PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

Cactusjack
28th Feb 2014, 23:02
'K';
ASA, under Hood direction have bearded their lions and, through the Mildura incident, have clearly demonstrated acceptance of their issues, parallel to the Norfolk event, and are addressing them. The well known McComic dislike of Hood, which may just have encouraged Hood to toddle off was a grave error. Hood is a keeper. Hood knows where the skeletons are buried and (IMO) he's a lot smarter than the likes Campbell or Chambers. Given the elbow room and some encouragement; things may have been very different for CASA and the ATSB. But they are not; not now, are they?
Hoodshould of and could have been the reformer of CAsA, hell he tried. But unfortunately his youth, credibility, skill and his ability to gain respect from the troops became unpalatable to the Iron Circle. Pel Air became the perfect tool for which the rusty ring could dispatch a GM Operations and assign a mighty large pineapple. Hood jumped before being unjustly pushed. Don't get me wrong, the Hooded one did have to work within the CAsA system, so he also has a small amount of industry blood on his tender hands, however the man tried to take CAsA in the right direction, as did the former manager of the SOB (safety oversight branch), however both were discarded by the geriatrics and wrecking balls of CAsA, the trio of DAS. Hoods coffin was nailed when he applied for ASA CEO and the Hawaiian shirt wearer grew indignant as Hood. Also the A380 sky sentinel endorsed old fart grew indignant at the former SOB Manager when the old fart was 'called out' for being the complete knob that he is......the rest as they say history, and this is the legacy of what the Miniscule, his adviser and the Board allow to happen to good people at CAsA.

More from the Ferryman;
But at least we now know that Phelan has their measure, it's passing strange that McComic didn't take on the AAAA submission or AMROBA; both freely available, concise, written in English and published long before Phelan and PA got their act together. I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech. The implications speak volumes on the type of man; and by extension his supporters, we see being slowly, but very surely publicly revealed. I have always found that bullies are invariably cowards and usually cheats attracting a definite type of follower. To take on and deride a journalistic submission where legal threat may be in play, rather than an industry peer group where it is not; is not the behaviour of an officer or a gentleman.
McComickis dead man walking, and on his walk down the green mile can't resist taking a shot at one of his most hated IOS stalwarts, Messr Phelan. Phelan has the Skull's number, and the Skull doesn't like it. Be that as it may, the Skulls slippery shot at a vocal oppose of Fort Fumbles antics is to be expected. The Skull's rhetoric is to be taken with a grain of salt as anything that comes out of his mouth is shite of the purest quality! In fact it is the Skulls commentary and vocabulary that will be somewhat missed when he fades away into the River Styx sunset, the Skull has become somewhat fun at times, and to listen to his ferocious ramblings about other human beings has become quite amusing amongst the IOS fraternity.
To be perfectly honest I wish I had been the Skulls F/O at some stage in life, how I would have loved to have baited this angry man on the flight deck and watched his lips curl, his forehead vein 'pop' out, and listen to the tirade of vicious verbal abuse as he lost control of his emotions!! To see this display in the office is fun, to see it at a conference is delectable but to see it at 40,000 feet over the sea of Japan would have been priceless.....oh what a shame, what a shame.

Selah, toot toot and tick tock

Sarcs
28th Feb 2014, 23:25
Kharon:I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech.
Glad to see that the adjusted, in brackets, didn’t get past your scrutiny “K”…:D

Adjusted: A small (past tense) derivative of adjust, which is defined as…

“…alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result e.g. "he smoothed his hair and adjusted his tie"…”

The synonyms are interesting…

“…synonyms: modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance..”

Definitions aside, what is it intended to indicate in the DAS’s (soon to be retired) missive??

Not wanting to enter into any crude, or tautological, or tendentious arguments on the subject of page counts of other jurisdictions aviation safety regs, so I won’t. However it is an interesting exercise to explore the part where the first (adjusted) comes up. It was in reference to a crude page count assessment on the intended CASR Part 61 vs the current FAR Parts 61/63.

Note: The words intended & current are crucial in this as they go to the reason for adjusted (in brackets).

If you briefly explore the history of FAR Part 61/63 you will find that the original (or intended) Part 61/63 was first made active some 30 odd years ago (I think 1978?). More interesting is that it had far earlier origins and was basically a carry-over (copy if you like) from the US Civil Aeronautics Act 1938, which then became the FAA Act in 1958. Part 61/63 in that interim period was listed as a CAR (Civil Aeronautics Regulations).

As we all know once proposed legislation or regulations become ‘live’ they grow with the times. {Comment: Case in point is the CASR 1998, that crudely put, has grown from 190 pages to 2186 pages.}

So in the interim period, of 76 years, FAR 61/63 (formerly CAR 61/63) has naturally grown as times change…:rolleyes:

Hmm…I think…:confused:...that is what the DAS (STBR) obscurely means by the word adjusted (in brackets)…:ok:

Frank Arouet
1st Mar 2014, 00:22
The DAS submission would be in DRAFT form up until the last moment to allow for 'adjustments' required after reading all the other submissions. At least that's how I'd do it if I were to wear his crown for a bit.


On a similar subject, the DAS reports to the CASA Board, yes? If so, why is he on the Board, (or since Toller is this not the case)? This would be like reporting to yourself in the company of others explaining your interpretation of amended matters in such a way as to pass any resolution.


Under The Corporations Act, which isn't necessarily in any government jurisdiction, a Director 'must keep himself informed'. Failure to do so is no excuse, but could perhaps be ameliorated by a factor if the Director or member of the Board is given false, misleading or obtuse information by another member of that Board.


One wonders if all information given to the CASA Board is accurate, contemporary and relevant. Do they act on the information given by the person responsible for reporting to them and if that person who reports is also a member of the same Board, is there no conflict of interest if say, matters of complaint against the reporter, (DAS), have been run through a 'wordsmith' 'doctored' or omitted, and the Board is left ignorant of ALL the pertinent FACTS, thus not enabling them to 'keep themselves informed'.


If this Board reports to The Minister on inaccurate or jaundiced information, is the Minister able to be well enough informed to make objective decisions on the probity of that information.


The CASA Board of Directors are to be held as responsible as the DAS on information given to The Minister who in turn informs the Public.


The 'buck may stop' with the Minister, but there is a potential for a lot of others to 'sink' with the ship while he rows off in the lifeboat.


If I were a CASA Board member I would make a preemptive plan of action now before it's too late. Making a plan to stay with the boat and the skipper would be a bad move I believe. The Admiral is already ashore preparing for his send off and rewards. I hear Barnaby is selecting the wines.

Creampuff
1st Mar 2014, 02:09
Apropos of nothing specific and no one in particular, an article by Jack Waterford, titled “Practised in the arts of deception” makes interesting reading. (Here: Practised in the arts of deception (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/practised-in-the-arts-of-deception-20140228-33rht.html)

Robert Armstrong, secretary of the British cabinet, famously called it being ''economical with the truth''. It's a technique of volunteering no information, answering questions literally, and playing a completely dead bat. Confirming only facts already known. Conscious use of ambiguous phrases such as ''as far as I know'' or ''to my knowledge'' that can equally imply inquiry or lack of it.

It's about deceiving without lying, misleading, answering questions not asked, and failing to answer questions which are. It's playing the smart-arse. Making sure that nothing one says could be a springboard for criticism for what has occurred. When not ''cover-up'', which it often is, it's about ''providing cover''.

It's the adroit and practised way of verbalising with mental reservations unstressed parts of speech that negate the apparent meaning, or claimed ''misunderstanding'', of questions. It never, of course, involves a lie - in some cases perjury - even if any notion of ''the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'' has been strangled into meaninglessness.

Those who practise this art are often immoderately pleased at their abilities to conceal, evade, mislead and leave a completely false impression. It's ''protecting the minister''. It is regarded as one of the highest calls of duty upon the senior public servant. Even as old bonds of fidelity and confidence between politician and public servant wither, a public servant who loses a minister is careless, and one who gets a minister into trouble is negligent. To do so by wrongly describing the facts and considerations is bad - even unprofessional. To dob the minister in by telling the truth is even worse - a form of unfaithfulness worse than (though akin to) adultery.

It's also practised, as a matter of routine, by military officers answering questions from people outside the direct chain of command. Anyone else - parliamentarians, press and public - will be told only what it is convenient for government and the services to have them know.

This week, Angus Campbell, a senior soldier who has been seconded to a largely bureaucratic position - which includes oversight over Australia's concentration camps - was accused by Steve Conroy in estimates of covering up for government. He was - at least in the sense of consciously avoiding giving any information that might embarrass the government or the military. No doubt he thought that was his duty. Perhaps it is. But there has never been and should never be a tradition that an officer - or a bureaucrat - who does it is immune from criticism, or questions about whether he, or she, is really serving the public interest by extinguishment of sunlight as a disinfectant to bad policy, bad operations and bad leadership, civil or military.

Criticism is more necessary when a national security or ''operation'' or, now, ''on-water'' excuse is used to claim immunity from scrutiny, even after needless deaths. One day, indeed, there should be a public inquiry into the antecedents and limits of the claim - originally made by government, then adopted by Campbell - that the ''on-water'' activities of border command would be fatally compromised by public (and people-smuggler) knowledge of what was being done by politicians and sailors in Australia's name.

Being unhelpful to parliamentary committees is a bipartisan sport. After all, politicians hide behind bureaucrats and officers when it suits. Likewise with hiding behind the flag, by which any criticism of military judgment or activity is counted as a betrayal of the nobility of Gallipoli, or the service ethos.

The public servant or officer who deceives to protect the present minister is probably doing it to protect the Labor one before him, and the Liberal one before that. Loyal lying is to the government of the day, the policy of the hour, the tactic of the minute. It serves, usually, no long-term purpose, no higher ideal. It is sometimes founded on a naive belief that loyalty will be returned, or that a politician you protect ''owes'' you something, or is blackmailable if ever one is in a fix.

In some departments, not least Prime Minister and Cabinet, one suspects there are informal classes about being unhelpful to parliamentary committees, even, perhaps particularly, on issues that matter not a bit. In clubs, some senior public servants quietly boast to each other about how they faced down the bowling, dispatched the odd loose ball to the boundary and never once gave a chance. Even better, of course, is if one gets a moral advantage over the inquisitors. Sometimes, a parliamentary Rumpole will express frustration and suggest that the batsman is being less than completely forthright. Great umbrage can be taken, on the Ken Henry model or, now, the David Hurley model for such an infamous suggestion.

In 2011, Senator Michael Ronaldson accused Lieutenant-General Ken Gillespie, then chief of army, of ''prevaricating'' about an awards ceremony. Strictly, Gillespie had been telling the truth, but he was also prevaricating, if only by efforts to distract. He was loyally protecting the army from its embarrassment about a broken promise to veterans. And protecting David Feeney, then at the dizzy heights of his political career as parliamentary secretary for defence, who himself showed a talent for obfuscation and misdirection that might have suggested a background in factional politics, public service or both. Feeney's statements were replete with some of the classic distractors: ''Now let me clarify this …''; ''As I comprehend it …''; ''That is my advice''; ''I am advised …''; ''If that is your suggestion, then all I can say is that that is my advice and I know nothing of it''; ''I am advised now, however, …''. And so on.

Gillespie intervened to ''help'' the minister. He explained one of many sources of confusion, if by suggesting it was the only one.

Ronaldson: I am afraid, with the greatest respect, that given the prevarication in relation to this matter … I am far more prepared to accept the views of those who refused to come … I am more prepared to accept their take on this and I am more prepared to accept the take of the journalists involved than from anything I have heard today.

Gillespie: That is for you to …

Ronaldson: I thank you for your prevarication.

Gillespie: That is your choice to make that.

It is typical of the incompetence of those staffing Bill Shorten, and of Shorten himself, that this incident was misdescribed this week as Ronaldson calling Gillespie a ''coward''. He wasn't, and Shorten had to spend several days apologising.

In 2011, there was no collective intake of breath at what Ronaldson said. Chief of the Defence Force Angus Houston was in the room but did not take public umbrage and call for a return to the day when, apparently, the word of an officer and a gentleman could always be taken as absolute writ.

Ronaldson had not been suggesting that Gillespie was a pawn of Labor. He did not really mean that Gillespie had not been telling the truth. Indeed, Gillespie was telling the truth, but the truth as he saw it completely elided anything to do with the embarrassment caused Defence by the commander in chief, and the political and media reaction to the consequences. The incident, to him, followed a confusion of two separate functions, and a worthy extra tacked on to another worthy event. But nothing he said cleared the air or made things simpler. I doubt General Gillespie would have reached the rank he did had he intended to. His level of command is much more focused on assembling the resources necessary for his service to meet the needs of the government of the day - a process for intellectual, political and administration infighting, rather than traditional military virtues.

Horatio Nelson, famously, put a telescope to his blind eye during the Battle of Copenhagen so that he could say, honestly, that he ''had not seen'' an order - conveyed by flag from his commander, Sir Hyde Parker, to withdraw his ships from the fight. A former defence chief, Admiral Chris Barrie, was once accused of doing something similar in failing to update his information about whether children were thrown overboard from a refugee boat. Barrie could hardly but be aware that both John Howard and Peter Reith, with the help of their private offices, were being accused of constructing ''I wasn't told'' alibis. Formally told by Rear Admiral Chris Ritchie that there was ''no evidence'' of children being thrown overboard, Barrie told Ritchie: ''I would not change my advice to the minister [Reith] without conclusive proof that the original advice to Reith was wrong.''

Paul Kelly, in his book The March of Patriots, observed: ''Even if Barrie was unconvinced, his obligation was clear - he should have asked Ritchie to 'resolve it once and for all and report back'. But Barrie was a CDF who did not want to be convinced the story was wrong.''

It was Barrie's fate to be remembered primarily for his provision of political cover to the government of the day, over an affair that went right to the basis of any concept of military honour. Students of the military art, and those lecturing them, now learn of this, and similar incidents, as examples of what not to do.

But the military caste has little to learn about being forthright from public servants. In estimates this week, the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Roger Wilkins, was asked about subpoenas from the Hanger royal commission for Rudd-era cabinet documents:

Wilkins: Are you asking whether we have received such a request?

Senator Joseph Ludwig: Yes.

Wilkins: No.

Senator Kim Carr: So, no documents have been handed over, as far as you are aware?

Wilkins: Not from us.

As Crikey.com.au reported, that same afternoon, an PM&C officer told another committee a folder of cabinet documents had been given to A-G's department which, with the Australian Government Solicitor, was co-ordinating compliance with royal commission requests. Wilkins sent a letter ''clarifying'' his evidence - in language that may well have been in German. He was later asked about it.

Ludwig: Senator Kim Carr asked whether or not any documents had been handed over to the royal commission. My recollection is that your evidence was, 'Not from us' …

Wilkins: That is exactly what I did not say. I said they are not our documents.

George Brandis: In fairness, I think Mr Wilkins was being asked about Attorney-General's Department documents and his answer was strictly correct. But in order to clarify that answer - not to derogate from it but to clarify it and expand a little on it - Mr Wilkins has been good enough to provide this letter.

Ludwig: When you say, 'Not from us', there would have been documents in the Attorney-General's portfolio that related to the home insulation program, would there not?

Wilkins: No, they were not - that is my point.

Very clever, Roger Mr Wilkins. But anyone reading could be excused for resolving never to believe you on anything unless it had been parsed by Fowler, translated back and forth from German, and run up the flag and saluted by Angus Campbell.

Frank Arouet
1st Mar 2014, 08:29
Interesting reading indeed:


The Military are responsible for carrying out the will of the elected government of the day. If that elected government changes there is no hang over of duty to the old government, it takes new orders from that newly elected government the day that government is sworn in. Be in no doubt, Lt General Angus Campbell is acting in his military capacity and Operation sovereign Borders is a military Operation despite the bleating's of Shorten, The Greens or the Media and there is no reason to compromise military operations by offerings to anybody outside of government. If I recall correctly, all 'The Guardian' journalists were 'sent to Coventry' after the sinking of HMS Sheffield. (apologies for the obvious play on words).


Now with Politicians, it's not uncommon to keep 'Advisors' from the last mob on the same job despite any pre formed or hereditary ties. This is something I don't understand as it has a very great potential to perpetuate any existing traits. I'm unsure if the Conservatives are just 'soft cocks' or have a plan regarding 'my ABC' for example.

dubbleyew eight
1st Mar 2014, 08:54
again apropos of nothing specific....

Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume the early english designer has turned his hand to writing aviation histories. (good ones too)

In his book Flying Flea, Henri Mignet's Pou du Ciel is the following quote..
But it was in Australia where the greatest number of Fleas were built outside Britain. This was in spite of an extremely strict Australian airworthiness rules (stricter even, at that time, than ours [britain’s]) which virtually prohibited any aircraft from flying without a full and certifiable certificat of airworthiness. Happily Australian’s, like Yorkshiremen, dont respond easily to city-dwelling rules makers and so the first flight of a flea took place on January 31st 1936....
On June 1st,(1936) the Australian authorities issued a circular categorically prohibiting all further flying of Fleas. Six weeks later a second Flea was tested at Parafield and the following May another was flown.....
In all at least 56 people are known to have been actively involved with the Flea in Australia before 1939.

so it seems we in Australia have a long history of over the top aviation regulation ...and equally just ignoring the bastards and doing it anyway.:E

Creampuff
1st Mar 2014, 09:21
... Be in no doubt, Lt General Angus Campbell is acting in his military capacity and Operation sovereign Borders is a military Operation despite the bleating's of Shorten, The Greens or the Media and there is no reason to compromise military operations by offerings to anybody outside of government. ...One small problem in that theory: The Minister for Defence has stated, repeatedly and publicly, that Operation Sovereign Borders is a civil, not military, operation.

That, and the fact that the ADF owes is duty of obedience to the Queen, not the Minister for Immigration.

LTGEN Campbell will be rewarded well, and pay dearly, for his loyalty to politicians. (And, to get the thread back on track, so will Mr McCormick.)

Kharon
1st Mar 2014, 20:11
Thanks Creamy, enjoyable article to start a Sunday with; Canberra Times, who'd a thunk it. Whilst on the subject of sleight of hand; can anyone explain in lay terms where the CASA board actually stand on that subject, in law. Just suppose (for arguments sake) that the board was vaguely aware of a problem – say Pel Air – as we are all familiar with it.

Would a meeting be called to discuss 'the issue'; or, would it be left to the ground troops to sort it out and report back during the routine meeting schedule?

To what degree could the board expect to be informed on the progress of a matter like the Norfolk ditching?

What I am trying to determine is 'where the buck stops'. If the board have only been given a brief outline and not too many specifics, can they be accountable in some way? Corporate law and director liability legislation is way beyond my poor skill set, but I expect that somewhere in the rules, someone has to carry the can. The question, to my lay mind is one of how much would they be told and was that information sufficient for the board to form a clear picture of circumstances, events and probable outcomes? There is quite a scale difference between being told – no worries – minor event all under control, to 'Huston we have a problem'.

Would it be quite forgivable for a board to go back to the tea, biscuits and budget without a care, relying on 'executive' advice; or, would there be a 'legal' need to investigate further or ask for more information? Can't see an event like Quadrio or Barrier making it into the hallowed chambers as much more than a one line summary – notice of execution – with little in the way of detail; but what, in general terms does the board 'need' to know?, how is that decided? and by whom?

Too much for my wooden head; wouldn't mention it normally, only the article and an interesting conversation with a savvy 'CEO' prompted the little grey cells.

denabol
1st Mar 2014, 23:17
A rather embarrassing post by Ben, illustrated with a woodcut of the Spanish Inquisition or somehting like that, has fingered the ARSS for not publishing the public submissions.

Could get ugly quickly. I notice he also published an article in The Australian the other day laying into Qantas management, and maanged to infuriate Joyce into mentioning him on Channel 9 breakfast show. I think efforts to engage the broader media in aviation are worth it, especially Adele Ferguson on the Sydney Morning Herald.

A series of submissions to Australia’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/panel_members.aspx) (ASRR) that offer detailed documented criticism of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have in effect been suppressed by that panel of ‘independent’ experts chaired by David Forsyth, a distinguished career aviation administrator and aero engineer.
The ASRR decided not to publish the ‘public’ submission lodged for its consideration.
This action, which is contrary to the long established practices of accountability and transparency in democracies world wide, has stunned a number of professionals in bodies like the US FAA who had contacted Plane Talking seeking a single point link to the submissions which had been intended by the parties making them to be public.
Because of the disrepute this action by the ASRR might bring to Australia, and the panel itself, including a loss of confidence in the proceedings, a list of links to 11 of the public release intended submissions are provided below.


Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/02/australia-suppresses-criticism-of-its-aviation-safety-body/)

Frank Arouet
1st Mar 2014, 23:19
Creampuff;


As per your previous The Minister for Defence states a civil action, but like the Korea War, a 'Police Action' was run by the Military and sanctioned by the Minister of the day. This Minister is acting on behalf of the Executive of the Government. The Indonesians are now patrolling their borders. Is this a Civil or Military Action?


The Military owes it duty to the elected government of the day.


The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.


To quote from my Commission: "To xxxx whereas you have been appointed to be, on and from xx/xx/xxxx an officer of the Australian Army; Now therefor I, the Right Honourable Sir John Robert Kerr, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Most venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's Cousel learned in the law, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, issue in pursuance of section 10 of the Defence Act 1903, this Commission to you as an officer of the Australian Army: AND I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers. Given under my hand etc. ... It's got nothing to do with loyalty to any particular party. It's duty.


To get back to where I tried to liken this fact to the strange addiction that besets us with political advisors left over from the last mob, I would suggest this is because of the epidemic of public servants ensconced in positions so firmly that any new government are loathe to divest themselves lest memories from the past are brought to the present day.


Regarding the CASA Board, I would suggest their duty should eclipse the standard of the Corporations Act and answer to a higher moral and ethical jurisdiction.


I doubt they do. It's my opinion they are treated like mushrooms and when the day of reckoning arrives they will wonder what they were doing there in the first place.


If the DAS is on that Board, I feel it is compromised.


EDIT for denabol post: Amazing that they would invite further criticism by rejecting public submissions after they were solicited. To call it outrageous would be accurate but there must be a better word to use.

Creampuff
2nd Mar 2014, 05:05
Last drift, I promise….The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day … … Not correct … … and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.Correct. … I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers.Is Minister Morrison a “superior officer” of Major General Campbell within the meaning of the standard terms of Commission?

If Minister Morrison ordered Major General Campbell to shoot the GG and CDF, would Major General Campbell be obliged to carry out that order?

If the GG and CDF ordered Major General Campbell to shoot Minister Morrison, would Major General Campbell be obliged to carry out that order?

(Don’t get too wrapped up in this hypothetical, Frank. There are orders, and then there are orders. Their ‘legality’ sometimes depends on who gets the Queen to sack whom, first.)

