View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

15th Mar 2014, 23:20
Siuya - you got no response at all? What did you write? A crank letter? You need to write a credible and well reasoned letter that is capable off being answered in a reasonable manner. If that fails, then visit your local MP and submit it through him.

Your letter has to be on file somewhere together with a brief from a public servant explaining why it shouldn't be replied to.

16th Mar 2014, 00:04

My letters were credible and well-reasoned, I can assure you.

dubbleyew eight
16th Mar 2014, 03:49
the real problem for people like the safety review and creampuff is the problem of why the National Aviation Authorities in other countries like Canada and New Zealand are seen as benevolent parts of their aviation scene, and why CASA is just seen as the clueless arseholes stopping aviation?

the attitudes in the Australian industry are anything but healthy. why?

why do we have companies that seek to hinder their competitors by shopping them to CASA?

why is it that you can never get an approval from CASA?

why has Canadian Owner Maintenance been in place in Canada for about 15 years now without incident and yet owner maintenance in australia is seen as a heinous crime? (although every owner I know except one does it )

why has CASA done all in its power for decades now to kill australian aviation?

the guys who tried to build the eagle-x here are convinced that CASA's actions can only be explained logically if CASA was trying to shut them down.

all of this bullshit comes from an interaction of the ex-raaf "experts" at the core of CASA and the australian government directions to them.

what aspect of those government directions has led to all this?
since most of us have no idea what is discussed over canapés and port we'll never have a handle on what the actual problem is.

whatever the source of the problem it is killing off what could be a large successful industry.

what is it you idiot politicians? do you look out the window of the jet and wonder if the magic will stop and suffer a primal fear?

16th Mar 2014, 03:51
Been there done that suiya and sunny...either direct to the minister, or via the local member ( you know the one who wants your vote )...but has never been able to produce answer..!! Intergalactic black hole.

If it is serious sh*t, they may ,or may not pose the Q to CAsA ...who will just make up a story to make it go away.

I did get one letter from some obscure plonker in DoTR , who had some non aviation managerial sub-title and the gist of the answer went something like this..."Hullo , dont you know Australia is very flat, has fantastic weather and we have the worlds best ball busting record for aviation safety!!??.Have a nice day".

Top stuff!! Nothing about the issue at hand,no questions answered..just the classical bureaucratic, time wasting brush off.

And as for Huffy Puffy showing his proper BIG R creds ...everybody in this industry is an idiot. Bit of a giveaway that.

The ASRR requested submissions and Im sure that from the many lodged, there are constructive suggestions on the changes that should be made.

The Panel didnt asked to be spoon fed on how to do it...they are to assess the responses and make recommendations on the changes that SHOULD be made...BUT will they.
If the elected Minister doesnt have the backbone, teeth and interest to drive them home/ ensure that it happens...then there is NO hope.

I have my money on warren truss, the bridge girder as the only thing with any steel.

There have been countless recommendations for change to over the decades CAsA but, like suggestions from the ATSB...NOTHING HAPPENS.:mad::mad:

16th Mar 2014, 04:41
Who called “everybody in industry” an “idiot”, aroa?

There is a bunch of people who keep doing the same thing over and over again without learning any lessons. For my part, I consider that bunch of people to be idiots (or insane). But that’s not “everybody in industry”.

It’s pointless writing to a Laborial or any of their pet officials about aviation regulation. To a Laborial, “credible” means “might affect our political fortunes”. The people who write about matters relating to aviation regulation usually vote Laborial, so there’s little to be gained from pretending to care about the subject matter of their correspondence. By definition, therefore, almost all correspondence relating to aviation regulation is “incredible” and may safely be ignored.I have my money on warren truss …I have my money on you losing your money. Nothing personal, mind, and in a way I hope to be proved wrong. But investment decisions must be made using the head, not the heart.

The Socialist Agrarian Party, of which the Minister is leader, has as much interest in and dedication to the encouragement and expansion of aviation in Australia as its Coalition and opposition partners. Have you not been paying attention for the last 20 or so years? The Panel didnt asked to be spoon fed on how to do it …You evidently haven’t been invited to speak to the Panel yet.

Perhaps I’m an idiot because I’ve said this “for the last time” before: The only glimmer of hope is a ‘whole of industry’ approach to the non-major party aligned Senators post-1 July, urging them to follow Senator X’s lead on matters aviation. The Laborials will pretend to be vitally interested in and dedicated to the interests of the aviation industry in Australia, when the Laborials need the vote of the non-major partly aligned Senators and their vote is contingent upon action in relation to aviation regulation. Short of that, you might as well resign yourself to more of the same and stop bleating.

16th Mar 2014, 15:58
why is it that you can never get an approval from CASA?

Serious corporate risk aversion and almost unbelievable inefficiency

why has Canadian Owner Maintenance been in place in Canada for about 15 years now without incident and yet owner maintenance in australia is seen as a heinous crime? (although every owner I know except one does it )

Serious corporate risk aversion plus strong opposition from CAR 30/CASR Part 145 workshops, and the LAME union --- the LAME union opposes even Schedule 8 maintenance at every opportunity, and many CASA AWIs are members of said union.

why has CASA done all in its power for decades now to kill Australian aviation?

Serious corporate risk aversion, and far to many employees of CASA are really personally quite anti GA. To quote one present senior manager: "There should only be two kind of aviation in Australia, airlines and military".

the guys who tried to build the eagle-x here are convinced that CASA's actions can only be explained logically if CASA was trying to shut them down.

They were right. Serious corporate risk aversion, CASA do not want to be responsible for aircraft type certificated in Australia, look at the history of Victa, and CASA almost succeeded in shutting down Gippsland Aeronautics by running them out of money with delays.

The long held attitude to CASA assuming any risk has long been a serious impediment to any Australian based aviation operations. Have a look at the CASA v. HeviLIft Helicopters case in the Federal Court some years ago. It was about certifying the KA32A helicopter in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

dubbleyew eight
16th Mar 2014, 17:00
108. The phrase “fit and proper person” carries no precise meaning and takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is engaged and the ends to be served by those activities: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ. Whether a pilot is a fit and proper person is not to be measured by simply a consideration of whether they are competent to fly an aircraft but also requires consideration of their conduct “measured against the responsibilities, functions and duties of the holder of the [relevant] pilot licence” (Re Taylor and Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALD 312; Re Quadrio and  Civil Aviation Safety  Authority [2011] AATA 709 at [67]).

I find the implications of that judgement amazing. (Anderson v CASA btw)
CASA are always right and if you skip past something that they have done that is incompetent, or you disagree with their BS, you are a not fit and proper person.

what a frankenstein the pollies in their ignorance have set upon us.

16th Mar 2014, 21:28
there IS a cure, only I doubt that the industry has the guts to do it: go on strike, Kill everything from remote area tourism flights to the King Island crayfish trade. No exceptions. Stop the medical emergency flights as well. Shut it all down until there is a binding agreementf from both sides of Government to break up CASA and separate the roles of regulator and policeman, give ATSB back its full independence and implement the NZ version of FAA regulations.

Nothing less is going to save you. Creampuff is right, neither side of Government responds to rational argument. Kick them both in the balls if you want a result.

....or perhaps build a fighting fund and donate massively to both their political campaigns, they seem to be getting as greedy and corrupt as American politicians.

thorn bird
16th Mar 2014, 22:56
Watched a program on Nat geo last night about Bert Rutan and the development of his space vehicle, what vision and determination, what dedication.
Then I lay awake and thought where is the vision and determination gone in Australia, not just in aviation but in all areas of commerce, except perhaps for the legal profession.
Something like the space plane would never happen here, CAsA would kill it off before it even started.
Then I thought not just CAsA, the drive,focus and dedication of those employed in the process would be killed off by the unions.
The lawyers would have shut them down after an unfortunate industrial accident, and don't even mention the OH&S people!!..not a high vis on site anywhere.
Are we destined to be Coolies for the Chinese?

Frank Arouet
17th Mar 2014, 01:08
I wonder how far the idea of bungee jumping would have gone had the Australians thought of it first. The KIWI's get an idea and they are encouraged and given counsel on 'how to make it work', in Australia any idea is given the 'how can we stop this from working' treatment. How about jet boat white water use, Deer shooting from that same boat, manned inflatable balls rolling downhill and every other money making adventure idea.

CASA don't have any responsibility to foster and encourage general aviation and it's easier to just rid themselves of the affair by grounding every GA aircraft and industry in the Country. And we wonder why things work in NZ that don't work here. The industry has been financially and mentally broken without the means to form legally protect itself from the CASA predator.

thorn bird
17th Mar 2014, 08:33
I agree, I get european backpackers walking past my house overseas.
When I ask them if they have been to Australia, they say yes but we left..
Too Boring, can't DO anything, too many rules.

17th Mar 2014, 09:33
I theeeenk I know part of the solution to the problem. CASA was set up as a statutory corporation or suchlike. That meant that its employees are quasi public servants but not subject to the same discipines as true public servants.

This has allowed CASA to play fast and loose with both the government and aviaton community. When it suits them, they are public servants with all sorts of statutory jackboot powers, but without the straightjacket the public service act imposes on such persons.

When it suits them they are a corporation, free as air to do what they like including engaging in investigation and litigation techniques forbidden to the public service and police forces around the nation.

This is the classic "run with the hare and hunt with the hounds" situation. To put that another way, try sidling off to Montreal for a conference if you are a real public servant, the approvals process will generate half an inch thickness of paper.

The solution then is to abolish CASA, which can happen overnight. Allocate the regulation activities to a unit of the department of transport (or a ministry of aviation) and enforcement to a unit of the AFP.

This solution breaks the alleged "iron ring". If we then adopt the NZ FAA regulations and add a requirement that the regulations are to foster aviation, the job is done.

17th Mar 2014, 11:42
Sunny, you are spot on sir, 100%, except for this point;

This solution breaks the alleged "iron ring".

The word "alleged" is incorrect. There is an iron ring that operates with impunity, and when you combine that fact along with the rest of your post you have a clear description of what CASA is. So yes, the whole deck of cards needs to be smashed overnight, and the rusty iron ring shackles taken off industry once and for all.

I can't put enough emphasis on the fact that everyone needs to read Pro Aviations submission to the WLR. That's one of the few submissions that got through before the disgraceful government put the padlock on the rest of the submissions. Why read that submission? It is one of the most accurate pictures you will ever see that clearly shows why the current problems exist, the untold, unchecked and unbridled power that CASA has been given, and the ways in which they misuse it.

17th Mar 2014, 13:14
Good one Sunny...you are right the APSC/ Aust Public Service Commission has a real "Code of Conduct" containing criminal provisions for illegal conduct for real public servants.:ok:

The CAsA code does not, and is a 'get out of jail free card' with just a bunch of motherhood rubbish that CAsA employees ignore with impunity..and a card nicely dealt by the "ceo" (sic) McComic to save a few. Not a fit and proper imo :mad:

Other Acts,... CAC Act, Admin Decisions (Judicial Review0, MLO etc... for CAsA ...phffft ! just ignore all that. What can the IOS do about it anyway. :{

Abolish CAsA...its the only way to go.! :ok: :ok: :ok:

And as for the locked up ASRR subs..way tooo many home truths, names and evidence of corruption, misfeasance and diverse assorted regulatory buggery to be seen in there. Best not spoil the Ministers lunch.:eek:

dubbleyew eight
17th Mar 2014, 14:25
I am told that I am mistaken.

I got the figure of $240,000,000 for the regulatory wet dream from elsewhere on here.

I am told that we actually don't know the figure but latest estimates have the number at over $300,000,000.

in round money that is a third of a billion dollars.

considering that prime minister abbott was lambasted in parliament today over cutting benefits to a thousand or so legacy kids one wonders why the liberals don't put the sword to all this as part of the red tape chopping exercise.

abolish casa and you'll just about be back in surplus.

dubbleyew eight
18th Mar 2014, 02:23
the gentle tap on my head that said my original figure was mistaken suggested a question in parliament.

I'm thinking along the lines of

"madam speaker, my question is directed to the treasurer.
treasurer what has the total cost been so far for CASA's regulatory rewrite?
what is the projected final cost for this exercise?
what measurable benefit will be seen by the aviation industry for all of this expenditure?"

I wonder how we get it asked?

18th Mar 2014, 03:16
And to think that royal commissions have been called to investigate failed government exercises of a much smaller scale?
I think 25 years and around $250,000,000 with still no outcome, workable process or system improvement should be the catalyst for such a commission?
Inquiries are futile. Although they are tools for unearthing a lot of hidden issues at the end of the day the Senators can only make recommendations, to which the government is perfectly entitled to respond with 'blow it out yer ass'! Which coincidentally is what they have done in response to the last few aviation inquiries, including Seaview, Lockhart etc etc.

Anyway, just think about how many flat screen TV's for the unemployed, extra packets of soft jubes for the pensioners, additional government advisors, and manicured footpaths around Vaucluse that money could have paid for???

18th Mar 2014, 08:43
[A]t the end of the day the Senators can only make recommendations ...Not correct.

Senators can also introduce legislation (other than legislation imposing tax) and vote to amend legislation.

The Bill changing the Civil Aviation Act to increase the size of the CASA Board is a perfect opportunity for the Senators with strong opinions about aviation regulation to put their power and vote where their mouth is and amend the Bill and make real changes to aviation regulation. But you watch what they do.

That's why CASA and ATSB called their bluff.

19th Mar 2014, 01:25
The Bill is being debated in the House of Reps now.

Watch and learn: Home ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/)

19th Mar 2014, 02:24
From the Member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese:… In conclusion, CASA has always done an excellent job over the years, including in its current configuration with its board, a product of the former Labor government's 2009 reforms. This bill does not change that structure; it simply increases the size of the board. In that context the bill is a continuation of the parliament's bipartisan approach to aviation safety—an approach that has served us well over the years—and I commend the bill to the House.You see: CASA's always done an excellent job. :ok:

19th Mar 2014, 09:30
The following poohtube vid captures the tailend of the Albo speech (18/03/14) that Creamy quotes from. It more than highlights the political dilemma the aviation industry has found itself in for the better part of 3 decades i.e. the Laborial approach to aviation safety regulation:
Albo & Laborial rubberstamp on CAA (Board) amendment bill - 18/03/14 - YouTube
Albo’s concern on the government considering funding cut backs to the ATsB is extremely laughable and beyond the pale when you consider Senator Fawcett’s press release on 30 May 2013:AVIATION SAFETY AT RISK UNDER GOVERNMENT BUDGET CUTS (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/ATSB%20budget%20cuts%2029%20May.pdf)

It has been revealed in Senate Estimates this week that aviation safety has been given a lower priority than the desperate attempt at balancing the budget by the Gillard government.

On questioning by Senator David Fawcett, the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB), Mr Martin Dolan, revealed that the substantial cuts to the ATSB budget were imposed on them without consultation and necessarily eroded the capacity of ATSB to complete the range of activities expected of it.

Mr Dolan highlighted that the cuts resulted in reducing staff numbers and choosing not to investigate some matters or constraining an investigation because of the call on his resources.

This is a serious dereliction of duty by the Gillard government given Minister Albanese’s declaration in 2008 that “nothing, I repeat nothing, is as important in aviation as safety”.

The Senate report into aviation safety released just last week highlights the unintended consequences of cutting funds to a safety agency.
“The Gillard government stands condemned for these grossly irresponsible cuts to Australia’s aviation safety investigator,” Senator Fawcett said.
The Albo rubberstamp for the Board amendment bill means that it is then passed onto the Federation Chamber for further 2nd reading debate (which Creamy drew attention to). Including the miniscule there was 4 contributions to the debate (if you can call a ‘no amendments’ Laborial rubberstamp a debate??). The miniscule’s contribution was the typical weak wet lettuce response:
"The ayes have it!" - CAA (Board) amendment bill 19/03/14 - YouTube
However there was one worthy contribution from the (obviously well briefed) member for Tangney, Dr Dennis Jensen, which was well worth the time to review:
Fed Chamber 2nd read debate CAA (Board) amendment bill - 19/03/14 - YouTube
Hmm..onto the third reading..:sad:. Then the introduction to the Senate..:ooh:..more to follow! :ok:

{Comment: Creamy have you got any suggested amendments to the bill that we can pass onto Senator X and the non-aligned Senators before the bill lobs into the Senate??:E}

19th Mar 2014, 12:29
Surely the people with the big ideas (some with even bigger mouths) will already have given Senator X their plain-English, industry-agreed amendments to the Civil Aviation Act?

My money’s on the Laborials whipping the Bill through the Senate before 1 July. After all, “CASA has always done an excellent job over the years”, and that’s presumably partly because of “the parliament's bipartisan approach to aviation safety”.

Those two extra Board positions will, finally and once and for all, ensure that red tape is reduced even faster, continuous improvement is embedded into processes and procedures even deeper, the regulatory reform program is completed even sooner, and CASA is the most accountablest and transparentest agency ever! (You should all be standing and saluting by now…).

It’s always difficult to know whether to be sickened by, instead of sad for, the Senate Laborials who conduct the inquiries, identify the problems, make the recommendations and then just acquiesce in the token effort in response, rather than exercise their powers to change things. (But it’s always compelling viewing. Do they feel unclean? What happens at the ‘Big Brother’ Party meetings?)

It’s also difficult to know whether to be sad for, or just contemptuous of, the people who keep putting their faith in the Laborials to make any substantial change to aviation regulation, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. Sooner or later, they have to accept or have forced upon them the consequences of credulous rapture in response vacuous motherhood statements.

My suggested amendments if I wanted good things for GA in Australia to happen quickly? I’d repeal section 8(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and substitute:

“The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia is established, as an authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, by this subsection.”

I reckon that if the guys and girls in the AAAA took charge, it would have the same effect on the some of the people, processes and procedures in CASA, in about the same timeframe, as some of the chemicals sprayed by the AAAA on bugs and crops in the real world. I’d pay folding money to see it.

But I’m just a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA. Good luck Australia! :ok:

19th Mar 2014, 12:59
But I’m just a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA. Good luck Australia!
And so are most of CASA. They suffered acne as teens, went on high doses of Roaccutane for extended periods of time and by the time the side effects kicked in they were old enough to be let loose in the CASA funny farm...it explains a lot really.

19th Mar 2014, 13:04
What are the specifics of your proposed solution, P337?

Or will you continue to merely criticise?

19th Mar 2014, 13:16
What are the specifics of your proposed solution, P337?
Or will you continue to merely criticise?
Hmmm, I thought we finished this Tango the other night off line? Does this mean the music has started up once more and we are yet again holding hands, hip to thigh, legs angled inwards and commencing the dance? Hopefully not.

My 'specifics' have been submitted on two occasions to two seperate inquiries, plus I have spent many hours lobbying local Ministers in an attempt to elicit change. That is a sample of the forums I have used to put forth my 'specifics'. As for the Pprune forum, well although I post on here it is not in an attempt to change the world. As you know from our discussion 'off line', one person is never going to inflict change upon CASA. Lord knows many have tried, yet many have failed.

dubbleyew eight
19th Mar 2014, 14:56
the wheels of change churn slowly.
listen to what warren actually said in that video clip.
the review reports back in 2 months. that is a milestone on the road.

it isn't over yet.

19th Mar 2014, 21:58
Ah yes, the Report of the ASRR.

No doubt it will be: Peace for our time! :ok:

For about the eighth time, won’t it be?

19th Mar 2014, 23:19
D8: listen to what warren actually said in that video clip.
the review reports back in 2 months. that is a milestone on the road. Despite the wet lettuce delivery by the miniscule, D8 may have a point. I presume that the following is the bit that you are referring to D8..:confused:..
"...However, there are, as was evidenced from the debate today and yesterday, a range of concerns about the operations of the regulatory system in Australia. We are therefore conducting a safety regulatory review with an international panel, and I anticipate that, arising from that review, significant reforms will be under consideration. The panel is due to report to the government by the end of May 2014. Once the government has considered the report it will finalise an updated strategic direction for CASA, which will enhance the authority's role as Australia's independent aviation safety regulator.

The shadow minister reported a little on the history of civil aviation regulation during the time he was the minister. As usual, he looked at it through somewhat rose-coloured glasses. But I am sure that even he must acknowledge that there is widespread concern in the industry about the way our regulatory system is working, the difficulties in managing and dealing with the new rules that are currently being developed and the widespread acceptance that there needs to be a simplification in the way in which we administer safety issues in the aviation industry. Also, there needs to be a substantial improvement in the relationship between the regulator and the industry. There needs to be confidence on both sides and also a willingness to work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome..."

Maybe it is all just typical "blow it out your ar#e" political rhetoric..:ugh:, I guess (as D8 says) time will tell...:E

Coming back to the, well briefed by Max Scorer :D, Dr Jensen debate speech...:ok:. Part of that speech...Mr Scorer had recently retired from CASA—at the end of June 2013—after just on 30 years of service with CASA and its predecessors as an airworthiness inspector. Prior to his appointment in 1983 to the then Department of Aviation, he worked in the field of aircraft maintenance as a licenced engineer on large airline aircraft, light aircraft and corporate jet aircraft. He also spent some time as a flight engineer and in his younger years he served with RAAF City of Melbourne 21 Squadron. So to say he is a person of great experience would be no exaggeration. Mr Scorer approached me with a view to offering his services to the aviation industry to give something back to an industry that has provided him with a living for many years. In January 2014 he clocked up 50 years of service in aviation.

Mr Scorer gave me a presentation with regard to the recently implemented Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 part 42. It is my belief that more of the aviation community should be aware of the situation as it now exists under part 42. One would obviously realise that the intricacies of government legislation can be complex, so I will try to explain the requirements as briefly as possible and attempt to give you some idea of what changing safety legislation could mean for the general aviation sector.

Under Civil Aviation Regulation [1988] 30, the regulation under which GA maintenance organisations presently gain approval, the norm has been for the operator's chosen maintenance organisation to control all the pending maintenance requirements for their aircraft. In other words, the maintenance organisation would keep concise records of what is required to safely maintain the aircraft and comply with all CASA legislation. Much of this is provided to the customer as part of maintenance services and as a normal function of aircraft maintenance. It is called continuing airworthiness control or continuing airworthiness management.

CAMOs are granted approval under part 42G. The RPT sector, which used to operate under CAR 30, now operates under part 145—the actual physical maintenance function—and part 42G—airworthiness management—two different approvals. Part 42B, specifically 42.040 (2) says that the registered operator of an aircraft operating under an air operator's certificate 'must' have a contract with a CAMO or form their own CAMO.

The requirements relating to gaining approval as a CAMO are very costly and difficult for the GA sector to achieve. For instance, a small maintenance organisation consisting of a chief engineer—quite often the owner—hangar foreman, and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, unlicensed personnel and quite often a couple of apprentices will not be allowed to utilise any of those personnel to form a CAMO. It will not be acceptable for them to carry out the two roles as they have done in the past. The CAMO must have a management structure consisting of an accountable manager, responsible manager, quality manager, continuing airworthiness manager, airworthiness review manager and so on. All of these personnel have to have formal qualifications to be acceptable to CASA to fill these positions. For instance, to fill the position of continuing airworthiness manager you would have to be a LAME or equivalent. There are not enough LAMEs in Australia to carry out aircraft maintenance as it is; pulling them out of the system and putting them into a CAM role would severely hamper the industry in available personnel and impose a huge increase in cost to the operator.

At this time CASA has not approved any independent CAMOs. All approvals have been granted within the RPT sector. There are thousands of aircraft in Australia that are affected. There are many private aircraft owners who make their aircraft available to operators under leasing agreements. This helps in two ways: it lessens the cost of ownership where maintenance costs et cetera are concerned and it makes aircraft available to operators who would otherwise not be able to finance the purchase of the aircraft. If any such aircraft are operating under an AOC then the owner will have to contract the services of a CAMO to gain an ARC—no ARC, no flying. The maintenance organisations will not be able to issue a certificate to release the service following the maintenance unless the aircraft has an ARC.

These requirements will have far-reaching implications where the GA sector is concerned. The Royal Flying Doctor Service, for instance, will have to comply with the CAMO and ARC requirements. At the moment the operation of the ESSO helicopters in Victoria ferrying workers out to the oil rigs is a 'private operation'. This operation, by the way, rivals the airlines in terms of departure and arrival frequencies. Via the new operational regs, this operation will be under an AOC.

The Royal Flying Doctor Service is funded largely by donations. The requirement to either contract a CAMO or gain their own 42G approval will entail the use of some of those vital funds. The adoption of the European Aviation Safety Agency legislation, which is what the new legislation is based on, is all very fine for airline-type operators, such as Qantas or Virgin. However, it is a bit ludicrous to expect an organisation that is operating a couple of piston-powered Robinson R44 helicopters, carrying three passengers to a remote site to view cave paintings, to provide the same infrastructure as Qantas does for the Boeing 747s. As Mr Scorer pointed out, that needs to be back at the heart of law making... Now IMHO if more concerned industry stakeholders (IOS members) were to follow the example of constituent Mr John Janssen, to Max Scorer and took the time to properly consult with their local MP, like Dr Jensen, then the all pervading, strangling Fort Fumble mystique of aviation safety can be broken down. Even though the Laborial (bi-partisan) 'hands off' philosophy to aviation safety is in effect suffocating the GA industry, IOS members should be using this bi-partisan approach to their advantage.

The Dr Jensen speech is one example of how this can be done, your local MP is obliged to convey his/her concerns, across party lines, to the government of the day. So get engaged or sit on the sidelines and winge..:=

The clock is ticking..TICK TOCK!:ok:

{Question for Creamy: Even though the CAA (Board) amendment bill is the subject of the current debate on the Act, is it possible (because the Act is being amended) to put forward amendments for other parts of the Act or are the non-aligned Senators restricted to the confines of the current proposed amendment??}

20th Mar 2014, 00:47
Any Senator can move any changes they like (except to change it into a tax Bill). If a majority of Senators support the changes, the Bill is changed. It then goes back to the HoR with those changes.

The Senate could, for example, add a clause amending the list of CASA’s functions in section 9 of the Act. (Perhaps delete ‘developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards’? CASA is manifestly incapable of performing that function, so why leave it in section 9? Perhaps insert a clause about fostering aviation? Surely all the people with big ideas out there are already pressing their Senators to do this. Surely they are not sitting with their thumbs in their mouths hoping someone else will do all the work for them.)

The Senate could, for example, add a clause inserting a classification of operations scheme into section 27 and kill, once and for all, the regulatory atrocity that is reg 206.

The Senate could, for example, add a clause inserting clear legal obligations and constraints in relation to CASA’s interactions with ATSB.

The Senate could, for example, add a clause inserting a clear legal obligation for CASA to respond, in a specified way and within a specified time, to recommendations of coroners, the ATSB, etc.

The Senate could, for example, change the Bill so that the CASA Board is abolished (again).

The Senate could, for example, change the Bill so that CASAs name is changed to Bob.

Now ask yourself: Why don’t the Laborial Senators who were on the aviation accident investigation inquiry Committee put their Senate power where their mouths are? Surely they are in a position to know what needs to be done, and to convince their lower House colleagues of the merits of the changes. Surely. :confused:

20th Mar 2014, 02:43
Okay Creamy got it!!:rolleyes: So if we take your repeated statement..”the Senate could, for example” and apply it (for example) to some of the recommendations for Act changes from the AMROBA ASRR submission (ref: pg 23-26 of AMROBA submission):Recommendation 1:
Amend 9(1)(c) to read:
(c) promulgate appropriate, clear and concise civil (delete-aviation safety standards) specific operating rules;
(i) consistent with the standards and practices contained in Annexes to the
(ii) comparable with North America and Europe aviation requirements; and
(iii) have minimal differences with New Zealand aviation requirements.

Amending Section 9(1)(c) of the Civil Aviation Act will empower CASA in a similar manner as their counterparts in other mature aviation countries (EASA, FAA, TCCA).

Clarifying aviation safety standards as Civil Aviation Operating Rules also meets global principles.

Recommendation 2:
Amend 3A to read similar to the NZ Objectives: e.g.
a) CASA to undertake the government's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable aviation system; and (b) to ensure that Australia’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.
And then the enabling component: Subsequent Act Changes

To enable these two provisions to function correctly, Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act would need to be completely modernised so CASA can be properly empowered – many regulations should direct CASA to promulgate CASSs.

Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act should include the requirements of Articles of the Convention that CASA has government responsibility to manage compliance and enable the making of regulations that also direct CASA to promulgate CASS (Specific Operating Rules).

If the Government is to realise their aviation policy then there will need to be a change of thinking and attitude of not only industry but CASA personnel as well.

Everyone recognises that we are ‘over-regulated’ but do we understand what we mean by stating “over-regulation is stifling industry”.

Nobody will agree to lower ‘safety standards’ but it is possible to improve safety standards whilst de-regulating the non-airline sectors. The “language” of Acts of Parliament & Parliamentary Regulations are not akin to the ‘language’ of technical standards as used in EASA and FAA Regulations or the TCCA Standards.

Adoption of ICAO terminology that is used globally would also make the Act and Regulations more readable by those in aviation both in Australia and internationally.

Balanced Approach to Control and Supervision

ICAO Safety Oversight Manual states:
“A balanced safety oversight system is one in which both the ‘State’ and the aviation share responsibility for the safe, regular and efficient conduct of civil aviation activities. This relationship should be established in the primary legislation, regulations and requirements and put into practice as a matter of policy and methodology of the CAA.”
Hmm it would seem that Ken & Co have the hang of this re-writing legislation thing..:D..maybe we can start a list of recommended amendments with explanatory notes for the non-Laborial pollies to consider??:rolleyes:

While on the subject of AMROBA I notice an article of interest in their latest newsletter that should be read in support of the AMROBA submission by the WLR panel:New Industry Approach

If there was ever a time in aviation for an urgent and contemporary approach to re-directing the government’s policy for the future of civil aviation, it is NOW. In 1988, CASA’s predecessor was created with expectations that have never eventuated. Unlike NZ, who had the Swedavia—McGregor Report in 1988 to guide them, CASA misguided and ever changing regulatory development has seen a decline in aviation. Access the NZ Swedavia-Report and see what we expect. A new approach to aviation.

The Minister Truss’s ASRR Report must rival the recommendations of the NZ Swedavia-McGregor Report that brought about major changes in NZ for the betterment of aviation.

Since the regulatory re-write started back in 1991, the number of individuals, AOCs and AMOs participating have drastically declined as continual changes are made to the environmental and regulatory requirements. Business bankruptcies swelled by more than half in the depths of the recession, a statistic that masks a world of heartache for the owners of the many businesses that didn’t make it.

The whole regulatory system being developed does not overlay a sustainable small business environment.

Aircraft are a mode of transport (people or freight) whether they are used privately or commercially.

Air transport is also a safe form of transport and the reasons why there is a decline in the use of air transport in rural Australia need to be identified and reversed.

Obviously the growth of regulations, not just aviation regulations, has affected businesses. To rebuild this industry it is not recommended that the current system be re-written, a new system is required.

What basic regulations should apply to a private operator of an aircraft?

• The ‘rules of the air’ controlling airspace must have clarity like road rules.
• Pilot licensing standards — harmonised with NZ & USA.
• Aircraft airworthiness standards — harmonised with NZ and USA.
• Maintenance personnel licensing standards — harmonised with NZ and USA.

Adoption of the FAA/NZ approach for private and small specified commercial operations should be implemented, within 12 months, including adoption of the US Fixed Based Operator (FBO) for private and specified commercial operations.

Commercial operators, such as charter and small airline operations need a complete new approach to encourage a complete revival in the use of aircraft, especially as a rural air transport system.

Australia has always had entrepreneurs that are willing to invest in aviation if the pilots, LAMEs and engineering support can be found to support the venture. Irrespective of how you look at the current environment, regulatory imposts are turning many entrepreneurs away from aviation.

At what stage of a declining industry do you reach a position where recovery is not possible or is extremely hard to accomplish? Are we at that stage with private aviation?
Why isn’t the same standards applied to all aircraft irrespective who registers the aircraft?

All aircraft, pilots and maintenance personnel should meet the same standards in private as well as the various commercial sectors of aviation. The USA and Canada can do it, why not Australia.

Most private owners and aviation participants would welcome is a complete new system—the current & proposed changes have not seen a safe growth in the non airline sectors.

The current aviation Acts, regulations and other requirements are from the past. New regulations are from another region of the world that has no similarities with Australia.

We need NEW aviation Acts and regulations suitable to Australia, especially our rural and remote areas.

Many of these rural and remote areas should be tourist locations serviced by appropriately sized aircraft and aircraft should be more commonly used by more rural and remote locations. It will only happen if a complete new approach is taken to regulatory development, not only in aviation, but also small business requirements. Link for NZ Swedavia-Report (http://www.caa.govt.nz/pubdocs/Swedavia-McGregor_Report.pdf)

Wow..:{..the WLR panel have sure got their work cut out for them…:E

Frank Addendum! "Even The Greens agree to a certain extent along these lines..."

Well at least Senator Rhiannon:

Frank Arouet
20th Mar 2014, 03:05
The Senate has a duty to inform The House of Representatives via Minister Truss that the aviation Industry has lost all confidence in the CASA. Even The Greens agree to a certain extent along these lines. A succession of DAS' have inveigled our elected representatives into believing there is no problem and this lie is the basis for which Industry will not trust the CASA ever. It would indeed be a good idea for the senators to send a bill back with an amendment that the name be changed to Civil Aviation Authority, (CAA), as the word "safety" is now an abuse of the definition.

Bearing in mind a Camel is a Horse designed by a committee, adding extra Board members to the existing trough can only exacerbate a problem that wouldn't exist if we had no Board at all. If The Senate lets this through without a struggle we indeed have reason for concern as it would appear all hope is lost.

What's a dis-allowance motion?

Without "laboring the point" that all political party's are somehow the same with new definitions, we should hold those with election promises to cut the bullshit and waste be accountable. The Liberal/Nationals made this promise, Labor didn't, so it is they that are accountable lest they be tarred with the same brush that Labor now live with over the carbon tax lie.

20th Mar 2014, 03:39
At the risk of being a wet blanket, the ASRR will add to the already large pile of Parliamentary inquiries and a few Royal Commissions into CASA and its predecessors, over many years, all without much change.

This includes the Morris Inquiry, the longest running inquiry since Federation.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Library has a consolidated list of all the inquiries, and where appropriate, nominates the air disaster that prompted the inquiry into the "regulator" of the day.
Without a reformist and activist Minister (as was John Sharp, for an unfortunately truncated period) nothing much will happen.

Without a effective new Civil Aviation Act,successfully written in the full knowledge of the shortcomings of the current 1988 Act, no changes will stick.

There is no easy way do dismantle a culture of control and micro-management that has imbedded itself over many decades.

I am glad I am not just starting out on a career anywhere in the Australian aviation sector (as opposed to foreign companies that operate in Australia).

Tootle pip!!

20th Mar 2014, 08:12
But surely you’ve already sent your proposed new, effective Civil Aviation Act to the ASRR Panel and Senators, old bean? You know all the shortcomings in the existing Act and know how to fix them.

Help all those just starting out on a career in aviation! :{

20th Mar 2014, 09:38
Yes , we have sent our submissions, with constructive ideas for change :ok:

There's no arguments about what's required to "fix" it, Puffy. Blind Freddie could put his hand on it. Its the methodology of getting the change.
We have "democracy" (sic) versus entrenched bureaucracy.

Even politicians and ministers are saying that any policy can be usurped /delayed/side-tracked/obfusticated by bureaurats who dont like any idea that doesnt suit THEIR agenda.
And with CAsA we've had this in spades. :mad::mad::mad:

How to FIX IT?. FIIK. !!!

There are overseas "methods"..... but they are unacceptable here.

Perhaps we should send an email to Vladimir Putin for a few tips. Or just invade the rotten place. Da!

Now there's an idea...perhaps we should do a citizens take over of (Non) Aviation House.

dubbleyew eight
20th Mar 2014, 09:46
the core of the problem is that people who fly and own aircraft can see the problem because they understand the aviation environment.

the ordinary man in the street, or back of the room, hasn't much of a clue about aviation at all. you just have to listen to all the half understood tripe that they think is aviation.

a minister who isn't a pilot will not really have a clue.
he has to weigh up the message from the government's experts (with all the deep sincere looks and deep confident voices) with the disjointed voices of all the industry players.
I think the message that all is not well is slowly seeping through but it must be hard for ministers to understand which of the voices is to be believed.

20th Mar 2014, 13:14
I know Sarcs has posted this Poohtube clip in the senate thread, but it is worth a guernsey here as well;


Excellent work Nick, 3 x chocolate frogs are in the post :ok:
Although he did sound like he had a cold? Hope he feels better soon :ok:

It's a shame the senate was empty, devoid of other interested parties, media or even pot plants! Nick called this whole charade for what it is. The ATSB is a joke, CASA is a joke, and successive governments are a joke. It was easy to note in the tone of his voice his dislike for the watered down scope of Truss's limp wristed review, and he also reiterated that Doc Voodoo's finely manufactured MOU between Fort Fumble and the ATSB is a load of pony pooh. I liked the praise that Nick bestowed upon his quiet achiever Hannah Wooller, and I think Nick is right, Hannah herself has become a learned scholar when it comes to accident investigations :ok: Maybe a motion could be raised to have her become Commissioner of the ATSB? She would be more knowledgeable than his Royal Beakship. Hannah, 2 x chocolate frogs for you. (Please don't tell 'K' as he will be very upset that I am giving away all his frogs :=)

As Sarcs has mentioned numerous times, the clock is ticking and tocking. There is still a few interesting moves to be played out yet, might still be a bit of fun left to run in this game :ok:

Again, good work Nick. 10/10

Prince Niccolo M
20th Mar 2014, 14:37
P377 said:

It's a shame the senate was empty, devoid of other interested parties, media or even pot plants!

I'll have a look for the pot plants next time I make it to the front row of the public gallery :E, but the media and the other Senators all have live video feeds to their offices, normally one for them and one for their advisers, to keep track of what has become a process of reading statements into Hansard and onto the public TV feeds.

Nobody needs to be in the chamber unless they want to participate in the debate or a division is required to vote on a motion. A hell of a lot of meetings and parliamentary work gets done outside the Chamber and sitting hours. :ok:

I reckon it is advantageous if the Senate is empty - there is no dissent, points of order, etc and if one of the party hacks is detailed off to refute something, they have to do it separately with fewer surprises.

20th Mar 2014, 15:01
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:45): I seek leave for the Senate to reconsider the matter relating to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report into air safety and accident investigations.

Leave granted.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the incredible work of the committee secretariat on this report. It is a very complex, technical area, and I believe this report should be held up as the gold standard of what a dedicated Senate committee can achieve. At the risk of embarrassing her, I would like to acknowledge my legislation and policy adviser, Hannah Wooller, who did extraordinary work on this, and who probably knows more about air safety investigations and air accident investigations than she ever thought she would want to know when she started work with me.

I fear that I may not be able to say the same about the government response, in comparison to the way that the secretariat has dealt with this. I note that the government has already established its review into aviation safety, and that the ATSB has already invited the Canadian transport safety board to consider its investigative and reporting processes in relation to the Pel-Air incident and other matters. But I do have serious concerns about the Canadian process. Those concerns are not about the integrity of the Canadian transport safety board, but about the fact that it seems that their terms of reference are so circumscribed. They have yet to interview or obtain information from the Senate committee, from the pilot involved in that incident or from experts who gave evidence to that committee.

What is vitally important about the recommendations from this report is that they do not stand alone. They were made in the context of evidence that showed a serious and systemic lack of rigour from both the ATSB and CASA. Any responses from the government that claim that existing policy or procedure addresses the committee's concerns cannot be accepted, because this report clearly shows that existing policies and procedures do not work. Instead, the flight crew of VH-NGA were made scapegoats for regulatory failures.

I note, in particular, the comments from ATSB Chief Commissioner Mr Dolan, who admitted during questioning that he was 'not proud' of the ATSB's report into the Pel-Air incident. The committee even went so far as to state that Mr Dolan's standing as a witness before the committee had been eroded by his evidence relating to the ATSB's failure to retrieve the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Mr Dolan justified this position by quoting a version of the statement that sets out the ATSB's international responsibilities in this regard—ICAO Annex 13—that was not in force at the time of the accident or investigation. I pay tribute to Senator David Fawcett's cross-examination of Mr Dolan in this regard, which elicited very valuable information. A reading of the current Annex 13 may leave some room for discretion as to whether the recorders are to be retrieved. A reading of the annex that was in force at the time of the incident and subsequent investigation—and therefore should have been the one used by the ATSB to reach a decision—does not provide for this discretion. The committee report states:

The committee does not accept this argument—
that is, the argument of Mr Dolan.

At the time the decision against retrieving the FDR was made the imperative existed for the ATSB to do so. To ignore this imperative by arguing that the benefit did not justify the cost appears disingenuous. To imply that the revised wording in the current version of Annex 13 was the basis for the ATSB's decision in 2009/2010, before this version was in force, is even more disingenuous.

This report also called into question the relationship between the ATSB and CASA, and whether the intention of the memorandum of understanding between them is being met. The purpose of CASA is to ensure Australia's aviation safety regulations are being met and are serving their purpose. Therefore, if an incident investigated by the ATSB reveals a gap in that oversight, it is the ATSB's duty to report it.

I would like to share an email from an ATSB officer to Mr Dolan and Mr Ian Sangston of the ATSB regarding the investigation, which reads in part:

We were discussing the potential to reflect the intent of our new MoU that describes the 2 agencies as 'independent but complementary'. We discussed the hole CASA might have got itself into by its interventions since the ditching, and how you might have identified an optimum path that will maximise the safety outcome without either agency planting egg on the other agency's face. Right now, I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support. If we were to contemplate an exit strategy, or an 'out', then CASA would need to recognise that it is 'in' something in the first place.

