View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

8th May 2014, 06:47
Can we have some of this:-

7th May 2014 (http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/documents/07042014_amsa_media_release_national_system_streamlining.pdf )

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Domestic Vessel Division will begin a thorough consultation process with domestic vessel operators, starting in Hervey Bay on Friday.The National System for Domestic Commercial Vessels came into effect on July 1, 2013.

AMSA Deputy Chief Executive Officer Mick Kinley said the National System had created one system for qualifications and standards for commercial operators nationwide.

AMSA will run a series of consultation sessions across Australia to improve the system and streamline elements of it to make it easier and cheaper for the industry to comply with domestic vessel safety requirements.

“Since the National System came into effect AMSA has identified areas that could be improved,” Mr Kinley said.

“AMSA wants to make it easier and cheaper for the industry to comply with domestic vessel safety requirements.

“This is part of the federal government’s deregulation agenda which seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on business and the community while maintaining standards for safety.”
Australia lacks a common approach to managing maritime safety.

“Each and every state and territory has a different approach to safety management and AMSA wants to improve vessel safety by giving operators the best tools to develop and implement safety management, with less regulation and red tape,” Mr Kinley said.

“The aim is to avoid duplication and AMSA wants feedback from commercial vessel operators.”

Multiple consultation sessions will commence in Hervey Bay on Friday, May 9 at 2pm at the Hervey Bay RSL.

Sessions will then be held in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria throughout May and June.
AMSA will hold sessions in 24 locations in seven states, including 15 regional centres, seeking views on how best to simplify domestic commercial vessel rules.

The review comes as a result of a Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure decision to streamline the national system and make safety simpler in the regulatory environment, with national consistency.

Media Enquiries: 0429657336

Must be our turn soon.....

8th May 2014, 11:03
As you can see this so called "Safety Forum", held in Sydney, is very top heavy with expensive public servants, many if not most, no doubt from Canberra (over-night?) and a full reading of the minutes reveal that virtually nothing of a safety nature, let alone efficiency, will be accomplished via this forum.
Kharon, thanks for the post ( I think). Once more we see the taxpayer purse getting molested. The majority of CAsA attendees certainly did come from Can'tberra, but there was also a couple of Brisbane attendees there as well. So for me to work out the cost accurately is subjective as I don't have access to the CAsA 'books', however I can give some loose calculations based on some rough assumptions as follows;

- Airfares for 75% of attendees; $13,000
- Overnight accommodation for 50% of attendees (remembering that the higher you are ranked the more expensive accommodation you receive) $4,000
- Overnight allowance for 50% of attendees (again the higher you are ranked the more you receive, up to around $500.00 per day) $4,000
- Single day away from home allowance for say another 25% of the attendees; $1,200. I have not included incidentals, cab fares, Skulls blood pressure pills or any small items as such in this calculation.
Total = $22,200!
Now I believe I have been generous towards Fort Fumble with my calculations, but the point is that this was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money for so many CAsA people to attend a barely 3 hour meeting interstate. A number of the attendees absolutely did not need to be there.
This kind of expenditure would have the budget conscious Beaker passing out and screaming out 'mi mi mi mi madness'! And I wonder what mystery bucket of money the CAsArites dipped into to cover this little olly jolly? Either way we the taxpayer paid for this trough dipping exercise.

Best not let Mushroom Truss find out! Being Tony's right hand man during this budget crisis that Australia is facing it would be an embarrassment that he, the Deputy PM, has an aviation portfolio that is pissing away precious taxpayer coin on such a frivolous exercise!


10th May 2014, 05:26
Don't know how many have slogged through the Safe Skies (Oct 2013) speeches; but, as we approach the budget and hopefully a little clear political air, I thought it may be time to review the rhetoric from October for comparison against the anticipated results of the WLR.

Actually, some of the speakers were not too bad, considering the back slapping ambience of the whole thing; about what you'd expect. Bit like one of those backwoods tent revivals, where everyone goes home 'feeling groovy'. Anyway FWIW:-

The whole shooting match – HERE (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Catalog/Full/c4401517abd94c8bab5b7cc692e108d221)

The Truss address – HERE (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Play/ba326f66967e41a488a568e3e92ca7fd1d?catalog=c4401517-abd9-4c8b-ab5b-7cc692e108d2).

The Mrdak offering – HERE (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Play/1f4b5b300d6746c480019cabbddd34e61d?catalog=c4401517-abd9-4c8b-ab5b-7cc692e108d2). Listen carefully to this fairly short speech.

The Forsyth closing remarks -HERE – they are of no practical value, being just to thank the delegates; but, for those who don't know the fellah, it may give you an insight.

I'd hate to see the whole thing slide off the shovel.

Alternatively – get a fix HERE. Your choice of course.

10th May 2014, 09:57
Any news or rumours on the new DAS? Is it one of the existing execs or someone from outside the organization.

11th May 2014, 02:11
Biccy...no news yet BUT...

If we get someone from the iron ring...we're fcuked.:mad:
If we get someone like the current das...we're fcuked again :mad:
If we get a career bureaucrat without aviation experience eg Beaker ATsB...we're fcuked thrice over.:mad:
If the current Miniscule,... who reminds me of a Russian doll after watching some recent TV appearances....just papers over the ASRR without MAJOR changes, then we are really and truly fcuked..:mad::mad::mad:

Fear not. Empty skies are safe skies

dubbleyew eight
11th May 2014, 07:34
I am still sitting here stunned.
in one of the posts I discovered that dear old terry is the deputy director of CAsA.
in western australia he is remembered for a court case finding someone a not fit and proper person etc etc.
the memorable quote is " and your honour I ask what possible difference there could be between an american gallon and an english gallon?"
the judge didn't actually laugh at his stupidity but found it necessary to disappear under the bench and re-tie his shoe laces.

I almost threw out my copy of the peter principle. it seems that in CAsA people still rise to their level of maximum incompetence so I think I'll keep it a while longer.

terrence is the deputy director of CAsA, I've heard it all now.:mad:

11th May 2014, 15:42
Yep, I hear GV and MQ had him in their sights for retirement. That got shattered with the appointment of the Skull. GH was also loaded to let him go but got stopped by the GWS. Quinn was onto them re Sentinel or as they called it PAWS, a complete rip off of another professional web site. Also, an FOI was payed additional cash for the purpose! Now its several million!!! Good work Terry!

11th May 2014, 20:53
W8 # 757 –"I am still sitting here stunned."
Is the Golden West Mafia worried (GWM) – after years of supreme control; hand picked, carefully groomed catamites slobbering on their boots, all happy to be willing accomplices to whatever embuggerance, dastardly plan or cover up was deemed required? They should be. While McComic has been the overseer of some of the most intriguing passages of play in the history of Australian aviation, one of the most troubling elements is the GWM ability to orchestrate them; either by subverting, intimidating, financially bludgeoning or 'legally' manipulating any opposition into silence.

There are, tragically, only two camps; 'the boys' and the silent drones. The silent drones are interesting; seeking only a quiet life through a well paid, pensioned position. They know what's going on; but, out of fear and/or self interest are happy to sit back and go with the flow. Both groups, in their own way are disgusting creatures. They are probably one of the reasons the miniscule does not want to retrospectively "fight the old battles" – if the public ever got wind of the antics at Sleepy Hollow- only the gods know where the political carnage would stop. Don't forget Truss had this knowledge in 2008 and there is nothing new in the 2014 'review', except more people saying the same thing. Never doubt why 260 + submissions to the WLR have been buried under a shroud of carefully penned words.

If the Senate can ever wrest any form of genuine inquiry away from the clutches of the GWM and the influence of murky Machiavellian minds; the place to start would be the ex employee files; it's not just Hart, Hood, Quinn and Vaughan who have the wood on the GWM, there are many others; what a session that would be.

Do not envy the new DAS; that's quite a housekeeping job. Whoever takes it on must be the right fellah, the voluntary resignations and 'retirements' list will eloquently tell the tale. A period of trust and progress must, by default follow.

Aye well, it's in the lap of the gods now; lets hope the 'gods' make the right choice this time and give us someone with the balls, brains and integrity to weed out the GWM and it's sycophantic followers. Expect the worst, hope for the best and never quit.


12th May 2014, 07:02
W8... re the 380 endo'd Farqwitson. :mad::mad:
When the honorable M Hart former ICC found that 3 Tarmac T*rds should be dealt with by the AFP. DAS hissy fit followed, and to cover their arses, (dont larf) the so called "Conduct and Ethics Committee" was flashed up on the screen, a bastard child of the das...headed by TF himself,.:mad:

Criminality by the three was corruptly subverted to..breaches of the code of conduct ( NO criminal provisions therein)..admin penalties only. Belt with a wet lettuce leaf etc. Stay in the employ of the taxpayer and keep snuffling the tit.
All good then. :mad:

To justify all this I got a letter from this "committee" (sic) by Farkwitson, 4 pages of classic obfuctication, a 'gold standard' of drivel in the Yes Minister line.

And.... TF didnt even have the balls to sign it himself..!! FFS
"Signed by direction..B Calder" read.. under duress ?

Obviously a person of principles and conviction. NOT :mad:

CAsA site states that any criminal behaviour WILL be dealt with by the AFP.

That is untrue, It should state MAY BE or NOT if we can help subvert it.

And breaches of State laws?? NO can do because AFP do it !!

What a beautifully concocted let-off. Pass Go and get out of jail free.

12th May 2014, 09:56
Poor D8, I likes the bloke I does. He must have been working in Russia or been incarcerated in the big house for the past 5 or so years?? (probably a minor aviation crime such as forgetting to cross a 't' in his logbook, or failing to adequately address the root cause on an NCN response? There is so much for him to catch up on, no fears my friend, keep reading and ye shall learn!
But it is amusing to finally see some airing of Tezza's activities as well as the GWM's. Even Calder and Harbor get a mention, lots of stories amongst that lot, hahaha.

Speaking of budgets, I believe the following will be announced in regards to CAsA's budget tomorrow night by Smoking Joe Hockey and Mathias von Dutch;

Embargo on Montreal trips. A limit of 5 trips per calendar year per Executive.
All pot plants in all offices are to be replaced with plastic ones. No ceramic pots will be allowed in Herr Skull's office after a risk assessment was conducted on the risk of facial injuries from flying pot plants came in at a 5B (based on the ICAO risk matrix)
The merger of TRIM and Sky Sentinel to create one mega deficient I.T system.
A380 endo's will not be given to employees 70 years of age and older (that rules out 80% of the retirement village staff)
Operator audits will be undertaken via Skype and video conferencing to save money and ensure enough coin remains available for executive bonuses
The Brisbane field office worm farm will be sold off and the proceeds used to top up the executives meagre pay freezes.
Renaming of CAsA to CAA and the removal of the letter 's' will save money in printing costs in those glossy Board written brochures.
Staff will no longer be given those snazzy blue Fort Fumble ties.

More to follow..............

12th May 2014, 12:55
Are the budget cuts the reason for nothing on the DAS. I'm guessing some top level crats looking for posts. Maybe amsa and casa merging?

Truss report can then say all sorted.

I wonder if the extra 100 jobs that casa got will be cut back again. Or if the NZ rules will be adopted.

12th May 2014, 15:12
I watched the Royal Commission into insulation today with great interest. Why wasn't DEWHA (same dept as Kokoda funding) highlighted over its subsidy of the accident flight to Kokoda regarding risk assessment. 16 people died including 13 Australians???
What risk assessment was done into that operation before they quickly pulled the subsidy post accident?
Additionally the ATSBeaker who assisted in the investigation came up with a bizarre Safety Recommendation that aircraft of this type be fitted with FDRs!!! My understanding is that Safety Recommendations are to PREVENT accidents, not help trying to work out what happened after! I guess Pel-Air makes a mockery of that as FDRs aren't that important!

How sad is the ATSBeaker! If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

12th May 2014, 20:06
004 # 761-"Speaking of budgets, I believe the following will be announced in regards to CAsA's budget tomorrow night by Smoking Joe Hockey and Mathias von Dutch;"

How about a privatised ASA?, that will be fun. Never get Hoody out of the golden handcuffs then, shame really. Or:

Serious cost cutting measures and a general 'clean out' with >20 < 30 "voluntary" redundancies. Or:

Leasing buildings not being used - to recover the costs of renting space, air conditioning it, and leaving it to the mice, rats and cockroaches, who really need the security service provided.

But Mr Hockey, the pot plants must stay (you know why) and PAWS needs another couple of million thrown at it and the consultants budget must not be tinkered with. Under no circumstances must the 'reg re-write' funding be cut; what the hell will those dependant on it do, wander aimlessly about the building making work?

PS. We hid your share of the $89 millions under one of the pot-plants; go get it tiger.

Toot toot.

13th May 2014, 06:41
Budget time for Beaker must be his favourite time of the year, a time when he gets a chance to really prove his worth, & when previously, he would have received a quiet nod from miniscule Albo when the miniscule was addressing his dept post budget...:rolleyes:

But what about this year, will he get any kudos and an informal invite to dine at the trough?? Or will he be cast off into oblivion in some back water office, as a Senior OHS manager for the Treasury Dept or ATO??:(

And what about the other aviation safety trough dweller wannabes, what will become of them?? Will they get the chop or be allowed to continue to dine with a slight diminishment in the trough buffet??:E

Well maybe the clues are in the commission of audit report?? If so there could be an element of truth to the ASA privatisation rumour, "K" alludes to above...

From AA online (my bold at the bottom):Review for Airservices, CASA spared in Commission of Audit reportItem by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) at 7:41 pm, Thursday May 1 2014 1 Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/review-for-airservices-casa-spared-in-commission-of-audit-report/#comments)

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ADL_TWR_1-300x181.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ADL_TWR_1.jpg)A review could be launched into Airservices.

The federal government’s Commission of Audit has recommended a review into the operations and activities of government-owned monopoly air traffic management service provider Airservices Australia.

The report recommends: “an independent review be undertaken of Airservices Australia with a particular focus on the scope of its activities as well as its planned capital expenditure program.”

It also mentions the “the potential to outsource some of its [Airservices'] activities”. Notes one of the report’s appendices: “Areas for early consideration in relation to contestability may include Airservices Australia”.

There had been industry speculation the commission might recommended the outsourcing of Airservices’ Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service.

The federal government’s other civil aviation bodies, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB, were spared the Commission of Audit’s attentions, rating only passing mentions. So there you are Beaker job well done..:D..err but farming out more parts of ASA..:confused:..is that such a wise idea??

Farewell Hoody relegated to PS redundancy..:{

ps Hoody good catch by the way and equally good retraction/correction letter to the Heff, maybe the DAS (STBR) could take some lessons in proper political etiquette...:ok:
Correspondence received from Mr Greg Hood, Executive General Manager, Airservices Australia, clarifying evidence given on 24 February 2014 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/clarification_letters/Airservices_Clarification.pdf)
pps Hoody just think if ASA is privatised there'll no longer be anymore Senate inquisitions, but the IOS will miss you..:{

13th May 2014, 07:14
The UK NATS has interests outside the UK and could well be interested in ASA?

13th May 2014, 22:40
There may not of been too many grinners in last nights budget but it would seem that the ATsBeaker may have received an unexpected windfall from the MH370 disappearance & investigation..:rolleyes: I also note with irony..:E..the total cost for our contribution to the continued search effort...:ugh:MH370 search to cost $90m (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budget-2014/mh370-search-to-cost-90m/story-fnmdbx1i-1226916583357)

THE search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 will cost Australian taxpayers up to $90 million, with the government anticipating the hunt will continue into next financial year.

The government has provided extra funding of $25m to the *Defence Department this year to cover the cost of the search, with a further $3m built in for 2014-15.

Additional funding for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau over two years will take the total cost of the search to $89.9m.

The 239 passengers and crew vanished on March 8 during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and the search is focused on 56,000sq km of ocean floor far off Western Australia.

No wreckage from the aircraft has been found. Hi Ho..:yuk:... mi..mi..mi..Beaker's budgetary bowl runneth over...:{ MTF :ok:

14th May 2014, 09:03
Additional funding for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau over two years will take the total cost of the search to $89.9m.

Hmmm.$89 million dollar Beaker jackpot!! There seems to be something 'odd' in regards to aviation related funding. Those naughty trough dwelling CAsArites received a tasty $89 million a few years back, now the same figure is awarded to mi mi mi Beaker and his band of motley accountants! Is the figure of $89 million on both occasions just a coincidence? Is $89 million a lucky number? Does it take $89 million to comfortably fill a trough to the top? Is $89 million a more magical number, a spiritual number which brings the user/department/trough overseer good fortune and longevity in life?

Beaker wins the ATSB lotto;

Powerball Winner Paul White Hilarious Press Conference After Winning $149 million Prize [Full] - YouTube

thorn bird
15th May 2014, 12:00
Anyone take the trouble to tune into the New Zealand budget.

While we wallow in bureaucratic bullsh..t, our brethren across the ditch power ahead.

Our DAS actually had the hide to criticize them!!!

Well Mr. Comic DAS, care to show the industry somewhere...anywhere, just ONE THING, you and your corrupt, incompetent clowns have achieved, anything, just one single achievement your government required you and your corrupt incompetent clowns to achieve??
Na.... didn't think so, and you continue to deny the industry holds you in contempt.

15th May 2014, 22:04
TB:Well Mr. Comic DAS, care to show the industry somewhere...anywhere, just ONE THING, you and your corrupt, incompetent clowns have achieved, anything, just one single achievement your government required you and your corrupt incompetent clowns to achieve?? Q/ "...just ONE THING.."? Err he effectively gave us the PelAir debacle and..err Wodger's weport, which ultimately led to Truss & Co putting in place the WLR..:ooh: Maybe he has done us all a favour??:E

Anyway TB forget about the DAS (STBR), from what I hear they've sound proofed his office and are screening all his calls and many of his former minions are considering jumping ship to Beaker's bucket, which has just received a $60 million top up due to the MH370 search/investigation mission...:rolleyes:

Moving along I noticed this headline this AM from the Oz, & surprise..surprise, old SC :D:Smaller players warn of ‘oblivion’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/smaller-players-warn-of-oblivion/story-e6frg95x-1226919236103)
GENERAL aviation will follow other Australian industries into oblivion unless there is a radical revision of the local regulatory environment, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has warned.

In a submission to the federal government’s inquiry into aviation safety, AOPA has said Australia’s unique and complicated regulatory environment is strang*ling the small end of town.

It said the result was that too often *pilots, charter operators and maintenance people gave up because they believed it was “just too hard’’.

“Without a radical revision, it seems that GA will follow so many other Australian industries into oblivion, taking jobs, opportunities and skills with it,’’ the submission said.

“The prospective GA pilot faces problems with access to airfields, high costs and a far from appealing ageing aircraft fleet.

“The aircraft owner faces frequently hostile airport owners, a shortage of licensed maintenance engineers, rising maintenance costs, increased paperwork and such uncertainty with both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and airport owners that it is difficult to obtain finance to purchase new aircraft.

“In contrast, ultralight aircraft have prospered in a realistic regulatory environment.’’

AOPA calls for a sweep of the existing rules and the adoption of US-style regulations for general aviation *similar to the New Zealand model.
It said attempting to patch up problems with Australia’s system “was like renovating a house with rotten foundations’’.

Areas AOPA wants improved include the level of industry consultation by CASA, a move away from CASA’s legalistic approach and more consistent enforcement. It also argued that aviation should be encouraged by CASA as part of its formal charter and that the regulator was fragmented and should act more *coherently across the whole org*anisation.

AOPA also is highly critical of the declining number of airfields and difficulties in getting access.

It labelled the Aviation Security Identity Card as a “major inconvenience’’ that made no practical contribution to security and had become a device enabling routine obstruction of legitimate operations.

The organisation said expensive airport security fences and gates deterred and inconvenienced legitimate people but did little to deter anyone with malicious intent.

“The failure of the commonwealth government to enforce deeds of agreement with airport owners has seen many airports become unwelcoming or even downright hostile to GA aircraft, in the airport owners’ efforts to seek profit from activities other than aviation,’’ it said.
“In particular, city airports *effectively exclude GA and thus many people who would use this transport system cannot.’’

AOPA’s submission is one of more than 270 received by the inquiry, with worries about CASA cited by chairman David Forsyth as a key concern.
These included concerns about the agency repeatedly changing direction about which overseas jurisdiction it would follow and the habitual use of unnecessarily complex terminology when dealing with the industry.

The committee hopes to have the report finalised by the end of the month. Industry groups are waiting for its findings and to see the government’s response. Oh well better late than never I suppose...:D

TICK..TOCK miniscule! :ok:

ps Dear miniscule...nicely parried (spun answer) to this (lefty) QIW:
Tuesday, 13 May 2014 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 82
Date Tuesday, 13 May 2014 Source House
Page 82 Proof Yes
Questioner Thomson, Kelvin, MP Responder Truss, Warren, MP
Speaker Question No. 70
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Question No. 70)

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(Question No. 70)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 25 February

In respect of the employment freeze on public service recruitment, how will the Civil Aviation Safety Authority oversee implementation of Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I am advised that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will continue to undertake external recruitment activity to fill vacant critical and high priority roles which require aviation expertise. The implementation of Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 is a high priority for CASA and will be resourced on that basis.
Hmm...wonder in what context that QIW was asked?? :rolleyes:

Frank Arouet
16th May 2014, 00:02
QUOTE: "It labelled the Aviation Security Identity Card as a “major inconvenience’’ that made no practical contribution to security and had become a device enabling routine obstruction of legitimate operations" QUOTE.

This small matter didn't seem to stop them supporting the whole concept when it was first mooted. Indeed AOPAA attempted to become THE only accredited issuer of the bloody thing on the belief this would force pilots to join AOPAA for a reduced cost of issue. When this didn't happen they opposed it.

The Heretic who wrote this statement is too late and looks like walking one leg each side of the barb wire fence to trying to placate their procrastinating member, while not offending CASA too much.

16th May 2014, 02:58
Well the actual budget papers reveal some interesting stuff - amongst those is no change in the fuel excise and a fall in staff numbers of 22.

This article gives a good summary and some real questions (http://vocasupport.com/89-9m-still-no-closer-to-finding-the-money-mystery-deepens/) and includes the following from the Budget papers.

Reckon the industry is not being "got at"


16th May 2014, 10:03
The remainder of the money has probably gone into that 'special training pot' for the executives, some more A380 endo's, and Sky Sentinel software upgrades! The whole thing is a complete joke from the Minister down to the pot plant maintainers at Fort Fumble. Serial abuse of taxpayer money for decades, and it is accepted as standard, normal sanctioned practise.

Off with their heads!!

Frank Arouet
17th May 2014, 00:00
All around the CAsA house,
The monkey chased the pilots.
And after them in double haste,
Pop! goes the weasel.

(picture off cash blowing out of jack in the box). Someone will find one.

smilie of face going Oooh because mine don't work..... still.

17th May 2014, 21:48
Extract – Rule of Law Institute of Australia (RoILA) submission. 27 March 2014.

To: Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

Second, the current Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, to his great credit, has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct a sweeping review of Commonwealth legislation to find provisions that encroach upon "rights, freedoms and privileges". In December 2013 he said:

"I have asked the Commission to identify where traditional rights, freedoms and privileges are unnecessarily comprised within the legal structure of the Commonwealth. Where encroachments exist, the Commission will determine whether they are justified."

The Attorney-General has indicated the Commission should report by 1 December 2014, however it is possible the inquiry may run for much longer. It is clearly a very significant review of the Commonwealth legislation and will focus on the wide discretionary powers of most Commonwealth regulators including the AFP. When the opportunity arises RoLIA will be making significant submissions to the Inquiry and RoLIA has already engaged interns from two Universities to assist us in this process. To the extent it can the Committee and the Senate generally may wish to assist in this inquiry by, among other things, referring to the Commission at the appropriate time any matters it thinks should be brought to its attention.

Food for thought; and perhaps, a gateway for industry. Well done the committee, managing to publish the submissions – seems it can be done. Where there's a will, there's a way.

thorn bird
17th May 2014, 22:28
Anyone have any idea when Air Services publish their accounts?

While I understand as a Government Corporation their accounts are probably as dodgey as a starting price bookies, I was wondering if they publish their directors bonuses.

I was lead to understand that these "performance" bonuses were loosely based on how much money they save, so it occurred to me given the Bucket loads saved on new Radar by forcing the Industry into ADSB ten years ahead of the rest of the world, and paying for it, they must be on a poultice load of bucks in bonuses.

21st May 2014, 21:29
As the WLR review is sanctioned by the 'department' head for release to the miniscule, we of the BRB got together last evening to answer two burning question – (i) the strange and wonderful way of coincidence with the miraculous appearance of an industry PR survey at the time of the WLR release; and (ii) from which bottomless pit of ineptitude did the CASA drag survey notion from. The answer to Qi is, we believe self evident. Best we could come up with for Qii was the following explanation.

Some one left the keys to the word processor room laying about, which allowed a couple of the pencil cupboard inmates to sneak in and settle down to a long night of Gin and fantasy. The product of their late night happy, slappy writing binge produced a mighty word fest. The missive had to be drafted drunk; it's the only explanation, for no one in their senses could produce such a load of meaningless old cobblers.

Anyway - they must have smuggled it into the print run where it impressed some of their more light minded mates (who were stuck for ideas anyway), what with the high flown language, fatuous logic, previously unheard rhetoric; and, the added benefit of being totally incomprehensible made it a winner.... After much back slapping and high five-ing; the missive was presented, like the Emperors new clothes to the "Czar". Not wanting to appear thick, this fine gentleman nodded sagely and agreed with the 'mates' advice, - this was the answer to the massive PR problem. "We should make sure the industry gets this important safety message and we'll get lots of kudos" he cried "I'll wangle the survey money, you boys get to work: this will be a big PR win-win" for us".

So they set it all up and went at it; sure in the knowledge that the loaded questions and skewed answers would provide a perfect platform of mirrors and backdrop of smoke (just the ticket they chuckled); and, the bonus being that no bugger would know what TF they were looking at; but could not say so. You can't tell CASA it's bloody fairy story – and remain fit and proper.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You will need a strong stomach (and a fine sense of the ridiculous) to read all of this –CAAP. In deference to my colleagues sensitive guts and early hour I have selected but two short paragraphs as an illustration. For your entertainment, delight and amusement; direct from CAAP 215 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/215-1-annexd.pdf)Annexe D page D 18. If you can't see the parallels, look - HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/540084-congrats-you-have-just-volunteered.html), just read the email - HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/540084-congrats-you-have-just-volunteered-2.html#post8486398):-

A consultant was engaged to conduct interviews with senior personnel and focus groups with the main occupational groups within the airline. The consultant not only provided expertise in these questioning techniques, there was a general perception of impartiality that appeared to encourage frank disclosure and discussion. Four focus groups were conducted (two pilot groups; 1 maintainer group; and 1 miscellaneous group) over two days. A report was delivered by the consultant that summarised the key training themes emerging from the interviews and focus groups.

The training development team used the consultant’s report, the analysis of company incident
reports, feedback from other airline safety managers, CASA and the ATSB website, and their own experience with external CRM training to develop a list of training needs in a rough priority order.

Sponsored by the IOS Sheltered Workshop division. Providing expensive training teams for promoting the latest version of witless, mindless, pointless waffle.

Hope the same crew write the WLR, can't wait to read it - Toot toot.

thorn bird
22nd May 2014, 08:59
Geez Kharon you winkle out some weird stuff.

At first I thought Oh God!! more bloody shelf ware, then after a little read,
it is a joke isn't it?? got to be, someone taking the P..ss.
Blue Gum Airlines for goodness sake.

Well perhaps an indication of just how ignorant the numpies are.

Do they really imagine 6 clapped out old antiques will be able to support 20 Odd admin staff??

Thats before you start paying the mill or so for the AOC, probably hasn't dawned on them the model they used has already gone broke...:ugh:

22nd May 2014, 09:21
Heard a rumour that the Murky Machiavellian one is currently vetting the WLR report...:ugh: If true MM here is some parting shots to consider, while reading the draft WLR report and the CVs of the potential future DAS, from AMROBA's latest newsletter...:D Regulatory Structures GA
Most governments are against imposing additional requirements on the public and individual participants but few achieve such an outcome.

Over the last decade we have seen a change from outcome based requirements to prescriptive regulations that also shifts the burden of proof from government to industry.

Standards are confusing to say the least.

Increasing unnecessary paperwork is killing the basic foundations of aviation, general aviation.

Splitting the maintenance capability between AOC pax operations and others was and is a backward step.

Nothing is being proposed to reduce the regulatory burden on the non airline and airline sectors. Changes introduced since 1991 has seen private VH registered aviation continue to decrease.

The regulatory changes has seen many shift to non VH registered aircraft where there is less regulatory burden.

Same aircraft, two different standards applied.

Is the safety of aviation affected by the type of person that wants to become a pilot, engineer, etc. or is it affected by the skills of these people.

New Zealand has a “fit & proper” person criteria that an aviation participant must meet prior to obtaining a government issued licence, certificate or approval. Why? Because under the NZ Aviation Act, the CAA(NZ) is also responsible for security matters.

So what is the best structure for GA?

Pilot licensing should be no different to the principles used in North America where there is a thriving non type certificated aircraft industry.

The legislation should be minimal and requiring CASA to promulgate minimum safety standards that this sector would need to comply with. This sector is all about individual standards not organisations.

Getting the structure right is important.

“The regulator may not have the skills or knowledge necessary to design and implement an alternative policy instrument. For example, in some technical areas regulators and policy makers may be influenced by the desire to specify highly technical standards, where they have very specific knowledge.”

Before regulatory change happened in aviation post the Authority’s HO move to Melbourne, Australia had the right structure but requirements had two flaws.

1. Orders were not changing quick enough to keep up with changes needed by industry—basically waited for ICAO standards to change.

2. Many requirements did not have a “head of power” in the legislation.

(my bold)The new CASA CEO will need to design a much better structure than the current system. Of course, his/her direction will be driven by the ASRR recommendations.
And perhaps a parting QON (in bold) for our STBR DAS on the subject of EASA v FAR and the possible adoption of the NZ regs...

"...During the Aero Friedrichshafen event (April 9th-12th) EASA made an announcement which came as a surprise to many people – even to those members of the GA Safety Standards Consultation Committee Sub Group. No one – not even NAAs had any prior knowledge of the EASA announcement.

Simpler, lighter, and better rules for General Aviation.
The Agency is committed to changing the way it regulates GA and this new approach comes from the Executive Director (Patrick Ky).

The presenters said transposing CAT (Commercial Air Transport) rules for GA was wrong and the aim now is to make the rules risk based and proportionate which is in line with the requirements established in the GA road map.

Furthermore, EASA wishes to simplify the operations and administration procedures.

Although it was originally decided not to have a specific GA department, EASA is now in the planning for a GA department, the aim of which is to establish a focal point inside EASA for GA, which has accountability for the future health of GA across Europe.

The time frame for this work is 2014 to 2017. So why did we follow EASA?..."

Oh and MM while vetting the WLR draft report and potential DAS CVs, here is an IOS QON, that I know will be dear to your heart...:E

Q/ Were we the first ICAO signatory State to submit notified differences to, the freshly minted, Annex 19 i.e. SSP?? (reference pg 96-97 here (http://airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf))

Much more to follow...:ok:

Hot off the press...

Panel to submit air safety report

From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
May 23, 2014 12:00AM

A MUCH anticipated federal government report into aviation safety is expected to be with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss next week.

Panel chairman David Forsyth and fellow members Roger Whitefield and Don Spruston have been working on the review since last year to look at how well Australia’s regulatory system is positioned globally, and have ­attracted a huge response from the industry.

“We’re still doing the final ­editing and we’ve just got a ­couple of issues where we’re double-checking some information, but basically we’re ready to go,’’ Mr Forsyth told The Australian yesterday.

He said the committee had been briefing Mr Truss and the department over the past six months so both were aware of the general thrust.

Mr Forsyth said the committee was happy it had covered the main issues according to the terms of reference and believed it had captured the important ­issues expressed by industry.

“We think we’ve made recommendations that will help to fix those issues,’’ he said.

“Of course, the hard job is for whoever the person is that takes on the role of (CASA director of aviation safety) — it depends on who that is, and how they go.

“But hopefully we’ve given them a bit of a blueprint so they can fix the major issues that have come up.’’

CASA and regulatory reform topped the list of industry concerns in almost 270 submissions and up to 20 supplementary ­papers.

Mr Forsyth said the “major irritant of the regulatory reform program’’ was not all down to CASA and there were also problems in areas such as the way Australia drafts laws.

The committee chairman reiterated his early comments that there was no silver bullet for regulatory reform but said the study had recommended the path it saw as the best.

“Each of the options has pluses and minuses, and we think the one we’ve recommended is on balance is the best way forward,’’ he said.

22nd May 2014, 22:08
Looks like Phelan is back from leave – Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/05/22/review-panel-report-on-schedule/)– update.

22nd May 2014, 23:03
I'm not holding my breath and I'm going to make a prediction....

Based on Ten years studies of psychopathic narcissism in management, I believe that you will get the shock of your life when this review is released and you hear the Governments response.

Yes folks, the situation will only get worse. you are about to receive an even bigger dose of the current corruption and regulatory muck. CASA powers will be increased and it will continue its current behaviour totally unchanged. It will then attempt to get revenge on its detractors if they can be identified, probably by enforcing a process of micro management and further prescriptive regulation.

To put that another way, CASA will have argued and it will be accepted that the reason for industry despair is that CASA hasn't got enough resources. The answer therefore is to give CASA more, more staff, more powers, more lawyering, more layers of management, more Boards and more power to tax you for it.

Truss will be fobbed off by the making of cosmetic changes (greeted by CASA with the magic words "This changes everything!") but the iron ring will remain and be given more and deeper powers to regulate you out of existence.

To put that yet another way, Truss is no Frodo Baggins. He will not destroy the ring of power by throwing it into the crater of Mt. Doom.

22nd May 2014, 23:37

Q/ Were we the first ICAO signatory State to submit notified differences to, the freshly minted, Annex 19 i.e. SSP??

Probably. And Australia had plenty of time to think about the new Annex 19, too.

