth reading: Why US' downgrade of India's safety rating threatens to send aviation sector into a tailspin (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-09/news/47149185_1_air-india-government-run-airline-indian-aviation)

‘Actions speak louder than words’

Quote from article:Timely Action

For these reasons, many experts believe that the FAA action is godsend. "The one silver lining in the downgrade is that it may act as a serious wake-up call and that India may take the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive White Paper review of the state of aviation safety in the country," said the Capa note. Craig Jenks, president of Airline/Aircraft Projects Inc, a New York-based aviation consultancy, said Indian aviation at least now strives to catch up globally.
After our last ICAO audit findings came out (much like the Indians post ICAO 2009 audit) the spin doctors, bureaucrat Mandarins etc all went into hyperdrive and produced the previous government’s Aviation white paper and initiated Australia's Aviation State Safety Program (SSP), however at the end of the day these documents are only words and while the various responsible agencies only pay lipservice to those words the clock will continue to TICK..TOCK! :E

Ps: Heard a rumour that the FAA(ICAO) are seriously considering, due resourcing issues, sub-contracting some of their auditing duties out to the Singaporeans (due to their exemplary, some would say extreme, compliance record to ICAO SARPs/Annexures) :confused:.

The rumour also included that an arrangement may now be in place for Singaporean inspectors to up the rampings (not just the Indians) of all airlines that operate into the US...hmm better make sure all those tyre dustcaps are accounted for and secure..:E

dubbleyew eight
20th Feb 2014, 10:18
can anyone else see a glaring fault in the ICAO logic?

as I read the cut and thrust of the ICAO guff I am left with the impression that "aviation safety" is solely concerned with international commercial airline operation.

ah penny drops. I'm not involved in "aviation" wink wink.

if tomorrow is a nice day I am taking my reciprocating petrol oxidiser for a 3 dimensional translocation at a wider earth radius than the planet's surface.
NOTE one and all; it is not "aviation" in the ICAO sense and hence is not illegal.
it involves the evaporation of money for which there is no legislated objection.

see newspeak can be made to work for you.:ok: wink wink.

Centaurus
20th Feb 2014, 12:07
and c) They were fair!!

Sometimes they were far from fair.. A piece of corporate history for those with rose coloured glasses. This story is as accurate as I can remember it. In 1969 this scribe left the RAAF (sigh..) for the security of a job as an airways surveyor in DCA Head Office in Melbourne. Having been allotted a dark and dingy office with no window, my boss a former RAAF Hudson wartime pilot (Lloyd Milne no less,) told me to attend a conference between DCA officers and reps of the British BAC One-Eleven company in Australia to try and sell their product. The DC9 had recently been approved to operate into 30 metre (100 feet) wide runways in WA and NSW. To obtain that approval flight tests were needed to ensure that in event of engine failure at V1 the aircraft could maintain within six feet of the centreline until stopped or airborne. The BAC One-Eleven reps said they were happy their aircraft could meet the same requirements.
DCA officials, including my boss, had serious misgivings about allowing the British aircraft into Australia. It was a political thing, I think at the time.
So DCA told BAC they would allow sales to Australian operators but that the crosswind limit on the 100 ft wide runways would be restricted to something like 15 knots which was a piddling figure. As far as I recall there were no sums made - just someone's gut feeling.

I was told to draft the confirming letter to BAC which would be signed by Sir Donald Anderson after passing through the desks of numerous officials up to Alan Lum, the biggest wheel under Sir Don. I penned the first draft and after reading it, my boss told me to amend the crosswind limit to five knots if the runway was wet. I knew enough about jets to know that five knots limit on a wet runway was bullshit and I said so. Just do as you are instructed, said my boss Lloyd Milne.

Why this rubbish about crosswind limits said I? The One-Eleven can take 35 knots in England. My boss says you will soon learn the game of politics. It goes like this, he said. When the Poms get the letter limiting the One-Eleven to five knots on wet 100 ft wide runways, especially when wet runways were never discussed at the meeting, they will protest and say that is unfair. And that is true. We will get their reply but we will not reply back. Now there are millions of dollars of sales at stake here, and again they will come back urgently to us asking why five knots and again we won't reply.

With that, BAC will bypass us in DCA and go straight to the Minister for Air (Civil Aviation) and bitch that his DCA officials have put ridiculous cross-wind limit restrictions on the introduction of the BAC One-Eleven into airline service in Australia when similar restrictions are not applied to the current DC9 ops in WA.

In quick time the Minister will contact us and ask what the hell is going on with you people, and why the restrictions on the One-Eleven? We reply it is a safety matter since 100 ft wide runways leave no room for error should an engine fail on take off. When hearing the magic word "Safety" the Minister is supposed to fold under. BUT, we tell the Minister, if money is available from Federal or State authorities to enable DCA to widen the runways where the One-Elevens will operate in competition to the F28 and DC9, the safety problem is overcome and we (DCA) can approve the introduction of the BAC One-Eleven. In other words DCA will screw BAC in order to get funding for wider runways in NSW and WA.

History reveals the BAC One Eleven was never ordered by Australian airlines. However, Sir Robert Menzies who was Prime Minister in that era, directed the RAAF to buy two BAC One-Elevens for the RAAF No 34 (VIP) Squadron use. These arrived in 1967 and both aircraft gave sterling service. The above tale is a generalised account of events as I remember them. But the dirty tricks did originate from DCA and in my view was unfair to BAC.

Creampuff
20th Feb 2014, 19:20
We reply it is a safety matter …. When hearing the magic word "Safety" the Minister is supposed to fold under. BUT, we tell the Minister, if money is available …Sounds very familiar.

Kharon
20th Feb 2014, 20:08
Chance of a second coffee and the Centaurus post above, provoked some semi lucid thoughts related to how things have and do work in the murky world of power, politics and self interest. I reckon from the moment Mr. Ugg in cave 1 discovered there were folks in cave 2 it was game on; we learned the game from the other animals, push, shove, scratch and bite. Wasn't if Freud who said something about the first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization. The refinement of process into the sort of 'politics' Centaurus mentions whilst unpleasant is, regrettably part of the price we pay for the world we live in. One of the very bad side effects is the loss, through embuggerance (cheers Sunny) of good people when the balance of good and evil is loaded toward the dark side. However, Australia's loss has been another countries gain. Some of the best aviation success stories have been writ large by 'disgruntled' former employees of our failed regulator.

The harsh treatment of some has benefited nations like Nigeria, one very fine man who could, given the opportunity, have dragged Australia into the 20th century was instrumental in the Nigerian success. But someone made a wrong call and instead of a Nigerian like story, we had the White paper and the McComic years of repression, micro management, predetermined outcome, legal skulduggery and technical incompetence. Look back at the quality of people who have declined to work for CASA or, those who have tried to work within the system only to leave; disappointed. Compare those departed folk with those who not only could stomach McComic, but have ably aided and abetted the demise of what had been a workable, if imperfect system.

You don't have to look far; IMO the loss of Hood and the rise of Campbell gives you a pretty clear indication of what's afoot. A short study of Tiger, Polar, Barrier, Quadrio, Pel Air, colour vision, maintenance, part 61, CAO 48 etc. etc, will provide a crystal clear vision of why the industry is in such a desperate state and who got it there. I have, as yet to work out the why; any luck at your end miniscule?

I wonder - Cometh the hour, cometh the man ????

Creampuff
20th Feb 2014, 22:18
The Minister is busy focussing on what government is really about:Former deputy prime minister John Anderson will don his transport hat again to lead a government-appointed group tasked with progressing the Melbourne to Brisbane inland railway project.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss appointed Anderson, a former Nationals MP and transport minister, to chair an implementation group responsible for determining construction priorities and ensuring engagement with the community and stakeholders.Sophie Mirabella’s helping out with submarines, Tim Wilson with human rights, Peter Costello with the Future Fund, Nick Minchin with our overseas relations.

So many friends; so little time.

Sarcs
21st Feb 2014, 01:54
Excellent post Centaurus! Just goes to show it is really the un-elected bureaucrats that hold and maintain the axis (balance) of power…:ok:
Kharon: I have, as yet to work the why; any luck at your end miniscule?
Hippocrates once said… “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance.”

Upon reflection In the lead up to Albo very proudly releasing his beloved Labor government’s GWEP (Great White Elephant Paper :ugh:), Truss as the then Opposition shadow miniscule was very vocal and opinionated on the Rudd government and the , wet behind the ears :rolleyes:, DoIT Miniscule (love the last two paragraphs..:E):Truss ridicules Albanese over aviation review (http://www.fullyloaded.com.au/news/industry/0804/truss-ridicules-albanese-over-aviation-review/)

By: Jason Whittaker
Date: 10.04.2008

Shadow minister for transport Warren Truss has labelled his counterpart a know-nothing minister who has no grasp of the challenges

Shadow minister for transport Warren Truss has labelled his counterpart a know-nothing minister who has no grasp of the challenges facing the transport industry.

Truss ridiculed Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese as lacking the will to make tough decisions after he announced a policy review into aviation, which adds to the 73 other reviews launched by the Rudd Government since it came to office in November.

Albanese today launched an aviation issues paper which highlights significant issues affecting the industry, such as skills shortages, regulatory reform and climate change.

The aim, according to Albanese, is to create a national aviation policy. The industry is being asked to submit its views to Albanese by September.

Truss, however, sees the launch as another indication of the Government being content to steal Coalition ideas, sub-contract work out to Labor mates and other government bodies or launch reviews.

"After 11 years in opposition, you would have thought Labor might have known what it was going to do when it was elected to Government," Truss says.

"The sad truth is the Government and its very green new minister, Anthony Albanese, have no idea about transport policy and infrastructure."

Truss says the late Howard Government had implemented a number of aviation reviews while in office, which laid the groundwork for progress to be made.

"This latest aviation inquiry is yet another example of Rudd Labor governing by review and avoiding what we pay them to do, which is to make decisions," Truss says. Dear Miniscule… ‘proof is always in the pudding,’ this could be your ultimate swansong where you could be remembered as the Miniscule who was prepared to put his cohunes on the line and cut through the bureaucratic red tape; dice up the trough swillers & iron ring geriatrics…

Dear Miniscule…now is your chance to prove that your government truly are the infrastructure & transport gurus...or I suggest (as the PM recently said in Parliament)…“get out of the way!”

Dear Miniscule…“Mayday..Mayday..Mayday” is fast approaching …TICK TOCK!;)

Ps Congrats to FedSecSteve and the ALAEA on getting MMSM coverage for their WLR submission in today’s article Engineers’ submission calls for CASA refocus, tougher penalties (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/engineers-submission-calls-for-casa-refocus-tougher-penalties/story-e6frg95x-1226833055162#mm-premium):D:D

aroa
21st Feb 2014, 04:05
Cactus, you have many brothers in anger, that's for sure.

If and when the WLR review goes off like a wet squib, the Truss bitch about Albo, a few post above could just have the names swapped around and be presented back to him.

Great pic of Miniscule Warren in todays OZ "Aviation" (sic) p26....
"Sydney plan brings second site closer " To what you might ask ?

The caption that should go with his mug shot reads "Oh sh*t, do I really have to deal with this !!!!!"

But wait, there's more..! a 20 year masterplan to consider. Oh yes, oh yes.!
...major developments will require further planning processes...etc etc

Oh Citizens,!! pineappleus extractus, Viva la revolucion !!!:ok::ok:

Creampuff
21st Feb 2014, 19:42
Yet more friends in need of help:They were appointed in the spirit of austerity to identify billions of dollars to hack from government spending.

But the Abbott government's audit commissioners have been accused of failing to walk the walk on what they are taking from the public purse.

Audit chairman Tony Shepherd has so far been paid $25,000 for the equivalent of 17 days' work.

He and his four fellow commissioners, including former Liberal senator Amanda Vanstone, are in the highest pay bracket that exists for specialist advisers to government. … Audit commissioners earn top dollar for advising on cuts (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/audit-commissioners-earn-top-dollar-for-advising-on-cuts-20140204-31yqr.html)

Sarcs
21st Feb 2014, 23:11
While we are waiting for the WLR panel to wade through, the reportedly, over 260 submissions and for UITA to catch up…:zzz: :ok:

URWE (‘Blast from the past’): In the dying years of the Howard Government and in the eventual lead up to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the admin of Fort Fumble, Labor Senator O’Brien had this to say to his fellow Senators (cherry picked quotes)…
“Senator O’BRIEN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8O6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (10:29 AM)
….I must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…

… Another important change has occurred: Liberal and National Party senators no longer exercise any will of their own. They take the whip not just from their respective party rooms but straight from the executive. In this case it is a National Party minister calling the shots: the metaphorical tail wagging the dog….

…The simple fact is that many Australians have lost confidence in Australia’s aviation safety regime. In particular, they have lost confidence in CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority...:{

… A recent survey commissioned by CASA that measures views on aviation safety in Australia shows that many Australians have lost confidence in flying. This survey, released in January, shows that public confidence has fallen since it had last been measured, in 2002….

…CASA did, of course, report the survey results with a big dose of self-congratulation.According to CASA, public confidence is ‘sky high’ and the survey results are ‘good news for the aviation industry’. That is what they say. At the time the survey was released I urged CASA to reverse the decline in public confidence in flying by concentrating on its core activity: improving safety in Australian skies—that is, a little more action and a little less public relations, please. The reality is that if Australians lack confidence in flying the responsibility rests with the regulator….

….Mr Shane Urquhart, the father of Ms Sally Urquhart, a young Queensland policewoman who died in the crash, supports this inquiry. In fact, he has told Australian Associated Press that a move to block the inquiry would show that the government has ‘something to hide’. Mr Urquhart says a decision to block this inquiry would ‘show the government has no compassion, no concern for its citizens getting justice, and lacks the guts to question anything CASA does’…

…I have no doubt that at some time in this debate a government senator will say something like: ‘Well, hang on, you can ask all the questions you like during Senate estimates hearings; you don’t need a references inquiry.’ To that I say: turn to the Hansard of May last year and you will discover that the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, was too busy to appear to answer questions. He skipped estimates to attend a one-day aviation conference in Europe, the cost of which the government is still refusing to reveal… (sound familiar..:confused:)

….Have a close look at that Hansard and you will find CASA evidence that it conducted a full audit of Transair’s operations before the Lockhart River tragedy and gave the airline the all clear. That is evidence the regulator gave again at October and February estimates hearings, despite a finding by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that there were manifest deficiencies in the airline’s operations, including a failure to lodge load sheets at departure and a failure to ensure pilots had the training mandated in the company’s operations manual. What the Senate estimates committee has heard from CASA are excuses, not answers.

On the question of risk profiling, CASA has refused to reveal whether Transair was clearly identified near the top of its risk profile table in the months leading up to the May 2005 tragedy—the top meaning the biggest risk. That is my understanding, but CASA has obfuscated for months. First, senior officers said they could not remember. Then they told us the risk profiling was unreliable. Recently, they claimed the risk-profiling table was filled with dummy numbers just to show what it could do if they ever got it to work. None of that is good enough….

…It is not just this side of the parliament that receives complaints about CASA’s performance, either. Recently we have all heard horror stories about CASA’s handling of pilot photo IDs. We have also heard complaints about CASA’s new cost-recovery based charging regime. Senator Eggleston came into the Senate a couple of months ago and laid out a case against CASA in relation to its dealings with Polar Aviation, a company operating in his home state of Western Australia. He said at that time that the ‘claim that CASA has failed the test of an impartial regulator seems not unreasonable’. He went on:

It seems difficult not to conclude that the behaviour of CASA in this matter warrants further investigation...

…At the end of the day, if the minister wants to hide CASA from scrutiny then it is the minister who will be responsible if the system continues to break down. As Mr Urquhart said, the government needs to have the guts to give the Senate the power to look at CASA because, at the end of the day, Australians want to have confidence in the aviation safety regime. They want to have confidence in the regulator, but every time the government hides the regulator from the scrutiny of parliament, more questions will be raised in the minds of doubters in the Australian community about Australia’s aviation safety regime. More questions will be asked. The numbers in CASA’s survey will probably deteriorate further, indicating a deterioration in confidence in the safety of Australia’s aviation regime, and ultimately that is not good for any operator of an aviation service in this country.

It is certainly not good for the public. It is not good for the parliament generally. And it will not be a good thing for this minister, Mr Warren Truss, because at the end of the day it will be seen that he has obscured an authority over which he has ultimate control from the scrutiny of the parliament…. :ugh:

{Note: The full Hansard text for the Senator O’Brien & Senator McLucas debate speeches can be viewed here: O’Brien, Sen Kerry (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2006-03-02%2F0058;orderBy=date-eLast;page=68;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards,hansardr80,h ansards80%20((SpeakerId%3A8O6));rec=14;resCount=Default); McLucas, Sen Jan (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2006-03-02%2F0059;orderBy=date-eLast;page=68;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards,hansardr80,h ansards80%20((SpeakerId%3A8O6));rec=14;resCount=Default)}

History will show that the motion from Senator O’ Brien and Senator McLucas was voted down..:{, however it is worth noting the post division comment from Senator Ian McDonald (witness to the infamous AMROBA meeting :ugh:):Senator IAN MACDONALD (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FYW4%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (11:02 AM) —by leave—I came down to participate in the debate but came a little too late. I did want to say that I was going to be voting against the motion, but I was impressed by some of the things said by Senator O’Brien and particularly Senator McLucas, who comes from an area where I fly a lot in small planes as well. Whilst I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith. I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered. Which comment was then acknowledged by Senator O’Brien:Senator O’BRIEN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8O6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (11:03 AM) —by leave—I thank Senator Ian Macdonald for confirming that this is purely a decision of the minister and that the executive of the government has called the shots for the Senate chamber. I simply say: this will not be the end of this matter.
Hmm..indeed, now nearly 8 years later, it isn’t the end of the matter…:=

Dear Miniscule…TICK..TOCK!:E

Kharon
22nd Feb 2014, 03:10
The trusty wheat board miniscule had better cover his fundamentals; the noises in the background, identified by Willyleaks, are those of the Barnaby clan leader, (champion clock cleaner) preparing to go to work and of all the little Barnaby's sharpening their knives in anticipation of fresh meat and new salad (lettuce and pineapple) being put in their trough.

O'Brien ...[I] must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…
Well, now he knows and this time he's betting it all on the same crew that managed the 2008 heartbreak and what with the Barnaby clan salivating at the thought of an inevitable cock-up, perhaps more time with the family would be a good idea.

Lucas "[You] cannot simply stand by and say, ‘CASA had nothing to do with the fact that 15 people died at Lockhart River.’ Surely Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce have a responsibility to allow this inquiry to proceed. What do they have to hide? More importantly, who are they protecting? The bottom line is that Liberal Party and National Party senators are lining up today to protect Mr Truss and, before him, Mr Anderson rather than allow the proper scrutiny of the actions of CASA in the lead-up to the Lockhart River tragedy. For all of the bluster of Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce, protecting their leader is more important than allowing scrutiny of Australia’s air transport regulator.

Macdonald " [Whilst] I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith. I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered.

Bartlett [I] want to speak particularly because a lot of the arguments that were made referred to the tragic accident in North Queensland, my home state, and I also want to have the Democrats’ view clearly on the record. I was intending to speak briefly in the debate and I thought I would wait until after the government speakers so I could respond to their arguments. Unfortunately, there was not a government speaker so the vote was done. But I want to put clearly that the Democrats supported that motion, as indicated by our vote. I think it is very disappointing that the government is so dismissive of the Senate’s desire to inquire into important issues that it could not even be bothered putting a case against it, let alone supporting it.

Yes miniscule you are in a very tight spot, the things denied in 2008 are home to roost, this time supported by what may be described as an avalanche of opinion proving you had very bad advice last time; it was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

As Einstein said Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Frank Arouet
22nd Feb 2014, 07:48
Civil disobedience will come next, you betcha!


I have tonnes of Catheads, (thanks to global warming), They should go well through the hopper of a Dromeder. Parliament House lawns could use some I reckon?

Sarcs
22nd Feb 2014, 21:51
It would appear that the Kelvinator fridge (safe) is well and truly full as the ASRR web page has been updated from this…

“..The formal submission period has now closed. However the Panel will endeavour to consider late submissions.
To make a late submission please use the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx)...”