It is important to note that the final ATSB report makes no reference to the officer's concerns. What this email clearly indicates is that there was a belief inside the ATSB that CASA had 'got itself into a hole', and that the ATSB's priority was avoiding conflict between the two agencies, rather than holding CASA to account.

On its own part, CASA concluded a special audit of Pel-Air after the ditching and found multiple significant safety breaches on the part of Pel-Air. A further audit CASA undertook on its oversight of Pel-Air found that CASA had failed in its role as regulator. CASA did not share this information with the ATSB, despite the MoU between them requiring it. As such, the ATSB did not have access to information that showed the broader context in which the incident occurred. What is even more concerning is that, after receiving the information as part of the committee process, the ATSB defended its investigation and stated that access to that information would not have changed their conclusion. Again, this is the report of which the chief commissioner of the ATSB is 'not proud'.

In aviation safety, it is vital to look at the contributing factors to consider the bigger picture in which an incident occurred. For example, were the staff adequately trained? Did the company employing them provide appropriate and continuous access to training and other support? Was there a safety culture in the organisation, or did the operator encourage their staff to take risks and 'just get the job done', so to speak? All of these questions, and more, should be asked so investigators can understand the environment in which an incident occurred. In that way, the environment itself can be addressed to prevent that same, or similar, incidents happening again.

The government should take a similar approach to considering this report. Sadly, it has not. In what environment is the ATSB and CASA operating? What are their cultures like? Are they likely to enforce the systems and procedures already in place, or do changes need to happen? This report gives us the answer to many of those questions. The next question is whether the government will take them into account and act appropriately.

I seek leave to complete my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (15:52): I want to follow Senator Xenophon with a couple of brief comments. I welcome his contribution to this and the role he has played, along with Senator Sterle and Senator Heffernan, in the committee inquiry that led to this report. I welcome the fact that the response to this report from the government has finally come. It is a report that deals with a range of serious safety issues. As a member of the committee, and not of the executive government, I have yet to read the response. I intend to do so and look seriously at how these recommendations, which go to serious safety issues for the aviation community, have been responded to.

Recommendation 7 goes to the issue of competence in terms of the governance of organisations. We saw legislation tabled this week in the lower house and we are here in the Senate today looking at a bill for increasing governance on the board of CASA. The minister commented that he is looking to have people with both operational and technical experience on the board. That was a strong theme that came through this inquiry—the need to have appropriate, competent guidance for both CASA and the ATSB so that we have leadership that recognises what is important and gives appropriate direction to the practitioners.

Recommendation 13 is that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. The government has essentially pre-empted that recommendation with the review being led by Mr David Forsyth into the regulatory reform process. That has been widely embraced by the aviation community. I look forward to the tabling of that in the implementation.

While the response by the former government, and even this one, is far later than should have been the case for something that is so important, I welcome the fact that the response has been tabled and I look forward to reading it in detail. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

{I would just like to make the comment that Senator Fawcett looked positively shell shocked on the video feed and Para I second the motion for Hannah as the next Chief Commissioner..:ok:}

20th Mar 2014, 15:33
But surely you’ve already sent your proposed new, effective Civil Aviation Act to the ASRR Panel and Senators, old bean? You know all the shortcomings in the existing Act and know how to fix themCreamie,
Did you actually think I wouldn't?
They will not be published here.
Tootle pip!!

PS: It does NOT include "promote and foster" in the Act as a duty of CASA, I happen to be one of the ones that believes such conflicts of interest do nothing useful. I prefer the NZ approach to that one.

thorn bird
21st Mar 2014, 01:06
Oh well,
boy I'm glad I'm at the end of my career, I feel so sad for those young people just starting out its going to be harder and harder to find meaningful employment in Australia.
On a brighter note, as aviation winds down in Australia it should wind up in NZ. We've already pretty much handed them flying training, maintenance will follow as our workshops here close down. NZ is a beautiful country, and the "Rule of the regulator" has not infected the place to the incredible extent it has in Australia.
My goodness my grandkids could end up as boat people desperately trying to escape Australia in leaky Australian fishing boats, looking for a better life.

21st Mar 2014, 06:25
Looking forward to the Wanaka airshow next month. Maybe I could kidnap some NZ CAA folk and bring them back here to take over?

24th Mar 2014, 23:32
I see in the press that the Trussed review is overseen by .."leading international aviation experts" Wow great moniker, guys.:ok:

SO,,it will be VERY interesting to read the REPORT...then we can sit back and be showered by weasel words, BS and spin !!:mad:

25th Mar 2014, 07:39
The following copied (hopefully accurately) version of AMROBA Newsletter Volume 11 Issue 4 (0314) (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%204.pdf) is worth taking the ten minutes to read. IMO it is reflective, without being dramatic, of industry concerns (besides Truss response to Recommendation 1 covered in Senate thread) in regards to the Govt response to the PelAir report..:D:D

The Fear of Retribution

The recently released Senate report into the ATSB/CASA Pel-Air accident near Norfolk Island has clearly stated that CASA did not meet its obligations to ATSB and, more concerning, has created a fear of retribution with many participants in industry who no longer have confidence/trust in CASA.

This report does not paint Australia’s safety system in a good light. Safety requires all sectors to actively work together to maintain safety, let alone improve safety standards, and this can only be done if all involved are confident that by being honest there will be no retribution.

What this Senate Inquiry has identified that the trust in CASA to be a fair regulator has deteriorated to such a level that, to bring the truth to the notice of this inquiry, many did so “in-camera” so that their identities were protected. Why?

To prevent retribution by CASA. CASA’s next CEO has a challenge to resurrect a “Just Culture”.

The situation is so bad that the Inquiry Executive Summary stated:

“Witnesses—whether public or in camera—should suffer no adverse consequences from providing evidence to the committee. Given the numerous concerns expressed, the committee will be monitoring this situation carefully.”

The following are relevant extracts from the Report’s Executive Summary.

“The committee also focuses on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the interaction between the ATSB and CASA. The committee notes that a systemic approach to the investigation was initially pursued, but that systemic issues were scoped out of the investigation early in the process. This led the committee to ask whether CASA exerted undue influence on the ATSB process. What is clear is that CASA's failure to provide the ATSB with critical documents, including the Chambers Report and CASA’s Special Audit of Pel-Air, which both demonstrated CASA’s failure to properly oversee the Pel-Air operations, contravened the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in place between the two agencies and may have breached the terms of the Transport Safety Investigations Act 2003 (Chapter 7). The committee takes a dim view of CASA's actions in this regard.

It also emerged in the course of the inquiry that the previous system of mandatory and confidential incident reporting to the ATSB has been altered. Pilots have expressed concern that CASA now appears to have access to identifying information, which may inhibit pilots reporting incidents and will therefore undermine the important principle of just culture within the aviation industry (Chapter 10).

Finally, the committee notes that many submitters and witnesses provided evidence in camera due to fear of retribution, particularly from CASA, were they to go public with their concerns. Many who chose to give in camera evidence did so in the knowledge of protections provided by parliamentary privilege. The committee also notes that this reticence to speak in public has been apparent for each inquiry this committee has conducted in this area over several years, and finds this deeply worrying. Given the positive statements made about the inquiry by CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, the committee trusts that concerns about retribution are unwarranted. There is an obligation on CASA to allay these concerns that retribution could follow speaking out, which appear to be widespread within the aviation industry.

The committee stresses that it takes the protection of witnesses under parliamentary privilege very seriously.

Witnesses—whether public or in camera—should suffer no adverse consequences from providing evidence to the committee. Given the numerous concerns expressed, the committee will be monitoring this situation carefully.

The committee also focuses on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the interaction between the ATSB and CASA. The committee notes that a systemic approach to the investigation was initially pursued, but that systemic issues were scoped out of the investigation early in the process. This led the committee to ask whether CASA exerted undue influence on the ATSB process. What is clear is that CASA's failure to provide the ATSB with critical documents, including the Chambers Report and CASA’s Special Audit of Pel-Air, which both demonstrated CASA’s failure to properly oversee the Pel-Air operations, contravened the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in place between the two agencies and may have breached the terms of the Transport Safety Investigations Act 2003 (Chapter 7). The committee takes a dim view of CASA's actions in this regard.”

‘Communication between CASA and the ATSB’

Some of the reasons why the gulf between CASA and many in industry is described in the Senate Report where they dissect the relationship between ATSB and CASA. It basically states that CASA selectively provided information to ATSB. During the Senate’s investigation they uncovered an internal CASA report on CASA/Pel-Air relationship and this report (Chamber’s Report) was damning on CASA and their oversight of Pel-Air.

It clearly identified CASA and Pel-Air organisational issues.

7.11 Given evidence on the lack of analysis of systemic issues in the ATSB investigation report, as outlined in previous chapters, the committee questions the plausibility of the statement above. On the weight of evidence reviewed, the committee questions CASA's motivation in withholding the Chambers Report from the ATSB.

7.12 This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review.

7.13 Irrespective of how highly either agency head is inclined to speak on the public record when describing the ATSB/CASA relationship, this inquiry exposed not only a predilection by CASA to withhold information when it suited them, but also a willingness to engage the ATSB both formally and informally in ways that have not always been transparent. In both regards, CASA's actions have influenced the conduct of the ATSB investigation to the detriment of aviation safety. Based on the documentation available to the committee, it appears that the two agencies have placed maintaining the veneer of a productive working relationship ahead of public safety.

7.14 The committee is of the view that CASA has adopted a rather self-serving interpretation of the MoU, which allows the agency to laud the spirit of the document whilst simultaneously failing to adhere to its contents when convenient. Whilst aware that the MoU between the ATSB and CASA is not a legally binding document, it nonetheless has an intended aim, and therefore fails to serve its purpose if not adhered to. The committee concludes that CASA's decision to withhold important documents from the ATSB has, as outlined in Chapter 6, had a severe impact on the ATSB's investigative process.”

The worrying concern is that it demonstrates that CASA selectively uses data. This has been an issue from many industry participants in their not to friendly dealings with CASA. It also demonstrates that this government agency, who has no security responsibilities, is very guarded in what they hold and their lack of transparency.

CASA has not cultivated or maintained harmonious relationships with all of the aviation industry, especially in implementing a “just culture” for the aviation industry. Until CASA accepts that every participant shares a responsibility for safety and information can be shared both ways without the fear of retribution, a safe and “just culture” will not exist. CASA does not oversee every flight. Aviation organisations, pilots, engineers, air traffic controllers and aircraft owners are each responsible for meeting the statutory safety and security standards. The Regulations should set the minimum standards for entering, and operating within, the system. It is in the best interests of all aviation participants to perform to a standard above the minimum.

CASA’s next CEO has a massive challenge to address generations of fear of retribution.

Morris Report May 1995

3.12 There are two ways to amend the object clause.

The first is as follows:

3A. The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation in an effective and economical way,, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents whilst recognising the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation,

3.14 The second option provides for greater detail in the object clause and is as follows:
3A. The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing accidents and incidents whilst recognising the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation by means that include the following:

(a) the development and maintenance of effective safety regulations;
(b) the encouragement of greater responsibility for aviation safety by industry;
(c) the promotion of effective consultation, effective decision-making and the efficient and effective use of resources; and
(d) the promotion of Australia's civil aviation safety capabilities.

Report Questions CASA Compliance

Breach of the Transport Safety Investigation Act?

7.9 The committee remains very concerned by CASA's actions in this regard, and has cause to ask whether the agency is in fact also in breach of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act). Section 24 of the Act clearly states that it is an offence to hinder an investigation:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and

(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and

(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.

7.11 Given evidence on the lack of analysis of systemic issues in the ATSB investigation report, as outlined in previous chapters, the committee questions the plausibility of the statement above. On the weight of evidence reviewed, the committee questions CASA's motivation in withholding the Chambers Report from the ATSB.

7.12 This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review.
[Senate] Committee view

7.13 Irrespective of how highly either agency head is inclined to speak on the public record when describing the ATSB/CASA relationship, this inquiry exposed not only a predilection by CASA to withhold information when it suited them, but also a willingness to engage the ATSB both formally and informally in ways that have not always been transparent. In both regards, CASA's actions have influenced the conduct of the ATSB investigation to the detriment of aviation safety. Based on the documentation available to the committee, it appears that the two agencies have placed maintaining the veneer of a productive working relationship ahead of public safety.

7.14 The committee is of the view that CASA has adopted a rather self-serving interpretation of the MoU, which allows the agency to laud the spirit of the document whilst simultaneously failing to adhere to its contents when convenient. Whilst aware that the MoU between the ATSB and CASA is not a legally binding document, it nonetheless has an intended aim, and therefore fails to serve its purpose if not adhered to. The committee concludes that CASA's decision to withhold important documents from the ATSB has, as outlined in Chapter 6, had a severe impact on the ATSB's investigative process.

Searle’s Report—September 2008

The Senate’s Searle Report , Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related Matters also made recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends the Australian Government strengthen CASA’s governance framework and administrative capability by:

introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA; and
undertaking a review of CASA’s funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges.

Recommendation 2: The committee recommends, in accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA’s Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges.

Recommendation 3: 2.165 The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA’s implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach.

When will the Civil Aviation Act be re-written to address recommendations and findings? Regulatory changes can be completed within 2 (two) years. Past recommendations have failed to fix.

Senate Report Summary
If the recommendations and findings of this latest Senate Report and previous government and judicial recommendations and findings are reviewed, it is obvious that nothing has been achieved to create an aviation regulatory authority that is transparent and encourages safe growth of aviation.

Why is there a Memorandum of Understanding between two government agencies? Why aren’t their roles specified in legislation?
All of these recommendations and findings from all of the inquiries sadly reflects on the Acts and Regulations that govern these two agencies. How the ATSB and CASA work with each other should be in the applicable Act and/or Regulations.

If ATSB and CASA were correctly empowered under their respective Acts and Regulations then there would be no need for any MoU between the two agencies.

The Civil Aviation Act needs to be re-written so that it correctly empowers CASA to be a respected ICAO regulatory authority that provides a “just culture” environment for participants of this industry.

The Morris report (see page 2), May 1995 stated:
2.14 Second, the abolition of the CAA and the establishment of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) are to be achieved by a series of amendments to the existing Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the CA Act). Many of the provisions which are considered adequate to the regulatory functions will remain unchanged. This is better than creating a brand new act.

In hindsight, a new Civil Aviation Act, based on the New Zealand Act, would have addressed many points raised by this latest report.
These inquiries and reports into CASA will continue until there are Acts and Regulations that clearly explain the responsibilities of both these very important aviation agencies. Industry trade, both domestically and globally, depends to a high level on CASA domestically, and globally on agreements between CASA and the NAA of possible and probable trading nations.

The Minister has stated in his response “Finally, consistent with this Government’s Aviation Policy we have announced the establishment of an Aviation Safety Regulation Review to investigate the structures and processes of all aviation agencies involved in aviation safety.
Recommendation 13: That a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.”
[Minister supports recommendation in-principle]

Cheers Ken..:ok:

25th Mar 2014, 12:08
Why do you think this is the case?

Why is there that perception?
Pretty easy really - A team is as strong as its leader. The culture of an organisation is most often defined by its leader. In CASA's case you only need to look at the senior management team to see the type of culture they promulgate, encourage and foster. And if that isn't scary enough add in the following - it is an organisation with no accountability, it has a smattering of sociopaths within its ranks, and those 'leading the charge' are either washed up has-beens who have been disconnected from the real wold for years, incompetents, inexperienced for the role they are expected to hold, or are career spin doctors whose only aviation knowledge is the colour of the chairs in a certain carriers chairmans lounge.

Next questions please :ok:

25th Mar 2014, 12:28
I got a bit confused there paragraph.
Had to re-read your post, for a second , I thought I was on the "Alan's still not happy" thread.
Then I realised you could interchange everything you posted about CASA with Qantas and it still makes sense, in an obscene sort of way.

25th Mar 2014, 12:31
Para 377 Q Is MComic ill? Or is that just an unwarranted perception from one of the IOS.

Why do I ask?. Just read his memo in the latest CASA Briefing Spewsletter.
Needs a dose of Ipecac or ICAC..suffering from severe projectile verbal vomiting.

Not sure if a copy is sent to Trussy as a wind up ....

Just read it ...hullo? Planet CAsA, which orbit are you in

FFS is this for real !!!

25th Mar 2014, 12:37
You are quite correct gasket! It would appear that many of these individuals went to the same school? Scary stuff.
One only needs to understand the mystique of the Screaming Skull and his infamy within the CX Star Chamber to get a feel for why CASA is the way it is :=
(Well the last 5 years anyway, and prior to his tenure and throughout it there have been several members of the Iron Ring who have ensured the organisations palpable culture has continued)

25th Mar 2014, 18:29
just read the casa briefing that aroa mentioned . Apparently the rest of the world respects casa. Again no mention of the senate inquiry, Truss report and iOS senators.

Wasn't that SMS stuff done by people prior to his tenure that have fled the coup?

26th Mar 2014, 23:05
“When the winds of change blow, some people build walls and others build windmills.”

It would seem that rational well organised industry groups such as the Australian Airports Association (AAA), ably backed by ALGA & certain regional operators, may have kicked a goal recently which is reflective of the AAA WLR submission (Reference pg 11 AAA submission (http://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Submission-to-the-Aviation-Safety-Regulation-Review-Jan-20141.pdf) "UNNECESSARY AND INCONSISTENT REGULATION")...:D:D

Over the last six months or so, the AAA/ALGA etc have been heavily campaigning against certain parts of proposed rule changes by Fort Fumble (MOS Part 139), highlighting the detrimental effects these changes will have on rural/remote communities i.e. potential loss of regional air services. One of these rule change impositions was the runway width restrictions for RPT aircraft. On March 7th this matter was reported by Aunty: Runway changes could hamper regional aviation and force airlines including Rex to curtail outback services (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/runway-changes-could-hamper-regional-aviation/5305180)Rex quote: "Regional airlines are doing it tough at the moment. The aviation industry's in crisis. We can do without these red tape issues, restricting services to remote regional communities that so heavily rely upon them," he said.
"If these regulations are promulgated and there are no changes made, we are not able to operate to Coober Pedy airport unless the runway is widened. So it was with interest that I noted the following article from Aviation Business (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/casa-proposes-relaxed-attitude-to-narrow-runway-operations):CASA proposes relaxed attitude to narrow runway operations25 Mar 2014

CASA has proposed a range of changes to the safety standards for operations of aircraft on so-called narrow runways.

CASA had previously adopted a policy requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways to accommodate aeroplanes operating at aerodromes with narrow runways.

This was to replace the current system of specific exemptions against the runway width requirements.

Following further consideration of aeroplane operational requirements, CASA is proposing to no longer mandate that aerodrome operators must widen runways to allow continued operations or for the introduction of a new larger aircraft type.

CASA intends that aerodrome upgrades will be based on a business decision made by the aerodrome operator.

And aircraft operators will need to assess aerodrome facilities and any risks associated with operating larger aircraft at an aerodrome with a narrow runway.

Aircraft operators would no longer need to apply for exemptions to operate aeroplanes into narrow runways.

Aeroplanes would be required to operate in accordance with an approved aeroplane flight manual narrow runway supplement or specified runway width limitation.

CASA is calling for comments on the new proposals by 5 May 2014.

Now there’s a common sense approach to a safety issue. Love the comment at the end (in bold)...:E

Bravo AAA & Co...:ok:

27th Mar 2014, 02:00
Re. the almost complete reversal on Part 139, maybe we are seeing the results, already, of the announced departure of Mr. McCormick, who is now, in my opinion, a "lame duck" Director of Aviation Safety.
Of course, the heavy lobbying by all the major operators was a significant factor, it wasn't just Rex that had a problem.
Have a look at ERSA for the number of 30m wide runways, the "narrow runway supplement" is a face saving exercise.
Tootle pip!!

27th Mar 2014, 11:19
So an Australian PM is sad and moved at the death of those on the Malaysian aircraft? Bollocks. Crocodile tears and poor acting. He and his footstool sitting down behind him, wearing his little ribbon, couldn't give a flying you know what.
Where is their concern about Australian aviation? Was Abbott and every other politician moved to tears when a Metro went in at Lockhart? 7 years later these same politicians are still trying to hide the palpable state of our industry. To watch these deluded insincere grubs pretend to be empathetic or give a toss is absolutely nauseating, when you consider what occurred at Lockhart, what could have occurred with Pel Air, and what will occur in the near future on a bigger scale. Where is the compassion for the Lockhart victims? When will their justice be granted?


27th Mar 2014, 23:51
Back at post #575 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-29.html#post8370497) I drew attention to the fact that the UNSW IRRC team had apparently made a submission to the WLR panel. Well it just so happens that the UNSW Profs, Docs etc, also made a submission (sub No 6) to the RRAT committee's short inquiry into 'Qantas' future as a strong national carrier supporting jobs in Australia' (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs) the report of which was tabled yesterday (27/03/14), see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs/Report/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/qantas/report/report.pdf).

In that report the IRRC submission was referred to (page 18 paragraphs 2.45-2.53) but due to the nature of the inquiry and the unions vs Joyce bun fight the real significant safety issue (SSI) messages/warnings of the IRRC submission was somewhat lost..:ugh:

However as an attachment to the IRRC submission the good academics provided a copy of their WLR submission..:D.

From the outset I have to say that certain parts of the IRRC submission makes for some very disturbing reading, anyway here is the link: ASRR - Industrial Relations Research Centre, School of Management, Australian School of Business UNSW. (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bd75f082-da3a-4259-a1e8-11d133bb0742&subId=205572)

Somewhat surprising is the poor structure of the submission, which means that to a certain degree the disturbing safety risk warnings, now and projected into the future, highlighted by the research of the IRRC become diluted in impact. However the submission (IMO) should be essential reading for all industry stakeholders..:D

The ToR that the IRRC cover with their submission: We propose to comment on the first, third, fourth and fifth of these terms of reference. Our main concerns under each of these TORs can be summarised in these terms:

TOR 1: We have observed a climate of mistrust, ill-feeling and misunderstanding among many of the interest groups that make up the industry, and between several of these groups and CASA, which we believe has impeded resolution of many of the practical difficulties which arose in the implementation of the new air safety regulatory framework. Leaving aside the obvious factors of competitive strains on the industry and escalating industrial conflict, we think it likely that the way the EASA-based model was introduced quite suddenly, and with little prior explanation or consultation, disconcerted many stakeholders who had been adjusting over a decade or longer to the previous policy of working towards closer alignment with the US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), and contributed to this loss of trust. In any event, it suggests a need for CASA to work harder on its stakeholder relations.

TOR 3: Much of this submission focuses on the implementation and philosophical underpinnings of the new scheme, since this is a topic on which our research arguably has most to offer to the Review. We will work in considerable detail through three key concerns:

i. The implementation of the reforms has been uneven and beset by problems of transition, which we attribute once again to the speed with which the program was introduced and developed, and to lack of stakeholder buy-in arising, in part, from the general perception that it represented an unexplained reversal of previous CAA/CASA and Australian government policy. Largely on account of these adjustment problems, the program has so far failed to live up to any of the justifications which were made for its introduction;

ii. Underlying the implementation problems are a number of significant philosophical and conceptual departures from the traditional Australian scheme, and possibly the accepted ICAO framework. Chief among these are:

• the emergence of uncertainty about the role, authority and standing of the LAME
• the dilution and fragmentation of responsibility that accompanied the introduction of the A licence
• consequential uncertainties about the compliance of the new scheme with the continuing ICAO regulatory framework.

iii. We analyse the conflicts that necessarily exist between the underlying prudential focus of the ICAO safety framework and the rules governing Australia's market-based vocational training system, to which much of the former responsibility of CASA is being shifted (especially as regards the all-important basic examination for the grant of an AME licence).

TOR 4: We focus on the contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the FAA to apply to offshore providers.

TOR 5: We draw attention to the current crisis of Australia's civilian training in aircraft maintenance skills, the inadequacy of the current supply to meet future Australian needs even in circumstances of maximum offshoring, and the predicted shortfall of skilled labour supply in most regions of the world which is likely not only to negate much of the cost advantage of offshore maintenance, but to affect the viability of relying on it as a primary means of meeting Australia’s airworthiness requirements beyond the short term.
While trolling through the Senate Qantas inquiry pages I came across a tabled doc from FedSec Steve, and although he has a rather large axe to grind with AJ & Co in the interest of his members, this particular AQON should be read in context of the IRRC submission: Additional information from Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, received 20 March 2014. (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=211777ab-de79-4f36-b5ef-9f5555839c87)

Happy reading...:ok: Hmm...on second thoughts perhaps not!:{

28th Mar 2014, 11:19
And yet another 'caring, concerned, knowledgeable' bureaucrat sticks its ugly head up into the spotlight. Why don't these guys just stick their heads back where they belong - up each other's a#ses and in some trough in Montreal.
Herr Beaker: (Warning!! This news clip contains much mi mi mi and some Beakerish eye movements)


Total folly. I would suggest that the Malaysians and counterparts not allow this Muppet anywhere near the investigation, he couldn't investigate a missing Comcar receipt let alone an accident on this scale. Besides he doesn't have the cash to fund the removal of a Blackbox from a couple of meters let alone 4000 metres.
Beaker, leave the task to the real experts which excludes you!
AMSA and their international partners are doing a stellar job. Good on ya boys and girls :ok:

28th Mar 2014, 22:23
377 # 659 "AMSA and their international partners are doing a stellar job'. etc.
Spot on, the AMSA officers interviewed impress, they are believable and leave an impression of both competence and confidence behind. You just don't worry about the search; there are bound to be stuff ups, wastage and frustration but overall, considering the size, scope and difficulties the AMSA has to deal with, I'd say well done. If I was a betting man, my money would be on the Brits being invited to 'oversight' a combined investigation along with the USA and Malaysia. I somehow just can't make the notion of our shamed, discredited ATSB getting a Guernsey to work. Not on an international, high stakes investigation. Nope they have some holes to fill in, some apologies to make and need to repair some seriously damaged international fences, before parading the "Beyond all reason" method to the world at large.

29th Mar 2014, 23:15
Although this was brought up on the 'Skygods'..AJ's not Happy..thread it is worth regurgitating here..:E Friday's Oz (Note: Not Steve Creedy, must be on hols..:confused:): Call to probe health of Qantas

A SENATE inquiry into Qantas has said a repeal of the Qantas Sale Act to allow more foreign ownership was an inadequate solution for the airline and has called for an “urgent” review of the national aviation sector.

A Senate committee says Qantas, led by chief executive Alan Joyce, has ‘no clear and consistent policy in terms of its future direction’ The rural, regional and transport affairs references committee, dominated by ALP members, said the government should first determine the “current financial situation” of Qantas beyond public reports before deciding on the type of parliamentary action required to help the airline. “The ‘Qantas problem’ cannot be fixed with a band-aid solution such as the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 proposed by the government or the debt guarantee proposed by the opposition,” the committee reported.

It called for a review of the “broader aviation sector in Australia” and the “challenges faced by Australian Airlines on a geographical and regulatory basis”.

“(We recommend) that the government take no further action on legislative or other reform and provide no assistance or guarantee to Qantas until an independent audit of the company has been completed,” the committee wrote.

“(That audit) should also seek to establish the level of any costshifting between Jetstar and Qantas.”

The transport unions — in claims pushed by committee member and independent senator Nick Xenophon — allege Qantas has shifted some of the costs of its Jetstar International expansion on to Qantas International operations.

The unions argue the Jetstar foray into Asia, a key aspect of Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce’s tenure, has been a disaster and the failures are being masked to some degree by “cost sharing”.

Qantas has repeatedly and strenuously denied those claims.

The committee called for the Air Navigation Act 1920 to be amended to “address the apparent loophole that allows the foreign investment cap to be obviated” as was “demonstrated by the restructure of Virgin Australia”.

The government “as a matter of urgency” should consult with industry and other relevant bodies to formulate terms of reference for a “comprehensive review of Australia’s aviation sector”, the committee said.
That review should include examination of the Open Skies policy and its impact on operators and consumers and should be undertaken by the productivity commission, the committee said.

It criticised Qantas as having “no clear and consistent policy in terms of its future direction” or at least not one “they are willing to discuss in the public sphere”.

“Legislative changes made by the government or other measures, including a debt guarantee, may not have the intended impact if there is not the ability or the will within Qantas to take advantage of them”.

The committee said Qantas had not stated a “strong position: on what specific changes it needed to recover, “other than insisting it is operating on an ‘unlevel playing-field’ compared to Virgin Australia”.

“It would perhaps be more useful and inspire greater confidence on the part of employees and consumers if Qantas were to have a clear strategic plan and a ‘wish list’ of actions for the government. This would demonstrate an engagement on the part of Qantas and assist the parliament in ensuring any action taken has the desired outcome.”

Committee member and Greens senator Lee Rhiannon accused the ALP of siding with Qantas via the committee.

“This inquiry was set up to investigate options available to the government to financially assist Qantas in the interests of protecting jobs and the national carrier,” Ms Rhiannon said.

“It’s clear Labor has caved to the pressure from Alan Joyce and senior Qantas management.

“They are willing to sell off the heart and lungs of the airline while trying to dud us into believing they want an Australian owned Qantas,” she said. Surprisingly, for a MMSM publication, this article is not quite so pro-RedRat...:D.

Also surprising is the fact that the reporter appears to have not quoted from the Laborial sections of the RRAT report but from Nick X's dissenting section, see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs/Report/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/qantas/report/report.pdf) (page 39-45).
(Comment: Funny how aviation bi-bartisanship doesn't stretch to the big Q..:rolleyes:)

Nick's recommendations: Recommendation 1
That the Government, as a matter of urgency, consult with industry and relevant bodies to formulate terms of reference for a comprehensive review of Australia’s aviation sector, including the Open Skies policy, and its impact on operators and consumers, to be undertaken by the Productivity Commission.

Recommendation 2
That the Government take no further action on legislative or other reform and provide no assistance or guarantee to Qantas until an independent audit of the company has been completed, which should also seek to establish the level of any cost-shifting between Jetstar and Qantas.

Recommendation 3
Subject to Recommendation 1, that the Air Navigation Act 1920 be amended to address the apparent loophole that allows the foreign investment cap to be obviated, as demonstrated in the restructure of Virgin Australia.
Maybe the penny has finally dropped, within the boffins in MMSM land and Laborial land, that in the comparatively small insular world of Oz aviation that all paths are intrinsically linked to the big Q...:E I might add that the good Senator X would appear to have worked this out quite some time ago..:ok:

Nick X quote: (http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/delay-take-off-for-qantas-changes/) “Jack Lang used to say ‘In politics, if you nurse a mug for long enough, he’s bound to die in your arms,’” Nick said. “It’s time for the Government to take a step back from Qantas and consider the bigger picture, or they’ll be the biggest mugs of all.”


Addendum: FNQ Wazza speaks out against Irish bomber bombing Q's Cairns Base (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fad6e1917-440e-4f90-acad-16d2af135e93%2F0259;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fad6e1 917-440e-4f90-acad-16d2af135e93%2F0000%22)..:=

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:22): I rise today to speak on behalf of the members of the Qantas crew base in Cairns, who received the shattering news four weeks ago that their base will be closed. One hundred and ten crew and their families were given just two weeks to decide whether they would relocate to another base, or resign and take a redundancy. Staff members have contacted me telling me how the closure would impact on them. One said—and this is typical of the comments:

As a family we love living in Cairns and we are not planning to relocate anywhere in the future. Qantas has forced us to uproot our lives, take our kids out of day care, forced my husband to leave his job, and made major changes regarding our financial stability.

We have been challenged and distressed by Qantas's decision. Our family enjoys living and working in Cairns. We share a sense of passion and engagement amongst the community and the diverse environment.
As locals on flights, we give great advice on what to see and do in Far North Queensland. We recommend locally owned operators and businesses. No other port in Australia has a crew so dedicated to promotion of their area.

Our outstanding commitment and performance has been overlooked by the upper echelon of corporate Qantas.

These comments are backed by the fact that Cairns consistently rates high in its customer service scores, as voted by the passengers, coming first in Australia in January, December and November. This is adding to Qantas's bottom line as a fantastic customer service. It has economy and value and encourages repeat and referral bookings.

I wrote to the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, on 4 March and asked him to reconsider his decision, allowing the base to remain, with a reduction in staff size if absolutely necessary, or to phase out the base over an extended period of time, with a review in 12 months.

To date, unsurprisingly, I have received no response. Today I have learnt that some crew have accepted redundancies because they are unable to relocate to a major city. They finish on 4 May. Those crews that are in a position where they have to uproot and move to Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth will be gone by 30 June. This is very disappointing news. Consider that the Qantas board of directors had a choice of three people to take on the CEO. Their choice took a world-class, full-service airline and transformed it to a low-cost, no-frills carrier. On the other hand, one of the unsuccessful candidates moved to a low-cost, no-frills carrier and turned it into an outstanding full-service carrier. One ponders on who got the best deal: Qantas or Virgin. I would suggest many of Qantas's woes could be addressed if the board were to revisit that decision.:D:D

Qantas is a great airline with great staff and a great future. What it needs is a leader with comprehensive knowledge and the commitment to rebuilding and maintaining a full-service airline. (Time expired)

1st Apr 2014, 15:14
I would like to know exactly what view CASA are taking about the Qantas unrest? Considering CASA make everybody else jump through hoops, submit safety cases, have a robust safety management system and a mature change management process when it comes to major organisational change, are CASA engaged with what is going on?
Mass changes in the airline, redundancies, key management personnel coming and going, changes within processes and procedures, changes to org structures, the list is endless...... Does this make QF rank highly on CASA's internal risk register?

1st Apr 2014, 21:52
Para - I expect they are sternly, robustly even 'monitoring' the situation and staying well out the way Qantas legal. Beating up a little Tiger is one thing; but a tangle with Big Q legal is an entirely different matter. Oh, BTW the Big Q now has a new meaning – big queue at the dole office. What a bloody shambles.

On topic – from Phelan and Proaviation, the following just published:-

Regulatory reform. (http://proaviation.com.au/2013/10/23/regulatory-reform-not-much-closer-comment/)

Crisis point. (http://proaviation.com.au/crisis-point-for-australian-aviation/)

777 POV. (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/04/01/a-boeing-777s-last-descent/#more-2289)

1st Apr 2014, 23:19
Para 377, CASA have no capability whatsoever to "regulate" Qantas and never have had since at least since 1976. They couldn't regulate Ansett either, my first task on joining that airline was to answer the CASA question: "can you build a system that produces reports for us showing how safe you are?".

Little Sunfish dutifully concocted a system that tracked defects by ATA chapter, by fleet and by port. We calculated confidence limits from standard deviations and automatically produced a monthly printout which was dutifully sent to CAA(?)

Never heard from them again....

2nd Apr 2014, 12:42
Little Sunfish dutifully concocted a system that tracked defects by ATA chapter, by fleet and by port. We calculated confidence limits from standard deviations and automatically produced a monthly printout which was dutifully sent to CAA(?)
Never heard from them again....
Sunny, you didn't hear from them again because they didn't understand what you sent them you naughty boy! CASA/CAA/DIMWITS whatever it is that they are called every decade, only understand what the bottom of a trough looks like, what the back of a QF business class seat looks like, or what a glossy bureaucracy spun brochure containing spiffy plane pictures and large bold (kudos to Chairman Hawke on that score) looks like. In my opinion QF has for decades remained 'off limits' to Fort Fumble. CASA don't have the balls to so much as slap QF with a wet bus ticket. Unfortunately the executive twats at CASA and their Government puppet masters think that nobody else know this, that somehow we are all blinded, befuddled and bewildered by the mystique of aviation. Idiots.

Waghi Warrior
2nd Apr 2014, 19:39
I am sure that favouritism towards a national airline by the local regulator in some countries isn't uncommon, for what ever reason. Not saying this has been the case in Australia though.

3rd Apr 2014, 07:40
While mi..mi..mi..Beaker is currently stealing the limelight it would seem the other (STBR) muppet attendance record at AMC (Anger Management Counselling) is paying off...:rolleyes::CASA simplifies flying training regs

Item by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) at 2:29 pm, Thursday April 3 2014 Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/04/casa-simplifies-flying-training-regs/#comments)

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it is simplifying the regulations that cover flying training organisations following a review of the Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

CASA says the simplification of the rules and requirements will cut red tape and reduce costs for about 300 flying training schools across Australia, and estimates the changes will lower costs in the flying training industry by nearly $2 million a year.

Optimal safety outcomes for flying training will be maintained by retaining the core elements of the new Part 141 which covers flying training for recreational, private and commercial pilot licences, ratings and endorsements for single pilot aircraft. It does not extend to intensive integrated training for private and commercial licences, which is contained in Part 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

The new regulations which include Part 141 will take effect from September 1 2014, and simplification of the requirements will be made before the new regulations come into effect.

“I am very pleased the new regulations in Part 141 can be simplified and made less costly while at the same time maintaining high safety outcomes,” CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick said in a statement. “Naturally, safety can never be jeopardised in the pursuit of simpler regulations but with hard work the two outcomes can be achieved. CASA has listened to the views of people in the flying training sector and responded to their concerns with positive action.”

The changes to Part 141 and other information can be found at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Regulation reform (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101705) Still a long road to full recovery but the signs are certainly positive, however how long before the DAS is again kidnapped by the IRON ring??:ugh:

Animal Rejoins The Muppets at Anger Managment: "In Control ..." - YouTube

In other news the NSW Government is still open to submissions to it's Regional Aviation Services inquiry, see here (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/regionalaviation?open&refnavid=CO4_1)

However what should be most concerning for the miniscule, who is also the leader of the NATs, is the amount of submissions already lodged from many regional communities (the bulk of his party's constituents) concerned with the current status quo of regional air services:No. 1, Mr Glen Crump
No. 2, Lake Macquarie City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/A36EEBE01D088624CA257CA5001658E8)
No. 3, Coffs Harbour City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/6E0DCB60D476C869CA257CA50016766F)
No. 4, Bega Valley Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/18DC65EC693634C2CA257CA50016825B)
No. 5, Bourke Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/89CEE5653A7E082BCA257CA50016922D)
No. 6, Mid-Western Regional Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/7BF6ECD954156C90CA257CA500169B76)
No. 7, Leeton Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/D8B566C0B92629CBCA257CA50016BDE1)
No. 8, Clarence Valley Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/3368185416C0BCD2CA257CA50016CBC6)
No. 9, Narrandera Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/CA936B756CFAE9DECA257CA500176F95)
No. 10, Narrabri Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/435891638F5FA2EFCA257CA5001782A0)
No. 11, Cobar Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/C8ED3D0C6F05111DCA257CA500179315)
No. 12, Regional Development Australia Sydney (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/CCAB89C8BE6505A9CA257CA50017A1AA)
No. 13, Dubbo City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/B850A7EBB40B50BACA257CA50017AFDF)
No. 14, Griffith Business Chamber (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/99AB5453493C486BCA257CA50017BE9C)
No. 15, Regional Development Australia Orana (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/B3EE22B4CB54B9EECA257CA50017CD12)
No. 16, Mr Robert Gordon (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/2E772BD3D78DC0C7CA257CA50017DA77)
No. 17, Griffith City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/0B459934A1FCE006CA257CA50017E593)
No. 18, Regional Development Australia Northern Rivers (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/769A65F14A066DEECA257CA500180522)
No. 19, Eurobodalla Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/8C4088C0A53A4B9DCA257CA500182666)
No. 20, Cessnock City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/C5DC970630F9F50BCA257CA500183770)
No. 21, Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/D6ED8C9905E02733CA257CA50018416D)
No. 22, Gilgandra Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/492926943FB1124BCA257CA500184D73)
No. 23, Local Government NSW (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/CE21E010D56E542FCA257CA5001859E8)
No. 24, Mr Kevin Anderson MP (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/C35159D6C008EE60CA257CA50018634A)
No. 25, AlburyCity Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/C046342896B5D305CA257CA500187C91)
No. 26, Moree Plains Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/47AF453BC73F338CCA257CA50018B355)
No. 27, Airlines of Tasmania Pty Ltd (T/A Par Avion) (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/73F3B7CAE5303AB6CA257CA50018D55F)
No. 28, Armidale Dumaresq Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/6FF6F0BD03F3CDE9CA257CA50018ED4C)
No. 29, Hunter Business Chamber (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/5D7A0D049C6A0E5ECA257CA5001902D9)
No. 30, Australian Airports Association (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/3DC02D1C376CB2DBCA257CA50019128C)
No. 31, Orange Business Chamber (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/72DBA50864747DDACA257CA50019246B)
No. 32, Central NSW Councils (Centroc) & Central NSW Tourism (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/D90C2C6AF2C32482CA257CA500194F10)
No. 33, Ms Roslyn Lunsford (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/15BF8A28F551CA4ACA257CA500196BE8)
No. 34, The Royal Newcastle Aero Club (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/B6FEE97F32643287CA257CA500199999)
No. 35, Port Macquarie-Hastings Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/982A47EE78F04D59CA257CA50019B38D)
No. 36, Coonamble Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/183949F669165B88CA257CA50019C518)
No. 37, Wyong Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/20CBB78F3FD5426BCA257CA50019D0EE)
No. 38, Coonamble Chamber of Commerce (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/50AE473E8383511DCA257CA50019DC63)
No. 39, Walgett Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/1A702D34433C633BCA257CA50019EB7F)
No. 40, Tamworth Regional Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/D24906D21BA793D3CA257CA50019F586)
No. 41, Parkes Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/5862FCCF41C4CB60CA257CA5001A09DD)
No. 42, Snowy River Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/0547A848AFDEB098CA257CA5001A1607)
No. 43, Lachlan Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/0D38321CB6A46F48CA257CA5001A1FE6)
No. 44, Inland NSW Tourism (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/77B19ABCEB12E172CA257CA5001A29CA)
No. 45, Broken Hill City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/0312E1662349DED7CA257CA5001A3510)
No. 46, Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/7554D2D395C2EEBFCA257CA5001A560E)
No. 47, Aviator Group (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/30C1395101967089CA257CA5001A6EE3)
No. 48, Newcastle Airport Pty Ltd (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/563317FFED3DBC1FCA257CA5001A78DB)
No. 49, Charles Sturt University (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/153BA603670CF3CFCA257CA5001A9E01)
No. 50, Bathrust Regional Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/9EECF52B38A1D47BCA257CA5001AA81B)
No. 51, Regional Development Australia Riverina (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/1E24CDC4CC27C042CA257CA5001ABA8F)
No. 52, Wagga Wagga City Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/354B8880E13576FFCA257CA5001AC769)
No. 53, NSW Business Chamber (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/D9FEAEE5E04134B5CA257CA5001AD095)
No. 54, Ballina Byron Gateway Airport (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/AFDE18EFA030F3BACA257CA5001ADB6F)
No. 55, Riverina Regional Tourism (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/5399789859CABDA3CA257CA5001AE873)
No. 56, Qantas Airways Limited (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/A8DC0E167FD5870ACA257CA5001AF787)
No. 57, Rex Regional Express (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/4B90363D1567B8C5CA257CAF0008C4EE)
No. 58, Cowra Shire Council (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/8E3A724C0ADB7506CA257CAF0008D580)
No. 59, Regional Aviation Association of Australia (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/8D88388D9A8CC9B4CA257CAF0008E8C5)
No. 60, Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/E577C4FE1F1E0017CA257CAF00090F73) But don't worry miniscule cause Kingcrat has come to your rescue (Sub No 60)...:E

3rd Apr 2014, 13:24
The ATSBeaker deserves nothing short of a robust pineapple, however the WLR will only give him a softly inserted banana. We are hearing a lot of mi mi mi but nothing worthwhile will happen.