Some items of interest from the ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010


Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes…

Also, and relevant to the PEL-AIR investigation debacle...

Topic 3.2: Safety initiatives arising from recent accidents

61. In summarizing the discussion the Chairman outlined the conclusions reached:

b) that it is not acceptable that an accident cannot be completely investigated due to the lack of availability of the recorded data [my bolding]. As a result, ICAO should pursue as a matter of high priority a review of SARPs and guidance materials with the aim of proposing to States for consideration any amendment which would be necessary to ensure that the data necessary to support investigation of accidents are available, including provisions for the recovery of data and information from flight recorders [my bolding]…

List of Participants



I wonder how much that little jaunt cost Australia?

The management clowns at the ATSB mustn't be aware of the summary for Topic 3.2 re recovery of data from recorders, and it makes the differences filed by Australia for Annex 13 re resource limitations look pretty bloody stupid I reckon, particularly when you look at the previous ATSB involvement of the last of the listed participants.

The mind boggles. :ugh:

thorn bird
23rd May 2014, 02:18
"The committee chairman reiterated his early comments that there was no silver bullet for regulatory reform"

Yes there is, a simple rewrite of the act, then adopt Kiwi Regs!!

Simple, easy, cost effective.

Would save a whole industry from oblivion, the Taxpayer a poultice of money and lead to better safety outcomes.

23rd May 2014, 04:48
how come so many participants from Australia?

23rd May 2014, 06:58

CASA just does NOT bloody get it! :ugh::ugh:

ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010


Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes




(of two or more people) fully in agreement.
"the doctors were unanimous in their diagnoses"

So, it means the Australian delegates (yes, the 9 of them) agreed with the establishment of Annex 19.

So how come Australia has already filed a difference with paragraph 3.1.4 of ICAO Annex 19 along the lines that there is:

No existing requirement for general aviation operators of large or turbojet aeroplanes to have an SMS, however, consideration is being given to this.

Yes there bloody-well IS a requirement for those general aviation operators to have an SMS, and it's been a STANDARD in ICAO Annex 6 Part II ** which applies to those operators for some time (at least since 2008), as follows:

3.3.2 Safety management system An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation.

** July 2008 edition

The shall means it's a mandatory requirement - so there should have been some definitive action by CASA to ratify the requirement into the regulatory system by now, rather than simply (still) 'considering' the requirement (standard) nearly six years later. FFS :mad:

I really want to know how come the CASA delegates agreed with the proposed Annex 19 SMS requirements in 2010, yet CASA is still only 'considering' the SAME requirement as it relates to Annex 19 and Annex 6 Part II four years later (2014), despite the fact that its been an ICAO standard since at least 2008?

So, while we've filed a difference for GA SMS requirements per paragraph 3.1.4 OF Annex 19, there doesn't seem to be a difference filed for the same GA SMS requirement (standard) per paragraph of ICAO Annex 6, presumably because Australian legislation doesn't specifically define 'Corporate Aviation'.

Am I missing something here, or is it a fact that these idiots (CASA management) really haven't got a clue? :ugh:

23rd May 2014, 12:00
Sunfish #781 nails it! Nothing will change at the core. The patch over has started - 2 more Board members to cover the Miniscules ass, and McComick leaves in August. There you have it, all fixed, nothing to see, move on, problem solved. I have heard that Terry will go around the same time that his Master leaves, and another rumour is Dr Voodoo will also toddle off to another gig somewhere, but that is yet to be confirmed. Either way, some members of the iron ring remain and some of their apprentices who have been groomed for some time will step straight into the empty shoes. Then the tautological process of malfeasance will continue, but at the hands of a very very angry Fort Fumble. These gods of thunder will be bringing hell upon those who dared to submit a diatribe or two towards them by way of submitting towards the WLR! This is fertile ground for the sociopaths and sycophants and the IOS are the prefect fodder for which they will satisfy their lust for revenge. Fort Fumble have the code to the WLR safe where all submissions are safely and robustly kept, and once Forsyth, Spruston and Whitefield have left the building, well, the Iron Ring will access that safe quicker than a teen boy accessing his dad's Hustler collection (or perhaps Ribald collection)

Aviators of Australia, grab your ankles and curl your toes as the real buggery is about to begin! Hell haveth no mercy like a CAsA employee thrust into the spotlight!

Toot toot

23rd May 2014, 20:13
004 - There are more way to skin a cat than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Horrible, I know but it's early). See the – Senate (http://www.pprune.org/8490226-post1945.html) - thread for a more 'robust' response. (Evil icon).

yr right
24th May 2014, 08:45
SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps.

Oil and gas etc demand you have it. Why what dose it give you. I found Australian in our industry are really pretty good at it with out training with being told if you walk into a prop its more than likely going to hurt.

At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good we still have two systems either FAA or ESSA which neither really suits use here in Australia. Maybe the flying side more than engineering. Our population here is so small yet our country so vast. Did we really have a problem with our system before they turned it into muck. No it may not have been prefect but it worked. And as the traveling roads show guy said oh the Europeans think we have a better system than they have, my return was so we throwing the baby out with the bath water. Well his tacho went of the limiter.

So what have we been left with, a system that not working is still not recognized by anyone else and a plie of paper work muck making money from nothing costing shed loads and really giving us nothing in return,

But least im not bitter and twisted just yet.

Normal programing will return shortly


24th May 2014, 23:21
Top catch SIUYA at post #782 (http://www.pprune.org/8489159-post782.html) & #785 (http://www.pprune.org/8489410-post785.html)….

Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes..”

Meanwhile, in Fort Fumble’s parallel universe, the middle management minions were busy enacting their MAP to roger DJ and the ATsB, while attempting to cover up their obvious shortcomings to properly oversight the PelAir operation.

Anyone else see the irony in the two universes?:ugh:

List of Participants



Looking at all the participants from Oz, I also find it more than ‘passing strange’ that Beaker’s crew did not get a look in?? After all the principle body that is fundamental to a successful State SSP is it’s fully independent AAI.

Oh well perhaps bean counter Beaker’s budgetary constraints couldn’t stretch to paying a couple of economy class airfares to Montreal…:E

In regards to Annex 19 & in the context of the WLR panel report, unlike CAsA, hopefully the panel will have not missed the significance and importance that ICAO place on Annex 19 as the lynch pin that ties all the other ICAO SARPs together. This significance was certainly not missed by several of the submitters to the WLR, who have asked for the Govt to seriously consider reviewing/updating our version of the SSP (State Safety Program i.e. Annex 19).


Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) submission:

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

a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.

Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission:

5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.

It is worth reflecting on the ALA submission because the main author of their submission was Joseph Wheeler from Shine Lawyers. This bloke has a real handle on our obligations, as a signatory state, to the ICAO SARPs and in particular Annex 19. Couple of quotes from the ALA submission…

“…Despite Australia’s admirable domestic and international air safety record, and its respected place among International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, Australia does not occupy as high a place as it should in terms of international adherence to ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) – the principal measure of a nation’s air safety oversight obligations…”

And from Part ‘5. Systemic oversight issues following Lockhart River crash in 2005’…

“…In the aftermath of the Lockhart River crash it is recognised that the broader trend worldwide towards risk assessment and management led to the development and approaches being implemented at the operational level by CASA. See for example, the publication “SMS for Aviation – A practical guide: Safety Management System Basics”.51

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

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

Joseph Wheeler has also produced some excellent articles, published on the Shine Lawyers blog site, on the MH370 search and accident investigation:
MH370 investigation: roles, responsibilities and rule changes (http://www.shine.com.au/mh370-investigation-roles-responsibilities-rule-changes/#sthash.7JgSTbz2.dpuf)
MH370 Preliminary Report released (http://www.shine.com.au/mh370-preliminary-report-released/)

But his latest article perhaps best highlights the essential role that ICAO play in governing how a signatory state must predictively act after a tragic air disaster has occurred.
MH370 search for answers and ICAO work to track airliners (http://www.shine.com.au/mh370-search-answers-icao-work-track-airliners/) One rule in Annex 13 is that countries which have a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens are entitled to “have access to relevant factual information which [are] approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation”: Ch 5.27 at 5-8 – 5-9. While it has been argued that no-one knows better than accident investigators the importance of their role (to make aviation safer) we maintained (less than 2 weeks after the aircraft’s disappearance) that:

… passengers’ families need to be represented within investigations, both during the search phase and during the investigation phase. … It is only these people, with their human feelings and passionate concerns for answers (owing to their unique losses and experience), which can serve to remind investigators of the reason they are doing what they are doing – to prevent the suffering which has been caused to family members – not the lofty ambition of “making aviation safer” (a trite comment in the context of the shared global pain of those hoping with the families of MH370 passengers to get answers).

We do not depart from those views. In this case the ICAO SARPs, along with international community, has helped remind the Malaysians of their obligations to the victims and their families of flight MH370.

Joseph Wheeler’s article also displays how all the ICAO SARPs are intrinsically linked. If you follow the JW Annex 13 reference (i.e. Ch 5.27):

5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation; and
c) receive a copy of the Final Report.

This will not preclude the State from also assisting in the identification of victims and in meetings with survivors from that State.

Note.— Guidance related to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families is provided in the Guidance on Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families (Circ 285).
Link for Circ 285 HERE (http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/DOC9998_en.pdf) & ICAO Annex 9, Chapter 8, Section (I) can be viewed HERE (http://dcaa.trafikstyrelsen.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%209%20-%20Facilitation/Facilition.pdf)

yr right’s comments…

“…SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps…”

“…At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good…”

yr right is right that SMS & Annex 19 is yet another impost to industry stakeholders and is largely based on ‘common sense’. yr right is not right when it comes to ICAO and their SARPs.

Since the Chicago Convention 1944, the ICAO SARPs have been evolving and are produced from over a 110 years of collective (some tragically) international air safety lessons learnt. Those bothersome Human Factors experts may have had a large part in the writing and design of Annex 19, however their combined efforts are not just based on a whim. HF experts in aviation basically study why it is we humans continue to make fundamental errors while committing aviation. They also look at ways to lessen the occurrence & severity of these errors. Annex 19 is a reflection of HF expert research over a good 50 or so years.

That is why it is a total abomination that our numb nuts in CAsA and the Dept (there are Dept names in that list) have the audacity to spend untold millions of taxpayer monies going on junkets to Montreal to show, on paper at least, that we are an ICAO compliant State. But in reality we are merely paying lip service to the ‘Spirit & Intent’ of over 70 years of collective ICAO wisdom…:(

One can only hope that the ALA recommendation 5 features somewhere near the top of the list of WLR recommendations and the miniscule takes heed, hopefully sometime before Mr ICAO eventually comes knocking…:rolleyes:

TICK bloody TOCK! :E

yr right
25th May 2014, 01:16
Whilst I understand ICAO it still has two separate base systems Why is there not one and then who is to say which one is right, Now remember this is a paper work exercise the aircraft is maintained to the same standard.

On the HF course what a crock. Now they saying every two years come on give me a break. I can fly to the USA out of the east coast cheaper and quicker than to get to Melbourne to do it from here, and for what. Nothing that's really going to impact the way I or anyone conducts themselves in the course of Maintenance. We do HF every day while we work. Its not new its called common sense. Common sense is real its in the dictionary when its removed then its not but while ever its there the goody goodys cant say there is no such thing.

In about 1999/2000 there was a CASA seminar at Milperra on the changes in maintenance that they where purposing.

me I ask why the change

Them we dont like you doing your studys over the kitchen table

me you saying we in this room (more than 100 people all industry airlines to ga) are all incompetent

them no not saying that

me hands up every one in this room that did (everyone did ) you are

Them no no im not

Me you did

some more questions where asked and then I asked

Me how are people in remote areas going to be able to do there exams and study under this system

Them they be able to do via correspondence


What a mess we find ourselves into now I keep saying we never been placed in such a dangerous environment than what we are in now.

And even now with all the changes that where made our Lic system is still not recognized any where else. Now remember how long they tried to get this in, Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it

In the old days it would have been called treason


dubbleyew eight
25th May 2014, 10:11
Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it

let us not be vague about it.
it was QANTAS.

25th May 2014, 12:55
List of Participants



For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.

yr right
25th May 2014, 13:22
Yep it was Qantas. Just means they don't have to traine engineers in the whole aircraft.
Typical q but f u we ok. Or Qantas syndrome really we the best you all no f all. Worst job I ever held.


25th May 2014, 20:29
List of Participants

The first 7 names on the list went from Australia. A rough calculation which includes business class airfares, their away allowances, accommodation, meals, sundries and whatever else could be milked 'legitimately' from the trough and you would easily hit the $100k taxpayer figure.

What a joke.

25th May 2014, 23:14
Yes – but it's essential CASA goes to Montreal - not the ATSB. CASA frame the AIP; thus controlling the register of the 97 page 'differences' catalogue; including those to Annexe 6, 13 and 19. ATSB must, as handmaiden (submissive or catamite) to the safety authority, remember to change their bags before being booted in the arse: lest the CASA boot get dirty. It's a sad, shameful business we pay for. Legal?- "Of course it is M'lud".

26th May 2014, 07:01
A chocky frog for the Heff :D
He has been concerned about security in Can'tberra's most holy of holy for some time! So he pulled this stunt;

Senator Bill Heffernan smuggles fake 'pipe bomb' into Parliament House, says building 'no longer secure' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-26/bill-heffernan-fake-pipe-bomb-parliament-house-security-concerns/5477468)

Now I can only hope that perhaps Fawcett or Xenophon brandish a dodgy NCN or an 'ICAO intention to audit Australia letter' and sneak it into Fort Fumbles Brisbane H/O, and watch everyone also running for the door!!

26th May 2014, 09:12
004wercras ...

There's a whole lot more people involved with ICAO-centric jolly's and troughs than the ones previously posted I'm afraid.

See: Australian Involvement with ICAO Panels, Committees, Study Groups, Regional Planning Groups Etc (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/icao_list.aspx)

There's more than 80 people listed here that are involved with the ICAO 'gravy train' by virtue of Australia being a Contracting State. :eek:

Nice work if you can get it! The mind boggles at the $$$'s that must be involved here.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet that all of the listed panellists/committee members/secretariat study 'groupies'/working 'groupies'/ANC panellists/regional planning panellists/others/AN study 'groupies' and task force members don't limit their participation to e-meetings.

27th May 2014, 12:27
SIUYA, agreed, nice if you can land a free seat aboard the ICAO gravy train! All these 'safety related experts' with an annual bill that runs into the millions, yet Australia, by way of CAsA has managed to not complete its regulatory reform program in 25 years with a cost approaching $300 million, the ATsB has folded into a laughing stock and been steered into the depths of a bottomless pit filled with pooh, our industry has been buggerised, pulverised and euthanised, and the consensus in many circles is that Australia is equal to most of the bottom layer third world civil aviation outfits!
Yep, all that money, time and resources that has been outlaid has achieved????

Toot toot

Frank Burden
28th May 2014, 03:13
For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.

It would be interesting to know the process for the ingoing (the last name) being selected to represent Oz in Montreal.

Someone mentioned she was a bureaucrat in Department who spent time in ATSB.

Obviously, a stringent selection process before MM gave her the tax payer funded golden ticket.

thorn bird
28th May 2014, 03:43
While on the subject of overseas junkets, interesting article in todays Sydney Telegraph. Seems the previous Guvmint put aside $370 mil to fund things for the upcoming G20 meeting in BN with no clear rules regarding its disbursement.

Fat cats, as fat cats do, rubbed their hands with glee and dived in, spreading taxpayer largesse around on cruises down the Rhine, superyacht trips around the harbor etc. until the PM's department stepped in and put a brake on it.

Seems to me the PM's dept should have a long hard look at CAsA.

Easily more than $370 mil pissed up against the wall on regulatory "Reform"(CAsA's word for it certainly not industries) and god knows how much on junkets to Montreal. They talk about waste, the whole of CAsA is a wasted space.

28th May 2014, 04:00

From memory, the lady in question is a qualified aviation investigator who holds/has held both cpl and parachute quals.

28th May 2014, 04:00
Master Burden, the process for choosing the ICAO delegate is done by Infrastructure. They always choose a 'wordsmith' to represent the good people of Aus. No actual aviation skill is necessary, just the ability to spin, speak bureaucratic lingo, polish the turd and write 10 000 word executive summaries, policy statements and other such baloney. My sources who are deep within the bowels of the Australian system told me that Dr Hoodoo was disliked when he spent time as the Aus representative at ICAO. No tears were shed when he left.

If you look at name number 6 on that amazing list you may find out some interesting stuff when researching her. My sources tell me that she too worked for Infrastructure and was a 'wordsmith' who industry thought was an idiot. Mention her name around PASO and see what response you get :E
Dr Voodoo (who has worked closely with her before) brought her across from Infrastructure to manage CAsA's ITSAP program. Dr Voodoo took that portfolio off Terry and brought her across when the former ITSAP manager was pineappled by the GWM. When she arrived she and Dr Voodoo proceeded to tinker with, stall and stuff up the ITSAP program, and the Indonesians hated her!
She is a former 'journalist' (ha ha) and doesn't have an aviation bone in her body, so to speak.
The two Fort Fumble inspectors in the program resigned (there was some alleged mischief as well) and the program was handed to Consultants who royally rooted it completely. Well done Fort Fumble :D
Interestingly this same woman also used to serve on the selection/interview panel for choosing the Aus ICAO delegate! Perhaps she will be next to move to Montreal for three years? Maybe it will be a close acquaintance who lands the coveted gig? Oh Fort Fumble, there is always a story, always a link, never is the smell of pooh far from them :=

'Safe skies are gravy train filled skies'

Toot toot

28th May 2014, 04:08
004, think you've got the wrong lady !!!!!

28th May 2014, 04:14
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc etc....

28th May 2014, 05:01
Hi 004,

Think we are talking at cross purposes. I must have been confused by Frank"s reference to Oz ICAO reps. There are 2, usually appointed for 3 year terms. The senior is the Councillor, the other is the ANC commissioner.

Present Councillor to whom I am referring is Kerryn Macauley, thought she had been reappointed for a 2nd term. Very smart lady with a good aviation background. Time may have flown and there may be someone else in the wing of whom I know nothing.

Hope this clears things up.

28th May 2014, 06:48
One of the IO9 gives us an update on the recent junket..:rolleyes:..err...ICAO meeting on MH370:

Senate Estimates 27/05/14 - Doherty on ICAO MH370 meeting - YouTube

DH7 is also apparently the resident Dept guru on airports, & was earlier (along with MM) parrying questions from Senator Fawcett...:D

Senate Estimates 27/05/14 - Fawcett & Airports - YouTube

Watch & weep...:ok:

Frank Burden
28th May 2014, 23:21
hamble701, you missed the point of my post.

It was about process meeting the usual checks and balances in a government funded body (auditable, transparent, fair, etc) before the incumbent was selected.

Similarly, if the position has been extended as mentioned, was the market tested to make sure this important representative position has the best person in it going forward?

Or again, did a sponsor use their authority and make a snap on behalf of the people of Australia?

My post was not about the incumbents suitability for membership of Mensa, or her interpersonal skills or anything else, but about what defines appropriate governance in public office.

004, appreciated your perspectives on the inner workings. A bit hard figuring things out from the outside. ;)

29th May 2014, 00:19

See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/pdf/Tripartite_Memorandum_of_Understanding_Aust.pdf

Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...

...but this would not rule out the selection of a candidate external to these agencies.

I'd like to know if/when an external candidates have been appointed.

And if in recognition of paragraph 8.5 the positions are ever advertised so that external candidates can apply, and so that their qualifications and experience can be evaluated alongside those of the Infrastructure, Airservices and CASA candidates to ensure that the most qualified and experienced candidates are selected for the positions in the best interests of Australia.

My suspicion is that no external candidates are ever going to be considered, particularly when internal candidates who are 'smart' people with 'a good aviation background' (whatever that means) are available. :rolleyes:

29th May 2014, 00:56
Let me tell you where failure of the Truss aviation review leads...

It leads directly to the destruction of jobs and businesses and a lack of new investment in anything to do with the aviation industry, period.

The key ingredients in Western Economies that differentiate them from Third World Economies are trust and cooperation as Francis Fukuyama observed over Ten years ago in a book on that subject. The reason for this is that transaction costs (the costs of doing a business transaction) are minimal in a high trust environment, but stratospheric in a low trust environment because one has to try and manage the risks associated with unconscionable or illegal behaviour by the other party. In many parts of the world, there are obvious business opportunities going begging because no investor or entrepreneur can trust Government or counterparties not to either steal the investment itself or confiscate the profits made.

To put that another way, there are fields ripe for planting in the Third world because the landowner is frightened that his investment of seed, fertiliser and labour will be for nothing. Confiscatory official taxation, land appropriation, "fees" and other forms of blackmail eat into his revenue.

To put that yet another way, I know of a Russian polypropylene manufacturer who refused to sell product to the West because he knew that the instant he had a stream of foreign currency - U.S. dollars, in his revenue, the Russian mafia would move in and become his "partner".

So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.

CASA and now the ATSB and perhaps Airservices have totally lost the trust of the aviation industry.

Does anyone seriously doubt what I say?

The first and vital conclusion the review must draw is that CASA has lost the trust of the industry - all else follows from that, starting with the obvious immediate requirement to restore trust.

To put that another way, if that conclusion is not drawn, then nothing the review can recommend, nor the Government mandate, will make the slightest bit of difference to the current situation and further decay is inevitable.

29th May 2014, 01:23
So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.
Sunfish, your tongue is better than a $20 whore! Well worded and absolutely spot on :ok:

29th May 2014, 01:40
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc

You might be correct with who you are talking about but to clarify the lady at the bottom of the list has an aviation background. Wasn't a journalist but a teacher before starting a career in GA then eventually moved to the ATSB.

Back to topic though. Does anyone still think that the situation that Sunfish describes is going to be altered 1 jot by the current review? Posted in November

. I'm not sure why a review is required or why more submissions are required as the Senate has a compactus full. If significant and structural change emerges from this review not only will I be pleasantly surprised but I will go to parliament and extend to the Rt Hon Mr Truss a laurel and hardy handshake as he will be the first M.P. to actually make a step forward rather than endlessly talking about reforming aviation in this country.:ugh:

29th May 2014, 02:12
Fair go, LL: The Minister’s taken the extraordinarily bold step of (re)expanding the CASA Board.

Job done! :D

29th May 2014, 05:46
Note to self Creamy, to find the cloud in every silver lining.

29th May 2014, 07:03
We are extremely lucky to have someone of the calibre of Senator David Fawcett in there asking the real questions. The way that Messers Mrdak and Doherty sidestep the issues when asked the pointed questions just hardens the resolve of those who are actively working away to see that this shambles is reversed.
Take the time to look at the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc website to see progress so far. After more than five years of exhaustive research and correspondence with Government Departments we now find ourselves nearly two years in the AAT dealing with political stone-walling and double-speak along with many legal diversions!

www.aacci.org.au (http://www.aacci.org.au)

Recent media release about the appalling status of our secondary airports.

Dear Member,

In April Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. wrote to Hon Warren Truss Minister for Infrastructure and Transport about

“Privatisation of Secondary Airports being a mistake”.

The Chamber stated that “It was incumbent on all of us to address the shortcomings (of Secondary Airport Privatisation) by means other than repossession of the airfields. The task though falls primarily on the government of the day as they alone have the resources to take the required action.”

The Chamber further stated to Minister Truss that “In the policy the coalition took to the polls, undertakings were given that many of the existing defects in policies relating to aviation would be addressed. So far there have been no changes implemented and more tellingly no public discussions of the prospect of any changes.”

The Chamber warned “We are aware of important enquiries that you have implemented and we fully acknowledge the importance in probing deeply into some industry matters so that root and branch corrective action can be taken in order for effective and permanent redress to be achieved. That inevitably involves some delay in instituting change. While accepting that point, the really important fact that we live in a commercial world cannot be ignored.”

Minister Truss was told that many current policies are causing great financial cost directly to the General Aviation industry which is as a consequence in undeniable accelerated decline.

This is particularly true of the Secondary Airports which are in catastrophic decline post privatisation.


Total General Aviation Flying Hours[i] (http://www.pprune.org/#_edn1) (which excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport) are almost static as to actual hours but in decline compared to population.

Archerfield Airport’s movements[ii] (http://www.pprune.org/#_edn2) are now only 47% of pre-privatisation levels.

The loss has been a 53 % decline post airport privatisation, that is 134,336 movements per annum down from pre-privatisation levels.

Minister Truss was advised that “A large number of these factors are self-evident and do not need an expensive and protracted enquiry to establish their existence. Immediate action however is required.”

A classic example of that is, in relation to airports, the failure of successive governments to implement the statutory provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airport Sales Agreements –including the Commonwealth leases and the Sale Transfer Instruments.

To list only a few examples;

the failure to maintain the airports at least to the standard at the commencement of the lease;
the failure to make provision for development for future aviation and aviation related needs;
the failure by lease holders to adhere to their privatisation obligations to renew the leases of hangar owners who have title to their hangars and equitable interests as to renewal;
the permanent quarantining of land through long term leases for non-aviation industrial purposes thereby denying future expansion for aviation purposes- clearly aimed at bringing about the premature demise of this public utility,
the way airport leasing companies stifle both competition and development in the aviation service industry by denying, without explanation or reason, both the expansion of established industry or the introduction of competition on their airfields;
the lack of any mechanism to restrain the abuse of the monopoly powers in the hands of the airport leasing companies including:

Denying lessees renewals to gain their assets by reversion,
Placing unreasonable restrictions on lessees upon lease renewal, for instance renewing leases that previously permitted aircraft maintenance and hangarage to aircraft hangarage only with no justification for the additional restrictions
very high rental increases which cannot be afforded by the industry that are leading to the destruction and closure of general aviation business being irreplaceable losses to the industry.

The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”

The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”

The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”

The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.

The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.

The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.

Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.

Lindsay Snell
Contact: (07) 3274 1477

Download Media Release as PDF (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/171hc/1775545/9a2bf7rjm.pdf) (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747926/pdf_logo.gif 161kb)

Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/171hc/1775546/9a2bfbmpz.pdf) (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747926/pdf_logo.gif 137kb)

[i] (http://www.pprune.org/#_ednref1) Source: BTRE General Aviation Activity Reports (excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport)
[ii] (http://www.pprune.org/#_ednref2) Source: Airservices Australia and Airport Master Plan Movement Reports - During Tower hours)

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc
GPO Box 2511
Brisbane Qld 4001
Website (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/171hc/1772506/9a2bf14p8b-1.html)

29th May 2014, 09:01
and well timed...:D
Presumably you guys put in a Submission to the ASRR?? So any chance of getting a viewing or at least a quote?? :rolleyes:

Here is part of the Hansard segment for the Airports questioning in Estimates (link here (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2 F09c5da8f-b44a-46e7-aff8-b602aadd09b6%2F0002;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=Dataset%3AcomSen,estimate;rec=7;resCount =Default)):Senator FAWCETT: Essendon is a case in point, where it is proposed possibly to shorten a runway. I was asking CASA about their professional input, which says that the length of the runway, particularly for lower weight aircraft under 5,700 kilos, is not just a function of the flight manual but there are a number of factors that have to be applied which significantly lengthen the requirement that an operator has to meet to allow for engine failures and other things. CASA have confirmed that it is the case that they have to be applied. Can I ask: if the advice that a consultant gave as part of a master planning process did not include that factoring information and it was subsequently shown that CASA had verified that the figures they had interpolated from the flight manual were correct but they had not actually notified the department that the operator had to take these other things into account so that the runway that was proposed by the master plan ended up being too short for the aircraft that would be using it, what would happen to the master planning process? Would it be overturned? Would you go back and change it? What would the department do in that case?

Mr Doherty : Perhaps I could start the answer and Ms Horrocks may wish to add to it. With the general thrust of your question being about whether, in considering a master plan, we would look to the impact of a change in runway, not only in terms of the technical compliance with a manual but in terms of the overall impact about how that change would affect the operations, clearly our interest would be in being able to assess the impact on operations practically. In terms of the detail of how that assessment is conducted, I think it is correct that we would be looking to CASA for an assessment on some of those technical aspects. As for the advice that they provide in relation to each master plan, we would be looking for that sort of advice. When it comes to input from a technical expert or consultant engaged by the airport, we would be keen to understand whether that is reliable and would get an expert opinion ourselves on that. Initially that would come from CASA. If that information is available then to the minister, the minister would make his call in terms of whether that master plan is something that should be approved or not.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I guess the question I have for you is that I have had a large number of complaints from operators at Archerfield Airport who contend that the expert who was called to support the master planning process looked at the AF10, the flight manual, and derived from that, for each of the aircraft type that flies at Archerfield, a strip length for the new north-south runway which was less than a thousand metres—I think it was about 900 metres—but it did not take into account the factoring that the CAOs require an operator to put into their operations manual. They contend that CASA, in double-checking the figures on behalf of the department, said yes, they accurately interpreted the AFM but did not highlight the fact that factoring had not been included; therefore, the master plan, which has been approved, endorses a runway which is too short to meet the legal requirements that CASA actually require the operators to meet. So my question is: if that contention is validated, what will happen to the master plan?

Mr Doherty : I think CASA took on notice last night the issue about what exactly their assessment was and what it covered in the Archerfield circumstance and I would certainly be happy to take on notice from our side too to look at that assessment. In terms of the impact of that decision, I am not entirely sure at this stage just where the process of the runway changes at Archerfield are and whether there would be some formal further approval required before they were actually given effect to.

Mr Mrdak : If I may add, I think our view would be, in the circumstances that you have outlined, where it was shown that there was any error or there was further information which may have changed that consideration, that would not necessarily invalidate the master plan. What it would mean, though, at the time the airport was to bring forward a major development proposal for the runway work—and I will ask Ms Horrocks to comment about the status of that—is that is the point at which that adjustment would need to be made and a separate approval process would apply. However, coming to your question, I do not think our view would be that the master plan would be invalid, because it is a concept planning document which is set out predominantly for zoning and planning purposes. The details of any runway shortening at either Archerfield or Essendon would have to be dealt with through an MDP and a specific approval program. If you do not mind, I will get Ms Horrocks to give us an update on where we think Archerfield is at on that runway proposal.
Ms Horrocks : Archerfield has not developed the MDP at this point in time. We would normally seek to look at any preliminary or exposure draft of an MDP and identify any required information at that point in time and then it would go through the legislative process for an MDP.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Can I just go to a broader issue now around the Commonwealth's responsibilities in terms of both airports it has gifted or sold or leased—and there are a number under that. There is a common theme here—and you would be very well aware of this, Mr Mrdak; I have raised at almost every estimates for a few years now—and it is the issues of aircraft operators, whether they be maintenance shops or flying schools or charter operators, which feel as though the monopoly power of an airport owner or leaseholder has led to unconscionable decisions in terms of conditions of lease renewal or barring them doing certain things on the airport, which, to a layman's reading, appears to be in direct contravention of the terms of the lease in terms of maintaining the airport for aviation and not barring reasonable access for airlines or aircraft operators for aviation-related activities. The feedback I have had from the department again and again is that it is a commercial issue and that those people should take up their commercial remedies. I have had feedback from a number that they have tried that with no success, from the point of view that people say, 'This is an issue between the Commonwealth as either the holder, the owner of the land and at the head of the lease or, in the case of Sale or Broome International Airport that was actually sold, the covenant that was signed between the purchaser and the Commonwealth points back to the Commonwealth having responsibility.' So could I just ask: has the department sought legal advice as to its responsibilities or any powers it may have to enforce the terms of a lease or the covenant that was signed by somebody that it sold an airport to?

Mr Doherty : You are right; there are two different categories. In relation to the ALOP deeds, which are the deeds that applied in relation to the transfer of many of the regional airports, not the leased federal airports, we have taken legal advice on issues from time to time which clearly shows some gaps in the capacity. The practice over a period with those leases has been that we are able to, and do as a matter of policy, ensure that the airports continue to operate as airports but that our powers to control what happens on the airport in any more detail would be very limited. In relation to the federal leased airports, we obviously have a range of more direct regulatory controls which go through the master planning and development plan processes and, in that circumstance, we are trying to achieve the right balance between the airport operators' rights in relation to the site, which they acquired through a tender process, and the development of the site and the interests of the users.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) The question that arises, though, from somebody who has invested significant money in an asset—for example, a hangar—on an airport is that, if the Commonwealth has signed a lease or a sale document with a covenant that says, 'This will be maintained predominantly for an aviation purpose,' and then they are told that they cannot actually park private aircraft on the airfield because it is running out of space and yet the airport owner is selling off airport land for housing, how is that maintaining the prime purpose of that airport for aviation? And if, indeed, we have signed a covenant, what is the point of a contract or a covenant if it is not going to be enforced? The mention of Essendon is in reference to Truss recently approving (in concept) the 2013 Master Plan, see here (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/minister-approves-essendon-master-plan)
Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??

Again top post AACCI & welcome to the ranks of the IOS...:ok:

ps Sunny maybe you should extend the distrust factor to include the Department and (by association until proven otherwise) the Miniscule...:{

29th May 2014, 10:47
Excellent work AACCI, excellent factual post. And good follow up work Sarcs. The responses and obsfucation from Truss (and former bureaucrats), as well as the pooh that was flowing from Doherty and 'Pumpkin Head' undoubtedly proves that the issues go way beyond CAsA, ATSBeaker and ASA, the problems stem from the Miniscule through Infrastructure and down the chain. The can has truly opened for all to see.....


dubbleyew eight
29th May 2014, 12:14
"I want to be known as an infrastructure prime minister" Tony Abbott.

well tony why don't you have a go at the total farce that is the government's approach to aviation. ....before we all lose our pants.

it is wasting you an unbelievable amount of money!

29th May 2014, 17:28
If there were over 200 submissions critical of casa couldn't a legal firm start some sort of class action? Would it be possible under Australian legal system.

29th May 2014, 21:07
Maybe the only way forward is for the industry to go on strike. No bank runs, no milk runs, no training, no medical evacuations and most of all, no charters for politicians!