To this…

“…The formal submission period has closed.
If you would like to provide further information to the Review Panel, please email [email protected] ([email protected])...”:{

Oh well perhaps the WLRP could get the DoIRD to set up a blog & comments page, certainly save the panel from being distracted from replying to copious IOS emails…:p

Here’s a thought..:rolleyes:..why not just provide a link to this thread…:E

Speaking of blogs & submissions, here is hoping that Phearless Phelan was able to get the updated ProAviation submission in on time:

ProAviation’s submission to the ASRR (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2147#more-2147)

Wow mammoth effort PP & Stan!:D

Warning: May require IOS members to update the Kelvinator with a fresh slab before considering reading in full!:rolleyes:Executive Summary

This submission concludes that a pervading “culture” exists within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that has degraded relations between the regulator and most industry sectors to a point where it is impacting negatively on air safety in ways that we illustrate by reference to examples.

It is submitted that this culture has developed, evolved and progressively expanded and consolidated since CASA was established in July 1995 and first designated as an independent statutory authority. We believe several symptoms of the existence of this culture can be identified in the examples we cite, and that it is manifested by the interaction between CASA departments which our examples illustrate.

It is acknowledged that a number of quality employees remain employed by CASA, although their numbers are reducing and their capability to influence the way the regulator carries out its functions has been so limited that numerous key figures have voluntarily left the organisation.

A majority of the aviation stakeholders we have consulted observe that the embedded anti-reform culture still exists and thrives within the organisation. They point out that it has already survived several high-level enquiries; and that events have proven that no reform can be effective unless those influences are identified and permanently negated.

CASA has operated, and continues to operate under the notion that to be legal is to be safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly when the industry is forced to operate under flawed and ambiguous legislation while separate offices; and at times different officials in the same office, make differing decisions when applied to different operators requesting identical approvals.

We consider the situations we detail demonstrate that solutions cannot be developed and implemented without significant amendment to the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations.

Introductory notes

Our submission is based on current and past research, some of which has been previously published in articles that are now part of this analysis. Those articles, whilst not always identical with the original, have only been reviewed to the extent necessary to bring them up to date, in some cases by adding a “sequel.”

We note the Minister’s advice that:

[The review] will not be reopening previous air safety investigations nor will it be a forum to resolve individual complaints or grievances. It is about the future regulatory challenges and growing our industry.

In that context we respectfully submit that the case studies which we reference clearly typify both past and current regulatory processes, and that this can also aid in identifying changes that will be necessary to regularise the management of similar events into the future. Furthermore, the point must be made that some individuals are more frequently involved than others in both past and contempoary cases, and that a number of these still occupy positions that offer opportunity for continued misconduct.

We emphasise that matters we quote as examples represent only a fraction of the material that is stored in our files. Much of this material comprises matters which we submit would warrant completely independent external investigation.

Some of the regulatory adventures detailed in the case studies are related to the regulation of flight operations by flying operations officers and their supervisors. Some are related to airworthiness and principally involve airworthiness inspectors and their supervisors.

However, they all involve CASA lawyers in varying roles. Additionally reporting to the General Counsel and Executive Manager of the Office of Legal Services, are the office that attends to freedom of information applications, the investigations office which oversees the activities of CASA investigators, and the Senior Advisor, Enforcement Policy and Practice, whose responsibilities are detailed by CASA as “developing enforcement policy, strategies and procedures, coordinating enforcement and monitoring, on a centralised basis, all aspects of CASA’s enforcement related activities.”

We also draw the Panel’s attention to a major “enforcement” event which is still current; and which calls for close attention as to CASA’s decision making and conduct throughout the processes of investigation and subsequent enforcement activity. This is the process by which Barrier Aviation is currently being managed out of existence.

None of this analysis is intended to denigrate individuals or organisations. Instead we recount events and leave the Panel to form its own impressions. Our own opinions when expressed are labelled “Comment:” and represent the opinion of the author and/or the publisher.
Hmm..kind of put’s the Airborne Gentry’s submission in the shade:

RAeS Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.raes.org.au/news/raes-submission-to-the-aviation-safety-regulation-review/)

Comment: IMO, despite a stiff upper lip, the RAES submission is very much in the ilk of the AOPAA (wet lettuce) submission I’m afraid (but that is just my opinion)..:E

More to follow K2…:ok:

brissypilot
23rd Feb 2014, 21:44
Kharon just posted this latest submission from Dr Rob Liddell on the Empire Strikes Back thread (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-5.html).

He has weighed into the Avmed debacle in his submission to the WLR - published on the Pro Aviation website.

Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2172)

In a supplementary submission to the ASRR Panel, Dr Robert Liddell, an airline pilot who was also the regulator’s Director of Aviation Medicine for nine years, has spoken out bluntly on the flurry of medical uncertainties now affecting Australian pilots. As always, Dr Liddell identifies not only the problem, but the solution:

Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission
Dr Robert Liddell

This submission is a personal submission in relation to the medical certification of aircrew.

I am a current holder of an Australian, British and FAA Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence. I have 7000 hours of flight experience with over 3000 hours in jet operations, mainly in Boeing 727 aircraft in Europe and Australia.

Between the years of 1988 and 1997 I was employed by CASA (then CAA) as the Director of Aviation Medicine. This position has now been re-named Principal Medical Officer.

Following my resignation at Director of Aviation Medicine the position has been filled by Dr Peter Wilkins, Dr Ian Hosegood and Dr Pooshan Navathe.

The international nature of aviation and the relationship of each country’s aviation authority with the standards and recommended practices that they are signatory to in the International Civil Aviation Organisation has resulted in a safe system that most major aviation countries have seen fit to deviate from in various ways. The country with arguably the most differences from ICAO is the country with the largest aviation industry in the world, namely the USA.

In Australia we have had minor differences with the SARPs since their very inception. In some areas we are more restrictive than the SARPs and in others we are more relaxed. For example during my tenure as Director of Aviation Medicine I had occasion to be called as an expert witness in the Federal Court where a Qantas pilot was claiming discrimination on the basis of age as Qantas were requiring him to retire having reached the age of 60 years. This was done ostensibly on the grounds of medical risk. My contention has always been that age is not a good predictor of risk and many pilots are high risk at a relatively young age and many are low risk even in their 70s. The judge upheld the appeal and Qantas since then and Australia therefore became one of the few countries to allow pilots to fly heavy jets regardless of age. To achieve this it was requested by the judge that CASA Aviation Medicine develop a risk mitigation strategy.

Consequently we became the first country in the world to put a risk matrix over pilots at every medical examination, and those that are at increased risk of heart disease are required to undergo an exercise ECG to prove cardiovascular health. This is an example where Australian regulations were far more stringent than the ICAO SARPS. In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently. There are now hundreds of colour defective pilots flying commercially in all types of operations and who over 20 years will have built up thousands of hours of accident free aviation.

These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO.

Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards. This move is without any evidence that adopting more restrictive practices will have any effect on safety but rather will discriminate against some pilots.

I now have several pilots, one of whom has over 16,000 hours of operation, most of it flying night freight in command on Boeing 727 aircraft and who in mid-career are being advised that they do not meet the standard because of their colour vision and so cannot hold the required class of licence to retain their occupation.

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination.

Dr Robert Liddell

:D:D:D

dubbleyew eight
23rd Feb 2014, 23:02
Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards.


that is easy to explain. the age old "reference to a higher authority" it is used all the time to negate criticism.

CASA are nutters. just look at the volume of guff produced in the name of regulation. "ICAO" and "EASA" must be wonderful tools for the deflection of criticism.

Sarcs
24th Feb 2014, 01:05
Quotes from RL submission: In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently.These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO. In ICAO Annex 1 the reference for CVD is at Chapter 6 paragraph 6.2.4 and reads:6.2.4 Colour perception requirements


6.2.4.1 Contracting States shall use such methods of examination as will guarantee reliable testing of colour perception.

6.2.4.2 The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.

6.2.4.3 The applicant shall be tested for the ability to correctly identify a series of pseudoisochromatic plates in daylight or in artificial light of the same colour temperature such as that provided by CIE standard illuminants C or D65 as specified by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE).

6.2.4.4 An applicant obtaining a satisfactory result as prescribed by the Licensing Authority shall be assessed as fit. An applicant failing to obtain a satisfactory result in such a test shall be assessed as unfit unless able to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights. Applicants who fail to meet these criteria shall be
assessed as unfit except for Class 2 assessment with the following restriction: valid daytime only.

Note.— Guidance on suitable methods of assessing colour vision is contained in the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984).

6.2.4.4.1 Recommendation.— Sunglasses worn during the exercise of the privileges of the licence or rating held should be non-polarizing and of a neutral grey tint. The last known list (that I can find) of Australia's notified differences can be tracked back to AIP Supp H12/11 (http://airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s11-h12.pdf). Now if you scroll down through the list, of over 1500 differences notified..:rolleyes:, you will eventually get to the relevant section: Chapter 6 Medical Provisions for Licensing

Para 6.2.4.4 Candidates for an air traffic controller licence who fail an Ishihara 24-plate test are, in practice, not employed by Australia’s ATS provider.
In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..:confused:

Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.

So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified?? :{ Maybe I'm missing something...if so 'please explain'??? TIA:ok:

Ps For those of you interested in getting up to speed for this afternoon's episode of the Senate Estimates soap opera here is a video link for the last episode on the 18/11/13: Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport [Part 2] (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=211501)

Sarcs
24th Feb 2014, 07:10
Poohtube link already posted on Empire Strikes Back thread but well worth regurgitating here..:E
[YOUTUBE]CASA Questioned on CVD - Senate Estimates - 24/02/14 - YouTube
...:D:D (double clap for DF & NX today..:ok:)

Still haven't got an answer for my QONs...err anyone??:rolleyes:

In case you've forgotten here they are..:confused:In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..:confused:

Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.

So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified?? :{ Maybe I'm missing something if so...'please explain'??? TIA
:ok:

Ultralights
24th Feb 2014, 09:03
http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/Other/SmugShots/i-hwZvQHL/0/X2/casablind-X2.jpg

Sarcs
24th Feb 2014, 22:19
To begin Ultralights that is pure gold!:D

Although yet to be officially tabled, the DAS did endeavour to rush through most of the FF WLR submission (so rushed I was beginning to wonder if he would ever draw breath..:E) yesterday in Estimates...:=

[YOUTUBE]CASA Senate Estimates - 24/2/14 - Part 1 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/9E7GwFBX24A)

Although it is extremely helpful for the IOS to get a sneak peek at the FF submission, my beef is that all other submitters (who would be keen on the same exposure) will not be afforded the same opportunity to state their case and refute FF's before the Senate Committee. Hardly natural justice but then what would you expect??..:ugh:

neville_nobody
24th Feb 2014, 22:28
Cannot believe CASA are still holding up that 727 accident in the US as a reason to abolish colour blindness.....:ugh:

Creampuff
24th Feb 2014, 22:44
Safety, Neville! Safety!

We're all going to die if all CVD pilots are not hounded out of the sky! Any objective analysis of the data show that .... errrrmmm .... I withdraw that.

Safety, Neville! Safety!

gaunty
26th Feb 2014, 03:43
Creampuff

Yeah, old Navy Commander mate of mine now well retired as part of his skill-set requirement acquired a "navigators" ticket which i understand allowed him to navigate any navy ship into any port in the world unassisted by tugs.

Some years ago tried to get a SPL on the road to becoming a PPL.

Was defined as a "potential hazard to aviation" due to failing the Ishihara.

Dilemma, ships in close quarters are largely navigated by coloured lights, so how come he continued to pass the very rigorous Navy system and operated safely for many years without incident.

He was smart enough not to test CASA confidentiality by protesting with the Navy evidence.

Go figure.

Kharon
26th Feb 2014, 06:04
Page 1 – CASA : The McComic attempted filibuster was so full of bollocks, threats, smoke, threats, mirrors, threats, contradictions, threats, bollocks and rubbish, it was a relief when Bill H pulled him up, "that's your lot, now STFU". For that alone, I will always hold Heffernan in high regard. It is unbelievable that the board would allow such a 'speech' (for wont of better) to be made by that director to an educated, cynical audience of Senators, harder to believe that Truss is prepared to be shamed and humiliated in that manner, publicly and on the record.
McCormick "To adopt certain parts the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety, including amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, the introduction of non-criminal penalties, the reconstruction and reconsideration of other CASA parts recently made, and other major changes.

It did 23 years ago; and all we got for $230,000,000  was a non working, clockwork Frankenstein, it is absolutely time we quit that project. But at least the solution is clearly defined, finally the penny drops. Just lets do it once, do it properly and be done with it FFS. I second the motion to unscramble the Gordian knot, with one clean axe stroke.

McCormick : "This will be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation."

Naughty disingenuous man, a pro team, not the bunch of old could have the new Frankenstein ticking over, even with the dead beats clinging to pensions at Sleepy Hollow within two years – tops. This stick, carrot, threat and salvation technique was outmoded 100 years ago; it's a crock; a scary story to frighten children and politicians, no one else would believe it. Aces and Eights is not a winning hand.

Sarcs
26th Feb 2014, 07:26
This should help "K", the full, non-rushed, unadulterated version nicely tabled for IOS consumption..:E FF WLR submission (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/tabled_doc_03.ashx)

And attachments: Attach 1 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/tabled_doc_01.ashx) & Attach 2 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/tabled_doc_02.ashx)

:oh::oh:

Dangly Bits
26th Feb 2014, 11:59
If i could vote for Sen Fawcett I would! It's great to see someone who knows what he is talking about.

I think he has the measure of those who sit in front of him.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
26th Feb 2014, 12:25
Yes, he certainly wasn't fooled by the safety argument and 727 case presented batting it straight back. The questioning for a real safety issue in Australia justifying the change rather than the academic uk argument was interesting.

A more naive environment may well have been fooled.

Kharon
26th Feb 2014, 18:10
CHAIR: How did it go from a critical incident to a 'don't worry about it' incident?

Mr Dolan: That is a matter we did "rehearse" with the references committee. In short, our initial assessment of the issue of guidance as to dealing with the situation, weather deterioration and what was planned, we over assessed it as critical at an early stage and by applying our methodologies we concluded by the end of the process that it constituted a minor safety issue.

CHAIR: Can I commend you. You look really well. You look less stressed than you used to for some reason.

Mr Dolan: It is probably the lack of the beard.

More like old Johnston and MM parked either side like a pair of gargoyles to make sure the minuscule's line of delay, deny, defer, deny, refute and defend were followed to a T. Poor old Beaker: looked like one of those nervy, hairless dogs you see old ladies clutching, you know the ones, pop out eyes, yappy and useless except for being of a size convenient for hoisting over the fence.

CHAIR: With that particular incident of which I just spoke no thinking person would believe that bureaucratic answer. You cannot go from a critical incident to a minor one or whatever it was without something happening on the journey. Anyway, we will not go back there. To any sensible person it sounds like either a cover-up or a balls-up.

Gods alone know what the Canadians think they are looking at, those ToR are not published, the Senate committee appear to have them, but are they available for industry scrutiny??. Canely Vale is up for review, perhaps a copy of one chapter of the Bankstown Chronicle should find it's way to the land of the Maple leaf; love to be a fly on that wall.

CHAIR: Could I just make a clarification? If there was a review to be had by the committee, Senator Fawcett, it would be the reference committee, not this committee?

Senator FAWCETT: I apologise; it is the references committee.

Now then, how do we get hold of the reference committee Hansard ?, any answers.

Sarcs
26th Feb 2014, 19:35
Kharon:I was wondering who was sat next to Dolan, because Dolan kept looking at him before beginning every statement – in Hansard representing the Government was Senator the Honourable David Albert Lloyd Johnston, if you can find the segment below on the U-chewed clips a student of body language and lip reading may, perhaps gain some insight.
Hmm..it is interesting that you should mention the other DJ (Senator that is & Minister for Defence)...:*

Maybe the good Senator representing the miniscule was being made aware that the Trusster had just answered a Dorothy Dixar in question time that somewhat contradicted the FF WLR submission, read out by the soon to depart DAS. It went something like this...:E

"Regional Aviation

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:28): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government's policies assist regional aviation and the jobs that it supports?

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for the question and for the privilege of being with him in his electorate during the break. It was good to see and talk about some of the important infrastructure projects that this government has planned for Wannon and the neighbouring electorates.

The member would also know how important regional aviation is for so much of country Australia. People who live in regional communities depend on aviation not just to get to other places in the country or around the world but also for many of their basic services, such as health, education and the professional services they need in their community from the people who fly in to provide those services. Alternatively, country people so often have to go to the cities to get the health care and other things that they need. So the aviation industry is very, very important to regional Australia. It has been an industry facing significant competition and, obviously, high cost. It is a difficult environment.

However, since the carbon tax was put in place, the cost of regional aviation has increased dramatically—6c a litre added to the cost of aviation kerosene and 5c a litre added to the cost of avgas—and that puts up the cost of operating aviation right across the country. We all know that regional aviation companies have been reporting declining profitability. Sharp Airlines in the member's own electorate—

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lingiari!

Mr TRUSS: reckoned that this tax is costing them $400,000 a year, money that they find very difficult to recover from their passengers, and of course it also affects their profit margin. Rex have talked similarly about declining profit projections.

There is something that this parliament can do to make regional aviation more competitive and that is get rid of the carbon tax. If the opposition is serious about jobs in this country, then it should be voting to get rid of the carbon tax. It is a job-destroying tax. It is a service-destroying tax. It is a tax that tears particularly at regional communities because they have to pay such a significant share. So when members opposite talk about the need to look after Qantas and Virgin and the other major airlines, there is something that this parliament can do right now. The Senate should vote to get rid of the carbon tax that will tear hundreds of millions of dollars out of the cost structure of our airlines, to make them more profitable, to enable them to employ more people and to provide better services for the people of Australia...."


"Gentleman please synchronise your watches.."
:E

So maybe "K" it was all about the lining up of the ducks??:rolleyes:

I also find it passing strange that Senator (& Minister) DJ just so happened to be sitting in on this particular committee's additional estimates hearing, as the rep for the miniscule?? Rumour has it that DJ & DF have had a strong affiliation & friendship for a number of years (harking back to the days when DF was a Defence Dept consultant & lobbyist), it is not too long a bow to draw that DF in government is in a similar role as confidante to the Defence Minister...interesting times indeed..:cool:

Okay let's go backwards from "D"s to "B"s...'Beaker Bashing' that is..:ok:

LeadSled
27th Feb 2014, 04:50
"To adopt certain parts the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety, including amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, the introduction of non-criminal penalties, the reconstruction and reconsideration of other CASA parts recently made, and other major changes.

Folks,

At least Mr. McCormick got that much right ----- and most of that was Government (but not CASA middle management) policy in 1996, and recommended in the final report of the PAP in 1998, but it did not take long for the "iron ring" to re-assert itself, and formal Government policy was ignored/undermined/generally subverted to produce the mess we have now.

Toller, and to a lesser extent Byron, did not know or understand what was going on underneath them, and the presence of a Board or otherwise has proved to be irrelevant.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled
27th Feb 2014, 05:02
If i could vote for Sen Fawcett I would! It's great to see someone who knows what he is talking about.
I think he has the measure of those who sit in front of him.

Folks,
He certainly does. For the first time in about forty plus years, we have somebody in the Parliament who has an in-depth aviation knowledge, and the skill to sort the sheep from the goats, not only in CASA/ATSB/AsA, but all those who approach him from the aviation community.

As a result, a very experienced aviator is very well briefed in the Senate hearings, as was clear on 24 Feb, just after 1400 AEDT.

It was equally clear, even thought, in my opinion, Mr. McCormick intended to muddy the waters over CVD matters,that he, Mr. McCormick did/does not understand the legal basis of Denison, or what ICAO or our own regulations actually say about what is required to demonstrate pilot proficiency.

Tootle pip!!

dubbleyew eight
27th Feb 2014, 12:55
one interesting item that came out was that the supposed problem for Colour Vision Deficit pilots was the PAPI aid.

well the papi aid is just 4 lights that show white too high, half and half on the glideslope and 4 reds when too low.

if it really is a problem then change the colours to white and amber.

the level of moronic stupidity shown by the casa people just beggars belief.

to a man I think they would be more appropriate working in the catholic church than in casa.

dubbleyew eight
27th Feb 2014, 16:09
I have been lying in bed sleepless pondering something that doesn't make sense to me.