Truss lining up Beaker:

The WLR delivers its 'post review summary' to MrDak:

6th Apr 2014, 00:38
Not Cut, Colour & Clarity, the PelAir debacle is certainly not a crystal clear example of world’s best practice of administering a “just culture” for the betterment of aviation safety. Rather the three “C”s, in our wonderful insular aviation industry, stand for credibility (i.e ATsB/CAsA have none), cringe (worthy) & cynical…:{:ugh:

IOS examples of the three “C”s

Cringe worthy

Today there may or may not have been a breakthrough in the search for flight MH370 (reference Plane Talking):MH370 Northern search focus detects possible pulse (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/06/mh370-northern-search-focus-detects-possible-pulse/)

However could I suggest (much like with the lack of references to the FF DAS retiring) that it may be an idea if Angus Houston (head of the JACC) & the government drop any references to the ATsBeaker…:oh:

Media Release JACC: Media Reporting on Chinese Ship Detection of Electronic Pulse Signals (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr010.aspx)

“..Advice tonight from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is that they cannot verify any connection to the missing aircraft...”


Kharon post #1862 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-94.html#post8419230):
“…Smoke and mirrors 1. The Dolan response blatantly ignores the easy, pre-arranged tow from 50 meters to 30 meters and presents his argument intimating that the 'dive' is to be conducted in 50 not 30 meters.

Smoke and mirrors 2. Why abandon the project at such a late stage ? the initial funding allocation by made Sangston would more than adequately have covered the cable tow to a 30 meter location and the modest fees charged by the diver; done and dusted…”


Plane Talking - Jetstar incident near Gold Coast important yet not a ‘drama’ (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/05/jetstar-incidet-near-gold-coast-important-yet-not-a-drama/)

“…Let’s see where this inquiry leads, and in the post Pel-Air world of ATSB fumbling and bumbling, cut through to what it means, for better or for worse, and keep an open mind.

The inquiry is not being held for fun. There is a reason for it being launched…”

Ok back to the Truss WLR…
Australian Aviation April 2 2014:UAV operators submit to safety review (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/04/uav-operators-submit-to-safety-review/)

The Australian Certified UAV Operators Association (ACUO) is calling for the current Federal Government Aviation Safety Regulation Review to back a harder line to combat the growing problem of illegal unmanned aircraft operations.

The call comes as the ACUO released its submission to the review in light of a recent reported near-miss incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter and an unknown UAV operating at 1000ft.

The submission calls for new resourcing to be provided to CASA to deal specifically with illegal UAS operations, and warns that the outlook facing the Australian unmanned aircraft industry has strong parallels with the rise of commercial aviation in Australia during the 1920s and 1930s, where a high rate of incidents included loss of human life.

“Under resourcing of the regulatory and compliance management capacities of CASA is not an option as the unmanned aircraft industry continues its rapid growth in not just Australia, but internationally” said Joe Urli, ACUO President in a statement. “Illegal unmanned aircraft operations are on the rise in Australia and the question of whether they will be a serious safety incident is no longer theoretical given last weeks reported near-miss incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter flying back to its Newcastle base.”

The full ACUO submission to the review can be downloaded at http://www.acuo.org.au/ (http://www.acuo.org.au/)Significant quote from ACUO submission (my bold):
“..In 2013 however, CASA announced changes to the way certified UAV Operators would be ‘approved’ for ALL commercial UAV operations outside new ‘default operating privileges’ of:

 Day VMC
 Below 400ft AGL
 Not in Controlled Airspace
 Not within 3nm of any aerodrome or helipad
 Not over a Populous Area

There were no reasons given by CASA or ASA for these changes, and no activity or incident we are aware of that prompted this change…”

Hmm...a worthy contribution from ACUO…:ok:

For Sundy amusement:O - "Untidy Indeed!"

[YOUTUBE]Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12 - 'Untidy indeed!' - YouTube

6th Apr 2014, 07:20
Sarcs, I'm still laughing :ok:
It seems Terry's memory was very 'untidy', until of course Sen Heff pulled out a little reminder. Perhaps Alzheimer's is affecting the A380 endorsed grey nomad?
And as usual Mr Boyd looked rather miffed at the level of questions being asked, and naturally couldn't answer the 'untidy' question either! Maybe they can't answer the question because they have all been too busy in Montreal to know the answer?
And did anybody notice that Hoody was the only one of the six to still sprout a robust head of hair, even though it had been trimmed somewhat?

Sarcs, out of interest, did Fort Fumble end up providing the QON detail regarding CAsA's hiring of the Pel Air CP? Would have been great to see if the position was advertised, who conducted the interviews and then signed off on his hiring, who all the applicants were, etc etc. Indeed, another potentially 'untidy' CAsA shenanigan :=

6th Apr 2014, 22:14
004 – [who] conducted the interviews and then signed off on his hiring, who all the applicants were, etc etc. Indeed, another potentially 'untidy' CAsA shenanigans". etc...

If you can't get access, you can't get in to tidy up; Phase 1 = access. The team led by someone who forensically knows the intricacies of the 'system'; where the skeletons are buried and how to dig 'em up. Phase 2 – armed with unimpeachable evidence, prosecute those who have knowingly, with intent broken the rules. Phase 3: tidy up what's left.

Because when you start to add it all up it's hard to see how the miniscule can (dare) to sign off on yet another whitewash document, like the response to Senate. Pragmatically, it is impossible for any miniscule to publicly acknowledge that the loonies have been running the asylum, fair enough, we can live with that; but the miniscule must, in one form or another 'brief' the new DAS, simple statement; "do some house keeping and report directly to me". We have regrettably passed that happy age where heads were placed on spikes in public view; but that's just window dressing. In the modern PC age, we need to hear lot's of "spending more time with family"; or, "having served faithfully for 40 years, Old Faithful is retiring" (I'd even pay for the gold watches); that way the mill pond surface is not disturbed. But it needs to be done and tout de suit, (the tooter the sweeter).

Reading through the 'subtext' of politician statements (Cheers Sarcs)

The government “as a matter of urgency” should consult with industry and other relevant bodies to formulate terms of reference for a “comprehensive review of Australia’s aviation sector”, the committee said.

They know industry is in a hell of a state: they have had a glimpse through the keyhole of Pel Air, that rocked them. Hopefully, through the partly cleaned window provided by the Reverent Forsyth' s camera obscura, a much better view of the underlying problems. Time to kick open the door methinks. But be warned, it will startle the horses and make the ladies swoon; it's not pretty in there.

If there is insufficient 'evidence' to promote a no holds barred inquiry; I am certain that the Senate committee could be provided with an avalanche of documents; within a working week of a request being made. One of the more interesting 'reads' would be the 'hired, fired and resigned' chapter. There are some strange tales, but true in that one. Parliamentary privilege through a Senate inquiry is all we need and even the miniscule cannot prevent that. Bring it on, I say.

Sarcs, out of interest, did Fort Fumble end up providing the QON detail regarding CAsA's hiring of the Pel Air CP?

Bloody good question ?????? the sanitised answer would do; there has been some interesting hiring and firing done in certain offices.

6th Apr 2014, 23:14
For Kharon & 004's benefit ;): CASA08: Recruitment of John Wickham to CASA
Hansard: p.52

Senator NASH: Also, just regarding Mr Wickham and his appointment to CASA, could
you—again on notice, if you would not mind—provide for the committee how many
applicants there were for that position and who was on the selection panel? I think, as the
chair has raised, it looks extremely odd that CASA would employ the chief pilot from Pel-Air
while ATSB was currently conducting the investigation around the report. It is very, very
strange. So if you could take on notice for us the applicants and who was on the selection

Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator.

Mr Wickham originally applied for a position as a Flight Training Examiner in August 2010.
That recruitment process involved 9 applicants, 4 of whom were interviewed. The panel
consisted of (Manager Flying Standards), (Team Leader
Flight Training) and , (Team Leader Administration).

In October 2010 Mr Wickham was selected as the second ranked candidate and placed on a
merit list for future vacancies. The preferred applicant for the Flight Training Examiner
subsequently withdrew and Mr Wickham was then offered the role. He elected to continue
with the Flying Operations Inspector (FOI) application as outlined below.

When a vacancy for a FOI arose in June 2010, a review of candidates available from a merit
lists was conducted and Mr Wickham was identified as meeting all the mandatory
qualifications for an FOI position in December 2010. An additional interview and
background checks were completed on Mr Wickham by a new panel made up of
(Acting Manager General Aviation GA Field Office Sydney) and
(Recruitment Consultant) to assess Mr Wickham for the FOI position. A report was
submitted and following approval by the delegate an offer was made to Mr Wickham in late
January 2011. He commenced in CASA on February 2011.

Both Flight Training Examiner and Flying Operations Inspector positions have similar
mandatory and desirable criteria including holding a current Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane)
and Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) Licences, a Command (Multi Engine Aeroplane)
Instrument Rating, a current Class 1 Medical certificate and to hold or have held Approved
Testing Officer delegations, Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating, Chief Pilot and/or Chief Flying
Instructor approval and have had extensive training and checking experience. Mr Wickham
met or exceeded these criteria.
Plus the PelAir desktop AQON from Senator Nash..:= CASA 09: Desktop work by Mr John Wickham
Hansard: p.36

Senator NASH: Could you clarify what the desktop work was that Mr Wickham was doing
on Pel-Air and when that was?

Mr McCormick: Could you give us a couple of minutes to look for that, Senator.

On 11 November 2011 Mr Wickham participated as an observer for an assessment of a Pel-
Air check pilot to gain approval to conduct Emergency Procedures Checks under the Civil
Aviation Orders. The task was conducted by a CASA senior Flying Operations Inspector
(FOI) and was necessary as part of Mr Wickham’s development for the FOI role. There was
no other work conducted on Pel-Air by Mr Wickham.
While on the subject of PelAir the following is a copy of Mr Aherne's oral evidence given at the Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12, "In your view!":

[YOUTUBE]Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12 - Bryan Aherne Part 1 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/lvVcKhJGfzU)

[YOUTUBE]Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12 - Bryan Aherne Part 2 - YouTube

[YOUTUBE]Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12 - Bryan Aherne Part 3 - YouTube

Funny how nothing has changed and things are indeed still 'bizarre'!:ugh::yuk::yuk:

Perhaps the miniscule & Mr Forsyth would do well to refer to Bryan for an unadulterated aviation expert version/opinion (take) on the PelAir shenanigans...:E

Hmm wonder if Bryan has made a WLR submission..:ok:

7th Apr 2014, 03:45
Mr Sarcs, again thank for your detailed response. You answered my QON in under 48 hours, with a good measure of detail :ok:
I would recommend you join CAsA, they could learn a thing or two!

However, before we become overwhelmed with excitement, some further probing is required, by way of names. What are the names of all involved in the process of hiring Mr Wickham? Are any of those names familiar to Mr Wickham, for example ex colleagues from the industry etc?
Out of curiosity was the recruitment organisation run by one Gary Harbor? Don't know, just a wee thought.

To be cont....

7th Apr 2014, 13:38
Sorry, but what the hell is a "merit list"???????????

This is just effing corrupt!!!! There is no other word for it.

Standard Public service hiring practice is that a hiring decision is made from a list of candidates who meet the experience and qualification requirements of the position on the day. All other candidates are rejected once a candidate accepts an offer and the process is complete.

There is no "merit list" because that is an open invitation to official corruption - to get ones name on "the list", presumably to wait until there is a "suitable" appointment available.

I cannot stress to much that a public company adopting such a process would face an almost immediate legal challenge from any number of sources. This is just plain ******* corrupt.

The existence of a "list" in a hiring process is just plain indefensible

7th Apr 2014, 17:04
Standard Public service hiring practice is that a hiring decision is made from a list of candidates who meet the experience and qualification requirements of the position on the day. All other candidates are rejected once a candidate accepts an offer and the process is complete.

Agree, believe it is form 424 Selection Advisory Committee Report in casa's case and for a specific position that details and rates applicants and offer.

The process maybe on the casa website.

7th Apr 2014, 22:14
"An additional interview and background checks were completed on Mr Wickham by a new panel made up of (Acting Manager General Aviation GA Field Office Sydney) and (Recruitment Consultant) to assess Mr Wickham for the FOI position. A report was submitted and following approval by the delegate an offer was made to Mr Wickham". (my bold).

Sunny, it gets even more 'peculiar' just a little way under the mirrored surface, there appear to be some very strange going's on in certain offices. Oh to open up the WLR terms of reference; invoke parliamentary privilege, sit back and listen. There are some questions of a tricky nature which demand answers and it's always interesting to listen to the answers. There are, in one office alone, four ground floor 'hiring's' and one firing which IMO need to be examined; in depth, preferably by the AFP (only for the sake of impartiality). Then the informed questioner could look further up the ladder at the snakes residing on the second level. Whether it be publicly or clandestinely managed, the new DAS must do some housekeeping, this with the full cooperation of and support from both ministerial managers and the board.

House keeping needs to address several areas; potential criminal acts, potential corrupt acts working slowly through negligence, incompetence and pure, old fashioned laziness. This is not for the benefit of the 'public', but for that of the board and of the miniscule. Look at how much crap Sinodinos landed in; tricky business this sitting back, being bored and taking the loot. These folk are, after all paid to be the place where the buck stops.

Whoever gets the DAS Guernsey will need to hit the ground running – assuming of course, the intention is clean up CASA and thereby regain industry confidence, cooperation and assistance by doing so.

On the lighter side, there is now a competition where you can showcase your skills and promote the benefits of training your very own personal, preferred pet. So, just for a laugh.

How high Mum?

7th Apr 2014, 22:47
As an aside to the passing strange FF hiring practices, pings :confused: & mystery black boxes, I noticed that Phearless Phelan is catching up...:rolleyes: :D: Agricultural operators dump on the regulator (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/04/08/agricultural-operators-dump-on-the-regulator/)Peace at last?Well, not quite:

It is worthwhile noting that the AAAA SOM is almost universally disliked by CASA FOIs and AWIs – not because they disagree with the content (they recently had the opportunity to make criticisms and input and very little was received) but because the SOM enforces a standardised approach on all CASA staff as the manual cannot be amended by individual FOIs or AWIs. It can only be amended at a higher level in consultations between CASA and AAAA.

By removing the power of CASA field staff to intimidate and obfuscate in accordance with personal preferences, the manual has delivered a significant cost saving to CASA, quicker turnaround and approval times for industry, and far greater certainty in the process.

But AAAA says this success had now been reversed by CASA’s lack of understanding of either the SOM concept or how it works within the regulator’s organisation. The resulting waste of time and human resources has not resulted in quicker handling of CASA “approvals” and the joint initiative has failed to deliver on its goals, complain the operators.

A prevalent theme common to many of these issues is CASA’s spectacular failure to deliver regulatory reform that is compliant with the project’s founding principles, and (in one example) then to blame industry for the fact that they are simply not workable because implementation required a manual of standards which had yet to be developed. Well summarised by PP..:D

One thing new that PP brings to IOS attention is the fact that the other Phil & the Aerial Ag mob had made a supplementary submission (must of missed that in the mystery of MH370 & VH-NGA's missing black boxes):
A supplementary submission

Delivered to the Panel on 20 January, AAAA’s submission may have taken the ASRR Panel by surprise, although it is carefully constructed to fit with the review’s terms of reference and clearly identifies problems, their impact, their background, and viable solutions.

Perhaps at the Panel’s request, the Association later filed a supplementary submission that has identified what AAAA believes to be four key areas that need attention and amendment, and a way forward to achieve them.
The supplementary submission sets out:

12 recommended amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Replacement of the current Board with a reformed structure; or
Bringing CASA back under the Department of Infrastructure as a responsible departmental agency of the Department in a similar manner to other Department of Infrastructure agencies;
Regulatory reform moved to the Department of Infrastructure;
Safety promotion moved to ATSB; and
An ongoing economic and efficiency review to reduce the “waste, inefficiency and increasing costs imposed on industry [which] are tolerated by CASA because it has no incentive to reform itself.”

The AAAA submission has peered into several dark corners and identified numerous reasons for long-standing industry frustration and near-despair. It is recommended reading for everybody in the industry who hopes for reform. It is also recommended reading for CASA’s entire Board, its senior managers, the Department’s bureaucrats, and in particular the current Minister, whose apparent inertia on these matters is matched only by that of his predecessor, Anthony Albanese.

Click here (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Portals/0/AAAA%20Sub%20Av%20Safety%20Review%20Jan%202014%281%29.pdf) for the entire detailed 40-page AAAA submission, and here (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Portals/0/ASRR%20AAAA%20Sub%20supplement%204%281%29.pdf) for the supplementary submission. IOS choccy frog award for PP(PA) & a further bonus choccy frog for PH(AAAA)...:ok:

thorn bird
8th Apr 2014, 00:27
Chocky frog!! darn it Sarks give them a box each.
They identified and fixed one of the major problems and frustrations that plague the commercial side of GA. Its sad but perhaps an indictment of the lack of direction by senior management in CAsA that has allowed the FOI's and AWI's to destroy the generic manual.

Thirty years ago you still had to have an operations manual.

The manual was generally thirty or forty pages long and reflected instructions pertinent to company operations the CP felt were beyond what the various regulations dictated. Operating instructions for installed equipment not contained in manufacturers manuals, and directions on company administration and employment.

Today that has Morphed into 1000 page Tomes of biblical proportions just for the main Part A. There are some in CAsA who love to call the ops manual a "Living Document"!!! Its alive for sure because its breeding, the PART A now has an ever expanding brood of chicks, one company I know is now out to PART J, I have no idea what they are going to do when they run out of Alphabet. The "New" reg's will require them to be carried on board the aircraft within easy reach of the pilot. So after the ballast in the rear locker to balance all the books scattered around the flight deck, a librarian crew member to find the right book and pass it to the pilot, there aint going to be much room left for the passengers.

The operations manuals now no longer express stuff that the operator particularly wants to express to those in their employ, rather they contain the opinions of various FOI's and AWI's that have crossed the operators path over the years, and therein lies the long suffering CP's despair. What's "compliant" for this FOI or AWI is not necessarily "Compliant" for the next, similarly what is "Compliant" in NSW may not be "Compliant" in QLD.

Those retired CAsA people who now make their living producing this stuff first question will be.."Who's your FOI..Ah you need a Billy Blowfly Manual".

Why are many in the industry paying exorbitant fees to these manual writers? I know of a company who forked out over a hundred grand for manuals, CAsA fees and proving flights to put a simple Citation on their AOC, they already operated one, it was just a different type. Based on their Part C, an amalgam of three or so FOI's opinions, it will cost this company around forty grand just to give a pilot a job on this aircraft, plus dozens of hours of non revenue flying to keep them employed.

If the industry and CAsA consulted and produced generic manuals those fees could be charged by CAsA and provide an income stream, CP's would suddenly stop being angry men, hell maybe people would start applying for CP positions again as most of the frustration would be removed at a stroke, and the ever present threat to their career and livelihood from the dreaded "Not a Fit and Proper person" Friday fax so beloved of the dastedly wabbit.

I don't believe the old "Liability" issue is pertinent largely because out there in the cyber world there are lots and lots of carefully stored emails and scanned documents to trot out if there ever was a liability issue, which I believe would prove to any judge that these manuals are heavily influenced by CAsA via their FOI's and AWI's.

If this occurred, the industry would all be working off the same page, and an even playing field. There would be enormous savings, imagine.. a 20;11 check by one company could be accepted by another, a proficiency check by this company could be accepted by another...so many other requirements that stem from regulations that should have everyone doing the same thing, with the same standards, that currently don't, everybody is different, different based on the opinions of various CAsA employees.

Boys and girls if you think its bad today...have a look at what's coming down the pipeline, a target rich environment that must have the FOI's and AWI's rubbing their hands with glee at the carnage they will be able to inflict on the industry.

8th Apr 2014, 14:40
Here here :ok:

12 recommended amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Replacement of the current Board with a reformed structure; or
Bringing CASA back under the Department of Infrastructure as a responsible departmental agency of the Department in a similar manner to other Department of Infrastructure agencies;
Regulatory reform moved to the Department of Infrastructure;
Safety promotion moved to ATSB; and
An ongoing economic and efficiency review to reduce the “waste, inefficiency and increasing costs imposed on industry [which] are tolerated by CASA because it has no incentive to reform itself.”

The Ag boys and gals have really got the old finger on the pulse. I agree with all the above. Particularly the reference to removing the Board. They should all go, lock, stock and smoking barrel. Truss increasing the number by 2 is a joke. The current Board needs to have their trough privileges removed and be shown the door, pronto. If anything, a new Board not comprising of career bureaucrats, Miniscule bodyguards and spin doctors. Send Chairman Hawke and friends to Comcare, somewhere like that, and take Dolan from the ATSB with you. Comcare has lots of juicy rabbit holes, senior bureaucrats and pots of money to protect. Aviation SAFETY holds no place for people like you. As for the other CASA executives they should be tar and feathered and handed to the IOS!

8th Apr 2014, 23:28
There are many so many salient points in the AAAA supplementary all worthy. They lead to some not so idle speculation and have the potential to cheer up the 'lighter' end of industry.

Firstly, there are indications that the 'sup' was requested; this is a good thing and probably true. The AAAA submission was 'sub tended' by many others, all with pretty much the same strong message. The 'sup' seems to be a natural extension and the first sign that the WLR is 'honest' and seeking real, strongly grounded answers for their report. It is now clearly apparent from the response to Pel Air that Truss and Co. will dilute and whitewash the issues until they become a shadowy spectre of the original intent. This means (to a honest review) that the report must be unequivocal with no escape paths. Tough job; but by citing AAAA as industry supported (which they bloody well should be) provides a corner stone for a comprehensive review. There are others, equally important which may, with luck close down some more of the 'wriggle' room.

Secondly, the 'sup' barely mentions 'regulatory' changes but defines sections of the Act which are in dire need of reform. Here again with practical, theoretical, legal and political savvy, the AAAA build a strong platform for meaningful reform. I'd like to think that a new Act would pave the way for adopting (with some changes) the NZ or USA regulations. It makes sense (to me at least), getting our Act together promotes the notion of adopting a sane, proven, ICAO compliant rule set. This could be speedily and economically achieved; much to everyone's relief and benefit.

Thirdly, if Truss is to accept and action the recommendations of "his" carefully selected, experienced, qualified team and expensive, time consuming review; he will need to select a DAS with proven track record of effecting change (actually doing, not just talking 'it' up), in the face of strong GWM resistance. One with a demonstrated ability to achieve 'true' ICAO compliance, a natural leader with understanding of and experienced in Australian industry. Despite the many claims (and I hear some risible applications) to the throne, in reality there are very few would could actually see the job through to a successful outcome. I can think of just three who would be capable; who could build and lead a reform support team.

The big IF is will Truss man up? It's a big, tough dirty job for someone; but, in reality all Truss has to do is sign off. No requirement for his Lilly white hands to get dirty, no heavy lifting, no blood letting. Reward, a footnote in history to remind future generations that W. Truss Esq. was the man responsible for a major renaissance in the Australian aviation industry. Not a bad epitaph really.


thorn bird
9th Apr 2014, 01:10
There you go Boatman,

Some posters around airports, as many airmen as possible email Truss

A concerned Aviator.

Frank Arouet
9th Apr 2014, 03:44
Just watching Abbott in Korea at the DMZ and was horrified to think that if one of those 'belligerents' on the other side chucked a grenade at him, Truss would be our new PM. I can't get the bloody image out of my head.

I may start drinking early today.

9th Apr 2014, 11:53
I'm having a couple as well.:ok:

Dont worry, I dont think anyone in North Korea would figure a pot shot at the PM of an insignificant little country, of unknown geographical position , would be worth starting WW3 over.

I do admit tho, that The Trussed as PM would be very scary.
Jeeez...would the AsRR and GA rate in that circumstance. I think not.:mad:

Immediate concern is what he 's going to do with 'his' review...which is currently claimed to be the snake oil panacea..it will cure everything.

I wish. ! And we'll see, in May
Man of steel... or the strength of a wet bus ticket.???? :eek:

10th Apr 2014, 03:47
Although FF did their utmost to discredit Mick Quinn (the play the man routine) and his evidence given in the AAI inquiry, perhaps upon reflection it would be worth the WLR panel reviewing some of MQ’s evidence in light of…

TOR objective bullet point two…

• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);

& TOR outcome bullet point two…

• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;

The following is two segments from the MQ evidence presented at the 22 October 2012 public hearing that very much go to the above TOR references…:D


Hansard segment 1:

“….Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)There are two more issues. At pages 10 to 13 of your submission, you have made reference about the ATSB/CASA review of 2007, the Miller review. You talk about the interplay between the ATSB and CASA. Do you think that the matters raised by Mr Miller in his report of 2007 have been adequately dealt with in terms of the current relationship between CASA and the ATSB?

Mr Quinn : A lot of work by both organisations went into sorting this out. What I believe, though, is that Mr Miller's comments have been interpreted in an incorrect way. The relationship now, which was one that, particularly after the Lockhart River accident, got personal between individuals in both organisations—

CHAIR: We have had experience of that in this committee.

Mr Quinn : Yes. It got very personal. I use the term 'pendulum'; the pendulum has now swung from one of adverse tension that was not producing the sort of outcomes that the aviation safety industry wants to completely the opposite way, where I believe those two organisations are basically acting as one. There needs to be this tension. It is a professional thing and it is a big part of the aviation industry that there be transparency and that these two organisations have very specific roles under their acts, and that seems to have diminished. I think this report is evidence of that….”


Hansard segment two:

“…Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Do you see that one of the steps to recovering that is looking at the MOU between CASA and ATSB? I am aware that was developed after the report in 2007—the Miller review, I think it was—to try to make sure there is a good relationship. I know you talked about the pendulum swinging. Is that one of the key things that needs to be looked at to get that check and balance back into the system?

Mr Quinn: I know there is some criticism about the MOU in the industry, but I do not think the MOU is the problem. I think the problem is the application of it and any interpretation that might be in that. Certainly a review of the MOU should be done, and I think in terms of doing that review it would be pretty wise to have a look at what the NTSB and the FAA do in the US, because they seem to have it fairly right, in my view, and also the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in the UK and the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission. There are other examples out there that we can learn from. I am not criticising the MOU. I do not think the MOU is the problem; I think it is the interpretation, the application and the implementation of that relationship. It needs to be removed from personalities and put back into people accepting that this is not about blame; it is about fixing things. That includes the regulator, it includes the industry, it includes individuals like Mr James. Get away from this blame concept and let's get on with stating the facts and improving the system…”

Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…:E

004: However if he is let loose there would be others within the GWM that would quickly reveal MQ's skeletons. Risky move. Question 004: I would of thought that there is a difference though, as far as I am aware MQ is no longer rubbing shoulders with the GWM trough dwellers, so what has he got to lose??

10th Apr 2014, 05:08
Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…
MQ certainly does know where the skeletons are hidden, and then some! However if he is let loose there would be others within the GWM that would quickly reveal MQ's skeletons. Risky move. I quote Sunfish; "To put that another way", birds of a feather stick together, and many many dirty little secrets are buried beneath FF's worm farm. Careful what you dig for.

As for the CAsA/ATsBeaker MOU, Dr Voodoo was the creator of that little Frankenstein.

10th Apr 2014, 15:53
I think MQ has already put himself out there, balls and all. No fear of retribution. Good play! He made a submission to a senate inquiry in 2008 which made total sense for the way forward. Unfortunately, back stabbed and white anted by those looking for the key to the throne. I'll paste the 2008 senate speech after I try and update my reg knowledge. Could be a year or so!

12th Apr 2014, 01:02
Not sure where Creedy has been lately but the fill in bloke is actually starting to (occasionally) jump the fence to provide a slightly more balanced view than the usual QASA diatribe..:rolleyes:

Last week in Friday's Australian the MMSM reported on parts of the AFAP (& ALAEA) WLR submissions with the headline: Pilots call for less ‘arbitrary’ screening (http://theaustralian.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx) THE Australian Federation of Air Pilots has labelled screening processes for passengers at many of the nation’s non-major airports as “illogical or unnecessary” and claims they are conducted with no regard for the costs involved.

In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety review — which is expected to report later this month — it also describes screening processes for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”, saying: “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.”

In November, Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss announced the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to examine the effectiveness of aviation agencies, look for overlap, and to determine the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety regulations compared to those abroad.

The inquiry, chaired by aviation veteran David Forsyth, has not made its 150-odd submissions public, claiming many authors wished for them to remain confidential. However, it will draw on them in filing its report.
Mr Forsyth was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The AFAP says the federal government’s Office of Transport Security “appears to operate without any regard” to the costs it imposes on the industry through screening requirements.

“While there may be a clear need for such screening at major airports, the rationale for (it) at smaller regional airports is questionable at best,” it says.

“The operations of the Office of Transport Security are an excessive cost burden on the industry ... many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary”. The federation — the largest pilots’ association in Australia, with over 3500 members — also says many of the screening and security measures “appear to be driven by political and public relations concerns”.

The Office of Transport Security had not responded to the claims by deadline yesterday.

In a separate submission the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association raises a number of concerns with the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and calls for the introduction of a US-style whistleblower protection program to protect employees raising safety concerns.

The ALAEA claims CASA is not properly policing maintenance operations and takes disproportionate action against “soft targets”, such as when it “very strongly pursued minor operator Tiger Airways over safety breaches and poor systems”. CASA has denied both allegations.

The AFAP has also raised concerns over CASA. “The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turnover and low morale from within,” it says in its submission.

It says a Senate inquiry into aviation accident investigations handed down a report more than two years ago into the effectiveness of CASA and the Air Traffic Safety Bureau. “(That report) made 26 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the relationship between CASA and the ATSB. To date it appears that few, if any, of these recommendations have been carried out.”

It requests that the review “revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend (their) implementation” as a priority.

It also wants aviation regulations to be “rewritten in plain English”, and “targeted at and comprehensible to the industry”. Normally the miniscule's dept doesn't partake in any trivial aviation media matters. So it is somewhat surprising that this particular article has actually provoked a response from Kingcrat & crew, where we see (ironically) that the ICAO compliance card has been played..:ugh:: Government rejects screening complaint (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/government-rejects-screening-complaint/story-e6frg95x-1226880298730)

THE federal government has hit back at claims from the nation’s pilots’ association that many secu*rity checks are “illogical and unnecessary”, claiming they are in line with the risks.

The Australian revealed last week that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots viewed screening processes for passengers at many regional airports as unnecessary and screening pro*cess*es for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”.

A spokeswoman for the *Department of Infrastructure said the level and type of screening was appropriate.

“The Australian government is aware of the social and economic importance of a vibrant and competitive regional aviation sector,” the spokeswoman told The Australian.

“Screening measures at Australia’s security-controlled airports are commensurate with risk and threat levels, as determined through information provided by Australia’s security agencies.”

In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety *review — which is expected to report later this month — AFAP, which has said security measures appeared to be implemented “without any regard” to the costs imposed on industry through screening requirements.

“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 beggars belief,” AFAP said in the statement.

The Department of Infrastructure said the national prohibited items list (which guides screening at airports) reflected standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Org*anisation and was accepted internationally by other foreign aviation security regulators.

“The screening processes are *neither arbitrary nor unneces*sary,” the spokeswoman said. “All people entering the sterile area of an airport and boarding an aircraft are subject to the same levels of screening.”

She said screening reduced the risk of a person knowingly or unknowingly bringing a prohibited item into the “sterile area”.
Hmm..pity those same ICAO standards weren't applied when it came to the VH-NGA ditching investigation..:=

Moving on remember this??

“Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics; they are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer ‘facts’ when engaged in discussions; not hearsay and tautological rubbish that some others seem to regard as promising material.”

Well it would seem that the " vocal minority" is starting to become a majority and they're camped in the miniscule's office waiting room with some hard 'facts': Airport fee rises ‘choking growth’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/airport-fee-rises-choking-growth/story-e6frg95x-1226880294286)

THE nation’s airline lobby group has called for Australia’s major international airports to slow the aggressive ramping-up of fees, which it claims risks “choking” future growth.

The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents 29 international *airlines operating in the country, said prices charged by the *nation’s major international *airports had doubled in real terms over the past 12 years, from about $10 to $20 a passenger.

In a report into infrastructure of the nation’s major airports, to be released today, BARA says charges at Sydney and Brisbane airports are now “well above” the Asia-Pacific and European averages. “If the industry is to maintain airfare affordability, it is not possible to sustain the trend of rising investment levels funded through continued increase in airport prices,” the BARA report says. It says the industry needs to ensure the cost of meeting growth does not end up chocking the very growth it is intended to foster.

The report highlights the very high investment returns being delivered to the nation’s airports, with pre-tax returns soaring from below 6 per cent annually in 2003 to above 12 per cent at present and averaging 11 per cent over the past five years.

A key to the growth in that revenue was the government’s 2002 moves to *remove price controls set by the Australian *Competition & Consumer Commission and *replace them with “light-*handed” economic regulation, placing more control in the hands of operators.

The result of this *light-*handed regulation has led to *unnecessary “protracted negotiation processes between international airlines and airport operators”, BARA says.

The report comes after the ACCC findings last week that the nation’s four *biggest *airports were continuing to ramp up fees despite most *delivering no real increase in *service quality.

The ACCC, which delivers an annual report on the performance of the Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney airports, found all but Brisbane had delivered only “satisfactory” performance over the year to June 2013.

Brisbane’s average quality of service was lifted from satisfactory to “good”. Sydney delivered the worst quality of service, *despite charging the highest “aeronautic *revenue” per *passenger at $15.53.

The lobby group for the Australian Airports Association challenged the ACCC’s findings and said they presented a *“historical snapshot” as they *related to data that was already nine months old. “The ACCC’s findings provide an historical snapshot of the state of our major airports, given the extremely dynamic nature of the aviation industry and the ongoing investment being made in better airport infrastructure,” said AAA chief executive *Caroline Wilkie.

BARA notes the ACCC’s *service quality monitoring has been criticised by the AAA.

“It is notable, however, that the industry has not developed more sophisticated service quality measures and included them in agreements with airlines,” the BARA report says.

The airline body calls for the government to commission research into the productivity of the nation’s aviation industry and the “rate of return across *infrastructure providers”.
If only the miniscule could see behind the 2000 pound elephant (called Fort Fumblenese..:E) constantly parked in his office...:ugh:

Frank Arouet
12th Apr 2014, 04:18
There are none so blind as those that will not see.

thorn bird
12th Apr 2014, 04:23
Yup Sarcs,

our airports are doing a wonderful job, world class.
Some questions I would love to see answered in Parliament or Publicly?

1. How many airports have been constructed in Australia in the past 10 years compared with China?

2. How much revenue has Sydney airport earned since it was privatised.

3. How much tax has Sydney airport paid since it was privatised.

4. What is the ratio of money Sydney airport has spent, since it was privatised, on improving airport infrastructure, by that I mean directly involved with aviation, compared with non aviation infrastructure such as car parks, terminal shops, hotels and supermarkets?

5. How much public money was spent by CAsA to provide a 72 year old senior manager with an A380 endorsement?

6. For what purpose is the endorsement to be used by CAsA?

7. When will the senior manager be retiring?

8. How will the A380 endorsement impact on the senior managers entitlements on retirement?

anybody got some to add?

12th Apr 2014, 06:32
He could use the HSU credit card to get some....
CaSA has for many years been unable to organise even a fcuk in a brothel. And the place is one

The corrupt there in, are just using the convoluted machinations of bureaucratic financial jiggery-pokery to slurp in the taxpayer funded troughs.

Should be some forensic accountants put nto CAsA to go thru the books....they'd find some "documentary fraud" in spades

One hears about complaints of the " migration industry" or whatever.
CAsA dwellers have made a lucrative "safety" industry for themselves...and it will continue to thrive until there is an Agency or MINISTER, not a miniscule, with backbone, balls and BITE...who gets in there with the axe. :ok:
Faint hope, I fear.:mad:

Hey I'm over 72, next pension day I'll put in an application for an A320 endo.
Shouldnt be a problem. Oink oink.

Frank Arouet
12th Apr 2014, 08:03
Nearly every airport in Australia was paid for by the Taxpayer.

They were then given to the ratepayers and private enterprise who started to rely upon government grants after the initial grants ran out. Then the public either didn't pay landing fees or caught a train or gave other blokes they hate registrations to avoid paying for something they already owned.

We the got ASIC cards and a plethora of other "safety" measures which further cost industry. Meanwhile, the regulatory review process continued, the public service grew logarithmically to the needs of that "service" and self funded to the point where a private company would have been guilty of trading whilst insolvent.

We now have GA "feral fly-in's because everyone is scared $hitless of ramp checks at organized events and aircraft not intended for paddocks are operated there. WAC charts not current are a criminal offence despite the same mountain being there for millions of years. Bugger me, most single seaters in RA-Aus use freekin BP road maps because they only go 50nm without a piss stop. But you still need to know how to do 1:60 calculations when a force 5 gale is blowing through the canopy.

Yes, safety. Say it often enough and it becomes a mantra. Say this often enough and you become a Buddhist pilot.

I recently had to get into flying to get out of flying because I needed a BFR to deliver my aeroplane when I sold it. Then I did an IFR trip as a passenger where I was looking at the RPT goings on in a 10 seater in class G airspace that varied between 7000ft and 10,000ft to get over and around clouds. I regularly flew at those mid altitudes VFR. What happened to hemispherical levels? Poor old Dick is forced to fly low with these blokes and me in his jet because some prick doesn't like him.

Christ! Why won't they just leave everyone alone to kill themselves as they see fit?

I'm over it. They can all get fkuced! I'm going sailing while it's still legal.

12th Apr 2014, 10:24
I'm over it. They can all get fkuced! I'm going sailing while it's still legal.
Careful Frank, at least one ex CASAsexual legal type now works for AMSA. He is probably promulgating some of Fort Fumbles evil incompetent arse covering methods and tricks into the minds of the maritime folk as we speak :=
Who knows, maybe the Skull, the 72 year old A380 pilot and the Witchdoctor will head over as well?

12th Apr 2014, 11:49
Not one to deal with the CMT involved but which one is in the 70's? The ones I am aware of are at worst would be 60.....

13th Apr 2014, 03:11
Sundy drift with WLR relevance...;)

In the Friday Oz newspaper's legal section there was an article titled 'Rule of Law wants governments to play by litigant rules' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/rule-of-law-wants-governments-to-play-by-litigant-rules/story-e6frg97x-1226880337585):New laws are needed to ensure governments do not abuse their power in litigation, according to the Rule of Law Institute.
The call for legislative change comes after the Productivity Commission this week found compliance with the Model Litigant Rules, which required governments to uphold the highest standards of fairness, honesty and integrity, was patchy.

R.O.L.I. chairman Robin Speed said stronger enforcement was needed to ensure government agenciues did not crush their opponents by unfairly using the resources at their disposal.

“There can’t be anything more intimidating than the commonwealth as an defendant, be4cause what it can do in resources is kill you in one way or another, or drag things out or not enter into fair negotiations,” he said.
R.O.L.I has handed a legislative blueprint to Attorney General George Brandis that would allow the courts to enforce model litigant guidelines.
Mr Speed said the Productivity Commission’s draft report had shown new enforcement measures were needed, and there was not enough incentive for agencies to comply with the rules.

“Clearly, the present system of internal review has not worked effectively or consistently, ” he said.

The Attorney general’s department appears not to want the job of monitoring other departments.”

Mr Speed met with Senator Brandis before Christmas to discuss possible changes to the existing framework and sent a proposed Bill to the Attorney general earlier this year.

He said if the Bill were adopted, it would be up to the courts to decide on an appropriate remedy for any breach of the model litigant rules.