30th May 2014, 00:09
On M&M he sure bears a strong resemblance to Red...:E

M&M's - Christmas Audition (Australian) - YouTube

Ever since Senator Fawcett first entered the parliament (July 2011) he has been on M&M's case on the lifeblood of GA, those pesky secondary & ALOP airports. Here is another example:

Fawcett v Mrdak on Airports Senate Estimates 16/10/12 - YouTube

My error (FIMD) it appears that the Oz Flying article provided the answer to my...Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??
:bored: Truss said he recognised there was significant interest within the community about the proposed investigation into the shortening of the airport's north-south runway.

“My approval of the 2013 Master Plan is not an approval for this proposal to proceed,” he pointed out.

“A decision on this proposal will only be reached after Essendon Airport completes a very detailed investigation involving examination of operational, safety and environmental impacts, including from aircraft noise.

“The outcome of this investigation will then need to be considered through the regulatory processes under the Airports Act 1996. A key component of these regulatory processes is public consultation.”

Truss said the Master Plan included significant non-aviation developments.

“However, I will not agree to any development which would compromise the use of Essendon for aviation,” he said.

“The Government is committed to supporting sustainable growth in civil aviation."
The miniscule's statement is interesting in light of the AACCI letter to him...:rolleyes:

Oh well considering some Essendon operators are having probs pulling up on the other runway...


...I guess there will be intensive training, by certain operators, on shortfield landing technique...:E

30th May 2014, 09:23

You commented on Australia's ICAO appointments (ICAO Trough List), and I subsequently referred to the arrangements for those appointments:

See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nding_Aust.pdf

Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...

I think we might have missed an opportunity here with the ASRR Terms of Reference stated outcomes, that is (in particular):

The report of the review will (amongst other things):

•examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB;

Maybe it should have been argued that the ARRS should also have:

• examined and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for the arrangements for Australia's ICAO Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Bugger :ugh:

30th May 2014, 09:50
Even so: despite the mumblings, jiggling, rolling upward of the eyes (à la Bob Hawke) deliberate efforts to muddy the water; sideways rambling answers; an inability to answer questions; a marked reluctance to honestly answer the questions; taking questions on notice, ignoring the millions of dollars down the gurgler; aircraft still manage, despite these people sitting about, not answering the questions; to get from A to B in reasonably good order.

These folk in front of 'our' committee, being so completely divorced from the real issues still manage to effectively play the same three card trick – Safety – Cost – Deniability. It's we; the stupid, vacuous ones: WE who keep paying them to do it, allow this farce to continue. Yet the Senate keeps asking the questions (we also pay for that); round and round it goes; again and again and yet, again. Where it stops – no one knows. (Unless Truss brings in a 'company man' – then we'll know). 5/4, odds on favourite ploy - says the wise money.

Listen to McComic and his medical 'guru'; whom, despite logical argument, despite empirical and "that other sort" (cracked up when McComic trotted that out) of evidence", despite research, despite logic: and, despite Fawcett almost pleading for 'sanity' – in the end, out roll the three trump Monte cards. Like a mantra: chanted over and over until a hypnotic trance is induced.

Want to see 'real' safety at work ?? – hop into a cockpit one dark and stormy at peak hour, watch a pro aircrew manage; or go to the ACC and watch the ATCO's at work. Now that's operational safety at a peak professional level, despite the rambling obfuscation, distraction and interference of the puerile; and the disconnected lunacy of the 'watchdog' from La la land..

Mantra : Safety – Cost – Deniability......Safety – Cost – Deniability....Safety – Cost – Deniability.

Safety -? show me one 'real value' safety initiative McComic and his happy band of word twisters have produced. Save you the trouble – there ain't any. Nothing to which McComic has contributed one jot of 'improvement'. Improvement is lumped onto the industry shovel; the kudos and bonuses are (of course) heading to the CASA myth bucket, never to be seen again until claimed. In every case, through CASA 'safety initiatives' the paper work has increased, the rules have become an even more complex pension benefit fund for needy legal types. The ethos of 'safety' box ticking continues off the chart. The operator, being half broke – having then managed to satisfy 'all' the CASA 'safety' requirements and paid handsomely for it; must send their exhausted troops; those at the coal face, to see to the 'real' issues which keep Mr and Ms Joe Public safe and in one piece. This while documenting every step taken, (just in case there is a case to answer). Selah.

Cost -? well sure, CASA have managed to escalate the costs to epic proportions and achieved what precisely?. After the CASA fiasco, the operator must face the small challenge of trying to make enough money to pay wages, satisfy investment and deal with the never ending FUBAR which everyday operational aviation dredges up; on a daily (if lucky) basis....

Deniability-?; Oh, top marks in this category. The ability to offset the blame for anything and everything – from a loose boot lace to a major incident, to an ICAO rip-off. The abilities – to artfully deflect criticism – and, the hide to demand more money for doing so is a remarkable achievement. They are so very, very good at it – even ICAO have swallowed the bait FCOL.

Aye well; I expect they'll all want a bigger bonus next year and a better budget – on account of doing such a bloody fine job. No doubt AAAA have had a rocket from the 'bored' for being outspoken and no doubt registered letters, carefully camouflaging the intent to attack those who dared speak out are in the Friday mail as we speak....

So predictable, so bloody mundane, so tragically, so ironically sad. Yet this sad mutt has the audacity to take on the likes of a well briefed Fawcett, head on. Just about says it all; don't it?.
O! reason not the need; our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is cheap as beast’s.

Lear, for a change of pace – it being Friday and all.....
Irony, Tragic: The term applied to the situation, in Greek and other drama, in which the audience is aware of some impending catastrophe or important fact of which the characters are either totally ignorant or not fully aware, a condition rendered possible by the fact that Greek drama dealt with legends known to all the spectators. Irony has, of course, in this phrase the Greek meaning of 'dissembling'.

30th May 2014, 11:45
Yep, I am sure that 'CAsA' isn't actually an acronym, it is in fact another term for 'petard';

A petard was a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications, of French origin and dating back to the sixteenth century.[1] A typical petard was a conical or rectangular metal object containing 2–3 kg (5 or 6 pounds) of gunpowder, with a slow match as a fuse.

Petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from the Latin peditus, past participle of pedere, to break wind, akin to the Greek bdein, to break wind (Merriam-Webster). Petard is a modern French word, meaning a firecracker (it is the basis for the word for firecracker in several other European languages).

Petardiers were used during sieges of castles or fortified cities. The petard, a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device, consisted of a brass or iron bell-shaped device filled with gunpowder fixed to a wooden base called a madrier. This was attached to a wall or gate using hooks and rings, the fuse lit and, if successful, the resulting explosive force, concentrated at the target point, would blow a hole in the obstruction, allowing assault troops to enter.

The word remains in modern usage in the phrase hoist with one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap," implying that one could be lifted up (hoist, or blown upward) by one's own bomb.

It is plain obvious that CAsA, Infrastructure and the Miniscules office expel petard on a daily basis, don't you think?

'Safe skies are flatus skies'

1st Jun 2014, 21:43
The following UNSW blog piece highlights that there is a lot more at stake than just the GA sector...:{

We’re flying into an aviation skills crisis, with safety under the radar (http://theconversation.com/were-flying-into-an-aviation-skills-crisis-with-safety-under-the-radar-27064?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+conversationedu+(The+Conversation))

Safety matters: a review into aviation safety regulation is due to report this month. Contemplative imaging/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

At a recent Senate Committee inquiry (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Qantas_Jobs/Report/index) into the future of Qantas, both major airlines deflected concerns about the quality and safety of offshored maintenance with assurances that the facilities are safe because Australia’s safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), approved them.

Yet at precisely the same time another inquiry in which the effectiveness of CASA was central – the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/) – was being run out of the deputy prime minister’s office.

The inquiry was scheduled to report by the end of May. It now seems likely that given the difficulty and importance of the issues and the intensity of some of the industry submissions, the review will take longer. In an unusual move, the government has not made the 270-odd submissions available to the public.

Air travel, at least on the main intercity and international routes, is statistically the safest means of transport. Fatal crashes occur so rarely today, when set against the millions of passenger-kilometres flown every week, that the probability of any given flight ending in deaths is too small to be calculated by normal statistical techniques.

But the deadly runway crash (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/asiana-airlines-pilot-concerned-san-francisco-crash) of Asiana Airlines last year is a reminder to all of us – carriers and regulators included – that we cannot afford to take the safety of flying for granted. Accidents still do happen, and passenger safety is still not guaranteed even if there have been no recent crashes.

Indeed, a long period without a serious incident can increase the risk of safety buffers being eroded by cost-cutting and complacency.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently released its Safety Report (http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/safety_report.aspx) for 2013 showing that across the world, 210 people lost their lives last year in 16 fatal accidents (not including hijackings or sabotage) involving commercial passenger or cargo flights. The average for the last five years was much higher at 517. While none of these accidents occurred in Australia, private and small-scale commercial flying here results (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4355945/ar-2013-067_final.pdf) in the loss of around a dozen lives in an average year.

CASA director John McCormick will leave the regulator at the end of August

Maintenance matters

A significant proportion of accidents result from errors or omissions in aircraft maintenance. According to the IATA statistics, maintenance “events” (i.e. specific operations that were done wrongly, or not done when required) contributed to 10% of the 432 accidents investigated between 2009 and 2013, while 29% involved some kind of aircraft malfunction. In other cases, shoddy maintenance procedures were identified as a “latent” factor contributing to the outcome.

In a time when intense competition is placing pressure on the world’s airlines to keep pushing down their operating costs, maintenance has been an obvious first resort for cost-saving, since unlike many other measures, it remains invisible to the passenger unless severely neglected.

Our research into the aircraft maintenance industry in Australia has exposed two key structural developments, both products of the increasingly cost-driven nature of the industry, which threaten to undo much of the progress made so far.

The first involves the worldwide trend to redefine the status of maintenance from part of the core business of running an airline to a standalone activity carried out by independent maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) firms. MRO is now a global industry, with hundreds of new businesses springing up every year in all parts of the world.

Most of these businesses undoubtedly provide quality service. But some, located in low-wage countries (including places like Latin America and the former Soviet republics which are still statistically the world’s most dangerous regions in which to fly) compete primarily on labour costs, often complemented by “light touch” regulation. They mainly do labour-intensive heavy maintenance, which is crucial for ensuring that aircraft structures remain free of cracks and corrosion.

The disastrous early US experience with such providers has left continuing question marks over this part of the industry. Even today, it is hard for airlines as customers to sort the good from the bad, among a rapidly expanding offering, without guidance from regulators. Indeed, Congress has forbidden US airlines to use “uncertificated” shops, and forced the FAA to upgrade its safety oversight of offshored maintenance.

By contrast CASA, leaving aside the occasional Senate inquiry, has largely enjoyed freedom from political pressure. But the shift to offshored maintenance has not been matched by a corresponding increase in resources allocated to safety oversight. Rather, there is a trend to accepting approvals from other countries’ regulatory authorities – in contrast to the more robust approach taken by the US.

There is also a growing tendency, in the words of IATA, to put “too much effort… into oversight of the documentation trail, rather than the work being physically performed on the aircraft”. Our research informants point to problems observed in some offshore MROs which would not be picked up by such an approach – for example, using non-approved tools in paint removal, which can damage aircraft skins causing tears in fuselages during flight.

The number of maintenance engineers Australia needs won’t arrive in time. Gerard Stolk/Flickr,

Looming skills crisis

The second, more insidious and less easily remedied threat involves worldwide underinvestment in developing an adequate skilled workforce to meet future maintenance needs. Both IATA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have researched future maintenance labour requirements and expressed concern at the escalating shortfall. According to the ICAO, world training capacity in 2010 was falling short by some 18,000 places every year of the number required to meet forecast minimum needs in 2030.

Worryingly, the shortfalls in training appear to be greatest in precisely those parts of the world to which Australian maintenance is most likely to be outsourced. The Asia-Pacific region as a whole is projected to train fewer than a quarter of the new aircraft technicians it will need to accommodate the requirements of its own national fleets.

Australia is no better placed to meet its own needs, with civilian apprentice commencements, net of wastage, in the March quarter of 2013 at the lowest point since records have been kept. On our calculations, apprentice completions (including Defence) in 2013 were running at only two-thirds the rate needed to keep the workforce at its 2011 size after allowing for normal attrition.

All this suggests a looming skills crisis which is already becoming apparent in some parts of the world. The giant Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company (HAECO) – to which Qantas only recently outsourced the heavy maintenance on its remaining 747s – reportedly saw a 21% decline in its net profit for the first half of 2013, attributed (http://www.aviationpros.com/article/11304921/heavy-maintenance-tracking-the-trends) largely to difficulties in recruiting sufficient skilled technicians. In the US, a growing proportion of airlines are planning (http://www.oliverwyman.com/insights/publications/2013/apr/mro-survey-2013--thrive-rather-than-survive.html) to bring more of their maintenance back on shore, partly to ensure security of supply, and partly because of the shrinking cost differential.

Australia is unprepared to meet this crisis and faces the threat of being forced by its limited market power into relying on second-rate providers. It seems inevitable that the shortage will result in greater use of unqualified personnel, work intensification for those skilled engineers who are available, and skimping on internal quality control.

There is every chance that such practices, if widely adopted, will bring about a reversal in the declining trend of fatal accidents – this despite the range of failsafes and self-monitoring capabilities being built into the latest generation of passenger aircraft, which in any case now seem unlikely to make up a significant part of the Australian fleet for another decade at least.

The standards issue is one that can be addressed by regulatory reform, and it will be interesting to see how the inquiry approaches it. The skills issue is too big to be fixed by regulation alone, and a remedy cannot be expected without serious structural reform of the Australian MRO sector. Such reform will require a serious interventionist approach by the Federal government – a prospect about which it is hard be optimistic.

View the UNSW ASRR submission here: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bd75f082-da3a-4259-a1e8-11d133bb0742&subId=205572:D:D


2nd Jun 2014, 06:26
In an unusual move, the government has not made the 270-odd submissions available to the public.
the Aviation Safety Regulation Review – was being run out of the deputy prime minister’s office.
Red flag number 1 - This action alone proves the Government is not interested in transparency or accountability. This should be ringing alarm bells for our industry, travelling public and other entities such as ICAO and the FAA. It is plainly obvious that the head of the fish is well and truly rotten.

By contrast CASA, leaving aside the occasional Senate inquiry, has largely enjoyed freedom from political pressure. But the shift to offshored maintenance has not been matched by a corresponding increase in resources allocated to safety oversight. Rather, there is a trend to accepting approvals from other countries’ regulatory authorities – in contrast to the more robust approach taken by the U.S
Red flag number 2 - Budget restraints have in the past stopped CAsA undertaking serious international audits and oversight of third party maintenance providers internationally. Taking people's word that maintenance is compliant flies in the face of robust and adequate oversight done on a physical basis. CAsA execs and can afford to go to Montreal every few months, but they can't afford to send Inspector Plod overseas for a guernsey at a maintenance org? Bollocks.

The below quote pretty well sums up what our masters of spin don't want the public to realise;
But the deadly runway crash of Asiana Airlines last year is a reminder to all of us – carriers and regulators included – that we cannot afford to take the safety of flying for granted. Accidents still do happen, and passenger safety is still not guaranteed even if there have been no recent crashes. Indeed, a long period without a serious incident can increase the risk of safety buffers being eroded by cost-cutting and complacency.

Indeed Miniscule, you and your minions are in a precarious predicament aren't you?

P.S Frank, nice photograph of Mr Angry above, would sit well on the back of your shitter door!!


yr right
2nd Jun 2014, 09:16
We're flying into an aviation skills crisis, with safety under the radar (http://theconversation.com/were-flying-into-an-aviation-skills-crisis-with-safety-under-the-radar-27064?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+2+June+2014&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+2+June+2014+CID _75390863b82ddbd947ee0cc5e1dd6a4a&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Were%20flying%20into%20an%20aviation%20skills%20cri sis%20with%20safety%20under%20the%20radar)

Frank Arouet
2nd Jun 2014, 11:53

That's the bloke that bound me up in the first place. The natural laxative therapy that our small (m), minister provides works fine. However the photo does look like a cornered Koala. I wonder what would happen if someone poked him with a stick.

2nd Jun 2014, 21:20
The rule of law is becoming a joke in the USA and we are following exactly the same trail as evidenced by the ongoing corruption enquiries in NSW, the activities of the Speaker, Peter Slipper, Craig Thomson and now Geoff Shaw in Victoria.

To put it another way, once the law becomes subservient to political ends, as it has been in those Three cases, then we are too far down the slippery slope to make investments without "managing" (read bribery) the political dimension as in countries like Indonesia and New Guinea.

In other words,, you can no longer invest with some certainty about country risk.

CASA, as a Government entity, has armed itself with the regulatory tools to destroy any business it likes, without bothering about the rule of law, and if government continues to countenance that, then the GA industry is dead, and in the longer run so is GFA, RAA and SAAA.

Why? Because we exist not by law but by the whim of the regulator.

2nd Jun 2014, 21:59
Interesting BRB discussion developed last evening – started off with a small ceremony to change the dart board picture (thanks Sarcs)– the old one was in a hell of a state. One of the blokes was drawing the mustachios and idly wondered about how long it should take to evaluate the Reverent Forsyth's saga. More to the point, pipes up another, is how much of it will we get see? Good question that. Eventually, some consensus was managed :-

(Q) - Should the entire WLR report be published?

Pro – want it all out there, warts and all. A mirror to reflect just how untidy things have become and taking an open, honest approach toward rehabilitation.

Con – wanted only a 'broad' summary, expecting that at least part of the report must be confidential but with the key issues and proposed solutions made public.

10 votes for publish all / 5 for an 'edited' version. (BTW the betting went the other way).

Good argument for both cases which naturally led into speculation about the time needed for the miniscule to come to terms with the report he initiated. There was enough potential ordinance from the Pel Air inquiry to lead to serious change, add the 260 odd submissions to that and even the least astute, head in the sand politico is going to realise that something – not another bloody white paper – must be done. There is good advice available to Truss, he has the Senate team; and, even if the number of rejected submissions was 90%, that still leaves 26 rock solid tomes of first class, expert advice. Which, by the by, did not cost anyone one penny piece. Anyway – it finished up with agreement that the time taken to respond is irrelevant; if the time is used to make a proper response reflecting the gravity of the situation.

Don't expect to see too much 'blood' on the public mat though, there is little chance of public executions. Consensus was to watch for the small but significant changes happening as we speak – new faces in some places and small attitude shifts seem to be reflecting what is happening behind closed doors. Murky Machiavellian hit squad on the prowl? – perhaps.

Jinglie # DAS 31 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/540787-new-das-casa-2.html#post8502128) "The elephant in the room has to be Forsyth in a caretaker role. MrDak obviously trusts him.

The notion of the Rev. Forsyth as caretaker provoked much discussion and speculation. This is intriguing; one of the BRB (smartarse with an I-pad) dredged up the post. No conclusions, but it supports a rumour (more of a whisper really). I noted that no one at the estimates said anything more about this being McComics "last" estimates, other than just the flat statement. Then there is the persistent buzz that his office door is only unlocked at morning tea when the tea lady throws in a handful of iced Vovo with orders to make sure the door is firmly relocked. Mrdak put in a long day, acting as bear leader and if you noticed, he is paying close attention to what his charges are saying. Some of the 'correspondence' and unsolicited advice floating about further fuels speculation. Is it that as the beast dies of it's own malady it is lashing out blindly at anything that moves and the handlers are being very careful?.

Aye well – it's all gossip and pub yarns at the end of the day, ain't it?

Toot toot.

2nd Jun 2014, 23:59
From HoR Daily Program...Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12 noon

Acknowledgement of country
Ministerial statement, by leave
Mr Truss (Deputy Prime Minister) to make a statement on the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review. Can be viewed here (http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?type=1&vID={1A957B80-19D2-4C24-8DBB-752436E0CB94}) or here (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/browse.php)



Links for ASRR:

Dept ASRR page (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)

Executive Summary (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Executive_Summary.pdf)

ASRR REPORT (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Report_May_2014.pdf)

Frank Arouet
3rd Jun 2014, 02:23

It seems Pelair was an aberration.

First reading: recommendations need in depth analysis.
30 (b).
37. Good news.

3rd Jun 2014, 02:33
To be found for download:

ASRR Report released by Truss | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/asrr-report-released-by-truss/)

or direct from the Infrastructure site (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Report_May_2014.pdf).

From the report:

Despite Australia’s good standing, the aviation industry is highly self-critical and regularly has a ‘take no prisoners’ approach to public discourse. While this critical introspection may contribute to its good record, it can at times be counter-productive to promoting rational public debate on aviation safety and to building a positive and collaborative national aviation safety culture.

The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.

Old Akro
3rd Jun 2014, 04:00
All I've done so far is read the exec summary and recommendations, but the two impressions that come to mind are that 1. It is surely a condemnation of the current directors performance and 2. The recommendations are really just about re-arranging the deck chairs. It is not recommending fundamental change to either CASA or the current regulations, rather further tinkering and " reform".

I think the report has failed to understand the cause, but is rather trying to treat the symptoms.


3rd Jun 2014, 04:11
Ben's take so far...
Will the heads of CASA and the ATSB now resign?
Ben Sandilands | Jun 03, 2014 1:55PM | EMAIL | PRINT

The future tenure of the heads of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulator (CASA), its director of air safety John McCormick, and the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Martin Dolan should be in question after the release today of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

The review was commissioned by the deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss in November 2013 following a Coalition commitment during last year’s Federal election campaign.

It recommends what could be described as a profound cultural change in CASA and effective regulatory reform, more than enough reasons to remove McCormick from further involvement in the safety regulator immediately, rather than in September when his term expires, and by when regulatory reforms that he was charged to make in CASA were to have been finalised.

It is critical in a detailed and clinical manner of the current culture in CASA and its relations with aviation stakeholders.

The review, chaired by David described the botched Pel-Air crash investigation by the ATSB as an aberration.

Given the ATSB chief commissioner’s unequivocal defence of that report, and its standards, and his resolute refusal to even retrieve the flight data recorder from the crash site in the sea near Norfolk Island, and the claims that it was seriously unfair to the pilot, and failed Australia’s international air accident reporting obligations, Mr Dolan should go. This afternoon if possible.

A Senate inquiry into the ATSB report found Mr Dolan’s testimony under oath was so unsatisfactory that the committee devoted a chapter of its findings to its rejection of his evidence. It also heard the director of safety at CASA, Mr McCormick, admit to withholding from the ATSB contrary to the intent of Australian law, an internal review into the Pel-Air matters which found that had CASA actually carried out its duties of oversight of the operator, the crash might have been avoided.

These were very serious disclosures that went to the heart of the integrity and quality of the public administration of air safety in this country, although they were brushed off by the previous Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese.

This is what the ASRR says in its report in relation to Pel-Air.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has been heavily criticised in Australia for its report into the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air Westwind off Norfolk Island. Canada’s Transportation Safety Board is completing a review of the ATSB and will report shortly. The Panel considers that the Pel-Air report was an aberration, and not typical of the high standard that the ATSB usually attains.

The Panel recognises that the ATSB is putting measures in place to prevent a re-occurrence. To improve the ATSB’s governance, the Panel recommends that an additional Commissioner be appointed, with extensive aviation experience.

The panel recommends a totally different non-punitive and more collaborative relationship between CASA and the aviation industry.

The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.

It specifically recommends different qualities in the new Director Air Safety who will replace Mr McCormick, which on any reasonable reading, makes his continued participation in the affairs of CASA unnecessary, since the review repudiates CASA’s current culture and direction.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect.

Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise.

If the government is to implement the recommendations of the ASRR it will need to remove Mr Dolan from the ATSB and McMcCormick from any further engagement with CASA.

(more to come)

Posts #835-838 Hmm...Ben & I (at least) must be reading a different report?? Hint: Try actually reading from about page 70-90 for a true flavour of this report...:rolleyes:

Dick Smith
3rd Jun 2014, 04:13
Does it make any recommendation re CASA considering the resultant cost of safety regulations? Or has been left out again? If so the Aus industry is doomed!

Old Akro
3rd Jun 2014, 04:43
Dick, I have only read the recommendations & exec summary, but it seems to focus on refining the current structure and operation rather than substantively changing it.

We might have hoped it would call for a move to the NZ regs, but its not there.
We might have hoped that it would call for a significantly different board structure, but its not there.

While the reports that the industry complains about regulatory burden, there is nothing in the recommendation that seems to address this. Indeed, its call for amendments makes me fear that the hamster wheel is about to turn again and we'll get a whole new round of regulatory reform.

3rd Jun 2014, 05:05
Old Akro...

The report does discuss adoption of rules from another country in Option 4 at page 101, and concludes that for a variety of reasons, the option is not recommended.

I think you've summarised the report pretty well though, that is, it's focus is on refining the current structure and operation rather than substantively changing it.

3rd Jun 2014, 05:16
On a personal note I will spend a day or two reading the report and recommendations thoroughly, however at this stage after a quick skim and some vomiting, as predicted, the wet lettuce leaf has been applied. Of course Skull and Dolan copped a hiding, that's because they were already dead men walking, and we all knew that. But the Frankenstein remains intact, the beast only receives a flesh wound and the morphing of this hybrid creature will continue unabated as long as the Iron Ring remain firmly entrenched (and this report does not indicate any change within the rusty circle)
The ATsB at its core is a solid unit. The 3 Commissioners need removing and the organisation returned to its stellar self from 5 years ago.
Fort Fumble is different, it needs an enema, gutting from its neck to its privates, and that has not been recommended.
Truss remains ignorant, Kingcrat remains at the helm, and as for industry and the IOS it is BOHICA time! The countdown clock keeps ticking, nothing has changed.


Frank Arouet
3rd Jun 2014, 05:35
It is interesting that the ICC is to report to the new CAsA Board which I read as cutting the chain of command and by-passing the DAS. One can only hope the ICC will be chosen by the Board. I further note the AVMED mob getting a rocket will disturb some in that little 'Principality' if the DAME is the final arbiter of whether or not the pilot is fit to fly. This could have meaning to the CVD mob who are now fighting an uphill battle because of our Prince Proozac.

I think the result forms the foundation for some meaningful change and public input is still needed to ensure the good there is implemented.

One thing that worries me is the constant evolutionary change of aviation technology mixing with constant regulatory change. This could inadvertently give credibility to the RRP which has been dragging on for years. The regulations need to be re-written to contemporary needs instead of refining and redefining rules from 1945. I think there is scope there in the recommendations.

At first look I'll give it a pass mark but hold the option to reverse this when the lawyers get to work and barstardise it. We all know they will.

3rd Jun 2014, 07:59
Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)

Link part way down the page to the report and Exec Summary.

3rd Jun 2014, 08:47
The report explicitly rejects amendments to the CAA Act 1988, contrary to several previous strong recommendations.
As far as I can see so far, all that is recommended is a "strengthening of the RIS", which comes at the end of the regulation making process, not the beginning. Ergo, serious cost/benefit analysis doesn't get a look-in, let alone the principle that "regulation" is the last option, not the first.
I guess S.9 of the Act remains supreme, unless that is changed, nothing else of much importance will change.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Does this sound like CASA?? page 58 of the ASRR report.
2.4.4 If, on the other hand, the State safety oversight system is so rigorous as to amount to a complete domination and dictation of the conduct of operations, then under such an environment the civil aviation industry is not empowered with the responsibility and self-sufficiency for safe operations. This can undermine the morale of the civil aviation industry’s personnel and result in a lowering of safety standards. It could also be cost-prohibitive for the State to maintain the large enforcement organization required to sustain this level of oversight.

Frank Arouet
3rd Jun 2014, 08:59
"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority continues to provide appropriate indemnity to all industry personnel with delegations of authority".

thorn bird
3rd Jun 2014, 09:25
Guess that's it, the end of any viable aviation industry in Australia.
Business in any form cannot operate or survive in a Corrupt environment, ultimately it all comes unstuck.
Failure of Gov. to recognize when and where corruption exists, and act to stamp it out puts any industry on the slippery slope.
It was wonderful while it lasted, enjoyed almost every minute of it, and very sad to see it end up like this.
RIP aviation in Australia, unfortunately the bastards won!

3rd Jun 2014, 09:56
All, it is not too late to have a final (unrecognised or valued) input.

Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)The Deputy Prime Minister has invited public and industry views on the recommendations of the report, prior to the finalisation of the Government response. Public and industry comments are being sought by close of business Monday 30 June 2014. Comments can be sent to the Department on the attached comment form (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/comments.aspx).

However, I feel it's probably just flogging a dead horse ...

Despite the 260 submissions to the WLR, the 2800 posts on this forum regarding the ASRR and Senate Inquiry, (read by those that matter) from many more learned and eloquent than I, I feel it will truly take a smoking hole in the ground to elicit any change.
Many thanks to the many aforementioned contributors (you know who you are) to the two ongoing threads for your valiant efforts. Also, many thanks to the Senate members who tried so hard to have industry concerns heard. I wonder where you get the strength to carry on after such ignorance.

Me... I'm off to EnZed.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 11:07
from the executive summary...

19. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, without redaction or de-identification.

well no more confidential incident reporting. that'll save the system thousands of dollars.:mad:

....just what are they thinking??

in the full report this ranks as the understatement of the decade!
While CASA is clearly aware of specific instances of industry dissatisfaction, it does not appear to fully comprehend the level or breadth of ill-feeling across all industry sectors. This lack of comprehension is especially apparent at the senior leadership level, including within the CASA Board.

do you notice throughout the report that ICAO is seen as the peak governing body and australia is a servant to it.
I thought we were a sovereign nation.

3rd Jun 2014, 11:18
An unsurprisingly ineffectual Report.

A bigger CASA Board and a new Messiah DAS is all that will happen in substance.

In other words, back to the future. Way back. :(

3rd Jun 2014, 11:18
I did like this part of the Executive Summary -
'The Panel recommends returning to a third tier of regulation, removing as much detail as possible from the regulations, and using plain Language standards in the third tier'.I don't think the Witchdoctor would enjoy seeing his contribution towards 20 years of ridiculous wording and legalese which is aimed only at persons with PHD's (probably 0.001 percent of our industry) get shit canned! Can you imagine the scowl behind that silly beard?

On a lighter and not surprising note, my sources tell me that the Buzzards are already circling internally at Fort Fumble smack above some of the carcasses, and the games have begun internally! Some in-fighting, back stabbing and manipulation, along with shoring up votes for some of the expected new positions, some bruised egos, and some with hard-on's over the prospect of getting paid more money to deliver retribution upon the IOS! What a swell place ey?? And it reminds me of an old saying that used to float through the halls of Infrastructure which was 'there is nothing more dangerous on earth than a disgruntled current or former CAsA employee'! At that, I shall rest my case.


3rd Jun 2014, 12:02
Recommendation 22. Small offices at industry locations.

Bankstown, Moorabbin closures have not proved popular then.

The TSB report probably needs washing through Trim or sky sentinel a few times before release. I wonder if the TSB are in danger of joining the IOS?

004. I can imagine the goings on in casa offices. Tin hats on and keep head down.

3rd Jun 2014, 12:17
Hmmmm, small offices at airports hey Biccy? But what will happen to existing worm farms and ergonomic offices with robust pot plant selections? Will these be made redundant?

P.S Better wake old Terry and tell him the report has been released. He would have missed out on that news, he goes to bed at midday these days :ok:

Dangly Bits
3rd Jun 2014, 12:50

What parts of CASA would you take an axe to?

3rd Jun 2014, 13:05
The worm farms and pot plants should go through robust transformational change to ensure value for money for stakeholders and safety reasons can't argue with safety. Localized pot plants are safe pot plants.

Some pot plants could be donated to deserving senators with small pot plant allowances.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 13:33
when you look at the influence ICAO has had on CAsA and you look at the huge areas of aviation that ICAO seem totally ignorant of, I have come to the conclusion that ICAO must be one of the dumbest organisations on the planet.

how can you dictate how countries regulate aviation while not even acknowledging that a great part of it even exists.

of course ICAO exist above government control so there is no sorting out their stupidity.

australia really is becoming a country I could permanently migrate from.

maybe for the next year we should all send minister truss an AA battery each week. inundate him with them. ....because a dildo(like him) should never be used without a fresh battery.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 13:40
minister truss this is just plain stupid....

Risk in GA operations is generally proportional to the consequences: risk becomes greater as the number of persons carried on the aircraft increases, but given that operations are of small aircraft, there are usually few persons on the aircraft, lowering the risk.

the risk is on a per aircraft basis. the number of persons carried only changes the risk if your evaluation of risk is flawed.
you need to do better mate.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 13:44
this is quite wrong minister....

Education and awareness building activities are also key to the lifting of safety standards in the private GA sector.

the problem is that the sheer volume of dribble emanating from CAsA actually masks and obscures the actual issues and has people thinking that irrelevant issues are most important.

....but then you wouldn't know....

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jun 2014, 13:52
in all honesty minister you haven't a bloody clue....

in self administration you say..
The success of these groups is highly dependent on the governance, efficiency and knowledge of their governing bodies and it is on these areas that CASA has to concentrate its oversight activities.

you really haven't a clue.
the success comes from the competence of the participants not any organisational structure you bureaucratic paper shufflers impose on them.
I know, you're a hammer so all the world is a nail.

3rd Jun 2014, 19:53
It's a strange wee confection, is the WLR. But before having a taste there are some formalities to observe.

I believe I could be persuaded to elevate The Honourable Warren Truss MP from miniscule to minister provided the promised changes are enforced (no other option really). The minister could have so very easily done an Albo and delivered a soft white paper elephant; but didn't. No matter the motivation - a promise was made and kept; a report was ordered and delivered. What the unspeakable Albo left behind for the minister to deal with was seriously ugly. The situation was disgusting enough on the surface and only the gods could know what was floating beneath. I sometimes forget that parliament is a stage show, there's that which the audience see and 'that what goes on' backstage. The minister (and team) must deal with both sides of the finished production. So, no matter what opinion you have of the show, one must acknowledge the investment, hard work and risks. Tricky thing, pleasing all the people, all the time. In short, this IOS member says 'thank you' to the member for Wide Bay.