Tonight I discovered that the CASA head medico, dear old Poohsan, is actually an associate professor, presumably of medicine.

You would think that an associate professor of medicine would be held in high regard by his peers. after all they don't normally make idiots associate professors. the thing that doesn't stack up for me is that all three of the practising qualified doctors that I have spoken to about poohsan think he is an idiot with the weirdest take on medicine they have ever encountered.

how could you be an associate professor and yet seen by your peer professionals as an idiot?

the only logical explanation I have come up with is the question, "are Poohsan's qualifications bogus?"

CASA's HR selection process doesn't seem to check backgrounds if the last idiot I encountered from CASA is anything to go by. I wonder...

Sarcs
27th Feb 2014, 21:17
Kharon's last has a certain finality undertone to it??:bored: Could it be that the Ferryman has already got forward bookings and is just going through the motions?? :hmm:

Oh well still time to play while the miniscule is still MIA and coming to terms with a ten tonne Dumbo permanently parked in his office..:E

The (soon to be former..:D) DAS had this to say on page 6 of his WLR submission:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/CAsArulesok.jpg

Now I find the typical back-handed comments...

..."especially useful indicator" & " even on this crude basis"..

..passing strange given a certain tendentious blogger, in his recent WLR submission, makes just such a comparison: Finally, this summary would be incomplete without a comparison with similar legislation in other jurisdictions. An example lies in a single regulation covering the “sharp end”:


Australia – 351 words

USA – 94 words

New Zealand – 96 words


91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command

(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

(c) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;

(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:

(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and

(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

(c) the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;

(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.



91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command

Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:

(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and

(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.


Author’s note

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as “shelfware”; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft’s operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn’t always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.

The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the “finishing touches” on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn’t even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.

In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

The new regulations are rich in similar examples. Phearless Phelan's WLR submission's next paragraph heading is...Strict liability offences

It has been explained to us that offences are designated to be of “strict liability” so as to exclude intent from the elements defining the offence, and that for that reason the concept has no place in legislation on operational matters. It has also been explained to us that the reason that almost every regulation is assigned the maximum of 50 penalty points maximises the amount of the available administrative fine where that is an optional alternative to criminal prosecution.
Hmm..:confused:..interesting that in the next breath of the DAS (soon to be retired..:E) missive he goes onto comment about a Civil Penalties:ugh: solution that CAsA are apparently batting around the halls of Fort Fumble and in consultation with industry minions for the past two years...:rolleyes:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/CivilPenalties.jpg

Passing strange that...more to follow..K2!:ok:

Kharon
27th Feb 2014, 22:49
The next close encounter with the estimates committee will (or should) have the miniscule's response to the Pel Air mess for the panel to play with. It's been a long gestation period but there is a sense that the interminable delays have not blunted the anticipation. No doubt the Senate panel will do it the justice it deserves. The response, whatever form it takes is a potential no win situation, but I just can't see the Senate panel swallowing it and saying thank you.

ASA, under Hood direction have bearded their lions and, through the Mildura incident, have clearly demonstrated acceptance of their issues, parallel to the Norfolk event, and are addressing them. The well known McComic dislike of Hood, which may just have encouraged Hood to toddle off was a grave error. Hood is a keeper. Hood knows where the skeletons are buried and (IMO) he's a lot smarter than the likes Campbell or Chambers. Given the elbow room and some encouragement; things may have been very different for CASA and the ATSB. But they are not; not now, are they?

No matter what platitudes, promises and humbug McComic and Beaker have pumped into the ministerial response, no matter how good the MM damage control, no matter how carefully the words are massaged; without a shred of credibility remaining, any response to Pel Air will expose the Minister, Board and those involved as either willing participants or negligent on lookers. Yet there is hope. People, the calibre of Forsyth, Hawke and Johnston, not to mention a couple in the PMC have a basic structural integrity, are intelligent, sophisticated, worldly wise and, when presented with facts, no where near politically stupid. Their disgust may not be publicly displayed, but I'd bet a long cold beer that behind closed doors that disgust would be clearly displayed, with some venom. Truss on a spit? - hell yes.

But what about the 'other' interested' parties? The WLR panel for example, or the Canadian TSB. What are they to think? Someone has been 'at it' on the Terms of Reference (ToR), for both 'investigations'. The CTSB review has been carefully shaped, to provide the right response within the ToR; as writ. There was and probably is very little 'non standard' in the ATSB methodology or paperwork, 'no brainer'. The WLR was to be the same – same: but the wheels have come off; 260 + submissions is too much to sweep under the miniscule carpet.

What will the Senate committee do? Between McComic and Dolan the whole infrastructure has been publicly (at least to industry) embarrassed; now it falls on the shoulders of Fawcett, Heffernan, Xenophon et al to retrieve the miniscule's chestnuts from the fire. Truss just needs to take a deep breath and do the right thing, not only for his reputation, but for that of the other bystanders likely to be politically damaged, through association, by the fall out.

Minion – "Yes Minister, you have a problem". Minister "Yes I can see that; lets get some advice and fix it, quick smart". See, easy as pie: the advice is there, the good troops are there, the power is there; so what FCOL is the hold up ??? This could be a gold star for the transport minister. Huge money leak, plugged. Aviation industry world class and recovering, exemplar in accident investigation; world leader in regulatory reform; the best administration of matters aeronautical – anywhere. All to play for, all obtainable, a long festering sore healed, credibility restored: all at the stroke of a pen. Just do it, for pities sake.

Selah.

[Aside]. Some fool in the estimates was taking the Mickey Bliss out of the Abbott comments on how bad roads affect the mental health of people using them; the fool should have been on the M5 yesterday morning where he could have clearly seen the results for himself. He should have stood on the side waving a banner – "Abbott talks bull on bad roads" he'd have been road kill in about 10 seconds – flat. Idiot.

PS - Hansard transcript can be downloaded - HERE (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Ff3681c2b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0000%22)- Start page 52: Adobe (PDF) counter p. 56.

Kharon
28th Feb 2014, 17:50
Phelan never felt the slippery hand of plagiarism as McComic gabbled out the (thankfully interrupted) nonsense speech in last estimates. The infamous nonsense speech had many pundits, (those not rolling about laughing) scratching their heads and mumbling into their drinks. The ever alert Sarcs nailed it down; Phelan's submission.
Sarcs # 499 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-25.html#post8343683) –"Now I find the typical back-handed comments..."especially useful indicator" & " even on this crude basis"....passing strange given a certain tendentious blogger, in his recent WLR submission, makes just such a comparison:

Pro Aviation's opening gambit is a 150 page epistle and no easy read, being complex and detailed. The funny thing is; Paul was having web site problems and there was a delay in publishing on the PA site. You can check the dates yourself, then have a read of the PA submission, then write a rebuttal. It is indeed passing strange that McComic could have read, considered, drafted, edited and polished a speech within the time frame - ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2147), updated February 21, 2014 – quite remarkable. We know the WLR panel keep their cheese sandwiches and a couple of beers in the Kenwood (for security), perhaps the mice got in.

The McComic filibuster, considered against the Phelan submission will take on quite a bizarre aspect, to those unfamiliar with the CASA style and penchant for lifting the work of clever folk from Google without even the courtesy of an "acknowledgement" to the author. This stand alone is dishonest, but worse than that, it's bad manners. Then to brazenly put yourself up as the author of a piece and claim credit for being the Messiah, is beyond the pale. But it seems to be 'de rigueur' for the 'guns' at Sleepy Hollow; sad really.

But at least we now know that Phelan has their measure, it's passing strange that McComic didn't take on the AAAA submission or AMROBA; both freely available, concise, written in English and published long before Phelan and PA got their act together. I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech. The implications speak volumes on the type of man; and by extension his supporters, we see being slowly, but very surely publicly revealed. I have always found that bullies are invariably cowards and usually cheats attracting a definite type of follower. To take on and deride a journalistic submission where legal threat may be in play, rather than an industry peer group where it is not; is not the behaviour of an officer or a gentleman. Ask Ben Sandilands if you don't believe it; or, better still ask

Senator McDonald.

Now then, how many sleeps till August?.

Sarcs
28th Feb 2014, 22:25
Kharon:I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech.
Glad to see that the adjusted, in brackets, didn’t get past your scrutiny “K”…:D

Adjusted: A small (past tense) derivative of adjust, which is defined as…

“…alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result e.g. "he smoothed his hair and adjusted his tie"…”

The synonyms are interesting…

“…synonyms: modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance..”

Definitions aside, what is it intended to indicate in the DAS’s (soon to be retired) missive??

Not wanting to enter into any crude, or tautological, or tendentious arguments on the subject of page counts of other jurisdictions aviation safety regs, so I won’t. However it is an interesting exercise to explore the part where the first (adjusted) comes up. It was in reference to a crude page count assessment on the intended CASR Part 61 vs the current FAR Parts 61/63.

Note: The words intended & current are crucial in this as they go to the reason for adjusted (in brackets).

If you briefly explore the history of FAR Part 61/63 you will find that the original (or intended) Part 61/63 was first made active some 30 odd years ago (I think 1978?). More interesting is that it had far earlier origins and was basically a carry-over (copy if you like) from the US Civil Aeronautics Act 1938, which then became the FAA Act in 1958. Part 61/63 in that interim period was listed as a CAR (Civil Aeronautics Regulations).

As we all know once proposed legislation or regulations become ‘live’ they grow with the times. {Comment: Case in point is the CASR 1998, that crudely put, has grown from 190 pages to 2186 pages.}

So in the interim period, of 76 years, FAR 61/63 (formerly CAR 61/63) has naturally grown as times change…:rolleyes:

Hmm…I think…:confused:...that is what the DAS (STBR) obscurely means by the word adjusted (in brackets)…:ok:

Frank Arouet
28th Feb 2014, 23:22
The DAS submission would be in DRAFT form up until the last moment to allow for 'adjustments' required after reading all the other submissions. At least that's how I'd do it if I were to wear his crown for a bit.


On a similar subject, the DAS reports to the CASA Board, yes? If so, why is he on the Board, (or since Toller is this not the case)? This would be like reporting to yourself in the company of others explaining your interpretation of amended matters in such a way as to pass any resolution.


Under The Corporations Act, which isn't necessarily in any government jurisdiction, a Director 'must keep himself informed'. Failure to do so is no excuse, but could perhaps be ameliorated by a factor if the Director or member of the Board is given false, misleading or obtuse information by another member of that Board.


One wonders if all information given to the CASA Board is accurate, contemporary and relevant. Do they act on the information given by the person responsible for reporting to them and if that person who reports is also a member of the same Board, is there no conflict of interest if say, matters of complaint against the reporter, (DAS), have been run through a 'wordsmith' 'doctored' or omitted, and the Board is left ignorant of ALL the pertinent FACTS, thus not enabling them to 'keep themselves informed'.


If this Board reports to The Minister on inaccurate or jaundiced information, is the Minister able to be well enough informed to make objective decisions on the probity of that information.


The CASA Board of Directors are to be held as responsible as the DAS on information given to The Minister who in turn informs the Public.


The 'buck may stop' with the Minister, but there is a potential for a lot of others to 'sink' with the ship while he rows off in the lifeboat.


If I were a CASA Board member I would make a preemptive plan of action now before it's too late. Making a plan to stay with the boat and the skipper would be a bad move I believe. The Admiral is already ashore preparing for his send off and rewards. I hear Barnaby is selecting the wines.

Creampuff
1st Mar 2014, 01:09
Apropos of nothing specific and no one in particular, an article by Jack Waterford, titled “Practised in the arts of deception” makes interesting reading. (Here: Practised in the arts of deception (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/practised-in-the-arts-of-deception-20140228-33rht.html)

Robert Armstrong, secretary of the British cabinet, famously called it being ''economical with the truth''. It's a technique of volunteering no information, answering questions literally, and playing a completely dead bat. Confirming only facts already known. Conscious use of ambiguous phrases such as ''as far as I know'' or ''to my knowledge'' that can equally imply inquiry or lack of it.

It's about deceiving without lying, misleading, answering questions not asked, and failing to answer questions which are. It's playing the smart-arse. Making sure that nothing one says could be a springboard for criticism for what has occurred. When not ''cover-up'', which it often is, it's about ''providing cover''.

It's the adroit and practised way of verbalising with mental reservations unstressed parts of speech that negate the apparent meaning, or claimed ''misunderstanding'', of questions. It never, of course, involves a lie - in some cases perjury - even if any notion of ''the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'' has been strangled into meaninglessness.

Those who practise this art are often immoderately pleased at their abilities to conceal, evade, mislead and leave a completely false impression. It's ''protecting the minister''. It is regarded as one of the highest calls of duty upon the senior public servant. Even as old bonds of fidelity and confidence between politician and public servant wither, a public servant who loses a minister is careless, and one who gets a minister into trouble is negligent. To do so by wrongly describing the facts and considerations is bad - even unprofessional. To dob the minister in by telling the truth is even worse - a form of unfaithfulness worse than (though akin to) adultery.

It's also practised, as a matter of routine, by military officers answering questions from people outside the direct chain of command. Anyone else - parliamentarians, press and public - will be told only what it is convenient for government and the services to have them know.

This week, Angus Campbell, a senior soldier who has been seconded to a largely bureaucratic position - which includes oversight over Australia's concentration camps - was accused by Steve Conroy in estimates of covering up for government. He was - at least in the sense of consciously avoiding giving any information that might embarrass the government or the military. No doubt he thought that was his duty. Perhaps it is. But there has never been and should never be a tradition that an officer - or a bureaucrat - who does it is immune from criticism, or questions about whether he, or she, is really serving the public interest by extinguishment of sunlight as a disinfectant to bad policy, bad operations and bad leadership, civil or military.

Criticism is more necessary when a national security or ''operation'' or, now, ''on-water'' excuse is used to claim immunity from scrutiny, even after needless deaths. One day, indeed, there should be a public inquiry into the antecedents and limits of the claim - originally made by government, then adopted by Campbell - that the ''on-water'' activities of border command would be fatally compromised by public (and people-smuggler) knowledge of what was being done by politicians and sailors in Australia's name.

Being unhelpful to parliamentary committees is a bipartisan sport. After all, politicians hide behind bureaucrats and officers when it suits. Likewise with hiding behind the flag, by which any criticism of military judgment or activity is counted as a betrayal of the nobility of Gallipoli, or the service ethos.

The public servant or officer who deceives to protect the present minister is probably doing it to protect the Labor one before him, and the Liberal one before that. Loyal lying is to the government of the day, the policy of the hour, the tactic of the minute. It serves, usually, no long-term purpose, no higher ideal. It is sometimes founded on a naive belief that loyalty will be returned, or that a politician you protect ''owes'' you something, or is blackmailable if ever one is in a fix.

In some departments, not least Prime Minister and Cabinet, one suspects there are informal classes about being unhelpful to parliamentary committees, even, perhaps particularly, on issues that matter not a bit. In clubs, some senior public servants quietly boast to each other about how they faced down the bowling, dispatched the odd loose ball to the boundary and never once gave a chance. Even better, of course, is if one gets a moral advantage over the inquisitors. Sometimes, a parliamentary Rumpole will express frustration and suggest that the batsman is being less than completely forthright. Great umbrage can be taken, on the Ken Henry model or, now, the David Hurley model for such an infamous suggestion.

In 2011, Senator Michael Ronaldson accused Lieutenant-General Ken Gillespie, then chief of army, of ''prevaricating'' about an awards ceremony. Strictly, Gillespie had been telling the truth, but he was also prevaricating, if only by efforts to distract. He was loyally protecting the army from its embarrassment about a broken promise to veterans. And protecting David Feeney, then at the dizzy heights of his political career as parliamentary secretary for defence, who himself showed a talent for obfuscation and misdirection that might have suggested a background in factional politics, public service or both. Feeney's statements were replete with some of the classic distractors: ''Now let me clarify this …''; ''As I comprehend it …''; ''That is my advice''; ''I am advised …''; ''If that is your suggestion, then all I can say is that that is my advice and I know nothing of it''; ''I am advised now, however, …''. And so on.

Gillespie intervened to ''help'' the minister. He explained one of many sources of confusion, if by suggesting it was the only one.

Ronaldson: I am afraid, with the greatest respect, that given the prevarication in relation to this matter … I am far more prepared to accept the views of those who refused to come … I am more prepared to accept their take on this and I am more prepared to accept the take of the journalists involved than from anything I have heard today.

Gillespie: That is for you to …

Ronaldson: I thank you for your prevarication.

Gillespie: That is your choice to make that.

It is typical of the incompetence of those staffing Bill Shorten, and of Shorten himself, that this incident was misdescribed this week as Ronaldson calling Gillespie a ''coward''. He wasn't, and Shorten had to spend several days apologising.

In 2011, there was no collective intake of breath at what Ronaldson said. Chief of the Defence Force Angus Houston was in the room but did not take public umbrage and call for a return to the day when, apparently, the word of an officer and a gentleman could always be taken as absolute writ.

Ronaldson had not been suggesting that Gillespie was a pawn of Labor. He did not really mean that Gillespie had not been telling the truth. Indeed, Gillespie was telling the truth, but the truth as he saw it completely elided anything to do with the embarrassment caused Defence by the commander in chief, and the political and media reaction to the consequences. The incident, to him, followed a confusion of two separate functions, and a worthy extra tacked on to another worthy event. But nothing he said cleared the air or made things simpler. I doubt General Gillespie would have reached the rank he did had he intended to. His level of command is much more focused on assembling the resources necessary for his service to meet the needs of the government of the day - a process for intellectual, political and administration infighting, rather than traditional military virtues.

Horatio Nelson, famously, put a telescope to his blind eye during the Battle of Copenhagen so that he could say, honestly, that he ''had not seen'' an order - conveyed by flag from his commander, Sir Hyde Parker, to withdraw his ships from the fight. A former defence chief, Admiral Chris Barrie, was once accused of doing something similar in failing to update his information about whether children were thrown overboard from a refugee boat. Barrie could hardly but be aware that both John Howard and Peter Reith, with the help of their private offices, were being accused of constructing ''I wasn't told'' alibis. Formally told by Rear Admiral Chris Ritchie that there was ''no evidence'' of children being thrown overboard, Barrie told Ritchie: ''I would not change my advice to the minister [Reith] without conclusive proof that the original advice to Reith was wrong.''

Paul Kelly, in his book The March of Patriots, observed: ''Even if Barrie was unconvinced, his obligation was clear - he should have asked Ritchie to 'resolve it once and for all and report back'. But Barrie was a CDF who did not want to be convinced the story was wrong.''

It was Barrie's fate to be remembered primarily for his provision of political cover to the government of the day, over an affair that went right to the basis of any concept of military honour. Students of the military art, and those lecturing them, now learn of this, and similar incidents, as examples of what not to do.

But the military caste has little to learn about being forthright from public servants. In estimates this week, the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Roger Wilkins, was asked about subpoenas from the Hanger royal commission for Rudd-era cabinet documents:

Wilkins: Are you asking whether we have received such a request?

Senator Joseph Ludwig: Yes.

Wilkins: No.

Senator Kim Carr: So, no documents have been handed over, as far as you are aware?

Wilkins: Not from us.

As Crikey.com.au reported, that same afternoon, an PM&C officer told another committee a folder of cabinet documents had been given to A-G's department which, with the Australian Government Solicitor, was co-ordinating compliance with royal commission requests. Wilkins sent a letter ''clarifying'' his evidence - in language that may well have been in German. He was later asked about it.

Ludwig: Senator Kim Carr asked whether or not any documents had been handed over to the royal commission. My recollection is that your evidence was, 'Not from us' …

Wilkins: That is exactly what I did not say. I said they are not our documents.

George Brandis: In fairness, I think Mr Wilkins was being asked about Attorney-General's Department documents and his answer was strictly correct. But in order to clarify that answer - not to derogate from it but to clarify it and expand a little on it - Mr Wilkins has been good enough to provide this letter.