The productivity Commission has sought advice on whether the model litigant rules should apply in other cases where there is a power imbalance, for example those involving large corporations or self represented litigants.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said in his experience the commonwealth had a high level of compliance with model litigant guidelines.
Now I know the subject of the MLR, in regards to CAsA, has been done to death on here but this could be an opportunity to highlight the middle finger approach FF takes to their obligations to act as a Model Litigant, Stan seems to think so..:D: COMMENTS:

Stan van de Wiel,
…..there was not enough incentive for agencies to comply with the rules…. What kind of incentive are these creatures after, praise, payment on top of their bloated salaries. What about professional conduct. …….."Mark Dreyfus said in his experience the commonwealth had a high level of compliance with model litigant guidelines”…… The commonwealth should have an absolute level of compliance. If Surgeons or Pilots were to conduct themselves in such manner there would be deaths. Why are Judges condoning such methods, can’t they recognise them from professional conduct or is it because all judges have come up under a similar system and regard this behaviour as the ethical norm.
And PAIN suggests referring to the ProAviation WLR submission for some classic examples: PAIN_NET (https://twitter.com/PAIN_NET1)@RoLAustralia cont/- For examples on @CASABriefing MLR abuse look no further than #Proaviation #ASRR submission here ProAviation?s submission to the ASRR | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/02/22/proaviations-submission-to-the-asrr/) … Food for thought for those aggrieved IOS members amongst us?? :ok:

13th Apr 2014, 06:14
Sarcs, sounds good in theory. And the IOS would be supportive of such changes, however there is no incentive for Government to even contemplate Mr Speed's suggestions. Government like being non accountable. They have no conscience nor do they accept that its constituents have the right to be treated honestly and fairly. It will never ever happen. Can you imagine someone like the ATO acting fairly? Not charging 200% interest penalties on some poor small business owner who is going broke thanks to some ridiculous unethical compliance law suddenly thrust upon the business owner out of the blue? He loses his business plus gets to pay up to 200% interest rate! What is that figure based upon? Why so much? How can that be justified?

No, Frank has the right idea - civil disobedience. It would only take a few hundred thousand people to tell the government to stick its silly rules up its a#s, or to force the laws around speed cameras to be repealed (or the vans torched), to remove politicians outrageous salaries and perks or to kick the PM of the day out of his opulent special palace overlooking the harbour and put a hundred poor homeless souls in there.

Long live the IOS

13th Apr 2014, 22:04
Para377, there is a rather large incentive for Government to enforce model litigant rules on itself. Its called trust.

As Francis Fukuyama wrote in his book : "Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity", without trust the economy is poorer because transaction costs of doing business skyrocket, often to the point where no business can be transacted at all.

I would argue that if the lack of trust of CASA is as endemic as Pprune folk would have us believe, then look no further for the cause of the decline of the Aviation industry.

You cannot invest, employ and grow any business if you cannot manage the business risks involved and one of those risks is capricious action by CASA. The only way to mitigate that risk is through a robust defence in an unbiased Court of law, but CASA has already shown itself, if Pprune is to be believed, that it will not play by the rules.

To put that another way, what person in their right mind would want to start an airline let alone manufacture a certified aircraft in this country?

14th Apr 2014, 03:20
You cannot invest, employ and grow any business if you cannot manage the business risks involved and one of those risks is capricious action by CASA.Sunfish,
Addressing this situation, the dearth of sources of capital for investment in small aviation enterprises was one of the issues to be addressed by the PAP/CASA Review in 1997, it was well recognised at the time, and the problem was addressed in the then Government election policy: Soaring Into Tomorrow.
There have been at least two more studies, of which I am aware, on this subject since, I have looked for but have not found copies.
However, they all make the same point, that the CASA arbitrary and capricious interpretations of very unsatisfactory aviation regulation, and the lack of avenues of reasonable redress at affordable costs, seriously undermines any potential for investment in aviation.
Tootle pip!!

thorn bird
14th Apr 2014, 03:50
Oh well Leadie and Sunny, since our Guvmint seems not to want industry in OZ, can always move to Kiwiland. It would appear their aviation industry is booming.
Wonder Why???

14th Apr 2014, 05:37
I would argue that if the lack of trust of CASA is as endemic as PPRuNe folk would have us believe, then look no further for the cause of the decline of the Aviation industry. Well there you have it really. An organisation awash with bullies and sycophants, an ICC that is stacked, an AAT that is as useless and pointless as Australia's ACCC, acts of victimisation, successive governments putting their heads in the sand, utter incompetence by the regulator and waste of taxpayer money on failed programs, ventures and regulatory reform, for starters......
Yes Sunny, I can see how government is embracing its incentive to 'do the right thing'. And I'm sorry mate but the litany of hangers-on, advisors, more advisors, policy writers, PMC and so forth have and are achieving jack shit.

14th Apr 2014, 09:49
If there are persons in CAsA that believe that the air over Oz should be traversed only by F18s and B 737s A 320s etc...then the paper re anything else must have been titled "Sawing Off Tomorrow". :mad:

The other two study papers were titled.. "Lets Fcuk over GA".. and.. "Time to Finish It Off". :mad: Its all a 25+ year old 'work in progress'...can't cut off the trough too soon.

Post May...when the Truss ASRR is bound and basted, industry and individual submissions sidelined and any REAL action/fixes watered down to homeopathic concentrations,then we the people/the IOS/ the victims (JQ et al) really will have to get somehow serious.:ok:

The survival of GA, and the sanity of its participants, will depend on it.

14th Apr 2014, 12:04
Gary the goat actually Gary Harbor? Just asking the question.
Gary Harbor joined CASA in April 2005, with an extensive private sector background in human resources. He has been a personnel manager for Toyota; General Manager, Human Resources, at Email Metals; and head of human resources at the pharmaceutical firm Sigma Company. He has degrees in arts and economics and an MBA.
My quote taken from the below link:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Part 1 CASA's people (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_92990)
Now that's a trip down memory lane! Wonder where geni-talia is these days? What a motley crew!

14th Apr 2014, 12:25
So how has CAsA improved since 'Lockhart'? Well we have had Pel Air, Canleyvale, regulatory reform..........not to mention the ATsB slipping from a separate entity to CAsA to now being its bitch!!
MARTIN FERGUSON, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN: If CASA had have been doing its job, the Lockhart River accident, which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.

KAREN BERKMAN: The inquiry found that CASA had not properly followed its own procedures and guidelines.

BRUCE BYRON: Yes, I saw that, and that's definitely an area of concern. I would say that across the board CASA’s surveillance needed improvement across all areas.
Full article below:
Lateline - 04/04/2007: CASA under fire over Lockhart River crash (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1890151.htm)

CAsA got slapped with the wet lettuce leaf over Lockhart, and it's been slapped again with a wet lettuce leaf over Pel Air. What will be the catalyst for the next wet lettuce slap? A380 down? A330? Maybe a 737? Why doesn't this ridiculous WLR Team look at the systemic issues that date back? Go talk to some of the victims of Pel Air, or some of the families of the deceased from the Transair accident? No, of course they won't, and why:

14th Apr 2014, 21:19
UITA, and I note that Trig transponders are no longer on the list.

What a cluster**** ADS-B is.

15th Apr 2014, 12:41
So if there is any truth in Mr Abbott's announcement about Badgery, this would be the biggest aviation related event this country has seen in some time. When it comes to the infrastructure portfolio, some of the following areas will require ongoing oversight;
• Completion of/or scrapping the current regulatory reform program and getting the job done, correctly, once and for all.
• The dismantling of CASA and creation of a new aviation safety body.
• The clean up and rebuild of the ATSB.
• The building, planning and structure of Badgerys. Yes to be structured in a way that ensures the taxpayer and government reap some financial gain out of the the asset, not just somebody like J.P Morgan.
• Revamp and streamlining of the Office of Transport Security.
• Improvement and greater oversight of ASA.
• GA assistance. GA has been neglected, misunderstood, undervalued, ignored and trashed for too long by successive governments. The turnaround of this sector is vital and critical.
• To do all this there needs to be the appointment of a Junior Minister for Aviation. Someone who actually knows, understands and has 'tasted' the industry (not someone who only has QF Chairmans lounge experience)

A Junior Minister for Aviation is a justifiable role which must remain separate to the current Infrastructure portfolio. Aviation in this country is far more important than what the Nupty's in power realise. As an example a robust GA sector, properly managed Sydney airport and efficient aviation safety regulations would dovetail to make a quality industry with the spinoff being more jobs and a solid revenue stream. Somebody like David Fawcett would absolutely be the man to implement the changes desperately needed. He has experience, vision and the balls to do it. But it won't happen without our support.

It's time for change. We are a laughing stock and an embarrassment. We are decades in arrears. We are truly a third world outfit in more ways than one, and it has to change.

15th Apr 2014, 23:17
Ben let's fly on FAA vs FF comparison...

Hawaiian proposed safety penalty sets example for Australia (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/16/hawaiian-proposed-safety-penalty-sets-example-for-australia/)

America’s FAA- its safety regulator and equivalent of Australia’s CASA- has proposed a fine of $US 547,500 be paid by Hawaiian Airlines for among other things ignoring advice that one of its 767-300s did not comply with an airworthiness directive by flying it a further 14 times after its record keeping error was discovered.

This persistent failure to comply with US safety laws might be explained by inadequate management skills, a basic failure to understand simple English, or arrogance, or an operational contempt for the safety rules.

There is no acceptable excuse for what Hawaiian did. Hence the proposed penalty.

It wants to talk to the FAA about this issue in private. This is surely unacceptable. There is nothing private about the consequences of airlines ignoring their obligations to the safety rules and Hawaiian ought to seek a public hearing, so that it’s position can be better understood and its fitness to fly better assessed by members of the public before they find themselves inside its airliners.

Whatever the explanation, the buck in America stops with management, while in Australia, the notion of such transparency in air safety regulation has been anathema when it comes to actual practice in successive governments, including the current one.

Safety is run by department heads, and the managers of the safety authorities, and Ministers appear to shut up and do what they are told, which above all, is not to rock the boat, to mix a metaphor.

This attitude implies an Australian unwillingness to be responsive in the US manner to the public interest, which is that gratuitous or incompetent breaches of the aviation regulations should be punished, like they are when banking or investment fraud or misconduct comes to the attention of our financial regulators. (Oops, another bad metaphor.)

This is what the FAA says in its media statement.
LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $547,500 Civil Penalty against Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. for operating a Boeing 767-300 that was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft thousands of times when it was not in compliance with a July 2000 Airworthiness Directive (AD) that required inspections of certain engine thrust reverser components. The purpose of the AD was to prevent a portion of the thrust reverser from coming off in flight, which could cause a rapid decompression of the aircraft.
The AD required initial and repetitive inspections of the components to detect damage and wear, and corrective actions if necessary. It required replacement of the components with new and improved parts within four years of the AD taking effect.
During a July 2012 inspection, the FAA discovered that some of Hawaiian’s records erroneously showed the AD did not apply to one of its Boeing 767 aircraft. The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft more than 5,000 times – mostly on passenger carrying flights – between July 2004 and July 2012 when it was out of compliance with the AD. The FAA further alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft on 14 passenger flights after the agency alerted the carrier that some of its records erroneously indicated that the AD did not apply to the aircraft.
Additionally, the FAA alleges Hawaiian failed to keep required records of the status of the AD for the aircraft in question.
Hawaiian has requested an informal conference with the FAA to discuss the matter.
The contrast with Australia is alarming. As the Pel-Air crash disclosures in the Senate and elsewhere have shown, our safety regulators are obsessed with confidentiality and cover ups, putting the notion that Australia is a country with robust and effective safety regulations into the realm of the ridiculous.

Pel-Air, Barry Hempel, and Transair, are key words which will yield legally privileged court documents and Hansard recorded proceedings that shown that CASA has been a shamefully inefficient and indifferent organisation when it comes to safety administration which can’t even manage today urgent mechanical inspections in Cessnas in a timely manner never mind act in the public interest when known unsafe operations put lives at risk.
We have had a lot of words of contrition at the top of CASA when it has been cornered, but we haven’t had effective or timely action.

CASA doesn’t tell the public that dangerous airlines like defunct Transair are in fact known to be dangerous as a matter of policy. It ignored according to the Queensland coroner the evidence that Barry Hempel was unfit to fly paying members of the public on aerobatic joy rides. It has to be dragged into court, or before Senate committees, to tell things that the public should have been told before blood was spilt, not after.

Which is why examples like the proposed Hawaiian penalty are so important, because they tell us aviation administration in this country is fraught with the risks that come with secrecy in public life. The FAA regularly punishes in public US carriers that fail to adhere to the law. It’s a policy that was given lip service by former Coalition transport Minister John Anderson, but which he failed to deliver on. As have his successors also failed.

The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster.

The current aviation administrative embarrassment for this government is Transport Minister Warren Truss’s otherwise welcome and commendable Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/). This review, which is due to report next month, has kept all of the supposedly public submissions made to it un-public by not following western democratic practice and making them accessible in a privileged place.

These submissions include a number that are not just severely critical of CASA, but come with detail and allegations.

This amounts to suppression by a Coalition government (which is in full and welcome pursuit of wrong doing in opposition and union ranks) of similarly serious disclosures about the conduct and effectiveness of Australia’s air safety regulator.

It is very poor optics, and it doesn’t serve the public right to be informed, in advance of the release of a review which will inevitably have its legitimacy criticised.

:D:D:D Don't hold back Ben...:ok:

16th Apr 2014, 07:03
...And it will require not One, but Three smoking holes before anything changes.

16th Apr 2014, 12:13
Ben's article was superb. Bad sadly the culture in Australian politics will always be one of lies, deceit, cover ups and spin. It's embedded, it's historical, it's a culture that will never change.
But here is a thought. Considering the deceitful and weak manner in which our political hierarchy and their departments operate, what confidence does this give the FAA when our airlines travel in to their territory, and their airlines travel in to our territory? Surely that must sit in the back of their minds somewhat? And to be honest, although the FAA is not as clean as it would like others to believe, it does have somewhat larger, more robust testicles. At least most Yanks know if they are travelling on a half decent carrier or one that is a complete cluster f#ck. Sadly we down under don't normally receive such liberty as our pathetic bureaucratic system thrives on deception, obsfucation and outright incompetence.

17th Apr 2014, 07:09
P377:Ben's article was superb. Bad sadly the culture in Australian politics will always be one of lies, deceit, cover ups and spin. It's embedded, it's historical, it's a culture that will never change. You may well be right Para and on current evidence maybe it will require Sunny's prediction of three smoking holes so that...

"...The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster..."

However while we are on Ben's 'superb' article there are also some excellent comments worth viewing and another (heart felt) troubling publicly available WLR submission..:{:discus
Posted April 16, 2014 at 9:57 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/16/hawaiian-proposed-safety-penalty-sets-example-for-australia/#comment-25175)
David, I do not think that is the point.

One, they did find it even if way too late. Two, having found it they acted strongly.

Finding the error itself is remarkable considering the time and resources it takes to carry out detailed forensic audits like this.

Airlines largely self regulate which is another part of the problem. Problems can be hidden by incorrect data entry, misunderstanding of the AD by the engineers/technical people or just plain negligence.
The point is that, at least it is a public issue and the fine substantial.
The contrast with that and CASA’s secretive operations and somewhat selective attention to some operators is quite clear in the cases Ben has brought to our attention.

There are many good people at CASA but as an organisation they leave a lot to be desired.

My fear is that they are not being allowed to be a more effective regulator.

http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/70fbaf83e40fde03d64aa60f43444e54?s=32&d=identicon&r=G (http://en.gravatar.com/site/signup/) Self Loading Freight
Posted April 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/16/hawaiian-proposed-safety-penalty-sets-example-for-australia/#comment-25183)
The proposal to adopt FAA-style financial penalties in Australia has been raised before and most recently in the ALAEA submission to Forsyth:
http://alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/548/ALAEA_Aviation_Safety_Regulation_Review_Submission_20140214. pdf

The apparently cosy relationship between CASA and the major operator(s) has been a complaint heard regularly from industry stakeholders including ALAEA and AIPA as well as from GA operators contrasting their treatment by CASA. We can only hope that Forsyth seriously considers both the claim and possible remedies.

Toodle loo.

http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/2ca911517d81ac908e26516828a97950?s=32&d=identicon&r=G (http://en.gravatar.com/site/signup/) Pete Simpkins
Posted April 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/16/hawaiian-proposed-safety-penalty-sets-example-for-australia/#comment-25184)
CASA is your bog standard public service department with its own typically opaque bureaucracy that hides a 9-5 culture, all ranks filled with incompetent/lazy regulators and relationships that are way to skewed to keeping friendly relations with airlines. It needs a broom, and while I suspect it will never rise to levels of efficiency, it could at least aspire to effectiveness. Unfortunately, I highly doubt this will happen until there’s a serious accident, by which time it can be expected to shock the public. We have a safety record due only to efforts of the industry, which is not acceptable given the statutory responsibilities of CASA. Props Ben for keeping this issue alive, keep doing so.

http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/58dd5c827eb590f1d84a36dc9a41cfe6?s=32&d=identicon&r=G (http://en.gravatar.com/site/signup/) David Klein
Posted April 17, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/16/hawaiian-proposed-safety-penalty-sets-example-for-australia/#comment-25209)
Ben, you are correct in commenting on the submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review not being made available to the public being a form of suppression and for this reason my submission has been chapter and verse below:

As a retired front line CASA airworthiness inspector I wish to make a submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review panel based on my concerns for the significant shortcoming of the CASA regulatory oversight of Qantas. My experience as an airworthiness inspector from 1987 to 2008 involved over 10 years regulating General Aviation from the Bankstown airport office and another 10 years regulating Qantas with other regional airlines from the Sydney airport office. Unfortunately in my time there were a number of major restructures to the organization and from my observations it has only been the dedicated inspectors working at the coalface, despite ever changing politics and ineffective management of DOA, DOT, DOTC, CAA and CASA, that has kept the Australian aviation industry to even a reasonable level of air safety.

For many of my years working at the Sydney airport office I headed up the airworthiness inspection team to oversight Qantas and I found the limited resources and minimum unrealistic audit regime set by CASA management for the organisation almost beyond belief. At every endeavour when a head office manager from Canberra visited and engaged in an open question forum at the Sydney office I presented my concerns, as the head airworthiness inspector working at the Qantas coalface, but to no avail.

After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.

As an example of my concerns, during my tenure at the Sydney office the CASA Surveillance Manual provided all airworthiness audit requirements, however the matrix in the manual to determine the size of a Certificate of Approval holder, which dictated the type and frequency of audits required was limited to a provision for either above or below 55 staff. There was no separate provision in the manual for Qantas with over 6000 engineering staff and this resulted in the minimum number of audits required in the manual being totally unrealistic for Qantas, given the massive scale of the organisation across Australia and it’s numerous overseas line stations. For the majority of my years at the Sydney office the total number of inspectors dedicated to the Qantas airworthiness team was only four, resulting in a very small audit sample of the organisation and most of the 24 Qantas overseas maintenance line stations rarely received an audit.

Also adding to my concerns is many of the Qantas audits and surveillance requirements took place at Sydney airport where the CASA office was located. Since my retirement the office at Sydney airport has been closed and all front line inspectors have been amalgamated with the Bankstown airport office inspectors to an office building in the Sydney Central Business District, as a CASA cost cutting measure to reduce overheads in administration. However as established in a 2012 Senates Estimates hearing the move into the CBD has been found to actually increase CASA costs. The productivity now lost in travel to achieve the same audits and surveillance on each airport would be incalculable, not to mention the surveillance oversight benefits that are lost in not having a permanent CASA regulatory presence on site.

Trusting the members of the Safety Review Panel will give my submission due consideration towards improving the regulatory oversight performance and accountability of CASA under the “Safety related matters” terms of reference.

Yours sincerely,
David Klein:D:D

Tick Tock miniscule...:ok:

17th Apr 2014, 12:22
Very interesting post by Mr Klein. People at the coalface often provide a more realistic report on what is truly going on.
No surprise about a lack of QF oversight and a CAsA surveillance procedures manual that doesn't address an organisation the size of QF. Also moving the field office into Sydney's CBD was another brainless idea created by executives with not a clue on how the field operations center truly works. I am surprised they don't move all offices to one location on an offshore oil rig somewhere in the Bass Strait?
Negligible CAsA oversight/audits of international operations including maintenance facilities? No surprise with that. CAsA's pot of money gets spent on 72 year olds getting A380 endo's and on executives jetting off to ICAO conferences, rather than sending inspectors overseas to audit operators and their lack of third party oversight. Imagine CAsA catching an operator out for not auditing its operation internationally? Hypocrites. Then again, the idiot government has yet again told all departments, including CAsA, that they have to shave 10% off the bottom line! How can a regulatory department that operates within a growing sector be expected to take budget cuts? Dolan would be proud!!!

Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'.


No Hoper
17th Apr 2014, 21:49
WTF, Oleo you are posting on the same thread under two handles.
Split personality?
What wil happen if you have a disagreement with youselves

17th Apr 2014, 22:17
Wow Owen, you are so clever! You worked it out. I ended my post with TICK TOCK, like Sarcs did, so we must be one and the same!! Amazing!

And you fix planes for a living?? Heaven help us.

No Hoper
17th Apr 2014, 23:01
No para377, sarcs isn't the one

18th Apr 2014, 00:00
Hahaha, wrong again McGrath 50/Owen Meaney/Blackhand/FONC/No Hoper....so many aliases, how do you find the time!

18th Apr 2014, 02:45
004: Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'. Red flags indeed 004..:= Or to put it another way (& despite Beaker's 'beyond all sensible reason' approach..:ugh:) James Reason's Swiss Cheese holes are aligning..:= After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.
If we refer to the submissions page from the FF admin inquiry in 2008...Submissions received by the Committee as at 18 September 2008 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/sublist)...you will see that Mr Klein's submissions are at the top of the page. The supplementary submission begins with...Dear Senate Inquiry Secretary,

Please find attached the response to my email from Bruce Byron, that I would like attached to my formal senate inquiry submission dated 06 June 2008. Needless to say I'm not happy with the response and it's use of motherhood statements about current airworthiness regulatory oversight resources and use of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as a future solution by CASA. Transport of Canada were the first to implement the SMS regulatory oversight approach about five years ago and from the reports I have read it has been an abject failure.

David Klein

----- Original Message -----
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Virgin Airlines international announcement [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
For David Klein

Bruce Byron has asked me to forward the attached letter from him in response to your email concerning CASA's oversight of Qantas and others out of the Sydney office.


David Andersen
Office of the CEO And the following is the Byron correspondence to DK:
Then if we go to part of the evidence given recently by (TIC: Our resident {quote: militant..;)} unionist) Fedsec Steve...
[YOUTUBE]Senator Rhiannon & Qantas CASA safety question to ALAEA 180314 - YouTube
And here as...

Additional information from Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, received 20 March 2014. (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=211777ab-de79-4f36-b5ef-9f5555839c87)

You begin to see that certain sectors from both sides of the industry divide are indeed singing from the same hymn sheet...:(

So yes (:E) miniscule TICK TOCK!:rolleyes:

18th Apr 2014, 05:43
The letter from Byron to Klein was somewhat smug in parts, however one expects such attitude from CAsA executives, just look at the Director, Mr Skull, and his attitude toward AMROBA, publicly.

Steve Purvinas (life long member of the IOS and executive manager of sniffing out bullshit and coverups) was bang on the money. QF have lost oversight of third party international providers (interesting as this conflicts with the requirement of a Safety Management System) and CAsA itself has neglected the need to audit third party providers, in this case the providers of maintenance services in Singapore (again in stark contrast against the requirement of a Safety Management System). So I am amazed and amused that both QF and CAsA are prepared to ignore an element of the SMS which is to ensure an operator has a connection with third part providers who actually become part of the operators SMS?
It would seem that one set of rules apply to CAsA and QF, and a different set of rules apply to everyone else.

And finally, why did Mr Gibson, on the behest of CAsA, issue such a rapid defence of QF? CAsA seemed awfully confident to defend QF within mere hours of the allegations airing? Did CAsA have some kind of magical insight and proof? Did they panick at the thought of dear Qantas being tarnished so they felt the need to jump to its defence? Funny, I haven't seen Fort Fumble do that with others such as Ansett and Tiger? Funny thing that isn't it?

Sarcs, para, Owen/No Hoper - TICK TOCK

22nd Apr 2014, 23:10
Bit of an update for some of our more vocal IOS protagonists...:D:D

From Ken & Co the following from the latest AMROBA newsletter (see here (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%205.pdf)) certainly keeps the fire lit under the miniscule and reflects several of the concerns coming from the more high profile publicly available WLR submitters..:=:Increasing Regulatory Impost (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%205.pdf)

This government was elected, from our aviation participants’ perspective in particular, to make radical changes to lower regulatory costs, reduce red and green tape and support aviation, especially rural aviation.

These are their key points.

To support the growth of our aviation industry, the
Coalition will:

abolish the carbon tax and its insidious impact on
aviation fuels and aviation businesses;
establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council to meet regularly with the Minister;
establish a high level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia; [happening]
ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is adequately resourced;
reform the structure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority;
focus on the better utilisation of Australian airspace;
support regional aviation by introducing a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme;
recognise the importance of Australian airports to the economy;
revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda;
continue to promote aviation liberalisation;
enhance aviation skills, training and development;and
ensure that aviation security measures are risk based.

The Coalition will ensure Australia has a safer and more competitive aviation sector.
Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.

Everything in the Government Policy is consistent with the hopes of the aviation industry.

Back in September last year, this government election policy also included a pledge to reduce the ever increasing government red tape so businesses can get back to doing business.

More than 6 (six) months since the election and we wonder when will CASA get the message? Don’t we all…

At the last CASA SCC Operations sub-committee, we were promised a lot more regulatory packages that are so big, they will be submitted to parliament in 2 separate bundles.

Under this government and their policies, they should and must be totally rejected.

The Government’s Guide to Good Regulation states:

1. What is the problem you are trying to solve?
The RIS requires you to explain the problem — and your objective — simply and clearly.
A crisply defined problem offers scope for innovative, non-regulatory thinking.

The problem is that CASA’s leadership is hell-bent on creating Parliamentary Regulations which are excessively prescriptive to support a safe and potentially growing aviation industry. Where is the non-regulatory thinking?

In the late 1980s, the government started the process to amend regulations to reduce regulatory burden on the aviation industry — the only area that has been successful is CASA issuing Type Acceptance Certificates based on aircraft Type Certificates from recognised countries.

Certification teams no longer go overseas to type certificate aircraft from recognised countries.

CASA administrative processes are growing immensely and impose more costs than equivalent NAAs.

Since the start of the 1990s, the growth in government burden, aviation incurred, has drastically reduced rural communities aviation service providers.

In the last decade there has been no “innovative, nonregulatory thinking” from CASA.

The whole regulatory approach is contradictory if the Australian government wants an aviation industry to grow, especially in rural Australia.

With our climatic conditions and geographic size, the aviation industry should be continually growing and ought to be utilised more than it was in the 60s and 70s.

The ASRR Report must recommend radical change for aviation, outside major airlines, to grow. It will need a radically different CASA culture and structure for the aviation industry to trust and respect.

Most mature aviation regulators have a better relationship with their industry that enables both the regulator and the regulated to work together to improve safety.

Safety needs a combined approach that fosters safe growth and a ‘just culture’ by all in this industry.
Keeping with AMROBA & their mutual alliance with TAAAF..

According to RR from AHIA there was another behind closed doors..:rolleyes: meeting held on the 8 April in Sydney (courtesy of Bladeslappers forum):AHIA attended TAAAF meeting at which Warren Truss was guest speaker.

On Tue 8 Apr ’14, AHIA President, Peter Crook and Company Secretary, Rob Rich attended a meeting of the Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF), in Sydney. The TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. The members of TAAAF are:

• Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia
• Australian Association of Flight Instructors
• Australian Business Aviation Association
• Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia
• Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia

TAAAF Chairman Chris Manning welcomed the AHIA and said three members of the HAA attended the first TAAAF meeting in 2008.

Although we are not allowed to comment in detail on the Deputy Prime Minister's informal discussions, it was encouraging to note the government is taking care to action the pre-election promises. In fact, some are significant projects which by their very nature will be hard to undertake; the second Sydney Airport decision is probably their greatest challenge.

It is no secret that most of the associations present were looking for an update on the review of CASA, due to be completed in May and hopefully changes announced in June/July 2014. In particular, the non-acceptance of the current new EASA based rules by most reflected the concern at the damage being caused by complex, verbose and legalized worded texts written by lawyers for lawyers in the Crimes Act format.

During the final discussions, the AHIA explained both aeroplane and helicopter flight schools are facing expensive changes to be compliant; however, no safety case from CASA has been sighted. The helicopter industry, unfortunately, is facing the greatest impost and some observers suggest about one third of our schools many stumble after September when CASR Par 61 becomes effective.

In reply, Warren Truss asked that we wait for the review process to be completed; however, his comments were worded in such way it appeared the industry may have their concerns addressed in a satisfactory manner.The last part of the RR post is interesting and perhaps reflects a certain naivety in regards to the AHIA agenda: Bladeslappers who want to keep up with the debate on the troublesome changes heading our way should go the http://www.aopa.com.au (http://www.aopa.com.au/) and read their submission to the review committee. It is well written, concise and covers the future needs of our industry.

Students of history can see a wealth of CAA/CASA history at http://www.proaviation.com.au (http://www.proaviation.com.au/) It is good to see how the EASA process started and the reason why there was so much debate amongst CASA heavies – most now retired or resigned. You just have to be patient with the sometimes biased comments; but overall it is good debate from both sides.
We are doing our best to help you guys trying to earn a buck with wobbly wings.

Rob Rich AHIA
Maybe RR needs to reflect on the Aerialag's (AAAA) limited success with the 'tea & biccys' conciliatory approach to dealing with FF.

I also query AHIA hitching their horse to the 'No Hoper' wagon...:ugh:

One week to Mayday...TICK TOCK miniscule!:{

More to follow...:ok:

Old Akro
23rd Apr 2014, 00:10
Even EASA now seems to have recognised that it has over regulated GA. Surely that leaves CASA out on its own now.

EASA moves to ease GA regs - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/April/18/easa-regulations-for-ga.aspx)

thorn bird
23rd Apr 2014, 00:27
Akro, interesting read, thanks for posting the article.
I think EASA's hand was a tad forced though, many of its members were either intending or in the process of writing their own GA reg's, even the good old British CAA. I think a comment on the article was interesting;

"JFKENTON (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/April/18/easa-regulations-for-ga.aspx#) • 5 hours ago (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/April/18/easa-regulations-for-ga.aspx#comment-1350639569) In the 90's, I did 2 yrs in Frankfurt, GR, as a FAA safety inspector at our Int'l Fld Off. that we had there. It was obvious that the European authorities had no interest in encouraging GA, and certainly not private aviation. Until they changed the rules, those that could, would come to the US to get their pilot certificates. And anyone that could find a way to have their aircraft registered with the US did so as the European inspection system calls for significantly more inspections than does the FAA. I thought it interesting that, when I first saw the European Joint Aviation Reg's, they looked like the FAA, but, rather than making the new rules simpler, they complicated them with all kinds of nickpicking stuff."

Sound familiar?? How long before Virgin is offering holiday packages to NZ to gain a pilots licence, as they did in UK to Florida? How long before ZK registered aircraft are the norm here rather than VH. Already applies to the heavy end of GA.

dubbleyew eight
23rd Apr 2014, 14:42

watch very carefully what happens to that ATR sitting in Albury.

that is the closest we have come to a hundred dead passengers and a dead crew in quite a while.

thank heavens for a bird strike!

there are a lot of airline accountants that cannot, will not believe what that aircraft is telling them. they are about to make the same mistake about 150 or 160 times.

just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't.

if you don't believe me sneak over the fence and have a really good look at the aircraft yourself. from the last passenger window aft is where you need to look.
I'll bet you won't sleep that night.

24th Apr 2014, 00:18
Perhaps D8's comment..."just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't"...reflects the IOS sceptics amongst us and further highlights the DK & ALAEA concerns in regards to lack of resources and experienced staff for FF to oversight/audit MROs & AOC holders.

It is worth remembering the 2008 FAA/ICAO audit team had similar concerns and issued numerous NCNs reflecting these concerns (refer Appendix 3 here (http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf)). As a consequence Fort Fumble went, with cap in hand, to the government to ask for extra funding to supposedly tackle this shortfall and subsequently were given a 89.9 million bucket over 4 years.

Quote from DAS (STBR) statement in FF 2010-11 AR:Financial management
CASA recorded an operating deficit of $1.2 million in 2010–11, after recording a $1.8 million deficit in 2009–10.

The Government has allocated an additional $89.9 million over four years (2010–11 to 2013–14) to fund additional aviation safety activities. This is achieved through an increase in the aviation fuel excise rate of 0.702 cents per litre from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre.

CASA is budgeting for an operating deficit in 2011–12 of $4.5 million. At the same time, however, CASA is budgeting for small operating surpluses in the forward years 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2015–16.
It should also be remembered that the Chamberpot report in the PelAir debacle was apparently instigated by the DAS (STBR) to further justify this extra bucket of money and to scope in on the areas that urgently needed addressing. Hansard AAI hearing 15/02/2013:

Mr McCormick: "...If you look to the situation in CASA now—whether we had the resources and whether we did not—through 2009-10 and continuing to this day, an overhaul of CASA and the way we operate, the way we are structured, how we go about our surveillance, where we do surveillance and when we do it, and what systems we have to support it have been ongoing issues for myself and my team. We are deeply involved in reorganising CASA and have been, as I said, since I arrived. As for the resources, when we did go forward with what came out of the Chambers report—which I will say, again, is an internal report to CASA—the question of whether the ATSB would have changed its opinion of fatigue, and they have fatigue management experts as we do, is a matter to ask the ATSB.

We did look at our structure, we did look at where we needed to go forward and at changes we wished to make, and we approached the government and said, 'We need to get this on to a long-term funding strategy.' We put forward a new policy proposal, an NPP, to increase our numbers, which the government also supported, and we had, from memory, $89.9 million in long-term funding, which we are still under. And we had an increase in head count, to which we continue to recruit.

However, regarding the numbers that we put forward in the NPP—again, agreed to by the government, and I do not think anyone opposed it—we have fulfilled those positions, and we are continuing to develop the way we go forward and what we do..."

Or if you prefer visuals you can view here from about 04:25..:E


Presumably some of this $89.9 million bucket went to the new SPM rewrite & Sentinel software programs etc..etc. However where is the rest of the bucket being spent, because if the DK, ALAEA, UNSW, AAAA, AMROBA etc WLR (or Senate submissions) are even partly true, it would seem that there has been no real improvement in Fort Fumble's oversight of some of our bigger end of town airline operators.

As an aside if TA & WT are looking to address this part of their aviation policy...

ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is adequately resourced;

...maybe they should consider taking the .702 cents per litre fuel excise (additional industry impost) away from FF and giving to the ATsB for this financial year...:E Although I suggest they firstly get rid of Beaker :ugh: and put someone competent in charge...:ok:

24th Apr 2014, 01:02
Oh yes, Sky Sentinel 'the mystique of regulatory I.T'. Over $2.5 mil spent on that heap of shite, and it has robust connections to a member of the GWM. Then another $50k spent on the same GWM grandpa getting an A380 endo, again more money assigned to the department of GWM. Throw in quite a number of international sojourns for the top tier at FF, with each trip per person costing on average $20k and you start to see where a lot of that taxpayer money ends up!

Oink oink

24th Apr 2014, 05:44
From the CASA briefing April 2014 - emailed 23/April....

There has been some comment in recent months suggesting a simple solution to updating the aviation safety regulations would be for Australia to adopt the current New Zealand rules. While this may sound attractive to some people there are real issues to be considered. Right now the New Zealand rules could not simply be adopted and enforced in their current form as Australian regulations. Many provisions in the New Zealand rules are not written in a manner consistent with Australian legislative drafting standards. In addition, some content is not consistent with the definitions, terminology and requirements set out in our Civil Aviation Act and regulations. This means adopting the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety. If we went in this direction we may need to amend the Civil Aviation Act and rework the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations that have already been made. This would be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation.

The New Zealand rules often provide for considerable discretion to be exercised by the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable in terms of compliance. Adoption of these principles could significantly hinder CASA's efforts to achieve a high level of standardisation in applying and enforcing the aviation safety legislation of Australia. CASA views increased standardisation as a key outcome of the regulatory reform program. In some cases this means less discretion being exercised by CASA officers and more certainty being provided directly in the regulations and standards. It should also be understood the contravention of any New Zealand civil aviation rule is a criminal offence for which a person may be prosecuted. In some cases, there may also be an infringement notice process. While offences or penalties are not specified in the rules themselves they are contained in another piece of legislation—the Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006. This contains a lengthy schedule setting out the penalties corresponding to each rule. In Australia we set out the offences and penalties in the aviation rules themselves, making our legislation more transparent and up front about penalties.

The New Zealand rules for aircraft operations contain more differences to International Civil Aviation Organization standards than Australia currently registers. CASA is striving to further reduce the number of these differences in the rewrite of the new operational Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. The New Zealand rules in some areas are also not as up to date as the new Australian regulations. We believe some rules may not offer adequate levels of safety and do not take into account Australian conditions and considerations. In summary, the New Zealand rules could not simply be adopted in their current form as Australian regulations. That said, where New Zealand rules are seen to be useful and advantageous, CASA is always willing to consider how and to what extent we can take advantage of their beneficial features by adapting them to the Australian aviation safety environment.

It seems obvious that the DAS just does not get it. A change to the Act and a restart to the reg rewrite is what many of us have been asking for, as the existing rewrite has failed big time.
How user friendly is a book of regs that has the penalties inserted thru the document. What we need is simple rules and the penalties elsewhere as our friends in NZ have done.
You really cannot regulate safety! You can educate and promote, but to regulate is a dream, given human nature and the existing culture, within both the industry and the existing regulator. Good safety promotion and education will obtain far better results than penalties inserted in the regs.:ugh:

dubbleyew eight
24th Apr 2014, 08:39
the problem with CAsA and the ATSB is that there are aeronautical engineering design standards issues surfacing, particularly with the ATR that they are totally unable to even understand.
This is a time when there needs to be competent sensible practised aeronautical engineers overseeing the design standards applicable to aviation in this country.
Lawyers and dumbed down clerical types just don't make the grade.
The time is fast arriving when the Ex-RAAF jobs for the "we know safety" mates will be shown as a total fraudulent bastardising of what should be happening.

you only need to look at the totally poxed up state of australian regulation to realise that these people are so utterly clueless as to what should be occurring.
this is what you would expect from ex-raaf and ex-airline managers who have next to no aeronautical engineering appreciation. they really don't know what safe aviation is actually underpinned by.

that ATR sitting in albury represents a situation that should be giving the accountant managers in VARA sweaty palms and sleepless nights.
the disaster that could end the airline came so close to occurring.

how is it that an airliner flown within operational limits could have such catastrophic damage? the airline is a competent operator.
the two ATR pilots are competent. the aircraft was flown in turbulence usual for that time of year. ATR build their aircraft competently. ATR have designed an aircraft to the standards using state of the art techniques.

so how did an aircraft nearly break up in flight?????

just maybe the sophisticated design methods have taken the strengths too close to the old standards. and in light of the number of ATR's that have been lost in flight, just maybe those old design standards are not sufficient for today's weather.

but of course we have the ATSB who investigate all accidents and serious incidents with the purpose of ensuring that the design standards remain up to snuff in today's world.
you would have to be incompetent to think that all theoretical work done by the americans in creating the FAR23 design standards was the be all and end all of it.
maybe if you did think that you could evolve the job into a cozy mates place on the assumption that you'd never have to do the hard stuff again.

so just how did an ATR, flown competently within limits, come to be in a state where it almost broke up in mid air?

if it wasn't for the copilot (pilot flying) saying to the captain "this isn't flying right" and the captain saying "let me have a fly", and if at the very moment when both pilots had hands on the controls they hadn't hit the turbulence that caused the opposite motions on the yolks that broke the elevator disconnect it wouldn't be parked at albury.
if it hadn't hit the bird the mechanics wouldn't have pulled off all the panels to check out what damage it had suffered.
but for that bird strike all the serious damage within the empennage wouldn't have been discovered.

....and virgin are about to put 163 identical aircraft into service.

are the warning klaxons sounding yet? they bloody ought to be!
the virgin managers and accountants should be having nightmares.

what is the fault???
this little black duck thinks the design standards that the ATR has been so carefully designed to are deficient in this day and age.
maybe they have always been deficient but we never shaved and pared designs so close to them that we remained blissfully unaware.
maybe it is increased energy in a climate that is changing.
maybe it is a shonky world.

do watch what happens out of all this because it could put incredible pressure on people who just aren't up to it. would that be a bad thing?

thorn bird
24th Apr 2014, 12:27
Exactly why is it that this country seems incapable of being innovative or progressive and when someone does they get no support and are put down and humiliated.
Singapore restructured their system, rewrote their act, regulations the whole enchilada in less than two years and are 100% ICAO compliant, so I don't buy McComic's spin. To make something happen there has to be a Will, there is no will from our regulator nor from our political masters, McComic is just an egotistical clown, the industry saw through him long ago, unfortunately our gullible public may never understand the danger they are in, because the industry is now actively ignoring CAsA, except when they are forced to, and then they involve themselves just enough to placate the regulator.

Is there anything in Australia that has been built or enacted, that has come in on-time, on-budget, in the last fifty years. Probably the last thing built in Australia that anyone could take pride in was the snowy scheme, even the iconic Opera house was a screw up, so its not surprising the so called regulatory "REFORM" project was doomed from the start, ineptitude and corruption saw to that. I hate to say it, but the industry is screwed unless someone, somehow breaks the iron ring mold and takes the lead.