Of course the minister was juggling hot coals: but not for too long. Said coals were dropped into the capable, heavily gloved hands of D Forsyth. Esq. and his merry men. Once again the options were open and the report could have gone either way. Realistically, the report could never, ever be a silver bullet, especially as the options for a band aid solutions became severely limited. Referee Forsyth stepped up as the scrums became fierce, and turned nasty. Cynicism and pragmatism aside, I reckon Forsyth has managed a difficult task quite well indeed. I propose D Forsyth Esq. be elevated to associate IOS membership and call on the Gobbledock to second the motion. Bravo that man, well done.

The final accolade must be for the industry – great job. Clarity, cohesion and the courage to say – enough is enough – has won some hard earned yards, some self respect and a positive place to start. Great start to the match from the alphabet groups and individuals. Bravo, bravo indeed; well played. Now is not the time to back off, play up and play dirty in the ruck. The opposition will, for the whole 80 minutes. Selah.

I digress. The report. I feel it would be a mistake to 'shoot from the hip' on this report and a quick skim of the executive summary won't do, not at all. As said, it's a strange confection. There are parts which, to me at least, are 'stilted'. These parts reflect the difficulty of writing a report which very publicly exposes some of the government 'sensitive' parts and the difficulties facing the industry, combined with a hysterical press and uninformed public. Changes in syntax clearly define the sensitive areas where the panel has been obliged to tread very carefully; but the message is there and well done for being able to keep that message in play.

Anyway you look at it, the report is a positive step. It sends a clear message, now it will be up to the industry, incoming DAS, Minister and Senate team to make sure it works out: the way it was intended. I do agree with Sandilands; McComic should be escorted from building at the earliest opportunity before an abuse of considerable power is used to pay old scores. I am certain Forsyth could manage to find a night watchman, caretaker if you like, for the next short while. IMO - McComic must be considered 'armed and dangerous', capable, with malice and aforethought of inflicting terrible damage; any of the 49 'ers will confirm this opinion. His batting partner Dolan is out in July anyway (hallelujah) and although he is relatively harmless; the two of them together do frighten the horses and terrify the smaller children. Anyway – why stay where no one wants you?

Once you find your way past the top 'fluff' and bottom waffle, there are about 40 pages to read which are powerful; given the report must be framed in 'understatement', diplomatic and comprehensible to those outside of industry vaguely interested. If we achieve all the recommendations, undiluted, properly executed; it will be a great step taken out the darkness toward the light.

Page 70). Throughout this report, the Panel recommends changes that, if actioned, will contribute to the rebuilding of trust between the industry and CASA. Changing its regulatory philosophy is the most important shift that CASA must make. Coupled with a much stronger policy towards just culture, the Panel considers that the relationship between CASA and industry can reach a level of maturity where, as in many of the countries identified in Table 5, regulator access to safety data is no longer controversial.

Page 72). Although the Swedavia-McGregor Report was completed 25 years ago, the principles are still relevant today. The Panel considers that CASA should adopt an organisational structure similar to that developed for New Zealand, with modifications to suit the size and scope of the aviation community in Australia. The transformation envisaged in this concept, which is intended to structure CASA along the lines of industry’s activities (a client-oriented output model) rather than CASA’s activities, is depicted in Figure 8. Many variations of such a model are possible, and the proposal is not prescriptive. However, the key intention is to clarify accountability and improve the points of contact for the aviation community.

Okey-dokey – Seconds away – Gloves off - Round two.

3rd Jun 2014, 20:54
Firstly, thank you Minister Truss. I haven't read the entire report yet, just the executive summary but I believe that the review has delivered all that could reasonably be expected.

Without mincing words, the key finding is that the entire culture of CASA is toxic. Toxic to industry and toxic to its good staff. That is what words like "adversarial", "trust", "respect", "governance" and "just culture" strongly imply. All else follows from that. The question of adoption of FAA/NZ regulations is a bridge too far at present, but I would think it may naturally surface later if the rest of the changes are implemented.

However there's the rub; these are only recommendations and it is now up to the Government to respond and implement change.........

I personally would hope that a very senior person from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet drives the Governments response and adopts all the recommendations and then some. I would also hope that the same person is appointed to the CASA Board with a mandate to drive change. I would also hope that the new Director is made responsible to the Board as in other organisations.

Make no mistake, the job of the New Director is going to be very, very difficult without total support of the Board, the Department and the Government because driving organisational change is notoriously difficult to do,especially breaking the alleged "iron ring" at the heart of the problem.

On the other hand, I suspect if Mr. Mrdak and company have drafted the governments response then any change at all will be cosmetic and the embuggerisation of all industry participants will continue unabated.

The ball is in the Governments court, we have to wait and watch.

P.S. Mc Cormick? Finished. Dolan the same.

PPS. Why was the Pel AIr ATSB report an "aberration"?

3rd Jun 2014, 23:52
PPS. Why was the Pel AIr ATSB report an "aberration"?
The review panel felt that the shitty Pel Air investigation was a 'one off' poor investigation, something 'out of character', something that is 'unlikely to happen again'. To that I say PONY POOH. Since mi mi mi Beaker took the reigns the many accident reports have become light weight and 'politically correct', some are even farcical. The ATsB still has a number of skilled, intelligent investigators and analysts at the coal face (thank god), but it is the decision making at the top level, the accountant decisions, the slicing, dicing, dissection and changing of investigator reports after they are completed so as to release a more kinder, less critical softly softly response that has become a major issue. The top layer and its 'beyond all sense and reason' approach has to go, warts and all. Let the guys and gals at the core shine again, please ....

Dangly, I don't have enough bandwidth to list all the sections I would take the axe or wrecking ball to, but at a minimum;

- Bring in 'accountability' and remove protective legal freedom from prosecution for CAsA employees
- Replace all 3 DAS positions and a number of the Executives. (I won't name names but members of the IOS and government know who the stumbling blocks are)
- Keep the Board numbers at 4. No need for 2 more, but replace the current 4 with aviation experienced Board members who come with reputations of integrity.
- Changes to the way the ICC operates have been recommended thank god, but the present system is stacked and in my opinion a complete shonk. A complete overhaul and appointment of someone like Michael Hart is imperative.
- Complete removal/redundancy of the 'Iron Ring' has to proceed if a new CAsA that works harmoniously with industry is to be achieved. We know who they are. Time to change position descriptions and out these destroyers once and for all. You can't build a house if half of CAsA builds up a row of bricks while another part of CAsA pulls down 2 rows.
- Up skilling of management and inspectors in modern practises and not bureaucratic dark age methods is required.
- Transparency and equality with the application of rules and activities among the industry. As Sunny would put it in another way - If you are prepared to smash GA or an Ag operator for something then you should be able to bollock the big end of town as well. We all know that certain carriers are 'untouchable'.
- KPI's (which has been recommended). And penalties toward CAsA for breaking SLA's. Where a business is financially crushed due to CAsA incompetence there should be a method for repatriation and costs awarded.
- An end to the abuse of taxpayer funds and the never ending bottomless tin of money that funds endless legal pursuits of innocent people due to no better reason than a few egos and some pride has been dented. This is sanctioned government accepted abuse.
- Annual ANAO and other accepted audits of CAsA finances and expenditure, legal activities, due processes, ethics, procedures, compliance with statutory laws and the Chicago convention.
For starters......

Frank Arouet
4th Jun 2014, 00:13
If Pelair was an aberration, so was Whyalla. Should I mention Lockhart River, Seaview Monarch etc?

The ball has hit the net. It's not in anybody's court until the industry response is served and recommendations are subsequently adopted or not.

Change has occurred due to the IOS efforts, the most major demonstration of direct action by industry and players in my living history. I've been around since 1965 and never seen anything like it. Of note there has been no public disobedience or disorder and only the antagonist in this case can be seen to be guilty of abuse of power leading to a complete vote of no confidence by industry and highlighted in the recommendations.

This is a hiatus and it can be seen as pivotal whether we go up or down. Much thought and input is needed by industry and now would be a good time to mend old wounds, put ego's aside and unite all aviation interests to support a reply with a common theme that best fits the positive recommendations.

4th Jun 2014, 00:26
The only changes recommended that are likely to be acted upon is appointing more people to positions of power within the ATSB and CASA! An extra Commissioner for the ATSB who has significant aviation experience! Why not just replace the one we have at the moment? At the end of the day the industry has yet another report with yet more recommendations which the government of the day can choose to implement or ignore. Like the two Senate reports before it the recommendations show how far behind the rest of the world CASA is. One of CASA's primary roles is auditing yet the report states that it doesn't even do that properly and should get 3rd party contractors to help it out.:ugh:

Watching these reports being wheeled out is like watching announcements from AJ about how he is going to turn QF around. Until something catastrophic happens it will be BAU, then it will be "how could something like this happen in Australia?" As one of the regular posters is fond of stating TICK TOCK!

4th Jun 2014, 02:51
From page 2 of The Australian dated 4 June 2014… Mr Truss said the replacement of current CASA head John McCormick … and the creation of two new board positions would herald a “new start” for CASA. …And the funniest part is that most of you will fall for it (again).

4th Jun 2014, 02:59
Put it in context Creamy...:rolleyes:

SC from the Oz is silver tailing it with IATA...meanwhile his fill in AK steps up to the plate...:D:D

CASA faces change as it loses trust (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-faces-change-as-it-loses-trust/story-e6frg95x-1226942130820)
The Australian |
June 04, 2014 12:00AM

Anthony Klan

THE nation’s air safety regulator is set for the biggest overhaul in decades after a government review found that relations between it and the airlines had soured to the point that safety improvements were being stifled.

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review, conducted by aviation veteran David Forsyth, has called for sweeping reforms of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, claiming the regulator’s “hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to a lack of trust between it and operators.

Federal Transport Minister Warren Truss said government would now review the 37 recommendations of the report, which would probably see a large-scale overhaul in aviation safety.

“It looks like this will be a pretty fundamental restructuring of the safety regulations and if these 37 regulations are *accepted then clearly it will be the biggest shake-up in decades,” Mr Truss told The Australian yesterday. “We are looking for a quick resolution to these issues so that we can start rebuilding trust and confidence in the aviation *sector.”

Key among the recommendations was providing operators with “plain English” regulations, that CASA’s board exercise “full governance control” and the regulator change its organisational structure to a “client-*oriented output model”.

The review, commissioned by the federal government last *November, found the relationship between CASA and the industry had failed to a level which was “cause for concern”.

“In recent years the regulator has adopted an across-the-board hard-line philosophy, which in the panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation *nation such as Australia,” the *review said.

It said the present “adversarial relationship” between regulators CASA and the Air Transport Safety Bureau, and industry, meant the “fundamental principle” of sharing safety data openly was not occurring.

Mr Truss said the replacement of current CASA head John McCormick — who will not be seeking to renew his contract which expires in coming weeks — and the creation of two new board positions would herald a “new start” for CASA. “We will deal with the recommendations in the context of the personnel who will be taking up positions over the next few months.”

CASA declined to comment on the report. (No surprises there...:E)


Here you go Creamy put it on the record: The Deputy Prime Minister has invited public and industry views on the recommendations of the report, prior to the finalisation of the Government response. Public and industry comments are being sought by close of business Monday 30 June 2014. Comments can be sent to the Department on the attached comment form (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/comments.aspx).

4th Jun 2014, 03:06
You see: Even sarcs has fallen for it! :D

4th Jun 2014, 03:29
And the funniest part is that most of you will fall for it (again).
Not me. The review is a croc of shit. Nothing has really changed, nor will it.


Tick tock

4th Jun 2014, 03:38
That’s not the attitude, 004.

The government hasn’t conducted nearly enough inquiries and hasn’t received nearly enough submissions.

The submissions to the Air Accident Investigation inquiry weren’t enough.

The Report and Recommendations from the Aviation Accident Investigation inquiry weren’t enough.

The submissions to the ASRR Panel weren’t enough.

The Report and Recommendations of the ASRR Panel weren’t enough.

Submissions now need to be made on the Report and Recommendations of the ASSR Panel.

Then there will be a Report and Recommendations made about the submissions made on the Report and Recommendations of the ASSR Panel.

Then submissions will need to be made on the Report and Recommendations made about the submissions made on the Report and Recommendations of the ASSR Panel.

It makes perfect sense. :ok:

4th Jun 2014, 04:44
And THEN nothing will happen.

4th Jun 2014, 05:37
Yes Minister

4th Jun 2014, 06:44
My week (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/my-week)

04 Jun 2014
Doug Nancarrow

No prizes for correctly guessing what’s getting all the attention this week. The report from the Regulatory Review (Forsyth) panel hit the streets Tuesday and the reaction since then has been interesting, to say the least.

By now everyone will have digested at least the Executive Summary and the 37 recommendations.

But there’s a lot more in the Report itself.

It’s worth noting that we’ve already had the 2007 Hawke Report, the 2008 Senate Committee Inquiry and the 2009 Aviation White Paper dealing with issues with and within CASA – and some of that is repeated in this latest report; eg Industry dissatisfaction with, and alienation from, CASA.

What’s new are the specifics around the appointment of a new Director of Air Safety and governance of CASA going forward. A lot of that relates to producing a more accessible regulatory authority and it’s hard to argue against that.

It was interesting too to see that the Department of Infrastructure (Aviation) came in for a little bit of stick, with the recommendation that it should play a stronger policy role. But there was no take up of industry clamour for a separation of the rule-making and enforcement roles.

The suggestion that CASA should re-establish offices out there at the coal face (something worked exceptionally well back in the days of the CAA) is particularly welcome.

There’s no doubt this is a very good report and that the recommendations are constructive. No, they’re more than that, they are the recipe for a fully effective CASA , engaged productively with industry.

If the government fails to do anything less than drive full implementation of these recommendations then we could well be looking at yet another inquiry into our regulatory regime five years down the track.

This report provides an opportunity to restructure CASA and its relationships with the other associated entities in a way that will work better than anything we’ve had before.

Let’s not screw it up. :D:D

The other DF's...MEDIA RELEASE (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/June%204%20Aviation%20Safety%20Report.pdf)
"I encourage the aviation industry and others interested in this report to make their thoughts known to the Minister," Senator Fawcett said.

4th Jun 2014, 07:01
A glass half full kind of guy (5 years);
If the government fails to do anything less than drive full implementation of these recommendations then we could well be looking at yet another inquiry into our regulatory regime five years down the track.

And glass half empty kind of guy, me;
Taking September 2014 as a 'month of change' - No more Skull or Beaker, I give it 24 - 36 months before another inquiry commences. A smoking hole should have occurred, rise in incidents, the cries of the IOS howling for a completion of the regulatory non reform program to finish, more departmental shenanigans, a damning ICAO or FAA audit will have taken place, maybe a Pot Plant revolt could have occurred or an Executive gets caught with a goat! Either way, the tautological Australian aviation game of 'round the garden' shall continue!


4th Jun 2014, 07:25
ASRR calls for cultural and structural change at CASA (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/)

Item by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/admin/) at 5:29 pm, Tuesday June 3 2014

A federal government-commissioned report into aviation safety regulation in Australia has called for substantial cultural and structural changes at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.

The long-anticipated Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR)’s report, released by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss on Tuesday, makes 37 recommendations, noting that while Australia has an “excellent” airline safety record and an “advanced” aviation regulatory system, that “there are opportunities for the system to be improved to ensure Australia remains a leading aviation state”.

Those opportunities revolve primarily around improving the relationship between the regulator – CASA – and the aviation industry, which it describes as, “in many cases, adversarial”.

“Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices,” the report’s executive summary reads.

“Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.”

The report sees the recruitment of a new head of CASA – current Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) John McCormick is standing down at the end of August – as an opportunity to reform the culture of the organisation. It notes: “Many have argued that the DAS should be a pilot, or at least experienced in aviation operations, suggesting this experience is necessary to understand the industry. The Panel, however, is of the opinion that the most important qualification for the DAS is leadership and management experience and capabilities in cultural change of large organisations.”

The ASRR also calls for structural change at CASA to “align its organisation with CASA”.

"Countries such as Canada and New Zealand have largely structured their safety oversight program to align with the industry, and have specific groups dedicated to industry sectors (eg GA, airlines, aircraft certification, maintenance, airports and air navigation services),” the report says. It recommends that CASA should adopt a “client-orientated output model” organisational structure similar to that used by the New Zealand CAA.

“Many variations of such a model are possible, and the proposal is not prescriptive. However, the key intention is to clarify accountability and improve the points of contact for the aviation community.”

As for CASA’s ongoing Regulatory Reform Program, which “has led to widespread ‘reform fatigue’ within the industry”, the report recommends the adoption of “a more manageable (but regular) process of periodic maintenance”. It also recommends “returning to a third tier of regulation, removing as much detail as possible from regulations, and using plain language standards in the third tier.”

Other recommendations for CASA include re-establishing small offices at major airports, developing an industry exchange program, that the CASA complaints commissioner report to the CASA board, and publishing key performance indicators for service delivery functions.

More broadly the report calls a more active role in aviation safety policy from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, noting that: “No single agency is responsible for the overall performance and health of the aviation safety system.

“ It recommends that the ICAO-mandated State Safety Program (SSP) be used as the basis for a strategic plan for aviation safety in Australia.

“Over time the Department’s policy coordination role and policy leadership authority has either eroded or not been utilised to its full potential, and as a consequence, its governance and policy responsibility needs to be re-established and reinforced. The Panel considers this could be done under the authority of a reinvigorated forward-looking SSP.”

Such an SSP, the report says, should be developed as a “strategic plan for the aviation safety system”.

In releasing the report Minister Truss says the “government will commence consideration of the report in detail without delay.”

The report’s release has been welcomed by the aviation industry, but at least one figure has warned that the report must now be followed up by action.

“The key issue will be Minister Truss’s response, which looks like it may take some time,” a senior industry figure has told Australian Aviation.
“We will have a closer look at the detail of the report – but at the end of the day it is just a report – until Truss acts.”

Minister Truss has invited industry and public feedback on the review by June 30. The report, which was authored by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, Don Spruston, former Director-General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, and Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, can be downloaded from the Department of Infrastructure’s website (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/).

FNQ Wazza on the ASRR..
Writing on the wall for CASA ineptitude (http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/476/Writing-on-the-wall-for-CASA-ineptitude.aspx)

Posted on Tuesday, 3 June, 2014

LEICHHARDT MP Warren Entsch has welcomed the findings of a review into Australian aviation safety, saying it has put the spotlight on CASA’s “toxic and vindictive” culture and practices.

“It’s the best report relating to CASA that I’ve seen in a long time,” Mr Entsch said.

“I congratulate David Forsyth and the panel that reviewed this because I see this as the first opportunity we’ve had to really lift the veil of CASA and deal with the inappropriate practices, the vindictiveness and the bloody-mindedness of those within the organisation.

“There’s going to be a level of accountability that I suspect is going to send a bit of a shiver down the spines of some of those CASA officers.”

Mr Entsch said that most of the 37 recommendations related to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and were common-sense – from CASA needing to have a more collaborative approach to regulatory oversight, to recommending that non-executive directors possess a background in aviation and safety management.

“In addition, the new Director of Aviation Safety will have to take a leadership role and have management experience and capabilities in cultural change at a large organisation like CASA. These recommendations are really no-brainers.

“I’m also pleased to see the recommendation that CASA conduct surveys every two years to assess their relationship with industry – at this stage I would have to say their relationship is toxic and non-existent, so it can only improve from here.

“These are absolute fundamentals, but are things that CASA has been missing for a long time. It’s because of this you have fabulous general aviation businesses like Barrier Aviation driven to the wall.

“It’s very good to see that the review panel has had the courage to state things as they are and I’m certainly looking forward to seeing these 37 recommendations implemented.”

4th Jun 2014, 08:56
If only Mr Entsch, Mr Truss, Senator Fawcett, Senator Heffernan, Senator Nash, Senator Macdonald etc were members of the government. They could pass legislation to give immediate and substantial effect to their strong opinions and the recommendations of the Review.

If only they were in government... :(

4th Jun 2014, 10:45
From Wazza the FNQ Hog rider;
“There’s going to be a level of accountability that I suspect is going to send a bit of a shiver down the spines of some of those CASA officers.”
Tease!!! Really? Have I missed something? Has accountability been incorporated overnight into CAsA's framework?

4th Jun 2014, 12:13
So the ASRR makes 37 recommendations and the Senate AAI makes 26. Most of which are significant. 63 serious safety recommendations regarding a goverment safety system in one year!!!! How many safety recommendations by the ATSB.....?
If you Google "ATSB Safety Recommendations" it comes up with "no results"!

63 reasons for serious concern. Senators Fawcett and X need to stay strong on the case.

IOS, don't give up hope. Write to Truss again. Patience is a virtue!

4th Jun 2014, 13:34
A new DAS! How about a new Chairman of the Board?? Not discussed?? Is he part of the CBR gentleman's cigar club?? Get rid of the Board! Massive cost saver. There is no legal reason why CAsA needs a board. Good Riddance!

4th Jun 2014, 15:28
For the total number of inquiries, judicial inquiries, Royal Commissions and what have you into CASA and its predecessors, you need to go to the Parliamentary web site. From memory, adding the latest two, you will find close to 30 over the last 30 or so years, including the Morris Inquiry, the longest running inquiry since Federation.

The significant fact is, little has changed, the iron ring has never been seriously breached.

The two matters that will make certain that the present inquiry will have no long term serious impact is:

(1) No changes to the Act, including no change to S.9
(2) No commitment to up front cost benefit justification, risk management based, as required by the "guidelines" of the Office of Best Practice Regulation, and more recent policy of the present government. The report only mentions the RIS, that comes at the end of the process, as CASA does it, not the front.

Given those two, the rest hardly matters.

No matter how good a new CEO and Board might be, if they seriously start to make change, the CEO will be set up by the "iron ring", just as Leroy Keith was set up.

I sincerely hope all the above turns out to be wrong, but the odds are against change.

Tootle pip!!

CASA's very expensive vacant secure office at YSBK looks like it is still vacant, how many times will this be now, move from the city to the airports, then move from the airports to the city, cycle after cycle.

4th Jun 2014, 15:44
I'm sure when the new DAS arrives people will start asking for their complaints to be re looked at. This might be the first and perhaps only opportunity to highlight the issues.

“There’s going to be a level of accountability that I suspect is going to send a bit of a shiver down the spines of some of those CASA officers.”

A couple maybe made sacrificial lambs?

Leadie, I love the move into city large offices, move back to airports, big R small r regulator, easa fan FAA fans, board no board. All gives the impression of change.

Doesn't casa own the Bankstown office ?

4th Jun 2014, 20:19
It seems to me that 'industry' has failed to see what Forsyth did. In part this is due to the submissions not being publicly available during the review. This has been remedied and with a little effort, the pieces of jigsaw puzzle can be fitted together and a clearer picture will emerge; the one the WLR panel sees. Much like the Senate inquiry, each piece of the puzzle does not make much sense, stand alone, but put it all together and a clear picture emerges.

So, here we have the minister tabling the WLR and releasing the submissions, then issuing an open, kindly invitation to 'have your two bob's worth' – before serious, long term measures are put in place. Will he do it?, keep the faith and make good on the promise?– well that's between him and his conscience – perhaps we and the Senate team can help him stay on the straight and narrow. (on the wagon as 'twere).

The WLR panel, with a complete picture have properly realised, that any regulatory reform, without a reformation of the CASA 'culture' will be, like it's predecessors, doomed. The WLR has gone to the radical value and recommended, not serious immediate changes to the 'law' as it stands, but to those responsible for administering it. In short they have correctly identified, exactly, the 'dogs breakfast' the current administration has become; and, provided government the tools to sort it out, before we pour another huge pile of money into the farce we have called - regulatory reform.

It's a good start, very good. But it's a long road back to a point where both government and industry may have faith in the regulator. Once this is achieved, true regulatory reformation may be considered with some confidence. The WLR (IMO) has provided a solid foundation for future building– one small, positive step at a time. Sort out the regulator, then sort out the regulations. Cause and effect if you will.

The WLR has identified some of the core issues relating to the abject failure of the regulatory reform saga and published them. Lead Sled and Creamy have already shown the way – they believe the Act needs some attention. No doubt those two fine gentlemen will, before the end of the month, make reasoned, sensible submissions. The immediate concern and I believe primary objective is to have the regulator 'back in it's box', so my submission will include the areas where (IMO) the WLR has missed some of the 'latitude' (wriggle room) allowed, which has been seriously abused in the past; then, I think it's absolute frog pooh to say that the NZ 'style' of regulation cannot be adopted; also, I hate the notion of a three tier system of legislation (sorry Ken) – but that's my two bob's worth. It's freely available to all and sundry in a very nearly democratic system. So, you get the picture.

We, the IOS should (must) accept the ministers kind invitation to tea; and, in a sane, rational, polite, professional manner put the icing on the offered cake. This game has just started, referee Forsyth has had the captains shake hands, blown the whistle and the ball is in play (the opposition have had one player red carded already). So get off your arses and in the words of bard – "don't screw it up".
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Albert Einstein.

Toot toot

4th Jun 2014, 20:34
I just realised that the recommendation to place CAsA folk at airports is brilliant!!! Can you imagine the boost to the economy as well as airport profits? We are talking about seasoned government employees with a penchant for bludging, drinking copious amounts of coffee and eating cucumber sandwiches and using the corporate credit card for 'entertaining business clients' over lunch. This is brilliant! Plus they will no doubt demand 'x' amount of carpark spots for their staff very close to the terminal, thus another opportunity for the airports to charge a hefty fee, to be absorbed by the taxpayer of course, this further boosting airport stakeholder profits.
Perhaps a 2% slice of this additional revenue could then be taken and invested back into GA?

$ Cha Ching $

4th Jun 2014, 21:26
It's probably worthwhile visiting – ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/) – over the next few days. Just hope Phelan can manage to develop the whole story. There is a lot of tacit (and some not so tacit) support for the CASA board to resign. Anyway – FWIW today's offering – HERE (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/04/aviation-report-welcomed-but-industry-looks-for-action/)-.

5th Jun 2014, 05:48
review recommendations ...not all the tough nuts have been cracked..:mad:
And many of the recommendations are not HARD enough.

NO mention about the compliance and enforcement MO now in use.... Bang yre dead. An AAT might resurrect you...but not if we can guide/help it.

The quality of some so called "investigators", makes CAsA a complete (bad) joke.
No way should CAsA even be in the "investigation" and prosecution business.
Its supposed to be a "regulator" ffs.

Breaches severe and deliberate should obviously dealt with, BUT by an independent agency and AFP...and all the other minor nit-picking things that have SFA to do with real safety should fall by the wayside. But that's the bread and butter for some of these investigator/tossers...whats to do then ??:mad:

At least there is an ask that CAsA persons will come under the APSC code of conduct does have criminal provisions. Unlike the current meaningless CAsA joke doc that nobody takes any notice of.:mad:
A get out of jail free card if ever there was one. Just ask the screamer:mad:

thorn bird
5th Jun 2014, 09:27
An Interesting article in Wed Australian by Janet Albrechten that we could perhaps draw parallels with what is happening here in Australia.

It would seem that EU citizens are voting with their feet, because they are increasingly P..sed off with being "ruled by the regulator".

In Europe, much the same as here, Bureaucrats are circumventing the "Law" and ruling by regulation, in much the same manner as a dictator rules by decree.

When people start to realize that democratic processes are being bastardized by unelected bureaucrats the seeds are sown for revolution.

Not perhaps a "roll out the tumbrils" type revolution, although there are many here who would take up knitting if the Skull or Wodger were in the tumbril, but there have been calls for civil disobedience on these forums and as Aviation as a rule is terribly conservative there must something seriously wrong for anyone to suggest such a thing.

So perhaps our political masters should take heed of what has happened in Europe, push us too far and maybe Clive might end up PM.

5th Jun 2014, 09:53
Phelan has been pheverishly..:E working over his phone and keyboard to produce the following...:ok:

A health-giving dose of reality – Opinion (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/05/a-health-giving-dose-of-reality/)In common with many others, ProAviation had been a little cynical about the fate of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) panel’s report after it left the Review Panel’s office. Maybe we were reading too much into the way interacting government agencies managed to shrug off the most significant recommendations of the Senate References Committee enquiry into the management of the investigation into the Pel-Air ditching at Norfolk Island.

Plenty of time, we thought, but let’s not waste it. We began by collecting ASRR submissions from industry representative groups, operator, manufacturer and maintenance organisations, professional associations, training and educational organisations, private and commercial aviators, lawyer groups and individual practitioners, trade unions, aggrieved individuals, and even commercial operators of the burgeoning unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) industry.

From a dozen of these, we selected an equal number of sample paragraphs which, we believed, represented a good cross-section of industry problems. We’d then measure the ASRR recommendations against industry’s hopes and expectations when the report finally become available.

Then on June 3, Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss took everybody by surprise by tabling the entire 170 page ASRR report and simultaneously publishing it on his Department’s website. For good measure, he announced that “written submissions to the Review will be made public over the coming days except for those provided in confidence and a number of others about which the Government is seeking legal advice,” and inviting further public submissions deadlined for a month later.
Anybody scanning through the 169 submissions to the ASRR Panel is likely to observe frequently recurring threads and themes, most of which the panel has also identified.

The first of these is that the mutual trust and respect that normally form the cornerstones of viable industry regulation have all but disappeared. “Been trashed” is their commonest way of expressing this.

The second is the events that have already laid waste to countless jobs and businesses, leaving in their wake the bleakest imaginable investment landscape for any aviation business seeking to recover or grow in the current regulatory environment. The concerns and grievances range through every area of industry/regulator interface and include the regulatory review program’s one-way consultation processes, regulator micromanagement and its related costs to business, a legal office that seems obsessed with treating aircraft operators, pilots and maintainers as though they were dealing with bikie gangs, the charging regime for mandated regulatory services, and the endless paperwork delays in processing applications for the permissions, approvals and certifications they are required to obtain to go about their businesses.

And the third is that the damage has already been so sustained and savage in so many industry facets as to be unrepairable without immediate acknowledgement through resolute remedial action. A dominant theme among the submissions is the premise that only a root and branch reorganisation can achieve what is essential for recovery.

A feature of the ASRR process is the depth and diversity of most of the submissions, and in particular the range of solutions that have been put forward.

ProAviation has reviewed a large proportion of contributions to the review, and has also spoken with numerous industry figures about what outcomes they hope for to reverse the collapse of mutual trust.

The following selected comments, each one from widely differing individuals and organisations, are characteristic of what industry observers are saying about those problems. The numbered paragraphs are the dozen individual issues raised in the various submissions, and relevant comment from the Review is in blue typeface:

1. “The [CASA ] legal department can only cause the troubles they do if they’re allowed to by the senior management and the board. So if your outlook on the world is a legalistic view where you invert the 80/20 rule and say that only 20% of people are trying to do the right thing so we must prosecute the crap out of everyone else – if you’ve got that fundamentally stupid blinkered approach in management; forget about whether it’s aviation or not, you will then never build an organisation that has the trust of industry. That’s a headline that CASA hates and yet it’s backed up by every independent assessment of CASA; they are a low-trust organisation driven by legal priorities, not by safety outcomes.”

ASRR:The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator.

2. “The first and vital conclusion the review must draw is that CASA has lost the trust of the industry – all else follows from that, starting with the obvious immediate requirement to restore trust. If that conclusion is not drawn, then nothing the review can recommend, nor the government mandate, will make the slightest bit of difference to the current situation and further decay is inevitable.”

ASRR:In the Panel’s view, CASA is falling short of the standards it ought to attain, judged by the ANAO’s [Australian National Audit Office] six principles. Based on industry’s perception, CASA falls short on Transparency and Openness, being seen by industry as closed to engagement. CASA’s Leadership also appears wanting, with a failure to translate good procedures and policies on paper into effective behaviours across the organisation. While CASA appears to be trusted by many in government, the industry’s trust in CASA is failing, compromising CASA’s Stewardship, and industry perceives CASA’s Accountability as being compromised.

3. “Where the system can break down is when there is friction between the relevant surveillance officers of CASA and the operator and/or its chief pilot, with the result that trust is eroded and the communication and feed back necessary for both parties is diminished.”

ASRR: All regulators face the challenge of keeping up-to-date with technology, and must acknowledge that industry holds higher levels of expertise, especially for new generation aircraft like the A380 and B787. Some regulators, such as the UK CAA, advised the Panel that a collaborative working relationship with industry assists in keeping them across the latest technology and developments.

The Panel also examined options used in other countries for Airworthiness Inspectors (AWIs) and FOIs to maintain currency in their areas of expertise. The Panel considers there would be merit in CASA and industry jointly developing a model for an industry exchange program. This program would allow CASA to access expertise, and it could be used to facilitate the finalisation of CASA’s Regulatory Reform Program, as discussed in Chapter 5.

The Panel discussed this proposal with the Chief Pilots of Australia’s major airlines and other industry representatives, who were supportive of the proposal in principle.

An industry exchange program needs appropriate probity frameworks, to ensure that secondees to CASA are not in positions that could influence decisions related to their employer, or could allow access to confidential information relating to their employer’s competitors.

The Panel recommends that:
9 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority develops a staff exchange program with industry.

4. “I have observed a change in the policy of the role of the regulator from one which directed its experienced officers to communicate directly with members of the GA (general aviation) industry on operational and regulatory matters to provide advice ‘one-on-one’ to enhance the members’ knowledge and understanding of the rules and operational/maintenance issues which may affect air safety, and to foster good relations with the industry so as to encourage valuable feed-back; to the regulator of today, which appears to be focussed on an inflexible policy of strict compliance and penalties. This has had the regrettable result that many members of GA have expressed a reluctance to talk to CASA out of fear.

The Panel recommends that:
21 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its organisational structure to a client-oriented output model.
22 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes small offices at specific industry centres to improve monitoring, service quality, communications and collaborative relationship

5. “The changes now incorporate a new ‘Area Approval’ process through CASA for ‘each and every individual flight operation’. [For regulated UAV operations] The new process incurs the same processing fee of $160 per hour and an estimate is provided by CASA after initial application. Both CASA & Airservices state they cannot process an application for these new ‘Area Approvals’ inside of 21 days minimum. Most applications however are running into several months and hundreds of dollars.”