Ludwig: When you say, 'Not from us', there would have been documents in the Attorney-General's portfolio that related to the home insulation program, would there not?

Wilkins: No, they were not - that is my point.

Very clever, Roger Mr Wilkins. But anyone reading could be excused for resolving never to believe you on anything unless it had been parsed by Fowler, translated back and forth from German, and run up the flag and saluted by Angus Campbell.

Frank Arouet
1st Mar 2014, 07:29
Interesting reading indeed:


The Military are responsible for carrying out the will of the elected government of the day. If that elected government changes there is no hang over of duty to the old government, it takes new orders from that newly elected government the day that government is sworn in. Be in no doubt, Lt General Angus Campbell is acting in his military capacity and Operation sovereign Borders is a military Operation despite the bleating's of Shorten, The Greens or the Media and there is no reason to compromise military operations by offerings to anybody outside of government. If I recall correctly, all 'The Guardian' journalists were 'sent to Coventry' after the sinking of HMS Sheffield. (apologies for the obvious play on words).


Now with Politicians, it's not uncommon to keep 'Advisors' from the last mob on the same job despite any pre formed or hereditary ties. This is something I don't understand as it has a very great potential to perpetuate any existing traits. I'm unsure if the Conservatives are just 'soft cocks' or have a plan regarding 'my ABC' for example.

dubbleyew eight
1st Mar 2014, 07:54
again apropos of nothing specific....

Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume the early english designer has turned his hand to writing aviation histories. (good ones too)

In his book Flying Flea, Henri Mignet's Pou du Ciel is the following quote..
But it was in Australia where the greatest number of Fleas were built outside Britain. This was in spite of an extremely strict Australian airworthiness rules (stricter even, at that time, than ours [britain’s]) which virtually prohibited any aircraft from flying without a full and certifiable certificat of airworthiness. Happily Australian’s, like Yorkshiremen, dont respond easily to city-dwelling rules makers and so the first flight of a flea took place on January 31st 1936....
On June 1st,(1936) the Australian authorities issued a circular categorically prohibiting all further flying of Fleas. Six weeks later a second Flea was tested at Parafield and the following May another was flown.....
In all at least 56 people are known to have been actively involved with the Flea in Australia before 1939.

so it seems we in Australia have a long history of over the top aviation regulation ...and equally just ignoring the bastards and doing it anyway.:E

Creampuff
1st Mar 2014, 08:21
... Be in no doubt, Lt General Angus Campbell is acting in his military capacity and Operation sovereign Borders is a military Operation despite the bleating's of Shorten, The Greens or the Media and there is no reason to compromise military operations by offerings to anybody outside of government. ...One small problem in that theory: The Minister for Defence has stated, repeatedly and publicly, that Operation Sovereign Borders is a civil, not military, operation.

That, and the fact that the ADF owes is duty of obedience to the Queen, not the Minister for Immigration.

LTGEN Campbell will be rewarded well, and pay dearly, for his loyalty to politicians. (And, to get the thread back on track, so will Mr McCormick.)

Kharon
1st Mar 2014, 19:11
Thanks Creamy, enjoyable article to start a Sunday with; Canberra Times, who'd a thunk it. Whilst on the subject of sleight of hand; can anyone explain in lay terms where the CASA board actually stand on that subject, in law. Just suppose (for arguments sake) that the board was vaguely aware of a problem – say Pel Air – as we are all familiar with it.

Would a meeting be called to discuss 'the issue'; or, would it be left to the ground troops to sort it out and report back during the routine meeting schedule?

To what degree could the board expect to be informed on the progress of a matter like the Norfolk ditching?

What I am trying to determine is 'where the buck stops'. If the board have only been given a brief outline and not too many specifics, can they be accountable in some way? Corporate law and director liability legislation is way beyond my poor skill set, but I expect that somewhere in the rules, someone has to carry the can. The question, to my lay mind is one of how much would they be told and was that information sufficient for the board to form a clear picture of circumstances, events and probable outcomes? There is quite a scale difference between being told – no worries – minor event all under control, to 'Huston we have a problem'.

Would it be quite forgivable for a board to go back to the tea, biscuits and budget without a care, relying on 'executive' advice; or, would there be a 'legal' need to investigate further or ask for more information? Can't see an event like Quadrio or Barrier making it into the hallowed chambers as much more than a one line summary – notice of execution – with little in the way of detail; but what, in general terms does the board 'need' to know?, how is that decided? and by whom?

Too much for my wooden head; wouldn't mention it normally, only the article and an interesting conversation with a savvy 'CEO' prompted the little grey cells.

denabol
1st Mar 2014, 22:17
A rather embarrassing post by Ben, illustrated with a woodcut of the Spanish Inquisition or somehting like that, has fingered the ARSS for not publishing the public submissions.

Could get ugly quickly. I notice he also published an article in The Australian the other day laying into Qantas management, and maanged to infuriate Joyce into mentioning him on Channel 9 breakfast show. I think efforts to engage the broader media in aviation are worth it, especially Adele Ferguson on the Sydney Morning Herald.

A series of submissions to Australia’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/panel_members.aspx) (ASRR) that offer detailed documented criticism of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have in effect been suppressed by that panel of ‘independent’ experts chaired by David Forsyth, a distinguished career aviation administrator and aero engineer.
The ASRR decided not to publish the ‘public’ submission lodged for its consideration.
This action, which is contrary to the long established practices of accountability and transparency in democracies world wide, has stunned a number of professionals in bodies like the US FAA who had contacted Plane Talking seeking a single point link to the submissions which had been intended by the parties making them to be public.
Because of the disrepute this action by the ASRR might bring to Australia, and the panel itself, including a loss of confidence in the proceedings, a list of links to 11 of the public release intended submissions are provided below.


Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/02/australia-suppresses-criticism-of-its-aviation-safety-body/)

Frank Arouet
1st Mar 2014, 22:19
Creampuff;


As per your previous The Minister for Defence states a civil action, but like the Korea War, a 'Police Action' was run by the Military and sanctioned by the Minister of the day. This Minister is acting on behalf of the Executive of the Government. The Indonesians are now patrolling their borders. Is this a Civil or Military Action?


The Military owes it duty to the elected government of the day.


The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.


To quote from my Commission: "To xxxx whereas you have been appointed to be, on and from xx/xx/xxxx an officer of the Australian Army; Now therefor I, the Right Honourable Sir John Robert Kerr, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Most venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's Cousel learned in the law, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, issue in pursuance of section 10 of the Defence Act 1903, this Commission to you as an officer of the Australian Army: AND I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers. Given under my hand etc. ... It's got nothing to do with loyalty to any particular party. It's duty.


To get back to where I tried to liken this fact to the strange addiction that besets us with political advisors left over from the last mob, I would suggest this is because of the epidemic of public servants ensconced in positions so firmly that any new government are loathe to divest themselves lest memories from the past are brought to the present day.


Regarding the CASA Board, I would suggest their duty should eclipse the standard of the Corporations Act and answer to a higher moral and ethical jurisdiction.


I doubt they do. It's my opinion they are treated like mushrooms and when the day of reckoning arrives they will wonder what they were doing there in the first place.


If the DAS is on that Board, I feel it is compromised.


EDIT for denabol post: Amazing that they would invite further criticism by rejecting public submissions after they were solicited. To call it outrageous would be accurate but there must be a better word to use.

Creampuff
2nd Mar 2014, 04:05
Last drift, I promise….The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day … … Not correct … … and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.Correct. … I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers.Is Minister Morrison a “superior officer” of Major General Campbell within the meaning of the standard terms of Commission?

If Minister Morrison ordered Major General Campbell to shoot the GG and CDF, would Major General Campbell be obliged to carry out that order?

If the GG and CDF ordered Major General Campbell to shoot Minister Morrison, would Major General Campbell be obliged to carry out that order?

(Don’t get too wrapped up in this hypothetical, Frank. There are orders, and then there are orders. Their ‘legality’ sometimes depends on who gets the Queen to sack whom, first.)

Back on topic: The submitters to the ASRR are not protected by parliamentary privilege. I have no knowledge of the Panel’s thinking on the issue, but I guess they figure if someone decides to publish his/her/its own submission on someone's websit, the Panel is not responsible for the consequences of publishing the content. However, if the Panel decides to publish submissions on the Department’s website, the Panel and the Department may be responsible for the consequences of publishing the content.

Frank Arouet
2nd Mar 2014, 05:19
Answer via PM. This is probably irritating the moderators.


The submitters to the ASSR include natural and non natural persons and identities which include many who's jurisdiction is with ASIC. It's not up to the panel to decide on consequences of publishing, it's up to the submitters.

Creampuff
2nd Mar 2014, 05:35
Not quite Frank.

If I post some defamatory material on PPRUNE, the owners of the website may be at risk as well as me.

Purely hypothetically, if e.g. Pro Aviation chose to author and publish, on its own website, an ASRR Submission that contained material defamatory of current or past CASA staff, Pro Aviation alone is at risk of defamation actions brought by those current or past CASA staff. If the ASRR Panel decided to publish the same (hypothetical) submission on the Department’s website, the Panel and the Department may be at risk as well.

dubbleyew eight
2nd Mar 2014, 05:49
if we want to fix the problems of aviation regulation in this country we need to identify exactly where the problems are.

the ex-RAAF being employed in aviation regulation has seen them either deliberately or accidentally try to cast civilian aviation in ways that are familiar to the ex-RAAF.
if you look at maintenance organisations the regs try to make them look like RAAF maintenance hangars.
if you look at private ownership rights these are nowhere in evidence in australian aviation law probably because in the RAAF private ownership was an unknown concept.

I looked at the old CAAP on biennial flight reviews last night and indeed it looks like a reasonable approach. It seems that a lot of CASA intent fails in the delegated coal face. while I was watering the grass in front of my hangar one of the guys told me of his experiences recently with his biennial. he found it a little tedious but got the sign off sorted. the instructor then showed him the new changed requirements that would be in force next time.
his comment was that he was not submitting to that. it was totally over the top. he was not intending to ever submit to a biennial ever again.

australian aviation regulation is not far off track, but it is subtly wrong on every front.

dubbleyew eight
2nd Mar 2014, 05:52
creampuff they'd find it all a lot easier if there was nothing to criticise. :rolleyes:

Sarcs
2nd Mar 2014, 05:59
Mr FAA (IASA) comes a knockin...:E

Well signs a not good so far for the miniscule, Ben's article is somewhat inevitable really..TICK TOCK miniscule...:{

Comet's comment could be prediction of things to come maybe?? :rolleyes::comet

Posted March 2, 2014 at 11:43 am

It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action. Because Australia won’t.

The FAA should downgrade Australia to a Category 2 rating under its International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, just like it recently did to India. It would be for Australia’s good, and the only way Australia will be motivated to get its house in order.

Australia has an overwhelming culture of secrecy. You see it in the military. You see it in the Immigration department (news about asylum seekers and boats arrivals is suppressed), and you see it in aviation administration, such as the Pel-Air crash inquiry, and now the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

It’s a pretty dire state of affairs when public criticism of aviation administration and CASA must be suppressed by the government. You would expect this sort of action to happen in Uganda.
And ProAviation's update, from the Chair of the WLRP, points towards an uncertainty of a possible fix to the basket case that is the RRP & the administration of aviation safety here in Oz..:( :Forsyth Committee unscrambling the issues
(http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2178#more-2178)
The strength and spread of interest in the government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) process took almost everybody by surprise. ProAviation had already been made aware of numerous submissions from industry sector groups, trade unions, airports, other government agencies, individuals from pretty well all the aviation sectors we’re aware of, AOC and MRO approval holders and even the medical and legal professions; each commenting on their own regulatory hot spots and in most cases identifying well-considered solutions.

For an update we contacted Australian industry veteran David Forsyth, who heads up the ASRR Panel. He says the review has now received over 260 submissions and supplementaries, and Panel members have already interviewed over 200 people or groups in the first phase of the team’s in-depth probe into the regulatory environment in which the industry does its business.

“We’ve had a lot of interest which has been really encouraging. Submissions have come from right across the country; quite a lot from the areas we visited around Christmas time when the panel first visited Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, and spoke to people at the GA airports – Moorabbin, Bankstown, Parafield and Archerfield. At that time we also met with other organisations in those capitals. So when you add them all up, at this point we’ve spoken to probably around 200 people now. The panel is back in Canberra at the moment where we’ve been talking to give them more people. We spent a day in Sydney last week and a day in Melbourne, and we’re splitting up over the weekend. Two of us will be in Perth this week and the other two are going up to Cairns; and we’ll be talking to people in both those locations too. We obviously don’t have time to see everybody around such a big country, but we wanted to make sure we had two of us up in Cairns and two in Perth and that accounts for this coming week.”

The exploratory work has already helped the Panel identify and classify issues that will help them sharpen their focuses and their priorities.

“Rather than continuing what we’ve been doing with the more general stakeholder meetings, talking about a whole range of things and getting their inputs on all the terms of reference, we’re now starting to concentrate on particular issues. The way we structured those interviews this last week, we spoke to specific people about their issues and to others about their submissions. We’re obviously not going to get to all 260 people who made submissions, but if there’s a particular matter to run down, like pilot medicals for example, then we’ll go and talk specifically to individuals who’ve made submissions, or who are in the business, or have spoken to us about those issues.

“We’re very happy with progress so far. We think all of the issues are on the table now and we don’t think there’ll be too many new matters. The sort of comment we getting from both talking to people and from their submissions when we meet with them, has been very, very good. I didn’t really expect anything else, but I think my UK and Canadian colleagues are both quite impressed by how articulate participants have been, and also how reasonable they’ve been. I do understand that they can get upset about things but they’re not being overly emotional about it, they’re quite factual and clinical, and a lot of them are making really good suggestions as to how things might be done well, so thus far we’ve been very impressed, and it’s been great.”

The Panel expects to be briefing Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss regularly between now and May, and to deliver its draft report in early May; and members are confident that target can be met, says Mr Forsyth.

“We haven’t reached any final conclusions about anything at this point, but obviously we’ve got some ideas. We’ll be briefing the Minister sometime this week and indicating a few things that we’re starting to consider more deeply, and I’m sure we’ll get some comments back. We’ll continue to poke and prod while talking further to industry about their thinking, as well of course as talking to people in government about the same things. So altogether I’m quite happy with progress at this stage.”

With the government response to the Senate committee’s ATSB/CASA investigation report due to be tabled this week, the ASRR Panel is also working closely with the committee and in particular with Senators David Fawcett and Nick Xenophon:

“The whole panel met with them last December when they were first here. We’re meeting with a couple of the Senators again this coming week, and we’ve certainly set up meetings with Senators Fawcett and Xenophon. While my overseas colleagues were back home over Christmas, January and half of February, I and Panel secretary Richard Farmer went around and continued to talk to industry, mostly on specific subjects, continued to ask questions of CASA and the Department and other agencies, and to get answers to questions the other panelists had asked. I’m not saying it’s easy but I’m happy with what’s been achieved in the gathering of preliminary information.”

While he’s obviously unable to talk about specific issues at this point, Mr Forsyth observes:

“This industry rarely agrees on anything but they’re certainly agreed on a couple of things this time which is good. Some of the issues of course are sort of ‘low-hanging fruit,’ and there are some things that we’ll be able to reach a conclusion on quicker than others. Those are much easier to deal with than the ones where the industry isn’t in accord but on most other issues it has a reasonably consistent view.

“One of the hardest things to deal with is the regulatory reform program, because although the industry is almost unanimous that it’s a dog’s breakfast, they’re not united on what the solution is, and that makes it the main area where there are significantly different views across the industry. They are not agreed on the solution to the regulatory reform program and there are quite a range of differences of opinion. Some like the New Zealand model, some favour the US FARs, some people like the EASA, some people say we should just live with what we’ve got. Some say the whole thing should be chucked out and rewritten, and some think it only requires a very small amount of work. So there are a whole range of views on regulatory reform as I’m sure you’d expect.”

With over 260 contributors of submissions and the hundreds or thousands of industry players directly involved to various degrees, it’s obviously impractical to circulate a draft report to all stakeholders, and Mr Forsyth doesn’t see that happening:

“As far as I know the way the system is going to work is that we’ll talk with the Minister about the draft report and see if there’s anything we’ve missed that he wants us to look at, and give us the resources to do that if we need to. But failing that, we’ll then give him the final report and where it goes after that is up to the Minister. But so far we’re happy with the way we are progressing.

“I think the Minister is being kept well informed and obviously wants do something. I also think it can be fixed. It’s been encouraging, and it seems it just requires a bit of common sense on everybody’s part to work through all the issues. But as you know, it’s become a bit unpleasant out there both for industry and for the government, and usually those relationships can be repaired if you work hard at them.

“So let’s hope we can make some suggestions that will help with that. A lot of people are pinning a lot of hope on the process, and the weight of their expectations is huge!”
Oh dear miniscule what have you unleashed?? :{

dubbleyew eight
2nd Mar 2014, 08:35
it is as well to see that many pilots see CASA in this light....

https://www.peaceproject.com/sites/default/files/LS22_TheLimitsOfTyrantsAreProscribedByTheEnduranceOfThoseThe yOppress.jpg

seems a lot of australians are running out of patience for the smoke and mirrors nonsense of safety as a religion divorced from reality.

Frank Arouet
3rd Mar 2014, 00:17
I still have my doubts the minister is being 'well informed' as opposed to 'informed'. If the CASA Board report what could be 'doctored' information, then they should be cognizant of what happened at the Nuremberg Trials when they tried it on with the 'I was only acting under orders' excuse, (or in this case ignorant of the real story). This probably relates to Creampuffs question on Generals orders to shooting GG's and other identities.

Paragraph377
3rd Mar 2014, 06:08
Naughty Creampuff, you've been to this school as well?
Robert Armstrong, secretary of the British cabinet, famously called it being ''economical with the truth''. It's a technique of volunteering no information, answering questions literally, and playing a completely dead bat. Confirming only facts already known. Conscious use of ambiguous phrases such as ''as far as I know'' or ''to my knowledge'' that can equally imply inquiry or lack of it.
It's about deceiving without lying, misleading, answering questions not asked, and failing to answer questions which are. It's playing the smart-arse. Making sure that nothing one says could be a springboard for criticism for what has occurred. When not ''cover-up'', which it often is, it's about ''providing cover''.
Almost all politicians are actually trained in the above mentioned skill by consultants specializing in this field. The government picks up the tab and it is expensive. Most of you would already know that, but for some of our junior Pprune folk they may not be aware of this. Bill Clinton would be one of the most skilled individuals you could ever study in this arena. He is brilliant at the art of bullshit. Robert Macnamara was also a master of poker faced non incriminating non yes/no answers, and NZ's Robert Muldoon (whom I despise) was also a fluent bullshit artist. So don't be fooled friends, if you have been watching the Senate fun you will have noticed plenty of this mischief. Unfortunately it is extremely hard work and takes a lot of concentration, so normally the 'bullshitters' body language will tell a different story, normally the truth. It's all fun to those who enjoy human factors and behavioural analysis techniques.
I pulled a similar stunt on a Regulator many moons ago, played them at their own game and made sure I didn't answer one single question with a yes/no. I would recommend that all folks study the technique and apply it for yourself. Never give a yes/no answer, just look at the bureaucrats, there is a good reason why they do what they do. MrDak does it pretty well and so does Truss, the Skull is mediocre as he can't control emotion, the Beaker is plain useless and couldn't bullshit his way through a cover up story about broken school desks, and Hoody is good at lip service (so to speak) when required, but he usually plays a straight bat (again, so to speak) hence the reason people generally like and listen to him, he keeps bullshit to a minimum.

Anyway, the WLR has placed a few nuggets out there for the IOS to consume. My take thus far, from their wording of matters, is that they agree that there are major problems, they agree that some things can be fixed in a short period of time (hint hint the disposal of the Skull and Beaker) and they acknowledge the powers to be ( government) have little control of matters (that's where a recommendation for David Fawcett as a junior aviation minister may come about). I think this review, although structured and obviously an attempt to appease the growing numbers of verbal critics, has backfired and the airing of so much dirty laundry certainly should have the Miniscule and the PM's attention, and if not then perhaps a visit by ICAO and the FAA, plus a subsequent downgrade of Australia's safety rating will wake these clowns up from their hibernation?