24th Apr 2014, 23:18
Probably not politically correct these days but while we wait for Centaurus to pass on another ANZAC legend (aviation) war story, thought it might amuse some amongst us that spent some time slogging round the Straits...err 'lest we forget!' :E

Sung to Redgum "I was only nineteen!": BOUND FOR DARNLEY…..A Flight Over the Deep Blue.

First light at Horn Island
And the cloud was grey as slate,
As we kicked over
And rolled on zero eight.

The 206 was the first to go
And it was me who drew the card,
Out to Darnley
We did Kubin along the way.

And I can still see Mick and Mangy
Sitting on the couch back home,
Drinking VB tinnies
And playing Nintendo all alone.

Who’ll make the homebrew now
And who gets my CD’s
God help me…
I was bound for Darnley.

Levelled out at five and a half.
Hemispherical all the way.
Playing by the book
To keep those CASA boys at bay.

Looked down below and I saw a Bongo
Airborne out of Sue,
It was Lippy,
He was headed for Badu.

Then the engine started missing,
And the bloke behind me swore!
I went down along the checklist,
Through all that I’d been taught.

But nothing made it right again,
It was a stuffed up state to be.
God help me….
I was bound for Darnley.

I scanned the sea for a place to land
There was only one small reef
It was looking ugly
I knew we’d come to grief.
It was then I knew we were going down
The situation was looking grim
My heart was racing
Cause I knew I couldn’t swim.

There was Dixter, Dengue, Deefa
All the boys were out that day,
Sitting in their cockpits
All the fellas could do was prey.

But I changed the tanks
She sprang to life
I couldn’t have been much dumber
God help Me…..
I should have been a plumber.

Back upstairs she was looking good
It seemed I’d got us out of strife
The bloke beside me
Would be happy to see his wife.

Close to Darnley it was top of descent
And it was time to go on down,
I was in control now,
But I’d left my undies brown.

It was downhill on one zero,
With five knots up the arse.
At least the brakes were working
Thank Christ it wasn’t grass
I parked the plane,
Then turned around…..
The pax were in a flurry

And the ANSETT legends didn’t mention
Slogging around the straits.
A lifestyle that would make you cry,
If it wasn’t for your mates.

Now I’m in Sydney flying a jet
In money I am swimmin’….
God help me…
I MISS THOSE DARK WOMEN!!!!! Oh well back on topic :{...(from the new bloke at the MMSM :D) a WLR update:Industry gives CASA a big blast at inquiry (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/industry-gives-casa-a-big-blast-at-inquiry/story-e6frg95x-1226895250134)

THE federal government inquiry into aviation safety has received almost double the number of submissions expected as the industry vents over concerns about regulator in effectiveness.

Inquiry chairman David Forsyth said “well over” 270 submissions had been received, with a key concern among respondents being the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Among the concerns was the agency repeatedly changing direc*tion about which overseas jurisdiction it would follow in terms of streamlining Australia’s aviation laws, and over it habitually using unnecessarily complex terminology when dealing with the industry.

“The thing that has been at the nub of a lot of submissions … is the regulations in Australia have a drafting style to them, particularly the more recent ones,” Mr Forsyth said.

“That has caused a lot of angst because, mostly, overseas regulations are in fairly plain English.”

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which was announced in November by federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss, was launched to examine the effectiveness of aviation agencies, look for overlap, and determine the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety regu*lations compared with those abroad.

A key problem with aviation law in Australia has been a series of local regulations that are *“peculiarly Australian”, which needed to be more harmonised with international standards.

Mr Forsyth said over the past 20-odd years, CASA or its predecessor had been attempting to do this, but had repeatedly changed direction each time it came under new leadership.

“They were following the US regulations, then changed to NZ and then the European route — with each time there’s a change, it takes another five or six years to implement,’’ he said.

“The industry is upset about it, and justifiably so.” He said there was “no silver bullet” for the problem, but the inquiry had reached some conclusions.

“About a month ago we were starting to wonder where we were going with it all but we are getting there now,” he said.

The inquiry is due to report to the federal government next month, and was on track to do so, Mr Forsyth said. He said while submissions to the inquiry had closed on January 31, more than 100 had been received after the cut-off date.

“Submissions closed at the end of January but if any came to us after that we didn’t refuse them, that would be silly,” he said. “We have been out following up with people on a range of issues.’’

Mr Forsyth said two panel members had recently been overseas comparing our regime with those in the US and Europe. They were to return next week.

“We have two-and-a-bit weeks’ solid work to put the draft report together and then hopefully have it finalised before the end of May,’’ he said.
Numerous parties had raised concerns about overkill regarding aviation-security laws and associated ballooning costs.

However, given the terms of reference of the inquiry and its limited resources, it would examine a key issue of aviation security identification cards.

Background checks associated with the cards cost $200 and there were widespread concerns that they were demanded of people who had no contact with sensitive areas in and around airports, such as freight sheds or general areas.

“Someone made the point that since the September 11 (terrorist attacks), security requirements in Australia are far more strict than in the US, where the attacks occurred,” Mr Forsyth said.

“And from what we have inves*tigated so far that’s abso*lutely true. He said such security measures here had become “restrictive”, were not required elsewhere in the world, and were most likely not needed here.

“It’s pretty hard to argue Australia needs to have tighter security than the US: it doesn’t make sense to me.” Also from the MMSM NB an article on BARA and red tape imposts to industry...:{:Call to overhaul security red tape (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/call-to-overhaul-security-red-tape/story-e6frg95x-1226895246520)

THE nation’s airline representative body has called for an overhaul of aviation safety regulations, claiming the sector is riddled with unnecessary and costly duplicate laws.

Barry Abrams, executive director of the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents 29 airlines flying to and from Australia, said aviation security costs had ballooned in recent years on the back of increasingly bloated *bureaucracy in the sector.

He called on the Abbott government to review aviation safety as part of its national overhaul of costs associated with red tape.

“It’s 13 years now since September 11 and we have reached a point where we need to start thinking a lot harder about how effective these regulations are,” Mr Adams told The Australian.

“Given the large growth in security requirements, we now need to start asking if we are getting good value for money. There are a range of areas where we can reduce costs where we are duplicating duties and we are not seeing the best outcomes.”

Mr Abrams said that, as an example, the costs of security at Sydney airport had risen from $9 million in 2001 to $76m in 2012.

Federal Department of Infrastructure figures show government spending on aviation security has soared from about $30m in 2001-02, to more than $250m today.

“Having a review would be just part of good old regulatory practice,” Mr Abrams said.

The department rejected calls for an official audit, but was reviewing costs as part of the government’s broader “deregulation agenda”.

“The Australian government does not consider an audit of the costs of aviation security is required,” a spokeswoman said.

“As part of the government’s deregulation agenda, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is currently reviewing the regulatory requirements for transport security programs for airport and aircraft operators.”

The spokeswoman said the department had begun “initial consultations” with the aviation sector regarding “possible *options to reduce the regulatory burden for both airports and airlines”.

The calls from BARA echo those made earlier this month by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

In a submission to an ongoing government inquiry into security regulation in the aviation sector, the pilots union said screening processes for passengers at many regional airports were unnecessary, and screening processes for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”.

AFAP said security measures appeared to be implemented “without any regard” to the costs imposed on industry through screening requirements.

“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 beggars belief,” the pilot’s union said in the statement.

The Department of Infrastructure also rejected those calls, saying the level and type of screening was “appropriate”.

“The Australian government is aware of the social and economic importance of a vibrant and competitive regional aviation sector,” the spokeswoman said.
"Lest we forget!":ok:

25th Apr 2014, 03:34
Top stuff UITA good catch & research!:D

The fuel excise question was not missed by the RAAA either..:cool:

From the RAAA aviation policy (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/raaa-policy.html) (2013): CASA FUNDING

The FY11 federal budget introduced a significant rise in funding for CASA by way of an increase in the fuel levy. In the forward estimates the amount of the fuel levy allocated to CASA increased from $80M in FY10 to $124M in FY14. Proportionally this raised the amount of CASA funding out of the fuel levy from 61% to 74% over the period with the balance
coming out of ordinary appropriations.

This had the effect of exacerbating an already inequitable situation as international flights (including those operated by Australian carriers such as Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin Australia) do not pay the fuel levy. Similarly, the major airports and Airservices Australia do not pay the fuel levy yet they come under CASA’s jurisdiction. Clearly, a very large proportion of CASA’s resources are expended on services which do not contribute to CASA funding.

Effectively this has put the main burden of CASA funding on the regional operators and the mainline domestic operators. However as the main domestic airlines all belong to company groups that have international operations they are receiving some benefit from this arrangement. It is the regional operators that are paying far more than their fair share under
this funding arrangement.

This was the subject of a Senate Inquiry in 2010 with some concern expressed by Coalition Senators in the final report as to the process employed to enact this increase.


Funding of CASA should be provided totally out of consolidated revenue rather than the current inequitable method used with the fuel levy. However if it is deemed that industry needs to contribute to CASA funding then such funding should be based on more equitable parameters that measure activity such as passenger numbers and/or ASKs (Available Seat Kilometers). These parameters could be adapted to suit both airlines and airports. Basically put the regional aviation & GA sectors are footing the bill for FF, for what would appear to be no tangible benefit, this was noted by the Coalition in opposition...so minuscule...TICK bloody TOCK!:rolleyes:

28th Apr 2014, 01:16
On the (now) miniscule's speech in 2010 it is worth regurgitating the full speech because it has particular relevance in the run up to the Mayday presentation of the WLR wodgered weport (www....;)).

{Comment: The bit in red is also interesting in light of the AAAA WLR submission & apparently panel requested sup submission, see here (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/04/08/agricultural-operators-dump-on-the-regulator/)}
Mr TRUSS (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FGT4%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (Leader of the Nationals) (12:50 PM) —I am speaking today on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2FR4382%22; querytype=;rec=0) and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2FR4383%22; querytype=;rec=0) and I» (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3Ar4382%20Title%3A%22second% 20reading%22%20Content%3A%22I%20move%22%7C%22and%20move%22%2 0Content%3A%22be%20now%20read%20a%20second%20time%22%20%28Da taset%3Ahansardr%20%7C%20Dataset%3Ahansards%29;rec=1#HIT2) « (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3Ar4382%20Title%3A%22second% 20reading%22%20Content%3A%22I%20move%22%7C%22and%20move%22%2 0Content%3A%22be%20now%20read%20a%20second%20time%22%20%28Da taset%3Ahansardr%20%7C%20Dataset%3Ahansards%29;rec=1#HIT1)mo ve» (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3Ar4382%20Title%3A%22second% 20reading%22%20Content%3A%22I%20move%22%7C%22and%20move%22%2 0Content%3A%22be%20now%20read%20a%20second%20time%22%20%28Da taset%3Ahansardr%20%7C%20Dataset%3Ahansards%29;rec=1#HIT3) :

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in regulating for safety in aviation;

(2) notes that CASA’s funding from aviation fuel excise has increased from $53.96 million in 2002-03 to $78.37 million in 2008-09, and will continue to increase as the industry expands;

(3) calls on CASA to improve its efficiency in the way it conducts its business so that it may use its existing resources more effectively in the regulation of the aviation industry;

(4) notes that the bill proposes to increase the excise on aviation fuel from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre, that is, by 25 per cent, from 1 July 2010; and

(5) condemns the Government for introducing a 25 per cent tax increase on the aviation sector without first consulting and informing the aviation industry”.

These bills increase the excise levied on aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene sold in Australia by 25 per cent. The funds raised from this increase are to be allocated to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to enable it to recruit 97 new staff and expand its surveillance activities. It is also intended that some of the money raised by this tax increase will be directed towards allowing CASA to clear its backlog of regulatory reforms and regulation redrafting. Aviation safety is an important issue, and the people of Australia have a right to expect that regulatory authorities like CASA are focused on ensuring that Australian skies remain safe, that our industry is well run and appropriately regulated, and that there is sufficient support for the aviation sector to be able to meet its obligations under the various regulations.

Over the years it has to be said that the relationship between CASA and the industry has not always been cordial. There has been a lot of conflict and concern within the sector that CASA is sometimes heavy-handed and unhelpful and interferes in ways that the industry considers to be inappropriate. On the other hand, I think the public do expect a competent and effective organisation that will ensure that aviation safety standards are met and that they can undertake air travel with the expectation that they will arrive safely at their destination. And those who live near an airport or, for that matter, anywhere that aviation activity occurs do not want to be innocent victims of an incident where inappropriate standards may have been practised.

CASA has a very important job—and that should never be underestimated—and it needs to have appropriate and adequate resources to be able to do its job. On the other hand, it also has an obligation to be efficient and reliable and to undertake its activities in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, Australia has maintained an exemplary record in the field of aviation safety and it is critical that aviation in Australia remains as safe and secure as possible.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the coalition government took action to improve aviation security in Australia. Since that time over $1 billion has been spent to enhance aviation security. We expanded the screening of passengers and checked baggage to ensure consistent security screening treatment of all passengers and baggage carried on jet aircraft departing anywhere in Australia. Additional funding was provided to improve security in the air cargo sector. The coalition also created the air security officer program in December 2001, which placed sky marshals on selected domestic and international flights. The sky marshal program is a valuable program and it is worth fully supporting. I was disappointed when the government downgraded the sky marshal program very early in its term. It is important that we ensure funding for this program is maintained rather than playing fast and loose with the lives of the flying public to save a few dollars. The government cannot on the one hand demand additional funds for CASA and then take a casual approach towards other elements of aviation security and border protection. I am disappointed that the government, whilst it has been keen to increase the surveillance of passengers and others entering aircraft from security perspectives, has been prepared to wind back the number of people in customs and quarantine services at airports so that inspections of not just passengers but particularly cargo have been reduced substantially. Indeed, in each budget this Australian government has cut funding to customs and quarantine services. Frankly, I think that is unsatisfactory.

However, as part of the previous government’s response to aviation security challenges, we introduced the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, which involved aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required them to develop and comply with a transport security program. That legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. The coalition has a good record of ensuring safety in the aviation sector for the millions of Australians who depend on it either for their livelihood or for the ability to travel safely for work or pleasure.

CASA bears much of the responsibility for ensuring that Australian skies are safe and it is appropriate that it is both adequately resourced and efficiently run. Since being founded, CASA has been funded in part by the excise on aviation fuel, which these bills propose to increase. The rate of excise has been varied from time to time when appropriate. Most recently it was cut to its current level of 2.854c per litre at the time that the location specific pricing subsidy ended in November 2005. For many years the rate of excise on aviation fuel was linked to the CPI and was often indexed twice annually for inflation. The coalition ended this practice in March 2001, along with the deindexation of petrol and diesel excise. Some would argue that this means CASA is underresourced as it is funded in part by a tax that is not indexed to inflation. But the government is not proposing to increase the excise through this bill to address increases in costs on account of inflation but rather plans to fund an expansion of CASA’s workforce and regulatory activities—and, I might add, to pay for the new board that it has introduced to control CASA’s activities. At any rate, the amount of aviation fuel sold in Australia has increased significantly in recent years. In 2003-04, 4.4 billion litres of aviation fuel were sold in Australia. By 2008-2009, this had increased to 6.3 billion litres. Not all of these sales are subject to excise. The military, for example, are not charged excise on aviation fuel, and aviation fuel used on international flights is also exempt. Still, it is clear that, as the amount of aviation fuel sold increases, the amount that CASA collects through the excise on aviation fuel and the amount it has available to spend also increases.

CASA’s annual reports indicate that in 2002-03 it received just under $54 million from aviation fuel excise. By 2008-09, this had increased to $78 million, an increase of over 45 per cent in six years. So CASA has not been starved of funds; it has received a significant increase through the growth in aviation fuel sales. The proportion of CASA’s revenue that comes from this excise has varied slightly over time but has generally been between 50 per cent and 60 per cent over the last decade. There are other revenue streams such as direct charges that also fund CASA’s activities.

There have also been increases in fees charged by CASA in recent years as a part of a move to full-cost recovery. CASA revenues from the sale of goods and services, most of which is its fees charged to the industry, have shot up from $9.8 million in 2006-07 to $19.2 million in 2008-09. This revenue stream has nearly doubled in two years. It is also worth noting that the revenue provided by the tax increase proposed in these bills is $23.1 million in the first year. Just the increase in tax will be larger than CASA’s entire cost-recovery scheme from last year. Figures from CASA’s budget estimate that CASA expects to receive nearly $80 million from aviation fuel excise in the current financial year. At the current rate of excise, this suggests that there are just under 2.8 billion litres of aviation fuel sold on which excise has been levied. The government estimates that the increase in excise proposed by these bills will mean an additional $89.9 million over four years. This would mean the government expects to charge excise on 12.8 billion litres of aviation fuel over the next four years, averaging 3.2 billion litres per year. This means that, just on increased volume, excise would be levied on an additional 400 million litres of aviation fuel every year, or an additional 1.6 billion litres of aviation fuel over four years. This would mean an increase in CASA’s budget of an average of $11.6 million per year and a total of $46.4 million over four years just by maintaining the excise at its current rate and reaping more excise from higher volumes being consumed.

So there will be a considerable increase in CASA’s revenue from excise over the years ahead, and presumably also from its fee structure, even if these bills are not carried—even if we do not give them this extra 25 per cent excise increase. These bills propose to increase the excise on aviation fuel by 0.702c per litre from its current 2.854c per litre to 3.556c per litre. That 0.702c per litre may not sound like much, but it represents an increase of nearly 25 per cent on top of the increases in volume that are expected.

A media release from the minister’s office on budget night described this as ‘a small increase in the aviation fuel excise’. Well, if the minister thinks that 25 per cent is a small increase, I think that speaks volumes about his attitude and the attitude of the whole government towards taxes. Of course, this government has form when it comes to tax increases. It was this government that increased the passenger movement charges—a revenue measure—in its first budget. The Treasurer increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47 and attempted to apply this tax retrospectively to tickets that had already been sold. That $9 is costing airlines, travel agents, tourism operators and the flying public and it hit the aviation industry at a time when it was already struggling with rising costs and an uncertain economic environment. Even worse, the government has committed itself to its giant new tax on mining and has declared war on an entire industry, its workers and every Australian who owns shares in mining companies or has superannuation.

And who can forget the ETS—the great big new tax on everything—that this government is still holding over the head of every Australian. The tax increase proposed by these bills is significant, and it is causing concern amongst those in the aviation industry. Many aviation industry stakeholders I have spoken to have expressed concern over the lack of consultation involved in these bills. Many first heard about the proposed tax increase when my office contacted them for comment.

This tax increase will add costs to the aviation industry at a time when it is already facing difficult economic conditions. The aviation sector, which contributes over $6 billion each year to Australia’s economy and directly supports nearly 50,000 jobs, deserves to be regarded as more than a cash cow. Charter operators servicing fly-in fly-out mining operations are already facing a drop in business on account of the government’s superprofits tax on the mining sector. As mining operations are shut down, they are being hit from both sides, with business drying up at the same time as their fuel costs increase.

But perhaps the greatest source of concern arising from these bills is the lack of transparency in how the money will be used. The aviation industry understands, as do I, that aviation safety is a serious subject and that CASA needs to be adequately resourced to perform its duties. But these bills make no specification about how the $89.9 million estimated to be raised is to be spent by CASA. The combined second reading speeches on these two bills lasted for only 2½ double-spaced pages so there was not much detail provided. Is it any wonder that the industry is concerned? The bills simply replace one excise rate with another. There is no full detailed breakdown on how the additional funding is included in the bills. There is no guarantee that the money raised by this excise increase will make Australian skies any safer. There is also the question of why CASA needs to hire an additional 97 staff. What will these 97 new employees do? How will they contribute to a safer aviation environment? These are questions that deserve answers, but answers have been in short supply from this government.

After consultations with the aviation sector let me say that there has been considerable alarm about the new costs that this bill will impose on the sector. Virgin Blue, for instance, argue that CASA should look at cost savings within its own budget to fund some of its activities and reduce the burden of inefficient and inappropriate regulation. Rex Airlines—and I know that Rex is very much dear to the heart of the member for Riverina, who has just entered the chamber—is concerned about the tax increase. It pointed out that the excise tax was meant to be a growth tax that would enable CASA’s role to grow as the industry grew. As I pointed out earlier, the revenue for CASA has grown and will grow without this 25 per cent increase. Rex believes that CASA should live within its means. Alliance, the largest charter airline in Australia, with many fly-in fly-out mining operations, are also concerned about a tax increase at a time when their revenue is also threatened by the government’s supertax on mining profits. They will face increased costs at the same time as their revenue is reduced.

The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia oppose any increase in the tax on aviation fuel that is not linked to increases in efficiency on CASA’s part. They regard reform of CASA as a very high priority and feel that the tax increase is an example of CASA treating the industry like a cash cow. The Regional Aviation Association are not happy. Although they accept that CASA may need an increase in their budget if they are going to improve performance, they are very concerned about the impact of this extra tax on what is already a hard-pressed sector.

There is no doubt that, had the government sought to consult with industry before they announced this tax, they would have got a lot of negative feedback. They would have got a lot of advice about how CASA can do the job expected of it without having a great big new tax imposed on the sector. I am disappointed that the government has not allowed for there to be greater consultation with the industry. In fact, the legislation, brought on early in the House today—for, I appreciate, organisational reasons—is supposed to take effect from 1 July, just four or five sitting days away. So there will be little opportunity for even the Senate to undertake normal, appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. It has been brought into the House and it has to be dealt with within days, and the industry will have to start picking up the cost immediately.

There are concerns about the way this funding is going to be used. We are told that there are going to be 97 additional employees in CASA as a result of this legislation. It is my understanding that the bulk of the excise increase, estimated at approximately $59.5 million, is to be spent on recruiting these 97 new staff. On rough calculations, that is about $600,000 per employee. I do not know how much safety inspectors get paid, but, even taking travel, superannuation and other ancillary costs into account, I am not sure why the cost of employing these staff reaches that sort of level. Both the aviation sector and the parliament are entitled to an explanation.

The legislation says it will enable CASA to continue random alcohol and drug testing. Alcohol and drug testing is already occurring. The airlines conduct random alcohol and drug testing at their own expense, in their own interests. They want to protect their reputations—a priceless asset for any airline operator—but they also want to ensure the protection of their employees and their property.

No key performance indicators or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the additional funding have been released. The government is responsible for ensuring that the aviation sector is effectively and efficiently regulated. This means ensuring that CASA is adequately resourced but it also means ensuring that any increase in the costs borne by the aviation industry is justified. They must be able to explain to those who have to pay the costs why it is necessary.

It is for these reasons that the opposition has acted in the Senate to refer these bills to the appropriate committee for examination. The committee will obtain information on why CASA needs this extra money, how it will be spent, what safety risks are involved and how this tax increase will improve aviation regulation and safety. It will also give CASA the opportunity to justify to its critics how it is managing its existing budget. I commend the amendment to the House.
UITA: "...Question is where is Minister Truss now??..."

Probably struggling out from under a coupla 4 tonne elephants full from swilling from the trough...:ugh::{ However I note that the miniscule is due to put out some more spin & bulldust this week at the National Press Club, see here (http://www.npc.org.au/upcomingspeakers.html).

IOS opportunity perhaps??:ok:

28th Apr 2014, 03:25
It is clearly apparent; every time matters aeronautical surface, the media don't feel the need to investigate or interrogate the powers that be; but, the miniscule is off to the Press Club bash. The BRB find this to be both diverting and amusing, considering the stories available from the festering pile of detritus parked under the arse of the incumbent miniscule and the total lack of investigative interest from the press ass ahole.

Anyway, we decided to make a list of the questions which Truss will not be asked by our lacklustre media. We have not, as yet, decided quite what prevents the press from ripping into Truss, considering the unholy mess the aviation safety system is in, now confirmed by Senate evidence, as it was in 2008, when Truss had the reigns. However, even without that famous keen Australian journalistic insight; just for Pprune fun, we propose some of those interesting little questions the miniscule seems to be able to duck, at will. Ribald answers will be tolerated during school holidays.

1) The - Nick Xenophon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq3u_QKFEbE)– remarks in response to the slippery, official nonsense reply to Pel Air raises a truckload of very serious, very real public safety questions. Would the miniscule care to respond to any of questions raised by the good Senator?

2) Can the miniscule justify signing off on the dismissive, nonsense-response to the damning Senate Pel Air inquiry which basically is insulting to both industry and the Senators?

3) Who suggested 'gazumping' the proposed the Senate inquiry into CASA and the unbelievable cock up made of the legislative reform process, by initiating the Wet Lettuce Review? Was the miniscule aware that this ultra cynical move would knobble the Senate before it had a chance to extend the good work done on Pel Air, slowly but surely exposing the depth and breadth of top level shenanigans?

4) Why, when and by whom was it decided that submissions to the Truss WLR were not to be published, as usual?

5) Why were submissions to the WLR not provided any sort of protection; would the miniscule care to provide a complete list of everyone who has accessed the submitted documents and be prepared to have that list publicly scrutinised?

6) Is the miniscule prepared to consider a judicial inquiry empowered to consider the many alleged travesties inflicted by CASA on industry, Tiger, Pel Air, Airtex, Polar, Barrier to name a few of the many companies; or Quadrio, Hempel, James etc. as 'individual' events?

7) How does the miniscule intend to re-establish operator control of their businesses and prevent the endless interference of 'officialdom' in operational matters like check lists, operating approvals, standards, instructing to name but a few of the endless list of CASA technical and operational incompetence's?

8) How does the miniscule propose to deal with the evidence provided by the Senate Pel Air committee and will he transparently define exactly how far the AFP investigation into the matters raised has progressed?

9) Miniscule, you are faced with a hostile, disillusioned, cynical industry, what measures and policy do you propose to gain some personal credibility, re-establish Australia as a world class aviation nation and repair the damage inflicted by the McComic years?

Miniscule, in your 2010 speech, (ref Sarcs above) you say "But perhaps the greatest source of concern arising from these bills is the lack of transparency in how the money will be used. The aviation industry understands, as do I, that aviation safety is a serious subject and that CASA needs to be adequately resourced to perform its duties. But these bills make no specification about how the $89.9 million estimated to be raised is to be spent by CASA. The combined second reading speeches on these two bills lasted for only 2½ double-spaced pages so there was not much detail provided. Is it any wonder that the industry is concerned?"

10) Can you now explain, four years later, how it is that neither you or the industry is any further forward with regard to detailed CASA budgeting, or how AUD $89,000,000 was justified, the process by which it obtained, whether it was used effectively and how did industry benefit from providing their part of those monies?

In the same speech you say – "There are concerns about the way this funding is going to be used. We are told that there are going to be 97 additional employees in CASA as a result of this legislation. It is my understanding that the bulk of the excise increase, estimated at approximately $59.5 million, is to be spent on recruiting these 97 new staff. On rough calculations, that is about $600,000 per employee. I do not know how much safety inspectors get paid, but, even taking travel, superannuation and other ancillary costs into account, I am not sure why the cost of employing these staff reaches that sort of level. Both the aviation sector and the parliament are entitled to an explanation".

11) Could we have that explanation now, please?

In the same speech you say. "No key performance indicators or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the additional funding have been released. The government is responsible for ensuring that the aviation sector is effectively and efficiently regulated. This means ensuring that CASA is adequately resourced but it also means ensuring that any increase in the costs borne by the aviation industry is justified. They must be able to explain to those who have to pay the costs why it is necessary".

12) Could we have that explanation now, please?

13) Is the miniscule prepared to provide a time line and plan defining how and when he intends to grab both ATSB and CASA by the scruff of the neck and shake them into becoming the service to industry, so desperately needed and pays dearly for. Balls or a Junior minister, which one will you pick one?

I just can't fathom Australian journalists and aviation; even when they can be bothered to get off their collective arses, they either stuff it up completely or drag quotes out of some dreadful creature, like GT. I assume most journalists still have the basic intelligence required to get onto an aircraft. I'm just perplexed as to why they don't wonder about how and what is keeping them safe, Shirley that would be more interesting than some Polly getting caught in a cat house again (surprise, surprise); or some Muppet falling off a pushbike; or, another one found with a paw in the cookie jar; or, land rights for gay whales.

Aye well – I expect the miniscule's words will be digested along with the 'pudding' and meet the same sad end; no doubt the refreshments will assist in keeping moribund brains in the accustomed, comfortable, somnolent condition.

1st May 2014, 09:12
On the Senate thread I posted...Right of reply-AMROBA three tiers & the Canuck vote plus PP opinion (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-95.html#post8457042)
...which was followed by a slightly more cryptic...:confused:...but seemingly jolly post by the Ferryman...

"...Don't fret. The Gobbledock (GD) only exists to serve the cause. Now, safely returned from his sojourn as 'secret agent' (the IOS secret weapon) in Montreal and other 'interesting' places he is quite happy, taking a break at house boat park. Currently; pandering to the needs of his beloved elephant. He did however manage to track the WLR Secretariat on their mind boggling tour of foreign parts. To say they were surprised by the levels of 'operational' ease, communication, mutual trust, the spirit of willing cooperation and the tangible (measurable) safety outcomes, easily achieved between industry and regulator, in meetings, was 'palpable', is an understatement.

Anyway, the BBQ is hot and (thank the gods) MKR is finished so here on the houseboat, all is well. Elephants fed, dogs and horses settling in for yet another quiet-'ish' evening of beer, BBQ and looking at a booking sheet which is; I must say, looking quite healthy. But company policy firmly bars wabbits for transport – no discussion. Gas chamber and onto the rhubarb patch; that's our firm, long standing policy (it ain't legal of course, but we do have some influence).

GD and Tidy Bin (laden with angst) simply failed to communicate; it happens even in the most pedantic of cockpits. GD is smiling, waving and; at least in spirit, is very much a part of PPRuNe (Bless it).

So, lest we have the thread locked, on free association grounds – that's it. Selah, Toot toot and good night. Endit........Jeez, those snags smell good..."

For the Ferryman to make such a post at this time means...(a) he has some information at his disposal that he (as yet) can't reveal; and (b) he also loves the possible implications of this secret intel for future ferry bookings...:ok:

So try to decipher the true message in the "K" post...go on I dare you?? :E

Moving on and before AMROBA slides up the page there was an additional posting (http://amroba.org.au/icao-resolution-of-safety-concerns.html) on their site which quoted from Chapter 3 of the ICAO Safety Oversight Manual (http://www.icao.int/safety/fsix/Library/Doc9734_Part_A.pdf)....:rolleyes:

At first I could not see the significance of this posting but then the penny dropped (in light of recent troubling events) when I scrolled down to the last two paragraphs..:D: (my bold)
3.9.7 Accident investigations also play a crucial role in the identification of deficiencies and safety concerns. Safety recommendations can be issued in the course of or at the completion of an investigation. Other essential tools are a mandatory incident reporting system and a voluntary incident reporting system (which shall be non-punitive). The establishment of an accident and incident database and the analysis of the information contained in such a database are means to identify safety concerns; a common taxonomy is essential to allow for the exchange of information between the users of the aviation system worldwide.

3.9.8 An effective resolution of safety issues is highly dependent on the authority vested in the CAA. This critical element can only be successful in situations clearly supported by and linked to the primary aviation legislation and regulations. There should be technical guidance and procedures for both the technical inspectors and the assigned CAA legal personnel. This guidance should be provided early in the programme of safety oversight improvement to avoid inconsistent extremes of actions by CAA personnel. Again moving on, but while on ICAO, I note that ASA has just quietly slipped in the long awaited revision to the Oz version of AIP Gen 1.7 i.e. notified differences to ICAO SARPs: SUP H18/14 (http://airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf)

Hmm...happy reading!:zzz::E

1st May 2014, 09:45
97 pages!!!!

thorn bird
1st May 2014, 09:57
Oh good grief Sarcs,
McComic said we cant adopt Kiwi rules because they don't comply with ICAO??? Who are we to believe???

1st May 2014, 20:28
Angola 0 pages.
Bahrain 3 pages.
Bulgaria 1 page.
Cyprus 1 page.
Denmark 7 pages.
Hungary 6 pages.
India 8 pages.
Ireland 22 pages.
Malaysia 7 pages.
Norway 19 (Bi lingual) pages.
Thailand 2 pages.
Turkey 4 (Bi lingual) pages.
Slovakia 16 pages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All together 96 pages. All published as per contract, in the national the AIP.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Australia 97 pages.– Yay! we win. Not published, only available from AsA.

The true attitude of Australian safety culture may be defined in the wonderfully worded paragraph 1.2 of the H18/14 introduction. Not only has this thing languished in and out of date over a few years; it thumbs it's nose at contractual obligations to ICAO (tis a long tedious tale). If you can stomach it though, an interesting exercise is to look at one or two of the 'wordier' sections; like Avmed. The parts which relate to ATSB are an eye opener for anyone credulous enough to believe that the MOU between CASA and ATSB is a good idea.

Flashback - Sarcs (http://www.pprune.org/7815403-post1592.html) - at full throttle, happy days.

1st May 2014, 23:19
Touché "K"...:ok: Oh yes the ICAO Mount Non-compliance tale..;) Ok...err maybe I too can be quite cryptic at times..:}

But back to the additional 'bakers dozen' of Ozfuscation (Oz ICAO notified differences) in three years (H12/11 to H18/14), by my calculation the page count, at this rate, will be at 364 by the turn of the century...happy days!:ugh::ugh:

{Q/ Wondering how it is possible for there to be 13 extra pages introduced without impinging on the requirements of Annex 15 i.e. amendments/changes must be notified ASAP}

On the (MMSM) other "K", I note that he continues to catch up with where we are all currently at with the WLR pending report...:D:Crop-dusters give CASA a spray in submission to federal inquiry (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/cropdusters-give-casa-a-spray-in-submission-to-federal-inquiry/story-e6frg95x-1226902604323)

THE nation’s crop-dusting and aerial firefighting body has savaged the aviation regulator as a “low trust organisation” that is “dysfunctional at every level”.

In a scathing submission to the federal government’s inquiry into aviation safety regulation, the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia — representing about 300 pilots and 130 operators — called for a complete overhaul of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

“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,” the AAAA said.

“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.”

The AAAA submission joins a large number of complaints lodged with the inquiry critical of CASA.

CASA is expected to be forced into a shake-up after the inquiry’s report is completed and handed to the Infrastructure Minister, Warren Truss, late this month.

Last week, inquiry chairman David Forsyth told The Australian “well over” 270 submissions had been received — double the number expected — with the *operations of CASA a key concern among respondents.

A major issue had been the agency repeatedly changing its mind over which overseas jurisdiction it would follow in terms of streamlining Australia’s aviation laws, with three major changes in direction over the past 20 years.

It has also been accused by *industry of using unnecessarily complex terminology, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots calling for regulations to be *“rewritten in plain English”.

CASA declined to comment when contacted this week by The Australian .

The head of the agency, John McCormick, has announced that he will not be seeking to renew his position when his contract *expires.

However, a replacement has not been announced.

The top job at CASA has long been a largely thankless role, but industry insiders say the agency’s operations have been growing worse. The AAAA represents 130 “application operators” nationwide, and about 300 pilots, which it says represents three-quarters of all operators and 90 per cent of aircraft in use.

In addition to its original 41-page submission to the inquiry, the AAAA has submitted a supplementary submission, indicating the inquiry has sought more information and is keenly interested in its views.

In the supplementary submission, the AAAA identified four “key deficiencies” it saw with the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

They included the lack of cost/benefit analysis of the CASA regulations and the “lack of the principles of fostering and promoting aviation as an integral responsibility of the regulator”.

The AAAA also complained there was “no clear delineation” between the level of regulator *resources to be dedicated to pas*senger aircraft regulation compared to aerial work and private aviation.

There was also a lack of board power to “actively engage in improving” the management of CASA through “directing the CEO”.
Dear John cc Wazza...the worm is turning...TICK TOCK! :ok:

thorn bird
1st May 2014, 23:40
"re the Flashback"

"Note: Just out of interest I decided to explore our ANZAC ‘brothers in arms’ over the ditch and how they sort out compliance with the ICAO Annexes, in particular Annex 6. Here is what I found ‘Click Here’ (http://www.caa.govt.nz/ICAO/Annex_06_Part_1_Cmp_Stmt.pdf).

Very user friendly they even have a web page devoted to ICAO Compliance (http://www.caa.govt.nz/ICAO/ICAO_Compliance.htm)……yet another tick for the Kiwi system!:D "

But didn't McComic just say we couldn't have workable regulations like the Kiwi's that actually improve safety, because they don't comply with ICAO???? Please don't tell me Mr. McComic is telling Fibs! or is he practicing because he plans to enter Parliament when he retires from FF. Someone should tell him you don't need to be like a lawyer to be a politician, your lying doesn't have to be that convincing.
Oh Minister Miniscule you really need to take the S out of their name, now surely that cant be that hard can it??

1st May 2014, 23:45
NZ safety regs not suitable for Australia – CASA
Item by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) at 3:31 pm, Wednesday April 30 2014 2 Comments

CASA has dismissed calls to adopt NZ-style regulations. (Michael Thomas)

The Director of Safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), John McCormick has dismissed calls from industry to adopt aviation safety regulations similar to those of New Zealand.
McCormick said the New Zealand rules allowed for considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance, and that many of the provisions in the New Zealand regulations were not consistent with Australian legislative standards, definitions, and terminology.

“If we went in this direction we may need to amend the Civil Aviation Act and rework the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations that have already been made,” he said on the CASA website. “This would be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation.”

McCormick’s comments come in the wake of informal lobbying from industry bodies to Transport Minister Warren Truss to consider adopting New Zealand style regulations.

McCormick said the New Zealand rules left an operator open for prosecution if contravened, and that they contain too many differences to ICAO regulations. “We believe some rules may not offer adequate levels of safety and do not take into account Australian conditions and considerations,” he added.

2 Responses to “NZ safety regs not suitable for Australia – CASA”

1. Ben says:
April 30, 2014 at 4:54 pm
“… take into account Australian conditions and considerations,” Is that what bureaucrats say when they need a reason for making a decision to be more difficult than is required? Those same words have been dogging military projects for years, before we had a couple of very successful MOTS purchases.

Has CAANZ replied to his implication that their regs are unsafe? Will CASA one day realise that maybe their system of ‘Empty skies are safe skies’ isn’t the best formula?

2. Gerard says:
May 1, 2014 at 6:08 am
Given that all differences to the ICAO Standards and Practices (SARPs) have to be justified to ICAO, this smacks a little of “Not invented here”. I’d like to see these assertions supported by more detail.

Probably not. I seriously doubt this bill of goods can convince a good half of CASA, let alone a united industry, Senate and, with a bit of a push, the Minister. (my bold).

All good and well done 'The Australian'.

2nd May 2014, 11:52
Funny thing is that I understand Kharons cryptic post very clearly :ok:

Now, those naughty pesky crop dusters. How dare they speak out against Herr Skull. Have they forgotten that Mr Angry flew big planes, not those silly little prop crop dusters! How dare they! What would they know? (spoken tongue in cheek)

So let me get this correct:
- Several hundred submissions to the wet lettuce review have condemned CAsA, with most so damning that the Government had to urgently bury them from public view. As a tiny example of who thinks CAsA is doing a shite job - The Ag boys, crop dusting and firefighting lads, most of industry, AMROBA, a bunch of Senators and assorted politicians, former CAsA employees, by their own previous admissions the ATsB, and the list continues
- Then you have a DAS who has publicly taken potshots at industry, AMROBA, the Senators, pretty much anybody who has an opinion that differs to his, our Kiwi brothers who are just a stones throw away, several IOS who have confronted him over the years, and even some of his own people!
- Consecutive Senate inquiries into several accidents, aviation safety and standards, and decades long criticism of the actions of a putrid and toxic government department,

Minister Truss, this is YOUR problem. Just like our deteriorating economy, you can't blame the past, the present lays in your hands. Just like the economy, you must act now, decisively, on a scale not seen before.

Minister Truss, if you think you have problems now, just wait until you have three smoking holes on your hands (Please refer to Avipedia, section 11.6 under 'Sunfish/IOS/Ticktock' for a full explanation) and the FAA and ICAO come knocking on your door. One downgrade is all it takes. Then you will really see how an economy can be pissed down the drain in one fell swoop of a pen!

Minister Truss, distinguished guests, children of all ages - TICK TOCK

3rd May 2014, 00:41
McCormick said the New Zealand rules allowed for considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance, and that many of the provisions in the New Zealand regulations were not consistent with Australian legislative standards, definitions, and terminology.

Gentlemen this is called in psycholgical terms; "projection" - the attribution to others of the condition you suffer from. Thus a congenital liar will brand critics as "liars", the envious will accuse others of "envy" and so on.

The problem with the Australian rules is precisely what McCormick accuses the NZ regulations of, to whit, the Australian regulations " considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance" - this is the source of almost all our misery.

thorn bird
3rd May 2014, 04:53
"considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance"

Ah, but Sunny my dear fellow, CAsA deliberately writes the rules this way.

Its called "employment"

Cant have these aviation folks actually understanding the rules, no no no wouldn't do at all. If they understood them CAsA wouldn't have to employ all these lawyers to write them.

Then of course look how CAsA absorbs so much dead wood from the industry not to mention the ones that reach the end of the line from the Military.

I mean where else would these poor fellows get a job?

CAsA can happily leave it up to them to work out the "intent of the regulations", bit frustrating for the poor old operator I know, having a manual compliant today and its not tomorrow, but it adds up to many chargeable hours so CAsA can employ lots more industry rejects and ex RAAF people as more and more of the new unintelligible rules come on line and need interpreting.

Jobs for everybody, don't you see that's the goal.