ASRR: Industry complained to the Panel about the timeliness and quality of CASA services, particularly when issuing approvals. Delays can affect the livelihoods of individuals and the viability of businesses. Delays of months or even years were reported in some instances, particularly relating to licence and Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) approvals.

The Panel recommends that:

8 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority:

a. reinstates publication of Key Performance Indicators for service delivery functions;
b. conducts a stakeholder survey every two years to measure the health of its relationship with industry;
c. accepts regulatory authority applications online unless there is a valid technical reason against it ;
d. adopts the same Code of Conduct and Values that apply to the Australian Public Service under the Public Service Act 1999;.

6. “There can be little doubt that the decline of Australian aviation as a world class aviation nation over the past decade has reached nadir within the past five years. The endless, costly determination to be seen as ‘technically’ compliant with ICAO whist arrogantly remaining outside of the ‘real’ spirit and intent of ICAO compliance underpins a significant portion of the issues with which the review panel must come to terms.”

ASRR: Although opinions differ. the Panel estimates that the RRP would take at least another five years to complete. Furthermore, the final product of regulatory reform would not meet the aviation community’s needs and would not be consistent with the ICAO principles for plain language, easily understood, safety rules. Nor would the final regulations be harmonised with those of any foreign jurisdiction. The 25-plus year history of regulatory reform has been consuming the industry, and distracting the aviation community from the objective of managing safety in its operations. On this basis, the Panel concludes that continuing along the current path would not be in the interests of aviation safety in Australia and that a new approach must be developed for regulatory reform.

NOTE: The above has been slightly re-worded in consultation with the ASRR so the grammar won’t be misinterpreted in a way that suggests retaining the status quo was still an option.

7. “Australia’s aviation industry, like all other industries in Australia, is seen as ‘overregulated’ and stifled by red tape. Regulatory development over the last couple of decades has not adopted the principles contained in the government’s Best Practice Regulation Handbook (http://www.dpmc.gov.au/deregulation/obpr/handbook/index.html) and now part of Government policy – regulatory reduction and reduction in red tape. This reform has failed on both accounts.”
ProAviation Comment: See the response to point 5 above. Regarding the remaining five points, each referes in its own way to various apparent aberrations in policy and practice. we believe the following extracts from the report reflct discussion and recommendations that are relevant to necessary changes in the areas of leadership, governance, attitudes and praacctices including closer government and board involvement:


* A simple Statement of Expectations might be adequate where the agency is operating effectively. In the current situation, more in-depth guidance is required, similar to the 2003 Charter Letter. The Panel considers the new Board should have a clear and unambiguous mandate from government.

* While a number of skills are required amongst CASA’s senior management, they do not all need to be held by one person. The DAS should have a supportive and complementary team of deputies and senior executives. The DAS should have an understanding of aviation, but does not need to be an operational expert. If CASA is structured and staffed appropriately, it should have sufficient subject matter expertise within the organisation, or be able to obtain that expertise from industry

* A change in philosophy at CASA will be critical to make the recommendations in this report effective. A philosophical change requires a cultural change and this must be driven by the DAS.

8. “Aviation should be encouraged by CASA as part of its formal charter. Having its charter limited to ‘Aviation Safety’ encourages negativism, which is widely seen in practice. There is no settled standard for ‘air safety’. This leaves CASA with a poorly identified obligation, a completely subjective mantra, and no obligation to act for the benefit of Australian aviation this is unsatisfactory on its face and should change. Perhaps the roles of regulation and administration should be separated, and the regulator given the dual roles of promotion of aviation as well as safety?”

The Panel recommends that:
6. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Board exercises full governance control. The non-executive directors should possess a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds in aviation, safety, management, risk, regulation, governance and government.

9. “Our members are often negatively impacted by their dealings with CASA. Reasonable requests that should receive immediate and fair attention/approval fall into regulatory “black holes” where either no-one at CASA can provide an answer or where the applications just go missing altogether. The impression we get is one of a regulator where the majority of officers are extraordinarily afraid of making a decision lest they be wrong and their heads end up on the chopping block. As senior inspectors have retired, we have also noticed a distinct drop in the level and breadth of experience amongst CASA’s FOIs, leading to a complete unfamiliarity with our operating requirements. There are also several cases where these officers have approached their roles with a pre-existing bias which interferes with their obligation to give our members fair and timely consideration on their individual applications.”

ASRR: The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator.

10. “Guidance material on CASA’s enforcement policy which guides CASA decision makers should be legally binding and itself enforceable under an Ombudsman-type arrangement akin to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.”

ASRR: The message that CASA presents to industry is not always consistent with the message in its manuals. The DAS outlined CASA’s regulatory philosophy in a presentation to a Senate Estimates Committee in 2009:

Similar announcements of CASA’s firm regulatory philosophy have been made in other presentations to the industry, and appear to be evident in the trends in CASA enforcement action. Although the rationale for ‘firmness’ in regulatory oversight is understood, and clearly has a place, the industry’s assessment is that CASA takes an overly aggressive position, which is having an overriding and consuming influence over the aviation community and damaging trust. Combined with concerns in other parts of the safety oversight program as described later in this chapter, the result is an industry that has retreated from open dialogue and participation.

11. “In the matter of [a flight training organisation], the applicant paid to CASA an ‘up front’ fee of $8,000 ………to assess its application for the issue of an Air Operator’s Certificate. The assessment by CASA of the key personnel and other aspects of the AOC application was mandatory by legislation. A serious problem existed in this case in that although CASA demanded and was paid the fee for the assessment, the officers of CASA had already determined that the application for the AOC would be refused on the alleged grounds that its CEO and proposed chief pilot/CFI was not a fit and proper person to hold the chief pilot/CFI position. Despite CASA having determined that the applicant’s application for an AOC would be refused, CASA refused to stop its assessment, retained the $8,000 and demanded that the applicant pay another $1,600.”

ProAviation comment:
These allegations are unsurprising to anybody who is familiar with the complaints of random aberrant behaviour and the absence of effective avenues for its timely redress. In fact our own submission details how an operator (now our publisher) paid $20,000 in advance as an initial application fee for a low capacity regular public transport AOC. Later examining the CASA deliberations he came into possession of a string of in-house CASA emails that blatantly discussed various “tactical” options for delaying the progress of the application including flat refusal, deliberate delays in exchanging correspondence, or barraging him with requests for further information.

The review committee does not directly address these and other apparent abuses of power. However, throughout its report its comments and recommendations related to management and governance which if implemented could be expected to put such events behind us. Among those comments and measures are:

ASRR: Several concerns were raised regarding the timeliness and effectiveness of the ICC [Industry Complaints Commissioner], Including ‘the current system of the ICC reporting direct to the CASA CEO is seen by industry is largely ineffective and, again, discourages some industry complaints due to fear of retribution, and it is essential that there is a reliable, robust and transparent Complaints process that is managed in a timely manner.’

The panel recommends that:
37: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority amends the current Terms of Reference of the Industry Complaints Commissioner so that:
a. the ICC reports directly to the CASA Board
b. no CASA staff are excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction
c. the ICC will receive complaints that relate to both the merits and the process of matters
d. on merits matters, including aviation medical matters, the ICC is empowered to convene an appropriately constituted review panel, chaired by a CASA non-executive director, to review the decision
e. while all ICC findings are non-binding recommendations, the original decision-maker is required to give reasons to the CASA Board if a recommendation is not followed.

Commendably, item (b) removes a controversial restriction which immunised various senior officials from complaints to the Industry Complaints Commissioner.

12. “When industry first heard of the shift of CASA to being a ‘Big R’ regulator, industry accepted that clearly that was the right of the regulator and, industry assumed, was being done with the support of the CASA Board and the Minister. What industry did not anticipate was that the move to a ‘Big R’ regulator was code for the introduction of a bullying and intimidatory culture that would lead to a breakdown in relationships between CASA and industry, a significant reduction in the focus on innovative safety programs and increasingly shrill policing activities that are not delivering real safety improvements.”

ASRR: A hard-line regulator creates an environment in which regulated entities, be they air operators, maintenance providers, airports, or even air navigation service providers, may withhold information. Industry consultation has highlighted that many in the Australian aviation industry now actively avoid engagement with CASA unless absolutely necessary.

And in case that hasn’t sunk in, elsewhere in the report:

ASRR: The Panel is concerned by the dichotomy between industry’s and CASA’s perceptions of their relationship. While CASA is clearly aware of specific instances of industry dissatisfaction, it does not appear to fully comprehend the level or breadth of ill-feeling across all industry sectors. This lack of comprehension is especially apparent at the senior leadership level, including within the CASA Board.

The Panel considers CASA should take steps to better understand the issues of concern to industry and enhance the level of dialogue, both through a more productive two-way relationship, and also through initiating regular, anonymous stakeholder surveys to gauge industry’s perceptions.

ProAviation comment
Considering its timeframes and its task, the ASRR panel has performed a remarkable service to the industry and presented it in an erudite way. While it may appear at first glance to have overlooked or glossed over some specific issues, it has produced a set of findings and recommendations which, if all were heeded and implemented, would resolve those issues in any case, by re-directing or replacing people as necessary and replacing the structures, philosophies and attitudes that bred the issues.

The ASRR report should be mandatory reading for everybody in industry including those regulatory employees who hope still to be regulatory employees in six months; and also for the incoming CEO and Board.
The remaining challenge for the Minister will be to protect the ASRR recommendations from being watering down that was inflicted on the Pel-Air/ATSB/CASA investigation.

There are still people who need to understand that even you if know you’re right and everybody else is wrong, you still have a problem.

5th Jun 2014, 21:04
Can't wait for the Senate crew to have their run, now that the scrum half has very neatly passed the ball to backs and the defence is in disarray. Sometimes, I even have daring notions that lead to contemplation of such thing as discrimination and constitutional rights eventually being looked at.

Mentioned earlier, the dangers inherent in allowing dangerous animals to roam in the playground, frightening the children. The -"letter" (http://cvdpa.com/images/pdf/Colour%20Vision%20Deficiency%20Letter%20to%20AOC%20holders.p df)- issued to AOC holders is an example of why it's not a good idea.

The frenetic pushing of the CVD barrow provides a perfect snapshot of why Australian operators and airmen (Cocks and Hens) must respond to the Truss invitation encouraging the Minister to continue with the reform of CASA. The Minister will need courage and encouragement to take on the mythical national aviation safety monster, 'we' must provide that comfort zone, through our support. Truss MP – Myth buster, has a catchy ring to it; don't it??.

Toot toot.

thorn bird
5th Jun 2014, 21:53
I agree Kharon, where once we had non, there is a glimmer, just a tiny glint that some sort of real reform may occur. The barrier to real reform is the act, written no doubt by those crafty unelected mandarins, it cements the notion of rule by regulation, as opposed to Law and denies accountability.

The act must be changed or any reform that may occur now will simply be eroded by the bureaucrats, a simple example of that is the 3 or 4 hundred million $$ wasted on alleged reform up to now. Reform originally started out on track well back in the eighties then was deliberately knocked off the rails.

The fight must be to get the act rewritten to favour rule by law.

I've always wondered how the Kiwi's did it, they had a very similar system to us where aviation and its regulation grew out of the military. Did they rewrite their act then get on with new regulations?

Whatever they did has certainly worked, pity Australia is too arrogant to learn from them.

5th Jun 2014, 22:28
I am speculating again after reading the ProAviation commentary on the review and its recommendations. My view is that if ever the Abbott Government needed an example of what needs to change in Australian Government, then the review has just handed it a fresh and steaming one on a plate.

I hope that the Prime Minister and Cabinet give Minister Truss Carte Blanche to take an axe to CASA and implement every one of the recommendations and a few more of his own, with the only stricture that he will have failed if within the year every Federal Public Servant doesn't shiver in fear at the mention of CASA and what was done to it.

To put that another way, CASA is a perfect example of everything that the Abbott Government and its supporters have been complaining about in Public Administration and vowed to destroy:

- Over regulation.

- Extremely poor value for taxpayers money.

- Lack of industry trust and zero customer focus.

- rotten customer service.

- Capriciousness bordering on corruption, pettiness, vindictiveness.

- Unjust.

- A monumental barrier to more investment, more growth and more jobs in an important industry sector.

Make no mistake Minister Truss, the reformation of CASA is a litmus test of your Governments Bona Fides in respect of your dislike of "Big Government". Never again will you be handed such a small and juicy morsel as CASA on which to practice what you preach.

- Small enough to be "do-able" and if handled properly and publicly, an exemplary warning to all Public servants of the standards of Public Administration they are now required to attain.

5th Jun 2014, 22:54
What Sunfish said. :D

5th Jun 2014, 23:01
In February, 2012 the following was presented to the readers of Pprune. The ASSR report to the Honourable Warren Truss MP, the Senate Pel Air inquiry, the Chambers report and the recent AOC 'letter' all support and vindicate the submissions made to the ASSR. Congratulations Mr Forsyth and the panel, on a long overdue job, well done.

To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners, undersigned, support a statement of no confidence in the current senior management of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

1) Your petitioners from the Australian aviation industry request that the Senate record our statement of "no confidence" in the Director of Aviation Safety and senior management of the CASA.

a) Petitioners have serious concerns that the oversight of aviation operational safety, regulatory reform, incident investigation, immediate and subsequent enforcement actions, their impact on the well being of the industry and the cost of these actions are a public and legal embarrassment to the Government and industry domestically and internationally.

b) Petitioners believe that current mismanagement is producing negative safety outcomes, detrimental to the concept of 'just culture'; inhibiting the industry from freely, and in concert with the 'Authority', developing superior outcome based safety management, compliance and enforcement protocols.

2) Your petitioners request that the Senate initiate a transparent judicial enquiry; supported by independent aviation industry experts into the actions of the CASA which resulted in proceedings against companies and individuals from industry.

a) Your petitioners ask that the Senate request and require the enquiring body to accept, consider and investigate evidence provided under statutory declaration from interested parties, under terms of reference to be decided by the Senate Estimates Committee, allowing wide consultation with, and submissions from industry as part of the due process.

P7 a.k.a. TOM.

6th Jun 2014, 05:56
Too kind, you are Sunny....

capriciousness BORDERING on corruption, pettiness, vindictiveness.

Sorry, the border was crossed by many CAsA persons, many years ago, and since neither senior management would deal with them, or Depts of Transport do any governing /disciplining of their bastard child, the rot now goes right through to the top.

The list. And Im sure other folk can add some more....

Abuse of power
Failure to abide by....
Model litigant obligations
Investigation processes
Compliance and Enforcement rules
Defamatory imputation
Gross wastage of public monies

If ever there was an example of a "public service" agency morphing into a self serving Soviet, then this is it.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

In the latest US AOPA mag 75th anniversary edition there is a prophesy made by a past AOPA president in 1973 which rings one helluva bell for OZ/us IOS
" I see on the horizon the destruction of GA, and it will be the fault of the Dept of Transport and the FAA."

Are we there yet?? Or is GA in Oz going to survive by a whisker.

Digitus extractus

6th Jun 2014, 23:50
Other threads are covering the latest example (here (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/541172-perfect-example-casa-outrageaous-behaviour.html) & here (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-8.html)) of the sheer bastardry & open contempt the current CAsA Board, DAS (& by default PMO) and Iron ring have to the whole industry (not to mention the good Senators ably led by Senator Fawcett), by victimizing yet another minority group of the Oz aviation industry...:ugh::ugh:

Meanwhile behind the white noise (more like avalanche) of open IOS disgust...:eek::yuk::yuk: (Hmm..thought bubble..:confused:..maybe that's the whole point of those disgusting, litigious CVD letters..:ooh:)

Like the Arthur Pape POST (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-7.html#post8508462) and CVD Bill's POST (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-8.html#post8509837) (which IMO are two of the best pprune posts for '14), the somewhat more rational real industry aviation safety experts are quietly making their thoughts known on the Minister's release of the ASRR report...:D

Ken & Co from AMROBA: ASRR Report (http://amroba.org.au/asrr-report.html)The Minister's review panel has completed their review and handed the report to DPM Truss. The Minister must be congratulated for releasing the report so quickly and will be looking for comments on the 37 recommendations contained in the report. The major issues are:

change the regulatory philosophy of the safety regulator; (much needed)
complete the regulatory reform program utilising a 3 tier regulatory system; (should have kept CAOs)
improve the performance of the Department of Infrastructure & Regional Development; (more involvement in aviation)
make the CASA Board more accountable; (well overdue)
Restructure CASA to client based model;
improve the performance of ATSB & CASA; and
enhance governance mechanisms and frameworks;
3 tier the whole regulatory system;
make the Industry Complaints Commisioner reportable to the Board.

Though these are the major points, many recommendations address the issues raised by AMROBA in our submissions.
This is one report that the aviation industry must support; the Minister must accept and direct implementation of the recommendations and utilise the processes spelt out in the report.
Setting up a 'streering committee' with industry members to make the regulatory system happen is important.

The report does identify that flying training should utilise thhe use of flight instructions without the need to have an AOC. In our opinion; adopt FAR Part 61 system and GA will start to grow safely.

The change to the Industry Complaints Commisioner (ICC) process so the ICC reports to the Board is positive.
Many of our members and others will welcome this change.

The greatest doubt to implementation, if the Minister supports and directs implementation of the recommendations, is the personnel in key positions of CASA, the new Board and their commitment to implement a cost effective safe aviation system. 20 years of regulation chnage has not seen GA grow. GA is the foundations where most new pilots once came from. This has to be reversed for support businesses like maintenance and design to foster.

Minister Truss, you must accept the report and direct implementation once you find the right people to lead CASA and the Board. More detailed analysis is being sent to our members.

We wonder where they will find the right people to fill the vacant Board positions and the DAS.

Considering the Board and CASA Executive were responsible for all the negative findings in the Report, the Minister will have a challenge finding the right people to implement the philosophy of these recommendations. Once started, CASA staff will need retraining to meet the (communication) standards required by this report.

The next few weeks will be monitored carefully. OK back to the Fort Fumble siege....:E

Frank Burden
7th Jun 2014, 08:27
I have given the caustic relationship between CASA and the industry some thought. I note that the review committee has not come up with any real plan to go forward. More about incremental changes in a bureaucratic world with a new DAS with a brief to engage industry. Could there be another revolutionary way that the committee could have suggested?

I am presenting the Burden Aviation Safety Regulatory Agenda (BASRA) for discussion. It’s a simple plan. It’s modelled on JAA continuing on in Europe while EASA ramps to became a better and stronger authority. It is based on best practice as informed by change management specialists like John Kotter. It will cost $5m in the first year but this will be recovered in the near years from the current Government funding allocated to CASA. And the result will be a world class safety regulator for Australia. How you might ask? Impossible you might say? Unachievable might you shout? Well listen up!

CASA continues in its current form and enforces the current regulations. No further changes will be made to the current regulations except in cases where there is a critical safety case. Every activity will be scrutinised and real reductions in activities based on a revised role will be made. Domestic and international travel will be slashed.

A new agency, the Australian Aviation Safety Agency (AASA) will be created using Project Management Principles and a very flat structure. The CEO will be responsible for industry consultation but the objective will be to develop a small and workable set of regulations drawing on the work of overseas aviation safety regulatory agencies.

In the first three years it will be a part of the Department and rely on it for support services. Five Departmental staff will be provided for dedicated support for administrative support.

In the first year it will have 20 outcome focused operational staff, in the second year 50 and in the third year 100. The operational staff will be supplemented by specialist from industry to work for it part-time to assist it. The industry representatives will be paid sufficient money to attract high quality and knowledgeable aviators.

The Government will give the new regulations priority in its processes.

At the end of the three year period, AASA becomes the regulator and slowly builds to being a self administering agency over the next two years. It has a maximum of 300 staff.

What about CASA? It continues for three years, the staff are drawn down each year to pay for AASA plus a dividend to the Government and no CASA staff can go to AASA unless it can be established that they are open minded and outcome focused individuals.

Are there wrinkles? Yes. But a good plan starts with a vision. The details can be worked out by those who understand how to manage these things in a contemporary world.

I offer BASRA to the Australian people as my contribution to aviation safety in this country.:D

7th Jun 2014, 09:00
I will join, but can I please have just one trip to Montreal?

Frank Burden
7th Jun 2014, 10:42
Mike, sorry 004, in regard to:

I will join, but can I please have just one trip to Montreal?

Just put your surname at the end of your next post and you are included in the Last Tango in Montreal Group Tour.:ooh:

7th Jun 2014, 11:13
Ok, appreciate that Frank!


7th Jun 2014, 21:36
Rather than repeat, at length, the half dozen calls for the CASA board and the DAS to be 'stood down', the succinct quotes from AAAA

"AAAA believes the position of the current CASA Board and the senior management of CASA is simply untenable in the face of such stinging criticism regarding culture, values, performance, processes and outcomes.

“The CASA Board should immediately resign to clear the way for a completely new approach in line with most of the report’s findings.


Considering the Board and CASA Executive were responsible for all the negative findings in the Report, the Minister will have a challenge finding the right people to implement the philosophy of these recommendations.

and Sunny will suffice.

To put that another way, CASA is a perfect example of everything that the Abbott Government and its supporters have been complaining about in Public Administration and vowed to destroy:

Make no mistake Minister Truss, the reformation of CASA is a litmus test of your Governments Bona Fides in respect of your dislike of "Big Government". Never again will you be handed such a small and juicy morsel as CASA on which to practice what you preach.

- Small enough to be "do-able" and if handled properly and publicly, an exemplary warning to all Public servants of the standards of Public Administration they are now required to attain.

They pretty well sum up the situation. Perhaps the 'department' could take up the slack during the hopefully short period between now and being 'under new management', and a new DAS taking up the reins.

Someone needs to halt the ludicrous posturing on CVD; and prevent several vicious 'pay-back' and intimidation plans being rolled out as we speak. Embargo any and all CASA proposed action against operators or individuals until a fair and reasonable assessment can be made of the proposed actions. I'm sure, that as a country boy, Truss has seen the damage a pack of dogs can inflict on a mob of sheep.

The blood-lust is a dog-phase that has never been quite understood. Every station-owner knows that sometimes the house-dogs are liable to take a sudden fit of sheep-killing. Any kind of dog will do it, from the collie downward. Sometimes dogs from different homesteads meet in the paddocks, having apparently arranged the whole affair beforehand. They are very artful about it, too. They lie round the house till dark, and then slink off and have a wild night's blood-spree, running down the wretched sheep and tearing their throats open; before dawn they slink back again and lie around the house as before. Many and many a sheep-owner has gone out with a gun and shot his neighbour's dogs for killing sheep which his own wicked, innocent-looking dogs had slain.

The recently published letters to aviation medico's (DAME), to operators of aeronautical business (AOC holders) and pilots related to Colour Vision are an exemplar of 'how' CASA operate. No matter who wrote or signed the letters, ultimately the DAS and by extension the board have approved the tactics. As the minister Truss is potentially vulnerable; common or garden political savvy should see where the blame for the CVD train wreck is going to finish up. Any of the Senate Pel Air committee or the Forsyth panel could explain the many situations which could, if allowed out of hand will destroy not only credibility, but destroy any chance of a smooth transition period.....

There is an ugly rumour I keep hearing that a couple of the IOS had attempted to contact the board, through 'normal' channels and being repeatedly ignored, launched a small campaign to open a line of communication. Perhaps, to be fair, the board may have been 'unhappy', being badgered; allegedly the use of CASA legal was sanctioned not only to rebuff the assault, but to intimidate and threaten. If this is ever proven true, it is inexcusable behaviour. But both pudding and proof are, thus far, missing.

Having got off to good start, it would (IMO) be a shame to see that effort, credibility and kudos damaged by the manic thrashing and vindictive behaviour of a dying beast. It is Sir, all so very real and if 'your' hounds are not brought to heel the damage bill will be yours to meet.

Highly –recommended (http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1485/)- Sunday reading. A. Banjo Paterson. (Short story).

8th Jun 2014, 00:53
I am presenting the Burden Aviation Safety Regulatory Agenda (BASRA) for discussion.Exactly my thought. Even if it is not a new organisation the new DAS can follow that process, the only way in my opinion.

dubbleyew eight
8th Jun 2014, 10:22
no need for any organisational change at all. honestly.

....just shoot all the current staff. the replacements will be much less desirous of being shot I can assure you. :E

(I feel a ban coming on.....) :-) :-) :-)

8th Jun 2014, 21:44
Sotto voce: Well minister, if ever you needed more empirical evidence after the ASRR report, or a firm position on 'safety' after Pel Air, or solid ground on which to stand whilst wielding the axe; the internationally embarrassing, despicable actions of the regulator in the CVD matter should provide it. Now then Sir, will ye have nuts or a cigar?, those are the only two choices; we have no other options available.

Toot, toot, bloody toooooot. Well, we can't hang about here all day – busy, busy, busy......

10th Jun 2014, 01:14
Definition: FES- Flat Earth Society

Biccy at post #169 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-9.html#post8514755)...Performance Based Regulation. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201...R%20online.pdf Under this framework of managing risk looks like the CVD issue could be managed. Australian evidence certainly supports there not being an issue. ...of the ESB thread draws attention to an interesting parallel with the Poms and their current RRP :D:The CAA has commenced a business transformation programme to become a performance based regulator

Performance based regulation means developing a comprehensive risk picture with the organisations we regulate and building our knowledge and data to make sure we target our regulation in the areas where it will make the biggest difference.

For more information about performance based regulation and the CAA transformation click here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6261).

The transformation programme and what it means in practise was introduced to our industry stakeholders at a major conference at the London Gatwick Hilton on 19th May 2014. Over 130 senior industry leaders and accountable managers from across the industry were in attendance. The conference gave the delegates the opportunity to debate the concept and practicalities including the likely benefits and the challenges to both the CAA and themselves. The conference agenda and the conference presentations and speeches can be found here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2838&pagetype=90&pageid=16194).

We are currently producing a report of the proceedings and the feedback from the delegates giving the industry views and identifying the next steps that CAA will take in response in delivering performance based regulation. The report is due for publication in early July 2014 will be available from this web page. Quote from the first provided link (CAP 1184)..

"...Performance-based regulation (PBR) is central to EASA's and ICAO’s future plans. The CAA is working closely with our international colleagues to shape how PBR works in practice. The UK industry has fed back that it believes PBR should make the CAA more proportionate and targeted, have a greater degree of commercial awareness and be more transparent about how money is spent..."

Now although the main stated aim is to bring the Pom's regs in line with EASA & ICAO future plans, PBR is also complimentary, especially in the GA sector, to the UK government's policy of cutting red tape.

Quote from CEO of UK CAA (link here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2836/CAP%201188%20GA%20policy%20consultation.pdf):General aviation (GA) makes an invaluable contribution to the UK’s aviation community. In its wide variety of forms it is a recreational pastime enjoyed by many, whether through participation or as spectators; it creates many jobs for those who build and maintain the aircraft; and is often the first step for pilots who wish to fly commercially.

As the CAA recognised in our response to last year’s GA red tape challenge, the sector has been subject to a disproportionate level of regulation, both at the UK and European level, which is stifling participation and innovation. In our response to the red tape challenge I made a public commitment to change radically our approach to GA regulation.
I guess then it is no surprise that the ASRR report very much highlights the attributes of PBR and suggests this methodology as the way forward for reg reform down under...:D

A legal perspective:

The following is an excellent article/summary from the legal fraternity (Lexology) on the ASRR report and further draws attention to PBR..:ok::The Forsyth Report: Challenging times ahead for CASA and the aviation industry (http://www.cgw.com.au/publication/the-forsyth-report-challenging-times-ahead-for-casa-and-the-aviation-industry/#page=1)
06 June 2014

On 3 June 2014, the Honourable Warren Truss, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, presented to Parliament the report of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.
The report can be accessed here (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx).

The report praised the standing of Australia’s regulatory safety system noting that it was among the most widely respected in the world. However, despite this, the Review panel found a significant disconnect between the industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as the regulator, which, if left unchecked, could put both the safety and reputation of the industry at risk.

In view of this, the report makes 37 recommendations.

Ultimately, passengers who travel on regular public transport operations and those who engage in general aviation activities will be the winners.

Arguably, CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) will understandably feel that a lot is being asked of them, given that all but four of the 37 recommendations require some action on the part of CASA, the ATSB or both.

Extensive public consultation was conducted as part of the review process. Meetings were held with over 200 individuals. Approximately 269 formal submissions were received by the Review panel, about one third of which were provided on a confidential basis. The Review panel found that CASA’s hard line approach has distanced itself from the industry, contrary to the approach taken by many leading aviation regulators around the world.

Those foreign regulators adopt a performance based system with a focus on a ‘just culture’, and an approach that places more trust in the operators to carry out their activities in compliance with the applicable regulatory scheme. The regulator monitors and takes appropriate action on any breaches of that system. In comparison, many in the industry would argue CASA’s approach requires the operator to proactively prove that they have not done anything wrong.

The proponents of a performance based regulatory system argue that it supports a more open discourse between the regulator and the industry, leading to better safety outcomes and less intrusion on the day to day operations of the industry operators.

The report identifies the need for CASA to set a new strategic direction; one focussed on establishing a collaborative rather than an adversarial relationship with the industry. The addition of two extra directors to the CASA Board along with the upcoming vacancy of two positions provides CASA with the opportunity to create a leadership team with experience and skills across not only the aviation field, but also the fields of regulation and human factors.

One of the recommendations that will be most welcomed by the industry is that CASA attempt to realign its organisation with the industry, taking such steps as re-establishing offices at major airports and engaging in an industry exchange program to allow its staff to gain a better appreciation of the day-to-day issues faced by those at the coal face.

Other steps, such as the devolution of medical renewals to designated aviation medical examiners and the adoption of public service key performance indicators for CASA staff, will also arguably assist in promoting a regulator that is more understanding of the industry’s activities.

The ATSB has faced significant criticism following its report into the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air Westwind off Norfolk Island. The Review acknowledged that the Pel-Air report was considered an aberration when compared with the usual standard of the ATSB’s investigations, and that measures had been put in place to ensure that it was not repeated.

Canada’s Transportation Safety Board is currently completing a review of the ATSB, and will provide its report shortly. However, the report recommends that the ATSB appoint an additional commissioner with specific expertise in aviation, a measure that those in the industry will no doubt agree will assist in the investigations into and reports of the highly complex and technical accidents.

Other recommendations that will be welcome by industry include that CASA:

change the current two-tier regulatory framework, consisting of the Act¹ and Regulations², to a three-tier structure, with the new third tier comprised of Standards drafted in plain language, and the Regulations drafted in a succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and other necessary provisions such as the high-level offence and penalty provisions;
review all existing Parts of the Regulations, in consultation with the industry, to determine if they should be redrafted in the three-tier structure;
use third party commercial audits as a means of supplementing its surveillance program, to better identify and target rogue operators;
utilise the memorandum of understanding with ATSB to accredit CASA observers to ATSB investigations;
delegate its responsibility for the day-to-day operational management of air space to Air Services Australia, including the designation of air routes and temporary changes to the classification of air space for operational reasons;
continue to provide appropriate indemnity to all industry personnel with delegations of authority, such as chief flight examiners;
demonstrate a philosophy of just culture in which individuals involved in reportable events are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions made by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but in which actions of gross negligence or wilful violations are not tolerated;
reintroduce a discretionary procedure that allows operators or individuals the opportunity to discuss with CASA and, if necessary, remedy a perceived breach prior to CASA taking an informal action, save where CASA identifies a serious and imminent risk to air safety;
change its organisational structure to a client oriented model;
introduce grading of non-compliance notices on a scale of seriousness; and
reassess the penalties under the Regulations.

The report is open for comment Public until 30 June 2014.

It will be a difficult time ahead. Aviation regulatory reform in Australian has been ongoing for over two decades and has changed direction numerous times. This has left many reform fatigued, disillusioned and disgruntled. The Review panel asks those involved in the industry, CASA, the ATSB and the government to leave the past in the past and work together to improve Australia’s aviation safety system for the future. Hmm...TICK TOCK Miniscule :E

ps Love it OOW..:ok:(post #170 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-9.html#post8514902)ESB)Fantastic .... With performance based regulation the UK Cvd pilots should have unrestricted medicals from tomorrow by virtue of the Australian data.
... And pigs get honorary PPLs.

I just wonder if the CASA PMO is under a ton of pressure from his counterparts in foreign countries to align with their restrictive and discriminatory practices.

10th Jun 2014, 21:46
The TAAAF joins the chorus...:=

Australian Aviation Associations Forum calls for action on AASR report (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/australian-aviation-associations-forum-backs-aasr-report/)

TAAAF Calls for CASA Board Change (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/taaaf-calls-for-casa-board-change)
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for a new CASA board as part of its response to the release of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report.

Now being branded as the "Forsyth Report" after panel Chairman David Forsyth, the report was tabled by Minister Warren Truss last week.

"The Australian Aviation Associations Forum has welcomed the independent report into Australia’s aviation safety system," the TAAAF response states.

"In particular, the Forum agrees with the need to reform the current leadership of CASA – both Board and senior management.

"Now that the report has been delivered, the Forum notes that the Government has the opportunity to turn the report into significant action on essential aviation reform.

"The Forum hopes that the ASRR Report is the catalyst for significant and urgent action by DP Minister Truss, including:

A total renewal of the CASA Board to realign CASA with the values identified as missing in the report
Appointment of an acting Director of Air Safety, to give any new Board the time to recruit to a new DAS
Establishment of an Aviation Industry Advisory Council as per Coalition policy."

TAAAF is a forum of peak aviation bodies that includes the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, Australian Association of Flight Instructors, Australian Business Aviation Association, Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association, Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia.
AAAA comment...

"....AAAA believes that the position of the current CASA Board and the senior management of CASA is simply untenable in the face of such stinging criticism regarding culture, values, performance, processes and outcomes.

The CASA Board should immediately resign to clear the way for a completely new approach in line with most of the report’s findings..."