Back on topic: The submitters to the ASRR are not protected by parliamentary privilege. I have no knowledge of the Panel’s thinking on the issue, but I guess they figure if someone decides to publish his/her/its own submission on someone's websit, the Panel is not responsible for the consequences of publishing the content. However, if the Panel decides to publish submissions on the Department’s website, the Panel and the Department may be responsible for the consequences of publishing the content.

Frank Arouet
2nd Mar 2014, 06:19
Answer via PM. This is probably irritating the moderators.


The submitters to the ASSR include natural and non natural persons and identities which include many who's jurisdiction is with ASIC. It's not up to the panel to decide on consequences of publishing, it's up to the submitters.

Creampuff
2nd Mar 2014, 06:35
Not quite Frank.

If I post some defamatory material on PPRUNE, the owners of the website may be at risk as well as me.

Purely hypothetically, if e.g. Pro Aviation chose to author and publish, on its own website, an ASRR Submission that contained material defamatory of current or past CASA staff, Pro Aviation alone is at risk of defamation actions brought by those current or past CASA staff. If the ASRR Panel decided to publish the same (hypothetical) submission on the Department’s website, the Panel and the Department may be at risk as well.

dubbleyew eight
2nd Mar 2014, 06:49
if we want to fix the problems of aviation regulation in this country we need to identify exactly where the problems are.

the ex-RAAF being employed in aviation regulation has seen them either deliberately or accidentally try to cast civilian aviation in ways that are familiar to the ex-RAAF.
if you look at maintenance organisations the regs try to make them look like RAAF maintenance hangars.
if you look at private ownership rights these are nowhere in evidence in australian aviation law probably because in the RAAF private ownership was an unknown concept.

I looked at the old CAAP on biennial flight reviews last night and indeed it looks like a reasonable approach. It seems that a lot of CASA intent fails in the delegated coal face. while I was watering the grass in front of my hangar one of the guys told me of his experiences recently with his biennial. he found it a little tedious but got the sign off sorted. the instructor then showed him the new changed requirements that would be in force next time.
his comment was that he was not submitting to that. it was totally over the top. he was not intending to ever submit to a biennial ever again.

australian aviation regulation is not far off track, but it is subtly wrong on every front.

dubbleyew eight
2nd Mar 2014, 06:52
creampuff they'd find it all a lot easier if there was nothing to criticise. :rolleyes:

Sarcs
2nd Mar 2014, 06:59
Mr FAA (IASA) comes a knockin...:E

Well signs a not good so far for the miniscule, Ben's article is somewhat inevitable really..TICK TOCK miniscule...:{

Comet's comment could be prediction of things to come maybe?? :rolleyes::comet

Posted March 2, 2014 at 11:43 am

It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action. Because Australia won’t.

The FAA should downgrade Australia to a Category 2 rating under its International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, just like it recently did to India. It would be for Australia’s good, and the only way Australia will be motivated to get its house in order.

Australia has an overwhelming culture of secrecy. You see it in the military. You see it in the Immigration department (news about asylum seekers and boats arrivals is suppressed), and you see it in aviation administration, such as the Pel-Air crash inquiry, and now the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

It’s a pretty dire state of affairs when public criticism of aviation administration and CASA must be suppressed by the government. You would expect this sort of action to happen in Uganda.
And ProAviation's update, from the Chair of the WLRP, points towards an uncertainty of a possible fix to the basket case that is the RRP & the administration of aviation safety here in Oz..:( :Forsyth Committee unscrambling the issues
(http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2178#more-2178)
The strength and spread of interest in the government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) process took almost everybody by surprise. ProAviation had already been made aware of numerous submissions from industry sector groups, trade unions, airports, other government agencies, individuals from pretty well all the aviation sectors we’re aware of, AOC and MRO approval holders and even the medical and legal professions; each commenting on their own regulatory hot spots and in most cases identifying well-considered solutions.

For an update we contacted Australian industry veteran David Forsyth, who heads up the ASRR Panel. He says the review has now received over 260 submissions and supplementaries, and Panel members have already interviewed over 200 people or groups in the first phase of the team’s in-depth probe into the regulatory environment in which the industry does its business.

“We’ve had a lot of interest which has been really encouraging. Submissions have come from right across the country; quite a lot from the areas we visited around Christmas time when the panel first visited Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, and spoke to people at the GA airports – Moorabbin, Bankstown, Parafield and Archerfield. At that time we also met with other organisations in those capitals. So when you add them all up, at this point we’ve spoken to probably around 200 people now. The panel is back in Canberra at the moment where we’ve been talking to give them more people. We spent a day in Sydney last week and a day in Melbourne, and we’re splitting up over the weekend. Two of us will be in Perth this week and the other two are going up to Cairns; and we’ll be talking to people in both those locations too. We obviously don’t have time to see everybody around such a big country, but we wanted to make sure we had two of us up in Cairns and two in Perth and that accounts for this coming week.”

The exploratory work has already helped the Panel identify and classify issues that will help them sharpen their focuses and their priorities.

“Rather than continuing what we’ve been doing with the more general stakeholder meetings, talking about a whole range of things and getting their inputs on all the terms of reference, we’re now starting to concentrate on particular issues. The way we structured those interviews this last week, we spoke to specific people about their issues and to others about their submissions. We’re obviously not going to get to all 260 people who made submissions, but if there’s a particular matter to run down, like pilot medicals for example, then we’ll go and talk specifically to individuals who’ve made submissions, or who are in the business, or have spoken to us about those issues.

“We’re very happy with progress so far. We think all of the issues are on the table now and we don’t think there’ll be too many new matters. The sort of comment we getting from both talking to people and from their submissions when we meet with them, has been very, very good. I didn’t really expect anything else, but I think my UK and Canadian colleagues are both quite impressed by how articulate participants have been, and also how reasonable they’ve been. I do understand that they can get upset about things but they’re not being overly emotional about it, they’re quite factual and clinical, and a lot of them are making really good suggestions as to how things might be done well, so thus far we’ve been very impressed, and it’s been great.”

The Panel expects to be briefing Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss regularly between now and May, and to deliver its draft report in early May; and members are confident that target can be met, says Mr Forsyth.

“We haven’t reached any final conclusions about anything at this point, but obviously we’ve got some ideas. We’ll be briefing the Minister sometime this week and indicating a few things that we’re starting to consider more deeply, and I’m sure we’ll get some comments back. We’ll continue to poke and prod while talking further to industry about their thinking, as well of course as talking to people in government about the same things. So altogether I’m quite happy with progress at this stage.”

With the government response to the Senate committee’s ATSB/CASA investigation report due to be tabled this week, the ASRR Panel is also working closely with the committee and in particular with Senators David Fawcett and Nick Xenophon:

“The whole panel met with them last December when they were first here. We’re meeting with a couple of the Senators again this coming week, and we’ve certainly set up meetings with Senators Fawcett and Xenophon. While my overseas colleagues were back home over Christmas, January and half of February, I and Panel secretary Richard Farmer went around and continued to talk to industry, mostly on specific subjects, continued to ask questions of CASA and the Department and other agencies, and to get answers to questions the other panelists had asked. I’m not saying it’s easy but I’m happy with what’s been achieved in the gathering of preliminary information.”

While he’s obviously unable to talk about specific issues at this point, Mr Forsyth observes:

“This industry rarely agrees on anything but they’re certainly agreed on a couple of things this time which is good. Some of the issues of course are sort of ‘low-hanging fruit,’ and there are some things that we’ll be able to reach a conclusion on quicker than others. Those are much easier to deal with than the ones where the industry isn’t in accord but on most other issues it has a reasonably consistent view.

“One of the hardest things to deal with is the regulatory reform program, because although the industry is almost unanimous that it’s a dog’s breakfast, they’re not united on what the solution is, and that makes it the main area where there are significantly different views across the industry. They are not agreed on the solution to the regulatory reform program and there are quite a range of differences of opinion. Some like the New Zealand model, some favour the US FARs, some people like the EASA, some people say we should just live with what we’ve got. Some say the whole thing should be chucked out and rewritten, and some think it only requires a very small amount of work. So there are a whole range of views on regulatory reform as I’m sure you’d expect.”

With over 260 contributors of submissions and the hundreds or thousands of industry players directly involved to various degrees, it’s obviously impractical to circulate a draft report to all stakeholders, and Mr Forsyth doesn’t see that happening:

“As far as I know the way the system is going to work is that we’ll talk with the Minister about the draft report and see if there’s anything we’ve missed that he wants us to look at, and give us the resources to do that if we need to. But failing that, we’ll then give him the final report and where it goes after that is up to the Minister. But so far we’re happy with the way we are progressing.

“I think the Minister is being kept well informed and obviously wants do something. I also think it can be fixed. It’s been encouraging, and it seems it just requires a bit of common sense on everybody’s part to work through all the issues. But as you know, it’s become a bit unpleasant out there both for industry and for the government, and usually those relationships can be repaired if you work hard at them.

“So let’s hope we can make some suggestions that will help with that. A lot of people are pinning a lot of hope on the process, and the weight of their expectations is huge!”
Oh dear miniscule what have you unleashed?? :{

dubbleyew eight
2nd Mar 2014, 09:35
it is as well to see that many pilots see CASA in this light....

https://www.peaceproject.com/sites/default/files/LS22_TheLimitsOfTyrantsAreProscribedByTheEnduranceOfThoseThe yOppress.jpg

seems a lot of australians are running out of patience for the smoke and mirrors nonsense of safety as a religion divorced from reality.

Cactusjack
2nd Mar 2014, 22:38
WLRP trying to unscramble a $230 million+ egg before..
Well sarcs, the below footage was retrieved from the same Can'tberra safe that the WLR submissions are being closely guarded in. The footage shows members of the Australian Governments Turd Polishing Committee running up the steps of parliament house to the Miniscules office while trying to keep the now $250 million dollar Australian aviation reg reform egg from being scrambled! Oops, too late for that;

Olly-mpics Challenge #6 - Egg and Spoon Race - YouTube

After that word from the Miniscules office it is back to feeding Creampuffs beloved chooks.
(Footage of the Miniscule and Kingcrat doing their thing with the Australian aviation egg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhRkAzaDuyg


Toot Toot, Tick Tock and Brrrt Brrrt

Frank Arouet
3rd Mar 2014, 01:17
I still have my doubts the minister is being 'well informed' as opposed to 'informed'. If the CASA Board report what could be 'doctored' information, then they should be cognizant of what happened at the Nuremberg Trials when they tried it on with the 'I was only acting under orders' excuse, (or in this case ignorant of the real story). This probably relates to Creampuffs question on Generals orders to shooting GG's and other identities.

Paragraph377
3rd Mar 2014, 07:08
Naughty Creampuff, you've been to this school as well?
Robert Armstrong, secretary of the British cabinet, famously called it being ''economical with the truth''. It's a technique of volunteering no information, answering questions literally, and playing a completely dead bat. Confirming only facts already known. Conscious use of ambiguous phrases such as ''as far as I know'' or ''to my knowledge'' that can equally imply inquiry or lack of it.
It's about deceiving without lying, misleading, answering questions not asked, and failing to answer questions which are. It's playing the smart-arse. Making sure that nothing one says could be a springboard for criticism for what has occurred. When not ''cover-up'', which it often is, it's about ''providing cover''.
Almost all politicians are actually trained in the above mentioned skill by consultants specializing in this field. The government picks up the tab and it is expensive. Most of you would already know that, but for some of our junior Pprune folk they may not be aware of this. Bill Clinton would be one of the most skilled individuals you could ever study in this arena. He is brilliant at the art of bullshit. Robert Macnamara was also a master of poker faced non incriminating non yes/no answers, and NZ's Robert Muldoon (whom I despise) was also a fluent bullshit artist. So don't be fooled friends, if you have been watching the Senate fun you will have noticed plenty of this mischief. Unfortunately it is extremely hard work and takes a lot of concentration, so normally the 'bullshitters' body language will tell a different story, normally the truth. It's all fun to those who enjoy human factors and behavioural analysis techniques.
I pulled a similar stunt on a Regulator many moons ago, played them at their own game and made sure I didn't answer one single question with a yes/no. I would recommend that all folks study the technique and apply it for yourself. Never give a yes/no answer, just look at the bureaucrats, there is a good reason why they do what they do. MrDak does it pretty well and so does Truss, the Skull is mediocre as he can't control emotion, the Beaker is plain useless and couldn't bullshit his way through a cover up story about broken school desks, and Hoody is good at lip service (so to speak) when required, but he usually plays a straight bat (again, so to speak) hence the reason people generally like and listen to him, he keeps bullshit to a minimum.

Anyway, the WLR has placed a few nuggets out there for the IOS to consume. My take thus far, from their wording of matters, is that they agree that there are major problems, they agree that some things can be fixed in a short period of time (hint hint the disposal of the Skull and Beaker) and they acknowledge the powers to be ( government) have little control of matters (that's where a recommendation for David Fawcett as a junior aviation minister may come about). I think this review, although structured and obviously an attempt to appease the growing numbers of verbal critics, has backfired and the airing of so much dirty laundry certainly should have the Miniscule and the PM's attention, and if not then perhaps a visit by ICAO and the FAA, plus a subsequent downgrade of Australia's safety rating will wake these clowns up from their hibernation?

Kharon
3rd Mar 2014, 20:39
It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action.

Last time this miniscule had the chance to fix things, he rolled off the top. Then Albo and McComic waded in. Now with a hearty Hi Ho Silver, a wet lettuce review, seriously compromised ToR and a 'no foul' - all good mates approach, he expects the past is going to disappear with a band aid, cup of tea and some nice little platitudes.. Bollocks.

"The industry can't make up it's mind which regulation set it wants"; nonsense. "It may be ours only need a tweak or two; perhaps things are no too bad". Bollocks, wishful thinking and a handy escape route for the miniscule's withdrawal from conflict. Someone should tell the miniscule, the FAA/ICAO etc. know a hell of a lot more about the situation than he and his pals do; moreover, not only do they know the whole truth, they are not, even remotely scared of it. The big dogs are eying his bone and without true commitment, interest and attention he's going to have it pinched. What price Qantas then??

The legacy of damage McComic and his minions have imposed on the industry cannot and must not be swept under the carpet of political expediency. Thinking that by allowing McComic to slip away into the sunset, without a being glove laid on the bum, is a fix; is not only a travesty, but a fantasy. The creatures McComic encouraged and fostered remain; the malpractice system he created remains, the stench of corrupt evidence, subterfuge, colossal ignorance and massive arrogance cannot be that easily removed. Not by a quick wipe around with a wet lettuce leaf, not again. Been there, done that. Try to attract investors to industry if you seriously want to quantify the damage.

Miniscule Truss may feel well pleased with his band aid, he may, with luck, even placate an industry which will swallow just about anything, just for a little peace, harmony and the opportunity to resume normal operations; but I think it's too little, too late.

It's been said that David Forsyth is a honest man, intelligent and becoming increasingly alarmed at the blatant depravity being reported to the WLP. He and his colleagues probably even have the integrity to accurately report all this to Truss. It's no skin off for them to do exactly that. It's even possible they may 'strongly recommend' an independent, judicial inquiry through the Senate to examine the myriad of serious complaints against CASA officers, the blatant manipulation of the AAT system, the gross embuggerance of the ICC, the desperate need for ATSB independence and a Junior minister to oversight the whole shooting match. Tea and scandal with the miniscule tut-tutting away and shaking his head is one thing, getting Truss to take direct, positive action is quite another.

Truss has let the industry down, very badly in the past. If he can't find the bottle to deal with the situation he partly created, then he must find the personal courage through conscience to appoint someone who can; that is not a lot to ask. Now is it?

Perhaps Fawcett may not want to take the job on, but he could help; Xenophon may just be too busy to take on the task, who knows. There are other, talented, honest people who could, for a relatively small impost, just get it all done, properly, once and for all. No need to get the miniscule hands dirty, just hire a hit man. How's about it miniscule: will you man up and deal with the unpleasant truth your review dog has dragged home; or will you, yet again slide behind the cosy, air-conditioned barricades erected for your protection by those mandarins who happily led you so far up the garden path last iteration?

Selah.

Paragraph377
3rd Mar 2014, 21:25
As has been revealed, Miniscule Truss has opted for the urgent 'bury and hide' approach combined with 'sweep it under the carpet' in regards to the WLR (Link below for those who haven't yet read about the Miniscules despicable action)

Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/02/australia-suppresses-criticism-of-its-aviation-safety-body/)

My questions are these;
- As an aviation industry which revolves around 'safety', are we really expected to sit back and have the results of an urgent and important review of dangerous issues covered up by being locked away in a Can'tberra vault?

- Why aren't the more mainstream media such as 4 Corners or 60 Minutes grabbing hold of this blatant attempt to cover up the truth and running a very big story about it?

- Why aren't ICAO and/or the FAA jumping on the first available flight and heading down under to see what the hell is going on?

- Why aren't the independent political parties using this issue to their advantage by using parliamentary privilege and their media 'friends' to go for the Governments jugular?

As a thought, it's time to find a different way to skin the cat. So the Miniscule decides to bury the submissions that paint his portfolio and subsequent departments in a bad light, why can't we encourage all those submitters to also send their submissions to somewhere such as Pro Aviation or Crikey where they can be publicly posted? Or perhaps they can be sent to PAIN who can then post them on Pprune, on a new thread? Those more legally minded may have some thoughts or ideas as to the legitimacy of doing this?

Sarcs
4th Mar 2014, 02:29
PAIN:We have had many requests from overseas parties to provide a single point access to the submissions made. Unable to satisfy all requests, we have endeavoured to provide those submissions published through group web sites. For those wishing to have a submission made available, there is a simple solution.Good initiative PAIN, maybe PP (ProAviation) or Ben (Planetalking) could be persuaded to publish and update submissions as they come in…:rolleyes:

On the subject of publicly available submissions I stumbled across the AMROBA submission: AMROBA ASRR Submission (http://amroba.org.au/images/regulatory_news/Aviation%20Review%20Submission%20-%202013.pdf)

Although it doesn’t hold back, the AMROBA submission is not quite as heavy hitting (& laced with obvious anger) that we saw with the AerialAg submission. The 30 odd page AMROBA contribution provides an excellent historical context, is well balanced and directly addresses the ToRs while providing well thought out solutions/recommendations for the WLRP to consider. Also like the AAAA sub, the AMROBA sub is not solely addressing their main area of concern (Aircraft maintenance & overhaul) but takes a top down view of the whole industry….:DExecutive Summary

Aviation has been in a state of change ever since government created, in 1988, a separate aviation safety regulator to operate on economic principles and the creation of an independent air accident bureau. This followed a 1987 Parliamentary Report on aviation safety regulation and sport aviation safety. Twenty five years on and there is still no final legislative system meeting global standards?

The international and national allocation of responsibilities for safety of the safety regulator, air accident bureau and industry, are obviously still not clarified in the legislative system that is being imposed.

The ‘objectives’ of multiple aviation reviews, post 1988, that the aviation industry has been subject to, have never achieved clarity of purpose, and never will, until the Civil Aviation Act is part of what must be reviewed. Bench-marking the legislative structure against other mature aviation countries, then amending accordingly to implement an effective aviation system applicable to the complexities of Australia’s aviation activities and also compliant with the applicable Articles of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, must be done.

The Act must enable governments to make Parliamentary Regulations directing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to promulgate [civil] aviation safety standards (CASS); standards developed by adaptingand/or creating global [civil] aviation safety standards.

The promulgation of CASSs must be the responsibility of CASA but the Act must also require those CASSs to be adapted fromthe Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, comparable with North America and European Aviation Regulators’ promulgated safety standards (Regulations/Standards) with minimal differences with our closest trading countries, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

Until the Civil Aviation Act has an objective that will see the development of aviation safety requirements to support a safe and sustainable aviation industry, there will not be overall growth in a safe and sustainable air transport system for all. The current ‘Main Object’ of the Act works against safe growth in some sectors.

Aviation safety is based on continual review of past decisions, recognising which decisions have had positive effects and which decisions have had negative effects.

The regulatory reform has been continual since 1989 and industry has had to continually change their business model. The problem is today, the change process itself introduces risk elements to safety. Many participants in this industry have only known an industry undergoing regulatory change and this continual change imposes confusion, a regulatory imposed risk that has to be managed.

Rewriting the Civil Aviation Act and a three-tier system will enable the regulatory reform process to be completed within 3 years.
The AMROBA submission is definitely worth reading and cogitating over…:D..well done Ken & Co…:ok:

Addendum - Dick's letter to the miniscule (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/dick_smith_flyer_-_140228_ds_ltr_minister_warren_truss_re_amending_the_civil_a viation_act_to_include_participation_levels_in_aviation.pdf) kind of follows the rationale of parts of the AMROBA submission..:rolleyes:Dear Minister

Legislation Where Compliance is Not Possible


I notice in your speech in Parliament on 14 November 2013 introducing the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review, you stated:

“Safety will always remain the Government’s highest priority in aviation policy. That will never change.”

This, of course, reflects the current Civil Aviation Act 1988 which says, in relation to CASA,

9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Minister, this makes it absolutely clear that safety is a more important consideration than other considerations, such as cost and participation levels.

While you make such statements in Parliament and while the Act remains as it is, it is quite clear that CASA staff must put a one-way ratchet on the rule re-write, increasing “safety” and resultant costs at all times and not considering whether the extra costs will affect the number of people who can actually afford to buy an air ticket or to charter or own an aircraft.

Over the last five years I have asked people at CASA why they are writing regulations which are more onerous and add to costs and their answer is quite simple: “Dick, there is nothing in the Act that says we should look at cost. Quite the contrary – we have to put the safety of air navigation in front of any cost or participation level considerations”.


Minister, I also note you have been telling people we can make savings by removing “red tape”. The problem is that the cost of red tape is such a minute part of the costs in aviation that removing it will most likely have no measureable effect and, on some occasions, the red tape actually adds to safety in a small way. So under the Act it would not be able to be removed.

Indeed, if the Act is followed as it has to be and safety is given prominence over other considerations, such as the cost of complying with the regulation and therefore the cost of air tickets, then participation levels will drop. That is indeed happening in the general aviation industry and if we are not careful the same thing will happen in air passenger operations as our costs climb higher and higher as CASA follows 9A.

The result will be that fewer Australians will be able to benefit from the higher safety levels that travel by air provides.

Minister, it is absolutely imperative that you “bite the bullet” and change the Act so it reflects what has to happen in reality.

Could I suggest that Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act be amended as follows:

9A Performance of functions

(2) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation and participation levels in aviation as the most important considerations.

I realise, of course, that your advisers from the Department will tell you that the Australian public is pretty stupid and will not accept such a change in the legislation. In fact, your advisers would be quite wrong as all sensible Australians understand that in aviation safety there must always be a balance between the amount of money spent in safety compliance and the ability of the beneficiary to pay these costs.