Kharon
3rd Mar 2014, 19:39
It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action.

Last time this miniscule had the chance to fix things, he rolled off the top. Then Albo and McComic waded in. Now with a hearty Hi Ho Silver, a wet lettuce review, seriously compromised ToR and a 'no foul' - all good mates approach, he expects the past is going to disappear with a band aid, cup of tea and some nice little platitudes.. Bollocks.

"The industry can't make up it's mind which regulation set it wants"; nonsense. "It may be ours only need a tweak or two; perhaps things are no too bad". Bollocks, wishful thinking and a handy escape route for the miniscule's withdrawal from conflict. Someone should tell the miniscule, the FAA/ICAO etc. know a hell of a lot more about the situation than he and his pals do; moreover, not only do they know the whole truth, they are not, even remotely scared of it. The big dogs are eying his bone and without true commitment, interest and attention he's going to have it pinched. What price Qantas then??

The legacy of damage McComic and his minions have imposed on the industry cannot and must not be swept under the carpet of political expediency. Thinking that by allowing McComic to slip away into the sunset, without a being glove laid on the bum, is a fix; is not only a travesty, but a fantasy. The creatures McComic encouraged and fostered remain; the malpractice system he created remains, the stench of corrupt evidence, subterfuge, colossal ignorance and massive arrogance cannot be that easily removed. Not by a quick wipe around with a wet lettuce leaf, not again. Been there, done that. Try to attract investors to industry if you seriously want to quantify the damage.

Miniscule Truss may feel well pleased with his band aid, he may, with luck, even placate an industry which will swallow just about anything, just for a little peace, harmony and the opportunity to resume normal operations; but I think it's too little, too late.

It's been said that David Forsyth is a honest man, intelligent and becoming increasingly alarmed at the blatant depravity being reported to the WLP. He and his colleagues probably even have the integrity to accurately report all this to Truss. It's no skin off for them to do exactly that. It's even possible they may 'strongly recommend' an independent, judicial inquiry through the Senate to examine the myriad of serious complaints against CASA officers, the blatant manipulation of the AAT system, the gross embuggerance of the ICC, the desperate need for ATSB independence and a Junior minister to oversight the whole shooting match. Tea and scandal with the miniscule tut-tutting away and shaking his head is one thing, getting Truss to take direct, positive action is quite another.

Truss has let the industry down, very badly in the past. If he can't find the bottle to deal with the situation he partly created, then he must find the personal courage through conscience to appoint someone who can; that is not a lot to ask. Now is it?

Perhaps Fawcett may not want to take the job on, but he could help; Xenophon may just be too busy to take on the task, who knows. There are other, talented, honest people who could, for a relatively small impost, just get it all done, properly, once and for all. No need to get the miniscule hands dirty, just hire a hit man. How's about it miniscule: will you man up and deal with the unpleasant truth your review dog has dragged home; or will you, yet again slide behind the cosy, air-conditioned barricades erected for your protection by those mandarins who happily led you so far up the garden path last iteration?

Selah.

Paragraph377
3rd Mar 2014, 20:25
As has been revealed, Miniscule Truss has opted for the urgent 'bury and hide' approach combined with 'sweep it under the carpet' in regards to the WLR (Link below for those who haven't yet read about the Miniscules despicable action)

Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/02/australia-suppresses-criticism-of-its-aviation-safety-body/)

My questions are these;
- As an aviation industry which revolves around 'safety', are we really expected to sit back and have the results of an urgent and important review of dangerous issues covered up by being locked away in a Can'tberra vault?

- Why aren't the more mainstream media such as 4 Corners or 60 Minutes grabbing hold of this blatant attempt to cover up the truth and running a very big story about it?

- Why aren't ICAO and/or the FAA jumping on the first available flight and heading down under to see what the hell is going on?

- Why aren't the independent political parties using this issue to their advantage by using parliamentary privilege and their media 'friends' to go for the Governments jugular?

As a thought, it's time to find a different way to skin the cat. So the Miniscule decides to bury the submissions that paint his portfolio and subsequent departments in a bad light, why can't we encourage all those submitters to also send their submissions to somewhere such as Pro Aviation or Crikey where they can be publicly posted? Or perhaps they can be sent to PAIN who can then post them on Pprune, on a new thread? Those more legally minded may have some thoughts or ideas as to the legitimacy of doing this?

Sarcs
4th Mar 2014, 01:29
PAIN:We have had many requests from overseas parties to provide a single point access to the submissions made. Unable to satisfy all requests, we have endeavoured to provide those submissions published through group web sites. For those wishing to have a submission made available, there is a simple solution.Good initiative PAIN, maybe PP (ProAviation) or Ben (Planetalking) could be persuaded to publish and update submissions as they come in…:rolleyes:

On the subject of publicly available submissions I stumbled across the AMROBA submission: AMROBA ASRR Submission (http://amroba.org.au/images/regulatory_news/Aviation%20Review%20Submission%20-%202013.pdf)

Although it doesn’t hold back, the AMROBA submission is not quite as heavy hitting (& laced with obvious anger) that we saw with the AerialAg submission. The 30 odd page AMROBA contribution provides an excellent historical context, is well balanced and directly addresses the ToRs while providing well thought out solutions/recommendations for the WLRP to consider. Also like the AAAA sub, the AMROBA sub is not solely addressing their main area of concern (Aircraft maintenance & overhaul) but takes a top down view of the whole industry….:DExecutive Summary

Aviation has been in a state of change ever since government created, in 1988, a separate aviation safety regulator to operate on economic principles and the creation of an independent air accident bureau. This followed a 1987 Parliamentary Report on aviation safety regulation and sport aviation safety. Twenty five years on and there is still no final legislative system meeting global standards?

The international and national allocation of responsibilities for safety of the safety regulator, air accident bureau and industry, are obviously still not clarified in the legislative system that is being imposed.

The ‘objectives’ of multiple aviation reviews, post 1988, that the aviation industry has been subject to, have never achieved clarity of purpose, and never will, until the Civil Aviation Act is part of what must be reviewed. Bench-marking the legislative structure against other mature aviation countries, then amending accordingly to implement an effective aviation system applicable to the complexities of Australia’s aviation activities and also compliant with the applicable Articles of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, must be done.

The Act must enable governments to make Parliamentary Regulations directing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to promulgate [civil] aviation safety standards (CASS); standards developed by adaptingand/or creating global [civil] aviation safety standards.

The promulgation of CASSs must be the responsibility of CASA but the Act must also require those CASSs to be adapted fromthe Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, comparable with North America and European Aviation Regulators’ promulgated safety standards (Regulations/Standards) with minimal differences with our closest trading countries, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

Until the Civil Aviation Act has an objective that will see the development of aviation safety requirements to support a safe and sustainable aviation industry, there will not be overall growth in a safe and sustainable air transport system for all. The current ‘Main Object’ of the Act works against safe growth in some sectors.

Aviation safety is based on continual review of past decisions, recognising which decisions have had positive effects and which decisions have had negative effects.

The regulatory reform has been continual since 1989 and industry has had to continually change their business model. The problem is today, the change process itself introduces risk elements to safety. Many participants in this industry have only known an industry undergoing regulatory change and this continual change imposes confusion, a regulatory imposed risk that has to be managed.

Rewriting the Civil Aviation Act and a three-tier system will enable the regulatory reform process to be completed within 3 years.
The AMROBA submission is definitely worth reading and cogitating over…:D..well done Ken & Co…:ok:

Addendum - Dick's letter to the miniscule (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/dick_smith_flyer_-_140228_ds_ltr_minister_warren_truss_re_amending_the_civil_a viation_act_to_include_participation_levels_in_aviation.pdf) kind of follows the rationale of parts of the AMROBA submission..:rolleyes:Dear Minister

Legislation Where Compliance is Not Possible


I notice in your speech in Parliament on 14 November 2013 introducing the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review, you stated:

“Safety will always remain the Government’s highest priority in aviation policy. That will never change.”

This, of course, reflects the current Civil Aviation Act 1988 which says, in relation to CASA,

9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Minister, this makes it absolutely clear that safety is a more important consideration than other considerations, such as cost and participation levels.

While you make such statements in Parliament and while the Act remains as it is, it is quite clear that CASA staff must put a one-way ratchet on the rule re-write, increasing “safety” and resultant costs at all times and not considering whether the extra costs will affect the number of people who can actually afford to buy an air ticket or to charter or own an aircraft.

Over the last five years I have asked people at CASA why they are writing regulations which are more onerous and add to costs and their answer is quite simple: “Dick, there is nothing in the Act that says we should look at cost. Quite the contrary – we have to put the safety of air navigation in front of any cost or participation level considerations”.


Minister, I also note you have been telling people we can make savings by removing “red tape”. The problem is that the cost of red tape is such a minute part of the costs in aviation that removing it will most likely have no measureable effect and, on some occasions, the red tape actually adds to safety in a small way. So under the Act it would not be able to be removed.

Indeed, if the Act is followed as it has to be and safety is given prominence over other considerations, such as the cost of complying with the regulation and therefore the cost of air tickets, then participation levels will drop. That is indeed happening in the general aviation industry and if we are not careful the same thing will happen in air passenger operations as our costs climb higher and higher as CASA follows 9A.

The result will be that fewer Australians will be able to benefit from the higher safety levels that travel by air provides.

Minister, it is absolutely imperative that you “bite the bullet” and change the Act so it reflects what has to happen in reality.

Could I suggest that Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act be amended as follows:

9A Performance of functions

(2) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation and participation levels in aviation as the most important considerations.

I realise, of course, that your advisers from the Department will tell you that the Australian public is pretty stupid and will not accept such a change in the legislation. In fact, your advisers would be quite wrong as all sensible Australians understand that in aviation safety there must always be a balance between the amount of money spent in safety compliance and the ability of the beneficiary to pay these costs.

The way things are presently going could result in a situation where the only person able to afford to participate in our industry will be James Packer.

Yours faithfully

Dick Smith If you wish to join in the debate (and it is a good one) you can go to Dick's new thread HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/535245-casa-legislation-must-fixed-first.html#post8351213)

Kharon
5th Mar 2014, 19:11
It's becoming transparently obvious Truss and the mandarins are treating the WLR as per plan A. The notion that a review, neatly managed would meet his pre election promises and satisfy industry is being skilfully presented. The denial of parliamentary privilege, loose security and the despicable use of those reasons to deny public access to those submissions made available for publication is a disgrace, equal to anything Albo pulled out of the dirty tricks bag.

The public, peers and media have a right to know just how truly dreadful things have become. To continue the deception only to have it revealed at a later date will reflect badly. Imagine ICAO strolling in and declaring Australia to be the same as India i.e. not a fit and proper country. Blimey, the irony and the fall out: I can see the headlines; Minister hides essential safety information, Minister responsible for downgrade. Of course, the clever money is against this happening, but the odds are shortening with every weasel worded platitude and non event.

Sarcs published Nick Xenophon speaking – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-90.html#post8352963)- yesterday in the Senate; couple of things concerned me, although I must admit to not completely understanding how the game is played, and probably have got the tiger by the tail, again:

(a) The place was empty: you would expect a bunch of nanny state, budget conscious politicians to be righteously concerned with aviation safety and the associated cost. But you could have shot a gun in the chamber and hit sweet FA.

(b) Are the dynamic duo signing off on the entire matter?, there was nothing in the Xenophon speech which gave the impression of continuing commitment or ongoing involvement. Much like the WLR panel and the CTSB, they have honestly done what they can. The powers that be have the information, time to knock off and let the miniscule deal with the mess. In fairness, there is little else they can do.

So, it's back to the miniscule's office and his minders, here we find a couple or three special interest groups camped in the foyer, all needing their arses covered from incoming munitions. We know there is a severe shortage of backbone, we know the special interest groups have real influence and we have previously seen the demise of industry best effort in the hands of this miniscule.

Before placing a bet a wise punter must not only pick a fancy, but must be aware of the competition. In the "CYA" stakes, the CASA board will be tough to beat and at short odds; the mandarins entry must be the short price favourite; the Barnaby entry looks like a serious threat to Truss entry, the lame ATSB nag (rescued from the knackers) is at better odds than it deserves. With the Senate runners scratched, the industry entry must be at very, very long odds to finish the course. The industry entry has been beaten, flogged and starved for years, fed on whatever it could scavenge from a poor paddock.

Truss has drawn a good box for the start, will he use it, or is the fix in? It won't much matter to him during this life; but, before entering the next, he must first deal with Ammit.

From Wiki - Ammit lived near the scales of justice in Duat, the Egyptian underworld. In the Hall of Two Truths, Anubis weighed the heart of a person against the feather of Ma'at, the goddess of truth, which was depicted as an ostrich feather (the feather was often pictured in Ma'at's headdress). If the heart was judged to be not pure, Ammit would devour it, and the person undergoing judgement was not allowed to continue their voyage towards Osiris and immortality. Once Ammit swallowed the heart, the soul was believed to become restless forever; this was called "to die a second time". Ammit was also sometimes said to stand by a lake of fire. In some traditions, the unworthy hearts were cast into the fiery lake to be destroyed. Some scholars believe Ammit and the lake represent the same concept of destruction. Ammit was not worshipped; instead she embodied all that the Egyptians feared, threatening to bind them to eternal restlessness if they did not follow the principle of Ma'at.

Aye well: fetch the porridge Minnie; at least breakfast is a sure bet. Peace, quiet, the dogs and a second coffee. I'm all right Jack.

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 00:48
Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!

Frank Arouet
6th Mar 2014, 03:38
Any rumors as to the names of those to fill the new positions?

thorn bird
6th Mar 2014, 03:47
Well they definitely won't be labour supporters!!!

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 03:56
See if you can pick who and when:Govt clips the wings of air safety body

The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.

The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The Transport Minister [Tweedle Dumb] says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.

The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.

Mr [Dumb] says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.

"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.

Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.

Accountability

The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.

Laborial transport spokesman, [Tweedle Dumber], says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.

"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.

Sunfish
6th Mar 2014, 04:32
New Board members for CASA? Why of course! Alan Joyce and Olivia Wirth...

dubbleyew eight
6th Mar 2014, 04:51
this outcome is deplorable.
McCormic's comment that no matter what the new rules will remain seems to have come to pass.
stupid incompetent politicians.

back in the 70's the air was the same and the aeroplanes were the same.
we were congratulated for years of safe aviation.
people occasionally came to grief but weather and granite can be unforgiving and we all understood that.

nowadays we still fly without incident but the regulator can't stand us ignoring their dribble and seek to grind our noses in it.
dare we do what is safe and ignore them we are all criminals.

what utter bloody nonsense all this new environment is.

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 06:21
Gold Star UITR! :D

See if you can pick who and when:The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.

VR-HFX
6th Mar 2014, 06:36
Eight is a bard's delight.

To start the ball rolling on a database of malapropisms...

abrogate, alleviate, date (as in the anatomical location e.g. the eight's date of appointment), debate, defecate, deflate, delineate, discombobulate, illiterate, inarticulate, inappropriate, levitate, obfuscate, permeate, prostate, prostrate, regurgitate, relegate, resuscitate, sate, wait ...there must be more in the MEL.

So rotate ye bards:}

halfmanhalfbiscuit
6th Mar 2014, 06:51
Quote:
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.

Creamie, I reads very close to the one put out prior to McCormick joining? But could be an earlier one. Establish a board, de establish , re establish etc.

Sarcs
6th Mar 2014, 08:09
From HoR Hansard for Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fa9f05bc4-7c90-43df-aef9-8700be3bdda7%2F0052;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fa9f05 bc4-7c90-43df-aef9-8700be3bdda7%2F0000%22): Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (12:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities—and our cities to the world.

The increased diversity of the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system—any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates.

Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)—Australia's aviation safety regulator.

CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator—a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.

The CASA board, in its current form, was established in July 2009 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be adopted by CASA. The board is also responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, complying with directions given by the minister.

The CASA board currently consists of the Director of Aviation Safety (who is also the Chief Executive Officer of CASA), as an ex-officio member, and up to four board members (including the chair and deputy chair).

The Coalition's Policy for Aviation, released in August 2013, outlined a number of commitments to enhance and strengthen aviation.

The government has since established an external aviation safety regulation review, which is being undertaken by a panel of leading aviation experts.

The review is well underway, with the review panel examining the suitability of Australia's aviation safety related regulations and the outcomes and direction of CASA's regulatory reform process.

The panel is also examining the structures, effectiveness and processes of CASA with a view to ensuring that best practice in aviation safety is maintained. The panel has received around 250 submissions from interested parties across the aviation industry. The review panel is expected to report to the government by the end of May 2014.

The Coalition's Policy for Aviation also outlined our commitment to improve CASA's structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation's abilities to function as Australia's aviation safety regulator.

To deliver on this commitment the government intends to appoint two additional members to the CASA board.

At least two of the board members will be required to have technical and/or operational aviation experience to strengthen the board's aviation knowledge, skills and practical experience. The expanded board will be well-placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction—which the government will issue, as allowed for under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act, after the government has considered the review panel's final report.

Establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation will enhance CASA's capability to respond as Australia's aviation safety regulator. Through the introduction of a new strategic direction, the government plans to reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but will also set out the leadership role of the board in implementing the strategic direction of CASA.

Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that implements this commitment to take decisive action to strengthen the nation's aviation safety agency and their oversight of the aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill will allow the government to fulfil undertakings, made in the coalition's policy for aviation, to have important enhancements to safety governance in place from 1 July 2014.

The bill will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the size of the board by two members. The appointment of two additional members will increase the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board, which will better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation.

The bill improves the capacity and effectiveness of CASA to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse aviation industry. CASA must have the right structure, resources and legal framework to regulate the civil aviation industry to enhance the safety of the travelling public, industry participants and the wider community.

The provisions of the bill will provide for the CASA board to be comprised of six members appointed by the minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member, that is, seven members in total.

The board will play an important role monitoring CASA's effectiveness and accountability across the authority's range of functions and will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, allowing for meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders.

Importantly, the enhanced board will be in place to implement CASA's new strategic direction.

Enhancing the CASA board is one important step in ensuring we continue to foster an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is proportionate to risks and delivers the highest level of safety—a level of regulation that does not unreasonably restrict innovation and growth in the industry.

It is vital that government and industry share the responsibility for addressing these challenges.

The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety—we are taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry.

Debate adjourned.
Which, if you remember, is what was promised in the Coalition’s pre-election aviation policy...

"...b. CASA board
CASA’s board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established again.

While boards in other agencies have been successful in setting and implementing the strategic direction of their agency, CASA’s board structure has been the subject of criticism.

The Coalition will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the board from four to six members, including some with aviation skills and experience.

This expansion will increase the breadth of knowledge and experience on the CASA board and better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation..."

Interesting that after question time in the Senate on Tuesday, proceedings went to the TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS debate, the subject matter being (of course) Qantas. Senator Fawcett made a contribution to that debate, where he said: That is why I welcome the coalition's promise of reforming the CASA board. We see that the coalition will be increasing the size of board to bring skills of aviation engineering and operations onto that board. We also see reform of the regulatory sector, which is undergoing an inquiry right now. Which is a slight expansion on the original pre-election promise and it would appear that this is one promise that the miniscule will adhere to...:rolleyes:

Here is the video cut of the complete DF statement, which is interesting in itself..:ok::[YOUTUBE]Senator Fawcett Carbon Tax & Aviation 04/03/14 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/ELfWXHv--GM)

Prince Niccolo M
6th Mar 2014, 11:06
so Forsyth gets the engineering slot, who gets the operations slot? :ooh:


the Skull, perhaps??? :E :E :E

Paragraph377
6th Mar 2014, 11:54
Board positions did I hear you say??
All open slots will go to people with Coalition heritage, or in the very least have loyally served their masters in some capacity over the years.
This entire episode will be a circus act. Current Board members will already have slots lined up back in Can'tberra somewhere as nobody in bureaucracy comes out as a loser.
Truss's announcement is soft, a slap with Creampuffs wet lettuce. Expand the seats at the trough x 2, bring in another DAS 'yes man'. Add to this the Dolan trio of Commissioners over at the other alphabet soup organisation, they will also go, then you will have some robust debate that will take place over the following 18 months about which set of aviation rules to adapt and hey presto it's election time again! It's all tautological, a merry-go-round, Groundhog Day.