BBB (Bye, Bye Board)!:{:E

10th Jun 2014, 23:03
Three cheers :D:D:D
TAAAF Calls for CASA Board Change
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for a new CASA board as part of its response to the release of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report.
Industry is wide awake, good to see. And also good to see that we are drilling down into the "root cause", something that a regulator would be pleased to see, robust root cause analysis.
Most people keep looking at Monsignor Skull as being the root cause of CAsA's woes, not so, he is merely a puppet, he doesn't pull the strings. A deeper look at the beast reveals the breadcrumbs that have lead us to the current parlous state of our industry. What are some of these breadcrumbs? Perhaps these;
- Long term bureaucrats who have had decades in which to polish the current turd
- Long term CAsA executives who have also enjoyed decades of free reign with immunity from accountability and absolute freedom to buff, polish and massage the turd into the shape it is now.

My suggestion to industry is that for real change, not token lip service and bureaucratic bullshit speech, at a minimum you need to do the following;
- Replace the entire Board, especially the Chair
- Replace the DAS (already confirmed)
- Replace the Associate DAS
- Replace the Deputy DAS
- Replace the Secretary Infrastructure
- As has been mentioned by Forsyth, realign CAsA with public service guidelines and introduce accountability, not immunity.

Only then, maybe then, we will have a clean slate.

dubbleyew eight
11th Jun 2014, 04:40
you have to admit that if it wasn't so serious the blatant ongoing incompetence from CAsA would be funny.

I had my laughs this morning when I was told of the current new problem they are tackling.
Pilots flying internationally on Australian Licences are finding the security arrangements in other countries a tad difficult when trying to prove to security officials that they are in fact the pilots of the aircraft.
Y'see all our licence endorsements are logbook entries and absolutely no australian carries the precious log book around in case it gets stolen, lost or damaged.

CAsA have put their minds to the problem and are about to issue a NEW LICENCE to help pilots around the problem.
CAsA's best idea so far is to issue a PAPER LICENCE.
can you believe these senile idiots.
in this day and age a PAPER LICENCE.

all it takes is a colour printer, the right paper and everyone can have one!
no more paying 300 baht in bangkok :E:E:E:E

11th Jun 2014, 05:11
CAsA have put their minds to the problem and are about to issue a NEW LICENCE to help pilots around the problem.
CAsA's best idea so far is to issue a PAPER LICENCE.
can you believe these senile idiots.
in this day and age a PAPER LICENCE.
Yep, I believe it. That's because the decision makers have been there for decades, are outdated and totally out of touch with reality, the real world, and what is actually 'best practise' for the year 2014.

Does this ring a bell? A mad Doctor trying take us not back to the future but back to the past;



11th Jun 2014, 05:21
Para 377
while they're at it how about chopping out the LSD head, Anustasi who vets MLO, FOI and even tells you who you mustnt write to, or contact the Bored.
WTFDHTHI !! And some of his side kicks as well.

Also the so called "compliance and investigations" needs handing over to those who can do it properly, legally and without wasting millions of taxpayers dollars in the process of ubeaut stuff ups.

Good to see the issue come up, of putting the ****holes under the APSC "Code of Conduct" ( a real one!!) with criminal provisions. :ok::ok:

Here's hoping the "RENEWAL" wont just deteriorate into a sick joke, with minimum chops.
Sorry, forget just the axe, give CAsA the whole bloody sawmill treatment, Warren
Cut it up and part it out.:ok:

12th Jun 2014, 22:00
My apologies to SC, I now understand he has been on the road (or is it in the air) jet-setting to Doha (IATA conference (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/global-push-for-carbon-scheme/story-e6frg95x-1226952291150)) and then (rumoured) on to EASA skies, possibly for a flog around the block (see Ben's short article here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/06/12/a350xwb-first-impressions-on-a-flight-around-the-pyrenees/)) in an Airbus A350 with 160 other aviation journos out of Toulose.

So it is possible that, much like the rest of us, he was caught with his pants down when Truss surprisingly released the Forsyth report so quickly...:ooh:

Anyhow he has made up for it in spades in possibly the best MSM coverage of the report so far...:D:Industry keen to fly CASA overhaul (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/industry-keen-to-fly-casa-overhaul/story-e6frg95x-1226952257262)

by: Steve Creedy
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)

June 13, 2014 12:00AM

AVIATION organisations have urged the government to move quickly on a recommended overhaul of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Australia’s regulatory environment.
The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, handed to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss two weeks ago and publicly released last week, called for sweeping reforms of CASA as part of 37 recommendations.

The report called for the changes to the air-safety regulator after criticising it for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the *industry, which has lost trust in the authority.

Compiled by a panel of experts headed by industry veteran David Forsyth, the report was ordered by Mr Truss in response to industry criticism of CASA and worries about the adequacy of an Australian Transport Safety Board investigation into the 2009 ditching of a medical evacuation jet off Norfolk Island.

It expressed concern about the relationship between CASA and industry, accusing the regulator of adopting “an across-the-board hardline philosophy, which in the panel’s view is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia.’’

CASA boss John McCormick is leaving the authority, along with two board directors, and the report recommended the next director of aviation safety be chosen for leadership and management change abilities rather than for primarily aviation expertise.

The report also called for the CASA board to better govern the organisation, the re-establishment of small offices at major airports, an industry exchange program and changes to regulatory oversight to meet international auditing standards.

Other changes included an overhaul of the long-running regulatory reform process, after it had changed direction several times in the past decade, leading to widespread “reform fatigue’’.

The report recommends a speedy resolution to the current program, that regulations be written in plain English, and a more manageable (but regular) process of regulation maintenance.

On the investigation into the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air Westwind off Norfolk Island, the panel considered a widely criticised *report of the accident as an aber*ration and not typical of the ATSB’s usually high standard.

It noted Canada’s Transportation Safety Board was completing a review of the TSB and would report shortly, but recommended operational independence of CASA and Airservices Australia.

Umbrella group the Australian Aviation Associations Forum said it hoped the report would be a catalyst for “significant and urgent action” by Mr Truss and endorsed the need to reform CASA’s leadership at both a board and senior management level.

The forum called for a total renewal of the CASA Board, the *appointment of an acting director of air safety to give the board time to recruit a replacement, as well as the establishment of an Aviation Industry Advisory Council “as per coalition policy”.

The forum’s call to action was echoed by the Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia, with AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst saying the industry felt vindicated in its criticism of CASA’s culture.

Mr Hurst said the association believed the position of CASA’s board and senior management was untenable in the face of the criticism and that the board should immediately resign.

“A range of recommendations, including a restructure of CASA to better match industry sectors, delegation of medical certificate issuing to DAMEs (Designated Aviation Medical Examiners) or improvements to the Independent Complaints Commissioner, the establishment of merit decision reviews and greater oversight of CASA by the Department of Infrastructure will make a real difference to performance and should be implemented immediately,’’ Mr Hurst said.

However, the AAAA opposed some recommendations, including the identification to CASA of all aircraft accident operator details.

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia said it endorsed key aspects of the report and looked forward to seeing them implemented. “The RAAA will examine the report in detail and will respond to the government’s invitation to provide feedback by the end of June” said chief executive Paul Tyrrell.

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the recommendations in the report “fundamentally highlight the importance of a more productive and collaborative relationship between the regulator and the aviation industry’’.

She said: “Australia has a well-deserved reputation as a leader in aviation safety, but the independent review has identified areas for improvement which will ensure Australia stays at the forefront of best practice in aviation safety regulation.’’ "Slow and steady wins the race!":E

Also heard a rumour the unscreened, less controversial, submissions will be published today...come on Red (M&M) fire up your minions and just get it done already...:ok:

Frank Arouet
13th Jun 2014, 04:24
Public Submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/index.aspx)

13th Jun 2014, 05:15
ASRR submissions released by Forsyth review | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/asrr-submissions-released-by-forsyth-review/)

13th Jun 2014, 06:19
Well there's a quiet bit of reading for the weekend?? :E

Industry take a bow!:D:D:ok:

Capt Casper
13th Jun 2014, 07:51
I have skimmed just a few but these two are excellent.
I would encourage every one to at least draw attention to the submissions of Gary Gaunt and Trevor Jenson to the attention of their local member of federal parliament.
GG's is perhaps a bit terse for someone without an an aviation background but the content is spot on. Thanks Gary.
Trevor's is quite succint and incisive.
Over time I intend to read them all.
The future of aviation generally and GA specifically rests with some good decisions coming from this enquiry!

dubbleyew eight
13th Jun 2014, 08:23
This recommendation is WRONG!

CASA boss John McCormick is leaving the authority, along with two board directors, and the report recommended the next director of aviation safety be chosen for leadership and management change abilities rather than for primarily aviation expertise.

what this actually means is that the nutters in CAsA are convinced that their regulatory rewrite is actually the correct way to go and the next guy just has to force all the industry to accept the 300 million dollar regulatory wank fest.

The next Director of CAsA, if the organisation is to even remain, needs to be an industry savvy pilot/engineer/administrator who can grind all the CAsA bollocks to dust.

Why is it that the Kiwis can create a rules system that works and have had it in place for the last 10 years! thereabouts while we suffer the ex-RAAF fcukwits?

If the minister can't decide on someone contract the job out to the kiwis for a year and get rid of all of the Australian CAsA. give yourself some breathing space.

No Hoper
13th Jun 2014, 09:34
W8, that has merit, recruiting from outside of Australian aviation. Some one who has proven experience in change management, perhaps EASA experienced.

13th Jun 2014, 09:38
The Maitland submission is worth reading too. Particularly the section on conduct of casa offices. I'm sure a lot of the submissions are worth reading. Perhaps there are patterns of behaviour that will become very clear?

13th Jun 2014, 12:33
Two observations to make;

1.The fact that basically 25% of respondents have chosen to remain anonymous gives testimony to the fact that Fort Fumble can't be trusted to accept the umpires decision graciously. Revenge is not a modus operandi that the Regulator is unfamiliar with. And;
2. The Urquhart submission. Shanes submission simply must be read above all, digested and meditated upon. This is the real nuts and bolts of why we absolutely need the system fixed, urgently. Real people are getting killed, real families and friends of those killed are being left to weather the pain and grief these tragedies leave behind for surviving loved ones, and in Shanes case also have to endure the humiliation, deceit and unconscionable actions of putrid bureaucratic scum as they wash blood from their hands. If for no better reason than to provide justice and to give Shane and other countless victims a decent nights rest then change must be actioned immediately. I still believe a royal commission is warranted, accountable persons need to be brought to justice and closure of sorts given to those still suffering.

I remind people that this review and its findings and recommendations are simply that - findings and recommendations. We need to ensure, enforce and demand that the WLR recommendations are accepted by Minister Truss in their entirety, as a starting platform. We will not accept any softcock approach, spin delay tactics or denials. We, the IOS have a duty to continue our quest, as this mission is far from over. We need to continue the fight to turn around the decay within our aviation fabric. Let's keep the bastards honest.

13th Jun 2014, 23:10
It just occurred to me how the words "Civil Aviation Safety Authority" are interpreted in Government circles and I believe all actions and events in the last Twenty years are consistent with my interpretation.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has the job of keeping Government and the public service safe from any occurrence or event in the Australian Aviation industry, period.

It is not there to "protect the public" let alone "serve the industry" or "keep pilots and passengers safe". It is there to protect firstly the Government of the day, then the public service then its own operatives, then the general public, industry operators and finally the poor bloody pilot. That is the hierarchy,period.

I say again, CASA exists to keep the Government safe from Civil Aviation.

This interpretation is consistent with the treatment of Qadrio and James, the embuggerisation of various operators, the lack of interest in a strong ATSB, the confusing, barmy regulations, capricious enforcement, the lack of any industry focus, the lot. All of it is designed to break the chain of accountability leading towards the Minister and the upper reaches of the public service in as many places as possible. This is the reason CASA never prosecutes one of its own even when confronted with written evidence of perjury.

You can bet that my interpretation has been spelled out in detail to the Minister including what happens to "courageous" Ministers who actually attempt to change something - the accountability insulator function of CASA will cease to be effective and the Minister ends up wearing blame.

The only effective way of forcing change in such an environment is to make the Minister more afraid of the public, his constituents, his back bench colleagues and members of the Cabinet then he is of Mr. Mrdak, his Department and CASA.

To that end it may be fruitful to write to your local member and other Cabinet members, for example I'm sure the Treasurer and Minister of Finance would be interested in the enormous cost of regulatory reform, Foreign Affairs would be interested in our international reputation if we are downgraded by the FAA, etc.

Just food for thought.

14th Jun 2014, 00:05
I would encourage every one to at least draw attention to the submissions of Gary Gaunt and Trevor Jenson to the attention of their local member of federal parliament.

I thought I might have been pleasantly surprised but all I could see in one of those submissions was a resume, a job application and a lot of quoting of other reports into well known accidents such as Piper Alpha and Longford.

I remind people that this review and its findings and recommendations are simply that - findings and recommendations.

Well spotted 004, the same goes for all the other Senate Inquiries. It is of no use to state"Well the Government has to do something now!" because they don't have to do anything, it all comes down to what they are willing to do. If the public reaction to the Virgin ATR grounding is any indication(insert sound bite of crickets), then the small demographic of aviation minded public opinion won't prod them to do much at all!

14th Jun 2014, 02:11
I was – until I found this submission – 231 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/231_w_waters_3_feb_2014.pdf)– intrigued by the all out assault from the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). They have always been a very civilised organisation, quietly, without too much fuss managing their affairs and producing some of the finest pilots it has ever been my pleasure to work with. So what rattled the cage of this quiet, but influential outfit. Seems CASA have gone in mob handed in a dedicated mission to find 'the dirt' and managed to offend:

Good effort to get so many submissions in, coordinated effort by good management and active members. Well done GFA.

CASA have acted unconscionably in raiding the GFA Offices, unannounced. This is a total betrayal of trust on their behalf.

Any adverse findings they have found are likely to be clerical errors at best and oversights at worst.

Many years of mutual co-operation, many years of mutual collaboration, many years of mutual trust, gone.

Kelpie on this one – MTF.....

thorn bird
14th Jun 2014, 08:35
"CASA have acted unconscionably in raiding the GFA Offices, unannounced. This is a total betrayal of trust on their behalf."

Yup, aint that the truth!! but do anyone in "Guvmint" give a sh..t.
Remember years ago the polis were getting frustrated because they had to obtain a search warrant to raid private property. Problem was the judges who had to sign them kept asking embarrassing questions.
Polis, as enforcers will, looked for ways around the "LAW" and found it in the unfetted power of Customs who could kick anyone's front door in any time it took their fancy. So Polis raids became customs operations inter-department cooperation and all that, until they raided a house, husband and wife naked on the bedroom floor with shotguns at their heads, screaming kids probably scared for life,...errr.... wrong house...errr...sorry. Husband happened to be a TV reporter...even then it was all swept under the carpet.
Just realize, if you hold any sort of aviation approval, license, delegation,
CAsA have the power to kick your front door in, drag you and your significant other onto the floor at gun point, ransack your house and all they need is?? "Reasonable suspicion"...who decides that??? well of course they do.

14th Jun 2014, 21:15
The 'thing' which intrigues me most is the persistence of this discredited outfit. Naively, when I kicked off the Bankstown Chronicles, I thought it was an isolated problem, local like. Maybe the Truss review has emboldened those who were previously 'afeared to speak', but hells bells, there are some scary stories coming out from under the rocks.

Many of these involve 'operational embuggerance'; now administrative nonsense can be dealt with – through the COM, but when 'strange but true' tales start creeping into SOP, it's time, to put a foot down, with a firm hand. Things equally as wrong as power off and both hands on the wheel at 50' during landing (true dat) are being inflicted on Chief pilots and forced into SOP. Cooperate or no sign off; and no, you cannot have a written directive. I will not bore you with the tales; I have discarded many as being 'dubious', but the remainder are from experienced pro pilots who are forced to endure some of the most infantile, pedantic, operationally risible tenets ever published. It has to be stopped, here and now would be great...

Unless someone gets a rope on some of these buggers there's going to be a prang. It will not be attributable to the half wit who enforced the change, but to whoever is the number one moving target – in a line of three.

The minister must be taken gently, by the Senators if need be to a place where this can be stopped. The top dressing of change is a great start, it really is; but the termites have been at work for a long while now and I'm not certain the 'operational' foundations can support the weight much longer. I know, it's easy to say the chief pilot should tell them to bugger off and take their silly notions with 'em; but then, the reality of financial pressures, operational expediency, not wanting to be in a stand up brawl with the local FOI and a peaceful life are powerful incentives.

Truss must act, swiftly, purposefully with intent, it really is getting messy out here.

Toot toot.

14th Jun 2014, 21:16
I just read the CASA submission. I can't copy and paste relevant sections but it made me want to throw up, especially 6.2 about enforcement.

14th Jun 2014, 21:27
Well done Sunny, (Choc frog) I only got to part 1 and reached for the bucket.

6.2 On those rare occasions when resort to the use of our enforcement powers becomes necessary, CASA is proud of its demonstrable ability and willingness to act with resolve and without fear or favour. At the same time, however, we are keenly aware of the fact that the exercise of our enforcement powers can have a profound effect on the reputation, affairs and livelihood of the persons affected by our actions, and of our corollary obligation to ensure that, when we do take action, we do so in an even-handed, proportionate and in all other respects entirely appropriate-and lawful-manner.

Demonstrable – "clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved."

Demonstrated – "clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence."

The devil as always – in the disingenuous details.....

15th Jun 2014, 01:13
Bring me another bucket ffs. !!

That statement is a classic example of the difference between the CAsA dreamland/fairyland and the GA reality ...and CAsA persons behaviour out in the real world. :mad::mad:

Who wrote this shite????:mad::mad::mad:

Its absolutely untrue , its bullsh*t with a capitol B....BULLSH*T.
Its a total heap of ar$e covering motherhood crap that I bet the author doesnt even believe.:mad::mad:

If this is the intellectual capacity of people calling the shots in the Funny Farm, and they are not part of the Truss cull...if there is one.. then we are in for a very torrid/horrid time.
Ops normal? :{

15th Jun 2014, 05:18
Aroa, that drivel that CAsA submitted has the DNA of a Witchdoctor and the bloated Board chairman smeared all over it! If even 1% of that pony pooh was true I would cancel my retirement plans and opt for another 10 years in such a well supported and safe industry which is oversighted by some of the most wonderful, beautiful and nice Regulators to grace mother Earth since the days of the Wright brothers :ok:

15th Jun 2014, 07:42
Ploughing thru the AsRR subs...some good reading in there.:ok:

And then you come to the CAsA sub..Dont they have a lot to say/for about themselves.? Jeez we're lucky

Apart from 6.2 as an upchucker (bucket required), and there are others,,,I just loved the new definition for "polishing the turd"....

....A HELPFUL THEMATIC GLOSS....aka the shiny hand polished BS one expects from CAsA.
CLASSIC...!! :ok::ok:

15th Jun 2014, 08:38
A breakup of the released submissions reveals that there are over 30% [one-in-three] that wished the submissions to remain confidential.

Why is this the case?? A breakup of this shows the principle source of the submissions. (http://vocasupport.com/asrr-submission-breakup-why-the-large-number-of-confidential-submissions/)

Definitely good reading.

casa and atsb are not off the hook and it is up to Minister Truss to get this right and go the full "mile", not draw up short now.

Up to you Mr. Truss and don't depend on your minions.

yr right
15th Jun 2014, 08:52
Yep like prosecute a 70 plus year old because you have a set against him not once not twice but 4 times.

Then you don't do anything about a person signing out defects and ADs when the person not a lame a ame not a nothing what did casa do. Nothing.

Or how about this one on damp.

Convicted ( pleaded guilty ) for having growing drugs (14 plants plus extra stuff ) no conviction recorded by the court and what have casa done.


15th Jun 2014, 10:18
My dealings with CASA have led to major depression and massive loss. My life is now a misery controlled by medication and hope. In the UK they have a law covering Corporate Manslaughter. Perhaps Aust needs Corporate Bullying.
I'm history, but this should not happen to anyone else. The skull and the GWM need to be held to account, held responsible, fired and charged for a multitude of offences under the Act and criminal law.
Never should this happen to anyone again.

yr right
15th Jun 2014, 10:26

I feel for you. I have so much on them that if they come at me I'll smash them again.
I might add with the above post they tried 4 times to prosecute him and 4 times they lost. How ever it cost him a fortune to defend him self.
They scrum people that can't make it into the real world. One awi I know grounds aircraft if the brake rotors are under size. Don't matter if they over size at the check and go under in service they still legal till the next service.

If you are in Nsw you may have a case against them. I don't know about over states.

15th Jun 2014, 21:17
Yes Minister, we do appear to have a problem of epic proportions. No sir, we are not exaggerating, in fact your review, even though the terms of reference were very narrow and limiting, has provided a picture of a desperate industry, rapidly approaching crisis. Yes, there are indeed some major items which will be addressed and for that we thank you. But while industry patiently waits for those changes to take place, would you consider an embargo on any and all CASA actions against companies and individuals.

The hiatus need not be lengthy; just long enough for sane, independent, impartial assessment to be made on the merits of any CASA case. The CVD matter provides the quintessential example; flawed logic, flawed evidence, flawed motivation supported by public money against a few individuals. There is no logical reason to expend those monies, simply to cause untold stress and to wreak havoc on the lives of ordinary, hard working Australian families. It is not an isolated case; there are many more hidden beneath the CASA mirror.

It is certain that Forsyth and his panel have been privy to at least some of the industry woes, even though they were outside his ToR; Senators of the Pel Air inquiry have equally pertinent information, certainly enough to justify a brief period of peace, during the transition. Even if only to ensure those proposed actions are legally 'safe and sound'.

The proposed changes whilst important will not remove existing radical problems: safety is at risk; we were lucky, very lucky with the Virgin ATR. Good luck cannot be relied on to cure self inflicted damage, such as:-

- Incorrect, unnecessary, potentially lethal changes to the way aircraft are operated through the pet notions or inexperienced assumptions of inept flight operations staff being inflicted through SOP and 'modified' manufacturers check procedures. (Truly alarming).

- The engineers who maintain aircraft cannot be expected to continue to do their important work while continuously glancing over their shoulder to make sure 'the man' is not watching, taking notes and looking for half an excuse to prosecute.

- The many individuals who's lives and careers have been decimated without a shred of evidence coming before a court, John Quadrio is one of many as is Dominic James.

Just put the brakes on Minister, just for while – until sanity and balance return and everyone has had a chance to achieve a state of mind where change can be effectively made though good will, rather than through a jack boot. This is an angry industry, patiently waiting for real change. Just as it would be an error to tease a large hungry dog with a small bone, so it would be to further torment industry.

Put the brakes on Warren, call off the dogs and lets see if we cannot get this industry going forward again, in concert with rather than diametrically opposed to the regulator which exists to serve it, not rule it.


15th Jun 2014, 22:45
Personally, I would throw open every position in CASA and make existing employees reapply for their jobs.

If Minister Truss can't get this right, then there is no hope for him or his government.

15th Jun 2014, 23:34
Personally, I would throw open every position in CASA and make existing employees reapply for their jobs.

If Minister Truss can't get this right, then there is no hope for him or his government.

16th Jun 2014, 05:46
Well done industry – some very adroit, succinct, educated comment made. The amount of work done and the care taken is impressive. I reckon the Rev. Forsyth was handed about a million bucks worth of first class industry expert advice, gratis. Submissions to the WLR speak highly of the dedication and professionalism entrenched within.

The patterns which emerge from the submissions are clear; it's interesting though that only the 'professional pilot' groups had anything significant to say about the ATSB, others made mention but the core issues were taken head on and best addressed by the following: - AFAP (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/225_afap_3_feb_2014_redacted.pdf) - : - AIPA (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/197_aipa_31_jan_2014_redacted.pdf)- : -VIPA (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/184_vipa_31_jan_2014_redacted.pdf).

The ATSB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/157_atsb_31_jan_2014.pdf) submission, like Oliver simply asks for more porridge and can be as easily dismissed as the pathetic (bloody disgraceful) – press release – doled out as an 'interim' report on the ATR incident. Annexe 19 - indeed.

It seems that most agree that the ATSB is, essentially a viable outfit with some good crew, a modicum of residual respect; and, is salvageable, despite the 'aberrations' of the past. But I can't see how anything else but independence in the manner of the NTSB can be effective. The hated Miller review and the bastardised MoU rightfully get some diplomatic wet lettuce, but the message comes through clear enough, for gummint work anyway. General consensus seems to be that the Forsyth report recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 11 are generally acceptable, workable and heading in the right direction.

3. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigates as many fatal accidents in the sport and recreational aviation sector as its resources will allow.

4. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority utilise the provision in their bilateral Memorandum of Understanding to accredit CASA observers to ATSB investigations.

5. The Australian Government appoints an additional Australian Transport Safety Bureau Commissioner with aviation operational and safety management experience.

11. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority amend the wording of their existing Memorandum of Understanding to make it more definitive about interaction, coordination, and cooperation.

The ones which may provoke discussion and dissent are 19 and 20.

19. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, without redaction or de-identification.

I'd like to see this happen, eventually; but for the while I feel that industry nerves endings are frayed and patience stretched a little too thin. Perhaps when faith can be placed in the hands of a truly reformed, mature regulator; then. But right now it requires a blind leap of faith. We shall see.

20. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers its safety education function to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Now I can't make up my mind on this one; instinctively, I'm a'gin it. CASA have made total bloody fools of themselves in the ATO personal development program and a dogs breakfast of just about every 'educational' program they have so far attempted. But, has ATSB the resources, skills and core 'mission' to get the job done right. The old 'crash comic' was a ripper, I know I learned heaps from it – back in the day. Perhaps this could be an alternative – ATSB investigation, translated to objective 'training' modules, cheap, cheerful and rewarding. Dunno – but it makes my old wooden head ache.....

Good job you guys and girls {inserts round of applause, big smile and Choccy frogs all round}.

Anyway – enough of reading submissions for me, for the while at least. Maybe some telly a couple of cold ones after a romp with the hounds. Ayup, a night off is declared, (midnight oil placed firmly in the cupboard).

Toot toot.

16th Jun 2014, 09:45
If any one wonders why CASA cannot produce a simple and plain set of safety standards, you only have to look at the CASA submission to the safety review to find the answer. It is amazing that this convoluted piece of nonsense was allowed to see the light of day without someone taking a red pen to the draft. It is clearly written by a lawyer, with its dense, turgid and impenetrable style. No prize for guessing who that lawyer may (004wercras got it right I think).Why use one word when you can use 10? Why use plain words when you can use archaic legal jargon that gives your submission “gravitas” (not).

Take a look at the sentence structure. Full of parenthetical phrases that qualify every word written. By the time you get to the end of a sentence, you forget what it was about. I particularly like the 91 word sentence in paragraph 3.4 which says (I’m not quite sure what it says but it sounds impressive):

“But whilst other considerations will properly be subordinated to any safety-related considerations with which the former are irreconcilably inconsistent, where two (or more) alternative courses of action are open to CASA, each equally conducive to optimal safety outcomes, but one less burdensome or economically problematic than another for a person whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations will be affected by CASA’s actions, CASA is effectively obliged to entertain and, in the absence of any other legitimate and legally sustainable reasons for not doing so, to adopt the less burdensome option”. To be sure!

As can be seen for the quote above, sentences in the submission run on for 100s of words. Whole paragraphs consist of a single sentence. Unbelievable. In para 4.2 a sentence is 109 words long. In paragraph 4.8 a sentence is 97 words long. In paragraphs 5.3 and 6.13 the paragraphs are just one long sentence, each with more than 170 words. The submission is riddled with such examples. The average sentence in the submission is probably 40 or 50 words long. How can this be? Doesn’t anyone in CASA have ANY idea about writing in simple English. Do they just allow the lawyers to write what they want without any check for sense, grammar or comprehensibility. Given the fact one of the lawyers in CASA was Australia’s representative in Montreal many years ago, it is perhaps not surprising that the submission is written as if it were a preamble to a Convention. See paragraph 6.13 where the CASA is “assiduously assuring” transparency and “developing, implementing and continually refining ‘pre-decisional’ review processes”. Check the wonderful linguistic symmetry in paragraph 91 where the Review Terms of reference are said to “contemplate a multitude of multifaceted, timely and, in certain cases, contested and understandably controversial issues”. But CASA acknowledges that “the preparation of adequately developed responsive comments that are, at once, concise and cogent has been a daunting task”. And CASA clearly has failed miserably in this task.

And obviously no one bothered to correct the submission for errors - no doubt they were too busy making important policy decisions. See for example para 2.4 “All these educative are to be performed...”. What does this mean? Seems they omitted the word “functions” after educative - but who knows? And look at para 5.3 (that wonderfully succinct sentence that consists of 173 words - “the volume of material that may bare on a round consideration of these issues”. Surely they meant “that may bear”? But perhaps “bare” is correct after all, given that it means “naked” or “nude” - just as this submission is naked or nude of any meaningful content. And what is a “round consideration”? Is it different from an ordinary consideration or a square consideration (at least square rhymes with bare).

So do not wonder why CASA can’t prepare standards in plain simple English. Just read this submission and you will have your answer why they can't.

thorn bird
16th Jun 2014, 10:40
Borto, mate,

thats the whole point, if the punters understood it, we wouldn't have to employ a bunch of people to tell them what it means???
....according to them???....which may not necessarily mean what he thinks over there???....

but what would he know???...the bloke over here thinks their both wrong....

so go back to the first bloke....Na, sorry, he's been moved, now this other bloke who thinks their all wrong...

bloody hell I've rewritten this ten times now I'm back to the original!!!...Hang on this is costing $190 per hour!!!!

What a Nice little earner :}:ugh:

16th Jun 2014, 11:03
“But whilst other considerations will properly be subordinated to any safety-related considerations with which the former are irreconcilably inconsistent, where two (or more) alternative courses of action are open to CASA, each equally conducive to optimal safety outcomes, but one less burdensome or economically problematic than another for a person whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations will be affected by CASA’s actions, CASA is effectively obliged to entertain and, in the absence of any other legitimate and legally sustainable reasons for not doing so, to adopt the less burdensome option”. To be sure!

Use the most cost effective solution where two or more options exist offering the same levels of safety?

But I guess it could mean whatever they want it to mean.

16th Jun 2014, 11:42
3.4 The person that wrote that has missed his/her true calling.
Should bugger off to the BBC and try for a job as a contract script writer for "Yes, Minister" :ok:

Will need to rewrite "CAsA,The Musical" ( banned from Prune) to "CAsA The Horror Movie" if Warren doesn't give the place an enema and do some serious corridor cleansing of (Non) Aviation House.

Do they put some mind-bending vapour in the airconditioning in the silly place?.

We, the people have long had more than enough of this meaningless, expensive rubbish.

16th Jun 2014, 11:52
Couple of quotes


"Civil Service language: 'Sometimes one is forced to consider the possibility that affairs are being conducted in a manner which, all things being considered and making all possible allowances is, not to put too fine a point on it, perhaps not entirely straightforward.
Translation: 'You are lying'."

"The Prime Minister doesn't want the truth, he wants something he can tell Parliament."

16th Jun 2014, 11:58
Like shutting down an airline on Christmas Eve?

16th Jun 2014, 12:28
Boratous, because Kharon is taking the night off I pinched a bag of his Choccy frogs and I am sending them to you! When you see the Styx Ferry pull up please don't panic, the Ferryman often runs odd jobs on behalf of the IOS on his downtime!! Your post has to be one of the funniest, astute and most accurate posts that has tickled my fancy in ages :ok:
The CAsA response was unequivocally the biggest load of complete and utter bullshit that I have read in a long long time. These guys must be either sniffing each other's underwear or snorting ICE 3 times per day. And the taxpayer is footing the bill for the excessive salaries of these knobs :mad: :mad: :mad:
Can't wait til the Wichdoctors ramblings in the report are then taken by the overweight Board Chairman and turned into some glossy brochure or some other nonsense and then on-sold to some third world country as a 'model of best practise Australian style'!

Maybe we should contact ISIS on Twatter or Farcebook and ask them to fix the CAsA problem once they have finished their work in Iraq??

16th Jun 2014, 22:32
When brother Sunfish # 918 manfully struggled through the whole CASA offering to 6.2 without up-chucking, I was impressed. Impressed that anyone had actually bothered to read and try to make sense of the wretched thing, let alone have the fortitude to raise issue. The 6.2 part which nearly did for him was classic; the rest IMO was equally 'amusing' and provided lots of first rate ammunition for a rainy day. The problem was whether to use it then and there or to keep it, for best.....

The fine post by Boratous (legend) is a brilliant opening gambit and spot on for my money. The sub text, standing alone, is a masterly demonstration of how to blow away the smoke, cover the mirrors and turn over the rocks. All there and very nicely done...

I know how much time it takes to deconstruct a tome like the CASA submission, it's not a job for those with weak stomachs, nor those who just read the 'words'. Firstly you must be prepared to dedicate a few hours of your short life to plough through, then digest it all, then; if the muse descends and ennui has not carried you off, refine the thoughts to a few short paragraphs for the enjoyment of the IOS. Well done that 'man'.

If you get a minute or three, try the Boratous system on a paragraph or two. It's rewarding and it will define, in a 100 words or less, why the Bored, the management and probably 30% of the CASA crew have to go; and go now. You see boys and girls – they actually understand the submission, support it and unashamedly believe it's righteous. Just ask Wodger, master wordsmith and plagiarist, probably keeps a copy in the dunny. There's a couple of wannabe wordsmiths currently languishing in the halls of Sleepy Hollow; some of their 'work' is equally risible, disingenuous and would be comic, if folks took it apart, rather than read and believe it to be 'the' new gospel. It is all very unfortunate, but true. We must hope that Truss sees it for what it is. Sunny has bagged 6.2, find your favourite part and have a go. Definitely more to follow on this topic. More demolition after this message from our sponsors.

004 – Cheers for covering the night shift, very much obliged to you sir. You are correct; brother Boratous need not fear the ferry, honoured guests and friends are always made most welcome.

Toot toot.

16th Jun 2014, 23:32
As requested, a user friendly version of the CASA submission to the Forsyth review.

From Zippyshare – so only click the big red - "Download Now (http://www29.zippyshare.com/v/71413140/file.html)" - button, to avoid spam and other associated necessary evils. Despite some 'adjustments' it is still a large file and may take a minute or two to download.