We are rapidly approaching the point where we wont have an industry at all, so CAsA, ever looking towards the future, has already solved the problem it created.

Forget about the "Industry", never was much money in it anyway.

We can all go and work for CAsA.

Think how easy things would be!!

No competency or productivity issues.

Never have to mention that word "Safety" again.

No industry winging all the time. buggered up lunch afternoons "Consulting"

Public service Lurks and perks.

The lawyers can happily go on churning out new regulations, CAsA staff can go on interpreting them, senior management can go on smoke and mirroring the Pollies, and the punters can go on cheap foreign airlines...they'll never notice the difference anyway and there has to be something for all the parasitic industries that have grown off the back of aviation to feed off, hell there would be riots in Lakemba if the mascot security industry was shut down, and how the hell else could the baggage handlers distribute their "stuff"?

Prince Niccolo M
4th May 2014, 15:03
"considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance"

Ah, but Sunny my dear fellow, CAsA deliberately writes the rules this way.
So, let me get this straight.

The CAA 88 and the CAR 88 were considered to be too prescriptive, thus creating a rigidity that prevented adaptation with industry changes and prevented discretionary interpretation to further commercial outcomes without compromising safety.

The alternative, much touted, is "outcomes-based legislation" that does away with the prescription and, for those who have sniffed avgas the longest, creates a commercial advantage engendering regulatory world that is agile and flexible enough to keep pace with industry change but with far less compliance complexity.

As an aside, nobody has ever published a compelling case for achieving standardisation in an outcomes-based world in which safety cases become the new field of entrepreneurial endeavour. But, let's not bother with such trivia and just get back to the subject...

We are slowly getting the new rules, but surprisingly they are not what I envisaged "outcomes-based legislation" would look like and all I hear is that they are even more prescriptive than the rules they will eventually replace. Unlike some others, I read the McComic statements as being anti-outcomes-based and being pro-prescription, perhaps because he has comprehensibly failed to standardise his inspectors and decision-makers.

But, bugga me dead, Torn Bird falls out of his tree whinging about CASA deliberately attempting more discretion despite greater prescription... :ugh: :eek: :O

So what the p:oh::oh:k do you really want out of your rule set and how do you propose to make it sensibly work?

thorn bird
4th May 2014, 23:52
Your Highness,
I think New Zealand have admirably demonstrated a rule set that works. Given how robust their aviation Industry is becoming is all the proof you need that good regulation works, allows industry to get on with it, and maintains an acceptable safety level.
Australia may be a pimple on the ass of the world, but we cannot live in isolation, the world is getting smaller and we have to compete, having unique, prescriptive, restrictive legislation is not going to improve safety nor create an atmosphere for growth.

5th May 2014, 00:57
Prince Niccolo:

So what the fk do you really want out of your rule set and how do you propose to make it sensibly work?

Rules written in plain English that are outcome based and do not use the words
acceptable", "Appropriate", "Generally" and similar nominatives that mean different things depending on who is asked.

Rules that are not written in the negative as in:

"A pilot shall not fly an aircraft except....." or " A regulator must not issue an approval except......"

These are to be replaced with: " It is an offence to fly an aircraft if......"

Then get rid of criminal offences and strict liability.

I could go on....

thorn bird
5th May 2014, 09:01
And meanwhile in China, who I am told is adopting....Guess who's....Not I repeat Capital NOT!! Australian reg's...is placing an order for 60 odd Gulfstream aircraft

5th May 2014, 19:35
Niccolo is being Puckish (1); his whimsical post cleverly highlighting 'what it ain't' rather than what it was supposed to be; and lays the blame for 'what it is', firmly where it belongs. He is quite clearly aware of the issues debated, particularly in educational and legal fields about the pros and cons of just such a system. Education being a useful by-product of a sensible rule set, preventing unintended breach. I also suspect he knows full well that the only sane method of matching the fast pace of technical and operational development is to get the rules either ahead of the game; or, positioned so that no matter 'how' a safety outcome is achieved, compliance is always the end result. Personally, I like to think of outcome based legislation as a rule written to guide the wise man. 101 "Thou shallt not run out of fuel, for there is no help for thee if thou doest". But, then again the 10 commandments were simple outcome based rules and look at the unholy mess those have landed us in.

Food for thought -my bold HERE (http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/4.%20Regulating%20Privacy/regulatory-theory)

[Extract] - By principles-based regulation, the ALRC is referring to both the tools of regulation—that is, the principles—and adopting a more outcomes-based approach to regulating privacy. This section will examine in turn the theory of principles-based regulation and the notion of an outcomes-based—or ‘compliance-oriented’—approach to regulation.

4.5 Principles-based legislation relies on principles to articulate the outcomes to be achieved by the regulated entities. According to Professor Julia Black, principles are ‘general rules … [that] are implicitly higher in the implicit or explicit hierarchy of norms than more detailed rules: they express the fundamental obligations that all should observe.’ Black states that principles-based regulation avoids ‘reliance on detailed, prescriptive rules and rel[ies] more on high-level, broadly stated rules or principles’

4.6 Part of the guiding purpose of a principles-based approach is to shift the regulatory focus from process to outcomes. The rationale for this is described as follows:
Regulators, instead of focussing on prescribing the processes or actions that firms must take, should step back and define the outcomes that they require firms to achieve. Firms and their management will then be free to find the most efficient way of achieving the outcome required/

4.7 Principles-based regulation can be distinguished from rules-based regulation in that it does not necessarily prescribe detailed steps that must be complied with, but rather sets an overall objective that must be achieved. In this way, principles-based regulation seeks to provide an overarching framework that guides and assists regulated entities to develop an appreciation of the core goals of the regulatory scheme. A key advantage of principles-based regulation is its facilitation of regulatory flexibility through the statement of general principles that can be applied to new and changing situations. It has been said that such a regulatory framework is exhortatory (acting or intended to encourage, incite, or advise) in that it emphasises a ‘do the right thing’ approach and promotes compliance with the spirit of the law.

And again - Here (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91149)

(1) Puck, also known as Robin Goodfellow, is a character in William Shakespeare's play A Midsummer Night's Dream that was based on the ancient figure in English mythology, also called Puck. Puck is a clever, mischievous elf or sprite that personifies the trickster or the wise knave. In the play, Shakespeare introduces Puck as the "shrewd and knavish sprite" and "that merry wanderer of the night" in some scenes it would seem that he is longing for freedom and he is also a jester to Oberon, the fairy king. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_(A_Midsummer_Night's_Dream)

A toast is a ritual in which a drink is taken as an expression of honour or goodwill.

Cin cin.

5th May 2014, 22:11
Kharon, if CASA is indeed populated with ex-RAAF engineering types it would explain a lot because, with rare exeptions, RAAF engineers seem to exhibit a completely rigid personality type and the Two absolutely worst managers I have ever had the misfortune to work for were ex-RAAF engineers. Both had personalities like the apocryphal "East German Border Guard".

The combination of ex RAAF engineers and aggressive self serving solicitors on a mission to write so much as a childrens story, let alone a set of aviation rules, is guaranteed to produce a nightmare every time.

thorn bird
5th May 2014, 22:34

your references to the 10 commandments could provide a parallel with CAsA.

you see originally there were 3759 and a 1/2 commandments. The people were having a lot of trouble keeping them and there was a lot of unintentional sinning going on because people couldn't remember or understand them all.
Sound familiar?
Well the people (IOS) winged and wined so much that the bearded bloke went up and had a chat with the bush (The burning one).
When he came back he told the people he had good news and bad.
The good news is I managed to get him to cut it down to ten commandments.
"So what's the bad" they cried.
"Adultery is still in"

5th May 2014, 23:30
PNM:I read the McComic statements as being anti-outcomes-based and being pro-prescription, perhaps because he has comprehensibly failed to standardise his inspectors and decision-makers.
I read the McComic statements as a man desperately trying to hang on to a smoke'n'mirrors legacy that is rapidly evaporating like a distant mirage..:rolleyes:
Screaming from a desolate office on the other side of LBG, that no longer has minions & IOS lobbyists cowering in the waiting room, will achieve bugger all cause no one is listening anymore...:{

Black states that principles-based regulation avoids ‘reliance on detailed, prescriptive rules and rel[ies] more on high-level, broadly stated rules or principles’ Have to agree with the Prince it is all a bit confusing for a layman (rather than lawyers & professional rule-makers) but it has always been my understanding that in the aviation world guidance (the principles) is provided by ICAO...:bored:

From AMROBA article here (http://amroba.org.au/adapting-foreign-regulations-can-do.html):ICAO:
“Note. — The term “regulations” is used in a generic sense to include but is not limited to instructions, rules, edits, directives, sets of laws, requirements, policies, and orders.”
“Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its registration mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuver of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respect uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention.”
Further, the Article states that: “Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.” &
“A better alternative would be to adapt the regulations to meet the aviation environment while still maintaining harmony with other States.” To my mind that's the guiding principle to a harmonised NAA rule set, so how is it that we here (Downunda) have apparently stumbled at the first hurdle...:{

Diverging a little...:E In Senate Estimates 29 May 2013 Senator Fawcett (in a quieter moment) said this when quizzing Mrdak on the instigation of the GWEP: Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety? So the evidence was, despite the iron ring roadblock, that in the pre-Skull years we were making small steps to get back to the principals i.e. ICAO. However it is worth noting the Mrdak reply:Mr Mrdak: To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite.

They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry. The whole Senate Estimates segment can be viewed in the following poohtube vid (it is well worth the time): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNkkUoX2Rg
Which brings us back to the here and now with a WLR report pending...MTF Sarcs :ok:

6th May 2014, 00:24
Ok, now maybe I am softening with the advent of grandchildren, or perhaps senility has finally overcome me, but I am going to give a very very rare display of 'kindness' to the regulator. Here goes;

Mr Byron - He did indeed try to realign us back with ICAO rather than with the Iron Rings interpretation of best practise. However just as he was about to deliver the money shot he shot a blank instead. The power of the Iron Ring overcame him and our regulations once again went back to their flaccid state.
Byron's 'intent' was at one stage very good.

Prescription and Outcome based compliance - The reality is this 'we will always have both'. Some rules are prescriptive to the letter, other rules can be complied with by the operator utilising its own best practise system to achieve compliance. It is the nature of the beast, it's aviation, and it won't change. The challenge however is finding the right balance.

RAAF - Have to agree to a certain degree that a number of RAAF individuals have failed at CAsA due to the disconnect between military and civil behaviour. In fact, there are/has been a number of compete knobs enter CAsA. On the other hand, I have known a couple of brilliant RAAF guys at CAsA, who like the rest of industry were shocked, dismayed and dissuaded by the upper levels of this out of touch and out of control regulator.

In my humble, honest opinion, there are some good folk at CAsA with good skills, experience and understanding of what goes on, on both sides of the fence. But Mr Truss is the only person who can grab that large robust steel wrecking ball and fix the problem. Get rid of MrDak, the bureaucratic Board and each member and affiliate of the Iron Ring and you will have not only the complete fix, but the foundation for change. The results of the WLR will show is exactly what Mr Truss's 'intent' is. Let's hope that common sense prevails, however I am doubtful and I fear that VH-STYX is being prepared for departure.

In the mean time, it's party time for the Iron Ring;
(Footnote: Some of the below footage may offend those who don't like watching unaccountable CAsA management partying when they get word that their $89 million taxpayer funded trough injection was approved)


"Safe budgets and lederhosen for all"

7th May 2014, 20:56
N.B. I have not, as yet been able to research or confirm the information. Below is an extract from an email which I thought was worth sharing. It is the opinion of one man, but the questions seem valid – considering. I just wonder when shirt sleeves are going to be rolled up and some real work done to reduce costs and get things back on track is going to happen. The only agenda being the well being of the aviation industry in Australia. FWIW:-

[As] an example of waste and mismanagement I copy to you from the CASA website part of the minutes of the last meeting of one of its subsidiary committees, held 26 March this year. As my Commonwealth representative I would appreciate your influence in government to ;

1.) question the budget allocation to CASA, and
2.) what was the cost to the public purse of this last meeting?
3.) the meeting closed at 12.15 pm. Did the government attendees return to complete a days work?
Regional Aviation Safety Forum - Attendees - Industry Representatives

John Tessarolo, National Flight Operations Manager, Regional Express
Mark Clayton, Chief Executive Officer, Recreational Aviation Australia
Julian Smibert, Technical Consultant, Australian Federation of Air Pilots
Christopher Thorpe, Executive Manager Operations, Gliding Federation of Australia
Scott Lingard, Policy Manager – Regional Airports, Australian Airports Association
Rick Davies, Head of Flying Operations, Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Qld section) John Twomey, Operations Manager, Hang Gliding Federation of Australia
Mike Close, President, Australian Sport Aviation Confederation
Peter Gash, Chief Pilot, Seair Pacific
Brian Candler, Regional Aviation Association of Australia

Government Representatives/Observers
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
Terry Farquharson, Deputy Director of Aviation Safety
Jonathan Aleck, Associate Director of Aviation Safety
Grant Mazowita, Manager Standards Development and Quality Assurance, Standards Division Cheryl Allman, A/Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation
Peter Fereday, Executive Manager, Industry Permissions
Gerard Campbell, Executive Manager Operations
Alyson Ross, Executive Manger Safety Education and Promotion
Carolyn Hutton, Manager, Corporate Relations
John Thynne, Manager, Safety Systems Office
Lee Ungermann, Team Leader SASAO
Sandra Mavin, Executive Officer to Director of Aviation Safety
Alison Hayward, Corporations Relations Senior Officer, Corporate Relations

CASA observer
Kevin Scrimshaw, Sport Aviation Safety Assurance Officer

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Jim Wolfe, General Manager, Air Traffic Policy
As you can see this so called "Safety Forum", held in Sydney, is very top heavy with expensive public servants, many if not most, no doubt from Canberra (over-night?) and a full reading of the minutes reveal that virtually nothing of a safety nature, let alone efficiency, will be accomplished via this forum.

8th May 2014, 01:33
I've been wondering how to express the deep unease I feel over CASA, but now I'm game to try.

My conclusion is that CASA is going to suffer administrative implosion unless the Truss review puts it out of its misery and dismembers it.

The trigger for this conclusion was the attendance list at the alleged "safety forum". This is not good on any number of levels.

By "administrative implosion", I mean that CASA is going to collapse under the weight and complexity of its attempts at regulation in the sense that none of it is going to be coherent and consistent, leading to the situatoin where its contradictory nature requires that all Aviation activity is going to have to be covered by exemptions.

To put that another way, its the administrativve equivalent of a gravitational "black hole" where all matter and energy is sucked into it and nothing can escape the event horizon.

To be fair to CASA, there would be good people inside who wish to do the right things, but at some point the administrative complexity of doing anything at all is just too hard. The attendance list of CASA folk at that safety forum is indicative of too many layers of management and competing agendas.

Of course the solution proffered to the Truss review will be the old chestnut: "reorganisation" when I believe what is required is complete dismemberment.

There needs to be adoption of the NZ/FAA regulations, that is a given. This is the only alternative to the ridicule that faces Government if it proceeds with the current mess.

The functions of regulation, surviellance and enforcement need to be split and totally divorced from each other and the ATSB replaced on its pedestal at arms length from all of them. As I have said before, the boys and girls at PM & C know how to do this.

And finally the preamble of an amended Act has to include words to the effect that Aviation industry is to be fostered, removing forever the option of achieiving the appearance of safety by preventing any aviation at all.

8th May 2014, 07:47
Can we have some of this:-

7th May 2014 (http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/documents/07042014_amsa_media_release_national_system_streamlining.pdf )

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Domestic Vessel Division will begin a thorough consultation process with domestic vessel operators, starting in Hervey Bay on Friday.The National System for Domestic Commercial Vessels came into effect on July 1, 2013.

AMSA Deputy Chief Executive Officer Mick Kinley said the National System had created one system for qualifications and standards for commercial operators nationwide.

AMSA will run a series of consultation sessions across Australia to improve the system and streamline elements of it to make it easier and cheaper for the industry to comply with domestic vessel safety requirements.

“Since the National System came into effect AMSA has identified areas that could be improved,” Mr Kinley said.

“AMSA wants to make it easier and cheaper for the industry to comply with domestic vessel safety requirements.

“This is part of the federal government’s deregulation agenda which seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on business and the community while maintaining standards for safety.”
Australia lacks a common approach to managing maritime safety.

“Each and every state and territory has a different approach to safety management and AMSA wants to improve vessel safety by giving operators the best tools to develop and implement safety management, with less regulation and red tape,” Mr Kinley said.

“The aim is to avoid duplication and AMSA wants feedback from commercial vessel operators.”

Multiple consultation sessions will commence in Hervey Bay on Friday, May 9 at 2pm at the Hervey Bay RSL.

Sessions will then be held in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria throughout May and June.
AMSA will hold sessions in 24 locations in seven states, including 15 regional centres, seeking views on how best to simplify domestic commercial vessel rules.

The review comes as a result of a Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure decision to streamline the national system and make safety simpler in the regulatory environment, with national consistency.

Media Enquiries: 0429657336

Must be our turn soon.....

8th May 2014, 12:03
As you can see this so called "Safety Forum", held in Sydney, is very top heavy with expensive public servants, many if not most, no doubt from Canberra (over-night?) and a full reading of the minutes reveal that virtually nothing of a safety nature, let alone efficiency, will be accomplished via this forum.
Kharon, thanks for the post ( I think). Once more we see the taxpayer purse getting molested. The majority of CAsA attendees certainly did come from Can'tberra, but there was also a couple of Brisbane attendees there as well. So for me to work out the cost accurately is subjective as I don't have access to the CAsA 'books', however I can give some loose calculations based on some rough assumptions as follows;

- Airfares for 75% of attendees; $13,000
- Overnight accommodation for 50% of attendees (remembering that the higher you are ranked the more expensive accommodation you receive) $4,000
- Overnight allowance for 50% of attendees (again the higher you are ranked the more you receive, up to around $500.00 per day) $4,000
- Single day away from home allowance for say another 25% of the attendees; $1,200. I have not included incidentals, cab fares, Skulls blood pressure pills or any small items as such in this calculation.
Total = $22,200!
Now I believe I have been generous towards Fort Fumble with my calculations, but the point is that this was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money for so many CAsA people to attend a barely 3 hour meeting interstate. A number of the attendees absolutely did not need to be there.
This kind of expenditure would have the budget conscious Beaker passing out and screaming out 'mi mi mi mi madness'! And I wonder what mystery bucket of money the CAsArites dipped into to cover this little olly jolly? Either way we the taxpayer paid for this trough dipping exercise.

Best not let Mushroom Truss find out! Being Tony's right hand man during this budget crisis that Australia is facing it would be an embarrassment that he, the Deputy PM, has an aviation portfolio that is pissing away precious taxpayer coin on such a frivolous exercise!


10th May 2014, 06:26
Don't know how many have slogged through the Safe Skies (Oct 2013) speeches; but, as we approach the budget and hopefully a little clear political air, I thought it may be time to review the rhetoric from October for comparison against the anticipated results of the WLR.

Actually, some of the speakers were not too bad, considering the back slapping ambience of the whole thing; about what you'd expect. Bit like one of those backwoods tent revivals, where everyone goes home 'feeling groovy'. Anyway FWIW:-

The whole shooting match – HERE (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Catalog/Full/c4401517abd94c8bab5b7cc692e108d221)

The Truss address – HERE (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Play/ba326f66967e41a488a568e3e92ca7fd1d?catalog=c4401517-abd9-4c8b-ab5b-7cc692e108d2).

The Mrdak offering – HERE (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Play/1f4b5b300d6746c480019cabbddd34e61d?catalog=c4401517-abd9-4c8b-ab5b-7cc692e108d2). Listen carefully to this fairly short speech.

The Forsyth closing remarks -HERE – they are of no practical value, being just to thank the delegates; but, for those who don't know the fellah, it may give you an insight.

I'd hate to see the whole thing slide off the shovel.

Alternatively – get a fix HERE. Your choice of course.

10th May 2014, 10:57
Any news or rumours on the new DAS? Is it one of the existing execs or someone from outside the organization.

11th May 2014, 03:11
Biccy...no news yet BUT...

If we get someone from the iron ring...we're fcuked.:mad:
If we get someone like the current das...we're fcuked again :mad:
If we get a career bureaucrat without aviation experience eg Beaker ATsB...we're fcuked thrice over.:mad:
If the current Miniscule,... who reminds me of a Russian doll after watching some recent TV appearances....just papers over the ASRR without MAJOR changes, then we are really and truly fcuked..:mad::mad::mad:

Fear not. Empty skies are safe skies

dubbleyew eight
11th May 2014, 08:34
I am still sitting here stunned.
in one of the posts I discovered that dear old terry is the deputy director of CAsA.
in western australia he is remembered for a court case finding someone a not fit and proper person etc etc.
the memorable quote is " and your honour I ask what possible difference there could be between an american gallon and an english gallon?"
the judge didn't actually laugh at his stupidity but found it necessary to disappear under the bench and re-tie his shoe laces.

I almost threw out my copy of the peter principle. it seems that in CAsA people still rise to their level of maximum incompetence so I think I'll keep it a while longer.

terrence is the deputy director of CAsA, I've heard it all now.:mad:

11th May 2014, 16:42
Yep, I hear GV and MQ had him in their sights for retirement. That got shattered with the appointment of the Skull. GH was also loaded to let him go but got stopped by the GWS. Quinn was onto them re Sentinel or as they called it PAWS, a complete rip off of another professional web site. Also, an FOI was payed additional cash for the purpose! Now its several million!!! Good work Terry!

11th May 2014, 21:53
W8 # 757 –"I am still sitting here stunned."
Is the Golden West Mafia worried (GWM) – after years of supreme control; hand picked, carefully groomed catamites slobbering on their boots, all happy to be willing accomplices to whatever embuggerance, dastardly plan or cover up was deemed required? They should be. While McComic has been the overseer of some of the most intriguing passages of play in the history of Australian aviation, one of the most troubling elements is the GWM ability to orchestrate them; either by subverting, intimidating, financially bludgeoning or 'legally' manipulating any opposition into silence.

There are, tragically, only two camps; 'the boys' and the silent drones. The silent drones are interesting; seeking only a quiet life through a well paid, pensioned position. They know what's going on; but, out of fear and/or self interest are happy to sit back and go with the flow. Both groups, in their own way are disgusting creatures. They are probably one of the reasons the miniscule does not want to retrospectively "fight the old battles" – if the public ever got wind of the antics at Sleepy Hollow- only the gods know where the political carnage would stop. Don't forget Truss had this knowledge in 2008 and there is nothing new in the 2014 'review', except more people saying the same thing. Never doubt why 260 + submissions to the WLR have been buried under a shroud of carefully penned words.

If the Senate can ever wrest any form of genuine inquiry away from the clutches of the GWM and the influence of murky Machiavellian minds; the place to start would be the ex employee files; it's not just Hart, Hood, Quinn and Vaughan who have the wood on the GWM, there are many others; what a session that would be.

Do not envy the new DAS; that's quite a housekeeping job. Whoever takes it on must be the right fellah, the voluntary resignations and 'retirements' list will eloquently tell the tale. A period of trust and progress must, by default follow.

Aye well, it's in the lap of the gods now; lets hope the 'gods' make the right choice this time and give us someone with the balls, brains and integrity to weed out the GWM and it's sycophantic followers. Expect the worst, hope for the best and never quit.


12th May 2014, 08:02
W8... re the 380 endo'd Farqwitson. :mad::mad:
When the honorable M Hart former ICC found that 3 Tarmac T*rds should be dealt with by the AFP. DAS hissy fit followed, and to cover their arses, (dont larf) the so called "Conduct and Ethics Committee" was flashed up on the screen, a bastard child of the das...headed by TF himself,.:mad:

Criminality by the three was corruptly subverted to..breaches of the code of conduct ( NO criminal provisions therein)..admin penalties only. Belt with a wet lettuce leaf etc. Stay in the employ of the taxpayer and keep snuffling the tit.
All good then. :mad:

To justify all this I got a letter from this "committee" (sic) by Farkwitson, 4 pages of classic obfuctication, a 'gold standard' of drivel in the Yes Minister line.

And.... TF didnt even have the balls to sign it himself..!! FFS
"Signed by direction..B Calder" read.. under duress ?

Obviously a person of principles and conviction. NOT :mad:

CAsA site states that any criminal behaviour WILL be dealt with by the AFP.

That is untrue, It should state MAY BE or NOT if we can help subvert it.

And breaches of State laws?? NO can do because AFP do it !!

What a beautifully concocted let-off. Pass Go and get out of jail free.

12th May 2014, 10:56
Poor D8, I likes the bloke I does. He must have been working in Russia or been incarcerated in the big house for the past 5 or so years?? (probably a minor aviation crime such as forgetting to cross a 't' in his logbook, or failing to adequately address the root cause on an NCN response? There is so much for him to catch up on, no fears my friend, keep reading and ye shall learn!
But it is amusing to finally see some airing of Tezza's activities as well as the GWM's. Even Calder and Harbor get a mention, lots of stories amongst that lot, hahaha.

Speaking of budgets, I believe the following will be announced in regards to CAsA's budget tomorrow night by Smoking Joe Hockey and Mathias von Dutch;

Embargo on Montreal trips. A limit of 5 trips per calendar year per Executive.
All pot plants in all offices are to be replaced with plastic ones. No ceramic pots will be allowed in Herr Skull's office after a risk assessment was conducted on the risk of facial injuries from flying pot plants came in at a 5B (based on the ICAO risk matrix)
The merger of TRIM and Sky Sentinel to create one mega deficient I.T system.
A380 endo's will not be given to employees 70 years of age and older (that rules out 80% of the retirement village staff)
Operator audits will be undertaken via Skype and video conferencing to save money and ensure enough coin remains available for executive bonuses
The Brisbane field office worm farm will be sold off and the proceeds used to top up the executives meagre pay freezes.
Renaming of CAsA to CAA and the removal of the letter 's' will save money in printing costs in those glossy Board written brochures.
Staff will no longer be given those snazzy blue Fort Fumble ties.

More to follow..............

12th May 2014, 13:55
Are the budget cuts the reason for nothing on the DAS. I'm guessing some top level crats looking for posts. Maybe amsa and casa merging?

Truss report can then say all sorted.

I wonder if the extra 100 jobs that casa got will be cut back again. Or if the NZ rules will be adopted.

12th May 2014, 16:12
I watched the Royal Commission into insulation today with great interest. Why wasn't DEWHA (same dept as Kokoda funding) highlighted over its subsidy of the accident flight to Kokoda regarding risk assessment. 16 people died including 13 Australians???
What risk assessment was done into that operation before they quickly pulled the subsidy post accident?
Additionally the ATSBeaker who assisted in the investigation came up with a bizarre Safety Recommendation that aircraft of this type be fitted with FDRs!!! My understanding is that Safety Recommendations are to PREVENT accidents, not help trying to work out what happened after! I guess Pel-Air makes a mockery of that as FDRs aren't that important!

How sad is the ATSBeaker! If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

12th May 2014, 21:06
004 # 761-"Speaking of budgets, I believe the following will be announced in regards to CAsA's budget tomorrow night by Smoking Joe Hockey and Mathias von Dutch;"

How about a privatised ASA?, that will be fun. Never get Hoody out of the golden handcuffs then, shame really. Or:

Serious cost cutting measures and a general 'clean out' with >20 < 30 "voluntary" redundancies. Or:

Leasing buildings not being used - to recover the costs of renting space, air conditioning it, and leaving it to the mice, rats and cockroaches, who really need the security service provided.

But Mr Hockey, the pot plants must stay (you know why) and PAWS needs another couple of million thrown at it and the consultants budget must not be tinkered with. Under no circumstances must the 'reg re-write' funding be cut; what the hell will those dependant on it do, wander aimlessly about the building making work?

PS. We hid your share of the $89 millions under one of the pot-plants; go get it tiger.

Toot toot.

13th May 2014, 07:41
Budget time for Beaker must be his favourite time of the year, a time when he gets a chance to really prove his worth, & when previously, he would have received a quiet nod from miniscule Albo when the miniscule was addressing his dept post budget...:rolleyes:

But what about this year, will he get any kudos and an informal invite to dine at the trough?? Or will he be cast off into oblivion in some back water office, as a Senior OHS manager for the Treasury Dept or ATO??:(

And what about the other aviation safety trough dweller wannabes, what will become of them?? Will they get the chop or be allowed to continue to dine with a slight diminishment in the trough buffet??:E

Well maybe the clues are in the commission of audit report?? If so there could be an element of truth to the ASA privatisation rumour, "K" alludes to above...

From AA online (my bold at the bottom):Review for Airservices, CASA spared in Commission of Audit reportItem by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) at 7:41 pm, Thursday May 1 2014 1 Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/review-for-airservices-casa-spared-in-commission-of-audit-report/#comments)

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ADL_TWR_1-300x181.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ADL_TWR_1.jpg)A review could be launched into Airservices.

The federal government’s Commission of Audit has recommended a review into the operations and activities of government-owned monopoly air traffic management service provider Airservices Australia.

The report recommends: “an independent review be undertaken of Airservices Australia with a particular focus on the scope of its activities as well as its planned capital expenditure program.”

It also mentions the “the potential to outsource some of its [Airservices'] activities”. Notes one of the report’s appendices: “Areas for early consideration in relation to contestability may include Airservices Australia”.

There had been industry speculation the commission might recommended the outsourcing of Airservices’ Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service.

The federal government’s other civil aviation bodies, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB, were spared the Commission of Audit’s attentions, rating only passing mentions. So there you are Beaker job well done..:D..err but farming out more parts of ASA..:confused:..is that such a wise idea??

Farewell Hoody relegated to PS redundancy..:{

ps Hoody good catch by the way and equally good retraction/correction letter to the Heff, maybe the DAS (STBR) could take some lessons in proper political etiquette...:ok:
Correspondence received from Mr Greg Hood, Executive General Manager, Airservices Australia, clarifying evidence given on 24 February 2014 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/clarification_letters/Airservices_Clarification.pdf)
pps Hoody just think if ASA is privatised there'll no longer be anymore Senate inquisitions, but the IOS will miss you..:{

13th May 2014, 08:14
The UK NATS has interests outside the UK and could well be interested in ASA?

13th May 2014, 23:40
There may not of been too many grinners in last nights budget but it would seem that the ATsBeaker may have received an unexpected windfall from the MH370 disappearance & investigation..:rolleyes: I also note with irony..:E..the total cost for our contribution to the continued search effort...:ugh:MH370 search to cost $90m (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budget-2014/mh370-search-to-cost-90m/story-fnmdbx1i-1226916583357)

THE search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 will cost Australian taxpayers up to $90 million, with the government anticipating the hunt will continue into next financial year.

The government has provided extra funding of $25m to the *Defence Department this year to cover the cost of the search, with a further $3m built in for 2014-15.

Additional funding for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau over two years will take the total cost of the search to $89.9m.

The 239 passengers and crew vanished on March 8 during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and the search is focused on 56,000sq km of ocean floor far off Western Australia.

No wreckage from the aircraft has been found. Hi Ho..:yuk:... mi..mi..mi..Beaker's budgetary bowl runneth over...:{ MTF :ok:

14th May 2014, 10:03
Additional funding for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau over two years will take the total cost of the search to $89.9m.

Hmmm.$89 million dollar Beaker jackpot!! There seems to be something 'odd' in regards to aviation related funding. Those naughty trough dwelling CAsArites received a tasty $89 million a few years back, now the same figure is awarded to mi mi mi Beaker and his band of motley accountants! Is the figure of $89 million on both occasions just a coincidence? Is $89 million a lucky number? Does it take $89 million to comfortably fill a trough to the top? Is $89 million a more magical number, a spiritual number which brings the user/department/trough overseer good fortune and longevity in life?

Beaker wins the ATSB lotto;

Powerball Winner Paul White Hilarious Press Conference After Winning $149 million Prize [Full] - YouTube

thorn bird
15th May 2014, 13:00
Anyone take the trouble to tune into the New Zealand budget.

While we wallow in bureaucratic bullsh..t, our brethren across the ditch power ahead.

Our DAS actually had the hide to criticize them!!!

Well Mr. Comic DAS, care to show the industry somewhere...anywhere, just ONE THING, you and your corrupt, incompetent clowns have achieved, anything, just one single achievement your government required you and your corrupt incompetent clowns to achieve??
Na.... didn't think so, and you continue to deny the industry holds you in contempt.

15th May 2014, 23:04
TB:Well Mr. Comic DAS, care to show the industry somewhere...anywhere, just ONE THING, you and your corrupt, incompetent clowns have achieved, anything, just one single achievement your government required you and your corrupt incompetent clowns to achieve?? Q/ "...just ONE THING.."? Err he effectively gave us the PelAir debacle and..err Wodger's weport, which ultimately led to Truss & Co putting in place the WLR..:ooh: Maybe he has done us all a favour??:E

Anyway TB forget about the DAS (STBR), from what I hear they've sound proofed his office and are screening all his calls and many of his former minions are considering jumping ship to Beaker's bucket, which has just received a $60 million top up due to the MH370 search/investigation mission...:rolleyes:

Moving along I noticed this headline this AM from the Oz, & surprise..surprise, old SC :D:Smaller players warn of ‘oblivion’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/smaller-players-warn-of-oblivion/story-e6frg95x-1226919236103)
GENERAL aviation will follow other Australian industries into oblivion unless there is a radical revision of the local regulatory environment, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has warned.

In a submission to the federal government’s inquiry into aviation safety, AOPA has said Australia’s unique and complicated regulatory environment is strang*ling the small end of town.

It said the result was that too often *pilots, charter operators and maintenance people gave up because they believed it was “just too hard’’.

“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 submission said.

“The prospective GA pilot faces problems with access to airfields, high costs and a far from appealing ageing aircraft fleet.

“The aircraft owner faces frequently hostile airport owners, a shortage of licensed maintenance engineers, rising maintenance costs, increased paperwork and such uncertainty with both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and airport owners that it is difficult to obtain finance to purchase new aircraft.

“In contrast, ultralight aircraft have prospered in a realistic regulatory environment.’’

AOPA calls for a sweep of the existing rules and the adoption of US-style regulations for general aviation *similar to the New Zealand model.
It said attempting to patch up problems with Australia’s system “was like renovating a house with rotten foundations’’.

Areas AOPA wants improved include the level of industry consultation by CASA, a move away from CASA’s legalistic approach and more consistent enforcement. It also argued that aviation should be encouraged by CASA as part of its formal charter and that the regulator was fragmented and should act more *coherently across the whole org*anisation.

AOPA also is highly critical of the declining number of airfields and difficulties in getting access.

It labelled the Aviation Security Identity Card as a “major inconvenience’’ that made no practical contribution to security and had become a device enabling routine obstruction of legitimate operations.

The organisation said expensive airport security fences and gates deterred and inconvenienced legitimate people but did little to deter anyone with malicious intent.

“The failure of the commonwealth government to enforce deeds of agreement with airport owners has seen many airports become unwelcoming or even downright hostile to GA aircraft, in the airport owners’ efforts to seek profit from activities other than aviation,’’ it said.
“In particular, city airports *effectively exclude GA and thus many people who would use this transport system cannot.’’

AOPA’s submission is one of more than 270 received by the inquiry, with worries about CASA cited by chairman David Forsyth as a key concern.
These included concerns about the agency repeatedly changing direction about which overseas jurisdiction it would follow and the habitual use of unnecessarily complex terminology when dealing with the industry.

The committee hopes to have the report finalised by the end of the month. Industry groups are waiting for its findings and to see the government’s response. Oh well better late than never I suppose...:D

TICK..TOCK miniscule! :ok:

ps Dear miniscule...nicely parried (spun answer) to this (lefty) QIW:
Tuesday, 13 May 2014 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 82
Date Tuesday, 13 May 2014 Source House
Page 82 Proof Yes
Questioner Thomson, Kelvin, MP Responder Truss, Warren, MP
Speaker Question No. 70
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Question No. 70)

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(Question No. 70)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 25 February

In respect of the employment freeze on public service recruitment, how will the Civil Aviation Safety Authority oversee implementation of Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I am advised that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will continue to undertake external recruitment activity to fill vacant critical and high priority roles which require aviation expertise. The implementation of Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 is a high priority for CASA and will be resourced on that basis.
Hmm...wonder in what context that QIW was asked?? :rolleyes:

Frank Arouet
16th May 2014, 01:02
QUOTE: "It labelled the Aviation Security Identity Card as a “major inconvenience’’ that made no practical contribution to security and had become a device enabling routine obstruction of legitimate operations" QUOTE.

This small matter didn't seem to stop them supporting the whole concept when it was first mooted. Indeed AOPAA attempted to become THE only accredited issuer of the bloody thing on the belief this would force pilots to join AOPAA for a reduced cost of issue. When this didn't happen they opposed it.

The Heretic who wrote this statement is too late and looks like walking one leg each side of the barb wire fence to trying to placate their procrastinating member, while not offending CASA too much.

16th May 2014, 11:03
The remainder of the money has probably gone into that 'special training pot' for the executives, some more A380 endo's, and Sky Sentinel software upgrades! The whole thing is a complete joke from the Minister down to the pot plant maintainers at Fort Fumble. Serial abuse of taxpayer money for decades, and it is accepted as standard, normal sanctioned practise.

Off with their heads!!

Frank Arouet
17th May 2014, 01:00
All around the CAsA house,
The monkey chased the pilots.
And after them in double haste,
Pop! goes the weasel.

(picture off cash blowing out of jack in the box). Someone will find one.

smilie of face going Oooh because mine don't work..... still.

17th May 2014, 22:48
Extract – Rule of Law Institute of Australia (RoILA) submission. 27 March 2014.

To: Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

Second, the current Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, to his great credit, has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct a sweeping review of Commonwealth legislation to find provisions that encroach upon "rights, freedoms and privileges". In December 2013 he said:

"I have asked the Commission to identify where traditional rights, freedoms and privileges are unnecessarily comprised within the legal structure of the Commonwealth. Where encroachments exist, the Commission will determine whether they are justified."

The Attorney-General has indicated the Commission should report by 1 December 2014, however it is possible the inquiry may run for much longer. It is clearly a very significant review of the Commonwealth legislation and will focus on the wide discretionary powers of most Commonwealth regulators including the AFP. When the opportunity arises RoLIA will be making significant submissions to the Inquiry and RoLIA has already engaged interns from two Universities to assist us in this process. To the extent it can the Committee and the Senate generally may wish to assist in this inquiry by, among other things, referring to the Commission at the appropriate time any matters it thinks should be brought to its attention.

Food for thought; and perhaps, a gateway for industry. Well done the committee, managing to publish the submissions – seems it can be done. Where there's a will, there's a way.

thorn bird
17th May 2014, 23:28
Anyone have any idea when Air Services publish their accounts?

While I understand as a Government Corporation their accounts are probably as dodgey as a starting price bookies, I was wondering if they publish their directors bonuses.

I was lead to understand that these "performance" bonuses were loosely based on how much money they save, so it occurred to me given the Bucket loads saved on new Radar by forcing the Industry into ADSB ten years ahead of the rest of the world, and paying for it, they must be on a poultice load of bucks in bonuses.

21st May 2014, 22:29
As the WLR review is sanctioned by the 'department' head for release to the miniscule, we of the BRB got together last evening to answer two burning question – (i) the strange and wonderful way of coincidence with the miraculous appearance of an industry PR survey at the time of the WLR release; and (ii) from which bottomless pit of ineptitude did the CASA drag survey notion from. The answer to Qi is, we believe self evident. Best we could come up with for Qii was the following explanation.

Some one left the keys to the word processor room laying about, which allowed a couple of the pencil cupboard inmates to sneak in and settle down to a long night of Gin and fantasy. The product of their late night happy, slappy writing binge produced a mighty word fest. The missive had to be drafted drunk; it's the only explanation, for no one in their senses could produce such a load of meaningless old cobblers.

Anyway - they must have smuggled it into the print run where it impressed some of their more light minded mates (who were stuck for ideas anyway), what with the high flown language, fatuous logic, previously unheard rhetoric; and, the added benefit of being totally incomprehensible made it a winner.... After much back slapping and high five-ing; the missive was presented, like the Emperors new clothes to the "Czar". Not wanting to appear thick, this fine gentleman nodded sagely and agreed with the 'mates' advice, - this was the answer to the massive PR problem. "We should make sure the industry gets this important safety message and we'll get lots of kudos" he cried "I'll wangle the survey money, you boys get to work: this will be a big PR win-win" for us".

So they set it all up and went at it; sure in the knowledge that the loaded questions and skewed answers would provide a perfect platform of mirrors and backdrop of smoke (just the ticket they chuckled); and, the bonus being that no bugger would know what TF they were looking at; but could not say so. You can't tell CASA it's bloody fairy story – and remain fit and proper.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You will need a strong stomach (and a fine sense of the ridiculous) to read all of this –CAAP. In deference to my colleagues sensitive guts and early hour I have selected but two short paragraphs as an illustration. For your entertainment, delight and amusement; direct from CAAP 215 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/215-1-annexd.pdf)Annexe D page D 18. If you can't see the parallels, look - HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/540084-congrats-you-have-just-volunteered.html), just read the email - HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/540084-congrats-you-have-just-volunteered-2.html#post8486398):-

A consultant was engaged to conduct interviews with senior personnel and focus groups with the main occupational groups within the airline. The consultant not only provided expertise in these questioning techniques, there was a general perception of impartiality that appeared to encourage frank disclosure and discussion. Four focus groups were conducted (two pilot groups; 1 maintainer group; and 1 miscellaneous group) over two days. A report was delivered by the consultant that summarised the key training themes emerging from the interviews and focus groups.