The way things are presently going could result in a situation where the only person able to afford to participate in our industry will be James Packer.

Yours faithfully

Dick Smith If you wish to join in the debate (and it is a good one) you can go to Dick's new thread HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/535245-casa-legislation-must-fixed-first.html#post8351213)

Kharon
5th Mar 2014, 20:11
It's becoming transparently obvious Truss and the mandarins are treating the WLR as per plan A. The notion that a review, neatly managed would meet his pre election promises and satisfy industry is being skilfully presented. The denial of parliamentary privilege, loose security and the despicable use of those reasons to deny public access to those submissions made available for publication is a disgrace, equal to anything Albo pulled out of the dirty tricks bag.

The public, peers and media have a right to know just how truly dreadful things have become. To continue the deception only to have it revealed at a later date will reflect badly. Imagine ICAO strolling in and declaring Australia to be the same as India i.e. not a fit and proper country. Blimey, the irony and the fall out: I can see the headlines; Minister hides essential safety information, Minister responsible for downgrade. Of course, the clever money is against this happening, but the odds are shortening with every weasel worded platitude and non event.

Sarcs published Nick Xenophon speaking – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-90.html#post8352963)- yesterday in the Senate; couple of things concerned me, although I must admit to not completely understanding how the game is played, and probably have got the tiger by the tail, again:

(a) The place was empty: you would expect a bunch of nanny state, budget conscious politicians to be righteously concerned with aviation safety and the associated cost. But you could have shot a gun in the chamber and hit sweet FA.

(b) Are the dynamic duo signing off on the entire matter?, there was nothing in the Xenophon speech which gave the impression of continuing commitment or ongoing involvement. Much like the WLR panel and the CTSB, they have honestly done what they can. The powers that be have the information, time to knock off and let the miniscule deal with the mess. In fairness, there is little else they can do.

So, it's back to the miniscule's office and his minders, here we find a couple or three special interest groups camped in the foyer, all needing their arses covered from incoming munitions. We know there is a severe shortage of backbone, we know the special interest groups have real influence and we have previously seen the demise of industry best effort in the hands of this miniscule.

Before placing a bet a wise punter must not only pick a fancy, but must be aware of the competition. In the "CYA" stakes, the CASA board will be tough to beat and at short odds; the mandarins entry must be the short price favourite; the Barnaby entry looks like a serious threat to Truss entry, the lame ATSB nag (rescued from the knackers) is at better odds than it deserves. With the Senate runners scratched, the industry entry must be at very, very long odds to finish the course. The industry entry has been beaten, flogged and starved for years, fed on whatever it could scavenge from a poor paddock.

Truss has drawn a good box for the start, will he use it, or is the fix in? It won't much matter to him during this life; but, before entering the next, he must first deal with Ammit.

From Wiki - Ammit lived near the scales of justice in Duat, the Egyptian underworld. In the Hall of Two Truths, Anubis weighed the heart of a person against the feather of Ma'at, the goddess of truth, which was depicted as an ostrich feather (the feather was often pictured in Ma'at's headdress). If the heart was judged to be not pure, Ammit would devour it, and the person undergoing judgement was not allowed to continue their voyage towards Osiris and immortality. Once Ammit swallowed the heart, the soul was believed to become restless forever; this was called "to die a second time". Ammit was also sometimes said to stand by a lake of fire. In some traditions, the unworthy hearts were cast into the fiery lake to be destroyed. Some scholars believe Ammit and the lake represent the same concept of destruction. Ammit was not worshipped; instead she embodied all that the Egyptians feared, threatening to bind them to eternal restlessness if they did not follow the principle of Ma'at.

Aye well: fetch the porridge Minnie; at least breakfast is a sure bet. Peace, quiet, the dogs and a second coffee. I'm all right Jack.

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 01:48
Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!

Frank Arouet
6th Mar 2014, 04:38
Any rumors as to the names of those to fill the new positions?

thorn bird
6th Mar 2014, 04:47
Well they definitely won't be labour supporters!!!

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 04:56
See if you can pick who and when:Govt clips the wings of air safety body

The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.

The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The Transport Minister [Tweedle Dumb] says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.

The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.

Mr [Dumb] says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.

"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.

Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.

Accountability

The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.

Laborial transport spokesman, [Tweedle Dumber], says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.

"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.

Sunfish
6th Mar 2014, 05:32
New Board members for CASA? Why of course! Alan Joyce and Olivia Wirth...

dubbleyew eight
6th Mar 2014, 05:51
this outcome is deplorable.
McCormic's comment that no matter what the new rules will remain seems to have come to pass.
stupid incompetent politicians.

back in the 70's the air was the same and the aeroplanes were the same.
we were congratulated for years of safe aviation.
people occasionally came to grief but weather and granite can be unforgiving and we all understood that.

nowadays we still fly without incident but the regulator can't stand us ignoring their dribble and seek to grind our noses in it.
dare we do what is safe and ignore them we are all criminals.

what utter bloody nonsense all this new environment is.

Cactusjack
6th Mar 2014, 06:56
I believe that here is the 8 new Board members in training!
They were taken to Washington, the world capital for trough gouging. It was a robust 8 week course but well worth their effort :ok:
Maybe we should call them 'Eight Is Enough'?

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

TICK TOCK

Up-into-the-air
6th Mar 2014, 07:08
A goooooggul search of creamies post gives the following basically "word -for -word"

Tue, Nov 19 2002 5:44 AM AEDT

Govt clips the wings of air safety body

The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services. (http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/news/politics/2002/11/item20021118212937_1.htm)

The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The Transport Minister, John Anderson, says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.

The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.

Mr Anderson says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.

"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.

Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.


Accountability

The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.

Labor's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.

"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.


Limits

Meanwhile, Australia's aircraft owners have called for further limits to the powers of the aviation safety regulator.

Bill Hamilton, from the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association. says despite the changes, there still will not be enough scrutiny of the authority.

He says CASA will continue to have a conflict of interest because it both licences and polices air safety.

"It has to go far more than abolishing a board and appointing a chief executive," he said.
Is this the one creamie??? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/72950-major-changes-casa.html#post691409)

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 07:21
Gold Star UITR! :D

See if you can pick who and when:The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.

VR-HFX
6th Mar 2014, 07:36
Eight is a bard's delight.

To start the ball rolling on a database of malapropisms...

abrogate, alleviate, date (as in the anatomical location e.g. the eight's date of appointment), debate, defecate, deflate, delineate, discombobulate, illiterate, inarticulate, inappropriate, levitate, obfuscate, permeate, prostate, prostrate, regurgitate, relegate, resuscitate, sate, wait ...there must be more in the MEL.

So rotate ye bards:}

halfmanhalfbiscuit
6th Mar 2014, 07:51
Quote:
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.

Creamie, I reads very close to the one put out prior to McCormick joining? But could be an earlier one. Establish a board, de establish , re establish etc.

Sarcs
6th Mar 2014, 09:09
From HoR Hansard for Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fa9f05bc4-7c90-43df-aef9-8700be3bdda7%2F0052;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fa9f05 bc4-7c90-43df-aef9-8700be3bdda7%2F0000%22): Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (12:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities—and our cities to the world.

The increased diversity of the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system—any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates.

Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)—Australia's aviation safety regulator.

CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator—a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.

The CASA board, in its current form, was established in July 2009 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be adopted by CASA. The board is also responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, complying with directions given by the minister.

The CASA board currently consists of the Director of Aviation Safety (who is also the Chief Executive Officer of CASA), as an ex-officio member, and up to four board members (including the chair and deputy chair).

The Coalition's Policy for Aviation, released in August 2013, outlined a number of commitments to enhance and strengthen aviation.

The government has since established an external aviation safety regulation review, which is being undertaken by a panel of leading aviation experts.

The review is well underway, with the review panel examining the suitability of Australia's aviation safety related regulations and the outcomes and direction of CASA's regulatory reform process.

The panel is also examining the structures, effectiveness and processes of CASA with a view to ensuring that best practice in aviation safety is maintained. The panel has received around 250 submissions from interested parties across the aviation industry. The review panel is expected to report to the government by the end of May 2014.

The Coalition's Policy for Aviation also outlined our commitment to improve CASA's structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation's abilities to function as Australia's aviation safety regulator.

To deliver on this commitment the government intends to appoint two additional members to the CASA board.

At least two of the board members will be required to have technical and/or operational aviation experience to strengthen the board's aviation knowledge, skills and practical experience. The expanded board will be well-placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction—which the government will issue, as allowed for under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act, after the government has considered the review panel's final report.

Establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation will enhance CASA's capability to respond as Australia's aviation safety regulator. Through the introduction of a new strategic direction, the government plans to reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but will also set out the leadership role of the board in implementing the strategic direction of CASA.

Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that implements this commitment to take decisive action to strengthen the nation's aviation safety agency and their oversight of the aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill will allow the government to fulfil undertakings, made in the coalition's policy for aviation, to have important enhancements to safety governance in place from 1 July 2014.

The bill will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the size of the board by two members. The appointment of two additional members will increase the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board, which will better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation.

The bill improves the capacity and effectiveness of CASA to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse aviation industry. CASA must have the right structure, resources and legal framework to regulate the civil aviation industry to enhance the safety of the travelling public, industry participants and the wider community.

The provisions of the bill will provide for the CASA board to be comprised of six members appointed by the minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member, that is, seven members in total.

The board will play an important role monitoring CASA's effectiveness and accountability across the authority's range of functions and will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, allowing for meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders.

Importantly, the enhanced board will be in place to implement CASA's new strategic direction.

Enhancing the CASA board is one important step in ensuring we continue to foster an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is proportionate to risks and delivers the highest level of safety—a level of regulation that does not unreasonably restrict innovation and growth in the industry.

It is vital that government and industry share the responsibility for addressing these challenges.

The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety—we are taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry.

Debate adjourned.
Which, if you remember, is what was promised in the Coalition’s pre-election aviation policy...

"...b. CASA board
CASA’s board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established again.

While boards in other agencies have been successful in setting and implementing the strategic direction of their agency, CASA’s board structure has been the subject of criticism.

The Coalition will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the board from four to six members, including some with aviation skills and experience.

This expansion will increase the breadth of knowledge and experience on the CASA board and better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation..."

Interesting that after question time in the Senate on Tuesday, proceedings went to the TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS debate, the subject matter being (of course) Qantas. Senator Fawcett made a contribution to that debate, where he said: That is why I welcome the coalition's promise of reforming the CASA board. We see that the coalition will be increasing the size of board to bring skills of aviation engineering and operations onto that board. We also see reform of the regulatory sector, which is undergoing an inquiry right now. Which is a slight expansion on the original pre-election promise and it would appear that this is one promise that the miniscule will adhere to...:rolleyes:

Here is the video cut of the complete DF statement, which is interesting in itself..:ok::[YOUTUBE]Senator Fawcett Carbon Tax & Aviation 04/03/14 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/ELfWXHv--GM)

Prince Niccolo M
6th Mar 2014, 12:06
so Forsyth gets the engineering slot, who gets the operations slot? :ooh:


the Skull, perhaps??? :E :E :E

Paragraph377
6th Mar 2014, 12:54
Board positions did I hear you say??
All open slots will go to people with Coalition heritage, or in the very least have loyally served their masters in some capacity over the years.
This entire episode will be a circus act. Current Board members will already have slots lined up back in Can'tberra somewhere as nobody in bureaucracy comes out as a loser.
Truss's announcement is soft, a slap with Creampuffs wet lettuce. Expand the seats at the trough x 2, bring in another DAS 'yes man'. Add to this the Dolan trio of Commissioners over at the other alphabet soup organisation, they will also go, then you will have some robust debate that will take place over the following 18 months about which set of aviation rules to adapt and hey presto it's election time again! It's all tautological, a merry-go-round, Groundhog Day.

For any credibility to shine out of all this we would have to see Fawcett appointed as junior minister for aviation, somebody like Mike Smith brought in as CASA DAS, MrDak removed, no Skull affiliation with the new Board and ALL existing CASA Board members wiped along with the 'other' two DAS members that make up the trio. The LSD would need to be replaced and here is a thought - Accountability introduced into the CASA framework. And finally, a Royal Commission, which actually has teeth, formed to investigate the allegations of systemic malfeasance and corporate abuse towards individuals inside and outside of CASA, and an investigation of the $250 million 25 year sinkhole called Regulatory reform. Add to this the need for scrutiny over the Pel Air and Lockhart crashes which remain unresolved from which justice has to be sought for those families and friends of the deceased or injured in these accidents. Then the IOS may be mildly convinced that changes, real changes, are afoot.

Kharon
6th Mar 2014, 20:05
There seem to be more positive features in yesterday's back and forth than negatives; I believe a small round of polite applause may be given. With perhaps a small bravo thrown in for the debate between – Fawcett (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0119;query=Id:%22chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0000%22) – and - Xenophon (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0117;query=Id:%22chamber/hansards/b8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65/0000%22) – on the CAO 48 matter. DF essentially agrees with the wide concept of change and industry involvement but feels that while 48 is not perfect; it is an improvement. NX presents an equally compelling argument that 48 is 'bad' law and CASA need to go away and do their homework. The real win (IMO) is that two Senators feel secure enough to take a different stance, present lucid, intelligent argument, for and against the disallowance, without any other issues at heart, bar aviation improvement. It's most refreshing to find a subject like pilot fatigue being debated, both sides of the coin articulated and the chance to reach a rational conclusion, a real bonus. The NOES had it; (that's democracy) but well done Senators, VIPA, AIPA and others who assisted to bring the subject to debate . The notion that industry may have a voice is appealing; 48 may have been the subject but it has opened several previously closed doors. Bravo.

Like 377, I too am bored with the board; I fail to see how two additional members can achieve any more than a two or three 'man' board could, if indeed we need a board. It is of concern that Truss has elected to continue with the existing crew. Until it is made clear that the current board has not been compromised in any way, it could consider stepping aside. At least until the inevitable investigation of CASA is complete and the board is exonerated, beyond reasonable doubt. The departure of McComic is insignificant, the acts which have been committed in the name of the 'air safety' remain firmly attached. If the board was not made fully aware, then perhaps an excuse exists; but I doubt the CAC act is as forgiving as we may be. Even with Truss madly gilding the Lilly, it is hard to see how industry can have faith, considering the carnage, rapine and embuggerance left behind. Only my opinion of course, but I do believe the board has been compromised: if so, it is most certainly unintentional; probably in all innocence and undoubtedly in good faith, but...there is a spectral elephant parked next to the pot plant in the boardroom. Any board needs clear air to work in, credibility and our trust if it is to be effective. The Quadrio and Canely Vale matters, standing alone beg some very serious questions. The Forsyth nomination?, we shall see in May.

The whiff of a Dolan long overdue departure is in the air though, ain't it? Been tossing some ideas around (as you do, over a beer); ATSB should be easier to sort out than CASA (no board). I note CJ brings the inestimable Mike Smith to the CASA debate, but when ATSB is mentioned, the name Rob Graham gets some serious consideration. Consensus is that if he could be persuaded to take on a short term, say a twelve month, gig to clean up the Beaker'ised agency, normal service would soon be restored. Can you imagine having a non CASA'ised report on an accident like Canely Vale. Oh, be still my beating heart.

On balance, I'd say the IOS had a good day, yesterday. Not perfect, but considering the barriers and vested interests in play; not too shabby at all. Ye Gods, I hate politics; wish they'd get a bloody wriggle on. Whoop it up 'em Shags, they're not our engines.

Toot-toot.

Creampuff
6th Mar 2014, 20:26
The experiment with the Board has already been run and the results are already in: With or without; big or small; aviation appointees or not – not a schmick of difference.

The Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act to expand the size of the Board is a perfect opportunity for the Senate to introduce amendments to implement the recommendations of its own Committee’s air accident investigation report. The Laborial Senators have the power to force those amendments.

Talk from Fawcett and his Laborial colleagues is cheap, Kharon. It’s how they use their Senate vote that counts. (What’s that old saying about judging people by what they do, not what they say …)

You watch: There’ll be lots of high sounding rhetoric about safety, but all that will come out of the Senate is a Bill for two more slots on the CASA Board.

That’s why CASA and ATSB called the Senate Committee’s bluff. They know the Laborial Senators are all talk and no action (unless it’s politically expedient).

Kharon
6th Mar 2014, 21:00
Cheers Creamy; and I must agree, up to a point. While not running out the bunting or dancing in the street, it did cheer me a little to see that the Senators are not following the trail of breadcrumbs to the changing rooms. I have very little faith and less time for Polly's, no matter what flavour or colour; but I can and do have an as yet untarnished faith in Fawcett, Xenophon and a couple of others on the inquiry committee. What they can still achieve will, as you quite rightly say, be seen. If it all turns to worms, then industry must accept a fair portion of blame. You all know the rest of that tune. All up, CASA and ATSB may well have won a small, insignificant battle, but look at what they have exposed to scrutiny. Even the longest journey starts with one small step. I'll hang in there for while yet. Peace in our time ?– Bollocks, not on my houseboat.

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun

Richard III: courtesy of Mr. Shakespeare.

Paragraph377
6th Mar 2014, 21:08
Kharon, post#542, think you have me confused with CJ. Thanks for the compliment though. I think :8

Sarcs
6th Mar 2014, 22:17
While we're on Will...:rolleyes:

“Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power
to account?—Yet who would have thought the old
man to have had so much blood in him?”

It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)...:E

For those interested here are the poohtube segments from Nick's DM CAO 48.1 debate yesterday:

[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part One - YouTube
[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Two - YouTube
[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Three - YouTube
[YOUTUBE]Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Four - YouTube
Hmm big contribution from the opposition's side of the fence..:ugh::yuk:

Sarcs..:ok:

Kharon
7th Mar 2014, 19:41
Queen's Pawn Countergambit (Elephant Gambit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_Gambit), Maroczy Gambit) – C40 – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5

Sarcs #546 –"It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)

Thanks Sarcs - The 30 odd minutes of 'video' provided are interesting. Of course it depends on your point of view, but for mine, despite the opposing votes, both men between them essentially set out their vision for the future. If you compare the agreed points and neatly dovetailed argument, there is only one point of dissent and that was the 48 furphy. By debating the disallowance almost everything wrong within the aviation world was brought out and placed on record, which is (IMO) exactly what 'the boys' wanted. The cost of this pyrrhic CASA win was high, the whole sad saga dragged into the light; Dolan discredited and the Sleepy Hollow dirty laundry dumped in the street. Even the dubious, inutile Chamber pot missive was, once again, used as a stick to beat the hapless McComic. Everyone knows why that report was written; but the Senators gleefully continue to use it as the weapon of choice; bit unfortunate that, ain't it?

Truss may well have the Senators limited in what they can achieve; after all the miniscule has all the juice; but, that's where the buck stops. With Barnaby patting the miniscule back (to find a nice soft spot), Qantas and the rest all over his front, the opposition flanking; will he hazard his Queen to protect his Bishop?; course not. He may need to sacrifice Pawns even a Rook; his position is tenuous and Knights are regularly slaughtered to protect a King.

The Senators ranging shots have the miniscule neatly in the crosshairs and they still have at least three rounds of ordnance left to use; (i) the Pel Air response and all that entails; (ii) the CTSB report on our moribund ATSB, (iii) the WLR. Add to that CASA is on notice that unless industry is 'satisfied', each new piece of legislation can and will be challenged by the Senators. Bravo.

The question; is the miniscule part of the master plan?. He can't just pitch up and sack CASA, day one in office. If he is on the IOS team first he must be able to prove the case and win the appeal before the execution. The Senators have set this up beautifully for him; IF the WLR can establish 'facts and circumstances', presenting the miniscule with lots of wriggle room, buttons to push and levers to pull (it appears the Reverend Forsyth is doing just that); then, maybe, with a big push from behind, some of the less desirable acts committed under the smoke of safety mystique and the mirror of disinformation will be curtailed. No matter what, the clock is ticking and it is the miniscule to move next.

"We were eyeball to eyeball and I think the other guy just blinked". Dean Rusk (Cuban missile crisis).

Sarcs
10th Mar 2014, 00:43
Nick’s thought bubble on CAO 48.1 commenced with this…
Senator Xenophon on FRMS & CAO 48 1 290513 - YouTube
From which a QON was received from NX…

“…Senator Xenophon asked:
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.

Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.

Mr Boyd: Indeed.

Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?

Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.

Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.

Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.

Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?

Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?

Mr Boyd: Absolutely….”

Which was finally answered like this…
“….Answer:
A comprehensive briefing on fatigue and risk management systems (FRMS) and issues related to Civil Aviation Order 48 (CAO 48) was provided by CASA to members of the Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on Monday 24 June and Tuesday 25 June 2013.

Ultimately CASA must be satisfied that an airline’s FRMS meets its rigorous safety requirements and CASA will monitor and audit industry compliance with their approved FRMS.

CASA has established a comprehensive implementation and awareness program to inform the aviation industry and its employees of the new rules. This program includes the use of:

• a wide ranging fatigue “question and answer” section on its website;
• a detailed fatigue booklet and implementation guide on its website;
• a fatigue risk management system handbook and process manual; and
• national face-to-face briefing sessions with industry and interested stakeholders which commenced earlier in May 2013….”

Interesting that on the very same day of the FF 1st day of briefing (24 June 2013) Nick put forward his DM on CAO 48.1, which was closely followed (2 days later) by the AIPA media brief in support of Nick’s DM:


Safety risked by flawed aviation rules that would result in fatigued pilots landing planes after 20 hours at the controls (http://www.aipa.org.au/media-room/safety-risked-flawed-aviation-rules-would-result-fatigued-pilots-landing-planes-after-20)

Then we had this revelation in DF’s contribution to the DM CAO 48.1 debate…
“….I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”
Xenophon DM CAO48 1 Part Three - YouTube
All those bods, behind closed doors, in one room the mind boggles..:cool:

Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1; or maybe they were otherwise engaged since then; or maybe they were happy with the general consensus (bi-partisan proposal) as stated by DF…:ooh:

“…Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1….”