Happy copy and pasting.

P6. a.k.a. Ping, ping.

17th Jun 2014, 02:05
Excellent post Boratous, definitely one for the archives…:ok:

“If any one wonders why CASA cannot produce a simple and plain set of safety standards, you only have to look at the CASA submission to the safety review to find the answer. It is amazing that this convoluted piece of nonsense was allowed to see the light of day without someone taking a red pen to the draft. It is clearly written by a lawyer, with its dense, turgid and impenetrable style.”

Some other casual observations on the almost totally unreadable, irrelevant, substandard & taxpayer funded #sub239 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/239_casa_6_feb_2014.pdf) (presumably co-authored by Hoodoo Voodoo & Flying Fiend)….:yuk::yuk:

To begin with Fort Fumble must have taken up the Forsyth offer for late submissions as the PDF version was produced on the 06 February, one week after the due by date. One wonders if this was not another show of contempt, much like in the Senate, at saluting the good panel with the proverbial middle finger…

Herr Skull: “I will not indulge this IOS instigated propaganda with a timely response as it will all come to nought”

But then word got leaked that there was over 200 submissions (& growing) that all firmly pointed the finger at FF as the true axis of evil and industry woes…“Herr DAS we may have a problem”. A problem which was amplified by, until recently the outspoken but largely supportive AAAA, with their submission which was published on here a day after the closing date.

Next OBS is the electronic size of #sub239, it is by far and away the largest (nearly 14MB) with the next closest being the AAAA submission (8MB), which interestingly enough was submitted exactly 200 subs before Fort Fumble’s piece of perverse shite..:ugh:

Some would say that the size is reflective of the FF need to protect their position (as in right of reply) and therefore you would expect a rather voluminous submission in response…right?? Errr…wrong! The FF cynical, submissive effort is only 24 pages long and the only reason the file is so big is that it is, in typical FF secret squirrel style, enshrouded in multi-layers of security presumably to stop the IOS easily (doing a Wodger) and plagiarising/quoting useful bits of aviation regulation folklore…:E

Moving along…

Kharon: "...If you get a minute or three, try the Boratous system on a paragraph or two. It's rewarding and it will define, in a 100 words or less, why the Bored, the management and probably 30% of the CASA crew have to go; and go now. You see boys and girls – they actually understand the submission, support it and unashamedly believe it's righteous. Just ask Wodger, master wordsmith and plagiarist, probably keeps a copy in the dunny. There's a couple of wannabe wordsmiths currently languishing in the halls of Sleepy Hollow; some of their 'work' is equally risible, disingenuous and would be comic, if folks took it apart, rather than read and believe it to be 'the' new gospel..."

Still working on defragging the complete FF dismissive missive but in the meantime going off Bora’s quoted piece from, what I presume to be, the FF address of ToR 1…

“• the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;”

…where we see FF begin to weave their lies, deceit and bulldust under the veil of safety (MOAS)…


And so it goes on and on…

Quote from the AAAA submission (page 4-5) could be equally applied to this disgusting document…

“…The latest glossy publication from CASA – the inaugural Aviation Safety Yearbook – is an excellent example of a costly exercise that portrays CASA’s performance as rosy, when the message from the industry coal-face is jarringly different. Such a publication contributes nothing to aviation safety or the reputation of the regulator. It is a cynical and embarrassing publication if it has been released to try and project a better image of CASA, its management and its Board at a time when the government has instituted a significant review into that and other aviation agencies.
The systems-based ‘futureproofing’ of an organisation described above reduces the risk of any individual or group taking an organisation in a direction where its deviancy can be normalised, its culture corrupted and its essential relationship with industry junked...”

The AAAA submission then goes on to say…

“In the case of CASA, however, the relationship with industry and objective performance of key functions has degraded to the point where it is critical for a significant change of senior personnel to signal a resetting of the aviation regulatory agenda and a new start to CASA’s relationship with industry.
This change must include both the existing Board (who have demonstrated no industry leadership and no strategic grasp on CASA), as well as the top two to three levels of CASA management that has created outcomes that are now pulling down the safety culture of the entire industry.”:D

…which very much reinforces the “K” quote (above) i.e. the Bored & the Exec management (at least) have got to go ASAP (like yesterday Miniscule).

Finally for still further evidence (if indeed it is still needed) of the truly open contempt that these jokers in CAsA have for all their minority of critics, go no further than the final page of the submission, not labelled 'Summary' or 'Conclusion' but ‘Concluding Remarks’…:ugh:

Kind of says it all really…:rolleyes:

Ps Thank you PAIN I can use that…MTF!:ok:

17th Jun 2014, 02:33
I nominate this as the longest sentence in the CASA submission:5.3 Given the significance and complexity of the issues involved, and the volume of material that may bare on a round consideration of these issues, CASA looks forward to the opportunity to discuss a range of matters germane to regulatory reform and implementation with members of the Review Panel, in the course of which additional pertinent information and supportive materials can be provided, along with responses to any specific questions Review Panel members may have about:

• the processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (including Civil Aviation Orders);

• planned and proposed improvements to these processes generally, and in relation to legislation related to the activities of particular sectors of the aviation industry;

• the identification and reduction of costs and other administrative burdens involved in the implementation of new legislation, and the conduct of operations under that legislation;

• priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and

• the suitability and appropriateness of existing and anticipated Australian aviation safety regulations, benchmarked against other comparable overseas jurisdiction.Over 170 words.

Translation: The regulatory reform program will drift along forever.

The scariest thing is that the government is going to continue feeding this Frankenstein around $20 million a year, indefinitely, to continue building a regulatory paradise for the aviation industry in Australia.

Any advance on 170?

17th Jun 2014, 04:53
Creampuff I think the second sentence in paragraph 6.13 may be slightly longer - I counted 184 words before I nearly fell asleep. But I'm not sure what it means - perhaps you can decipher it? I think it means "We couldn't be stuffed introducing an internal review process for regulatory decisions". To be sure, I could be wrong because by the time I got to the end I forgot what it was about and I didn't have time to go back to the beginning.

17th Jun 2014, 07:29
Although not nearly as long as Bor-it-up-em's...:E 6.13 word count, however 6.22 is worthy of respect (162 words by my count) as it is a full and complete para with no bullet-points. I can also (unbelievably..:E) understand large slabs of it, maybe because FF are quite proud of their achievements in the area of enforcement action.

With that in mind, and to put 6.22 in context I have decided to quote the whole relevant section.

WARNING : BYO bucket..:yuk: {I believe this warning is in red}:
Assessing the Effectiveness of Enforcement

6.21 As all regulators, and those who closely study the processes of regulation, know only too well, it can be difficult to accurately and reliably measure the effectiveness of enforcement action.55 One useful and objective measure of the effectiveness of CASA's enforcement processes is reflected in the number of CASA decisions affirmed in the AAT and the number of prosecutions mounted by the CDPP in which convictions or findings of guilt were obtained.

6.22 On these measures-which appear in CASA's 2012-13 Annual Report for that year and the preceding five years,56 and which have been updated to 31 December 2013 in material recently provided to the Review Panei-CASA's performance may fairly be characterised as very good and steadily improving. As the Review Panel will have seen in the data we have already provided, there has been a significant increase in the number of what might be described as 'successful' enforcement outcomes for CASA over the past three years. And whilst there may be a number of reasons for this, one compelling explanation is that the enforcement action taken in response to the breaches identified has been more appropriate, and the decisions taken were the product of greater circumspection and consideration. At all events, these results arguably reflect the positive effects of CASA's commitment to, and a growing appreciation amongst CASA's managers and staff for the importance of, better informed and better disciplined decision-making.

6.23 More importantly, as the majority of potential enforcement matters that have arisen in recent years have been subject to the Coordinated Enforcement Process, it is notable that, in the last 12 months, of the approximately 300 matters referred to the Coordinated Enforcement Process, 46 resulted in recommendations for initiating administrative action (usually to vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation), 103 infringement being notices issued and 14 matters being referred to the CDPP. {I believe 6.22 is in green??} Besides the obvious self-congratulation going on in those paragraphs, I think what FF are inferring is..."We are a law unto ourselves"...:=...however I'm not entirely sure?? :rolleyes:

On the same subject matter I noticed that the REX submission had this much more understandable summary (with stats) on page 15:

This has deteriorated in recent years. CASA seems preoccupied with acting as a ‘Big R’ regulator rather than working in partnership with industry to achieve better safety outcomes. The amount of enforcement activity has increased while the service delivery standards established in 2006 are no longer applied.

Examination of CASA annual reports show a strong upward trend in the number of infringement notices issued by CASA.

FY/Notices '05/79 '06/107 '07/109 '08/146 '09/153 '10/171 '11/135 '12/197 '13/190

The CASA Service Charter says, in part:
A good regulator will demonstrate fairness, good judgement, and be
flexible and responsive to the changing environment in which the aviation
industry operates… CASA must provide a high level of client service, and
treat clients with consideration and courtesy.

Rex is of the view that CASA is not fulfilling its obligations with respect to client services. As an example, there has been a lengthening of the processing time for aircrew medical certificates leading to periods when pilots are unable operate aircraft.

Over the past year Rex has lost 20 pilot days as a result of the late renewal of aircrew medical certificates.

The CASA approved Rex Group Audit Manual provides at section 2.2.4: 2.2.4 Third Party Supplier/Contractor Self Assessment Review and Reminder.

Self assessment forms are distributed to each supplier/contractor via email or posted via mail biennially. Once returned, the completed forms are reviewed, the supplier/contractor is risk rated and the relevant "Third Party Suppliers Register" is updated.

CASA is a supplier of regulatory services and accordingly was requested to complete a Third Party Self-Assessment Review form. CASA denied the request on the grounds that the services it provides to Rex are in accordance with its statutory obligations, and are not subject to contract.

Rex considers that the regulatory services functions of CASA are the same as any other supplier and should be subject to the same scrutiny. In some cases services have been contracted out by CASA to third parties where they are then subject to audit.

The relationship with CASA presents a significant business risk for the Rex Group and it is only prudent that Regional Express should seek to scrutinise the internal processes of CASA to ensure they comply with its statutory obligations and requirements.

Alternatively, CASA should be subject to scrutiny from an independent body. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner is a part of CASA and reports directly to the Director so cannot be considered independent. Rex believes that CASA should be oversighted by a specialist Ombudsman similar to those that exist in other industries such as telecommunications. Now there is a passage of text & stats that even the man at the back of the room can get his head around...:D:D

{Comment: On Section 6 Improving Oversight and Enforcement of
the Aviation Regulations, I note that they forgot to mention the DAS (STBR) embuggerance loophole, as proudly stated (by the DAS) in the foreword of the enforcement (embuggerance) manual}:Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.MTF...:ok:

17th Jun 2014, 08:04
CASA hoist with its own petard:

6.23 More importantly, as the majority of potential enforcement matters that have arisen in recent years have been subject to the Coordinated Enforcement Process, it is notable that, in the last 12 months, of the approximately 300 matters referred to the Coordinated Enforcement Process, 46 resulted in recommendations for initiating administrative action (usually to vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation), 103 infringement being notices issued and 14 matters being referred to the CDPP.


300 referrals broken down as :

137 - No action.

!03 - Infringement notices.

46 - suspensions or cancellations.

14 - Prosecution attempts.

1. Out of 163 allegedly actionable events, only 14 (8%) were found to have enough evidence admissible in a court of law to be capable of prosecution.

2. Out of 60 cancellations or suspensions, only 14 (23%) were found to have enough evidence admissible in a court of law. The balance (77%) were not tested in court.

17th Jun 2014, 09:51
Prosecution serves different policy purposes to suspension or cancellation action.

(Well played, Boratous: 6.13 is now in the lead! :ok:)

dubbleyew eight
17th Jun 2014, 10:42
I can see a pattern in CAsA's legal work. you create a term cobbled together out of nonsense words. then you make it a heinous crime. then you mount an inquisition hunting for miscreants.

ok could someone please tell me what the term 'endangering the safety of aerial navigation' actually means.

I've only been at this aviation pursuit of mine for 41 years.
I've tried to make sense of the term but in all honesty it is an assembly of nonsense words.

yr right
17th Jun 2014, 11:44
How ever the cost involed for the inacent still would have amounted to thousands of dollars and added stress that was not needed or called for.
There own actions should be accountable for a start as a minimum. If they stuff up they should have to pay costs. This is the joke we now all living.


17th Jun 2014, 11:49
REX are right on the money! However I pity them during the next audit, CAsA don't like bad things said about them :=
They said,
Alternatively, CASA should be subject to scrutiny from an independent body. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner is a part of CASA and reports directly to the Director so cannot be considered independent. Rex believes that CASA should be oversighted by a specialist Ombudsman similar to those that exist in other industries such as telecommunications
I heard on ABC radio this morning that there may be an independent audit of Fort Fumble coming up, but I guess seeing is believing. But it would be interesting to see the ANAO, FAA and ICAO all undertake a robust audit of the "long sentence, wank word spewing big 'R' regulator":E

P.S Rather unfortunately I have read a number of transcripts and silly articles by the Witchdoctor over the years, and I am sure that there are other sentences in those ridiculous writings that beat Sir Boratous and Creamy's postings! However the Doctors ramblings are so painful to endure that I would rather count the hairs on Chairman Hawkes spotty ass, watch paint dry, or spend an entire year cleaning the worm castings out of the Brisbane CAsA HQ worm farm with my teeth.

dubbleyew eight
17th Jun 2014, 12:00
If I were the man at Rex I would video record all of CAsA's next inspections.

Why would you do that you might ask?

evidence me lud, evidence. ...CAsA will work hard not to create any :E

17th Jun 2014, 16:22
Put the casa snippet above into a readability index tool. Didn't come out as bad as I expected!

Readability Test Bookmarklet
The Readability Test Tool
Let's make the unreadable readable
Readability Test Results

This page has an average grade level of about 17.

It should be easily understood by 22 to 23 year olds.

Tweet this result!

Readability Indices

Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease 23.4
Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 17.9
Gunning Fog Score 20.2
SMOG Index 15.1
Coleman Liau Index 14.2
Automated Readability Index 18.5
Text Statistics

No. of sentences 10
No. of words 320
No. of complex words 69
Percent of complex words 21.56%
Average words per sentence 32.00
Average syllables per word 1.78
What do these results mean?

The indicator bars give a visual guide for the readability of the text. Red is a low readability score. Green is easily readable.

Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease

Based on a 0-100 scale. A high score means the text is easier to read. Low scores suggest the text is complicated to understand.

206.835 - 1.015 x (words/sentences) - 84.6 x (syllables/words)
A value between 60 and 80 should be easy for a 12 to 15 year old to understand.

Grade Level indicators

These equate the readability of the text to the US schools grade level system.

Flesch Kincaid Grade Level

0.39 x (words/sentences) + 11.8 x (syllables/words) - 15.59
Gunning Fog Score

0.4 x ( (words/sentences) + 100 x (complexWords/words) )
SMOG Index

1.0430 x sqrt( 30 x complexWords/sentences ) + 3.1291
Coleman Liau Index

5.89 x (characters/words) - 0.3 x (sentences/words) - 15.8
Automated Readability Index (ARI)

4.71 x (characters/words) + 0.5 x (words/sentences) - 21.43
Coleman Liau and ARI rely on counting characters, words and sentence. The other indices consider number of syllables and complex words (polysyllabics - with 3 or more syllables) too. Opinions vary on which type are the most accurate. It is more difficult to automate the counting of syllable as the English language does not comply to strict standards!

Creampuff's sentence didn't fair well

Reading Ease

A higher score indicates easier readability; scores usually range between 0 and 100.

Readability Formula Score
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 11.7
Grade Levels

A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. Scores over 22 should generally be taken to mean graduate level text.

Readability Formula Grade
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 21.2
Gunning-Fog Score 23.2
Coleman-Liau Index 14.6
SMOG Index 15.8
Automated Readability Index 22.1
Average Grade Level 19.4
Text Statistics

Character Count 397
Syllable Count 142
Word Count 77
Sentence Count 2
Characters per Word 5.2
Syllables per Word 1.8
Words per Sentence 38.5

17th Jun 2014, 20:00
I would prefer to wait, a very long wait before havng to endure the Sleepy Hollow spin machine swinging into action. But word is the slaves are in the basement, sweating and cursing shovelling coal into the spin boiler as part of the pre start check. The GWM in their favourite ensemble de jour, Mai Tai in one hand, whip in 'tuther; keeping the trolls and catamites 'at it'.

It won't be too long before the 'machine' starts phase two. Historically it's their default defence; start producing masses of stultifying, sacrin sweet, meaningless, motherhood nonsense in glossy covers – "But minister – look-see here, we done all this real good stuff" (produces large pile of twaddle) "we tried hard" (shows sweaty hanky) "but they are obdurate and stubborn, just the ills of society, impossible creatures; here read this world class educational material", (hands over large pile of bumf with smirk). – Safe in the knowledge that no one political will read it, certain the mystique of air safety will protect and having no doubt at all that no one would dare question 'the authority': even if they could understand it....

They could of course save the coal, too little, too late and way too much damage to repair. Sack them minister, sack the whole bloody lot. Save the dollars and shut the spin machine down before it gets going and we have to wade through anymore nauseating clap trap. You watch – 'Understanding the new regulations 101' will on the streets before the ink is dry.

Now, if you think their submission to Forsyth was risible, wait until the dross and Tosh for industry starts to flow through. Masters of cynical deception, Kings of spin, the artful dodgers of the legal and aeronautical world; smoke and mirrors specialists all. All without a blind clue of how to manage aviation. For expert, experienced advice on industry, stick with professionals; read their submissions and compare. Don't let 'em fool you mate – not again.

Toot toot

17th Jun 2014, 22:04
Kharon, with 267? Submissions there must be patterns evident. Surely can't be a coincidence and all fake from ios.

A visit from FAA or icao could be the straw that breaks camels back.

But yeah, they may just pull off another magic trick and fool the minister.

It is like the emperors new clothes though.

18th Jun 2014, 00:42
While CAsA may pat itself on the back with IF/PNs count,one has to ask what they were all for and the relevance to any "safety case"...if there was one.??

For example... Phil The Dill (LIster of Barrier infamy) got CAsA $550 from a PPL for adding hydraulic fluid to his brake reserviour. Perp failed to enter that action on the MR...because now in Sched 8 there is a new footnote statement.. that an entry be made in the MR .."if appropriate".
So Phil decides on the appropriateness of an MR entry or otherwise.
And the result is one seriously pissed off PPL and the benefit to the "safety case" is, as usual ZERO. Some fn statistic! Bet there are similar others.

This is the method of totalitarianism...one never knows how the "rules" will play out. Nothing is fixed.:mad:

Cooperative approach by CAsA? NO. Safety benefit? NO :mad::mad:
But it does allow tossers to exercise the small penile power muscle and pretend they are saving Australia from falling aeroplanes and ensuring the safety of air navigation.

18th Jun 2014, 01:15
What is safer? 10,000 penalty notices issued or Zero penalty notices issued?

accidents / incidents per thousand hours is the only true measure.

as for cost benefit analysis, there is plenty of published methodology for that.

what for example, is the point of me fitting ADS-B? I thought about a GTN650 as a certified nav source with a Garmin 330 transponder. AhHa! I thought, little Sunfish will be plainly visible to all and sundry and ATC will smooth my path for me on occasion.

Then I realised that all I was doing was fitting an automatic infringement generator with zero safety benefit to me personally. A simple ADSB feed to CASA from Airservices and CASA is alerted my flying and can track my every move in real, or pseudo real, time.

And I still don't see why a GA VFR aircraft needs a certified ($8000) GPS when we are not supposed to be anywhere near big jets, and in any case the ADSB message has a quality of fix field that can be set to a lesser value then certified GPS anyway.

Then of course there is the barbed hook that once its fitted, it must be used and if it fails you have only three days grace to fix it.

18th Jun 2014, 01:31
It appears the Spin boiler is up and running – just in time for the budget to be spent. Use it or loose it. If you can stomach it, here the latest offering from - Robert Virtue (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/06/17/4026984.htm?site=centralwest) - of the ABC.

Remember the old game of Simon says – well, here's what Peter says. Aw, stone the bloody crows – fetch the bucket.

Impending rule changes for pilots has prompted the nation's aviation authority to go on an education tour through the NSW central west.

Flying seems to be one of those things that you either love or hate.

For the haters, you're likely to be riddled with stress about soaring up into the clouds, and probably won't enter into a career as a pilot.

For the lovers, there's something almost-therapeutic about the rattle and rumble of a plane tracking along a runway and the lurch as you lift-off the ground.

Some love it so much they enter into a career in aviation, perhaps as a steward, or even a pilot.

The NSW central west is littered with small airports and aerodromes that are used to varying degrees- from commercial carriers offering flights to the city, to farmers soaring over their paddocks.

"Pilots in the central west have got pretty good flying conditions. Particularly at the smaller aerodromes, they've got plenty of room to do their flying," says spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Peter Gibson.

"They've always got questions about procedures; how to follow the rules successfully; how to get the best training and keep up to date."

A suite of new rules for pilots is coming into force in September, focussing on licensing.
CASA is holding training workshops in Parkes and Cowra this week for pilots looking to get up to scratch with the rules.

"It's a good time to sit down with local pilots and talk to them about what the rule changes might mean for their flying, and importantly, answer their questions and get any feedback," says Peter.

"It's important all current pilots in regional areas understand these changes."

Over recent months, a light plane crashed at Narrabri; while a pilot was killed when his ultra-light aircraft crashed near Ivanhoe in May.

"We're always looking at the aviation safety system and aviation safety trends, and looking for ways to make improvements," says Peter.

"One of the ways you can make improvements is to bring in new safety rules; [and] we'll certainly be doing things to improve safety, but it's an ongoing process.

"Peter says flying into regional airports and aerodromes can be particularly dangerous for pilots.

"There aren't air traffic control towers at all the regional aerodromes, so pilots have got to manage that themselves.

"They've got to talk to other aircraft and be very aware of when scheduled airline services are coming in, and work with them to make sure there are no conflicts."

CASA offers a range of other training modules for local pilots to complete to improve their knowledge.

"We've got a number of online tools where pilots can go in, do exercises, and get information that will help improve the safety of their flying," says Peter.

"That's a great thing to be doing all the time, so that you're continuously updating and improving your safety knowledge."

For more details on the workshops being held in Parkes and Cowra, visit the CASA website.

6 Peter says – is this Muppet paid by the word, where in all the hells is his self respect. (your pick of Muppet). Urrghh - retch.

18th Jun 2014, 04:14
Peter says:
"Pilots in the central west have got pretty good flying conditions. Particularly at the smaller aerodromes, they've got plenty of room to do their flying," says spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Peter Gibson.
Really? Well there you go! Must be true if 'Peter says'! 004 says 'Peter is a :mad:'
Lucky pilots in the central west. Don't think the pilots in Brisbane South feel the same way about approaching Archerfield.

Did somebody say Muppets? This one is close to Peter in likeness:

18th Jun 2014, 06:21
A reverse quote for the Spin Doctor...
..."some people hate aviation so much the make a career out of telling lies and bullshitting about it.':mad:

PG is so full of it, he should turn himself into the nearest sewerage farm for treatment. :ok:

and we pay for these people..!!?? :mad::mad::mad:

Aah do love Peters Puerile Postulations. Bucket please.!

18th Jun 2014, 06:38
Maybe Simon????:O:O

and the bit here aroa:

"We're always looking at the aviation safety system and aviation safety trends, and looking for ways to make improvements," says Peter.

"One of the ways you can make improvements is to bring in new safety rules; [and] we'll certainly be doing things to improve safety, but it's an ongoing process.

I guess HMHB, that means if we don't get you with the current rules, we will make them harder again, then "we gotcha"

Remember "Pete", rules do not equal safety.

thorn bird
18th Jun 2014, 08:15
Jeez Sarksi,
can you hold off the colour coded posts, freaking me out!!
Read down then suddenly Oh Shite..."I'M GOING BLIND....BLIND I TELL YOU"
Missus says "what's wrong sweetheart??"....."That paragraph it's RED, for god sakes..and that's BLUE...I'll never fly again!!"

"For goodness sake get a grip they are RED and BLUE!!"...Oh really?? PHEW!! my whole life passed before my eye's there for a second.

dubbleyew eight
18th Jun 2014, 08:46
The NSW central west is littered with small airports....

littered? littered!!!!

you arrogant fckuwit gibson.

19th Jun 2014, 02:37
Well, I'm done – read the lot; even a couple of the 'confidential' ones (Cheers P7, wish you'd publish the first part). The things that stand out, to me at least are (a) the diverse paths the submitters took to arrive at the same conclusion; and. (b) how the different disciplines all arrived at pretty much the same 'bottom line'.

The legal fraternity, naturally enough, approached from where the holes in the legal cheese were, how the flaws in the regulations and how CASA chose to act within that frame work created their 'issues'. The engineers, same but from an engineering perspective; operations same; medical same; pilots same; insurers same. It's interesting to see the various 'start points', follow it through the 'logic' part and arrive at the tailor made conclusions and proposed 'solutions'. There was some very fine work done at a very credible level; hate to have to pick a winner.

But the inescapable conclusion, when you chart it out is: Legal – stuffed: Engineering – stuffed: Insurance – stuffed: Operations – stuffed: Flight training – stuffed: Medical – stuffed. Gliding – almost stuffed: Fun flying – bloody near stuffed. etc. etc

In every discipline, across the board, experts in 'their' fields through diverse paths, all arrived at the same conclusion; there is not one area where things are good, not even the bloody administrative hum-drum of issuing licences (bring in the RTA). There is a need for immediate, sweeping reform, now. It's a complete buggers muddle, and CASA in denial are 'business as usual. How fast can we get these reforms in?, better add the Senators suggestions as well, for good measure.

Toot toot...

19th Jun 2014, 03:13
Yep "K" same conclusion here...:ok: Just caught the tail-end of a Phil (the other Phil) interview on the wireless, unfortunately I'm (as yet) unable to track down a copy but I did find this article from the ABC...:D:DCalls for new aviation rules to be deferred as fallout from major review continues (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/06/19/4028685.htm?site=centralwest)
By Robert Virtue (http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s3811099.htm?site=centralwest) (with Melanie Pearce)

Pilots have called for the introduction of new safety regulations to be deferred, as the fallout from a review into air safety is finalised.

A major agricultural aviation association says the introduction of new regulations for the aviation industry should be deferred until the outcomes of a review into air safety are finalised.

The new regulations for the industry are due to be implemented in September, and among other things, focus on pilot licensing.

In November last year, the Federal Government ordered the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), with a 25-member panel, chaired by David Forsyth, to look into the regulation of the aviation industry.

A total of 37 recommendations came from the review, many of which proposed a significant overhaul (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2014/wts013_2014.aspx) to the regulatory authority, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The ASRR report (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Executive_Summary.pdf) said that, "the current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern." As such, its recommendations state that CASA:

- "Changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."

- "Publishes and demonstrates the philosophy of 'just culture' whereby individuals involved in a reportable event are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training. However, actions of gross negligence... should not be tolerated"

- "CASA's Board exercises full governance control... the next Director of Aviation Safety has leadership and management experience and capabilities in cultural change of large organisations."

The Chief Executive Officer of the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, Phil Hurst, said with the release of the ASRR findings this month, the new regulations for the industry should be deferred.

"CASA is currently under a major review. A series of recommendations have been made, and we think it'd be prudent now to defer again (because these regulations have already been put back once) these regulations, until such time as the future of CASA becomes clearer," he said.

Later this week, air transport officials and industry bodies are meeting in Sydney to discuss the new safety regulations at the Aviation Associations Forum.

Mr Hurst said there are some concerns about the regulations, with one particular set of rules governing pilot licensing being 1,500 pages long.
"It's quite a detailed package. Industry has been expressing concerns for some time about particular aspects of it. We're very concerned that... CASA isn't ready to transition.

"In our particular case in aerial application, we're quite concerned about the interaction between the new aerial application rating and endorsement, and the fire fighting endorsement.

"Make no mistake, the industry is right behind the majority of the recommendations that have already been made; we're just now in the process of formalising that... We want to make sure that it's a seamless transition and we just don't think we're there yet."

This week CASA has held information workshops for pilots in Parkes and Cowra.

Mr Hurst said despite pilot's concerns about the timing of the new rules being implemented, due to the unclear fate of CASA and how the regulations would be implemented, his organisation supports pilots getting educated on the laws.

"One of the things we've learnt over the years is that anytime you have an opportunity to talk about aviation safety is a worthwhile exercise," he said.
"The content to some degree is slightly less important than the fact that you are actually talking about [and focussing on] safety; so, we will still recommend to our members that it's a useful exercise to go along and listen to what CASA has to say, and to focus on safety as we always try to do."

Mr Hurst said he hopes the relationship between industry and regulator improves as a result of the ASRR recommendations.

"A lot of the [new] regulations are not guidance for people trying to do the right thing; they are actually penalty provisions, so that if you are caught-out inadvertently doing the wrong thing, then you are treated as if it was an offence that you meant to commit.

"It does make it very difficult in an aviation safety environment to ensure that the regulations encourage safe behaviour, and encourage a safe culture.

"That's a critical issue for us; we want a safe culture with plain-English regulations."

Phil Hurst spoke to ABC News journalist, Melanie Pearce. Hear, hear Phil...:ok:

Dear Miniscule get on with it mate...:{


19th Jun 2014, 07:11
Warning: Short post with off-track PNR coming up! (TB this is in red mate..;))

Things must be tough in M&M land - is the budget so tight that they must recycle titles for press releases - and Ministerial speeches...:E (from today's Govt media releases):Infrastructure and Regional Development

Ministerial Statement: The Australian Government's Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2014/wts014_2014.aspx)

[Indistinct] welcome, Stephen(*) and ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Canberra on a foggy morning—very foggy morning. It's a Budget aimed at restructuring our economy. In the infrastructure space, we are committed to that...
I thought..:confused:..this is good and maybe the Miniscule has heeded the call for action..:D However then I clicked on the link here (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2014/wts014_2014.aspx)...and was directed to some spiel from the Miniscule to a International CEO Forum at the Hyatt yesterday..:rolleyes::O Hmm...guess the $60 million efficiencies cutbacks across the Dept is already starting to come into effect?? :E Onya Red shoulder to the wheel and all that! :ok:

ps Thank's Red for the comic relief..:D

21st Jun 2014, 20:41
Hurst - "Make no mistake, the industry is right behind the majority of the recommendations that have already been made; we're just now in the process of formalising that... We want to make sure that it's a seamless transition and we just don't think we're there yet."

Nicely understated, with CASA caught somewhere between outright denial and complete disarray. Shedders melting, trenches being dug, positions secured and a general air of relief that the Senate inquiry was gazumped. But was it ? Can the Sleepy, hollow men be sure that the WLR won't lead to a serious look at just what they've been up to the last few years. I'd bet a beer industry will be ready a long way ahead of the regulator – a country mile ahead.

Good shout – brakes on now, new board, new DAS, new policy; reassess, brakes off - and put the last five bloody awful years as far behind as possible. How many sleeps now ?– can't be many.....

21st Jun 2014, 21:56
Message Minister: without a thriving GA sector, the tyranny of distance will stop your northern developments in their tracks.

thorn bird
22nd Jun 2014, 01:09
Came across the following bit of trivia today. After I'd stopped laughing I thought wow this parallels CAsA, so with a tiny bit of modification, and the Mods indulgence (You'll see the relevance at the end) Here it is..Sundays Trivia.

Railroad tracks.

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England , and English expatriates designed the US railroads.

Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England , because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels.

Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

Bureaucracies live forever!!!.

But the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process by CAsA and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with this? , you may be exactly right!!

Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' asses.)

Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah.

The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what was arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.

And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important?

Ancient horse's asses control almost everything...

And don’t that sound like CAsA today!!!

22nd Jun 2014, 01:41
Best post on thread, fully supporting the benefits from 2000 years of pony pooh.

dubbleyew eight
22nd Jun 2014, 04:38
I watched julie bishop giving the press club speech on her foreign affairs portfolio.
an amazing performance by a minister actively running a portfolio.

then I thought of Warren Truss. by comparison he seems to be so senile.
I would bet that the bureaucrats in CAsA have him sized up as impotent.
the working committees working on the new rules seem to be steaming along with pace unaltered.

just how do we stop all this pony poo?

22nd Jun 2014, 07:28
Thats brilliant TB I've not seen that before. So I suppose the Casa measurement of two horses asses is a "safety"?

22nd Jun 2014, 20:18
The Australian & International Pilots Association has written directly to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss over CASA’s handling of the Debate over colour vision deficiency CVD affected pilots.

Good to see; the AIPA have weighed into the debate and seem to think the CVD issue important enough to send a letter directly to Minister Truss; - Phelan – Proaviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/06/22/aipa-enters-the-colour-vision-debate/) – has published a short article which gives the gist of that important letter. We should note the AIPA has now provided the CVD debate, Senate and Forsyth with valuable, balanced, intelligent, positive views on matters aeronautical. AIPA should be congratulated on and complimented for their efforts on behalf of their members and industry. Well done...

I can understand the ministers reluctance to act on the broader topics related to the aviation industry; due process, other pressing matters and the detailed nature of the information provided by Senate and Forsyth, alongside a need to have an industry response, by months end, inevitably delay immediate action.

The minister has, in the past displayed a quiet, doughty resolve when confronted with the administrative embuggerance CASA generate. The Truss management of one case in particular, whilst out of office was an excellent example of where his 'heart' lay...

But, the CVD matter 'paperwork' is piling up; the message to industry his response on the CVD matter conveys will be definative; and may well set the tone of his reform programme. We are about to commit about AUD $1,000,000 (ish) to the AAT hearing; to achieve little except potentially damage the lives of many, hard working, skilled, qualified Australian pilots.

The brake pedal Minister, is in the middle (manual) or the big one on the left (automatic), or the wiggly bit at the top of the rudder pedals (aircraft). No matter your preference; they all work, just fine.....

Tick tock. (just a bit)

dubbleyew eight
23rd Jun 2014, 03:27
are you sure Truss isn't going a little senile?