For any credibility to shine out of all this we would have to see Fawcett appointed as junior minister for aviation, somebody like Mike Smith brought in as CASA DAS, MrDak removed, no Skull affiliation with the new Board and ALL existing CASA Board members wiped along with the 'other' two DAS members that make up the trio. The LSD would need to be replaced and here is a thought - Accountability introduced into the CASA framework. And finally, a Royal Commission, which actually has teeth, formed to investigate the allegations of systemic malfeasance and corporate abuse towards individuals inside and outside of CASA, and an investigation of the $250 million 25 year sinkhole called Regulatory reform. Add to this the need for scrutiny over the Pel Air and Lockhart crashes which remain unresolved from which justice has to be sought for those families and friends of the deceased or injured in these accidents. Then the IOS may be mildly convinced that changes, real changes, are afoot.

Kharon
6th Mar 2014, 19:05
There seem to be more positive features in yesterday's back and forth than negatives; I believe a small round of polite applause may be given. With perhaps a small bravo thrown in for the debate between – Fawcett (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0119;query=Id:%22chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0000%22) – and - Xenophon (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0117;query=Id:%22chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0000%22) – on the CAO 48 matter. DF essentially agrees with the wide concept of change and industry involvement but feels that while 48 is not perfect; it is an improvement. NX presents an equally compelling argument that 48 is 'bad' law and CASA need to go away and do their homework. The real win (IMO) is that two Senators feel secure enough to take a different stance, present lucid, intelligent argument, for and against the disallowance, without any other issues at heart, bar aviation improvement. It's most refreshing to find a subject like pilot fatigue being debated, both sides of the coin articulated and the chance to reach a rational conclusion, a real bonus. The NOES had it; (that's democracy) but well done Senators, VIPA, AIPA and others who assisted to bring the subject to debate . The notion that industry may have a voice is appealing; 48 may have been the subject but it has opened several previously closed doors. Bravo.

Like 377, I too am bored with the board; I fail to see how two additional members can achieve any more than a two or three 'man' board could, if indeed we need a board. It is of concern that Truss has elected to continue with the existing crew. Until it is made clear that the current board has not been compromised in any way, it could consider stepping aside. At least until the inevitable investigation of CASA is complete and the board is exonerated, beyond reasonable doubt. The departure of McComic is insignificant, the acts which have been committed in the name of the 'air safety' remain firmly attached. If the board was not made fully aware, then perhaps an excuse exists; but I doubt the CAC act is as forgiving as we may be. Even with Truss madly gilding the Lilly, it is hard to see how industry can have faith, considering the carnage, rapine and embuggerance left behind. Only my opinion of course, but I do believe the board has been compromised: if so, it is most certainly unintentional; probably in all innocence and undoubtedly in good faith, but...there is a spectral elephant parked next to the pot plant in the boardroom. Any board needs clear air to work in, credibility and our trust if it is to be effective. The Quadrio and Canely Vale matters, standing alone beg some very serious questions. The Forsyth nomination?, we shall see in May.

The whiff of a Dolan long overdue departure is in the air though, ain't it? Been tossing some ideas around (as you do, over a beer); ATSB should be easier to sort out than CASA (no board). I note CJ brings the inestimable Mike Smith to the CASA debate, but when ATSB is mentioned, the name Rob Graham gets some serious consideration. Consensus is that if he could be persuaded to take on a short term, say a twelve month, gig to clean up the Beaker'ised agency, normal service would soon be restored. Can you imagine having a non CASA'ised report on an accident like Canely Vale. Oh, be still my beating heart.

On balance, I'd say the IOS had a good day, yesterday. Not perfect, but considering the barriers and vested interests in play; not too shabby at all. Ye Gods, I hate politics; wish they'd get a bloody wriggle on. Whoop it up 'em Shags, they're not our engines.

Toot-toot.

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 19:26
The experiment with the Board has already been run and the results are already in: With or without; big or small; aviation appointees or not – not a schmick of difference.

The Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act to expand the size of the Board is a perfect opportunity for the Senate to introduce amendments to implement the recommendations of its own Committee’s air accident investigation report. The Laborial Senators have the power to force those amendments.

Talk from Fawcett and his Laborial colleagues is cheap, Kharon. It’s how they use their Senate vote that counts. (What’s that old saying about judging people by what they do, not what they say …)

You watch: There’ll be lots of high sounding rhetoric about safety, but all that will come out of the Senate is a Bill for two more slots on the CASA Board.

That’s why CASA and ATSB called the Senate Committee’s bluff. They know the Laborial Senators are all talk and no action (unless it’s politically expedient).

Kharon
6th Mar 2014, 20:00
Cheers Creamy; and I must agree, up to a point. While not running out the bunting or dancing in the street, it did cheer me a little to see that the Senators are not following the trail of breadcrumbs to the changing rooms. I have very little faith and less time for Polly's, no matter what flavour or colour; but I can and do have an as yet untarnished faith in Fawcett, Xenophon and a couple of others on the inquiry committee. What they can still achieve will, as you quite rightly say, be seen. If it all turns to worms, then industry must accept a fair portion of blame. You all know the rest of that tune. All up, CASA and ATSB may well have won a small, insignificant battle, but look at what they have exposed to scrutiny. Even the longest journey starts with one small step. I'll hang in there for while yet. Peace in our time ?– Bollocks, not on my houseboat.

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun

Richard III: courtesy of Mr. Shakespeare.

Paragraph377
6th Mar 2014, 20:08
Kharon, post#542, think you have me confused with CJ. Thanks for the compliment though. I think :8

Sarcs
6th Mar 2014, 21:17
While we're on Will...:rolleyes:

“Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power
to account?—Yet who would have thought the old
man to have had so much blood in him?”

It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)...:E

For those interested here are the poohtube segments from Nick's DM CAO 48.1 debate yesterday:

[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part One - YouTube
[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Two - YouTube
[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Three - YouTube
[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Four - YouTube
Hmm big contribution from the opposition's side of the fence..:ugh::yuk:

Sarcs..:ok:

Kharon
7th Mar 2014, 18:41
Queen's Pawn Countergambit (Elephant Gambit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_Gambit), Maroczy Gambit) – C40 – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5

Sarcs #546 –"It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)

Thanks Sarcs - The 30 odd minutes of 'video' provided are interesting. Of course it depends on your point of view, but for mine, despite the opposing votes, both men between them essentially set out their vision for the future. If you compare the agreed points and neatly dovetailed argument, there is only one point of dissent and that was the 48 furphy. By debating the disallowance almost everything wrong within the aviation world was brought out and placed on record, which is (IMO) exactly what 'the boys' wanted. The cost of this pyrrhic CASA win was high, the whole sad saga dragged into the light; Dolan discredited and the Sleepy Hollow dirty laundry dumped in the street. Even the dubious, inutile Chamber pot missive was, once again, used as a stick to beat the hapless McComic. Everyone knows why that report was written; but the Senators gleefully continue to use it as the weapon of choice; bit unfortunate that, ain't it?

Truss may well have the Senators limited in what they can achieve; after all the miniscule has all the juice; but, that's where the buck stops. With Barnaby patting the miniscule back (to find a nice soft spot), Qantas and the rest all over his front, the opposition flanking; will he hazard his Queen to protect his Bishop?; course not. He may need to sacrifice Pawns even a Rook; his position is tenuous and Knights are regularly slaughtered to protect a King.

The Senators ranging shots have the miniscule neatly in the crosshairs and they still have at least three rounds of ordnance left to use; (i) the Pel Air response and all that entails; (ii) the CTSB report on our moribund ATSB, (iii) the WLR. Add to that CASA is on notice that unless industry is 'satisfied', each new piece of legislation can and will be challenged by the Senators. Bravo.

The question; is the miniscule part of the master plan?. He can't just pitch up and sack CASA, day one in office. If he is on the IOS team first he must be able to prove the case and win the appeal before the execution. The Senators have set this up beautifully for him; IF the WLR can establish 'facts and circumstances', presenting the miniscule with lots of wriggle room, buttons to push and levers to pull (it appears the Reverend Forsyth is doing just that); then, maybe, with a big push from behind, some of the less desirable acts committed under the smoke of safety mystique and the mirror of disinformation will be curtailed. No matter what, the clock is ticking and it is the miniscule to move next.

"We were eyeball to eyeball and I think the other guy just blinked". Dean Rusk (Cuban missile crisis).

Sarcs
9th Mar 2014, 23:43
Nick’s thought bubble on CAO 48.1 commenced with this…
Senator Xenophon on FRMS & CAO 48 1 290513 - YouTube
From which a QON was received from NX…

“…Senator Xenophon asked:
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.

Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.

Mr Boyd: Indeed.

Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?

Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.

Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.

Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.

Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?

Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?

Mr Boyd: Absolutely….”

Which was finally answered like this…
“….Answer:
A comprehensive briefing on fatigue and risk management systems (FRMS) and issues related to Civil Aviation Order 48 (CAO 48) was provided by CASA to members of the Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on Monday 24 June and Tuesday 25 June 2013.

Ultimately CASA must be satisfied that an airline’s FRMS meets its rigorous safety requirements and CASA will monitor and audit industry compliance with their approved FRMS.

CASA has established a comprehensive implementation and awareness program to inform the aviation industry and its employees of the new rules. This program includes the use of:

• a wide ranging fatigue “question and answer” section on its website;
• a detailed fatigue booklet and implementation guide on its website;
• a fatigue risk management system handbook and process manual; and
• national face-to-face briefing sessions with industry and interested stakeholders which commenced earlier in May 2013….”

Interesting that on the very same day of the FF 1st day of briefing (24 June 2013) Nick put forward his DM on CAO 48.1, which was closely followed (2 days later) by the AIPA media brief in support of Nick’s DM:


Safety risked by flawed aviation rules that would result in fatigued pilots landing planes after 20 hours at the controls (http://www.aipa.org.au/media-room/safety-risked-flawed-aviation-rules-would-result-fatigued-pilots-landing-planes-after-20)

Then we had this revelation in DF’s contribution to the DM CAO 48.1 debate…
“….I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”
Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Three - YouTube
All those bods, behind closed doors, in one room the mind boggles..:cool:

Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1; or maybe they were otherwise engaged since then; or maybe they were happy with the general consensus (bi-partisan proposal) as stated by DF…:ooh:

“…Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1….”

However history shows that such panel’s recommendations/concerns almost always are ignored when it comes to final rule-making by Fort Fumble, so what is different with this case?? Was their perhaps a multi-party informal agreement?? If so why did NX not drop the DM?? :rolleyes:

Passing strange..:confused:..that the DM still had a number of sitting days to run and yet Nick had it brought forward for debate almost at the very same time that the miniscule was introducing the board amendment to the CAA…:oh:

The Elephant Gambit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp9UrsFviDY
It may be the miniscule has the next move but the good Senators have certainly cut down his available options :D, while effectively outing at least one elephant on the board…:E

So to the division where the AYES are perhaps more interesting than the NOES- AYES: 10 NOES: 39 (The Senate divided. [13:27] (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fb8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65%2F0121;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fb8b76 8b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65%2F0000%22))

Creamy it would appear that Senator X has already established, in aviation matters at least, a loose alliance with the Greens..:sad: Interesting times ahead come the 1st of July…:ok:

Paragraph377
10th Mar 2014, 03:13
Interesting article linked below. It took an aviation 'kick in the pants' by means of a safety downgrade for the Koreans to get things together. Perhaps Australia can learn a lesson or two from the measures that they adopted? It is very obvious that the Skull and the Beaker show has not done anything to improve Australia's safety.

http://www.isasi.org/Documents/EventsAndAlerts/ISASI%20Update%20No%206.pdf

Sarcs
11th Mar 2014, 02:57
Submission update: While we continue to wait for the miniscule to make his next move..:hmm:..there is a couple more submissions that have come to light..:D: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia - Submission to Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Sport%20Aircraft%20Association%20of%20Australia%20Minister%2 0Reply.pdf)

The SAAA submission IMO gets the IOS tick of approval..:ok:

Coupla quotes...

"...Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are supposed to work together to administer aviation in Australia. Is this effective? The answer, in our opinion, is it could be a whole lot better. It is our opinion this may be because of the lack of a functional government mandate for the management of aviation in Australia...
...Other areas of CASA appear to be suffering high staff turnover, or have staff that cannot differentiate between commercial & private operations, and/or have no-one in charge willing to make any decision for fear of repercussions from other departments. CASA is therefore unable to manage outcomes in our sector of aviation (that have been identified by us and the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as desirable safety outcomes) that are well within the capability of the SAAA to deliver...
....then had to start all over again with a new CASA staff member who has not been fully briefed. This leads to delays that are measured in years due to corporate knowledge at CASA being lost in the transition of staff. Meanwhile, CASA demands management stability of our organisation as a condition of a small amount of funding for the hard work that we do for aviation safety, but is not able to offer us the same in return..."

Interesting take on ToR 2) and the Oz SSP :ok::
a) The State Safety Program (SSP)

i) While there is a published SSP document which as of November last year is out of date due to the implementation of Annex 19.
ii) The document reads like a text book about SMS in parts but mostly it reads like a self-reflective feel good novel.
iii) The ICAO SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
iv) Such a SSP Program Document should articulate who is accountable and in the sub parts who is responsible for the component parts. The Document should state how the Program will work, what the component parts are and the overall performance goals are set and measured. It will state the role of CASA and other Departments in the overall delivery.
v) If an effective SSP existed any inter departmental ‘turf wars’ as we have witnessed in the past few years will be evident immediately and action taken to remedy the situation.
I could go on but because it is well reasoned and easily readable (14 pages) I'll let those interested do the reading..:rolleyes:

So finally to the SAAA recommendations:1) Minister intervention to force timely and correct change;

a) The SAAA requests CASA revisits the Project CS 13/01and apply some of the logic that allowed non TSO EFB in the cockpits of all the high and Low Capacity RPT aircraft in Australia.
b) Resource and direct a project to consider the application and empower the SAAA deliver the Flight Training project it initiated in 2008.
c) Resource and direct a project to consider SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to deliver trained Authorised Persons for the issue of Certificates of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft.
d) Resource and direct a project to consider S SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to issue Maintenance Authorities to members.
e) Mandate that all Amateur Built Aircraft builders and operators operate within a management stream of SAAA or a like organisation so that adequate standards are maintained and thus funds are available to deliver the proposed programs.

2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)

a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
Next was the Warbirds contribution, which was really a 'in support of' submission but does make some worthy points: Australian Warbirds - Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel (http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/uploads/Submission%20to%20the%20Aviation%20Safety%20Regulation%20Rev iew%20Panel.pdf)

"...We strongly believe that, as part of its charter, CASA should be tasked with the support and promotion of Australian aviation. This would include but not be limited to protection of the nation’s airport infrastructure from overzealous or neglectful councils and landlords, the crafting of regulations that are conducive to investment in the industry and which eliminate a large amount of the red tape that currently exists, and efforts to bolster ties and cooperation with other nations and their respective national aviation agencies. With its sole stated purpose currently being aviation safety, CASA is in a perverse way fostering an environment that is in our opinion both less safe and overly consumed with regulatory compliance masquerading as safety. As more emphasis is placed on paperwork and more compliancy requirements pile up as part of the everyday operating demands of Australia’s general aviation sector, the incentives increase on otherwise professional businesses to cut corners and/or conduct things "off the books". These requirements are also leading to a dramatic increase in costs for operations such as flight instruction with very little or no benefit...
...The current environment has deteriorated to the degree that the general aviation community on a whole has lost faith in CASA in its present form to effectively regulate. Where a clear, well-understood, and accepted foundation for regulations should exist; we instead have a disjointed and inconsistent model. As a solution, the Australian Warbirds Association feels adoption of the New Zealand regulatory model for general aviation presents the best way forward. This will not solve all the problems currently affecting Australia’s aviation sector, but it will in our opinion put us on the right track. New Zealand, in contrast to Australia, has a vibrant aviation community. We hope to see the same here.."

Again (IMO) the AWA submission gets the IOS tick of approval...:ok:

Prince Niccolo M
11th Mar 2014, 03:08
Sarcs,

You intrigued me with your take on things (dunno about elephants though), so I made some calls.

the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”

What I was told was - watch the smoke and mirrors!

The meeting was brokered by Senator Fawcett with the genuine intention of trying to negotiate an outcome that avoided the need for Disallowance. The "position" he read into Hansard was the position that he took to the meeting and it was never going to change. Albo's mob were never interested anyway and CASA were there because they were told to be. Truss wasn't there, but I gather his "position" on the subject was whatever DF advised him it would be. Importantly, neither AIPA nor Senators Xenophon and Rhiannon agreed or adopted DF's "position". CASA, led by the Skull, had no interest in the discussion other than the standard "trash the opposition" approach.

My reading of the tea leaves is that it was a meeting held so that it could be said that a meeting took place - as the Hansard now reflects, implying that it was a meeting of like-minded people genuinely trying to solve a problem. The real issue is that only AIPA,Senator Xenophon and Senator Rhiannon were trying to solve the CAO 48.1 problem - the others were trying to remove a 'machinery of Government" problem!

As for your:

Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1


I am also told that the only "quiet" that occurred was due to the election and the need to start the Disallowance sequence all over again. AIPA apparently has continued to lobby for the disallowance right up to the debate, which occurred as originally schedule. I also understand that the "out of the public eye" approach, in stark contrast to Chicken Little Joyce's megaphone bullying, has garnered lots more listeners and believers.

I suggested that it obviously didn't work, because the motion was voted down. The response was that the ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency. :sad:

For what it is worth, I was also told that "while this might have been a major battle, it isn't the end of the war" :ok:

Creampuff
11th Mar 2014, 09:09
[T]he ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.I’d suggest everyone read that passage as many times as is necessary to understand the implications, and to ask questions if necessary.

I’ll start with a Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Fawcett’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?

A second Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Xenophon’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?

My suggestion: To avoid eventually feeling like a patsie, don’t judge Senators by what they say. Judge them by how they vote. :ok:

dubbleyew eight
11th Mar 2014, 10:03
the problem is easy to see. the nutters in the government agencies are so effing cluelessly incompetent that they are totally unable to understand what needs to be done.
kick into the mix an unspoken fear of death by flying, illusions regarding terrorism and the need to be seen to be doing something (we don't know what but for christs sake do something!!!) and you have what we see.
a clueless minister
ineffective politicians
an embuggerance of a statutory authority.

it is the incompetent leading the fearful in an endless milling frenzy.

as a guy who flies an aircraft he maintains himself and has absolutely no fears from a sound understanding of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering, I must seem like a martian to these people.
we all know that martians are to be feared and need to be killed. :rolleyes:

gaunty
11th Mar 2014, 10:48
17 out of over 230 something?? = consensus, you must be a sctrutineer for the Greens:p

just saying. Now for the usual suspects.:D

Creampuff
11th Mar 2014, 11:07
You're being a little naughty, Gaunty! :=

You don't know that the content of the other 220 submissions is supportive of the output and direction of the regulatory reform program. Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.

Or do you disagree? If yes, on what basis do you disagree? :confused:

Paragraph377
11th Mar 2014, 11:22
Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.
Are the 17 submissions listed actually the first 17 out of the 220 to be submitted? If so, that would explain why only 17 have been made publicly available for scrutiny/review. The AG, AMROBA and Pro Aviation submissions were enough for the Miniscule to react in the way he did and ensure any other damning comments were put under lock and key. This would be totally in line with Liberal party tactics and the tactics of an old dog Miniscule who has been around the block a few times during his career :=
One can only imagine what is contained in the other 203 submissions, but of course Miniscule Truss, Mrdak and the assorted advisory turd polishers know exactly what the context of those reports say about Australia's aviation bodies and their Government masters :=
Somehow I think Gaunty and Creamy already understand this :=

gaunty
11th Mar 2014, 13:32
Creamy me old, who me, naughty ?:roll eyes:

I agree, my point was ONLY that the conclusions drawn by Up into the Air, are not based on a large enough sample of the total to be statistically significant.

And no I don't know the content of all of the other submissions.