However history shows that such panel’s recommendations/concerns almost always are ignored when it comes to final rule-making by Fort Fumble, so what is different with this case?? Was their perhaps a multi-party informal agreement?? If so why did NX not drop the DM?? :rolleyes:

Passing strange..:confused:..that the DM still had a number of sitting days to run and yet Nick had it brought forward for debate almost at the very same time that the miniscule was introducing the board amendment to the CAA…:oh:

The Elephant Gambit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp9UrsFviDY
It may be the miniscule has the next move but the good Senators have certainly cut down his available options :D, while effectively outing at least one elephant on the board…:E

So to the division where the AYES are perhaps more interesting than the NOES- AYES: 10 NOES: 39 (The Senate divided. [13:27] (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fb8b768b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65%2F0121;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fb8b76 8b0-9052-4e5e-aab8-fb4933284d65%2F0000%22))

Creamy it would appear that Senator X has already established, in aviation matters at least, a loose alliance with the Greens..:sad: Interesting times ahead come the 1st of July…:ok:

Paragraph377
10th Mar 2014, 04:13
Interesting article linked below. It took an aviation 'kick in the pants' by means of a safety downgrade for the Koreans to get things together. Perhaps Australia can learn a lesson or two from the measures that they adopted? It is very obvious that the Skull and the Beaker show has not done anything to improve Australia's safety.

http://www.isasi.org/Documents/EventsAndAlerts/ISASI%20Update%20No%206.pdf

Sarcs
11th Mar 2014, 03:57
Submission update: While we continue to wait for the miniscule to make his next move..:hmm:..there is a couple more submissions that have come to light..:D: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia - Submission to Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Sport%20Aircraft%20Association%20of%20Australia%20Minister%2 0Reply.pdf)

The SAAA submission IMO gets the IOS tick of approval..:ok:

Coupla quotes...

"...Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are supposed to work together to administer aviation in Australia. Is this effective? The answer, in our opinion, is it could be a whole lot better. It is our opinion this may be because of the lack of a functional government mandate for the management of aviation in Australia...
...Other areas of CASA appear to be suffering high staff turnover, or have staff that cannot differentiate between commercial & private operations, and/or have no-one in charge willing to make any decision for fear of repercussions from other departments. CASA is therefore unable to manage outcomes in our sector of aviation (that have been identified by us and the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as desirable safety outcomes) that are well within the capability of the SAAA to deliver...
....then had to start all over again with a new CASA staff member who has not been fully briefed. This leads to delays that are measured in years due to corporate knowledge at CASA being lost in the transition of staff. Meanwhile, CASA demands management stability of our organisation as a condition of a small amount of funding for the hard work that we do for aviation safety, but is not able to offer us the same in return..."

Interesting take on ToR 2) and the Oz SSP :ok::
a) The State Safety Program (SSP)

i) While there is a published SSP document which as of November last year is out of date due to the implementation of Annex 19.
ii) The document reads like a text book about SMS in parts but mostly it reads like a self-reflective feel good novel.
iii) The ICAO SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
iv) Such a SSP Program Document should articulate who is accountable and in the sub parts who is responsible for the component parts. The Document should state how the Program will work, what the component parts are and the overall performance goals are set and measured. It will state the role of CASA and other Departments in the overall delivery.
v) If an effective SSP existed any inter departmental ‘turf wars’ as we have witnessed in the past few years will be evident immediately and action taken to remedy the situation.
I could go on but because it is well reasoned and easily readable (14 pages) I'll let those interested do the reading..:rolleyes:

So finally to the SAAA recommendations:1) Minister intervention to force timely and correct change;

a) The SAAA requests CASA revisits the Project CS 13/01and apply some of the logic that allowed non TSO EFB in the cockpits of all the high and Low Capacity RPT aircraft in Australia.
b) Resource and direct a project to consider the application and empower the SAAA deliver the Flight Training project it initiated in 2008.
c) Resource and direct a project to consider SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to deliver trained Authorised Persons for the issue of Certificates of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft.
d) Resource and direct a project to consider S SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to issue Maintenance Authorities to members.
e) Mandate that all Amateur Built Aircraft builders and operators operate within a management stream of SAAA or a like organisation so that adequate standards are maintained and thus funds are available to deliver the proposed programs.

2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)

a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
Next was the Warbirds contribution, which was really a 'in support of' submission but does make some worthy points: Australian Warbirds - Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel (http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/uploads/Submission%20to%20the%20Aviation%20Safety%20Regulation%20Rev iew%20Panel.pdf)

"...We strongly believe that, as part of its charter, CASA should be tasked with the support and promotion of Australian aviation. This would include but not be limited to protection of the nation’s airport infrastructure from overzealous or neglectful councils and landlords, the crafting of regulations that are conducive to investment in the industry and which eliminate a large amount of the red tape that currently exists, and efforts to bolster ties and cooperation with other nations and their respective national aviation agencies. With its sole stated purpose currently being aviation safety, CASA is in a perverse way fostering an environment that is in our opinion both less safe and overly consumed with regulatory compliance masquerading as safety. As more emphasis is placed on paperwork and more compliancy requirements pile up as part of the everyday operating demands of Australia’s general aviation sector, the incentives increase on otherwise professional businesses to cut corners and/or conduct things "off the books". These requirements are also leading to a dramatic increase in costs for operations such as flight instruction with very little or no benefit...
...The current environment has deteriorated to the degree that the general aviation community on a whole has lost faith in CASA in its present form to effectively regulate. Where a clear, well-understood, and accepted foundation for regulations should exist; we instead have a disjointed and inconsistent model. As a solution, the Australian Warbirds Association feels adoption of the New Zealand regulatory model for general aviation presents the best way forward. This will not solve all the problems currently affecting Australia’s aviation sector, but it will in our opinion put us on the right track. New Zealand, in contrast to Australia, has a vibrant aviation community. We hope to see the same here.."

Again (IMO) the AWA submission gets the IOS tick of approval...:ok:

Prince Niccolo M
11th Mar 2014, 04:08
Sarcs,

You intrigued me with your take on things (dunno about elephants though), so I made some calls.

the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…”

What I was told was - watch the smoke and mirrors!

The meeting was brokered by Senator Fawcett with the genuine intention of trying to negotiate an outcome that avoided the need for Disallowance. The "position" he read into Hansard was the position that he took to the meeting and it was never going to change. Albo's mob were never interested anyway and CASA were there because they were told to be. Truss wasn't there, but I gather his "position" on the subject was whatever DF advised him it would be. Importantly, neither AIPA nor Senators Xenophon and Rhiannon agreed or adopted DF's "position". CASA, led by the Skull, had no interest in the discussion other than the standard "trash the opposition" approach.

My reading of the tea leaves is that it was a meeting held so that it could be said that a meeting took place - as the Hansard now reflects, implying that it was a meeting of like-minded people genuinely trying to solve a problem. The real issue is that only AIPA,Senator Xenophon and Senator Rhiannon were trying to solve the CAO 48.1 problem - the others were trying to remove a 'machinery of Government" problem!

As for your:

Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1


I am also told that the only "quiet" that occurred was due to the election and the need to start the Disallowance sequence all over again. AIPA apparently has continued to lobby for the disallowance right up to the debate, which occurred as originally schedule. I also understand that the "out of the public eye" approach, in stark contrast to Chicken Little Joyce's megaphone bullying, has garnered lots more listeners and believers.

I suggested that it obviously didn't work, because the motion was voted down. The response was that the ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency. :sad:

For what it is worth, I was also told that "while this might have been a major battle, it isn't the end of the war" :ok:

Creampuff
11th Mar 2014, 10:09
[T]he ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.I’d suggest everyone read that passage as many times as is necessary to understand the implications, and to ask questions if necessary.

I’ll start with a Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Fawcett’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?

A second Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Xenophon’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?

My suggestion: To avoid eventually feeling like a patsie, don’t judge Senators by what they say. Judge them by how they vote. :ok:

dubbleyew eight
11th Mar 2014, 11:03
the problem is easy to see. the nutters in the government agencies are so effing cluelessly incompetent that they are totally unable to understand what needs to be done.
kick into the mix an unspoken fear of death by flying, illusions regarding terrorism and the need to be seen to be doing something (we don't know what but for christs sake do something!!!) and you have what we see.
a clueless minister
ineffective politicians
an embuggerance of a statutory authority.

it is the incompetent leading the fearful in an endless milling frenzy.

as a guy who flies an aircraft he maintains himself and has absolutely no fears from a sound understanding of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering, I must seem like a martian to these people.
we all know that martians are to be feared and need to be killed. :rolleyes:

Up-into-the-air
11th Mar 2014, 11:19
Here they are:

Summary is: (http://vocasupport.com/election/regulatory-review-2013/asrr-submissions/)