I used to give warren a lot of regard because he was a sensible intelligent person.
but lately I'm wondering whether he hasn't slipped a little.
he is increasingly looking like the least capable minister in the current government.

23rd Jun 2014, 09:58
Some months ago I was looking for an airport or airstrip to place my aircraft should I eventually finish it. I visited a number of places one day, dressed reasonably casually, in my new car and carrying what notes I had researched in a folder.

In each of these places i just waltzed in looking for the boss or someone in authority, etc. to talk about hangars.

I came across about half a dozen people here and there working on their aircraft or just spending the time of day gas bagging.

I found it strange that in each case I was initially viewed with suspicion and fear - I could see it in peoples faces, starting with the guy changing a tire on a Jabiru.

I have just understood why that occurred - they were afraid - afraid I was from CASA.

23rd Jun 2014, 10:41
I have just understood why that occurred - they were afraid - afraid I was from CASA.
Either that or they were afraid you were Rolf Harris!
Remote airstrip you say? No worries. It's not hard to make a body disappear in the remote outback :ok:

thorn bird
23rd Jun 2014, 10:42
Correct sunny.

Be afraid...be very afraid!!

Sad aint it!!

23rd Jun 2014, 14:45
The AMROBA members have spoken and the verdict is...:rolleyes:..:confused:...

AMROBA Rejects Staff Exchange Concept (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/amroba-rejects-staff-exchange-concept)23 Jun 2014

The Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has rejected the Forsyth Report's recommendation for staff exchanges between CASA and the aviation industry.

In their response, AMROBA states that it would not support Recommendation 9, warning that a collaborative culture would have to be established before such a scheme would work.

"Until CASA has proven that it has adopted a change to their regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, built an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect, this should be put on hold till it is achieved," the response states.

"Which certificate holder would accept a current CASA inspector as an employee? On the other hand, an industry person entering CASA would have access to competitors’ records and intellectual property."

In all, AMROBA supported 35 of the 37 recommendation to some extent, refused to support one (Recommendation 9) and opposed one, Recommendation 19, which called for the ATSB to transfer all data to CASA without de-identifying those involved. A quote from AMROBA breaking news (ASRR Report Responses (http://amroba.org.au/asrr-report-responses.html))...

"...It will take time for industry to adjust as much as it will take government department and agencies to adjust to working with a 'just' culture for government and agencies. The FAA recognised in the 1990s that regulation changes will not improve safety as well as working in partnership with industry.

The ultimate aim is for industry to welcome agency inspectors to sit in on SMS internal briefings or work together to improve safety.

This is probably the biggest recommended change to the aviation regulatory environment in a hundred years - it must be implemented so industry can get back to concentrating on managing safe and sustainable....

Six more days to the end of the month..err..TICK TOCK Miniscule..:E

23rd Jun 2014, 16:12

Perhaps we need another review.

I'm guessing Truss will announce at the same time he announces the new DAS and explains how the new DAS will sort everything out. If anybody wants the gig who is acceptable.

AMROBA is right not to support a job swap. This could work in a less adversarial environment when/if that ever happens. Wasn't there some conflict of interest issues in the Moorabbin office under Byron?

23rd Jun 2014, 20:19
Or; trussed, like a turkey. The minister is in a bind and in a strange way, I feel sorry for the poor sod. It's to do with the legacy he leaves behind to history, how he's remembered and surviving current battles.

Being 'remote' from the industry coal face, and by virtue of office, being under constant siege from 'groups' all with righteous claims on time, the poor sod has to rely on his crew and minders, which isolates him further. Unlike Sunny, a simple walking tour of country aerodromes and 'one on one' chats with the guy changing a tyre is not an option. Even for someone like the Rev. Forsyth the level and flavour of information gleaned will not be of the same intensity or frankness as a lunch room debate on the latest CASA outrage. Then, the minister has time constraints so everything must be pared down to the least amount of words on an executive summary. Isolated, dependent on 'advice' and being spoon fed a diet of soft, choice morsels, by those desperately seeking to protect their rice bowls; while an ignorant public, dependant on the hysterical media, hang on to every utterance. Always remember, this information is being filtered through the various channels to remove unpleasant impurities.

Despite this, the minister gave us Forsyth as opening bat; partnered with Fawcett; Joyce to follow at number three. So, the minister has made some good selections and the boys will go on with the job. But what they can't do is make his decisions. Take the CVD trophy match as an example: but from the Truss perspective. Here, have a peep through the changing room door. There's the minister, best blazer, carnation button hole, boater, glass of bubbles in one hand, the other fresh from a pressing the flesh and fund raising 'event' in the members stand; called away to attend a changing room meeting.

Time is short, so the CASA batsman quickly trots out a carefully worded explanation, larded with blood curdling hints that a serious safety case is under threat and the blood will be on the ministers hands if the mystique of air safety is threatened. When the CASA fellahin has sat down, the minister looks at the CVD bloke and nods, his turn. "Well, we reckon they're wrong and we can prove it". And that, boys and girls is about as much air time as the minister can spare – the meet and greet circus is still in full swing and he must attend. Exit minister, stage left, followed by minion.

Later, Forsyth is dismissed on a very dodgy LBW call and while Barnaby pads up and toddles out to the wicket, the minister grabs a moment and says to minion – "Well minion, this CVD thing; how do you see it". Minion (a trusted, loyal, honest soul of good intentions) hesitates, to marshal thoughts, then speaks; "If you don't act your credibility and reform package is buggered". Minister looks askance "Why?". Minion – "Well sir, not to act or to allow the CASA to run away with it will destroy your credibility with industry; you will be seen to support the status quo; which will nullify the proposed reform. No one will believe in it". Minister looks at minion, "But I've spent a fortune - explain", says he.

Minion - "Well sir, the IOS only want a fair go; may I suggest you consider letting young Fawcett manage it, through the Senate as part of an inquiry into the McComic fiasco. You win vicariously, public happy, industry happy, peasant notions of justice and fair play satisfied, all 'in house', act of grace payments where needed and no skin off your arse; you retire as the saviour of Australian aviation".

Minister watches the wicket as Barnaby sets his crease.

Minion. "Young Joyce looks well today sir and is rumoured to be in fine form".

"Yes" says the minister....

Rumour: good source, not totally confirmed.

Overheard - "The Forsyth review is irrelevant to CASA". For a Choccy frog – best guess, Who, when and where. Hints – recent, with legal overtones.....

Toot toot. _._

24th Jun 2014, 22:39
BRB last evening was to be a casual, laid back sort of general gas bag about this, that and the other; whilst waiting for 'developments'. Then, a casual question went off like a firecracker; P7 was startled, nearly (only nearly mark you) spilled his ale. "Any more news, from the Sunday meeting?."

"What meeting?" he gruffs.

"Oh, the Barnaby Joyce, Bill Heffernan and David Fawcett sit down with the Bankstown boys".

"Be buggered" says our parliamentary eyes and ears; "Do tell, for 'tis news indeed to me".

"Well" – says our rumour manger who, after knocking the top off a new pint proceeded to regale us with a simple tale. "As you know, there is a barking match between the airport team and the locals; the story goes that the commonwealth stands to be out pocket a large lump and is rightfully miffed. The boys were offered a fast, nasty 20 minutes, to state a case and put some facts on the table. Two hours later all was revealed. The response was very 'positive' and most 'interested' to the impeccable research and evidence provided. Now there was more to it, but it will be best to wait and see where it all goes".

Couple of facts here, Barnaby, not Warren was to attend, which, stand alone is interesting. Barnaby sent his apologies and a 'minion' to cover the two hour event.

Speculation: is a strata type of arrangement possible for some of our windswept, barren secondary airports?.

Sidebar: will this affect the Archerfield claims? even more than the light minded manipulation of take off and landing data?

Question: Is the call for full on ICAC investigation of the shenanigans with airfield infrastructure and the administration of 'arrangements' now fully justified?

No answers, sorry troops; but the debate ran on late, long and robust. Worth a post, I thought...

Toot toot.

25th Jun 2014, 00:18
Question: Is the call for full on ICAC investigation of the shenanigans with airfield infrastructure and the administration of 'arrangements' now fully justified?Kharon, god to see this one starting to make it into the sunlight my astute friend :ok:
Seems that somebody has been using the spade and digging around and looking for old bones. Finally they have found one.

Please please somebody let Barnaby off the chain. His mouth is drooling, he has picked up on the scent of blood, now let him get on with what Pit Bulls do best!!!

TICK TOCK? Yes indeed Minister, most certainly TICK TOCK!!!

25th Jun 2014, 04:09
Interesting story "K", I also heard a similar rumour and that the buckets of money involved make the +$250 million wasted on the RRP pale..:ooh:..in comparison...:confused:

ASRR update:

Fort Fumble is coming up the list of the 24/7 news cycle's favourite 'sound bites' for all the wrong reasons...:=

Here is DN's (ABAP mag) latest update on the Forsyth report: Aviation Associations support most of Forsyth report (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/aviation-associations-support-most-of-forsyth-report)

25 Jun 2014

Doug Nancarrow

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has issued a statement strongly supporting the recommendations of the recent Forsyth Report in the regulation of aviation safety – except for one.

The TAAAF has asked the Minister to immediately reconstitute the CASA Board in accordance with the principles outlined in the report.

It has also asked that the Minister not extend the term of the current CASA Director of Aviation Safety beyond the current extension to August 31.

And it wants the immediate establishment of the Aviation Industry Consultative Council as per Coalition policy.

A really good suggestion was that the Forsyth Report trio “be asked to return in 12 months time and provide another report on progress towards implementation of those recommendations”.

The only recommendation not supported related to the provision of unedited information to CASA from ATSB reporting schemes due to possibility that this information would be used irresponsibly and/or unjustly.

The TAAAF says that this recommendation could be supported once industry regains confidence in CASA.

The TAAAF also called on the Government to immediately defer the implementation of CASR Part 61 – Flight Crew Licensing until it has been put through the ASRR report recommendation of conversion to three tiers of regulation.

Overall though the TAAAF statement was very positive about the Report.

004:TICK TOCK? Yes indeed Minister, most certainly TICK TOCK!!! :ok:

Frank Arouet
25th Jun 2014, 05:53

thorn bird
25th Jun 2014, 08:41
Corruption!!!...corruption here!!..anybody for corruption??
Corruption!!...going cheap!!...anybody for corruption??

Ah Warren can I interest you in some corruption?? going cheap!!

26th Jun 2014, 04:15
Seems that somebody has been using the spade and digging around and looking for old bones. Finally they have found one.004,
You better believe it, it is a state, not Commonwealth story, hence (the Commonwealth has NO anti-corruption commission) the referral to ICAC.
Tootle pip!!

29th Jun 2014, 01:06
PG may have gone mute on CVD but he still has a word or two on another troubling three letter acronym...UAV. :rolleyes::
CASA plans legal action over drone crash in Geraldton
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/casa-plans-legal-action-over-drone-crash-in-geraldton/5550764)CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said it would monitor the effect of the changes, but the risks were low.

"The risks from smaller remotely piloted aircraft under two kilograms are very small to both people and property," he said.
Confusion grows over regulations for drones (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24332428/confusion-grows-over-regulations-for-drones/)Drone operators are concerned the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is sending mixed messages about the operation of unmanned small aircraft after a handful of incidents.

CASA has recommended legal action against a commercial operator involved in an incident in Geraldton in April while relaxing rules for drones under 2kg.

Brad Mason, secretary of the Australian Certified UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) Operators Association, said it was "deeply concerned at the safety implications of CASA's recently proposed deregulation of UAVs under 2kg."

"That specific type of system is increasingly appearing to be the primary type of threat being encountered by manned aviation," Mr Mason said.

However, CASA said the rules would apply only to non built-up areas, such as farms.

In April, triathlete Raija Ogden was injured when a drone allegedly hit her in the head during a triathlon in Geraldton.

CASA said this week it had completed its investigation into the incident. Spokesman Peter Gibson said the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions would look at the findings to decide whether to prosecute.

Mrs Ogden, of Perth, said at the time she had cuts to her head and paramedics took "a piece of propeller" from her head.

The drone operator Warren Abrams, of New Era Photography and Film, was hired to film the event in return for free advertising, the organisers said.

Mr Abrams said he was confident it would be acknowledged it was an accident. "I was questioned for 4 1/2 hours during the investigation and provided video evidence of me testing the equipment - which proved the equipment was faulty," he said.

Mr Abrams said he was sorry for any injuries. "I have apologised and I feel terrible she was hurt - but it was an accident."

Mr Abrams said the drone had never given any trouble before.

The ACUO dismissed claims by Mr Abrams made on ABC radio that someone had channel-hopped and taken control of the drone.

"You can get some interference from mobile phones but this drone was operating outside the regulations of being closer than 30m to people," Mr Mason said.

Mr Abrams has a licence to operate the drone but it is not a commercial operator's licence.

There are more than 100 commercial drone operators in Australia but CASA said there were tens of thousands of recreational drones in use.

Sophisticated commercial drones can cost up to $70,000.
All passing strange this drone (UAV) growing phenomena, certainly has captured the attention of the MSM both here and overseas...

Airports seek to rein in drones (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/airports-seek-to-rein-in-drones/story-e6frg95x-1226960430299)In a submission to CASA, AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the association was aware of UAVs that weighed less than 1kg yet contained cameras with an aluminium chassis and could reach 10,000ft.

“A device such as this being operated by a recreational user or commercial user without the appropriate approvals, training or general aviation knowledge has the potential to pose a significant safety risk to piloted aircraft, airports and the general public,’’ she said.

“There have been several near-miss incidents occurring between UAVs and aircraft in recent months that could have had catastrophic consequences.

“One incident involved a de Havilland DHC-8 plane that narrowly avoided a collision with a UAV by 20m near Perth.

The other involved the pilot of a rescue helicopter in Newcastle having to take evasive action to avoid a UAV above Hunter Football Stadium.

“The AAA believes that owners of RPA capable of infringing on protected airspace and interfering with the safe operation of other aircraft and airports, must be required to obtain an unmanned operators certificate and be educated on the potential impact that improper use of RPAs can have on aviation safety.’’
US launches light drone initiative while CASA doesn’t license them (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/06/24/us-launches-light-drone-initiative-while-casa-does-nothing/)America’s FAA continues to fly a different path when it comes to the proliferation of lightweight drones, mainly quadcopters, compared to Australia’s CASA, which proposed to leave them unlicensed.

It is now circulating a detailed infographic on what private drone and model plane users should and shouldn’t do with vehicles that pack a lot of kinetic energy, and are falling in price as they rise sharply in their capabilities.
It is this rendering of the misuse of light weight drones as a police rather than CASA matter which is causing resistance in aviation and airport circles. The legal consequences of the CASA devolution of its powers in relation to small yet potent aerial devices that have already shown themselves capable of flying into controlled airspace and the path of airliners are where the concerns have arisen. However enough of the drift, but still on topic, here is the ACUO response to the Forsyth report..:D: Federal Government Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report Fails to Address Unmanned Aircraft Safety Matter (http://www.suasnews.com/2014/06/29533/federal-government-aviation-safety-regulation-review-report-fails-to-address-unmanned-aircraft-safety-matters/)s
The Australian Certified UAV Operators Association (ACUO) provisionally welcomes yesterday’s release of the report of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, but expresses concern that a major opportunity to examine the broad range of challenges posed by the increasing numbers of commercial unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) has been missed.

ACUO is of the view that CASA’s structures for developing UAS regulations and providing effective oversight of this emerging sector remain under-resourced and unresponsive to real world commercial conditions, with the safety review report completely silent on UAS matters as a whole.

ACUO President, Joe Urli, says “we will be taking up the Government’s invitation for responses to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review as we believe there is still much work needed to ensure the safe integration of UAS into Australian airspace.

“We note that the review felt it appropriate to address specific matters such as gliding, ultralights, parachuting, hang gliding and ballooning, but not one of the highest growth sectors of aviation in unmanned aircraft. That these sectors should be examined whereas UAS were ignored raises questions of comprehensiveness and lack of attention to the evidence provided.”

“ACUO is deeply concerned at the safety implications of CASA’s recently proposed deregulation of UAS under 2kg in weight with that specific type of system increasingly appearing to be the primary type of threat being encountered by manned aviation. CASA’s proposed approach has significant safety implications but clearly this did not become apparent to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review panel.

“ACUO believes the overarching reforms put forward by the Aviation Safety Regulation Review do have some potential to aid in addressing these issues but there remains a need for specific focus on UAS issues, as opposed to generic reforms.

“ACUO looks forward to continued constructive engagement with the Federal Government as it considers the most appropriate way forward for aviation safety in Australia as a whole. We strongly urge the Federal Government to act to ensure UAS are not neglected in this evaluation, lest the near miss incidents of recent months come to result in a significant aviation accident and serious injuries or the loss of lives.”
TICK TOCK the acronyms are mounting...err what's the next one?? Oh that's right the TSBC peer review report...:E

30th Jun 2014, 19:46
And, the runners are finally all ready for the off, in what has been the longest pre race promotion of any Review Cup in the history of aviation. Betting closed at COB Monday, Canberra time. I wonder how many of those who didn't make a submission, read the Forsyth report and made a response. I was thinking more of the flying schools and charter operators, who, unless they made their submissions 'confidential' (smart move) were not well represented in the 'published list'. I wonder if the responses will be as consistent as the submissions: what? - I know, patience grasshopper...

It's a pity the ToR were so tight, there were lots of areas just out reach. Perhaps when the new board is established the ToR can be expanded, though the 'consultative' process to deal with some of the 'detail' which really should be addressed, things like double jeopardy, defining exactly what is a Not a Fit and Proper; what is a 'serious and imminent' etc. getting some control of the management levels. McComic never did, I wonder if he ever realised just how badly they served him, happy thought, they're probably serving each other the same way now, little putsch's of 'good mates' plotting and scheming; while McComic has a well deserved melt down.

No board explains, probably, why news of a new DAS is scarce; perhaps when 'the board' is appointed things will crack on, it's a bit like watching chocolate being poured at the moment. Although rumour has it things may be 'buoyed' up with an announcement. As Sarcs points out; there's lots of 'stuff' coming down the pike, like the TSBC report card so the timing is critical – Beakers allotted five year term must just about be up so that will need sorting, WLR response to deal with, Archerfield and airports looming, ICAC interest etc. Busy time for the Ministers crew.

Toot toot and a small tick tock perhaps....

- - - - - -- - Stop press- - - - - - - - -CVD pilots petition.

In case you missed it or have not been following, the whole sad tale is – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-16.html#post8543607) - . Get behind it if you feel you can; all in, a good cause.

The CVDPA folk have launched a petition calling for Minister Truss to intervene in the current dispute:
Petition to the Hon Warren Truss MP (Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Infrastructure & Regional Development): To Intervene in the battle between colour defective pilots and CASA which threatens to destroy hundreds of careers

Frank Arouet
3rd Jul 2014, 01:22
The following received yesterday gives hope of another avenue of redress for years of regulatory mischief. I note the theme.

Strict liability may work for traffic infringements, but it has "criminalized" the aviation industry with unworkable, misunderstood and purposely complex laws that are strict liability and do reverse the burden of proof not in accord with traditionally recognized common law freedoms and privileges.

Dear Mr...

Thank you for your email to the Attorney-General, the Hon George Brandis QC, regarding the Australian Law Reform Commission’s inquiry into Commonwealth legislation that encroaches on rights, freedoms and privileges traditionally recognised by the common law. The Attorney-General has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The terms of reference require the Commission to prepare an initial report by December 2014. The Commission will formally seek public submissions at this time. In addition, the Commission’s usual practice is to conduct further public consultation on specific proposals by way of a discussion paper prior to the preparation of a final report. The final report is due in December 2015.
You can find information about the inquiry and sign up to an email alert list for the inquiry at Freedoms Inquiry | ALRC (http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/freedoms).
Yours sincerely
Stephen Bouwhuis
Assistant Secretary
Human Rights Policy

thorn bird
3rd Jul 2014, 11:06
Damn it Frank I think you may be on to something!!

Some of the terms of reference: [My Bold]

"For the purpose of the inquiry ‘laws that encroach upon traditional rights, freedoms and privileges’ are to be understood as laws that:

reverse or shift the burden of proof;
deny procedural fairness to persons affected by the exercise of public power;
exclude the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination;
abrogate client legal privilege;
apply strict or absolute liability to all physical elements of a criminal offence;
interfere with freedom of speech;
interfere with freedom on religion;
interfere with vested property rights;
interfere with freedom of association;
interfere with freedom of movement;
disregard common law protection of personal reputation;
authorise the commission of a tort;
inappropriately delegate legislative power to the Executive;
give executive immunities a wide application;
retrospectively change legal rights and obligations;
create offences with retrospective application;
alter criminal law practices based on the principle of a fair trial;
permit an appeal from an acquittal;
restrict access to the courts; and
interfere with any other similar legal right, freedom or privilege."

Those terms I believe CAsA has used with impunity in bold. There is ample evidence to support that contention.

It would seem Frank has presented us another avenue for the IOS to bring to the government's attention the degree that corruption has firmly established itself within CAsA.

Minister Truss, you failed miserably to take action against this corruption last time you were in power, failure to do so this time is a guarantee that you and your party are doomed to irrelevance politically.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Jul 2014, 12:10
thorn bird it is increasingly clear that all of CAsA's bastardry is actually supported by laws written by them that support all their actions.

CAsA can decide that you are guilty, it is written in their laws.
tough shit if you disagree. it is the law mate.

Warren Truss, Minister, is nothing more than a passenger.
he probably couldn't even pass a basic aeronautical knowledge (BAK) exam.
he has no knowledge of aviation.
as a passenger he faces a fear that the magic that holds the aeroplane in the air will inexplicably vanish and he will plummet to earth.

You are dealing with idiots.

it is all a waste of time.

ignore them all and go flying.

3rd Jul 2014, 21:20
What W 8 said, and if Brandis needs 18 months to decide if the CASA system is not only thumbing it's nose at the rule of law, but using that rule to protect their guilty; he's in the wrong job.. Nice one Frank and Thorny is spot on, it's all there but the Minuscule is fast asleep and dreaming of winning elections in a voodoo induced coma, Rev Forsyth has knocked off and we are stuck in limbo; praying that the Senators will run the game.

Bloody great. What hangs on the wall and ticks.

4th Jul 2014, 00:39
Hmm...could someone check the Miniscule's vitals as he hasn't blinked in quite a while??:{

While the horse trading, back room deals and Senate crash course is attended by the new Senators, the Miniscule is otherwise engaged...:ugh:

Meanwhile in his office the CVD elephant continues to put on weight, the ASRR & UAV elephants have taken up smoking the Miniscule's prized cheroots and the PED elephant has gone on a hunger strike.


The rest of the herd has taken up residence in the Miniscule's waiting room pondering the view of the Prime Ministerial courtyard with all that lush, green grass...:E

So while we continue to wait..:zzz: I thought a couple of passages from the AMROBA latest newsletter may help while away the time and perhaps shine a light on what the Miniscule (& his masters) have to ponder, before the Miniscule blinks...;)

TRUSST comes before JUST CULTURE, which comes before NATURAL JUSTARSE (hey Red take note mate..:E):AMROBA Newsletter Date 30/06/2014 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%207.pdf)


We are so well informed about “just culture” one wonders why there is so much speculation about the kind of regulatory environment that will provide the safest working environment in every sector of aviation.

Much of what is in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report’s recommendations and proposals, is the application of human factors that is theorised in human factor guidelines by ICAO, IATA, etc., etc., and have been recommended for years.

Whenever ‘distrust’ exists between any level of management then there is a safety concern. For instance, if an airline is having industrial issues with its staff, this is an alarm bell for regulators to monitor safety issues more closely during this period.

This will continue until an aviation “just culture” has been re-implemented and safety becomes the main concentration of the airline and its staff.
If the whole industry, including governments and regulators, adopted human factors as depicted in all the training and transcripts that is orated, then the openness and transparency that is crucial in a “just” culture would have both the regulator and operator/ organisation working together to overcome any safety concern or deficiency. The Forsyth Report repeats what was included in the Plane Safe Report:
“The committee was dismayed by the denigration, venom and viciousness of the evidence. This attitude of mistrust if not mutual contempt between the participants places a heavy load on CASA in fulfilling its statutory function of promoting higher safety standards through education, training, advice and consultation". It is time to return to the international safety system where trust, openness and transparency exists between regulator and those regulated.

It takes all involved to improve safety and the Forsyth Report has clearly identified how mature effective regulator safety inspectors should carry out their functions and responsibilities.:D:D

All in all the AMROBA newsletter is worth the time to read and contemplate what happened before..:ugh::=..to what may lay before us...:ok: That's IF (big IF) the Miniscule chooses to adopt the recommendations of the Forsyth report or..:(

...(IMO) pending doom for any resemblance of a sustainable, flourishing GA industry...:{

TICK...TOCK Miniscule, the new Senate sits Mundy...:E

dubbleyew eight
4th Jul 2014, 15:37
what is the bet eh?

when CAsA have finished dealing with the colour blind pilots they launch into the left handed pilots.

can you imagine the incredible risk to the safety of air navigation of left handed pilots trying to navigate with right handed nav aids and maps.
can you imagine the incredible risk to safety of a left handed pilot trying to use a phillips head screwdriver?

my god how has it gone on for so long undetected. :mad:

4th Jul 2014, 20:51
There is a very nasty whisper on the wind, Truss will reappoint Dolan to the ATSB, if the Canadian report is "not too bad". Strewth, what's next McComic back in the saddle ?, elephants reduced to dog food ? CVD pilots barred? and the rule of administrative embuggerance enshrined in law.

If this is true, gods help us. It not being an auspicious start to the weekend, whistles up dogs, exits stage left, ambles off to find a shred of sanity.

4th Jul 2014, 22:52
I keep tellin' ya: A new DAS and a couple of new Board Members, and back to business as usual.

Prince Niccolo M
5th Jul 2014, 06:52
yep... (what Creamie sez) :ugh: :yuk: :ugh:

5th Jul 2014, 08:26
I second what Creamie said.....little will change boys, better get used to it.

Kharon, no surprise in the rumour that Beaker will stay. He is the perfect servant cos he saves his Masters lots of money.

when CAsA have finished dealing with the colour blind pilots they launch into the left handed pilots

Some good posts old chap but I liked this bit :ok:
I reckon it won't be long until they mandate that you have to possess a PHD to fly an aircraft :mad:

5th Jul 2014, 09:02
If Beaker stays, it proves that Truss is senile. Mr Dak appointed him and he should have been booted along with Beaker after his numerous displays of incompetence. Beaker has no issues with the government spending bucket loads on MH 370, yet won't pick up a recorder in a known position and shallow water. It begs the question, why didn't he get the Navy to do it? They'd do it in a nano second, with a decompression chamber onboard. Great practical exercise for them also. No OH&S issues there to keep Heff happy!

dubbleyew eight
5th Jul 2014, 12:27
tony abbot wants australia to be dynamic like america, for the economy to work the way the american one does....

be careful of what you wish for tony. the americans also assassinate people who displease them.

warren truss. is he the most disappointing minister in government....

8th Jul 2014, 01:36
Noticed Phearless Phelan has added to the now constant chorus of IOS calls for the miniscule to act and act now..:ugh::ugh::zzz:: What next for regulatory reform? – Opinion (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/07/what-next-for-regulatory-reform-opinion/)

Coupla quotes..:rolleyes: (my bold):Of all the industry disquiet expressed in submissions to the Panel, by far the most frequent and prominent has been the breakdown of the mutual trust and respect that once existed between the regulator and industry.

This situation, unmentioned in previous studies and reports, is observed and discussed with examples in almost all the published submissions, and is further highlighted by the 31% of submitters who requested confidentiality.

It becomes obvious therefore that there are people within the national aviation authority as it stands who are un-equipped and unwilling to be part of essential restructure, and that the whole task will have to be assigned to a newly-formed team, under a newly-appointed director reporting to a newly formed board.

The critical trust deficiency was mentioned only once in the ASRR’s recommendations at item 14, but was expanded on at several points in the Panel’s summary of its deliberations. The recommendation is:

14. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.
At an early point, as when any major conflict seems to be drawing to a close, it may be necessary to declare a form of “ceasefire” to ensure that the processes of reform are not further clouded by hyperactive over-regulation on the part of individuals or groups. We have in fact already heard reports of harassment that seem to suggest the reopening of old and far from fully healed wounds, and some recent “initiatives” in the medical and airworthiness areas also appear to suggest a scorched earth philosophy. Surely any new regulatory interpretations or enforcement activity should receive close scrutiny for non-compliance with published procedures, due diligence, procedural fairness and the rule of law. Besides the CVD matter, there is rumour of much vendetta actions going on by certain one time allies of the former DAS and the, still in control :{, iron ring...:=:=

One such case is truly vindictive, as it is against a vocal and very active IOS member on absolutely no legal basis and originally instigated under the former DAS enforcement action (black letter) loophole that allows his stasi lieutenants to run amok when required...:ugh:

Maybe all this underhanded, murky, rear guard action is a sign of a mortally wounded monster thrashing about in final death throes or maybe not??:(

But there is one sure fire way to stop this needless blood letting and that is for the miniscule to get off the pot ASAP..:( Or pass the baton to someone who will get it sorted...:E

Can someone please check the miniscule's vitals?? TICK TOCK..:ok:

8th Jul 2014, 20:13
Phelan (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/07/what-next-for-regulatory-reform-opinion/)–"Also there’s considerable disparity between contributors to the ASRR on key specific issues, much of which is not fully resolved by the Panel’s recommendations, and needs early resolution. A good example (but far from the only one) is the question of whether two-tier or three-tier regulation represents the more effective model, and there are credible and well-regarded supporters for both scenarios."

This paragraph from the recent Phelan offering is (IMO) an important one. Conversations with folk about Part 61 usually invoke "ah, but there is no manual of standards" (MOS). The academic subject matter is way beyond my feeble grasp of 'law', but determined to explore it, I sought advice. AMROBA supports 'three tiers' other learned colleagues do not. So more digging and research, I figured the IOS would be affected by the decisions made, so best we know what it's all about.

Before I get jumped on by 'experts' let me say the following is only my take on what I have been able to glean; I expect Leadsled, Creampuff and the more legally savvy to add more erudite information on an important subject.

A third tier of legislation (by whatever name, Manuals of Standards, Aviation Standards, CAO etc.) which require no less than full parliamentary process for each operational change is a significant impost; but, it is the built in rigidity, the 'inflexibility', which raises objections.

The “Manuals of Standards” (MOS) has been designed in such a way that Australia has, to all intents and purpose, been returned to a third tier structure; this without the benefit of industry consultation, consideration or acceptance. The “manual of standard” terminology was originally used to describe certificates issued under CASR Part 21 such as aircraft TC, STC, APMA, ATSO. etc. It was never intended to meet 'aviation safety standards' specified in 9(1)(c).

Simply put, there is no risk reduction (safety benefit) in the current interpretation of 'third tier' of legislation. Arguably the reverse is true, due to regulator inability to act or respond 'quickly' to rapidly changing aviation circumstance. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the inflexibility of three tier regulation increases operational and accidental breech risk levels.

Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth), the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth); and, due process to create/enact/change a legislative instrument, change can take years, while an AC/AMC (*) advisory) can be changed within days of a requirement becoming known.

(*) An incorrect, although commonly made statement is "Advisory Circulars (AC) are not enforceable". This is a complete misrepresentation of the legal position. The preamble to every AC states: “A way but not the only way to comply with Regulation ABC; (the regulation which raises the AC). However "not the only way” clearly releases the operator to 'negotiate' an alternative Acceptable Means of Compliance (ACM) with CASA.

Three tier legislation, modelled on the Canadian system would be acceptable, provided changes the current two-tier regulatory framework evolved to where the third-tier standards are drafted in plain, easy to understand language and Regulations are drafted in a clear succinct style, defining provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences.

Third tier ‘standards’; provided as either 'legislation' or Advisory (Acceptable Means of Compliance) - must comply with CASA function under Sec 9 (1)( c) of the Act to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. Amending ‘standards’ specified in the regulations to “aviation safety standards” specified in regulations, to be provided in either Operational Specification or as an Instrument. Section 98 5AB of the Act states that a legislative instrument can be issued. An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.

I know; it's a bugger to get your head around it all; but in five years time when everyone is moaning about crappy regulations, I shall smile and say two or three sugars in your tier. So FWIW, have a think about what you would like to happen and have a say......

Handing over to the grown ups..

8th Jul 2014, 21:50
Here's a complex legal concept: A Frankenstein is a Frankenstein, irrespective of how many 'Tiers' it has. :ok:

Every kind of regulatory structure has its advantages and disadvantages.

The problem in my view is not the number of 'Tiers', but that the regulator is building them. The regulator is building the structure that determines the regulator's own role in the structure. And - surprise, surprise - Australia has ended up with a structure that relies on a myriad of approvals, exemptions, certificates, permits, ratings and licences granted at the discretion of the regulator, in return for a fee paid to the regulator.

thorn bird
8th Jul 2014, 21:54
"provided changes the current two-tier regulatory framework evolved to where the third-tier standards are drafted in plain, easy to understand language and Regulations are drafted in a clear succinct style,"

Unfortunately CAsA are incapable of producing anything that anyone can understand. Whether that is because the people who write the drafts are too inexperienced or incompetent or the lawyers have to much say in the final draft and the whole meaning and intention of the reg. becomes mired in convoluted legal jargon.

Maybe they do it deliberately so their FOI's and AWI's have something to do, driving industry nuts with their various interpretations of what is Kosher or not.

As it is it is impossible for anyone including the major airlines, with all their resources and money to be "In Compliance" with Australian regulations.

We can aspire to, and to the best of our ability with available resources attempt to, but at the end of the day "compliance" is still contained in the opinion of whatever FOI or AWI you happen to be confronted with on the day. Every CP or chief engineers lament.

For gods sake Mr Miniscule swallow your pride, admit because of indifference and inaction CAsA is a corrupt clusterf..k and get on with what must happen if there is any hope for the industry.

The solution is staring you in the face, just across the ditch.