The training development team used the consultant’s report, the analysis of company incident
reports, feedback from other airline safety managers, CASA and the ATSB website, and their own experience with external CRM training to develop a list of training needs in a rough priority order.

Sponsored by the IOS Sheltered Workshop division. Providing expensive training teams for promoting the latest version of witless, mindless, pointless waffle.

Hope the same crew write the WLR, can't wait to read it - Toot toot.

thorn bird
22nd May 2014, 09:59
Geez Kharon you winkle out some weird stuff.

At first I thought Oh God!! more bloody shelf ware, then after a little read,
it is a joke isn't it?? got to be, someone taking the P..ss.
Blue Gum Airlines for goodness sake.

Well perhaps an indication of just how ignorant the numpies are.

Do they really imagine 6 clapped out old antiques will be able to support 20 Odd admin staff??

Thats before you start paying the mill or so for the AOC, probably hasn't dawned on them the model they used has already gone broke...:ugh:

22nd May 2014, 10:21
Heard a rumour that the Murky Machiavellian one is currently vetting the WLR report...:ugh: If true MM here is some parting shots to consider, while reading the draft WLR report and the CVs of the potential future DAS, from AMROBA's latest newsletter...:D Regulatory Structures GA
Most governments are against imposing additional requirements on the public and individual participants but few achieve such an outcome.

Over the last decade we have seen a change from outcome based requirements to prescriptive regulations that also shifts the burden of proof from government to industry.

Standards are confusing to say the least.

Increasing unnecessary paperwork is killing the basic foundations of aviation, general aviation.

Splitting the maintenance capability between AOC pax operations and others was and is a backward step.

Nothing is being proposed to reduce the regulatory burden on the non airline and airline sectors. Changes introduced since 1991 has seen private VH registered aviation continue to decrease.

The regulatory changes has seen many shift to non VH registered aircraft where there is less regulatory burden.

Same aircraft, two different standards applied.

Is the safety of aviation affected by the type of person that wants to become a pilot, engineer, etc. or is it affected by the skills of these people.

New Zealand has a “fit & proper” person criteria that an aviation participant must meet prior to obtaining a government issued licence, certificate or approval. Why? Because under the NZ Aviation Act, the CAA(NZ) is also responsible for security matters.

So what is the best structure for GA?

Pilot licensing should be no different to the principles used in North America where there is a thriving non type certificated aircraft industry.

The legislation should be minimal and requiring CASA to promulgate minimum safety standards that this sector would need to comply with. This sector is all about individual standards not organisations.

Getting the structure right is important.

“The regulator may not have the skills or knowledge necessary to design and implement an alternative policy instrument. For example, in some technical areas regulators and policy makers may be influenced by the desire to specify highly technical standards, where they have very specific knowledge.”

Before regulatory change happened in aviation post the Authority’s HO move to Melbourne, Australia had the right structure but requirements had two flaws.

1. Orders were not changing quick enough to keep up with changes needed by industry—basically waited for ICAO standards to change.

2. Many requirements did not have a “head of power” in the legislation.

(my bold)The new CASA CEO will need to design a much better structure than the current system. Of course, his/her direction will be driven by the ASRR recommendations.
And perhaps a parting QON (in bold) for our STBR DAS on the subject of EASA v FAR and the possible adoption of the NZ regs...

"...During the Aero Friedrichshafen event (April 9th-12th) EASA made an announcement which came as a surprise to many people – even to those members of the GA Safety Standards Consultation Committee Sub Group. No one – not even NAAs had any prior knowledge of the EASA announcement.

Simpler, lighter, and better rules for General Aviation.
The Agency is committed to changing the way it regulates GA and this new approach comes from the Executive Director (Patrick Ky).

The presenters said transposing CAT (Commercial Air Transport) rules for GA was wrong and the aim now is to make the rules risk based and proportionate which is in line with the requirements established in the GA road map.

Furthermore, EASA wishes to simplify the operations and administration procedures.

Although it was originally decided not to have a specific GA department, EASA is now in the planning for a GA department, the aim of which is to establish a focal point inside EASA for GA, which has accountability for the future health of GA across Europe.

The time frame for this work is 2014 to 2017. So why did we follow EASA?..."

Oh and MM while vetting the WLR draft report and potential DAS CVs, here is an IOS QON, that I know will be dear to your heart...:E

Q/ Were we the first ICAO signatory State to submit notified differences to, the freshly minted, Annex 19 i.e. SSP?? (reference pg 96-97 here (http://airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf))

Much more to follow...:ok:

Hot off the press...

Panel to submit air safety report

From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
May 23, 2014 12:00AM

A MUCH anticipated federal government report into aviation safety is expected to be with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss next week.

Panel chairman David Forsyth and fellow members Roger Whitefield and Don Spruston have been working on the review since last year to look at how well Australia’s regulatory system is positioned globally, and have ­attracted a huge response from the industry.

“We’re still doing the final ­editing and we’ve just got a ­couple of issues where we’re double-checking some information, but basically we’re ready to go,’’ Mr Forsyth told The Australian yesterday.

He said the committee had been briefing Mr Truss and the department over the past six months so both were aware of the general thrust.

Mr Forsyth said the committee was happy it had covered the main issues according to the terms of reference and believed it had captured the important ­issues expressed by industry.

“We think we’ve made recommendations that will help to fix those issues,’’ he said.

“Of course, the hard job is for whoever the person is that takes on the role of (CASA director of aviation safety) — it depends on who that is, and how they go.

“But hopefully we’ve given them a bit of a blueprint so they can fix the major issues that have come up.’’

CASA and regulatory reform topped the list of industry concerns in almost 270 submissions and up to 20 supplementary ­papers.

Mr Forsyth said the “major irritant of the regulatory reform program’’ was not all down to CASA and there were also problems in areas such as the way Australia drafts laws.

The committee chairman reiterated his early comments that there was no silver bullet for regulatory reform but said the study had recommended the path it saw as the best.

“Each of the options has pluses and minuses, and we think the one we’ve recommended is on balance is the best way forward,’’ he said.

22nd May 2014, 23:08
Looks like Phelan is back from leave – Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/05/22/review-panel-report-on-schedule/)– update.

23rd May 2014, 00:03
I'm not holding my breath and I'm going to make a prediction....

Based on Ten years studies of psychopathic narcissism in management, I believe that you will get the shock of your life when this review is released and you hear the Governments response.

Yes folks, the situation will only get worse. you are about to receive an even bigger dose of the current corruption and regulatory muck. CASA powers will be increased and it will continue its current behaviour totally unchanged. It will then attempt to get revenge on its detractors if they can be identified, probably by enforcing a process of micro management and further prescriptive regulation.

To put that another way, CASA will have argued and it will be accepted that the reason for industry despair is that CASA hasn't got enough resources. The answer therefore is to give CASA more, more staff, more powers, more lawyering, more layers of management, more Boards and more power to tax you for it.

Truss will be fobbed off by the making of cosmetic changes (greeted by CASA with the magic words "This changes everything!") but the iron ring will remain and be given more and deeper powers to regulate you out of existence.

To put that yet another way, Truss is no Frodo Baggins. He will not destroy the ring of power by throwing it into the crater of Mt. Doom.

23rd May 2014, 00:37

Q/ Were we the first ICAO signatory State to submit notified differences to, the freshly minted, Annex 19 i.e. SSP??

Probably. And Australia had plenty of time to think about the new Annex 19, too.

Some items of interest from the ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010


Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes…

Also, and relevant to the PEL-AIR investigation debacle...

Topic 3.2: Safety initiatives arising from recent accidents

61. In summarizing the discussion the Chairman outlined the conclusions reached:

b) that it is not acceptable that an accident cannot be completely investigated due to the lack of availability of the recorded data [my bolding]. As a result, ICAO should pursue as a matter of high priority a review of SARPs and guidance materials with the aim of proposing to States for consideration any amendment which would be necessary to ensure that the data necessary to support investigation of accidents are available, including provisions for the recovery of data and information from flight recorders [my bolding]…

List of Participants



I wonder how much that little jaunt cost Australia?

The management clowns at the ATSB mustn't be aware of the summary for Topic 3.2 re recovery of data from recorders, and it makes the differences filed by Australia for Annex 13 re resource limitations look pretty bloody stupid I reckon, particularly when you look at the previous ATSB involvement of the last of the listed participants.

The mind boggles. :ugh:

thorn bird
23rd May 2014, 03:18
"The committee chairman reiterated his early comments that there was no silver bullet for regulatory reform"

Yes there is, a simple rewrite of the act, then adopt Kiwi Regs!!

Simple, easy, cost effective.

Would save a whole industry from oblivion, the Taxpayer a poultice of money and lead to better safety outcomes.

23rd May 2014, 05:48
how come so many participants from Australia?

23rd May 2014, 07:58

CASA just does NOT bloody get it! :ugh::ugh:

ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010


Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes




(of two or more people) fully in agreement.
"the doctors were unanimous in their diagnoses"

So, it means the Australian delegates (yes, the 9 of them) agreed with the establishment of Annex 19.

So how come Australia has already filed a difference with paragraph 3.1.4 of ICAO Annex 19 along the lines that there is:

No existing requirement for general aviation operators of large or turbojet aeroplanes to have an SMS, however, consideration is being given to this.

Yes there bloody-well IS a requirement for those general aviation operators to have an SMS, and it's been a STANDARD in ICAO Annex 6 Part II ** which applies to those operators for some time (at least since 2008), as follows:

3.3.2 Safety management system An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation.

** July 2008 edition

The shall means it's a mandatory requirement - so there should have been some definitive action by CASA to ratify the requirement into the regulatory system by now, rather than simply (still) 'considering' the requirement (standard) nearly six years later. FFS :mad:

I really want to know how come the CASA delegates agreed with the proposed Annex 19 SMS requirements in 2010, yet CASA is still only 'considering' the SAME requirement as it relates to Annex 19 and Annex 6 Part II four years later (2014), despite the fact that its been an ICAO standard since at least 2008?

So, while we've filed a difference for GA SMS requirements per paragraph 3.1.4 OF Annex 19, there doesn't seem to be a difference filed for the same GA SMS requirement (standard) per paragraph of ICAO Annex 6, presumably because Australian legislation doesn't specifically define 'Corporate Aviation'.

Am I missing something here, or is it a fact that these idiots (CASA management) really haven't got a clue? :ugh:

23rd May 2014, 13:00
Sunfish #781 nails it! Nothing will change at the core. The patch over has started - 2 more Board members to cover the Miniscules ass, and McComick leaves in August. There you have it, all fixed, nothing to see, move on, problem solved. I have heard that Terry will go around the same time that his Master leaves, and another rumour is Dr Voodoo will also toddle off to another gig somewhere, but that is yet to be confirmed. Either way, some members of the iron ring remain and some of their apprentices who have been groomed for some time will step straight into the empty shoes. Then the tautological process of malfeasance will continue, but at the hands of a very very angry Fort Fumble. These gods of thunder will be bringing hell upon those who dared to submit a diatribe or two towards them by way of submitting towards the WLR! This is fertile ground for the sociopaths and sycophants and the IOS are the prefect fodder for which they will satisfy their lust for revenge. Fort Fumble have the code to the WLR safe where all submissions are safely and robustly kept, and once Forsyth, Spruston and Whitefield have left the building, well, the Iron Ring will access that safe quicker than a teen boy accessing his dad's Hustler collection (or perhaps Ribald collection)

Aviators of Australia, grab your ankles and curl your toes as the real buggery is about to begin! Hell haveth no mercy like a CAsA employee thrust into the spotlight!

Toot toot

23rd May 2014, 21:13
004 - There are more way to skin a cat than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Horrible, I know but it's early). See the – Senate (http://www.pprune.org/8490226-post1945.html) - thread for a more 'robust' response. (Evil icon).

yr right
24th May 2014, 09:45
SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps.

Oil and gas etc demand you have it. Why what dose it give you. I found Australian in our industry are really pretty good at it with out training with being told if you walk into a prop its more than likely going to hurt.

At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good we still have two systems either FAA or ESSA which neither really suits use here in Australia. Maybe the flying side more than engineering. Our population here is so small yet our country so vast. Did we really have a problem with our system before they turned it into muck. No it may not have been prefect but it worked. And as the traveling roads show guy said oh the Europeans think we have a better system than they have, my return was so we throwing the baby out with the bath water. Well his tacho went of the limiter.

So what have we been left with, a system that not working is still not recognized by anyone else and a plie of paper work muck making money from nothing costing shed loads and really giving us nothing in return,

But least im not bitter and twisted just yet.

Normal programing will return shortly


25th May 2014, 00:21
Top catch SIUYA at post #782 (http://www.pprune.org/8489159-post782.html) & #785 (http://www.pprune.org/8489410-post785.html)….

Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes..”

Meanwhile, in Fort Fumble’s parallel universe, the middle management minions were busy enacting their MAP to roger DJ and the ATsB, while attempting to cover up their obvious shortcomings to properly oversight the PelAir operation.

Anyone else see the irony in the two universes?:ugh:

List of Participants



Looking at all the participants from Oz, I also find it more than ‘passing strange’ that Beaker’s crew did not get a look in?? After all the principle body that is fundamental to a successful State SSP is it’s fully independent AAI.

Oh well perhaps bean counter Beaker’s budgetary constraints couldn’t stretch to paying a couple of economy class airfares to Montreal…:E

In regards to Annex 19 & in the context of the WLR panel report, unlike CAsA, hopefully the panel will have not missed the significance and importance that ICAO place on Annex 19 as the lynch pin that ties all the other ICAO SARPs together. This significance was certainly not missed by several of the submitters to the WLR, who have asked for the Govt to seriously consider reviewing/updating our version of the SSP (State Safety Program i.e. Annex 19).


Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) submission:

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.

Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission:

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.

It is worth reflecting on the ALA submission because the main author of their submission was Joseph Wheeler from Shine Lawyers. This bloke has a real handle on our obligations, as a signatory state, to the ICAO SARPs and in particular Annex 19. Couple of quotes from the ALA submission…

“…Despite Australia’s admirable domestic and international air safety record, and its respected place among International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, Australia does not occupy as high a place as it should in terms of international adherence to ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) – the principal measure of a nation’s air safety oversight obligations…”

And from Part ‘5. Systemic oversight issues following Lockhart River crash in 2005’…

“…In the aftermath of the Lockhart River crash it is recognised that the broader trend worldwide towards risk assessment and management led to the development and approaches being implemented at the operational level by CASA. See for example, the publication “SMS for Aviation – A practical guide: Safety Management System Basics”.51

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…”

Joseph Wheeler has also produced some excellent articles, published on the Shine Lawyers blog site, on the MH370 search and accident investigation:
MH370 investigation: roles, responsibilities and rule changes (http://www.shine.com.au/mh370-investigation-roles-responsibilities-rule-changes/#sthash.7JgSTbz2.dpuf)
MH370 Preliminary Report released (http://www.shine.com.au/mh370-preliminary-report-released/)

But his latest article perhaps best highlights the essential role that ICAO play in governing how a signatory state must predictively act after a tragic air disaster has occurred.
MH370 search for answers and ICAO work to track airliners (http://www.shine.com.au/mh370-search-answers-icao-work-track-airliners/) One rule in Annex 13 is that countries which have a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens are entitled to “have access to relevant factual information which [are] approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation”: Ch 5.27 at 5-8 – 5-9. While it has been argued that no-one knows better than accident investigators the importance of their role (to make aviation safer) we maintained (less than 2 weeks after the aircraft’s disappearance) that:

… passengers’ families need to be represented within investigations, both during the search phase and during the investigation phase. … It is only these people, with their human feelings and passionate concerns for answers (owing to their unique losses and experience), which can serve to remind investigators of the reason they are doing what they are doing – to prevent the suffering which has been caused to family members – not the lofty ambition of “making aviation safer” (a trite comment in the context of the shared global pain of those hoping with the families of MH370 passengers to get answers).

We do not depart from those views. In this case the ICAO SARPs, along with international community, has helped remind the Malaysians of their obligations to the victims and their families of flight MH370.

Joseph Wheeler’s article also displays how all the ICAO SARPs are intrinsically linked. If you follow the JW Annex 13 reference (i.e. Ch 5.27):

5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation; and
c) receive a copy of the Final Report.

This will not preclude the State from also assisting in the identification of victims and in meetings with survivors from that State.

Note.— Guidance related to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families is provided in the Guidance on Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families (Circ 285).
Link for Circ 285 HERE (http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/DOC9998_en.pdf) & ICAO Annex 9, Chapter 8, Section (I) can be viewed HERE (http://dcaa.trafikstyrelsen.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%209%20-%20Facilitation/Facilition.pdf)

yr right’s comments…

“…SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps…”

“…At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good…”

yr right is right that SMS & Annex 19 is yet another impost to industry stakeholders and is largely based on ‘common sense’. yr right is not right when it comes to ICAO and their SARPs.

Since the Chicago Convention 1944, the ICAO SARPs have been evolving and are produced from over a 110 years of collective (some tragically) international air safety lessons learnt. Those bothersome Human Factors experts may have had a large part in the writing and design of Annex 19, however their combined efforts are not just based on a whim. HF experts in aviation basically study why it is we humans continue to make fundamental errors while committing aviation. They also look at ways to lessen the occurrence & severity of these errors. Annex 19 is a reflection of HF expert research over a good 50 or so years.

That is why it is a total abomination that our numb nuts in CAsA and the Dept (there are Dept names in that list) have the audacity to spend untold millions of taxpayer monies going on junkets to Montreal to show, on paper at least, that we are an ICAO compliant State. But in reality we are merely paying lip service to the ‘Spirit & Intent’ of over 70 years of collective ICAO wisdom…:(

One can only hope that the ALA recommendation 5 features somewhere near the top of the list of WLR recommendations and the miniscule takes heed, hopefully sometime before Mr ICAO eventually comes knocking…:rolleyes:

TICK bloody TOCK! :E

yr right
25th May 2014, 02:16
Whilst I understand ICAO it still has two separate base systems Why is there not one and then who is to say which one is right, Now remember this is a paper work exercise the aircraft is maintained to the same standard.

On the HF course what a crock. Now they saying every two years come on give me a break. I can fly to the USA out of the east coast cheaper and quicker than to get to Melbourne to do it from here, and for what. Nothing that's really going to impact the way I or anyone conducts themselves in the course of Maintenance. We do HF every day while we work. Its not new its called common sense. Common sense is real its in the dictionary when its removed then its not but while ever its there the goody goodys cant say there is no such thing.

In about 1999/2000 there was a CASA seminar at Milperra on the changes in maintenance that they where purposing.

me I ask why the change

Them we dont like you doing your studys over the kitchen table

me you saying we in this room (more than 100 people all industry airlines to ga) are all incompetent

them no not saying that

me hands up every one in this room that did (everyone did ) you are

Them no no im not

Me you did

some more questions where asked and then I asked

Me how are people in remote areas going to be able to do there exams and study under this system

Them they be able to do via correspondence


What a mess we find ourselves into now I keep saying we never been placed in such a dangerous environment than what we are in now.

And even now with all the changes that where made our Lic system is still not recognized any where else. Now remember how long they tried to get this in, Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it

In the old days it would have been called treason


dubbleyew eight
25th May 2014, 11:11
Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it

let us not be vague about it.
it was QANTAS.

25th May 2014, 13:55
List of Participants



For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.

yr right
25th May 2014, 14:22
Yep it was Qantas. Just means they don't have to traine engineers in the whole aircraft.
Typical q but f u we ok. Or Qantas syndrome really we the best you all no f all. Worst job I ever held.


25th May 2014, 21:29
List of Participants

The first 7 names on the list went from Australia. A rough calculation which includes business class airfares, their away allowances, accommodation, meals, sundries and whatever else could be milked 'legitimately' from the trough and you would easily hit the $100k taxpayer figure.

What a joke.

26th May 2014, 00:14
Yes – but it's essential CASA goes to Montreal - not the ATSB. CASA frame the AIP; thus controlling the register of the 97 page 'differences' catalogue; including those to Annexe 6, 13 and 19. ATSB must, as handmaiden (submissive or catamite) to the safety authority, remember to change their bags before being booted in the arse: lest the CASA boot get dirty. It's a sad, shameful business we pay for. Legal?- "Of course it is M'lud".

26th May 2014, 08:01
A chocky frog for the Heff :D
He has been concerned about security in Can'tberra's most holy of holy for some time! So he pulled this stunt;

Senator Bill Heffernan smuggles fake 'pipe bomb' into Parliament House, says building 'no longer secure' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-26/bill-heffernan-fake-pipe-bomb-parliament-house-security-concerns/5477468)

Now I can only hope that perhaps Fawcett or Xenophon brandish a dodgy NCN or an 'ICAO intention to audit Australia letter' and sneak it into Fort Fumbles Brisbane H/O, and watch everyone also running for the door!!

26th May 2014, 10:12
004wercras ...

There's a whole lot more people involved with ICAO-centric jolly's and troughs than the ones previously posted I'm afraid.

See: Australian Involvement with ICAO Panels, Committees, Study Groups, Regional Planning Groups Etc (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/icao_list.aspx)

There's more than 80 people listed here that are involved with the ICAO 'gravy train' by virtue of Australia being a Contracting State. :eek:

Nice work if you can get it! The mind boggles at the $$$'s that must be involved here.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet that all of the listed panellists/committee members/secretariat study 'groupies'/working 'groupies'/ANC panellists/regional planning panellists/others/AN study 'groupies' and task force members don't limit their participation to e-meetings.

27th May 2014, 13:27
SIUYA, agreed, nice if you can land a free seat aboard the ICAO gravy train! All these 'safety related experts' with an annual bill that runs into the millions, yet Australia, by way of CAsA has managed to not complete its regulatory reform program in 25 years with a cost approaching $300 million, the ATsB has folded into a laughing stock and been steered into the depths of a bottomless pit filled with pooh, our industry has been buggerised, pulverised and euthanised, and the consensus in many circles is that Australia is equal to most of the bottom layer third world civil aviation outfits!
Yep, all that money, time and resources that has been outlaid has achieved????

Toot toot

Frank Burden
28th May 2014, 04:13
For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.

It would be interesting to know the process for the ingoing (the last name) being selected to represent Oz in Montreal.

Someone mentioned she was a bureaucrat in Department who spent time in ATSB.

Obviously, a stringent selection process before MM gave her the tax payer funded golden ticket.

thorn bird
28th May 2014, 04:43
While on the subject of overseas junkets, interesting article in todays Sydney Telegraph. Seems the previous Guvmint put aside $370 mil to fund things for the upcoming G20 meeting in BN with no clear rules regarding its disbursement.

Fat cats, as fat cats do, rubbed their hands with glee and dived in, spreading taxpayer largesse around on cruises down the Rhine, superyacht trips around the harbor etc. until the PM's department stepped in and put a brake on it.

Seems to me the PM's dept should have a long hard look at CAsA.

Easily more than $370 mil pissed up against the wall on regulatory "Reform"(CAsA's word for it certainly not industries) and god knows how much on junkets to Montreal. They talk about waste, the whole of CAsA is a wasted space.

28th May 2014, 05:00

From memory, the lady in question is a qualified aviation investigator who holds/has held both cpl and parachute quals.

28th May 2014, 05:00
Master Burden, the process for choosing the ICAO delegate is done by Infrastructure. They always choose a 'wordsmith' to represent the good people of Aus. No actual aviation skill is necessary, just the ability to spin, speak bureaucratic lingo, polish the turd and write 10 000 word executive summaries, policy statements and other such baloney. My sources who are deep within the bowels of the Australian system told me that Dr Hoodoo was disliked when he spent time as the Aus representative at ICAO. No tears were shed when he left.

If you look at name number 6 on that amazing list you may find out some interesting stuff when researching her. My sources tell me that she too worked for Infrastructure and was a 'wordsmith' who industry thought was an idiot. Mention her name around PASO and see what response you get :E
Dr Voodoo (who has worked closely with her before) brought her across from Infrastructure to manage CAsA's ITSAP program. Dr Voodoo took that portfolio off Terry and brought her across when the former ITSAP manager was pineappled by the GWM. When she arrived she and Dr Voodoo proceeded to tinker with, stall and stuff up the ITSAP program, and the Indonesians hated her!
She is a former 'journalist' (ha ha) and doesn't have an aviation bone in her body, so to speak.
The two Fort Fumble inspectors in the program resigned (there was some alleged mischief as well) and the program was handed to Consultants who royally rooted it completely. Well done Fort Fumble :D
Interestingly this same woman also used to serve on the selection/interview panel for choosing the Aus ICAO delegate! Perhaps she will be next to move to Montreal for three years? Maybe it will be a close acquaintance who lands the coveted gig? Oh Fort Fumble, there is always a story, always a link, never is the smell of pooh far from them :=

'Safe skies are gravy train filled skies'

Toot toot

28th May 2014, 05:08
004, think you've got the wrong lady !!!!!

28th May 2014, 05:14
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc etc....

28th May 2014, 06:01
Hi 004,

Think we are talking at cross purposes. I must have been confused by Frank"s reference to Oz ICAO reps. There are 2, usually appointed for 3 year terms. The senior is the Councillor, the other is the ANC commissioner.

Present Councillor to whom I am referring is Kerryn Macauley, thought she had been reappointed for a 2nd term. Very smart lady with a good aviation background. Time may have flown and there may be someone else in the wing of whom I know nothing.

Hope this clears things up.

28th May 2014, 07:48
One of the IO9 gives us an update on the recent junket..:rolleyes:..err...ICAO meeting on MH370:

Senate Estimates 27/05/14 - Doherty on ICAO MH370 meeting - YouTube

DH7 is also apparently the resident Dept guru on airports, & was earlier (along with MM) parrying questions from Senator Fawcett...:D

Senate Estimates 27/05/14 - Fawcett & Airports - YouTube

Watch & weep...:ok:

Frank Burden
29th May 2014, 00:21
hamble701, you missed the point of my post.

It was about process meeting the usual checks and balances in a government funded body (auditable, transparent, fair, etc) before the incumbent was selected.

Similarly, if the position has been extended as mentioned, was the market tested to make sure this important representative position has the best person in it going forward?

Or again, did a sponsor use their authority and make a snap on behalf of the people of Australia?

My post was not about the incumbents suitability for membership of Mensa, or her interpersonal skills or anything else, but about what defines appropriate governance in public office.

004, appreciated your perspectives on the inner workings. A bit hard figuring things out from the outside. ;)

29th May 2014, 01:19

See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/pdf/Tripartite_Memorandum_of_Understanding_Aust.pdf

Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...

...but this would not rule out the selection of a candidate external to these agencies.

I'd like to know if/when an external candidates have been appointed.

And if in recognition of paragraph 8.5 the positions are ever advertised so that external candidates can apply, and so that their qualifications and experience can be evaluated alongside those of the Infrastructure, Airservices and CASA candidates to ensure that the most qualified and experienced candidates are selected for the positions in the best interests of Australia.

My suspicion is that no external candidates are ever going to be considered, particularly when internal candidates who are 'smart' people with 'a good aviation background' (whatever that means) are available. :rolleyes:

29th May 2014, 01:56
Let me tell you where failure of the Truss aviation review leads...

It leads directly to the destruction of jobs and businesses and a lack of new investment in anything to do with the aviation industry, period.

The key ingredients in Western Economies that differentiate them from Third World Economies are trust and cooperation as Francis Fukuyama observed over Ten years ago in a book on that subject. The reason for this is that transaction costs (the costs of doing a business transaction) are minimal in a high trust environment, but stratospheric in a low trust environment because one has to try and manage the risks associated with unconscionable or illegal behaviour by the other party. In many parts of the world, there are obvious business opportunities going begging because no investor or entrepreneur can trust Government or counterparties not to either steal the investment itself or confiscate the profits made.

To put that another way, there are fields ripe for planting in the Third world because the landowner is frightened that his investment of seed, fertiliser and labour will be for nothing. Confiscatory official taxation, land appropriation, "fees" and other forms of blackmail eat into his revenue.

To put that yet another way, I know of a Russian polypropylene manufacturer who refused to sell product to the West because he knew that the instant he had a stream of foreign currency - U.S. dollars, in his revenue, the Russian mafia would move in and become his "partner".

So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.

CASA and now the ATSB and perhaps Airservices have totally lost the trust of the aviation industry.

Does anyone seriously doubt what I say?

The first and vital conclusion the review must draw is that CASA has lost the trust of the industry - all else follows from that, starting with the obvious immediate requirement to restore trust.

To put that another way, if that conclusion is not drawn, then nothing the review can recommend, nor the Government mandate, will make the slightest bit of difference to the current situation and further decay is inevitable.

29th May 2014, 02:23
So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.
Sunfish, your tongue is better than a $20 whore! Well worded and absolutely spot on :ok:

29th May 2014, 02:40
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc

You might be correct with who you are talking about but to clarify the lady at the bottom of the list has an aviation background. Wasn't a journalist but a teacher before starting a career in GA then eventually moved to the ATSB.

Back to topic though. Does anyone still think that the situation that Sunfish describes is going to be altered 1 jot by the current review? Posted in November

. I'm not sure why a review is required or why more submissions are required as the Senate has a compactus full. If significant and structural change emerges from this review not only will I be pleasantly surprised but I will go to parliament and extend to the Rt Hon Mr Truss a laurel and hardy handshake as he will be the first M.P. to actually make a step forward rather than endlessly talking about reforming aviation in this country.:ugh:

29th May 2014, 03:12
Fair go, LL: The Minister’s taken the extraordinarily bold step of (re)expanding the CASA Board.

Job done! :D

29th May 2014, 06:46
Note to self Creamy, to find the cloud in every silver lining.

29th May 2014, 08:03
We are extremely lucky to have someone of the calibre of Senator David Fawcett in there asking the real questions. The way that Messers Mrdak and Doherty sidestep the issues when asked the pointed questions just hardens the resolve of those who are actively working away to see that this shambles is reversed.
Take the time to look at the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc website to see progress so far. After more than five years of exhaustive research and correspondence with Government Departments we now find ourselves nearly two years in the AAT dealing with political stone-walling and double-speak along with many legal diversions!

www.aacci.org.au (http://www.aacci.org.au)

Recent media release about the appalling status of our secondary airports.

Dear Member,

In April Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. wrote to Hon Warren Truss Minister for Infrastructure and Transport about

“Privatisation of Secondary Airports being a mistake”.

The Chamber stated that “It was incumbent on all of us to address the shortcomings (of Secondary Airport Privatisation) by means other than repossession of the airfields. The task though falls primarily on the government of the day as they alone have the resources to take the required action.”

The Chamber further stated to Minister Truss that “In the policy the coalition took to the polls, undertakings were given that many of the existing defects in policies relating to aviation would be addressed. So far there have been no changes implemented and more tellingly no public discussions of the prospect of any changes.”

The Chamber warned “We are aware of important enquiries that you have implemented and we fully acknowledge the importance in probing deeply into some industry matters so that root and branch corrective action can be taken in order for effective and permanent redress to be achieved. That inevitably involves some delay in instituting change. While accepting that point, the really important fact that we live in a commercial world cannot be ignored.”

Minister Truss was told that many current policies are causing great financial cost directly to the General Aviation industry which is as a consequence in undeniable accelerated decline.

This is particularly true of the Secondary Airports which are in catastrophic decline post privatisation.


Total General Aviation Flying Hours[i] (http://www.pprune.org/#_edn1) (which excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport) are almost static as to actual hours but in decline compared to population.

Archerfield Airport’s movements[ii] (http://www.pprune.org/#_edn2) are now only 47% of pre-privatisation levels.

The loss has been a 53 % decline post airport privatisation, that is 134,336 movements per annum down from pre-privatisation levels.

Minister Truss was advised that “A large number of these factors are self-evident and do not need an expensive and protracted enquiry to establish their existence. Immediate action however is required.”

A classic example of that is, in relation to airports, the failure of successive governments to implement the statutory provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airport Sales Agreements –including the Commonwealth leases and the Sale Transfer Instruments.

To list only a few examples;

the failure to maintain the airports at least to the standard at the commencement of the lease;
the failure to make provision for development for future aviation and aviation related needs;
the failure by lease holders to adhere to their privatisation obligations to renew the leases of hangar owners who have title to their hangars and equitable interests as to renewal;
the permanent quarantining of land through long term leases for non-aviation industrial purposes thereby denying future expansion for aviation purposes- clearly aimed at bringing about the premature demise of this public utility,
the way airport leasing companies stifle both competition and development in the aviation service industry by denying, without explanation or reason, both the expansion of established industry or the introduction of competition on their airfields;
the lack of any mechanism to restrain the abuse of the monopoly powers in the hands of the airport leasing companies including:

Denying lessees renewals to gain their assets by reversion,
Placing unreasonable restrictions on lessees upon lease renewal, for instance renewing leases that previously permitted aircraft maintenance and hangarage to aircraft hangarage only with no justification for the additional restrictions
very high rental increases which cannot be afforded by the industry that are leading to the destruction and closure of general aviation business being irreplaceable losses to the industry.

The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”

The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”

The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”

The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.

The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.

The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.

Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.

Lindsay Snell
Contact: (07) 3274 1477

Download Media Release as PDF (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/171hc/1775545/9a2bf7rjm.pdf) (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747926/pdf_logo.gif 161kb)

Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/171hc/1775546/9a2bfbmpz.pdf) (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747926/pdf_logo.gif 137kb)

[i] (http://www.pprune.org/#_ednref1) Source: BTRE General Aviation Activity Reports (excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport)
[ii] (http://www.pprune.org/#_ednref2) Source: Airservices Australia and Airport Master Plan Movement Reports - During Tower hours)

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc
GPO Box 2511
Brisbane Qld 4001
Website (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/171hc/1772506/9a2bf14p8b-1.html)

29th May 2014, 10:01
and well timed...:D
Presumably you guys put in a Submission to the ASRR?? So any chance of getting a viewing or at least a quote?? :rolleyes:

Here is part of the Hansard segment for the Airports questioning in Estimates (link here (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2 F09c5da8f-b44a-46e7-aff8-b602aadd09b6%2F0002;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=Dataset%3AcomSen,estimate;rec=7;resCount =Default)):Senator FAWCETT: Essendon is a case in point, where it is proposed possibly to shorten a runway. I was asking CASA about their professional input, which says that the length of the runway, particularly for lower weight aircraft under 5,700 kilos, is not just a function of the flight manual but there are a number of factors that have to be applied which significantly lengthen the requirement that an operator has to meet to allow for engine failures and other things. CASA have confirmed that it is the case that they have to be applied. Can I ask: if the advice that a consultant gave as part of a master planning process did not include that factoring information and it was subsequently shown that CASA had verified that the figures they had interpolated from the flight manual were correct but they had not actually notified the department that the operator had to take these other things into account so that the runway that was proposed by the master plan ended up being too short for the aircraft that would be using it, what would happen to the master planning process? Would it be overturned? Would you go back and change it? What would the department do in that case?

Mr Doherty : Perhaps I could start the answer and Ms Horrocks may wish to add to it. With the general thrust of your question being about whether, in considering a master plan, we would look to the impact of a change in runway, not only in terms of the technical compliance with a manual but in terms of the overall impact about how that change would affect the operations, clearly our interest would be in being able to assess the impact on operations practically. In terms of the detail of how that assessment is conducted, I think it is correct that we would be looking to CASA for an assessment on some of those technical aspects. As for the advice that they provide in relation to each master plan, we would be looking for that sort of advice. When it comes to input from a technical expert or consultant engaged by the airport, we would be keen to understand whether that is reliable and would get an expert opinion ourselves on that. Initially that would come from CASA. If that information is available then to the minister, the minister would make his call in terms of whether that master plan is something that should be approved or not.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I guess the question I have for you is that I have had a large number of complaints from operators at Archerfield Airport who contend that the expert who was called to support the master planning process looked at the AF10, the flight manual, and derived from that, for each of the aircraft type that flies at Archerfield, a strip length for the new north-south runway which was less than a thousand metres—I think it was about 900 metres—but it did not take into account the factoring that the CAOs require an operator to put into their operations manual. They contend that CASA, in double-checking the figures on behalf of the department, said yes, they accurately interpreted the AFM but did not highlight the fact that factoring had not been included; therefore, the master plan, which has been approved, endorses a runway which is too short to meet the legal requirements that CASA actually require the operators to meet. So my question is: if that contention is validated, what will happen to the master plan?

Mr Doherty : I think CASA took on notice last night the issue about what exactly their assessment was and what it covered in the Archerfield circumstance and I would certainly be happy to take on notice from our side too to look at that assessment. In terms of the impact of that decision, I am not entirely sure at this stage just where the process of the runway changes at Archerfield are and whether there would be some formal further approval required before they were actually given effect to.

Mr Mrdak : If I may add, I think our view would be, in the circumstances that you have outlined, where it was shown that there was any error or there was further information which may have changed that consideration, that would not necessarily invalidate the master plan. What it would mean, though, at the time the airport was to bring forward a major development proposal for the runway work—and I will ask Ms Horrocks to comment about the status of that—is that is the point at which that adjustment would need to be made and a separate approval process would apply. However, coming to your question, I do not think our view would be that the master plan would be invalid, because it is a concept planning document which is set out predominantly for zoning and planning purposes. The details of any runway shortening at either Archerfield or Essendon would have to be dealt with through an MDP and a specific approval program. If you do not mind, I will get Ms Horrocks to give us an update on where we think Archerfield is at on that runway proposal.
Ms Horrocks : Archerfield has not developed the MDP at this point in time. We would normally seek to look at any preliminary or exposure draft of an MDP and identify any required information at that point in time and then it would go through the legislative process for an MDP.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Can I just go to a broader issue now around the Commonwealth's responsibilities in terms of both airports it has gifted or sold or leased—and there are a number under that. There is a common theme here—and you would be very well aware of this, Mr Mrdak; I have raised at almost every estimates for a few years now—and it is the issues of aircraft operators, whether they be maintenance shops or flying schools or charter operators, which feel as though the monopoly power of an airport owner or leaseholder has led to unconscionable decisions in terms of conditions of lease renewal or barring them doing certain things on the airport, which, to a layman's reading, appears to be in direct contravention of the terms of the lease in terms of maintaining the airport for aviation and not barring reasonable access for airlines or aircraft operators for aviation-related activities. The feedback I have had from the department again and again is that it is a commercial issue and that those people should take up their commercial remedies. I have had feedback from a number that they have tried that with no success, from the point of view that people say, 'This is an issue between the Commonwealth as either the holder, the owner of the land and at the head of the lease or, in the case of Sale or Broome International Airport that was actually sold, the covenant that was signed between the purchaser and the Commonwealth points back to the Commonwealth having responsibility.' So could I just ask: has the department sought legal advice as to its responsibilities or any powers it may have to enforce the terms of a lease or the covenant that was signed by somebody that it sold an airport to?

Mr Doherty : You are right; there are two different categories. In relation to the ALOP deeds, which are the deeds that applied in relation to the transfer of many of the regional airports, not the leased federal airports, we have taken legal advice on issues from time to time which clearly shows some gaps in the capacity. The practice over a period with those leases has been that we are able to, and do as a matter of policy, ensure that the airports continue to operate as airports but that our powers to control what happens on the airport in any more detail would be very limited. In relation to the federal leased airports, we obviously have a range of more direct regulatory controls which go through the master planning and development plan processes and, in that circumstance, we are trying to achieve the right balance between the airport operators' rights in relation to the site, which they acquired through a tender process, and the development of the site and the interests of the users.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) The question that arises, though, from somebody who has invested significant money in an asset—for example, a hangar—on an airport is that, if the Commonwealth has signed a lease or a sale document with a covenant that says, 'This will be maintained predominantly for an aviation purpose,' and then they are told that they cannot actually park private aircraft on the airfield because it is running out of space and yet the airport owner is selling off airport land for housing, how is that maintaining the prime purpose of that airport for aviation? And if, indeed, we have signed a covenant, what is the point of a contract or a covenant if it is not going to be enforced? The mention of Essendon is in reference to Truss recently approving (in concept) the 2013 Master Plan, see here (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/minister-approves-essendon-master-plan)
Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??

Again top post AACCI & welcome to the ranks of the IOS...:ok:

ps Sunny maybe you should extend the distrust factor to include the Department and (by association until proven otherwise) the Miniscule...:{

29th May 2014, 11:47
Excellent work AACCI, excellent factual post. And good follow up work Sarcs. The responses and obsfucation from Truss (and former bureaucrats), as well as the pooh that was flowing from Doherty and 'Pumpkin Head' undoubtedly proves that the issues go way beyond CAsA, ATSBeaker and ASA, the problems stem from the Miniscule through Infrastructure and down the chain. The can has truly opened for all to see.....


dubbleyew eight
29th May 2014, 13:14
"I want to be known as an infrastructure prime minister" Tony Abbott.

well tony why don't you have a go at the total farce that is the government's approach to aviation. ....before we all lose our pants.

it is wasting you an unbelievable amount of money!

29th May 2014, 18:28
If there were over 200 submissions critical of casa couldn't a legal firm start some sort of class action? Would it be possible under Australian legal system.

29th May 2014, 22:07
Maybe the only way forward is for the industry to go on strike. No bank runs, no milk runs, no training, no medical evacuations and most of all, no charters for politicians!

30th May 2014, 01:09
On M&M he sure bears a strong resemblance to Red...:E

M&M's - Christmas Audition (Australian) - YouTube

Ever since Senator Fawcett first entered the parliament (July 2011) he has been on M&M's case on the lifeblood of GA, those pesky secondary & ALOP airports. Here is another example:

Fawcett v Mrdak on Airports Senate Estimates 16/10/12 - YouTube

My error (FIMD) it appears that the Oz Flying article provided the answer to my...Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??
:bored: Truss said he recognised there was significant interest within the community about the proposed investigation into the shortening of the airport's north-south runway.