The new regs have it - US-FAR's best;
Re-write the Acts



http://www.pprune.org/ ElEQVR4nO2b2bYjq65E1///NPfhnu3C6pIuJSFHPHhkQzIVCYTxqlF/DYIg6Mf0F10ABEGQtxB8EAT9nBB8EAT9nBB8EAT9nBB8EAT9nP4F3x8EQVBR IfggCPo5PQTfC5vKdXnWE+69qlmwbgFVZSH4srDCCwDrIlZJU54sBF8WVngB YF3EKmnKk4Xgy8IKLwCsi1glTXmyEHzHWJ/GBytMaxasWFZJU54sBN8x1udd9QnYXyF3jxewKbAuYpU05clC8B1jfXJNCzs EH1jXgaqyEHzHWDz4+re3kHoL7XcE1kWskqY8WQi+Yyz+Nz4EXxJW/yX0EvrVzkXcoKnNJeycAAg+VSWHIUMBhVnCFJfygm/Syf6dH2x+sS1r0JT2HTzlq+TEQPBlYYUXUJglbo546vEDMdfEfkKCb9xU2/BVcmIg+LKwwgsozHpc/03KDjEgtKwJCT6x+JGwm/JVcmJMB1//jqYwj3cH+8w/DOJTaxMoyqy2gxjsgS8/bUE6SESLU65f/KRmbi1h8Nmm2qqvVCuO17+8SCeCz5jNf9/iDUiH4tsX2/C7Cz7XxP1qFWq37K4eRzHcrOiLfPaPa8OaxNfs3bMsN9Clph5Z2nwbWYC8K3 53IvjIdXs9896MtTS4hF6VyBVX+PixcVcYiVCzxgCJwccvip1rbV5SSVZJU4 8sY4o2ZboaXR0OPjsX2tMquiL4SE6NvP3H4ONEfvqq7ODj1YqlDo5anrV0Ka ukqUfWSPDxhaZ1NRF87XsN8BzU1gmvklzvexMzQjT/tjSu6JS89yaNCn+8vyKMRLRZrX67vThtjNNXNcUSG4/34OZrBKRNqjdYp/TIspdYkxaX0Q+9aN/eqXtfqYZhqtl7BaRiDa7JI6wRzcaW8f10kLWp8ZfMv4r4t/U+65Q8X+CB4Dv13TKiPMPg4DqP2V9g8e3DQg9TtS1rfFU2loD93Xu/pfZBJ3d8Dko4DOJmm6wcfoXfFUYin9nCLDEgFnpw0NSOj2zxSA/Y8f27aN+Olf8wkI0AfyfkrtYP79am8Adf1Y+zxESYHYWcwdeUOTy4uhMO1hE Qgs9iibsAI/ia9NLIJCMNjNOScy4/a7m8VMF3qofkg7UMQvBZrD6zBoOvPxa/V7Udn9HGQWBdxNqJ5tlFXfUFIvgeWHyzpu3pmpl05FgLPuz4wMoDqspC8K2w TtXw2E8Gs2AlZJU05clC8E2wFn4mnC0ALLCcQVVZCL4srPACwLqIVdKUJwvB l4UVXgBYF7FKmvJkIfiysMILAOsiVklTnqyh4IMgCKonBB8EQT+nh+A7s7k8 JM96wr1XNQvWLaCqLARfFlZ4AWBdxCppypOF4MvCCi8ArItYJU15shB8WVjh BYB1EaukKU8Wgi8LK7wAsC5ilTTlyULwZWGFFwDWRaySpjxZCL4srPACwLqI VdKUJwvBl4UVXgBYF7FKmvJkbQWfeOvt0ksOQ4YCwLqIVdLUCOv/G/Bc+pz+/afHfhaDT7vVX+yr4UX3p31vdtGphqFSAWBdxCppaoQlBgWJlJGuXtzx9XGmB Z/mYRb6khB8YOVklTQ1wpIDK1vwNSns+p75du+x6FTDUKkAsC5ilTQ1wuK7Jb7 vG+nqTPARnrGne9zi2cRHP2c1yxp/7y8VANYy68jYZQu+u0yNsLRgIbemAvTfRfv2EdUYBu0RnuNrZSc3W4zVj5S4 tA6yNrVmqi1NyJyDtQ8KCL6dPvMPw+Ou9u0C1gRWU2JifOwSBl/bnpBpB2sTdCz4tC/Ms8o/DNr0QvDlZ2k/l7JlxHLwLUzIJIN1toxjwUe20HzS8JnEr4+wkgzD4FOzW4YjBawJrMYyos0s gVnWjtZMtaUJmW2wSFyQwBnMkxeDj3x5alU+lshBgy335ckKLwCsi1glTdks nid2sNj5fib4jO9J7XSkOJvlIAQfWDlZJU3ZrP6WGDiti5THDl8PPlLNY8tx loMQfGDlZJU0ZbP4FoqHidZA7O1A8HkqyTDUKwCsi1glTXmyhoIPgiConhB8 EAT9nB6C78zm8pA86wn3XtUsWLeAqrIQfFlY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAu YpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WQi+LKzwAsC6iFXSlCcLwZeFFV4AWBexSpry ZCH4srDCCwDrIlZJU54sBF8WVngBYF3EKmnKk3Us+LSWf536i0vV7j57hHWk gE8ndm9RZt/2eK8vu7eQ4Ks6WPw6DxnyHjbzajr4tLfGyxo8HWE5SJwEvdnPePDTvs2jWeN r44yTAYm+iCP7yrjHVL6MgeNl2wPn5kss6aUJGTJY/DqvRytypHJxxS3+1NWWLhkM7aJdqE15ScKrYe/acKS1tG/ZBbwnY/1onyOPGD0k8WVX/hgijTkNMcUtnJqQsSvuc31kMfbHf/9pokP79lTFpB9tVE6Bzoqw7MmhXZydgkYBr8pY89qn7S7VWjJ8Gda0ZmJXnr 5G3vCpCRm44vrrYoX8lN967PDfRfu20RFpb7xlbTqOgEaaHRFhzc6zJr2Bpo +iMBKZAkL7NIzznqPWkuHLrl9sLLZpjr6MxX98QgauOHKd19kUa3ZvjQ3l/y7at2OVYRhKFgDWRaySpjxZCL4srPACwLqIVdKUJ+tA8DmnQ/JhOPtVkdDskZ8/8LWpcdD+hPQfLO1Hq/gnhbXyzgff4x8L+j8xGH4Gca9qLfg+B+Lx2wUsayogmv4Hr4OsIyrpa6Gk5Q kZEnzk9LFyniFi5ohX/nXSdzcVfH1UG5HXH/N0H8e9rbXgs9/42wUsayogxFGe7cRHJX1NrZfNCRkSfEbYkXr+JDXFL2/21RXpdKRWUndT3jivTDQziHtbp4Jv5DWeKmBZmwEx5RG+NjVV0uaE9B8sMRl 4kIkNSCei32PB1zcjx9yMOBKkdBv32OaUjgRfG3uNpwpY1k5AtEmP8LWpneB rWU01lhVNGQgtxcSAsw++6PzJU5by9JONFV4AWBexSpryZA0FHwRBUD0h+CA I+jk9BN+ZzeUhedYT7r2qWbBuAVVlIfiysMILAOsiVklTniwEXxZWeAFgXcQ qacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVNebIQfFlY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05cl C8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WQi+LKzwAsC6iFXSlCdrMfiMQPxT9Lk7WNbCreNC8IG Vk1XSlCdra8cnPPl9hZ9qDUg4Ivj8CwDrIlZJU56s9eCTn/wOL77d6x/p734++1ONO2btgBB8YOVklTTlydra8TVzi8djTjxA8CUpAKyLWCVNebIWg49 v1vitx+BrLOlI/GkVj5rbFoLvR1iPX/AHWUckrqwjHQpxkGywToG2dnz+yjYM5DtAPOhnFf9K2CzglOwvm0GP/GCWdVyPLL7m+TANDpl/8IlF8rHoH+QzkLsj3b7o5Ftuk1C8heCbYGnTrimTcrDb2Zb7GsmpR4/84izruMaDj5waB8usUzLev5h6fNQWbjnIbRIeCz4evX0G9zVtvsckw8DbjAQ ffyf7BZzSkTnHG8yyjms8rcQIaGzbvsM6pZG00i5qt4yufEzZrLOTUBzQxeD jJJJ6YqFTFI54VYNz3RgJsmbGl9B4Aaf0OEtGPI7Muce7ZzU+iOR0YYq6+Rp JKzG87KHUuvIxZbPOTkJxQA8E31+nNjAk12XBYJvNapOYPe4xia97WSVN2ay zk/Ct4Gtd9rXSwVemALAuYpU05ck6HHyty7s++Np33onbw/GKB1vua59FXoJx8aUCxrXMMjweZy1odgKvPb7QeEdT66XGz47HB4lTe5WdD7 41XRF8PMf5u+afdtDz7wOjgFfFv5bEwpY9kitetmQWL5g01obeXhE5g+9zIB 4fZO3r4CTkj5A2wnIjrQcrXntBsw9GrRnxWHz14tu3B+ZxHTpIDCax5kGPxB GfrG6+tIuaNW2FaMNks97QOMiedWdZ+zo4CcX5xifqF12sI4mi1oz9Hvtm2n jwz8cVFTLnHgsb9Gi8q6hBJBeNMW0zw2Sz3tA4yE6Ns6x9HZyE9oIV38BQ8B lvcORN2a/e5j52fkqExQdDfNeNjR8fDPGiSHzXIWPZhc167FsaNh18iRe5NbH49jRMNus NjYMex/Ega18HJ2F/RWtA6X0dg2NszHhuQGxGWOFzy5kVXgBYF7FKmvJkbQWfGGfks7H4M6KQn4rc aZerQvCBlZNV0pQn68yOj2zZxJjjnwi+VAWAdRGrpClP1pnga99BJu71Hpsh +GILAOsiVklTnqz14HtbCD7nAsC6iFXSlCdrKPggCILqCcEHQdDP6SH4zmwu D8mznnDvVc2CdQuoKgvBl4UVXgBYF7FKmvJkIfiysMILAOsiVklTniwEXxZW eAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVNebIQfFlY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAu YpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WWeCT2xDLvan2vGISg5DhgLAuohV0pQn60Dw yV18X+xPtePxiqfa7wjBB1ZOVklTnqzd4PvrZPSL4MtfAFgXsUqa8mS98lO3 zzVyqh1PVTzeeFMIPrByskqa8mSdDD4eZAi+iwoA6yJWSVOerDPB56mSw5Ch ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WYeDb+QHrPYHwXHEVPsdIfjAyskqacqT dT74+IOfYzEWEXxJCgDrIlZJU56s14NPiz/eYBbhIAQfWDlZJU15sl4JPhJ2JOP46WzFU+13hOADKyerpClP1uvB15Skw44 vWwFgXcQqacqT9dZP3fdUchgyFADWRaySpjxZ54Pv7dJLDkOGAsC6iFXSlCf rcPA5qOQwZCgArItYJU15snaDT7trX1/u1r51XAi+Yqx9rt1bSPAdgZK/y2ust3VH8PV3+3+sEC/yNvy4b2lAZ00uC8FXicWnqHjaNybzny8H3uBFJ99cXsBLvpJMDB4a/EC7q/VGL9q3+V3xk08IrT0ZuUeoduu4PFnhBZRn2dOPf4oXxbzwzwhuite55su2/LZGFr742vkQDGbX10X7tl3HSMYZwTdSsXbruGZZPOudC3BgHfHo78uYrtqct LODP+vpaySt1nwVCD7eQOztQPDxasRQ69uQkSDEEf8OWmDZy8yhgGWNs4whP s7alz0i4rxtbLqSZ8WumqOvkbRa8yV25WPKZtmVa/Fi90Yv2rcXij6oJMMw8pQ42xwKWNMUS1tOg52k9XULq6Qpm2WXMVvkmeBbW9 VrSjIMI0+RLCgZfGToEXzFQFVZK8G3EK4cObWRXFhaR7QZfG1+K3SkgDUtBF 9jvzXeYG1qKos3C0sYfPubkoSDJT7Ig8LwPh184haG8/izfKkYjUf6cZAnK7yAH2eJ85OfHmHta6Ekcd2dZe2LLHk7BMhn31h8hLRZDL 4/pvb9lg1kU4aBPy4WMPgS94Xg+x0WX2lNmc/7rH1NxZax7s6y9iWWJ1rQfGl3+z77Bl90sQ7+vNgjPxWLQPBlK+DHWdpcFVf IJmtfm8GX01RTtng8H/jFx9Pey1bwiSWKpfNTo41mjNfgIATf77DECdnY9D7C2tdO8LWsppqSFU0v3k gVkm5iA0rv6whf/EQJ10yNAsC6iFXSlCcLwZeFFV4AWBexSpryZB0LPruZjJF+yW6CzgrBB1ZOV klTnqwzwUd+SzcWauQnN4+8ccMlhyFDAWBdxCppypP1YvBpScdv9acjrJFmR 4TgAysnq6QpT9aB4Hvc62mf/GCw4pFmR4TgAysnq6QpT9b54Ps8RbaB2imJv5GKR5odEYIPrJyskqY8WQeCz 1klhyFDAWBdxCppypOF4MvCCi8ArItYJU15shB8WVjhBYB1EaukKU/WyeDjf+xrzAm/NZutJYchQwFgXcQqacqTdT74+D9iiL2R4zbsueQwZCgArItYJU15so4Fn5Zo 48E3XvF4400h+MDKySppypN1OPhGNnTLe73+ER8h+MDKySppypOVKPjwUze2 ALAuYpU05ck6/1N3rYiXGm8KwQdWTlZJU56soeCDIAiqJwQfBEE/p4fgO7O5PCTPesK9VzUL1i2gqiwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVN ebIQfFlY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WQi+ LKzwAsC6iFXSlCcLwZeFFV4AWBexSpryZJ0Jvr//xK/zBmLjccMlhyFDAb/A2ufavYUE3xFov1QN1tu6L/iMrskg8Vc8ta8sOQwZCijPIl+9n1v2RCUzln9hH8+gEYkljfviZRu+kkwMvn niB9pdrTd60b492svGe7dZgy335ckKL6A8i+eCcZE/ok1m0j7KFLdg+1q45SA7+D4H2jBpF8XeDgQfL1rD8w5nJ02SYahXQG2WEX9a GhrNxK48fY2kleGrdvCJg8V7OxB8PYxXaVdTI/hE77zN4PtcKGBfj6xHj+MG/X1py0ZMAe06n+R3BV/7HiMtOMRPHz1GlTFM5HikN3rRvh2rJMOgNbZXzmy32cxqKcATYZ91SiVZJU3 ZLLuM2SIRfCdZ/Ju//yJq8+8zoVltB8HTcJ91RCVZJU15shB8J1lG3vkUsKPZ4Jvd5S2wjqgkq6QpT 9ax4LP3qOLdtVTNPAwkCDbTYaH9jmYHWtzl7c+W41rbyb7K2tc4aH/vknCwxAf5WjO8nwm+fg2077XRWATwRTIVDVcMw40F/DiLB7p4eoS1r4WSyPdTQlPtOzHEA9KssZDhnXweIW3eCj4x7zi7vzL+anyE4 PsdFl9p/bOz6fm2ptaLFgfZTDWlPC1DRF/a3b5PLXPmgk+rTytaxCP4wgv4cZYWfDm/lTeDL6eppv/9ZCRY7NPey/ngE0snGK0B6e0R5yAE3++wxAXTxpbALGtfO8HXsppqZobwu7wlOeYtTwafsx KumRoFgHURq6QpT9ZQ8EEQBNUTgg+CoJ/TQ/Cd2Vwekmc94d6rmgXrFlBVFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WQ i+LKzwAsC6iFXSlCcLwZeFFV4AWBexSpryZCH4srDCCwDrIlZJU54sBF8WVn gBYF3EKmnKkzUdfH//yeiRP/i5aBQx6LnkMGQoAKyLWCVNebJWgq8/+DQg0aZdF495ShpRWHIYMhQA1kWskqY8WVs7PjHmSN6R9vYp6bNJL6LkMGQo AKyLWCVNebK2dnxkX6almBiU2l0EX1QBYF3EKmnKk7UVfKSBFmficd//Y4CKBTgIwVeMtc+1ewsJviNQsoo11tvKG3zhKjkMGQoozyJfwJ9b4rcsb9yk 5cC/yF/1wkFieY++xP0H6d+IwvdksMh+SDzQ7mq90Yv27VglGYZ6BZRn8VwwLvJH7HA kLH9T3ILta+GWg+zg+xxow6RdFHtD8KVghRdQm2XEn5aGRjOxK09fI2ll+Ko dfOJg8d52g68nzWrhqSTDYLTUnlp4UanMPnocN5g8+LTrxN11wde+x0gLDvH TR49RZQwTOR7pjV60b2u18ndHXihfGORizjUz1dheObPdZjOrpQAf1n3WKZV klTRls+wyZos8E3x2wJFjsdwCwdeYnaa8nPcK2NEgS8z3PuVvH8QrWCVNebL OBB8/1aLQCL4Ca8bIO58CdjQbfGS8igX6q6x9jYNmv2t3WPvaWSl8QhrezwdfU5JO C77PxakJ6qPl4Gv6T/tXC9jR7PvvB2424q/wJZ4eYe1roSS+GI+z9kVmlDjH+mbkEX6lf4S02Q0+28Px9gnXTI0CfpzFV1r 7To2DrH1NxZYWB9lMNaU80YLmS7vb99k3+KKLdbyqzN8/gapqNiFLC76pJXBL8OU01fSfESS/+MXH097L+eAjtRoY4mEB4SAE3++wxAXTJpfAFcHXsppq0ijYxYsh8/etvuUrwccnDa9SvIjgy1AAWBexSpryZDkFH+kHwZewALAuYpU05ck6FnxakP EetH3feMWDLfeF4AMrJ6ukKU/WK8H3eZBvABuCL2sBYF3EKmnKk3Xyp66PSg5DhgLAuohV0pQnayj4IAiC6gn BB0HQz+kh+M5sLg/Js55w71XNgnULqCoLwZeFFV4AWBexSpryZCH4srDCCwDrIlZJU54sBF8WVng BYF3EKmnKk4Xgy8IKLwCsi1glTXmyEHxZWOEFgHURq6QpTxaCLwsrvACwLmK VNOXJQvBlYYUXANZFrJKmZll//2kNhOBLwQovAKyLWCVNDbI+ofTXSbw10snXRft2rLINQ5kCwLqIVdLUCEvMu PadVCOpheDLwgovAKyLWCVNjbDs4CMX7X4QfClY4QWAdRGrpKlBFv+p277jb 6QfBF8WVngBYF3EKmnKk4Xgy8IKLwCsi1glTXmyEHxZWOEFgHURq6QpT9aZ4 Ot/bI9c1zo52OyIEHxg5WSVNGWztCRZ25yd3PGJwdcf8L9E8jYLlPeE4AMrJ6uk KZtF0uNzpb8u5ozd29dF+/Z4xaQsbkBssAB6SQg+sHKySpqyWWJo9Nc/p6Sl1tu7wcf74WUh+DIUANZFrJKmbBbJCm1zRyLLL/hEKqlSLBTBF1sAWBexSpqyWcaeTgxBO7uOBd+slrtNMgz1CgDrIlZJU56smO Db6bPkMGQoAKyLWCVNebLWg+9Iif1OdRBRchgyFPALrH2u3VtI8J1aiVpvSS bGYxmGBbHxSvCRv9bx39jiz2zyC9zoxzCQZBjqFVCeJc5Pfqo1btJyEGe4g8 SSxn3xsg1fSSYGKVt0157GS2z276J9W6Q+XiFvXBwhYk9Di07ekCcrvIDyLH vu8U9yVwsR0j7KFLdg+1q45SA7+D4HWlwYjnhv08HHqY+Tpj2Nh1364Ks5Lg RfGZYxLbUJaTQTu/L0NZJWhq8CwddHk2ZZjK++E3rx4bbJEyvg18UZZkyykVdzXLMssir8C3BgHf Ho78uYnI9zlTcW2zRHXyNpZfjSzGpd+ZiyWSTI/jr1z/I2Rm/0on07VkmGwX5EWz8OBSxrnKVlwWwPPirJKmnKk4XgO8/iQUC+mt4uYE1TLG0fMdhJWl+3sEqa8mQdCD57xpPrjx2ONLDrOaj94FvbEG0 WsKa14CPjdW/w7WzMZ1n7mtpc32JqnMVNjVx5vDsRfAaMLwmyL+B3F4ivajP42vxW6EgBa1o IvjYzcMusTc1msThvz7L2tVCSsTZPsfYlsvjWgc86nir2zNwNPhv5uSieGn5 snN3goDxZ4QX8OEtcP3yKHmHtayq2iKO0pkTWH1OTRkdMIX5KuqUs+7ZW8WM ei224gUfQSD1HhOD7HZYWfONLYJy1r83gy2nKYImRJ0ahU/DZcSaekoJEYzbRbnBQCL7fYYnB1waWwAJrXzvB17KaEllivIhXiClyy+j230 X79hEtd5twzdQoAKyLWCVN7bMWvg++Ltq397XT50XDcFcBYF3EKmlqkzX1bN iOb1m3DMN1BYB1EaukKU/WseCzm2k/sx8fnAWdFYIPrJyskqZmWZvbwwPBR/4A2Vio/XXid6c8pB2G2wsA6yJWSVOzrD5S2nBYGY3PBJ+WdPwWMfDIGml2RAg+sHKyS pqaZYmRNx4ju8H3uNfTPvnBYMUjzY4IwQdWTlZJU7MsEnzeOz6etbwO45TE3 0jFI82OCMEHVk5WSVOzLDFVpp6lF+3bsUo7DLcXANZFrJKmPFkIviys8ALAu ohV0pQnC8GXhRVeAFgXsUqaWmD17af+Vobgy8IKLwCsi1glTfUs8Z8EjJjr/81AO9Au/uuEd5dHVYc8vACwLmKVNPVhiQHX3yJRaAeceAXBl4UVXgBYF7FKmmos3ZoSf J8rg2kodovgS8EKLwCsi1glTbXvmCPHYmyJGzrtltjsi97XAUEQVFIIPgiCf k4PwTezV31dnvWEe69qFqxbQFVZCL4srPACwLqIVdKUJwvBl4UVXgBYF7FKm vJkIfiysMILAOsiVklTniwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVNebIQf FlY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WdPBJ7T+T zbGvjLSidbVe0LwgZWTVdKUJ2su+P7/WItCEl6fY3KRPMJB4oMc5yAEH1g5WSVNebJWdnzGZk1LNB58vch1AtJy1kEI PrByskqa8mSt7Pjad312AyMKSeQ1BF9oAWBdxCppypO1uON7DD7ekm/62ne6kWPSUkS8LQQfWDlZJU15sqaDL1wlhyFDAWBdxCppypOF4MvCCi8ArIt YJU15sraCj/w9TvvROm5mpHHyYRB/nhuN7ZbJzYIVxRoBre1ahDgo+gIXg4/8Ja6/zp/t25C/35Fm/XWNO+htX4+pxIsnTsW3NGJzpICzAusilhhPZFL9dRJPjWdt1nu6KfjEYzHXP g3Ip32Rc2cMbmkwlYh97Yrx1FoBZwXWRSwtnsRl2LrJpn3yU4P1nrIHn5hN4 qu3m5UPPi0Hm/5uxws4K7AuYhnBR7Ydn7tG8JGnHlnv6abg498t/FnSCRkbcXi0V5BnGMTixbwz7O8UcFa/wNrn2r2FB1/Tv3S1z/a07sInxpFloq3Br4v27YNa6Dx8GBYqWa45j9kCLL68je8nMQv4ciBXAoOvKk sLbv7atZGyNx9fF+3bsbpuyHc6uc5sZpa9hAa3Qlo4EpabqdosO/K0mOPtH7+x/nfRvi3WZ78dkT1410a/qgXW2a+KhGb5N+17rCMyskw8bd8TslLwzS7bHdaaBoOPVE4u2nHZP0LpD7el 8RYBYnGNTRTbhv1qXpXNstcMeTn2ylkr4KzGWdqUmu3BR8ZcFU+1Zk2ZqI3N ZzdTpAxSklh/Yx7JI+IsdfEks2x3/VNiy/btS+z230XjNnlH2gtt7D1q0+ixk8dX854MljgYTRmSxozzW7MFHNcUy15CZz RfwxEAABy+SURBVFmbKsky5ljTJxtfccY0Fllv6yDL7mor+JryWsfba7f46a Cfs9oJPsOO8brGCziuteDTgv4ga1MlWVrwkVzjn+KpcdwufIGPy0prYwVf+3 592oF4rLUh64cPHqEPeD+jx1TiZkfsaDNstoCzmmJpxt9gbWqQpc23N1j70o LJXoniauVrjbhIOFhHQEK22LdjVXIYMhTw4yzt2yhnoI+AlotJFXwkmu1Y59 mtFY/gy8IKL+DHWXxptYH1s8ba1+MPhVOp98g6K4Mu7kzFpOMSQQi+FKzwAn6cpQX fvTu+GqyR4BMzzv7SWg++x0B9PLaf2mlzSi99zydcSGCJwdfMJbDM2tcjyGj w3nTdlxh89qCQ+NMOxG7pRfs2L1HjGZWJt0YmWc41Q0aCP669nCMFHBFYF7F GlsljOoz0M9jmlMSEegm0G3ziqzTWfD8kPAfbk9WE85i8Cs1mm5ltUwUcEVg Xscb3B/wr+a7gew+0G3ykpRh8/af29nlMjHBf1VrwkSuf64MGFwo4IrAuYu0HXzNX9xTroK4JPm1fYwRfUwLi6 uAj04tcad+WEXxgvQ0S52T7nn6DX8NVX+BW8Pmr5DBkKACsi1hHQOPf6/usQd0RfCG5UHIYMhQA1kWsfdCP/+xYD77BTrUfsAu/+/oHfYTgAysnq6QpT9b54OORx/vhf2hY6N9BCD6wcrJKmvJkvbLja+a/H/11agi+NAWAdRGrpClP1ls/dfmB+FO3IfjSFADWRaySpjxZL/6Nj/wVD8GXvACwLmKVNOXJeuun7lQFr7bfEYIPrJyskqY8WUPBB0EQVE8IPgiCfk 4PwXdmc3lInvWEe69qFqxbQFVZCL4srPACwLqIVdKUJwvBl4UVXgBYF7FKmv JkIfiysMILAOsiVklTniwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVNebIQfF lY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05claDD5+/a+TRiIH2sVHtNj/G0LwgZWTVdKUJ2sl+OwIa10Iik/xzvvG4kW7n/eE4AMrJ6ukKU/W1o7PDj7+SH9A0q3/FPsXQW8LwQdWTlZJU56sxeD73NWOl4MPO76oAsC6iFXSlCdrJfj+OmkXyQ5O fErMOARfVAFgXcQqacqTtbXjC1HJYchQAFgXsUqa8mQNBR8EQVA9IfggCPo5 PQTfmc3lIXnWE+69qlmwbgFVZSH4srDCCwDrIlZJU54sBF8WVngBYF3EKmnK k4Xgy8IKLwCsi1glTXmyEHxZWOEFgHURq6QpTxaCLwsrvACwLmKVNOXJQvBl YYUXANZFrJKmPFkIviys8ALAuohV0pQnC8GXhRVewC+w9rl2byHBdwT66STQ lCcLwZeFFV5AedZnMvcH/FRr3KTlQK74B59Y3qMvXrbhK8nE6MvWDrS7Wm/0on07VkmGoV4B5Vk8F4yL/BE7HAnL3xS3YPtauOUgO/g+B9owaRfF3qaDb6RrbZaQR3hOkw4NuoNmWcSafwEOrCMe/X0Z8aelodFM7MrT10haGb5qB584WLy3ueAbGWySZaSaJr1QflctLscw2I8Yg/R2AcsaZ4kLbKEHH9kjIqaAdp1MyJG14GZKK1X0ZQeH+Omjx6gyhkmMHbs3ev Hh9kbwaeuE37XpPlpjcYPc2qsFrGmKpS2nwU7S+rqFVdKUzbLLmC3yfPCJYU y64nls3NX6d9B+8GlB/2oBa1oLPv5ddZy1qZKskqY8WevB11i02XfFCOhXjhYT9wZfm98KHSlgTQvB1 6Td/XHWpqayeLOwhMG3PPcWWPtaZonfwYb3leCL1RXDcGMBP87iUS6eHmHta6Eks qtIaKp1Xz/aAWlGHuFX+kdIGwRfClZ4AT/O4iutfafGQda+FnZ8fMFnM9XM34WNZZzoS7vb99k3+KKLdSRRwjVTo4AfZ2n BN7UEbgm+nKaassUjFsSLj6e9FwRfIlZ4AT/OEhdMm1wCVwRfy2qqSaNgF09a8nAnLRF86VjhBYB1EaukKU/WUPBBEATVE4IPgqCf00PwndlcHpJnPeHeq5oF6xZQVRaCLwsrvACwLmKVNOX JQvBlYYUXANZFrJKmPFkIviys8ALAuohV0pQnC8GXhRVeAFgXsUqa8mQh+LK wwgsA6yJWSVOeLARfFlZ4AWBdxCppypOF4MvCCi8ArItYJU15staDr7/+2GbQz0jOlhyGDAX8Amufa/cWEnxHoMZSLTkxFoOvvz7S5nP6EWlDbhn+Sw5DhgLKs8hk+9wSZx2fq02a6r zBi06+ubyAl3wlmRgkH8QD7a7WG71o3+Ylim2MIbHv8oHRuG/LkxVeQHkWn2bGxf5Z8RZ/tjn60tZR2/ZlW35bdvB9Duww4RfF3l4JPv4ex4NP69O+/oYQfGVY9rcsafbXid/qe44NPjut1nwVCD4xT3hvJ4NPO+hLMSKPDMwj923NskaC+9UCHFhHPCYPvqa sHzIzrwu+NuArc/AZlZO7j5WLITMUfGva7y3JMNiPaMvMoYBljbPEBbbQg49Kskqasll2GQt7FN fg21eSYRh5SvyadShgTVMsbR8x2ElaX7ewSpryZO0G38JqIZ0vRPVU+x3tB9/ahmizgDWtBR8ZwXuDb2djPsva19Tm+hZTOyxxKhret4JPXNVk2Yv99MuGF3o waje1GXxtfit0pIA1rX2HfaxNeUzoy5irCX0tlGSsx1OsfZG5pM2u/luqb8Cv9I+QNgeC708S74E3JtXzU+3V+MiTFV7Aj7P4SmtsWp5i7WsqtrQ4y Gaq6XspMeNEX4Pxsh58Yn1i9dqUQvClKuDHWcYsnUqZ1TLntBl8OU01ZYtHL IgXZ+PlTPDZ5XLS37fEfoxXo906LgTf77DEBdPMJbDM2tdO8LWsppo0Cnbxp CU5NuJFfAOjP3VDlHDN1CgArItYJU15soaCD4IgqJ4QfBAE/Zwegu/M5vKQPOsJ917VLFi3gKqyEHxZWOEFgHURq6QpTxaCLwsrvACwLmKVNOXJQvB lYYUXANZFrJKmPFkIviys8ALAuohV0pQnC8GXhRVeAFgXsUqa8mQh+LKwwgs A6yJWSVOeLARfFlZ4AWBdxCppypOF4MvCCi/gF1j7XLu3kOA7Av10EmjKk4Xgy8IKL6A86zOZ+wN+qjVu0nIgV/yDTyzv0Rcv2/CVZGL0ZWsH2l2tN3rRvh2rJMNQr4DyLJ4LxkX+iB2OhOVviluwfS3ccpAdfJ 8DbZi0i2JvCL4UrPACarOM+NPS0GgmduXpayStDF+1g08cLN7bdPCJYy/WZ7CNuWK/6CTD8Nj+SJ0JzR7xmDz4tOtktl8XfJ/rdnCInz56jCpjmMjxSG/0onGbvyMC0Nj81ZOu+NwS604yDPYj2vpxKGBZ4ywtC2Z78FFJVklTNssuY7b I6eDjDPGUf+HwK6Q9/xyhv6rNtOJZ71PAmqZYYr6Pe0zr6xZWSVOerN3g0zZlg+lm3xL7zz8MWt6VD D4yQxB8xUBVWQeCz5j9vGVja0bcO2jodsMwPL6ftwtY00LwtYHx2mdtaiqLN wtLGHzLc2+Bta9llphChveV4IvVFcNwYwE/zuJRLp4eYe1roaTeSE5Trfv60Q5IM/IIv9I/Qtog+FKwwgv4cRZfae07NQ6y9rWw4+MLPpupppQnWtB8aXf7PvsGX3SxjiRK uGZqFPDjLC34ppbALcGX01RTtnjEgnjx8bT3guBLxAov4MdZ4oJpk0vgiuBr WU01aRTs4klLHu6k5VzwQRAE1ZMVfOfSHIIgKIsegg+CIKikHoLvvdBdkGc9 4d6rmgXrFlBVFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WQi+LKzwAsC6 iFXSlCcLwZeFFV4AWBexSpryZCH4srDCCwDrIlZJU54sBF8WVngBYF3EKmnK k4Xgy8IKLwCsi1gjoLXFK8RB0ReI4EvBCi8ArItYYjz9Sf/R1Tg1nrVZ7wnBp6rkMGQoAKyLWFo8fa73Gde+o0385KcG6z0h+FSVHIYMBYB 1EcsIPnH7ZgefthPUWO8Jwaeq5DBkKACsi1hGPPGMG9nrpf2py/ewvOyF/hF8WVjhBYB1EaukKc4S96E8te1H7C3w17O8lzyqOuThBYB1EaukKc4So0r7S d5Y2I1scr8eF8FJVHXIwwsA6yJWSVOEJe7pxA0decSIvJPB9/iTu0/fxt6jaHUE5yAEn91subyEvu5irYGM/dRx1pq04OM7uKaFV9fMaL8bfLzB46mY3yMsscNXtcAiXy9a3L9XwLLGWfseE/o6MnAhwScuIrLs+eenDXmEtGkpB+sIaCv4mj4G4sXfCT5ter1dwLIWVviyx4 S+jgxcVPCJB+InT7rPI2I4tpSDdQR0Mvi0K4295caWjfHsY+cvaY31962d3t KaJQtptpOcvvYHLjz4SK7xT/HUOG6JB2vhqf6RY8GnTRryutv3YDT20gdxDloOvs8Bn2EOBaxpIfjaqsecvv YHLjb4mlK5lndiUHIXgYNFyuNli0nCr2s9U7p9O1Y518z+U293BdbBlu/1cBC0XEyq4PscaOms3eJZL35DfOHs27HKuWZ2HnHrDaz9Zg6d7IN2lq0QB/cEH9/uaZs+BF8WVngBYF3EegQZDWaLjA0+MfLEjBPb95nIe6Z0+3asSs7jDAWAdRF rJPj6xUu2Re07FzZZB6Xt+N4AIfhSsMILAOsi1viOj8Sf+LnJOijPF4jgS8E KLwCsi1j7wdeGV3fVF4jgS8EKLwCsi1j7P3Uby8Fl1kEh+FSVHIYMBYB1Ees IaLCTqi/wOfggCILqCcEHQdDP6SH4zmwuD8mznnDvVc2CdQuoKgvBl4UVXgBYF7FKmvJ kIfiysMILAOsiVklTniwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVNebIQfFl Y4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WWeCj7QRH/lc/Ov+z2DfctBz2mH4Y2rfNrnlswVsCqyLWCVNebIOBB/PL6HH7uInBcjp1cHX2yHW7ONTBewLrItYJU15sg7v+Mh+R+xH3P7cHnyf9jz H12yuFbAjsC5ilTTlyTocfPZpv9cTd0ALrFflyQovAKyLWCVNebJeDD4eZ+W D7+CP3LX2OwLrIlZJU56soeCDIAiqJwQfBEE/p4fgO7O5PCTPesK9VzUL1i2gqiwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovAKyLWCVN ebIQfFlY4QWAdRGrpClPFoIvCyu8ALAuYpU05clC8GVhhRcA1kWskqY8WQi+ LKzwAsC6iFXSlCcLwZeFFV4AWBexSpryZCH4srDCCwBLe2R8FSQPvjVfyQdr GYTgS8EKL+AXWJ/53E/sv//0adx/8qfExpz1qkRTvNQmOeLGiTvev4snVxaCLwsrvIBfYNmJ1jcwAo4cZAg+ozDb l/gqtP4dhOBTVXIYMhTwCyxta/N42qR8aWyBhAeflte2TeO4FZ0YCL4srPACfoFlr3Mj/nhi8s756XvSauA1tydf5C53UXJiIPiysMIL+GXWcj0Zgm+nzciD2QbrFAjBl 4IVXsBvsnZmuLBycgTfpaY8WQi+LKzwAn6NNTW3B1tmCL7jvjIM1hsgBF8KV ngBtVn8b17kT13i9b4Tcvp4/KqIl5GDKV8hpjxZCL4srPACarP4kubX+yviUyRHyHHzXbcjLtZ8RZnyZCH4s rDCC6jNIkGwGRDEQobgE+tvG74QfAi+MFU1Gxh8Tdqmaet/ZGMlJuDbEuNpPPJsX1GmBllH2iD4srDCCwDrIlZJU4Ms/pUjhv5jJwi+FKzwAsC6iFXS1CBLi7x+r4rgu4YVXgBYF7FKmhpkiRkn/q5/7IRetG/zKsW/C/BnxVO+OxWf1Tp5VeMs4l1rM/tFksrso8dxg6l8fZoNrpl91r5mTY0/ssw6ovHJY+z7RvpZDz77nWpxxh8nLaeW39taCClxMEhXa3n6tqbmXFNm3mBX gb6MedgfiNb+Oo2w3pO44rgvsXjSnh88st7TMmv2wfXg62G8GZ8fg8E3DnXQ wtvkB0ZAHC9gR4MsPmq9x0GDgb76+rV0Ey+SBrEZIQZfk3zxR2yzWs8+WmDN rinjqeng46faLBmZcOLp4/U3tBN8hrX3CtjRbPDxb7LjrCPaDD6S6UZAaBff0H7wEfFnDdZ7stPGrmQqAc 8EH58N48HX2LQbhDpoOfia8rNop8O3NRV8TfmJNNuJg4zga5ILMmra5MwcfE 2afpov4kjr2UcG3RiXJg2T2Exs/++ifTtWCbOgRgFgXcQqaYqzyDcN/+Ihn8YpByH4UrDCCwDrIlZJUxrL2Jki+K5nhRfwU6zBAowfSuOsN7RpaqqH8 B1ffyzGX3+3KWnIQQi+FKzwAn6KRVYUv9i+11J/11gU4cFH6ufXtW0Rf9xmvaQ3WAi+1KzwAn6K1S97bafQWEyQu4OsN2SbasoO 6DHyigWf/RWF4EvBCi/gp1haFvBPIyIHWW9oJPj4p5iMvOUI6yV5vkAEXwpWeAE/xbIT4dNG2xblD76mx7p42nRf4YP1EgjBl4IVXgBYF7FKmvJkIfiysMILAOsi VklTniwEXxZWeAFgaY+P93BR8I37umiwpkAIvhSs8AJ+nMX/8vX4F71l1r7WTLWxv1SusY4Iwaeq5DBkKODHWTwjGvv3jVOsfS2n+ec6gg/Bl4IVXsCPs8hWqMyOb38nm3CwjoAQfClY4QWAtfmTcIq1qTVTDT91OxCCLwU rvACwLmKVNOXJGgo+CIKgekLwQRD0c3oIvjOby0PyrCfce1WzyVnkkfFV4OZ rDbTmK/lgLYMQfClY4QX8Auszn/uJ3X//80/+lNiYs16VaIqX2iRH3Dhxx/t38eTKQvBlYYUX8AssO9H6BkbAkYMMwWcUZvsSX4XWv4MQfKpKDkOGAn6BpW 1tHk+blC+NLZDw4NPy2rZpHLeiEwPBl4UVXsAvsOx1bsQfT0zeOT99T1oNvO b25Ivc5S5KTgwEXxZWeAG/zFquJ0Pw7bQZeTDbYJ0CIfhSsMIL+E3WzgwXVk6O4LvUlCcLwZeFFV7Ar7Gm 5vZgywzBd9xXhsF6A4TgS8EKL6A2i//Ni/ypS7zed0JOH49fFfEycjDlK8SUJwvBl4UVXkBtFl/S/Hp/RXyK5Ag5br7rdsTFmq8oU54sBF8WVngBtVkkCDYDgljIEHxi/W3DF4IPwRemqmYDg69J2zRt/Y9srMQEfFtiPI1Hnu0rypQnC8GXhRVeAFgXsUqasllkVyseaHe13uhF+3ask gxDvQLAuohV0pTNGtnbahfF3hB8KVjhBYB1EaukKZs1Hny8gdjbbvCRPwfIP Sp5TBqPvOIkw2C0tHfXU/WnMvvocdxgKl+fZo+r5RRrX7Omxh9ZZh3RY1RpkUfuvh58I29WbCOG46Vrpm 8sDgnpai1P39b4yyfTq7Gxm8rQt0VYvFS+WjRrf51GWO/pcfnwUjVf/OCR9Z7sqFp7UGu/FXw9UpsTWvAZM2wE56CFt8kPFjwuF7CjQdZnkXxOe4/5B7GvX0s38SJpEJsR4iprki/+iG1W69lHni/wZPCRA35RbGNcN3AO2gk+cXq9XcCOZoOPzI1bAn02+EimGwGhXXxD+8FHxJ8 1WO9pZ6XwCWnE18ng69traWi/9DbgPPMwiO99OR0W2u9okMXDQkyNI6wjIiw+34gLMmr8WAsI7eIb0uKJlyoW 3xTjRs8+EseifY8CKZWPmvYIaSM4Ja1fMrmmhFlQowCwLmKVNNXGfobzCGss IrU05yn5RRfrSKKqQx5eAFgXsUqaavrPCL4bNYJPPO29IPgSscIL+CnWYAHa/Ncejw2+cVNTPfgPFo8/MdR4S77pIy0RfOlY4QX8FIssCX6xseXBV+Mg6w09mmqKLx4lmn2b9ZI8XyCC LwUrvICfYvGtQX+xsVwgKZk2+Bqz1hQvRhqOsF4Sgk9VyWHIUMBPsbQs4J9G RA6y3tBI8PFPMRl5yxHWS0LwqSo5DBkK+CmWnQifNtq2KH/wtac/kBn7vhHWS0LwqSo5DBkKAOsiVklTniwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTheDLwgovACzt 8fEeLgq+cV8XDdYUCMGXghVewI+z+F++Hv+it8za15qpNvaXyjXWESH4VJUc hgwF/DiLZ0Rj/75xirWv5TT/XEfwIfhSsMIL+HEW2QqV2fHt72QTDtYREIIvBSu8ALA2fxJOsTa1Zqrhp24H QvClYIUXANZFrJKmPFkIviys8ALAuohV0pQnayj4IAiC6gnBB0HQz+kh+M5s Lg/Js55w71XNgnULKIrFk0dNK+n64xUEXxZWeAFgXcQqaarpwafVwNONPC4e8P7/91TfUfjiJ6o65OEFgHURq6SppgefeIVc77d+/ad2C8GXghVeAFgXsUqaambw2cWIkWfkHYIvCyu8ALAuYpU01VjwGbs50qw/5f0YLb/opN8XDK6r6pCHFwDWRaySpgZZO/Ug+NKxwgsA6yJWSVODrOV6+FaRNrBvxyrbMJQpAKyLWCVNebIQfFlY4QWAdR FrcGe0UI8QBwle4PEaEHxZWOEFgHURS4yn/q/4nwPj1HjWZr2nR1b/Rzry2b7rt7tC8GVhhRcA1kUsLZ5IBPBE0D75qcF6T/aO709S070blSP4srDCCwDrIpYRfOL2zQ4+HiI26z3ZwUeOuSmSVwi+C1jhBY B1EcuIJzEOmhJ5/JHMwWdnutjA6BDBl4IVXgBYF7FKmnqDheDLzgovAKyLWCVNvcF6MfjIPlNsz 9v0V+xnB528IQSf3Wy5vIS+7mKtgchTN664v2+RB6diZCv4eAOhOxZz/JbWQCTaDQ5qgdXbMYy/V8Cyxln7HhP6OjJwIcFHqiUWtM9PG/IIadOSDZZofDzv+LNfF+3bdik2g5S4UHqqYdAeES0v9+ajhRW+7DGhryMD5+ ZLXHTkQPzkSfd5hLfnrLc1kja8ftHRSD/0on3bqFXoSxoMfivh3Fpm/X1rp7e0ZslCmu0kp6/9gQsPPpIL/FM8NY5bssHiha0l9VvBpx38SPB9DvgMcyhgTQvB11Y95vS1P3CxwdeUyrW8E 4OSu0g1WEbw9V4euzoQfM5KNQwHn3q7K7AOtnyvh4Og5WIyB9+prhB8h1lny 0tuthLrSElJgm9n2QpxkG+w9rtC8GVhhRcA1kWsqZ+Es89utt/RY9nklyz/mS9K7A3Bl4IVXgBYF7FGgo/8weuTFH1kvPqTeUEai3jpP/sDkoNGtwi+LKzwAsC6iDW+4zMiY6SfwTantB984kYPwZeXFV4AWBex9oOvDa/u8BfI67dDkHeF4MvLCi8ArItYI8FHAsJOjR3WQY0EHz8wNn1agiH4srDCCwD rItYR0GAnVV8ggi8FK7wAsC5i7YPGe6j6AhF8KVjhBYB1EaukKZt1tgwEXxZ WeAFgXcQqaWqQpf2B73OR/ylQ7ATBl4IVXgBYF7FKmrJZxr9gNCX+jPhC8GVhhRcA1kWskqZsVn+L7+9IL D52iODLwgovAKyLWCVN2aw+2tp3NInHdnYh+LKwwgsA6yJWSVOeLARfFlZ4A WBdxCppypOF4MvCCi8ArItYJU15shB8WVjhBYB1EaukKU8Wgi8LK7wAsC5il TTlyULwZWGFFwDWRaySpjxZCL4srPACwLqIVdKUJwvBl4UVXgBYF7FKmvJkI fiysMILAOsiVklTniwEXxZWeAFgXcQqacqTNRR8EARB9YTggyDo56QGHwRB0 I8IwQdB0M8JwQdB0M8JwQdB0M/p/wDONtV6wfzplQAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