I absolutely agree that in terms of regulatory reform and the regulators behaviour it has been like watching a train smash of epic proportions in super slo mo with a peripatetic in charge of the jogging control with a melange of Groundhog Day thrown in for good measure. :{

I don't believe ANY of the other like minded or culturally aligned NRA suites are fully compliant with the ICAO, nor do not, in one way or another, have maybe a similar number of oddities as does the CASA suite.

So grabbing at any of them holus bolus is not IMHO the answer and would bring more trouble than in we are already.

Difference is and its only IMHO, the other NRA's (definitely not EASA) at least share a coherent structure with a reasonably rational philosophical foundation for their being.

They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?

We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.

it is not and we are not, by any definition.

What we do have is a reasonable base from which to work. Its not perfect but we know which bits work and which do not and where to go for the missing bits. We can not nor should not throw 20 years and $250M in the bin, some of it is usable,

Its not rocket science, nor beyond the people it affects most and that is the industry who have actual real world experience.

Fox's and chickens you say? Not if it is constructed by industry people who understand that unless the result has a clear and demonstrable safety benefit, and after all thats why we have regulations, it will not work.

At the end of the day you have to have trust that good people with good will, will want to do good things. We trust our "licensed" personnel to exercise the privileges of heir "license" to do the right thing. its how its supposed to work.
We're not quite there yet but with CRM and SMS now taking firm hold with higher supervisory responsibility and an increasingly transparent economic imperative that requires this behaviour is exercised to a very high level the responsible operators are almost self saucing.:zzz:

My personal view from here is that we can take the overall numbering suite 1 thru 198 or so with Headings, work through them against what we already have use the best of the rest for what we haven't and the make them ICAO compliant and SMS based or justified, then we will have a world class system.

All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous :8 legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need.

Existing CASA staff may contribute for their individual expertise but the final result must be driven by the industry in compliance with Government policy.

The industry has some seriously competent and experienced people whom led competently can be trusted to get it right.

i think maybe there has been a sufficient flushing out of the dodgy bros operators and general maturing, that we can reset the enforcement regime to a more tolerant one by changing the mindset from offence to violation and placing the liability where it belongs.

Trust, the fundamental basis on which this industry works, must be restored.

Otherwise a certifying signature is not worth the paper its written on?:cool:

Confrontation has no place in the safety agenda under any circumstances.

This will of course require a pretty vigorous retraining and re education of a goodly number of the staff, but given the will and full Government support i reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.


Rant off.

dubbleyew eight
11th Mar 2014, 14:07
it was put to me in a conversation that the ministerial staff were absolutely afraid of some aspects of aviation.
this casa embuggerance and smoke and mirrors complexity was a deliberate government driven ploy to stifle the life out of aviation.

I'd love to know what they are actually afraid of.

do we have some cocaine snorters in the halls of power?
that would explain a lot of the senseless paranoia.

Creampuff
11th Mar 2014, 23:42
… They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?

We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.

it is not and we are not, by any definition. …The ‘air’ may be the same, but Australia’s topography and climate are not the same as other countries’. Consequently, for example, there is no safety justification for Australia to strictly comply with ICAO runway width standards that are designed to deal with ice, snow and other contaminating phenomena that are rarely, if ever, encountered at Australian airports.

Nor is Australia’s health system the same as other countries’ and (with the stark exception of CASA recently) health risk decisions in Australia are based on truly expert opinions and truly objective data. Consequently, for example, there is no safety justification for Australia to strictly comply with ICAO colour vision standards, which are merely a hangover from the purely coincidental adoption of the maritime ‘rules of the road’ and navigation aid system for aviation, over a century ago.

I started singing ‘Kumbayah’ by the end of this paragraph:All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need. …How could we have been so stupid? The solution was staring everyone in face! Just get “a panel of industry peers” to do a “review” and all will be solved. :rolleyes:[I] reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.I reckon you’re deluded.

The RRP has been 12-18 months from completion for over a decade.

CASA’s left all of the hardest bits to last. For example, if you think classification of operations rules are going to be agreed and tied in a nice plain English bow by ‘a panel of industry peers’ this side of the end of the decade, if ever, I’ve some cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for you. :ok:

Frank Arouet
12th Mar 2014, 00:01
'gaunty, me old' eh!


It's good you stick your head up every now and then to remind us all how your input helped inflict 'strict liability' upon us all. It's amazing you, of all people have the hide to even pass yourself off as some sort of expert on CASA regulatory matters, let alone pass on any unbiased opinion. I also vaguely recall creampuff being some sort of 'strict liability' advocate at the time.


It may be of interest to you, gaunty, that your efforts will be mentioned in dispatches in the upcoming Attorney Generals Inquiry, as that piece of bad historical legal bastardry fits well within the terms of reference.


11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Fourth%20quarter/11December2013-NewAustralianLawReformInquiryToFocusOnFreedoms.aspx)


Unfortunately you will have to wait for those submissions to be published and hope there is no 'privilege'. As my submission will be but one of many based on fact it will be interesting to see the fallout.


The Truss 'review' may well account for some slaps with a wet shoelace and some upper and mid level bureaucrats getting a DCM with bar, but it could well lay the foundations to challenge 'strict liability' offences as illegal and lay waste to everything CASA has regulated over the last decade.


It may come to pass that if that were to occur, you would have done us a great service albeit with a lot of flotsam and jetsam along the way. Whatever, there is then a real chance that we will have to adopt a form of the FAR's for immediacy of safety, as tearing up the existing Reg's will effectively ground every aircraft in Australia.


The Brandis Inquiry has more teeth than the Truss 'review'. Whatever sample you now wish to ridicule as inadequate, they will be bookends for the paperwork to come.

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 00:15
Strict liability has been and continues to be fact of life. (Do you drive at all?)

It’s just that spelling it out repeatedly in the civil aviation rules (as a consequence of the requirements of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914) has upset the bliss of ignorance.

Frank Arouet
12th Mar 2014, 01:24
Strict liability: Well, just because it's law doesn't make it a good law. Many aviation administrative actionable offences have been made criminal offences. I believe road laws, even electronic speeding devices and alcohol instruments are open to challenge in a Court of law without seeking redress from the AAT.


Things are made complicated by the application of over regulation. An example, the Hamilton Is PA-32 fatal crash where the pilot was found to have a Non-therapeutic drug indicator after a considerable time, (weeks), from ingestion. Not only are the inclusions of this finding irrelevant in the final cause determination but was the main catalyst for the now disgraced drug and alcohol testing regime now foisted upon us.


Strict liability is abused by the CASA and the Brandis inquiry is focused upon this plus other matters that have been taken to like a duck to water by the same collective of dungeon dwelling, dysentery spreading amoebae's lurking under and around the CASA umbrella.

dubbleyew eight
12th Mar 2014, 01:38
creampuff and gaunty you guys have destroyed your credibility in one post each.
congratulations.

but hey I'm a martian with a 41 year history of safe illegal aviation.
wtf would I know.

when are you people going to recognise that CASA has assembled together a mutually self supporting group of utter nutters.
all with the sincere stare, the concerned look on the face and utter nonsensical logic.
the snow job has seen $240,000,000 of taxpayers money evaporated with nothing acceptable as even the interim result.

ministers, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you were victims of a snow job.
the blatant waste of taxpayers funds must be put to a stop.

kill off the Clueless Arseholes Screwing Aviation bullshit. bring in the New Zealand FAR's and get some sense back into aviation.
the lawyers aren't the way to make aviation safe.

me maintaining my aeroplane is the only safe way to fly the damn thing. thats why I do it. why the hell would you make it illegal. haven't you got a bloody clue??

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 01:38
But Frank, Brandis is a Laborial. He’s one of the people who’ve presided over the inexorable increase in regulation of every aspect of your life. He ‘knows’ that ‘safety’ depends on ‘strong’ regulation.

Good luck! Let us know how you go. :ok:

W8 - thanks; I think ... :confused:

dubbleyew eight
12th Mar 2014, 01:51
sorry creampuff I read that post as you advocating the nonsense

I see that you merely state that it exists and give the enacting law.

you get another chance :E

Frank Arouet
12th Mar 2014, 04:10
Creampuff;


Safety depends on common sense and that can't be regulated. Senator Brandis knows that, and may well be a laborious, Liberal Party lawyer, however he knows how lawyers think. I don't, always thought they were a peculiar lot and not to be left alone with cats.


Do you consider he would call an inquiry into the whole $hitfight if he thought it was going hooters?

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 05:00
We all know why politicians call inquiries, Frank … ;)

BTW, I agree with you in principle. All of the penalties in the civil aviation rules could be changed to “Death” and it wouldn’t make a schmick of difference to the accident and incident rate.

If I recall correctly, part of Mr McCormick’s self-serving but mercifully-curtailed spray at the start of the last round of Estimates hearings included a reference to having civil penalty rather than strict liability offences in the rules. I was reminded of that song lyric: “too much; too little; too late ….

LeadSled
12th Mar 2014, 08:52
Folks,

I note the SAAA submission, the contents of which comes as no surprise for a bunch of, in my opinion, rent seakers, tryingt to, once again (there have been many attempts since 1998) for a return to the glory days of their CAA/CASA etc guaranteed income - a setup that, in my opinion, grossly impeded amateur building in Australia.

In short, in my opinion, SAAA want all the pre-1998 red tape and restrictions reintroduced, plus a few more sources of red tape revenue that didn't exist pre-1998.

The US style Experimental categories, including the Experimental Amateur Built have been a resounding success in Australia, why would we want to revert to the old, restrictive, and Oh! So Expensive red tape bureaucratic nonsense of the AABA system --- ????

There is certainly no safety justification, not even in terms of S.9A of the Act.

What SAAA is proposing, in my opinion, is a solution looking for a problem, and a guaranteed very expensive solution for amateur builders, to a problem that clearly does not exist. Any aviating is already expensive enough, without adding substantial extra costs.

The real problem for SAAA, in my opinion, was that they lost a significant regulated revenue source in 1998, and have been trying to get it back ever since.

Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 10:50
And there you have it, gaunty.

Any ‘panel of industry peers’ would be at each other’s throats before morning tea on the first day… :D

Agreement on e.g. classification of operations? Snowflake's hope in hades!

LeadSled
12th Mar 2014, 16:06
Agreement on e.g. classification of operations? Snowflake's hope in hades!

Creamie,
Actually, a very reasonable Class. of Ops., with no industry dissenters, was finally completed during the time Byron was Director.
The incoming Mr. McCormick tossed it, just as he tossed Byron's directive that mandated government policy on Cost/Benefit justification and outcome based regulation.
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 20:41
Actually, a very reasonable Class. of Ops., with no industry dissenters, was finally completed during the time Byron was Director. …Actually, there wasn’t. (But it does depend on one’s potentially self-serving definition of ‘industry’).The incoming Mr. McCormick tossed it, just as he tossed Byron's directive that mandated government policy on Cost/Benefit justification and outcome based regulation.That’s because Mr Byron’s directives were all vacuous motherhood statements that reflected existing vacuous government policy. If only he’d published a ‘Directive’ to ‘cut red tape’ as well…

But I could be wrong, and maybe I’m a glass half empty guy as guanty suggests, despite my having been spot on with nearly every prediction I’ve made in the last decade about the regulatory reform program.

So, time to put up or shut up, 'industry peers': Please cut and paste into this thread the very reasonable classification of operations rules that have no industry dissenters, all reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous legalese.

Please do it or please STFU.

My prediction: You won’t do it, because you can’t do it.

The 'industry’ is not agreed on an underlying philosophy for classification of operations. Anyone who’s read and understands the implications of the publicly available submissions to the ASSR Panel should already know that. :ugh:

Sarcs
12th Mar 2014, 23:22
The Australian School of Business (http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx) (IRRC) is nearing the end of a three year research project into the Future of aircraft maintenance in Australia (http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/research/industrialrelationsresearchcentre/projects/Pages/futureofaircraftmaintenanceinaustralia.aspx): Located in the world's fastest growing aviation region, Australia's vital air transport industry faces a shortage of skilled aircraft maintenance engineers that may increasingly be solved by moving much aircraft maintenance offshore.

This project will examine the options for this industry's future, exploring the safety risks of offshoring, and the costs of developing or losing a skilled national aircraft maintenance workforce.

It will develop a method for forecasting aeroskills requirements, explore new approaches to workforce development, and analyse the costs and benefits of allowing the industry to decline, rather than contributing to a strong national aerospace and technology sector.
The study report is due to be released later this year but in the meantime, using interim findings, the research team has made a submission to the WLR..:D Although I am yet to track down the actual submission, the following article perhaps highlights the finer points of the ABS submission to the WLR panel :ok:: Sky Wars: Why Offshore Aircraft Maintenance is a Flawed Strategy (http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleid=1854)

Published: March 10, 2014 in [email protected] School of Business

Aluminium smelting, oil refining, car making – the list of Australia’s vanishing industries grows longer. Among reasons for ceasing Australian operations, Holden, Ford and Toyota cited fierce global competition, a small local market and a relatively high wages bill. Now Qantas, in announcing plans last month to cut a further 5000 staff in the face of financial losses, has added arguments about the ‘unfair’ requirement that it service its aircraft in Australia. It's rival, Virgin, relies on overseas workshops.

Australian aircraft maintenance has been moving offshore for some time. This increasing trend has been put under the microscope by the Australian School of Business (ABS) during the past three years in an Australian Research Council study – The Future of Aircraft Maintenance in Australia: Aviation Safety, Workforce Capability and Industry Development.

The key researchers – ASB professor Michael Quinlan, associate professors Anne Junor and Ian Hampson, senior lecturer Sarah Gregson and research associate Doug Fraser – were inspired by concerns about the strategic and economic costs of offshoring, possible threats to passenger safety and a declining skill base in the Australian aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry.

The full study will be released later this year, but the researchers have utilised interim findings in an ASB Industrial Relations Research Centre submission to the federal government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review, due to report in May. A key point in the submission is a looming skills crisis.

As local maintenance jobs have been cut, such as the 1000 positions Qantas is reported to have shed during 2012, the training capability for the next generation has gone into free fall. Junor has mapped MRO organisations and found as many as 50% have closed down in recent years and that difficulties in finding staff are prevalent among remaining providers. Defence facilities now account for about 75% of apprentice completions. One of the two civilian NSW centres presently approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to train aircraft engineers has 10-15 students this year. In 2013 it had 30. During the past 10 years it had about 100 per year.

Global Opportunity

According to Fraser, fostering MRO should be a no-brainer for Australian industry strategists.

“It’s no longer just a sideshow of running an airline. It’s a big global industry in its own right, worth around A$70 billion a year and likely to at least double during the next 20 years. It utilises the kind of highly skilled blue-collar labour that Australia has traditionally been good at developing. It offers many specialist areas of work where Australia’s comparative wage costs don’t seriously limit our competitiveness,” Fraser says.

“Above all, international authorities expect most regions of the world to fall well short of the training output needed to meet their own MRO requirements over the next decade.”

Fraser puts the decline in MRO skills down to a series of policy oversights by successive governments.

“Australia traditionally relied for the bulk of its technical training on big public-sector organisations such as the railways, Telecom and Defence establishments, and a few of the largest private companies,” he says. “In the 1980s we had Qantas, TAA and Ansett all running substantial apprenticeship programs. Qantas absorbed TAA, Ansett went out of business, and nobody else has stepped in to fill the gap.

"In effect, Australia's MRO training effort has been allowed to become hostage to the strategies and fortunes of a single company. If that company now can't look after itself, how is it going to look after the future needs of the Australian industry?"

The skills drain could leave the fledgling Australian aircraft-component industry in the same situation facing the car-component industry.

Says Junor: “At the moment, Australia is the biggest components supplier to Boeing outside the US. Running down the capacity of our automotive and aero-skills training facilities is hardly the way to ensure our continued integration into this large global market.”

Profits and Safety

And what impact will the cost-quality trade-off of offshoring maintenance have on Australia’s enviable airline safety record? Hampson sees gaps in the safety surveillance systems.

“There are doubtless many offshore shops which give top-quality service that Australian consumers can rely on,” he says. “We know from experience that there are some which definitely don’t. The problem is that we don’t have enough good information to tell which is which. Australia doesn’t even keep public records of which maintenance goes offshore, never mind where it goes. Once it does go offshore, no public records are kept of where the work has fallen short of standard, or what rework is needed in Australia when the plane comes back.

“The risk then is that because there isn't enough information about quality, choices will be made on the basis of price. This is a classic ‘market for lemons’ situation, where quality providers get driven out of the market and many others survive who don't deserve to."

Hampson believes market forces alone are unlikely to address this threat. Airline profits need to be balanced against the probability of a major accident. While any such incident would have fatal consequences for the business as well as for human life, it might or might not occur, and if it does, it will be at some unknown point in the future, possibly only once the aircraft has been sold on and become someone else’s worry.

“An Asian airline Boeing 747 in 1980 suffered a tail strike from landing too steeply. It was not repaired properly and cracks appeared and 22 years later the plane fell out of the air. Aircraft maintenance can be a health risk but it is difficult to know the extent,” Hampson says.

Relaxed Approach

The researchers note “a contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the increasingly stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to apply to offshore providers”.

The FAA is subject to political supervision and accountability in ways that Australia’s CASA is not. The FAA was recently compelled by congressional legislation to tighten up its regulatory and supervisory practices. In Australia, the trend is for CASA to offshore its responsibilities to foreign aviation authorities to ensure safety standards. This leaves the certification of maintenance on Australian aircraft to the safety oversight, training and licensing procedures of another country.

“We wonder how consistent this is with the Australian safety program, as well as International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements that the State of Registry be responsible for the safety of maintenance performed on aircraft even in another country,” say the researchers.

Back of the Queue

The expected worldwide shortage of aircraft maintenance engineers is likely to increase offshore wages, negating much of the cost advantage of offshore maintenance and affect the viability of relying on offshore maintenance as the primary means of meeting Australia’s airworthiness requirements. Australian carriers may find themselves relegated to the back of the maintenance queue by other players with considerably greater political and/or market power.

Junor predicts a dissipation of Australia’s aircraft maintenance capability will have particular impact on the general aviation sector – regional airlines, commuter operators servicing fly-in fly-out, tourism ventures and the transport, freight and emergency services that support rural and remote communities. The major airlines may be able to rely on offshore maintenance but the general aviation sector cannot.

The submission argues that in the interests of the safety of the travelling public, Australia will need to rebuild its MRO capacity and the workforce to support it. This would require extensive structural reform, well beyond what the present market is likely to bring about.

aroa
12th Mar 2014, 23:27
The "Industry" never got a ANY chance to find if there were benefits to be had in the Classification of Ops Policy adopted by the Minister and the Board, April 1997. And IMHO there were many benefits. :ok:
....But alas
Once ingested into CASA and bowel-derized and turned to sh*t, the last vestiges of what could have produced some good results for owners and operators vanished from the CASA web site in 2003. :mad:

So much for all that hope, some sanity and the colossal cost ..yet again to the taxpayer...for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. :mad:

It means ... the elected rep..the "minister" has NO balls, backbone, teeth or interest to drive it through to fruition. :mad:

It means ...the unelected swill/CAsA have the wherewithall to sink any policy unchallenged either by the "bored' or "miniscule" :mad:

It means...its time to smash a few windows to attract attention to the plight of GA. :ok:

Creampuff
13th Mar 2014, 00:34
What classification of operations “policy” was “adopted” by the Minister and CASA Board in April 1997? :confused:

Frank Arouet
13th Mar 2014, 07:00
Nope, thought about it but still lost for ideas. I give up. Was it something to do with bowels?

aroa
13th Mar 2014, 12:25
And here's me thinking that Puffy...once an inside man..until the wheels fell off ....was the fount of all av-knowledge.:{

In my BIG box called CASA..the Collection of Absolute Shite Archive, which goes back for decades....I still have the paperwork regarding this COOP for the brave new GA world. Alas, its life was like a snowflake in hell...brief.

I'll hunt out the wonder words regarding its introduction (sic) of the then "Minister" and post herein. There are also pages of, defining all those wonderful things like...
..."A pilot, with an aircraft and his "toolbox" ( a camera??) can make a profit from any class of operation" etc, etc.:ok::ok:

Oh words, oh wonder, OH bullshit !:mad: Nil progress since...but worse ! :mad:

Has anything changed? I was advised 6 years ago that CAsA was..."looking into" (!!??) removing criminal penalties for minor breaches of those (crap) regs like forgetting to completely fill in a line in yr log book. !! FFS a crime !!
Has that happened? NO, not to my knowledge. Not a whisper.