“My approval of the 2013 Master Plan is not an approval for this proposal to proceed,” he pointed out.

“A decision on this proposal will only be reached after Essendon Airport completes a very detailed investigation involving examination of operational, safety and environmental impacts, including from aircraft noise.

“The outcome of this investigation will then need to be considered through the regulatory processes under the Airports Act 1996. A key component of these regulatory processes is public consultation.”

Truss said the Master Plan included significant non-aviation developments.

“However, I will not agree to any development which would compromise the use of Essendon for aviation,” he said.

“The Government is committed to supporting sustainable growth in civil aviation."
The miniscule's statement is interesting in light of the AACCI letter to him...:rolleyes:

Oh well considering some Essendon operators are having probs pulling up on the other runway...


...I guess there will be intensive training, by certain operators, on shortfield landing technique...:E

30th May 2014, 10:23

You commented on Australia's ICAO appointments (ICAO Trough List), and I subsequently referred to the arrangements for those appointments:

See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nding_Aust.pdf

Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...

I think we might have missed an opportunity here with the ASRR Terms of Reference stated outcomes, that is (in particular):

The report of the review will (amongst other things):

•examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB;

Maybe it should have been argued that the ARRS should also have:

• examined and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for the arrangements for Australia's ICAO Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Bugger :ugh:

30th May 2014, 10:50
Even so: despite the mumblings, jiggling, rolling upward of the eyes (à la Bob Hawke) deliberate efforts to muddy the water; sideways rambling answers; an inability to answer questions; a marked reluctance to honestly answer the questions; taking questions on notice, ignoring the millions of dollars down the gurgler; aircraft still manage, despite these people sitting about, not answering the questions; to get from A to B in reasonably good order.

These folk in front of 'our' committee, being so completely divorced from the real issues still manage to effectively play the same three card trick – Safety – Cost – Deniability. It's we; the stupid, vacuous ones: WE who keep paying them to do it, allow this farce to continue. Yet the Senate keeps asking the questions (we also pay for that); round and round it goes; again and again and yet, again. Where it stops – no one knows. (Unless Truss brings in a 'company man' – then we'll know). 5/4, odds on favourite ploy - says the wise money.

Listen to McComic and his medical 'guru'; whom, despite logical argument, despite empirical and "that other sort" (cracked up when McComic trotted that out) of evidence", despite research, despite logic: and, despite Fawcett almost pleading for 'sanity' – in the end, out roll the three trump Monte cards. Like a mantra: chanted over and over until a hypnotic trance is induced.

Want to see 'real' safety at work ?? – hop into a cockpit one dark and stormy at peak hour, watch a pro aircrew manage; or go to the ACC and watch the ATCO's at work. Now that's operational safety at a peak professional level, despite the rambling obfuscation, distraction and interference of the puerile; and the disconnected lunacy of the 'watchdog' from La la land..

Mantra : Safety – Cost – Deniability......Safety – Cost – Deniability....Safety – Cost – Deniability.

Safety -? show me one 'real value' safety initiative McComic and his happy band of word twisters have produced. Save you the trouble – there ain't any. Nothing to which McComic has contributed one jot of 'improvement'. Improvement is lumped onto the industry shovel; the kudos and bonuses are (of course) heading to the CASA myth bucket, never to be seen again until claimed. In every case, through CASA 'safety initiatives' the paper work has increased, the rules have become an even more complex pension benefit fund for needy legal types. The ethos of 'safety' box ticking continues off the chart. The operator, being half broke – having then managed to satisfy 'all' the CASA 'safety' requirements and paid handsomely for it; must send their exhausted troops; those at the coal face, to see to the 'real' issues which keep Mr and Ms Joe Public safe and in one piece. This while documenting every step taken, (just in case there is a case to answer). Selah.

Cost -? well sure, CASA have managed to escalate the costs to epic proportions and achieved what precisely?. After the CASA fiasco, the operator must face the small challenge of trying to make enough money to pay wages, satisfy investment and deal with the never ending FUBAR which everyday operational aviation dredges up; on a daily (if lucky) basis....

Deniability-?; Oh, top marks in this category. The ability to offset the blame for anything and everything – from a loose boot lace to a major incident, to an ICAO rip-off. The abilities – to artfully deflect criticism – and, the hide to demand more money for doing so is a remarkable achievement. They are so very, very good at it – even ICAO have swallowed the bait FCOL.

Aye well; I expect they'll all want a bigger bonus next year and a better budget – on account of doing such a bloody fine job. No doubt AAAA have had a rocket from the 'bored' for being outspoken and no doubt registered letters, carefully camouflaging the intent to attack those who dared speak out are in the Friday mail as we speak....

So predictable, so bloody mundane, so tragically, so ironically sad. Yet this sad mutt has the audacity to take on the likes of a well briefed Fawcett, head on. Just about says it all; don't it?.
O! reason not the need; our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is cheap as beast’s.

Lear, for a change of pace – it being Friday and all.....
Irony, Tragic: The term applied to the situation, in Greek and other drama, in which the audience is aware of some impending catastrophe or important fact of which the characters are either totally ignorant or not fully aware, a condition rendered possible by the fact that Greek drama dealt with legends known to all the spectators. Irony has, of course, in this phrase the Greek meaning of 'dissembling'.

30th May 2014, 12:45
Yep, I am sure that 'CAsA' isn't actually an acronym, it is in fact another term for 'petard';

A petard was a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications, of French origin and dating back to the sixteenth century.[1] A typical petard was a conical or rectangular metal object containing 2–3 kg (5 or 6 pounds) of gunpowder, with a slow match as a fuse.

Petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from the Latin peditus, past participle of pedere, to break wind, akin to the Greek bdein, to break wind (Merriam-Webster). Petard is a modern French word, meaning a firecracker (it is the basis for the word for firecracker in several other European languages).

Petardiers were used during sieges of castles or fortified cities. The petard, a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device, consisted of a brass or iron bell-shaped device filled with gunpowder fixed to a wooden base called a madrier. This was attached to a wall or gate using hooks and rings, the fuse lit and, if successful, the resulting explosive force, concentrated at the target point, would blow a hole in the obstruction, allowing assault troops to enter.

The word remains in modern usage in the phrase hoist with one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap," implying that one could be lifted up (hoist, or blown upward) by one's own bomb.

It is plain obvious that CAsA, Infrastructure and the Miniscules office expel petard on a daily basis, don't you think?

'Safe skies are flatus skies'

1st Jun 2014, 22:43
The following UNSW blog piece highlights that there is a lot more at stake than just the GA sector...:{

We’re flying into an aviation skills crisis, with safety under the radar (http://theconversation.com/were-flying-into-an-aviation-skills-crisis-with-safety-under-the-radar-27064?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+conversationedu+(The+Conversation))

Safety matters: a review into aviation safety regulation is due to report this month. Contemplative imaging/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

At a recent Senate Committee inquiry (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs/Report/index) into the future of Qantas, both major airlines deflected concerns about the quality and safety of offshored maintenance with assurances that the facilities are safe because Australia’s safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), approved them.

Yet at precisely the same time another inquiry in which the effectiveness of CASA was central – the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/) – was being run out of the deputy prime minister’s office.

The inquiry was scheduled to report by the end of May. It now seems likely that given the difficulty and importance of the issues and the intensity of some of the industry submissions, the review will take longer. In an unusual move, the government has not made the 270-odd submissions available to the public.

Air travel, at least on the main intercity and international routes, is statistically the safest means of transport. Fatal crashes occur so rarely today, when set against the millions of passenger-kilometres flown every week, that the probability of any given flight ending in deaths is too small to be calculated by normal statistical techniques.

But the deadly runway crash (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/asiana-airlines-pilot-concerned-san-francisco-crash) of Asiana Airlines last year is a reminder to all of us – carriers and regulators included – that we cannot afford to take the safety of flying for granted. Accidents still do happen, and passenger safety is still not guaranteed even if there have been no recent crashes.

Indeed, a long period without a serious incident can increase the risk of safety buffers being eroded by cost-cutting and complacency.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently released its Safety Report (http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/safety_report.aspx) for 2013 showing that across the world, 210 people lost their lives last year in 16 fatal accidents (not including hijackings or sabotage) involving commercial passenger or cargo flights. The average for the last five years was much higher at 517. While none of these accidents occurred in Australia, private and small-scale commercial flying here results (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4355945/ar-2013-067_final.pdf) in the loss of around a dozen lives in an average year.

CASA director John McCormick will leave the regulator at the end of August

Maintenance matters

A significant proportion of accidents result from errors or omissions in aircraft maintenance. According to the IATA statistics, maintenance “events” (i.e. specific operations that were done wrongly, or not done when required) contributed to 10% of the 432 accidents investigated between 2009 and 2013, while 29% involved some kind of aircraft malfunction. In other cases, shoddy maintenance procedures were identified as a “latent” factor contributing to the outcome.

In a time when intense competition is placing pressure on the world’s airlines to keep pushing down their operating costs, maintenance has been an obvious first resort for cost-saving, since unlike many other measures, it remains invisible to the passenger unless severely neglected.

Our research into the aircraft maintenance industry in Australia has exposed two key structural developments, both products of the increasingly cost-driven nature of the industry, which threaten to undo much of the progress made so far.

The first involves the worldwide trend to redefine the status of maintenance from part of the core business of running an airline to a standalone activity carried out by independent maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) firms. MRO is now a global industry, with hundreds of new businesses springing up every year in all parts of the world.

Most of these businesses undoubtedly provide quality service. But some, located in low-wage countries (including places like Latin America and the former Soviet republics which are still statistically the world’s most dangerous regions in which to fly) compete primarily on labour costs, often complemented by “light touch” regulation. They mainly do labour-intensive heavy maintenance, which is crucial for ensuring that aircraft structures remain free of cracks and corrosion.

The disastrous early US experience with such providers has left continuing question marks over this part of the industry. Even today, it is hard for airlines as customers to sort the good from the bad, among a rapidly expanding offering, without guidance from regulators. Indeed, Congress has forbidden US airlines to use “uncertificated” shops, and forced the FAA to upgrade its safety oversight of offshored maintenance.

By contrast CASA, leaving aside the occasional Senate inquiry, has largely enjoyed freedom from political pressure. But the shift to offshored maintenance has not been matched by a corresponding increase in resources allocated to safety oversight. Rather, there is a trend to accepting approvals from other countries’ regulatory authorities – in contrast to the more robust approach taken by the US.

There is also a growing tendency, in the words of IATA, to put “too much effort… into oversight of the documentation trail, rather than the work being physically performed on the aircraft”. Our research informants point to problems observed in some offshore MROs which would not be picked up by such an approach – for example, using non-approved tools in paint removal, which can damage aircraft skins causing tears in fuselages during flight.

The number of maintenance engineers Australia needs won’t arrive in time. Gerard Stolk/Flickr,

Looming skills crisis

The second, more insidious and less easily remedied threat involves worldwide underinvestment in developing an adequate skilled workforce to meet future maintenance needs. Both IATA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have researched future maintenance labour requirements and expressed concern at the escalating shortfall. According to the ICAO, world training capacity in 2010 was falling short by some 18,000 places every year of the number required to meet forecast minimum needs in 2030.

Worryingly, the shortfalls in training appear to be greatest in precisely those parts of the world to which Australian maintenance is most likely to be outsourced. The Asia-Pacific region as a whole is projected to train fewer than a quarter of the new aircraft technicians it will need to accommodate the requirements of its own national fleets.

Australia is no better placed to meet its own needs, with civilian apprentice commencements, net of wastage, in the March quarter of 2013 at the lowest point since records have been kept. On our calculations, apprentice completions (including Defence) in 2013 were running at only two-thirds the rate needed to keep the workforce at its 2011 size after allowing for normal attrition.

All this suggests a looming skills crisis which is already becoming apparent in some parts of the world. The giant Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company (HAECO) – to which Qantas only recently outsourced the heavy maintenance on its remaining 747s – reportedly saw a 21% decline in its net profit for the first half of 2013, attributed (http://www.aviationpros.com/article/11304921/heavy-maintenance-tracking-the-trends) largely to difficulties in recruiting sufficient skilled technicians. In the US, a growing proportion of airlines are planning (http://www.oliverwyman.com/insights/publications/2013/apr/mro-survey-2013--thrive-rather-than-survive.html) to bring more of their maintenance back on shore, partly to ensure security of supply, and partly because of the shrinking cost differential.

Australia is unprepared to meet this crisis and faces the threat of being forced by its limited market power into relying on second-rate providers. It seems inevitable that the shortage will result in greater use of unqualified personnel, work intensification for those skilled engineers who are available, and skimping on internal quality control.

There is every chance that such practices, if widely adopted, will bring about a reversal in the declining trend of fatal accidents – this despite the range of failsafes and self-monitoring capabilities being built into the latest generation of passenger aircraft, which in any case now seem unlikely to make up a significant part of the Australian fleet for another decade at least.

The standards issue is one that can be addressed by regulatory reform, and it will be interesting to see how the inquiry approaches it. The skills issue is too big to be fixed by regulation alone, and a remedy cannot be expected without serious structural reform of the Australian MRO sector. Such reform will require a serious interventionist approach by the Federal government – a prospect about which it is hard be optimistic.

View the UNSW ASRR submission here: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bd75f082-da3a-4259-a1e8-11d133bb0742&subId=205572:D:D


2nd Jun 2014, 07:26
In an unusual move, the government has not made the 270-odd submissions available to the public.
the Aviation Safety Regulation Review – was being run out of the deputy prime minister’s office.
Red flag number 1 - This action alone proves the Government is not interested in transparency or accountability. This should be ringing alarm bells for our industry, travelling public and other entities such as ICAO and the FAA. It is plainly obvious that the head of the fish is well and truly rotten.

By contrast CASA, leaving aside the occasional Senate inquiry, has largely enjoyed freedom from political pressure. But the shift to offshored maintenance has not been matched by a corresponding increase in resources allocated to safety oversight. Rather, there is a trend to accepting approvals from other countries’ regulatory authorities – in contrast to the more robust approach taken by the U.S
Red flag number 2 - Budget restraints have in the past stopped CAsA undertaking serious international audits and oversight of third party maintenance providers internationally. Taking people's word that maintenance is compliant flies in the face of robust and adequate oversight done on a physical basis. CAsA execs and can afford to go to Montreal every few months, but they can't afford to send Inspector Plod overseas for a guernsey at a maintenance org? Bollocks.

The below quote pretty well sums up what our masters of spin don't want the public to realise;
But the deadly runway crash of Asiana Airlines last year is a reminder to all of us – carriers and regulators included – that we cannot afford to take the safety of flying for granted. Accidents still do happen, and passenger safety is still not guaranteed even if there have been no recent crashes. Indeed, a long period without a serious incident can increase the risk of safety buffers being eroded by cost-cutting and complacency.

Indeed Miniscule, you and your minions are in a precarious predicament aren't you?

P.S Frank, nice photograph of Mr Angry above, would sit well on the back of your shitter door!!


yr right
2nd Jun 2014, 10:16
We're flying into an aviation skills crisis, with safety under the radar (http://theconversation.com/were-flying-into-an-aviation-skills-crisis-with-safety-under-the-radar-27064?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+2+June+2014&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+2+June+2014+CID _75390863b82ddbd947ee0cc5e1dd6a4a&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Were%20flying%20into%20an%20aviation%20skills%20cri sis%20with%20safety%20under%20the%20radar)

Frank Arouet
2nd Jun 2014, 12:53

That's the bloke that bound me up in the first place. The natural laxative therapy that our small (m), minister provides works fine. However the photo does look like a cornered Koala. I wonder what would happen if someone poked him with a stick.

2nd Jun 2014, 22:20
The rule of law is becoming a joke in the USA and we are following exactly the same trail as evidenced by the ongoing corruption enquiries in NSW, the activities of the Speaker, Peter Slipper, Craig Thomson and now Geoff Shaw in Victoria.

To put it another way, once the law becomes subservient to political ends, as it has been in those Three cases, then we are too far down the slippery slope to make investments without "managing" (read bribery) the political dimension as in countries like Indonesia and New Guinea.

In other words,, you can no longer invest with some certainty about country risk.

CASA, as a Government entity, has armed itself with the regulatory tools to destroy any business it likes, without bothering about the rule of law, and if government continues to countenance that, then the GA industry is dead, and in the longer run so is GFA, RAA and SAAA.

Why? Because we exist not by law but by the whim of the regulator.

2nd Jun 2014, 22:59
Interesting BRB discussion developed last evening – started off with a small ceremony to change the dart board picture (thanks Sarcs)– the old one was in a hell of a state. One of the blokes was drawing the mustachios and idly wondered about how long it should take to evaluate the Reverent Forsyth's saga. More to the point, pipes up another, is how much of it will we get see? Good question that. Eventually, some consensus was managed :-

(Q) - Should the entire WLR report be published?

Pro – want it all out there, warts and all. A mirror to reflect just how untidy things have become and taking an open, honest approach toward rehabilitation.

Con – wanted only a 'broad' summary, expecting that at least part of the report must be confidential but with the key issues and proposed solutions made public.

10 votes for publish all / 5 for an 'edited' version. (BTW the betting went the other way).

Good argument for both cases which naturally led into speculation about the time needed for the miniscule to come to terms with the report he initiated. There was enough potential ordinance from the Pel Air inquiry to lead to serious change, add the 260 odd submissions to that and even the least astute, head in the sand politico is going to realise that something – not another bloody white paper – must be done. There is good advice available to Truss, he has the Senate team; and, even if the number of rejected submissions was 90%, that still leaves 26 rock solid tomes of first class, expert advice. Which, by the by, did not cost anyone one penny piece. Anyway – it finished up with agreement that the time taken to respond is irrelevant; if the time is used to make a proper response reflecting the gravity of the situation.

Don't expect to see too much 'blood' on the public mat though, there is little chance of public executions. Consensus was to watch for the small but significant changes happening as we speak – new faces in some places and small attitude shifts seem to be reflecting what is happening behind closed doors. Murky Machiavellian hit squad on the prowl? – perhaps.

Jinglie # DAS 31 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/540787-new-das-casa-2.html#post8502128) "The elephant in the room has to be Forsyth in a caretaker role. MrDak obviously trusts him.

The notion of the Rev. Forsyth as caretaker provoked much discussion and speculation. This is intriguing; one of the BRB (smartarse with an I-pad) dredged up the post. No conclusions, but it supports a rumour (more of a whisper really). I noted that no one at the estimates said anything more about this being McComics "last" estimates, other than just the flat statement. Then there is the persistent buzz that his office door is only unlocked at morning tea when the tea lady throws in a handful of iced Vovo with orders to make sure the door is firmly relocked. Mrdak put in a long day, acting as bear leader and if you noticed, he is paying close attention to what his charges are saying. Some of the 'correspondence' and unsolicited advice floating about further fuels speculation. Is it that as the beast dies of it's own malady it is lashing out blindly at anything that moves and the handlers are being very careful?.

Aye well – it's all gossip and pub yarns at the end of the day, ain't it?

Toot toot.

3rd Jun 2014, 00:59
From HoR Daily Program...Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12 noon

Acknowledgement of country
Ministerial statement, by leave
Mr Truss (Deputy Prime Minister) to make a statement on the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review. Can be viewed here (http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?type=1&vID={1A957B80-19D2-4C24-8DBB-752436E0CB94}) or here (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/browse.php)



Links for ASRR:

Dept ASRR page (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)

Executive Summary (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Executive_Summary.pdf)

ASRR REPORT (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Report_May_2014.pdf)

Frank Arouet
3rd Jun 2014, 03:23

It seems Pelair was an aberration.

First reading: recommendations need in depth analysis.
30 (b).
37. Good news.

Old Akro
3rd Jun 2014, 05:00
All I've done so far is read the exec summary and recommendations, but the two impressions that come to mind are that 1. It is surely a condemnation of the current directors performance and 2. The recommendations are really just about re-arranging the deck chairs. It is not recommending fundamental change to either CASA or the current regulations, rather further tinkering and " reform".

I think the report has failed to understand the cause, but is rather trying to treat the symptoms.


3rd Jun 2014, 05:11
Ben's take so far...
Will the heads of CASA and the ATSB now resign?
Ben Sandilands | Jun 03, 2014 1:55PM | EMAIL | PRINT

The future tenure of the heads of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulator (CASA), its director of air safety John McCormick, and the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Martin Dolan should be in question after the release today of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

The review was commissioned by the deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss in November 2013 following a Coalition commitment during last year’s Federal election campaign.

It recommends what could be described as a profound cultural change in CASA and effective regulatory reform, more than enough reasons to remove McCormick from further involvement in the safety regulator immediately, rather than in September when his term expires, and by when regulatory reforms that he was charged to make in CASA were to have been finalised.

It is critical in a detailed and clinical manner of the current culture in CASA and its relations with aviation stakeholders.

The review, chaired by David described the botched Pel-Air crash investigation by the ATSB as an aberration.

Given the ATSB chief commissioner’s unequivocal defence of that report, and its standards, and his resolute refusal to even retrieve the flight data recorder from the crash site in the sea near Norfolk Island, and the claims that it was seriously unfair to the pilot, and failed Australia’s international air accident reporting obligations, Mr Dolan should go. This afternoon if possible.

A Senate inquiry into the ATSB report found Mr Dolan’s testimony under oath was so unsatisfactory that the committee devoted a chapter of its findings to its rejection of his evidence. It also heard the director of safety at CASA, Mr McCormick, admit to withholding from the ATSB contrary to the intent of Australian law, an internal review into the Pel-Air matters which found that had CASA actually carried out its duties of oversight of the operator, the crash might have been avoided.

These were very serious disclosures that went to the heart of the integrity and quality of the public administration of air safety in this country, although they were brushed off by the previous Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese.

This is what the ASRR says in its report in relation to Pel-Air.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has been heavily criticised in Australia for its report into the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air Westwind off Norfolk Island. Canada’s Transportation Safety Board is completing a review of the ATSB and will report shortly. The Panel considers that the Pel-Air report was an aberration, and not typical of the high standard that the ATSB usually attains.

The Panel recognises that the ATSB is putting measures in place to prevent a re-occurrence. To improve the ATSB’s governance, the Panel recommends that an additional Commissioner be appointed, with extensive aviation experience.

The panel recommends a totally different non-punitive and more collaborative relationship between CASA and the aviation industry.

The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.

It specifically recommends different qualities in the new Director Air Safety who will replace Mr McCormick, which on any reasonable reading, makes his continued participation in the affairs of CASA unnecessary, since the review repudiates CASA’s current culture and direction.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect.

Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise.

If the government is to implement the recommendations of the ASRR it will need to remove Mr Dolan from the ATSB and McMcCormick from any further engagement with CASA.

(more to come)

Posts #835-838 Hmm...Ben & I (at least) must be reading a different report?? Hint: Try actually reading from about page 70-90 for a true flavour of this report...:rolleyes:

Dick Smith
3rd Jun 2014, 05:13
Does it make any recommendation re CASA considering the resultant cost of safety regulations? Or has been left out again? If so the Aus industry is doomed!

Old Akro
3rd Jun 2014, 05:43
Dick, I have only read the recommendations & exec summary, but it seems to focus on refining the current structure and operation rather than substantively changing it.

We might have hoped it would call for a move to the NZ regs, but its not there.
We might have hoped that it would call for a significantly different board structure, but its not there.

While the reports that the industry complains about regulatory burden, there is nothing in the recommendation that seems to address this. Indeed, its call for amendments makes me fear that the hamster wheel is about to turn again and we'll get a whole new round of regulatory reform.

3rd Jun 2014, 06:05
Old Akro...

The report does discuss adoption of rules from another country in Option 4 at page 101, and concludes that for a variety of reasons, the option is not recommended.

I think you've summarised the report pretty well though, that is, it's focus is on refining the current structure and operation rather than substantively changing it.

3rd Jun 2014, 06:16
On a personal note I will spend a day or two reading the report and recommendations thoroughly, however at this stage after a quick skim and some vomiting, as predicted, the wet lettuce leaf has been applied. Of course Skull and Dolan copped a hiding, that's because they were already dead men walking, and we all knew that. But the Frankenstein remains intact, the beast only receives a flesh wound and the morphing of this hybrid creature will continue unabated as long as the Iron Ring remain firmly entrenched (and this report does not indicate any change within the rusty circle)
The ATsB at its core is a solid unit. The 3 Commissioners need removing and the organisation returned to its stellar self from 5 years ago.
Fort Fumble is different, it needs an enema, gutting from its neck to its privates, and that has not been recommended.
Truss remains ignorant, Kingcrat remains at the helm, and as for industry and the IOS it is BOHICA time! The countdown clock keeps ticking, nothing has changed.


Frank Arouet
3rd Jun 2014, 06:35
It is interesting that the ICC is to report to the new CAsA Board which I read as cutting the chain of command and by-passing the DAS. One can only hope the ICC will be chosen by the Board. I further note the AVMED mob getting a rocket will disturb some in that little 'Principality' if the DAME is the final arbiter of whether or not the pilot is fit to fly. This could have meaning to the CVD mob who are now fighting an uphill battle because of our Prince Proozac.

I think the result forms the foundation for some meaningful change and public input is still needed to ensure the good there is implemented.

One thing that worries me is the constant evolutionary change of aviation technology mixing with constant regulatory change. This could inadvertently give credibility to the RRP which has been dragging on for years. The regulations need to be re-written to contemporary needs instead of refining and redefining rules from 1945. I think there is scope there in the recommendations.

At first look I'll give it a pass mark but hold the option to reverse this when the lawyers get to work and barstardise it. We all know they will.

3rd Jun 2014, 08:59
Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)

Link part way down the page to the report and Exec Summary.

3rd Jun 2014, 09:47
The report explicitly rejects amendments to the CAA Act 1988, contrary to several previous strong recommendations.
As far as I can see so far, all that is recommended is a "strengthening of the RIS", which comes at the end of the regulation making process, not the beginning. Ergo, serious cost/benefit analysis doesn't get a look-in, let alone the principle that "regulation" is the last option, not the first.
I guess S.9 of the Act remains supreme, unless that is changed, nothing else of much importance will change.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Does this sound like CASA?? page 58 of the ASRR report.
2.4.4 If, on the other hand, the State safety oversight system is so rigorous as to amount to a complete domination and dictation of the conduct of operations, then under such an environment the civil aviation industry is not empowered with the responsibility and self-sufficiency for safe operations. This can undermine the morale of the civil aviation industry’s personnel and result in a lowering of safety standards. It could also be cost-prohibitive for the State to maintain the large enforcement organization required to sustain this level of oversight.

Frank Arouet
3rd Jun 2014, 09:59
"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority continues to provide appropriate indemnity to all industry personnel with delegations of authority".

thorn bird
3rd Jun 2014, 10:25
Guess that's it, the end of any viable aviation industry in Australia.
Business in any form cannot operate or survive in a Corrupt environment, ultimately it all comes unstuck.
Failure of Gov. to recognize when and where corruption exists, and act to stamp it out puts any industry on the slippery slope.
It was wonderful while it lasted, enjoyed almost every minute of it, and very sad to see it end up like this.
RIP aviation in Australia, unfortunately the bastards won!

3rd Jun 2014, 10:56
All, it is not too late to have a final (unrecognised or valued) input.

Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)The Deputy Prime Minister has invited public and industry views on the recommendations of the report, prior to the finalisation of the Government response. Public and industry comments are being sought by close of business Monday 30 June 2014. Comments can be sent to the Department on the attached comment form (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/comments.aspx).

However, I feel it's probably just flogging a dead horse ...

Despite the 260 submissions to the WLR, the 2800 posts on this forum regarding the ASRR and Senate Inquiry, (read by those that matter) from many more learned and eloquent than I, I feel it will truly take a smoking hole in the ground to elicit any change.
Many thanks to the many aforementioned contributors (you know who you are) to the two ongoing threads for your valiant efforts. Also, many thanks to the Senate members who tried so hard to have industry concerns heard. I wonder where you get the strength to carry on after such ignorance.

Me... I'm off to EnZed.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 12:07
from the executive summary...

19. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, without redaction or de-identification.

well no more confidential incident reporting. that'll save the system thousands of dollars.:mad:

....just what are they thinking??

in the full report this ranks as the understatement of the decade!
While CASA is clearly aware of specific instances of industry dissatisfaction, it does not appear to fully comprehend the level or breadth of ill-feeling across all industry sectors. This lack of comprehension is especially apparent at the senior leadership level, including within the CASA Board.

do you notice throughout the report that ICAO is seen as the peak governing body and australia is a servant to it.
I thought we were a sovereign nation.

3rd Jun 2014, 12:18
An unsurprisingly ineffectual Report.

A bigger CASA Board and a new Messiah DAS is all that will happen in substance.

In other words, back to the future. Way back. :(

3rd Jun 2014, 12:18
I did like this part of the Executive Summary -
'The Panel recommends returning to a third tier of regulation, removing as much detail as possible from the regulations, and using plain Language standards in the third tier'.I don't think the Witchdoctor would enjoy seeing his contribution towards 20 years of ridiculous wording and legalese which is aimed only at persons with PHD's (probably 0.001 percent of our industry) get shit canned! Can you imagine the scowl behind that silly beard?

On a lighter and not surprising note, my sources tell me that the Buzzards are already circling internally at Fort Fumble smack above some of the carcasses, and the games have begun internally! Some in-fighting, back stabbing and manipulation, along with shoring up votes for some of the expected new positions, some bruised egos, and some with hard-on's over the prospect of getting paid more money to deliver retribution upon the IOS! What a swell place ey?? And it reminds me of an old saying that used to float through the halls of Infrastructure which was 'there is nothing more dangerous on earth than a disgruntled current or former CAsA employee'! At that, I shall rest my case.


3rd Jun 2014, 13:02
Recommendation 22. Small offices at industry locations.

Bankstown, Moorabbin closures have not proved popular then.

The TSB report probably needs washing through Trim or sky sentinel a few times before release. I wonder if the TSB are in danger of joining the IOS?

004. I can imagine the goings on in casa offices. Tin hats on and keep head down.

3rd Jun 2014, 13:17
Hmmmm, small offices at airports hey Biccy? But what will happen to existing worm farms and ergonomic offices with robust pot plant selections? Will these be made redundant?

P.S Better wake old Terry and tell him the report has been released. He would have missed out on that news, he goes to bed at midday these days :ok:

Dangly Bits
3rd Jun 2014, 13:50

What parts of CASA would you take an axe to?

3rd Jun 2014, 14:05
The worm farms and pot plants should go through robust transformational change to ensure value for money for stakeholders and safety reasons can't argue with safety. Localized pot plants are safe pot plants.

Some pot plants could be donated to deserving senators with small pot plant allowances.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 14:33
when you look at the influence ICAO has had on CAsA and you look at the huge areas of aviation that ICAO seem totally ignorant of, I have come to the conclusion that ICAO must be one of the dumbest organisations on the planet.

how can you dictate how countries regulate aviation while not even acknowledging that a great part of it even exists.

of course ICAO exist above government control so there is no sorting out their stupidity.

australia really is becoming a country I could permanently migrate from.

maybe for the next year we should all send minister truss an AA battery each week. inundate him with them. ....because a dildo(like him) should never be used without a fresh battery.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 14:40
minister truss this is just plain stupid....

Risk in GA operations is generally proportional to the consequences: risk becomes greater as the number of persons carried on the aircraft increases, but given that operations are of small aircraft, there are usually few persons on the aircraft, lowering the risk.

the risk is on a per aircraft basis. the number of persons carried only changes the risk if your evaluation of risk is flawed.
you need to do better mate.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 14:44
this is quite wrong minister....

Education and awareness building activities are also key to the lifting of safety standards in the private GA sector.

the problem is that the sheer volume of dribble emanating from CAsA actually masks and obscures the actual issues and has people thinking that irrelevant issues are most important.

....but then you wouldn't know....

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 14:52
in all honesty minister you haven't a bloody clue....

in self administration you say..
The success of these groups is highly dependent on the governance, efficiency and knowledge of their governing bodies and it is on these areas that CASA has to concentrate its oversight activities.

you really haven't a clue.
the success comes from the competence of the participants not any organisational structure you bureaucratic paper shufflers impose on them.
I know, you're a hammer so all the world is a nail.

3rd Jun 2014, 20:53
It's a strange wee confection, is the WLR. But before having a taste there are some formalities to observe.

I believe I could be persuaded to elevate The Honourable Warren Truss MP from miniscule to minister provided the promised changes are enforced (no other option really). The minister could have so very easily done an Albo and delivered a soft white paper elephant; but didn't. No matter the motivation - a promise was made and kept; a report was ordered and delivered. What the unspeakable Albo left behind for the minister to deal with was seriously ugly. The situation was disgusting enough on the surface and only the gods could know what was floating beneath. I sometimes forget that parliament is a stage show, there's that which the audience see and 'that what goes on' backstage. The minister (and team) must deal with both sides of the finished production. So, no matter what opinion you have of the show, one must acknowledge the investment, hard work and risks. Tricky thing, pleasing all the people, all the time. In short, this IOS member says 'thank you' to the member for Wide Bay.

Of course the minister was juggling hot coals: but not for too long. Said coals were dropped into the capable, heavily gloved hands of D Forsyth. Esq. and his merry men. Once again the options were open and the report could have gone either way. Realistically, the report could never, ever be a silver bullet, especially as the options for a band aid solutions became severely limited. Referee Forsyth stepped up as the scrums became fierce, and turned nasty. Cynicism and pragmatism aside, I reckon Forsyth has managed a difficult task quite well indeed. I propose D Forsyth Esq. be elevated to associate IOS membership and call on the Gobbledock to second the motion. Bravo that man, well done.

The final accolade must be for the industry – great job. Clarity, cohesion and the courage to say – enough is enough – has won some hard earned yards, some self respect and a positive place to start. Great start to the match from the alphabet groups and individuals. Bravo, bravo indeed; well played. Now is not the time to back off, play up and play dirty in the ruck. The opposition will, for the whole 80 minutes. Selah.

I digress. The report. I feel it would be a mistake to 'shoot from the hip' on this report and a quick skim of the executive summary won't do, not at all. As said, it's a strange confection. There are parts which, to me at least, are 'stilted'. These parts reflect the difficulty of writing a report which very publicly exposes some of the government 'sensitive' parts and the difficulties facing the industry, combined with a hysterical press and uninformed public. Changes in syntax clearly define the sensitive areas where the panel has been obliged to tread very carefully; but the message is there and well done for being able to keep that message in play.

Anyway you look at it, the report is a positive step. It sends a clear message, now it will be up to the industry, incoming DAS, Minister and Senate team to make sure it works out: the way it was intended. I do agree with Sandilands; McComic should be escorted from building at the earliest opportunity before an abuse of considerable power is used to pay old scores. I am certain Forsyth could manage to find a night watchman, caretaker if you like, for the next short while. IMO - McComic must be considered 'armed and dangerous', capable, with malice and aforethought of inflicting terrible damage; any of the 49 'ers will confirm this opinion. His batting partner Dolan is out in July anyway (hallelujah) and although he is relatively harmless; the two of them together do frighten the horses and terrify the smaller children. Anyway – why stay where no one wants you?

Once you find your way past the top 'fluff' and bottom waffle, there are about 40 pages to read which are powerful; given the report must be framed in 'understatement', diplomatic and comprehensible to those outside of industry vaguely interested. If we achieve all the recommendations, undiluted, properly executed; it will be a great step taken out the darkness toward the light.

Page 70). Throughout this report, the Panel recommends changes that, if actioned, will contribute to the rebuilding of trust between the industry and CASA. Changing its regulatory philosophy is the most important shift that CASA must make. Coupled with a much stronger policy towards just culture, the Panel considers that the relationship between CASA and industry can reach a level of maturity where, as in many of the countries identified in Table 5, regulator access to safety data is no longer controversial.

Page 72). Although the Swedavia-McGregor Report was completed 25 years ago, the principles are still relevant today. The Panel considers that CASA should adopt an organisational structure similar to that developed for New Zealand, with modifications to suit the size and scope of the aviation community in Australia. The transformation envisaged in this concept, which is intended to structure CASA along the lines of industry’s activities (a client-oriented output model) rather than CASA’s activities, is depicted in Figure 8. Many variations of such a model are possible, and the proposal is not prescriptive. However, the key intention is to clarify accountability and improve the points of contact for the aviation community.

Okey-dokey – Seconds away – Gloves off - Round two.

3rd Jun 2014, 21:54
Firstly, thank you Minister Truss. I haven't read the entire report yet, just the executive summary but I believe that the review has delivered all that could reasonably be expected.

Without mincing words, the key finding is that the entire culture of CASA is toxic. Toxic to industry and toxic to its good staff. That is what words like "adversarial", "trust", "respect", "governance" and "just culture" strongly imply. All else follows from that. The question of adoption of FAA/NZ regulations is a bridge too far at present, but I would think it may naturally surface later if the rest of the changes are implemented.

However there's the rub; these are only recommendations and it is now up to the Government to respond and implement change.........

I personally would hope that a very senior person from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet drives the Governments response and adopts all the recommendations and then some. I would also hope that the same person is appointed to the CASA Board with a mandate to drive change. I would also hope that the new Director is made responsible to the Board as in other organisations.

Make no mistake, the job of the New Director is going to be very, very difficult without total support of the Board, the Department and the Government because driving organisational change is notoriously difficult to do,especially breaking the alleged "iron ring" at the heart of the problem.

On the other hand, I suspect if Mr. Mrdak and company have drafted the governments response then any change at all will be cosmetic and the embuggerisation of all industry participants will continue unabated.

The ball is in the Governments court, we have to wait and watch.

P.S. Mc Cormick? Finished. Dolan the same.

PPS. Why was the Pel AIr ATSB report an "aberration"?

4th Jun 2014, 00:52
PPS. Why was the Pel AIr ATSB report an "aberration"?
The review panel felt that the shitty Pel Air investigation was a 'one off' poor investigation, something 'out of character', something that is 'unlikely to happen again'. To that I say PONY POOH. Since mi mi mi Beaker took the reigns the many accident reports have become light weight and 'politically correct', some are even farcical. The ATsB still has a number of skilled, intelligent investigators and analysts at the coal face (thank god), but it is the decision making at the top level, the accountant decisions, the slicing, dicing, dissection and changing of investigator reports after they are completed so as to release a more kinder, less critical softly softly response that has become a major issue. The top layer and its 'beyond all sense and reason' approach has to go, warts and all. Let the guys and gals at the core shine again, please ....

Dangly, I don't have enough bandwidth to list all the sections I would take the axe or wrecking ball to, but at a minimum;

- Bring in 'accountability' and remove protective legal freedom from prosecution for CAsA employees
- Replace all 3 DAS positions and a number of the Executives. (I won't name names but members of the IOS and government know who the stumbling blocks are)
- Keep the Board numbers at 4. No need for 2 more, but replace the current 4 with aviation experienced Board members who come with reputations of integrity.
- Changes to the way the ICC operates have been recommended thank god, but the present system is stacked and in my opinion a complete shonk. A complete overhaul and appointment of someone like Michael Hart is imperative.
- Complete removal/redundancy of the 'Iron Ring' has to proceed if a new CAsA that works harmoniously with industry is to be achieved. We know who they are. Time to change position descriptions and out these destroyers once and for all. You can't build a house if half of CAsA builds up a row of bricks while another part of CAsA pulls down 2 rows.
- Up skilling of management and inspectors in modern practises and not bureaucratic dark age methods is required.
- Transparency and equality with the application of rules and activities among the industry. As Sunny would put it in another way - If you are prepared to smash GA or an Ag operator for something then you should be able to bollock the big end of town as well. We all know that certain carriers are 'untouchable'.
- KPI's (which has been recommended). And penalties toward CAsA for breaking SLA's. Where a business is financially crushed due to CAsA incompetence there should be a method for repatriation and costs awarded.
- An end to the abuse of taxpayer funds and the never ending bottomless tin of money that funds endless legal pursuits of innocent people due to no better reason than a few egos and some pride has been dented. This is sanctioned government accepted abuse.
- Annual ANAO and other accepted audits of CAsA finances and expenditure, legal activities, due processes, ethics, procedures, compliance with statutory laws and the Chicago convention.
For starters......

Frank Arouet
4th Jun 2014, 01:13
If Pelair was an aberration, so was Whyalla. Should I mention Lockhart River, Seaview Monarch etc?

The ball has hit the net. It's not in anybody's court until the industry response is served and recommendations are subsequently adopted or not.

Change has occurred due to the IOS efforts, the most major demonstration of direct action by industry and players in my living history. I've been around since 1965 and never seen anything like it. Of note there has been no public disobedience or disorder and only the antagonist in this case can be seen to be guilty of abuse of power leading to a complete vote of no confidence by industry and highlighted in the recommendations.

This is a hiatus and it can be seen as pivotal whether we go up or down. Much thought and input is needed by industry and now would be a good time to mend old wounds, put ego's aside and unite all aviation interests to support a reply with a common theme that best fits the positive recommendations.

4th Jun 2014, 01:26
The only changes recommended that are likely to be acted upon is appointing more people to positions of power within the ATSB and CASA! An extra Commissioner for the ATSB who has significant aviation experience! Why not just replace the one we have at the moment? At the end of the day the industry has yet another report with yet more recommendations which the government of the day can choose to implement or ignore. Like the two Senate reports before it the recommendations show how far behind the rest of the world CASA is. One of CASA's primary roles is auditing yet the report states that it doesn't even do that properly and should get 3rd party contractors to help it out.:ugh:

Watching these reports being wheeled out is like watching announcements from AJ about how he is going to turn QF around. Until something catastrophic happens it will be BAU, then it will be "how could something like this happen in Australia?" As one of the regular posters is fond of stating TICK TOCK!