gaunty
11th Mar 2014, 11:48
17 out of over 230 something?? = consensus, you must be a sctrutineer for the Greens:p

just saying. Now for the usual suspects.:D

Creampuff
11th Mar 2014, 12:07
You're being a little naughty, Gaunty! :=

You don't know that the content of the other 220 submissions is supportive of the output and direction of the regulatory reform program. Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.

Or do you disagree? If yes, on what basis do you disagree? :confused:

Paragraph377
11th Mar 2014, 12:22
Given that Mr Forsyth has already stated that everyone's agreed that the output of the program is "a dog's breakfast", it is reasonable to assume that not many of the 220 describe the current output and direction as a good idea.
Are the 17 submissions listed actually the first 17 out of the 220 to be submitted? If so, that would explain why only 17 have been made publicly available for scrutiny/review. The AG, AMROBA and Pro Aviation submissions were enough for the Miniscule to react in the way he did and ensure any other damning comments were put under lock and key. This would be totally in line with Liberal party tactics and the tactics of an old dog Miniscule who has been around the block a few times during his career :=
One can only imagine what is contained in the other 203 submissions, but of course Miniscule Truss, Mrdak and the assorted advisory turd polishers know exactly what the context of those reports say about Australia's aviation bodies and their Government masters :=
Somehow I think Gaunty and Creamy already understand this :=

gaunty
11th Mar 2014, 14:32
Creamy me old, who me, naughty ?:roll eyes:

I agree, my point was ONLY that the conclusions drawn by Up into the Air, are not based on a large enough sample of the total to be statistically significant.

And no I don't know the content of all of the other submissions.

I absolutely agree that in terms of regulatory reform and the regulators behaviour it has been like watching a train smash of epic proportions in super slo mo with a peripatetic in charge of the jogging control with a melange of Groundhog Day thrown in for good measure. :{

I don't believe ANY of the other like minded or culturally aligned NRA suites are fully compliant with the ICAO, nor do not, in one way or another, have maybe a similar number of oddities as does the CASA suite.

So grabbing at any of them holus bolus is not IMHO the answer and would bring more trouble than in we are already.

Difference is and its only IMHO, the other NRA's (definitely not EASA) at least share a coherent structure with a reasonably rational philosophical foundation for their being.

They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?

We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.

it is not and we are not, by any definition.

What we do have is a reasonable base from which to work. Its not perfect but we know which bits work and which do not and where to go for the missing bits. We can not nor should not throw 20 years and $250M in the bin, some of it is usable,

Its not rocket science, nor beyond the people it affects most and that is the industry who have actual real world experience.

Fox's and chickens you say? Not if it is constructed by industry people who understand that unless the result has a clear and demonstrable safety benefit, and after all thats why we have regulations, it will not work.

At the end of the day you have to have trust that good people with good will, will want to do good things. We trust our "licensed" personnel to exercise the privileges of heir "license" to do the right thing. its how its supposed to work.
We're not quite there yet but with CRM and SMS now taking firm hold with higher supervisory responsibility and an increasingly transparent economic imperative that requires this behaviour is exercised to a very high level the responsible operators are almost self saucing.:zzz:

My personal view from here is that we can take the overall numbering suite 1 thru 198 or so with Headings, work through them against what we already have use the best of the rest for what we haven't and the make them ICAO compliant and SMS based or justified, then we will have a world class system.

All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous :8 legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need.

Existing CASA staff may contribute for their individual expertise but the final result must be driven by the industry in compliance with Government policy.

The industry has some seriously competent and experienced people whom led competently can be trusted to get it right.

i think maybe there has been a sufficient flushing out of the dodgy bros operators and general maturing, that we can reset the enforcement regime to a more tolerant one by changing the mindset from offence to violation and placing the liability where it belongs.

Trust, the fundamental basis on which this industry works, must be restored.

Otherwise a certifying signature is not worth the paper its written on?:cool:

Confrontation has no place in the safety agenda under any circumstances.

This will of course require a pretty vigorous retraining and re education of a goodly number of the staff, but given the will and full Government support i reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.


Rant off.

dubbleyew eight
11th Mar 2014, 15:07
it was put to me in a conversation that the ministerial staff were absolutely afraid of some aspects of aviation.
this casa embuggerance and smoke and mirrors complexity was a deliberate government driven ploy to stifle the life out of aviation.

I'd love to know what they are actually afraid of.

do we have some cocaine snorters in the halls of power?
that would explain a lot of the senseless paranoia.

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 00:42
… They will all have what they will tell you, justification for their differences to the ICAO to which they are all signatories, how does that work?

We here have been endlessly educated and berated about the fact that Australian air is somehow different to that in North America and Europe and that we are a world leader.

it is not and we are not, by any definition. …The ‘air’ may be the same, but Australia’s topography and climate are not the same as other countries’. Consequently, for example, there is no safety justification for Australia to strictly comply with ICAO runway width standards that are designed to deal with ice, snow and other contaminating phenomena that are rarely, if ever, encountered at Australian airports.

Nor is Australia’s health system the same as other countries’ and (with the stark exception of CASA recently) health risk decisions in Australia are based on truly expert opinions and truly objective data. Consequently, for example, there is no safety justification for Australia to strictly comply with ICAO colour vision standards, which are merely a hangover from the purely coincidental adoption of the maritime ‘rules of the road’ and navigation aid system for aviation, over a century ago.

I started singing ‘Kumbayah’ by the end of this paragraph:All reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous legalese. Most importantly simple enough for pilots, users and the public to understand, that you don't have to go hunting through a dozen different documents to find that there as actually 2 or 3 different answers, then you can shop for the result you need. …How could we have been so stupid? The solution was staring everyone in face! Just get “a panel of industry peers” to do a “review” and all will be solved. :rolleyes:[I] reckon 12-18 months to finish the process to everyones satisfaction would not be out of bounds.I reckon you’re deluded.

The RRP has been 12-18 months from completion for over a decade.

CASA’s left all of the hardest bits to last. For example, if you think classification of operations rules are going to be agreed and tied in a nice plain English bow by ‘a panel of industry peers’ this side of the end of the decade, if ever, I’ve some cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for you. :ok:

Frank Arouet
12th Mar 2014, 01:01
'gaunty, me old' eh!


It's good you stick your head up every now and then to remind us all how your input helped inflict 'strict liability' upon us all. It's amazing you, of all people have the hide to even pass yourself off as some sort of expert on CASA regulatory matters, let alone pass on any unbiased opinion. I also vaguely recall creampuff being some sort of 'strict liability' advocate at the time.


It may be of interest to you, gaunty, that your efforts will be mentioned in dispatches in the upcoming Attorney Generals Inquiry, as that piece of bad historical legal bastardry fits well within the terms of reference.


11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Fourth%20quarter/11December2013-NewAustralianLawReformInquiryToFocusOnFreedoms.aspx)


Unfortunately you will have to wait for those submissions to be published and hope there is no 'privilege'. As my submission will be but one of many based on fact it will be interesting to see the fallout.


The Truss 'review' may well account for some slaps with a wet shoelace and some upper and mid level bureaucrats getting a DCM with bar, but it could well lay the foundations to challenge 'strict liability' offences as illegal and lay waste to everything CASA has regulated over the last decade.


It may come to pass that if that were to occur, you would have done us a great service albeit with a lot of flotsam and jetsam along the way. Whatever, there is then a real chance that we will have to adopt a form of the FAR's for immediacy of safety, as tearing up the existing Reg's will effectively ground every aircraft in Australia.


The Brandis Inquiry has more teeth than the Truss 'review'. Whatever sample you now wish to ridicule as inadequate, they will be bookends for the paperwork to come.

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 01:15
Strict liability has been and continues to be fact of life. (Do you drive at all?)

It’s just that spelling it out repeatedly in the civil aviation rules (as a consequence of the requirements of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914) has upset the bliss of ignorance.

Cactusjack
12th Mar 2014, 01:27
it was put to me in a conversation that the ministerial staff were absolutely afraid of some aspects of aviation.
Of course they are afraid. Aviation is a complex industry which houses numerous technical fields. What would the majority of bureaucrats know? Soft handed pen pushers skilled in lying, deceiving and spinning truth and facts while promoting self interests. Anything technical like aviation would be their worst nightmare!! Quick grab a giant broom, sweep it under the carpet and click your heels three times and say 'there is no place like home'!
Fools, bring on the revolution......

Tick Tock

Frank Arouet
12th Mar 2014, 02:24
Strict liability: Well, just because it's law doesn't make it a good law. Many aviation administrative actionable offences have been made criminal offences. I believe road laws, even electronic speeding devices and alcohol instruments are open to challenge in a Court of law without seeking redress from the AAT.


Things are made complicated by the application of over regulation. An example, the Hamilton Is PA-32 fatal crash where the pilot was found to have a Non-therapeutic drug indicator after a considerable time, (weeks), from ingestion. Not only are the inclusions of this finding irrelevant in the final cause determination but was the main catalyst for the now disgraced drug and alcohol testing regime now foisted upon us.


Strict liability is abused by the CASA and the Brandis inquiry is focused upon this plus other matters that have been taken to like a duck to water by the same collective of dungeon dwelling, dysentery spreading amoebae's lurking under and around the CASA umbrella.

dubbleyew eight
12th Mar 2014, 02:38
creampuff and gaunty you guys have destroyed your credibility in one post each.
congratulations.

but hey I'm a martian with a 41 year history of safe illegal aviation.
wtf would I know.

when are you people going to recognise that CASA has assembled together a mutually self supporting group of utter nutters.
all with the sincere stare, the concerned look on the face and utter nonsensical logic.
the snow job has seen $240,000,000 of taxpayers money evaporated with nothing acceptable as even the interim result.

ministers, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you were victims of a snow job.
the blatant waste of taxpayers funds must be put to a stop.

kill off the Clueless Arseholes Screwing Aviation bullshit. bring in the New Zealand FAR's and get some sense back into aviation.
the lawyers aren't the way to make aviation safe.

me maintaining my aeroplane is the only safe way to fly the damn thing. thats why I do it. why the hell would you make it illegal. haven't you got a bloody clue??

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 02:38
But Frank, Brandis is a Laborial. He’s one of the people who’ve presided over the inexorable increase in regulation of every aspect of your life. He ‘knows’ that ‘safety’ depends on ‘strong’ regulation.

Good luck! Let us know how you go. :ok:

W8 - thanks; I think ... :confused:

dubbleyew eight
12th Mar 2014, 02:51
sorry creampuff I read that post as you advocating the nonsense

I see that you merely state that it exists and give the enacting law.

you get another chance :E

Frank Arouet
12th Mar 2014, 05:10
Creampuff;


Safety depends on common sense and that can't be regulated. Senator Brandis knows that, and may well be a laborious, Liberal Party lawyer, however he knows how lawyers think. I don't, always thought they were a peculiar lot and not to be left alone with cats.


Do you consider he would call an inquiry into the whole $hitfight if he thought it was going hooters?

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 06:00
We all know why politicians call inquiries, Frank … ;)

BTW, I agree with you in principle. All of the penalties in the civil aviation rules could be changed to “Death” and it wouldn’t make a schmick of difference to the accident and incident rate.

If I recall correctly, part of Mr McCormick’s self-serving but mercifully-curtailed spray at the start of the last round of Estimates hearings included a reference to having civil penalty rather than strict liability offences in the rules. I was reminded of that song lyric: “too much; too little; too late ….

Cactusjack
12th Mar 2014, 07:27
If I recall correctly, part of Mr McCormick’s self-serving but mercifully-curtailed spray at the start of the last round of Estimates hearings included a reference to having civil penalty rather than strict liability offences in the rules. I was reminded of that song lyric: “too much; too little; too late ….
Creamy, good song. I still remember the first time I made love while that played in the background. Pity I was the only one present on that occasion :E

I believe somebody in CAsA recently sang Creamys love song to the outgoing ICC !! But don't worry, Truss has recently sung the same song to McSkull, and I am sure that Beaker will be serenaded with the same robust ballad come June/July. Who knows, maybe the IOS will get to sing this to the outgoing shitty regs one day :ok:
Word of caution: If playing this to the other DAS please turn it up loud as the old boy is hard of hearing these days!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BeeJv5kjq9I

LeadSled
12th Mar 2014, 09:52
Folks,

I note the SAAA submission, the contents of which comes as no surprise for a bunch of, in my opinion, rent seakers, tryingt to, once again (there have been many attempts since 1998) for a return to the glory days of their CAA/CASA etc guaranteed income - a setup that, in my opinion, grossly impeded amateur building in Australia.

In short, in my opinion, SAAA want all the pre-1998 red tape and restrictions reintroduced, plus a few more sources of red tape revenue that didn't exist pre-1998.

The US style Experimental categories, including the Experimental Amateur Built have been a resounding success in Australia, why would we want to revert to the old, restrictive, and Oh! So Expensive red tape bureaucratic nonsense of the AABA system --- ????

There is certainly no safety justification, not even in terms of S.9A of the Act.

What SAAA is proposing, in my opinion, is a solution looking for a problem, and a guaranteed very expensive solution for amateur builders, to a problem that clearly does not exist. Any aviating is already expensive enough, without adding substantial extra costs.

The real problem for SAAA, in my opinion, was that they lost a significant regulated revenue source in 1998, and have been trying to get it back ever since.

Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 11:50
And there you have it, gaunty.

Any ‘panel of industry peers’ would be at each other’s throats before morning tea on the first day… :D

Agreement on e.g. classification of operations? Snowflake's hope in hades!

LeadSled
12th Mar 2014, 17:06
Agreement on e.g. classification of operations? Snowflake's hope in hades!