So what DO we get? Just the continual McComic vomit, Gobsome spinnery, and recently, the most nauseous hagiography from Hawke of the Bored, one had the misfortune to ever read! :mad:

Q..Good grief, Warren WTF are you. A.. the fairyland of CB

LeadSled
13th Mar 2014, 14:07
Creamie,
The Classification of Operations, to which I referred was completed while Byron was Director, but, of course, like so much, it has been expunged from the CASA web site, as has so much of the historical record prior the current management.

Indeed, I am told that the Mr. McCormick advised the Chairman of the PAP that he (McCormick) wasn't interested in what had gone before, apparently he then regarded his appointment as "Year Zero" for CASA.

I have been looking through old backup disks for a copy of the Byron "final" version, but have not found it so far, all I have found is the working paper that started that project.

If I find a copy of the final version, I will post it, or post a link to Dropbox.

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I don't remember the CASA Board signing of on a "final" Classification of Operations in 1997, although they did sign of on a number of things related to the CASA Review, instituted by Minister John Sharp. There certainly was a set of guidelines for the weight of regulation to apply to each category, with statements that the "fare paying passenger" was to attract the most attention from CASA, and areas where participants were "informed volunteers" would attract the least CASA resources.

Tootle pip!!

PS: CactusJack,
Quite a spray, but it does remind me of a paper, prepared by a psychologist on contract to CASA in the mid-1990s, who actually studied the kind of "personality" that applied to join or joined a body like CASA, and he clearly suggested that there were very definite personality traits in the kind of person that made up a significant proportion of AWIs and FOIs. At that time, a quite high proportion of the investigators were defrocked Commonwealth or State plod.

aroa
14th Mar 2014, 00:21
Never had the shiny bars or the nubiles unfortunately Cactus..just a camera MUCH to my detriment.
But we wont going into all that... like the denial of my right to take a photo from a public space, a right earn a living, the right to free trade, and all from that "safety" agency that has NO legal right to regulate "commerce" !!
:mad::mad::mad:

Any COOP of the Byron era must have been like a shooting star.. a brief flash and lost forever. Nothing I can recall in my sewage box re that one.

As for the (some) AWI s and FOIs ....and so called "investigators" of ex -cop history. No nothing about aviation, not interested in aviation, but well versed in verballing, skulldugery and shonky MOs for knocking off passing aviators

eg: John Moore, N Stallard ,et al for the infamous John Quadrio debacle.
eg: Stephen Cremerius, Peter Larard (rtd hurt), Ron Clarke, (fled) and John Retski (promoted!!) Liars and perjurers all! Just look at a Wilga Tail !

All aided and abetted by the likes of N Tredrea and Anustasi.

And so that you know its ops normal in the Fort ...there is a major episode still running at great cost and angst to the innocent due to incompetent and negilgent "investigation" regarding damage to Robbo 22 AZS... by N Haslam Senior Investigator (sic) and others.
Quite frankly they couldnt investigate their own willnots

Unfettered POWER brings UNACCOUNTABLE CORRUPTION of the systems.:mad:

Stay safe!!!

Creampuff
14th Mar 2014, 00:44
Precisely as I predicted.

It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.

Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.

The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.

There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.

And then there’s the inconvenient problem that some members of the public and the parliament take the view that the classification of operations scheme isn’t for the benefit of ‘the industry’.

You can stamp your little feet, wave your little fists, hold your breath until your face turns blue and even vilify people via pprune, but it’s only a source of mild amusement for the people who have the power to actually change things.

That is why the Minister, whoever he or she may be from time to time, will continue to leave CASA to develop and impose whatever classification of operations scheme it chooses to impose on ‘the industry’.

It’s so … hmmmm…. typically Australian.

dubbleyew eight
14th Mar 2014, 01:25
creampuff, other than moving in retirement to Canada or New Zealand, just how can one fix this ?

some of the problems created by CASA have half the players suffering stockholm syndrome and half the players heavily reliant on the embuggerated rules for their existence.
you'll never get sense from the victims.
most have little idea any more which way is up and a regulators viewpoint is totally different from that of a pundit.

Frank Arouet
14th Mar 2014, 01:48
That we can agree upon. It would appear we are the only Country in The World who self immolate. In The US for example there is not the infighting of groups and there is a genuine will to help, communicate and befriend fellow aviators, engineers and such folk. It is indeed an Australian phenomenon. I guess it's because we have so many 'experts'. Have a look at the news of recent, I've never seen so many 'experts' dredged up from somewhere and all with differing opinions varying from wings falling off to Martians in Malaysia.


To be fair to the contributors here, all or most have good reason to spray venom at the regulator and they should be encouraged not denigrated because the system is rooted and needs fixing. They don't need negativity even if it is simply an example of 'devil's advocate'. You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.


And to be fair to you, the wheels didn't really fall off, they simply weren't there.

LeadSled
14th Mar 2014, 03:36
Precisely as I predicted.
It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.
Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.
The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.
There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.
Creamie,
I am still looking, and on the basis of the above, I do hope I manage to find a copy of the final Byron scheme somewhere on an old backup disk.
Further, I have never found that proposed Class.of Ops. discussions, going back to mid-1990s have been controversial within or between industry groups, but there has always been stout resistance to any change by the "iron ring" in CASA --- all such matters are seen as "loss of power". Usually dressed up as "not in the public interest", air safety, blather blather.

Indeed, when you have the QANTAS DFO/Chief Pilot agreeing with most of the light aviation "alphabet soup" bodies, you know it is uncontroversial.

Do you remember the "shopping centre/checkout ques" "opinion surveys", done on CASA's behalf, to get "public opinion" about CASA and whether it was doing a good job.

The questions were hilariously skewed to to getting the answer CASA wanted:
(1) CASA was doing a fantastic job preventing criminally suicidal persons who commit aviation, from slaughtering the good citizens of Australia.
(2) Any diminution of the powers of CASA would result in death raining from Australian skies.

As I recall, a very high percentage of those surveyed stated that they had never traveled on an aircraft, and never would.

Could you please enlighten me, as to what went to the CASA Board in 1997?

Tootle pip!!

advo-cate
14th Mar 2014, 07:08
This e-mail just arrived on my desk from an unknown source.

Apparently the person has been seeking a meeting with the CASA Board.

I post the details and now ask - Is this a serious breach of democratic process??

Inbox > Message Detail
Subject: RE: [FWD: RE: CASA Board ] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From:"ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected] (http://email19.asia.secureserver.net/webmail.php?login=1#)>(Add as Preferred Sender (http://email19.asia.secureserver.net/webmail.php?login=1#))
Date:Fri, Mar 14, 2014 3:25 pm
To:

UNCLASSIFIED

It has come to my attention that you have been attempting to contact CASA Board member Helen Gillies.

On behalf of the Board, I request that you do not contact Board members by telephone or email. I advise individual board members will not be responding to any direct approaches from you.

I have communicated to you below the means of communication the Board is prepared to accept from you and request that you abide by that.

Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607

and:

On Mar 4, 2014 1:47 PM, "ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected]> wrote:
UNCLASSIFIED

I have liaised with the Chair of the CASA Board. In the event you wish to provide a complaint to him, then he will only receive it in writing and by mail. If you mark any envelope “private and confidential” or “to be opened by addressee only” it will not be opened before receipt by the Chair.

In the event this is not acceptable to you, but your complaint involves allegations of criminal conduct, you may care to direct such complaint to the Australian Federal Police. Alternatively, if the matters relate to maladministration, you may care to direct such a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607

AND the request was, direct to both Helen Gillies and Allan Hawkes:

From:
Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 1:32 PM
To: SKM
Subject: Letter for Helen Gillies

Dear Helen,

I wish to provide some information to the CASA Board and am concerned that it could be diverted by either Mr. McCormick or your secretariat, as it is of a highly confidential nature, if directed through normal channels.

If these issues were to fall into the wrong hands, I am concerned that records could be destroyed or "lost".

I would like to be able to address the Board on a series of matters, which, in part involve the use of known criminals to prosecute a pilot and of false statements made by CASA employees to attempt to prosecute an owner.

I can provide support documents, but that needs to be on the above basis, of no involvement by CASA itself and that the Board independently deals with the matters raised.

Paragraph377
14th Mar 2014, 10:04
Advo-cate, unfortunately the Board were too busy with their noses buried up the Ministers ass (after being buried in a trough) to be interested in an IOS matter. They won't open the mail as that would mean they now become aware of something 'unsavoury' and they are then obliged to report it for investigation, and they don't want that happening := . I mean, we can't have 'accountability' thrust upon a Board member can we? Their role is simply to sit on bloated asses and protect his lordship the Miniscule from any unflattering attention. Any matters concerning possible CASA malfeasance, corruption or shonky activity as you mention are the Boards least concern. Keeping the Ministers CV clean, avoiding transparency, throwing around red herrings and writing pithy reports or formulating glossy PowerPoints containing lots of home spun bollocks is their chief priority.

So let this be a lesson to all of you IOS - The CASA Board and CASA executives are far too busy protecting their superannuation and their stellar standing amongst their peers and loyal servants to be harassed about any other matter that may interfere with their golf schedules, overseas trips or their international public speaking commitments :=

P.S Interesting to see Anustasi jumping straight on to the matter and sending a stern response. Oh he must protect his Masters from the evil IOS. The Doc would be so proud of him, as I am sure Creampuff is also!

'Eventus stultorum magister'

Frank Arouet
14th Mar 2014, 21:53
Send this to Senator Brandis and ask him to put it on record so it can be used to support other submissions when his inquiry begins.


11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Fourth%20quarter/11December2013-NewAustralianLawReformInquiryToFocusOnFreedoms.aspx)


Also cc it to The Federal Police with a written complaint. I understand they MUST act upon a complaint, even if such action is no action.


Forget The Commonwealth Ombudsman, the first thing they will ask is 'have you exhausted every other legal avenue of redress?' and until The Commonwealth Police do act, they will be reluctant to take it on board. They also accept The ICC is another avenue of redress that must be hurdled, so they are effectively compromised by CASA's own system.


Things must be getting rather warm at FF if they are resorting to hip shots like this.


I may have 'over-estimated Mr Anastasi.

aroa
14th Mar 2014, 23:42
Nothing new here from The AnusStasi... :mad:

A couple of years ago I sent an updated Invoice to the Tarmac Trio/Turds that were responsible for an unwarranted legal bill. :mad:
CAsA's attempted proscecution went tits up because the allegations were all bullshit...false sworn testimony and all that, the usual CAsA MO stuff.:mad:

That invoice and the added comment re the Quadrio case went straight to the Fort...and I received a letter from AnusStasi himself telling me that I must NOT write to them. Any comms must come to CAsA.! Que?? Dont I have freedom of speech or the written word, you Hitlerite thing, you. (post now complete with Nazi reference)

This is from the very person that denied payment of my costs under the Model Litigant Rules...stating in effect.." piss off, we have more money for a court case than you " !:mad:

Ah, Regulatastan...a great country to live in. Complete with Justarse and all that :mad:

Sarcs
15th Mar 2014, 00:02
{Comment: Mods promise there is a point and the thread will (eventually) drift back..:rolleyes:}

Not wanting to detract from the intriguing thread drift over the last dozen or so posts :hmm:, plus equally not wanting to promote further drift :E, however I noted the following statement in the McComick view thread from Waghi Warrior (post#95 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520458-casa-mc-comick-view-5.html#post8375664)): I don't work for CASA and I'm certainly not trying to defend them, however lets face it no 'R' egulator as Cactus puts it will never have a super chummy relationship with industry - fact.
The WW fact would seem to be disputed by other industry figures, here is an example from the Senate RRAT committee inquiry into Qantas's future as a strong national carrier supporting jobs in Australia (my bold)Senator IAN MACDONALD: …The only other question I have because of time is: are you now suggesting that CASA is not doing its job?

Mr Purvinas : In my opinion CASA are nothing more than another arm of Qantas's industrial relations department. I have a very dim view on CASA's oversight of maintenance in this country and outside of Australia. I think they act in line with everything that Qantas wants them to do.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: They are not an arm of Qantas, they are an arm of the federal government.

Mr Purvinas : Maybe the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I know this is a criticism of the last government, who had six years to do that, but I must say that I will talk to Mr Truss to make sure that CASA are not an arm of Qantas or anyone else and are an independent authority. You have no confidence in CASA at all?

Mr Purvinas : No. We do not have confidence in CASA to provide effective oversight of maintenance.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You think that the reason they are failing in the duty that the Australian people, through their government, have given them is because they are in the pay—so to speak colloquially—of Qantas?

Mr Purvinas : I think they have been a victim of corporate capture. They have got too close to the airline. A lot of them are friends with people who work for Qantas and I think corporate capture, Stockholm syndrome, whatever you want to call it, I think CASA have some problem.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Does that apply to Virgin as well, or is it related only to Qantas?

Mr Purvinas : I do not know how close they are to Virgin. I have not had too many indications that that would be the case there. I do know that they are coming up pretty hard against airlines like Tiger and so on. They grounded Tiger for things that are far less than what we have seen with Qantas.
&..
Senator BACK: I want to follow up with Dubai and Hong Kong. Has it been your experience, or can you document, similar failures of inspection in both the cities of Dubai and Hong Kong?

Mr Purvinas : ...We approached Qantas and CASA about it, and what happened is an example of why we have no confidence in CASA. Under the mandatory Service Difficulty Reporting scheme, which is a government standard here, all airworthiness defects must be reported to CASA. They had a facility in Hong Kong that was not bolting on engines correctly. The report should have gone in within 24 hours so they could contact the facility and let them know to check all the engines they had installed on aircraft. We were monitoring this. We know the mandatory report never went in, because they are publicly available. So we wrote letters to CASA saying: 'Aircraft has come out with three of the four engines not bolted on correctly—why has no mandatory service difficulty report gone in?' They said, 'It is okay—Qantas rang us and told us about it.' That is illegal. There are laws that are meant to protect aviation safety, and CASA are meant to make sure those laws are applied and implemented correctly.

CHAIR: Can you table those letters of concern for the committee?

Mr Purvinas : Absolutely. I think the letters are there. We also table the appropriate legislation that requires mandatory service difficulty reports.
There is also considerable evidence that the Red Rat is not isolated in receiving preferential treatment when it comes to Fort Fumble..:yuk: The classic case is nicely documented in the Senate’s PelAir inquiry versus say the FF persecution of Airtex or Barrier or..:=(fill in the blank :ugh:).

Drifting back…
The passing comment from FedSec Steve..“the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore”…should be noted by the miniscule and his WLR team...:cool:

It should also be noted that although Steve’s primary interest is for his members, the evidence he gave yesterday (& the ALAEA WLR submission) are largely reflected in the comments made by the research team from the Australian School of Business (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13948393627366&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-29.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asb.unsw.edu.au%2FPages%2Fdefault.aspx&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-30.html&libId=30be39db-e550-4474-80db-8e0910ca2786&title=Truss%3A%20Aviation%20Safety%20Regulation%20Review%20-%20Page%2029%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=Australian%20School%20of%20Business) (post#575 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-29.html#post8370497)):
Fraser: "In effect, Australia's MRO training effort has been allowed to become hostage to the strategies and fortunes of a single company. If that company now can't look after itself, how is it going to look after the future needs of the Australian industry?"

Hampson: “There are doubtless many offshore shops which give top-quality service that Australian consumers can rely on,” he says. “We know from experience that there are some which definitely don’t. The problem is that we don’t have enough good information to tell which is which.


Australia doesn’t even keep public records of which maintenance goes offshore, never mind where it goes. Once it does go offshore, no public records are kept of where the work has fallen short of standard, or what rework is needed in Australia when the plane comes back.

“The risk then is that because there isn't enough information about quality, choices will be made on the basis of price. This is a classic ‘market for lemons’ situation, where quality providers get driven out of the market and many others survive who don't deserve to."

The researchers note “a contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the increasingly stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to apply to offshore providers”.

The FAA is subject to political supervision and accountability in ways that Australia’s CASA is not. The FAA was recently compelled by congressional legislation to tighten up its regulatory and supervisory practices. In Australia, the trend is for CASA to offshore its responsibilities to foreign aviation authorities to ensure safety standards. This leaves the certification of maintenance on Australian aircraft to the safety oversight, training and licensing procedures of another country.

“We wonder how consistent this is with the Australian safety program, as well as International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements that the State of Registry be responsible for the safety of maintenance performed on aircraft even in another country,” say the researchers.
Back on track...
One would assume that the concerns/findings of the ABS researchers will be significantly highlighted in their WLR submission..:D

More to follow…:ok:

Addendum: For those interested the ALAEA submission to the Qantas inquiry can be downloaded HERE (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs/Submissions)

Creampuff
15th Mar 2014, 02:41
You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.To keep the thread on track, I note that the ASR Panel would like to be showed HOW TO fix aviation in regulation in Australia.

No, I withdraw that.

In fact, the ASR Panel would desperately love to be spoon fed the industry’s solution on HOW TO fix aviation regulation in Australia.

Frank, all of my HOW TO solutions for aviation regulation in Australia start with this step:

1. Industry unite.

That’s where things tend to go pear shaped.

Now I’m sure someone will point out that the industry seems to be united in its view that CASA is NOT doing what it should be doing. But as you say, Frank, it would suit all better if the industry united and showed the Panel HOW TO do things … ;)

Frank Arouet
15th Mar 2014, 03:41
When I said the aviation industry in Australia is rooted, I meant just that. It is as broke as the CASA. The only thing they, (industry), are united in, is a complete firm rejection and lack of confidence in the regulator. This is a catalyst for a disaster of monumental proportion so it behooves the people that we elected to run the 'freekin' Country to do something about it. The trusty Truss can only do that if he understands there is a problem, and CASA are not the answer to that problem. He should listen to the masses off un-united but affirmative dismissals of the status quo. You only have to look at the Anastasi letter above to see Truss is being given the 'blinkered' tour and the Board is being treated like mushrooms.


No Creampuff, we elect leaders to lead, not be lead.

Creampuff
15th Mar 2014, 05:19
And it's my fault that they don't?

No Laborial is actually going to take responsibility and make a decision.

On that issue I have posted, many times, HOW TO leverage the only glimmer of hope.

Sunfish
15th Mar 2014, 05:34
Advocate. If you wish to raise a complaint with CASA there is one single and effective route open to you that CASA cannot and must not interfere with.

Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.

CASA is then responsible for providing an answer, via the Minister, to the PM's office.

Anastasi would not and cannot interfere with this process which is available to all citizens.

My understanding is that the Board of CASA is mere window dressing - a bunch of impotent clowns who do not have any authority, unlike in a public company, so appeals to them are pointless anyway.

The other alternative is to put together a dossier - solid evidence of major malfeasance, then write a snappy Two page press release. Send the package to every radio, TV and newspaper in the country. That worked for me when I caught a major insurance company diddling not only me but thousands of other customers. After Eight weeks of work I got what I wanted in Two hours.

SIUYA
15th Mar 2014, 08:03
Sunfish...

Advocate. If you wish to raise a complaint with CASA there is one single and effective route open to you that CASA cannot and must not interfere with.

Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.

Fine in theory, but it didn't work under Labor. :ugh::ugh:

I wrote to Albanese a number of times - you guessed it - no response. :ugh::ugh:

So I then wrote to Rudd on the same matter and expressed concern that the Minister wasn't responding - - you guessed it - no response. :ugh::ugh:

I also wrote to Truss regarding the matter, and included information for his information and necessary action that neither the Minister not the PM had responded to my concerns - you guessed it - no response. :ugh::ugh:

I've also written to the new Coalition Government Minister - Mr Truss - same old result - no reply. :ugh::ugh:

I agree with Creampuff - until the industry unites, then it's going nowhere fast like it has for the past 20 or so years.. :{

There are so many valid viewpoints being expressed here, but until the infighting and sniping takes a rest and we ALL do what Creampuff suggests, then we're going nowhere fast.