Creamie,
Actually, a very reasonable Class. of Ops., with no industry dissenters, was finally completed during the time Byron was Director.
The incoming Mr. McCormick tossed it, just as he tossed Byron's directive that mandated government policy on Cost/Benefit justification and outcome based regulation.
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
12th Mar 2014, 21:41
Actually, a very reasonable Class. of Ops., with no industry dissenters, was finally completed during the time Byron was Director. …Actually, there wasn’t. (But it does depend on one’s potentially self-serving definition of ‘industry’).The incoming Mr. McCormick tossed it, just as he tossed Byron's directive that mandated government policy on Cost/Benefit justification and outcome based regulation.That’s because Mr Byron’s directives were all vacuous motherhood statements that reflected existing vacuous government policy. If only he’d published a ‘Directive’ to ‘cut red tape’ as well…

But I could be wrong, and maybe I’m a glass half empty guy as guanty suggests, despite my having been spot on with nearly every prediction I’ve made in the last decade about the regulatory reform program.

So, time to put up or shut up, 'industry peers': Please cut and paste into this thread the very reasonable classification of operations rules that have no industry dissenters, all reviewed and written in "plane talk" by a panel of industry peers and free of tortuous legalese.

Please do it or please STFU.

My prediction: You won’t do it, because you can’t do it.

The 'industry’ is not agreed on an underlying philosophy for classification of operations. Anyone who’s read and understands the implications of the publicly available submissions to the ASSR Panel should already know that. :ugh:

Sarcs
13th Mar 2014, 00:22
The Australian School of Business (http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx) (IRRC) is nearing the end of a three year research project into the Future of aircraft maintenance in Australia (http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/research/industrialrelationsresearchcentre/projects/Pages/futureofaircraftmaintenanceinaustralia.aspx): Located in the world's fastest growing aviation region, Australia's vital air transport industry faces a shortage of skilled aircraft maintenance engineers that may increasingly be solved by moving much aircraft maintenance offshore.

This project will examine the options for this industry's future, exploring the safety risks of offshoring, and the costs of developing or losing a skilled national aircraft maintenance workforce.

It will develop a method for forecasting aeroskills requirements, explore new approaches to workforce development, and analyse the costs and benefits of allowing the industry to decline, rather than contributing to a strong national aerospace and technology sector.
The study report is due to be released later this year but in the meantime, using interim findings, the research team has made a submission to the WLR..:D Although I am yet to track down the actual submission, the following article perhaps highlights the finer points of the ABS submission to the WLR panel :ok:: Sky Wars: Why Offshore Aircraft Maintenance is a Flawed Strategy (http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleid=1854)

Published: March 10, 2014 in [email protected] School of Business

Aluminium smelting, oil refining, car making – the list of Australia’s vanishing industries grows longer. Among reasons for ceasing Australian operations, Holden, Ford and Toyota cited fierce global competition, a small local market and a relatively high wages bill. Now Qantas, in announcing plans last month to cut a further 5000 staff in the face of financial losses, has added arguments about the ‘unfair’ requirement that it service its aircraft in Australia. It's rival, Virgin, relies on overseas workshops.

Australian aircraft maintenance has been moving offshore for some time. This increasing trend has been put under the microscope by the Australian School of Business (ABS) during the past three years in an Australian Research Council study – The Future of Aircraft Maintenance in Australia: Aviation Safety, Workforce Capability and Industry Development.

The key researchers – ASB professor Michael Quinlan, associate professors Anne Junor and Ian Hampson, senior lecturer Sarah Gregson and research associate Doug Fraser – were inspired by concerns about the strategic and economic costs of offshoring, possible threats to passenger safety and a declining skill base in the Australian aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry.

The full study will be released later this year, but the researchers have utilised interim findings in an ASB Industrial Relations Research Centre submission to the federal government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review, due to report in May. A key point in the submission is a looming skills crisis.

As local maintenance jobs have been cut, such as the 1000 positions Qantas is reported to have shed during 2012, the training capability for the next generation has gone into free fall. Junor has mapped MRO organisations and found as many as 50% have closed down in recent years and that difficulties in finding staff are prevalent among remaining providers. Defence facilities now account for about 75% of apprentice completions. One of the two civilian NSW centres presently approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to train aircraft engineers has 10-15 students this year. In 2013 it had 30. During the past 10 years it had about 100 per year.

Global Opportunity

According to Fraser, fostering MRO should be a no-brainer for Australian industry strategists.

“It’s no longer just a sideshow of running an airline. It’s a big global industry in its own right, worth around A$70 billion a year and likely to at least double during the next 20 years. It utilises the kind of highly skilled blue-collar labour that Australia has traditionally been good at developing. It offers many specialist areas of work where Australia’s comparative wage costs don’t seriously limit our competitiveness,” Fraser says.

“Above all, international authorities expect most regions of the world to fall well short of the training output needed to meet their own MRO requirements over the next decade.”

Fraser puts the decline in MRO skills down to a series of policy oversights by successive governments.

“Australia traditionally relied for the bulk of its technical training on big public-sector organisations such as the railways, Telecom and Defence establishments, and a few of the largest private companies,” he says. “In the 1980s we had Qantas, TAA and Ansett all running substantial apprenticeship programs. Qantas absorbed TAA, Ansett went out of business, and nobody else has stepped in to fill the gap.

"In effect, Australia's MRO training effort has been allowed to become hostage to the strategies and fortunes of a single company. If that company now can't look after itself, how is it going to look after the future needs of the Australian industry?"

The skills drain could leave the fledgling Australian aircraft-component industry in the same situation facing the car-component industry.

Says Junor: “At the moment, Australia is the biggest components supplier to Boeing outside the US. Running down the capacity of our automotive and aero-skills training facilities is hardly the way to ensure our continued integration into this large global market.”

Profits and Safety

And what impact will the cost-quality trade-off of offshoring maintenance have on Australia’s enviable airline safety record? Hampson sees gaps in the safety surveillance systems.

“There are doubtless many offshore shops which give top-quality service that Australian consumers can rely on,” he says. “We know from experience that there are some which definitely don’t. The problem is that we don’t have enough good information to tell which is which. Australia doesn’t even keep public records of which maintenance goes offshore, never mind where it goes. Once it does go offshore, no public records are kept of where the work has fallen short of standard, or what rework is needed in Australia when the plane comes back.

“The risk then is that because there isn't enough information about quality, choices will be made on the basis of price. This is a classic ‘market for lemons’ situation, where quality providers get driven out of the market and many others survive who don't deserve to."

Hampson believes market forces alone are unlikely to address this threat. Airline profits need to be balanced against the probability of a major accident. While any such incident would have fatal consequences for the business as well as for human life, it might or might not occur, and if it does, it will be at some unknown point in the future, possibly only once the aircraft has been sold on and become someone else’s worry.

“An Asian airline Boeing 747 in 1980 suffered a tail strike from landing too steeply. It was not repaired properly and cracks appeared and 22 years later the plane fell out of the air. Aircraft maintenance can be a health risk but it is difficult to know the extent,” Hampson says.

Relaxed Approach

The researchers note “a contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the increasingly stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to apply to offshore providers”.

The FAA is subject to political supervision and accountability in ways that Australia’s CASA is not. The FAA was recently compelled by congressional legislation to tighten up its regulatory and supervisory practices. In Australia, the trend is for CASA to offshore its responsibilities to foreign aviation authorities to ensure safety standards. This leaves the certification of maintenance on Australian aircraft to the safety oversight, training and licensing procedures of another country.

“We wonder how consistent this is with the Australian safety program, as well as International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements that the State of Registry be responsible for the safety of maintenance performed on aircraft even in another country,” say the researchers.

Back of the Queue

The expected worldwide shortage of aircraft maintenance engineers is likely to increase offshore wages, negating much of the cost advantage of offshore maintenance and affect the viability of relying on offshore maintenance as the primary means of meeting Australia’s airworthiness requirements. Australian carriers may find themselves relegated to the back of the maintenance queue by other players with considerably greater political and/or market power.

Junor predicts a dissipation of Australia’s aircraft maintenance capability will have particular impact on the general aviation sector – regional airlines, commuter operators servicing fly-in fly-out, tourism ventures and the transport, freight and emergency services that support rural and remote communities. The major airlines may be able to rely on offshore maintenance but the general aviation sector cannot.

The submission argues that in the interests of the safety of the travelling public, Australia will need to rebuild its MRO capacity and the workforce to support it. This would require extensive structural reform, well beyond what the present market is likely to bring about.

aroa
13th Mar 2014, 00:27
The "Industry" never got a ANY chance to find if there were benefits to be had in the Classification of Ops Policy adopted by the Minister and the Board, April 1997. And IMHO there were many benefits. :ok:
....But alas
Once ingested into CASA and bowel-derized and turned to sh*t, the last vestiges of what could have produced some good results for owners and operators vanished from the CASA web site in 2003. :mad:

So much for all that hope, some sanity and the colossal cost ..yet again to the taxpayer...for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. :mad:

It means ... the elected rep..the "minister" has NO balls, backbone, teeth or interest to drive it through to fruition. :mad:

It means ...the unelected swill/CAsA have the wherewithall to sink any policy unchallenged either by the "bored' or "miniscule" :mad:

It means...its time to smash a few windows to attract attention to the plight of GA. :ok:

Creampuff
13th Mar 2014, 01:34
What classification of operations “policy” was “adopted” by the Minister and CASA Board in April 1997? :confused:

Frank Arouet
13th Mar 2014, 08:00
Nope, thought about it but still lost for ideas. I give up. Was it something to do with bowels?

Cactusjack
13th Mar 2014, 11:03
aroa
Once ingested into CASA and bowel-derized and turned to sh*t, the last vestiges of what could have produced some good results for owners and operators vanished from the CASA web site in 2003.
Love it! "Bowel-derized"! A new word to add to the IOS dictionary!

And
It means...its time to smash a few windows to attract attention to the plight of GA.
Yes! Now you're talking boys! I will bring the rocks.

aroa
13th Mar 2014, 13:25
And here's me thinking that Puffy...once an inside man..until the wheels fell off ....was the fount of all av-knowledge.:{

In my BIG box called CASA..the Collection of Absolute Shite Archive, which goes back for decades....I still have the paperwork regarding this COOP for the brave new GA world. Alas, its life was like a snowflake in hell...brief.

I'll hunt out the wonder words regarding its introduction (sic) of the then "Minister" and post herein. There are also pages of, defining all those wonderful things like...
..."A pilot, with an aircraft and his "toolbox" ( a camera??) can make a profit from any class of operation" etc, etc.:ok::ok:

Oh words, oh wonder, OH bullshit !:mad: Nil progress since...but worse ! :mad:

Has anything changed? I was advised 6 years ago that CAsA was..."looking into" (!!??) removing criminal penalties for minor breaches of those (crap) regs like forgetting to completely fill in a line in yr log book. !! FFS a crime !!
Has that happened? NO, not to my knowledge. Not a whisper.

So what DO we get? Just the continual McComic vomit, Gobsome spinnery, and recently, the most nauseous hagiography from Hawke of the Bored, one had the misfortune to ever read! :mad:

Q..Good grief, Warren WTF are you. A.. the fairyland of CB

Cactusjack
13th Mar 2014, 14:18
And here's me thinking that Puffy...once an inside man..until the wheels fell off ....was the fount of all av-knowledge.
Nah, once a 'R'egulator always a 'R'egulator!

But interestingly 'Regulators' and ex 'Regulators' hold dear those special qualities that draws them to the fight over and over again - It's that bullying quality, sociopathic tendency and underdeveloped genitalia that binds them together much as the same way my excrement binds with corn. They live to 'R'egulate industry because it is an outlet for them - They were bullied at school, lost their virginity to a middle aged Aunt, have a wife who keeps one of the 'R'egulators testicles in her left hand and her Mother holds his right one in her hands. They can't cut it in the real aviation industry so they hide amongst those special breed government departments in which the culture encourages, promotes and fosters - incompetence, inbreeding, laziness, foolishness and spit roasting of executive management. We all know the type they are - usually they collect things like ice cream wrappers, nose hairs or scabs, listen to Harry Belafonte and they can recite the hippocratic oath backwards with a mouth stuffed with cucumber sandwiches and truffles! Once they retire or are finally pineappled they usually sulk away for a bit of time, ponder over what could have been, play with their enormous payouts or hush money for a while and then pop up in a similar role on a similar agency somewhere, where they can once again meld with like minded psychopaths and socio's and start plying their trade once again upon an unsuspecting industry! Oh there is the standard waffle and bravado - big talk about precious so-called successes, boasting about how much legalese and regulatory jargon they can speak, how many international olly jolly's they have attended over the decades and how many troughs they have skinned. Hell sometimes they even boast about what high level politicians they have eaten the odd canapé or three with, and how many times they have dressed up in their Professors uniform complete with pipe, slippers and spectacles and participated in nude conga lines with other supportive folk :ok:
But in the end they never change.

So, aroa, my friend, indeed you must remain aware that such individuals are out there 'R'egulating amongst us and you MUST ensure that you use the correct font in your log book, you keep your pilot shirt ironed, tucked in and your epaulettes are robustly polished, you correctly pronounce all words contained within the aviation phonetic code, and should you decide to indulge in a game of 'hide the salami' with a nubile inexperienced flight attendant in the Cabin you remove all DNA evidence before you leave the aircraft parked!

LeadSled
13th Mar 2014, 15:07
Creamie,
The Classification of Operations, to which I referred was completed while Byron was Director, but, of course, like so much, it has been expunged from the CASA web site, as has so much of the historical record prior the current management.

Indeed, I am told that the Mr. McCormick advised the Chairman of the PAP that he (McCormick) wasn't interested in what had gone before, apparently he then regarded his appointment as "Year Zero" for CASA.

I have been looking through old backup disks for a copy of the Byron "final" version, but have not found it so far, all I have found is the working paper that started that project.

If I find a copy of the final version, I will post it, or post a link to Dropbox.

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I don't remember the CASA Board signing of on a "final" Classification of Operations in 1997, although they did sign of on a number of things related to the CASA Review, instituted by Minister John Sharp. There certainly was a set of guidelines for the weight of regulation to apply to each category, with statements that the "fare paying passenger" was to attract the most attention from CASA, and areas where participants were "informed volunteers" would attract the least CASA resources.

Tootle pip!!

PS: CactusJack,
Quite a spray, but it does remind me of a paper, prepared by a psychologist on contract to CASA in the mid-1990s, who actually studied the kind of "personality" that applied to join or joined a body like CASA, and he clearly suggested that there were very definite personality traits in the kind of person that made up a significant proportion of AWIs and FOIs. At that time, a quite high proportion of the investigators were defrocked Commonwealth or State plod.

aroa
14th Mar 2014, 01:21
Never had the shiny bars or the nubiles unfortunately Cactus..just a camera MUCH to my detriment.
But we wont going into all that... like the denial of my right to take a photo from a public space, a right earn a living, the right to free trade, and all from that "safety" agency that has NO legal right to regulate "commerce" !!
:mad::mad::mad:

Any COOP of the Byron era must have been like a shooting star.. a brief flash and lost forever. Nothing I can recall in my sewage box re that one.

As for the (some) AWI s and FOIs ....and so called "investigators" of ex -cop history. No nothing about aviation, not interested in aviation, but well versed in verballing, skulldugery and shonky MOs for knocking off passing aviators

eg: John Moore, N Stallard ,et al for the infamous John Quadrio debacle.
eg: Stephen Cremerius, Peter Larard (rtd hurt), Ron Clarke, (fled) and John Retski (promoted!!) Liars and perjurers all! Just look at a Wilga Tail !

All aided and abetted by the likes of N Tredrea and Anustasi.

And so that you know its ops normal in the Fort ...there is a major episode still running at great cost and angst to the innocent due to incompetent and negilgent "investigation" regarding damage to Robbo 22 AZS... by N Haslam Senior Investigator (sic) and others.
Quite frankly they couldnt investigate their own willnots

Unfettered POWER brings UNACCOUNTABLE CORRUPTION of the systems.:mad:

Stay safe!!!

Creampuff
14th Mar 2014, 01:44
Precisely as I predicted.

It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.

Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.

The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.

There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.

And then there’s the inconvenient problem that some members of the public and the parliament take the view that the classification of operations scheme isn’t for the benefit of ‘the industry’.

You can stamp your little feet, wave your little fists, hold your breath until your face turns blue and even vilify people via pprune, but it’s only a source of mild amusement for the people who have the power to actually change things.

That is why the Minister, whoever he or she may be from time to time, will continue to leave CASA to develop and impose whatever classification of operations scheme it chooses to impose on ‘the industry’.

It’s so … hmmmm…. typically Australian.

dubbleyew eight
14th Mar 2014, 02:25
creampuff, other than moving in retirement to Canada or New Zealand, just how can one fix this ?

some of the problems created by CASA have half the players suffering stockholm syndrome and half the players heavily reliant on the embuggerated rules for their existence.
you'll never get sense from the victims.
most have little idea any more which way is up and a regulators viewpoint is totally different from that of a pundit.

Frank Arouet
14th Mar 2014, 02:48
That we can agree upon. It would appear we are the only Country in The World who self immolate. In The US for example there is not the infighting of groups and there is a genuine will to help, communicate and befriend fellow aviators, engineers and such folk. It is indeed an Australian phenomenon. I guess it's because we have so many 'experts'. Have a look at the news of recent, I've never seen so many 'experts' dredged up from somewhere and all with differing opinions varying from wings falling off to Martians in Malaysia.


To be fair to the contributors here, all or most have good reason to spray venom at the regulator and they should be encouraged not denigrated because the system is rooted and needs fixing. They don't need negativity even if it is simply an example of 'devil's advocate'. You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.


And to be fair to you, the wheels didn't really fall off, they simply weren't there.

LeadSled
14th Mar 2014, 04:36
Precisely as I predicted.
It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.
Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.
The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.
There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.
Creamie,
I am still looking, and on the basis of the above, I do hope I manage to find a copy of the final Byron scheme somewhere on an old backup disk.
Further, I have never found that proposed Class.of Ops. discussions, going back to mid-1990s have been controversial within or between industry groups, but there has always been stout resistance to any change by the "iron ring" in CASA --- all such matters are seen as "loss of power". Usually dressed up as "not in the public interest", air safety, blather blather.

Indeed, when you have the QANTAS DFO/Chief Pilot agreeing with most of the light aviation "alphabet soup" bodies, you know it is uncontroversial.

Do you remember the "shopping centre/checkout ques" "opinion surveys", done on CASA's behalf, to get "public opinion" about CASA and whether it was doing a good job.

The questions were hilariously skewed to to getting the answer CASA wanted:
(1) CASA was doing a fantastic job preventing criminally suicidal persons who commit aviation, from slaughtering the good citizens of Australia.
(2) Any diminution of the powers of CASA would result in death raining from Australian skies.

As I recall, a very high percentage of those surveyed stated that they had never traveled on an aircraft, and never would.

Could you please enlighten me, as to what went to the CASA Board in 1997?

Tootle pip!!

advo-cate
14th Mar 2014, 08:08
This e-mail just arrived on my desk from an unknown source.

Apparently the person has been seeking a meeting with the CASA Board.

I post the details and now ask - Is this a serious breach of democratic process??

Inbox > Message Detail
Subject: RE: [FWD: RE: CASA Board ] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From:"ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected] (http://email19.asia.secureserver.net/webmail.php?login=1#)>(Add as Preferred Sender (http://email19.asia.secureserver.net/webmail.php?login=1#))
Date:Fri, Mar 14, 2014 3:25 pm
To:

UNCLASSIFIED

It has come to my attention that you have been attempting to contact CASA Board member Helen Gillies.

On behalf of the Board, I request that you do not contact Board members by telephone or email. I advise individual board members will not be responding to any direct approaches from you.

I have communicated to you below the means of communication the Board is prepared to accept from you and request that you abide by that.

Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607

and:

On Mar 4, 2014 1:47 PM, "ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected]> wrote:
UNCLASSIFIED

I have liaised with the Chair of the CASA Board. In the event you wish to provide a complaint to him, then he will only receive it in writing and by mail. If you mark any envelope “private and confidential” or “to be opened by addressee only” it will not be opened before receipt by the Chair.

In the event this is not acceptable to you, but your complaint involves allegations of criminal conduct, you may care to direct such complaint to the Australian Federal Police. Alternatively, if the matters relate to maladministration, you may care to direct such a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607

AND the request was, direct to both Helen Gillies and Allan Hawkes:

From:
Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 1:32 PM
To: SKM
Subject: Letter for Helen Gillies

Dear Helen,

I wish to provide some information to the CASA Board and am concerned that it could be diverted by either Mr. McCormick or your secretariat, as it is of a highly confidential nature, if directed through normal channels.

If these issues were to fall into the wrong hands, I am concerned that records could be destroyed or "lost".

I would like to be able to address the Board on a series of matters, which, in part involve the use of known criminals to prosecute a pilot and of false statements made by CASA employees to attempt to prosecute an owner.

I can provide support documents, but that needs to be on the above basis, of no involvement by CASA itself and that the Board independently deals with the matters raised.

Paragraph377
14th Mar 2014, 11:04
Advo-cate, unfortunately the Board were too busy with their noses buried up the Ministers ass (after being buried in a trough) to be interested in an IOS matter. They won't open the mail as that would mean they now become aware of something 'unsavoury' and they are then obliged to report it for investigation, and they don't want that happening := . I mean, we can't have 'accountability' thrust upon a Board member can we? Their role is simply to sit on bloated asses and protect his lordship the Miniscule from any unflattering attention. Any matters concerning possible CASA malfeasance, corruption or shonky activity as you mention are the Boards least concern. Keeping the Ministers CV clean, avoiding transparency, throwing around red herrings and writing pithy reports or formulating glossy PowerPoints containing lots of home spun bollocks is their chief priority.

So let this be a lesson to all of you IOS - The CASA Board and CASA executives are far too busy protecting their superannuation and their stellar standing amongst their peers and loyal servants to be harassed about any other matter that may interfere with their golf schedules, overseas trips or their international public speaking commitments :=

P.S Interesting to see Anustasi jumping straight on to the matter and sending a stern response. Oh he must protect his Masters from the evil IOS. The Doc would be so proud of him, as I am sure Creampuff is also!

'Eventus stultorum magister'

Frank Arouet
14th Mar 2014, 22:53
Send this to Senator Brandis and ask him to put it on record so it can be used to support other submissions when his inquiry begins.


11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Fourth%20quarter/11December2013-NewAustralianLawReformInquiryToFocusOnFreedoms.aspx)


Also cc it to The Federal Police with a written complaint. I understand they MUST act upon a complaint, even if such action is no action.


Forget The Commonwealth Ombudsman, the first thing they will ask is 'have you exhausted every other legal avenue of redress?' and until The Commonwealth Police do act, they will be reluctant to take it on board. They also accept The ICC is another avenue of redress that must be hurdled, so they are effectively compromised by CASA's own system.


Things must be getting rather warm at FF if they are resorting to hip shots like this.


I may have 'over-estimated Mr Anastasi.

aroa
15th Mar 2014, 00:42
Nothing new here from The AnusStasi... :mad:

A couple of years ago I sent an updated Invoice to the Tarmac Trio/Turds that were responsible for an unwarranted legal bill. :mad:
CAsA's attempted proscecution went tits up because the allegations were all bullshit...false sworn testimony and all that, the usual CAsA MO stuff.:mad:

That invoice and the added comment re the Quadrio case went straight to the Fort...and I received a letter from AnusStasi himself telling me that I must NOT write to them. Any comms must come to CAsA.! Que?? Dont I have freedom of speech or the written word, you Hitlerite thing, you. (post now complete with Nazi reference)

This is from the very person that denied payment of my costs under the Model Litigant Rules...stating in effect.." piss off, we have more money for a court case than you " !:mad:

Ah, Regulatastan...a great country to live in. Complete with Justarse and all that :mad:

Sarcs
15th Mar 2014, 01:02
{Comment: Mods promise there is a point and the thread will (eventually) drift back..:rolleyes:}

Not wanting to detract from the intriguing thread drift over the last dozen or so posts :hmm:, plus equally not wanting to promote further drift :E, however I noted the following statement in the McComick view thread from Waghi Warrior (post#95 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520458-casa-mc-comick-view-5.html#post8375664)): I don't work for CASA and I'm certainly not trying to defend them, however lets face it no 'R' egulator as Cactus puts it will never have a super chummy relationship with industry - fact.
The WW fact would seem to be disputed by other industry figures, here is an example from the Senate RRAT committee inquiry into Qantas's future as a strong national carrier supporting jobs in Australia (my bold)Senator IAN MACDONALD: …The only other question I have because of time is: are you now suggesting that CASA is not doing its job?

Mr Purvinas : In my opinion CASA are nothing more than another arm of Qantas's industrial relations department. I have a very dim view on CASA's oversight of maintenance in this country and outside of Australia. I think they act in line with everything that Qantas wants them to do.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: They are not an arm of Qantas, they are an arm of the federal government.

Mr Purvinas : Maybe the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I know this is a criticism of the last government, who had six years to do that, but I must say that I will talk to Mr Truss to make sure that CASA are not an arm of Qantas or anyone else and are an independent authority. You have no confidence in CASA at all?

Mr Purvinas : No. We do not have confidence in CASA to provide effective oversight of maintenance.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You think that the reason they are failing in the duty that the Australian people, through their government, have given them is because they are in the pay—so to speak colloquially—of Qantas?

Mr Purvinas : I think they have been a victim of corporate capture. They have got too close to the airline. A lot of them are friends with people who work for Qantas and I think corporate capture, Stockholm syndrome, whatever you want to call it, I think CASA have some problem.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Does that apply to Virgin as well, or is it related only to Qantas?

Mr Purvinas : I do not know how close they are to Virgin. I have not had too many indications that that would be the case there. I do know that they are coming up pretty hard against airlines like Tiger and so on. They grounded Tiger for things that are far less than what we have seen with Qantas.
&..
Senator BACK: I want to follow up with Dubai and Hong Kong. Has it been your experience, or can you document, similar failures of inspection in both the cities of Dubai and Hong Kong?

Mr Purvinas : ...We approached Qantas and CASA about it, and what happened is an example of why we have no confidence in CASA. Under the mandatory Service Difficulty Reporting scheme, which is a government standard here, all airworthiness defects must be reported to CASA. They had a facility in Hong Kong that was not bolting on engines correctly. The report should have gone in within 24 hours so they could contact the facility and let them know to check all the engines they had installed on aircraft. We were monitoring this. We know the mandatory report never went in, because they are publicly available. So we wrote letters to CASA saying: 'Aircraft has come out with three of the four engines not bolted on correctly—why has no mandatory service difficulty report gone in?' They said, 'It is okay—Qantas rang us and told us about it.' That is illegal. There are laws that are meant to protect aviation safety, and CASA are meant to make sure those laws are applied and implemented correctly.

CHAIR: Can you table those letters of concern for the committee?

Mr Purvinas : Absolutely. I think the letters are there. We also table the appropriate legislation that requires mandatory service difficulty reports.
There is also considerable evidence that the Red Rat is not isolated in receiving preferential treatment when it comes to Fort Fumble..:yuk: The classic case is nicely documented in the Senate’s PelAir inquiry versus say the FF persecution of Airtex or Barrier or..:=(fill in the blank :ugh:).

Drifting back…
The passing comment from FedSec Steve..“the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore”…should be noted by the miniscule and his WLR team...:cool:

It should also be noted that although Steve’s primary interest is for his members, the evidence he gave yesterday (& the ALAEA WLR submission) are largely reflected in the comments made by the research team from the Australian School of Business (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13948393627366&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-29.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asb.unsw.edu.au%2FPages%2Fdefault.aspx&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-30.html&libId=30be39db-e550-4474-80db-8e0910ca2786&title=Truss%3A%20Aviation%20Safety%20Regulation%20Review%20-%20Page%2029%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=Australian%20School%20of%20Business) (post#575 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-29.html#post8370497)):
Fraser: "In effect, Australia's MRO training effort has been allowed to become hostage to the strategies and fortunes of a single company. If that company now can't look after itself, how is it going to look after the future needs of the Australian industry?"

Hampson: “There are doubtless many offshore shops which give top-quality service that Australian consumers can rely on,” he says. “We know from experience that there are some which definitely don’t. The problem is that we don’t have enough good information to tell which is which.


Australia doesn’t even keep public records of which maintenance goes offshore, never mind where it goes. Once it does go offshore, no public records are kept of where the work has fallen short of standard, or what rework is needed in Australia when the plane comes back.

“The risk then is that because there isn't enough information about quality, choices will be made on the basis of price. This is a classic ‘market for lemons’ situation, where quality providers get driven out of the market and many others survive who don't deserve to."

The researchers note “a contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the increasingly stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to apply to offshore providers”.

The FAA is subject to political supervision and accountability in ways that Australia’s CASA is not. The FAA was recently compelled by congressional legislation to tighten up its regulatory and supervisory practices. In Australia, the trend is for CASA to offshore its responsibilities to foreign aviation authorities to ensure safety standards. This leaves the certification of maintenance on Australian aircraft to the safety oversight, training and licensing procedures of another country.

“We wonder how consistent this is with the Australian safety program, as well as International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements that the State of Registry be responsible for the safety of maintenance performed on aircraft even in another country,” say the researchers.
Back on track...
One would assume that the concerns/findings of the ABS researchers will be significantly highlighted in their WLR submission..:D

More to follow…:ok:

Addendum: For those interested the ALAEA submission to the Qantas inquiry can be downloaded HERE (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs/Submissions)

Creampuff
15th Mar 2014, 03:41
You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.To keep the thread on track, I note that the ASR Panel would like to be showed HOW TO fix aviation in regulation in Australia.

No, I withdraw that.

In fact, the ASR Panel would desperately love to be spoon fed the industry’s solution on HOW TO fix aviation regulation in Australia.

Frank, all of my HOW TO solutions for aviation regulation in Australia start with this step:

1. Industry unite.

That’s where things tend to go pear shaped.

Now I’m sure someone will point out that the industry seems to be united in its view that CASA is NOT doing what it should be doing. But as you say, Frank, it would suit all better if the industry united and showed the Panel HOW TO do things … ;)

Frank Arouet
15th Mar 2014, 04:41
When I said the aviation industry in Australia is rooted, I meant just that. It is as broke as the CASA. The only thing they, (industry), are united in, is a complete firm rejection and lack of confidence in the regulator. This is a catalyst for a disaster of monumental proportion so it behooves the people that we elected to run the 'freekin' Country to do something about it. The trusty Truss can only do that if he understands there is a problem, and CASA are not the answer to that problem. He should listen to the masses off un-united but affirmative dismissals of the status quo. You only have to look at the Anastasi letter above to see Truss is being given the 'blinkered' tour and the Board is being treated like mushrooms.


No Creampuff, we elect leaders to lead, not be lead.

Creampuff
15th Mar 2014, 06:19
And it's my fault that they don't?

No Laborial is actually going to take responsibility and make a decision.

On that issue I have posted, many times, HOW TO leverage the only glimmer of hope.

Sunfish
15th Mar 2014, 06:34
Advocate. If you wish to raise a complaint with CASA there is one single and effective route open to you that CASA cannot and must not interfere with.

Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.

CASA is then responsible for providing an answer, via the Minister, to the PM's office.

Anastasi would not and cannot interfere with this process which is available to all citizens.

My understanding is that the Board of CASA is mere window dressing - a bunch of impotent clowns who do not have any authority, unlike in a public company, so appeals to them are pointless anyway.

The other alternative is to put together a dossier - solid evidence of major malfeasance, then write a snappy Two page press release. Send the package to every radio, TV and newspaper in the country. That worked for me when I caught a major insurance company diddling not only me but thousands of other customers. After Eight weeks of work I got what I wanted in Two hours.

SIUYA
15th Mar 2014, 09:03
Sunfish...

Advocate. If you wish to raise a complaint with CASA there is one single and effective route open to you that CASA cannot and must not interfere with.

Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.

Fine in theory, but it didn't work under Labor. :ugh::ugh:

I wrote to Albanese a number of times - you guessed it - no response. :ugh::ugh:

So I then wrote to Rudd on the same matter and expressed concern that the Minister wasn't responding - - you guessed it - no response. :ugh::ugh:

I also wrote to Truss regarding the matter, and included information for his information and necessary action that neither the Minister not the PM had responded to my concerns - you guessed it - no response. :ugh::ugh:

I've also written to the new Coalition Government Minister - Mr Truss - same old result - no reply. :ugh::ugh:

I agree with Creampuff - until the industry unites, then it's going nowhere fast like it has for the past 20 or so years.. :{

There are so many valid viewpoints being expressed here, but until the infighting and sniping takes a rest and we ALL do what Creampuff suggests, then we're going nowhere fast.

dubbleyew eight
15th Mar 2014, 16:30
I note that the ASR Panel would like to be showed HOW TO fix aviation in regulation in Australia.

In fact, the ASR Panel would desperately love to be spoon fed the industry’s solution on HOW TO fix aviation regulation in Australia.

Creampuff I would have thought it had been stated many times.
unless there is a better scheme, kill off the $240,000,000 worth of dribble and introduce the New Zealand FAR's. Kill off the bullshit that is CASA and start again.

Cactusjack
15th Mar 2014, 22:25
Good to see somebody is receiving the benefits of the skills and experience of Alan Stray:

News: PNG boosts aviation safety investigation capability (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2014/png-boosts-aviation-safety.aspx)

It won't belong before PNG's investigative capability outshines Australia's ability, good for them! Perhaps the WLR will recommend bringing back Alan to replace mi mi mi Beaker??

Sunfish
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.

SIUYA
16th Mar 2014, 00:04
Sunfish...

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

Up-into-the-air
16th Mar 2014, 00:26
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6deYU5MASl8Ntkrnox7sNYSntSoP83ITOelpAXrR gTbkNPmlX

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?

aroa
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:

Creampuff
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.

LeadSled
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!!

Up-into-the-air
16th Mar 2014, 16:24
Spot on Leadie The GAF story is a shocker and I been told before Mahindra came in as white knight. AMROBA has lots of examples. Casa's complicate in the damage and fallout to industry. The ASRR must act to rid us of the evil empire now.

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.

Up-into-the-air
16th Mar 2014, 17:12
Here is one of the basic misuse of power we have seen.

The AAT does not even have to abide by proper evidence rules either allowing a rogue regulator to produce rubbish argument to support a not a fit and proper person argument.

The current AAT case that was dismissed against avmed McSherry surrounds poor evidence.

Quadrio never got a proper chance with casa withholding evidence.

Anderson was faced with double jeopardy, if not quadruple jeopardy.

Sunfish
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
Frank,
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.

Sunfish
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.

Paragraph377
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.

aroa
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.

Up-into-the-air
18th Mar 2014, 00:18
Have talked to the Member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg about this and he has casa on the list.

Remember though, this is largely industry money and in the 2012 year, $110m came from the Aviation fuel excise and $43m from Government under the casa Act of the total $153m casa spends.

So it is industry money [although ultimately paid for by the general public] we are talking about here.

AND the money has been wasted/ improperly used/"troughed"

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?

Paragraph377
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???

Creampuff
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.

Creampuff
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/)

Creampuff
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:

Sarcs
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}

Creampuff
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:

Paragraph377
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.

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

Or will you continue to merely criticise?

Paragraph377
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.

Creampuff
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?

Sarcs
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??}

Creampuff
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:

Sarcs
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
Convention;
(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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2OqjhUCAPA

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.

LeadSled
20th Mar 2014, 03:39
Folks,
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!!

Creampuff
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! :{

aroa
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.

Paragraph377
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;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq3u_QKFEbE

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.

Sarcs
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:}

LeadSled
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.

Up-into-the-air
20th Mar 2014, 16:32
Enough talk already, well done Senator Xenophon and team.

The aviation world really does know what is needed and it is to get rid of the rubbish that remnants of the 2-airline policy have left us, re-structure the CAAct and un-lock the shackles.

The type of regulation casa has put in place has led us [kicking and screaming] to this point.

And in some cases at huge cost to participants as casa "get it wrong" - the current AVMED (http://vocasupport.com/avmed-and-casa-delays-are-these-still-occurring-trainee-medical-students-used-to-clear-backlog/) debacle over CVD and other assesments (http://vocasupport.com/avmed-and-casa-who-makes-the-decisions/) are examples.

Also there is Polar Aviation, Barrier and others.

Any number of of represenations to casa - such as the well documented case put by the AAAA (http://vocasupport.com/election/regulatory-review-2013/asrr-submissions/) show the pilliblustering that occurs.

I am well aware that similar representations put to atsb recieve the same fate [Dick Smith and Benalla (http://vocasupport.com/coroners-inquiries/benalla-pa31-350p/), Shane Urqhart and Lockhart River].

What is worse in these cases is the complicity of casa to bury information and "escape".

Is the resignation of skull the first real crack in the casa shell??

Well exposed by Nick [is the casa conflict of interest] and the senate team in PelAir inquiry (http://vocasupport.com/senate-inquiries/pelair-norfolk-island/final-report/) and the use of people such as Ian Harvey, the barrister commonly used by casa when "things get sticky" as Counsel assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart River inquest. (http://vocasupport.com/coroners-inquiries/lockhart-river-lhr/lhr-reports/)

Summary of PelAir response:

http://i774.photobucket.com/albums/yy27/flyingoz/pelairsenate_zps0a9ed5f5.png

The ASRR inquiry must reflect the will of the aviation industry, not be watered down and be fully implemented.

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.

Sunfish
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?

aroa
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:

Cactusjack
25th Mar 2014, 06:42
An upcoming event not to be missed; “The Smooth End Of The Pineapple”!
Could this be the sequel to the WLR?

The Smooth End of the Pineapple | 2014 Anywhere Theatre Festival (http://anywherefest.com/events/the-smooth-end-of-the-pineapple-2014-05-10/)

The bit I like is this; “In which the sets and costumes are only limited by the audiences imagination”.

Yes, imaginations, fairytale endings, costumes and audible nonsense seems to best describe the WLR and everything else that emanates form Truss’s mouth. The only difference is that they deserve the rough end of the pineapple, inserted sideways, much to the delight of the tendentious IOS! The Beaker and his hierarchy as well as McSkull and friends have indeed made a mockery out of Australian aviation. Their oversight best be described as ‘the Toto effect’ - where they click their heels and pretend that everything is ok and wish themselves away to a luxury office in Can’tberra where all the ‘real people’ don’t exist. These and ‘other’ long serving bureaucrats like the Kingcrat have exceeded their use by date. Unless the entire system is tipped on its head and shaken vigorously until all the bits of ingrown dross are removed nothing will change.
Martin Luther King had a dream, and so do I. Wanna know what it is? That one day our aviation sector will be fortified by an actual underpinning safety framework which actually has the pillars of Government, CAsA, ATSB and AsA supporting it. Naturally the strongest pillar is us - the frontline aviators who actually support and form a workable, safe, compliant system.

Sarcs
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:

Up-into-the-air
25th Mar 2014, 09:02
Great post sarcs and the following is straight from Hansard (http://vocasupport.com/john-mccormick-and-senator-ian-mcdonald-fear-of-retribution/):

Senator XENOPHON: This committee has now completed several inquiries into the aviation sector, the most recent last week. One of the common threads in each inquiry, which was raised specifically in the most recent report, is a prevailing fear of retribution from CASA for speaking out, particularly in the most recent inquiry.

The committee continually heard that people did not want to criticise CASA or its operations because they truly believed that there would be some sort of negative reprisal for them.

The fears seem to be directed to you [mccormick] and some of your senior managers.


Why do you think this is the case?


Why is there that perception? Full download from Hansard. (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees/estimate/cb94d3bb-5946-4159-ae38-909bffa25b63/0000%22)

Paragraph377
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:

blow.n.gasket
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.

aroa
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 !!!

Paragraph377
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)

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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?

Sarcs
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:

LeadSled
27th Mar 2014, 02:00
Folks,
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!!

Paragraph377
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?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=juUFYYDs_3s

Sarcs
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!:{

Paragraph377
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)

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/28/11/55/search-resumes-for-missing-mh370

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:

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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.”

TICK TOCK!:ugh:

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)

Paragraph377
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?

Kharon
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)

Sunfish
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....

Paragraph377
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.

Sarcs
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

004wercras
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:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mggl7cC8iys

The WLR delivers its 'post review summary' to MrDak:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPSvIz9NDs

Sarcs
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...”

Cynical

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…”

Credibility

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

004wercras
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 :=

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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
panel.

Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator.

Answer:
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.

Answer
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:

004wercras
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....

Sunfish
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

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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.

Kharon
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?

Sarcs
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.

Paragraph377
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!

Kharon
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.

Selah.

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


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


"Hey Miniscule GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER".
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.

aroa
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:

Sarcs
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

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twIwwg5ZMw&feature=youtube_gdata

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….”

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXA0IjYVwdY

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??

004wercras
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.

Jinglie
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!

Sarcs
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?

Cactusjack
12th Apr 2014, 04:51
I agree with Thornys post below. This should be given the most on-depth scrutiny and an acceptable response given by CAsA;
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?
My guess is as follows;
5. Around $45k
6. None whatsoever. The endorsement will benefit the endorsed individual by way of (a) financially, and (b) ego.
7. I've heard when his Angry mate goes in August, or thereabouts. Or perhaps when his arthritic hands can no longer push the elevator button to get to his office, or he can't stay awake past 1600 in the afternoon. So I am guessing it should be soon then.
8. Very well indeed. Seems somebody did his homework. Gotta love the taxpayer ey?

Perhaps the Senators or somebody could delve into this a little deeper? After all every taxpayer cent spent must be justified (just ask Beaker). Perhaps they can also get to the bottom of 'Sky Sentinel' as well as Mr Wickhams hiring. Something tells me that the 'R'egulator has been making up its own rules? Then again, that's nothing new is it???
Did Craig Thompson ever work for CAsA?

TICK TOCK

aroa
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.

Paragraph377
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?

coaldemon
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.....

Sarcs
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:

Paragraph377
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

Sunfish
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?

LeadSled
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???

Paragraph377
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.

aroa
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.

Up-into-the-air
14th Apr 2014, 10:21
The road to the local airport: (http://vocasupport.com/if-casa-and-mrdak-have-their-way/)

http://i774.photobucket.com/albums/yy27/flyingoz/c596b88c-93ce-47d5-a992-02c02b358dad_zps0ada6696.jpg

And at the AAT, casa may be more like this: (http://vocasupport.com/if-casa-and-mrdak-have-their-way/)

http://i774.photobucket.com/albums/yy27/flyingoz/d7273654-7f27-4a66-9d57-6316a6fe91b0_zpsb095cfc1.jpg

004wercras
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!

004wercras
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:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

Up-into-the-air
14th Apr 2014, 12:36
The following is from the "new AC" on ADSB:

AC 21-45 v2.1 APRIL 2014

AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL OF AIRBORNE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST EQUIPMENTand at:

APPENDIX D
ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT COMBINATIONS

1. The equipment combinations listed in Schedules 1 and 2 are not exhaustive, and are a historical record and not subject to further update. The lists were compiled from data obtained from individual applications to Airservices Australia by operators wishing to be included in the ADS-B separation services.

2. Following legislative changes and technical review of the performance of existing transponder combinations Schedule 3 lists those combinations that are no longer acceptable for use in Australia. This list is not exhaustive, and is a historical record and not subject to further update.

3. Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems (ACSS) XS-950 transponders are not acceptable unless software modification A is incorporated
Question is - Why do we have casa at all, when they are relying on asa????

and the Safety Case??

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

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

Paragraph377
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.

Sarcs
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:

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

Paragraph377
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.

Sarcs
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:

AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW SUBMISSION
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:

004wercras
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'.

TICK TOCK

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

004wercras
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

004wercras
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!

Sarcs
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.

Regards,
David Klein

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

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.

Regards

David Andersen
Adviser
Office of the CEO And the following is the Byron correspondence to DK:
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_041814_112147_AM.jpg
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_041814_112347_AM.jpg
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:

004wercras
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

Sarcs
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
guys.

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.

Sarcs
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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXIpRrbaqbY

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:

004wercras
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

triadic
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.
maybe?

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.

Sarcs
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
HEY PILOT….YOU SABE WE STAP MURRAY!!!

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:

Up-into-the-air
25th Apr 2014, 02:29
The following is part of the second reading debate by Truss, on an increase in excise, designed to be "pushed through" by Albanese and Swan attached to the 2010 budget to remove discussion.

Truss said in the debate and the following was rejected:

Mr TRUSS (Leader of the Nationals) (12:50 PM) (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/summary/summary.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3Ar4382%20Title%3A%22second% 20reading%22%20Content%3A%22I%20move%22|%22and%20move%22%20C ontent%3A%22be%20now%20read%20a%20second%20time%22%20%28Data set%3Ahansardr%20|%20Dataset%3Ahansards%29)—I am speaking today on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and I» «move» :

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.
Question is where is Minister Truss now?? (http://vocasupport.com/where-is-the-cash-casa-training-senate-asrr-review-status/)

and Mrdak/ the HOD (http://vocasupport.com/89-9m-is-explained-by-departmental-head-mrdak-as-nessesary/)

Sarcs
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.

POLICY

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:

Sarcs
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:

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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

Sunfish
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???

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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??

Kharon
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.

Comments
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'.

004wercras
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,
AND NOTHING IS SUPPOSEDLY WRONG???

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

Sunfish
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.

Sunfish
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

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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
Kharon,


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"

Sarcs
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:

004wercras
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)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2LEAiGDw220

"Safe budgets and lederhosen for all"

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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.