PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Lookleft
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!

Creampuff
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).

Sarcs
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)


MTF...:ok:

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).

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

004wercras
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.
BOHICA time

Cheers

Tick tock

Creampuff
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:

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

SeldomFixit
4th Jun 2014, 05:37
Yes Minister

Sarcs
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.

004wercras
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!

TICK TOCK

Sarcs
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.”

Creampuff
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... :(

004wercras
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?

Jinglie
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!

Jinglie
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!

LeadSled
4th Jun 2014, 15:28
Folks,
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!!

PS:
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.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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.

Quote:
“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 ?

Kharon
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

004wercras
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 $

Kharon
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/)-.

aroa
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.

Sarcs
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:


ASRR:

* 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?”

ASRR:
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.

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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.

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

PAIN_NET
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.

aroa
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....

Capriciousness.
Corruption
Cronyism
Pettiness
Vindictiveness
Dishonesty
Abuse of power
Misfeasance
Duress
Failure to abide by....
Model litigant obligations
Investigation processes
Compliance and Enforcement rules
Criminality
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.

CRUNCH TIME Warren.
Digitus extractus

Sarcs
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

004wercras
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:

004wercras
7th Jun 2014, 11:13
Ok, appreciate that Frank!

Cheers
McCormick

Kharon
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.

and AMROBA

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).

djpil
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.....) :-) :-) :-)

Kharon
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......

Sarcs
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.

Sarcs
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

Paragraph377
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

004wercras
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;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k0kswK2aI08

TICK TOCK

aroa
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:

Sarcs
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)

Sarcs
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.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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?

004wercras
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.

Sunfish
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.

Lookleft
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!

Kharon
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.

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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.

Kharon
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.....

aroa
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? :{

004wercras
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:

aroa
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:

yr right
15th Jun 2014, 08:52
6.2
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.

NOTHING.

Jinglie
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
Jingle

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.

Kharon
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.

Selah.

Sunfish
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.

Sunfish
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.

Kharon
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.

Boratous
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:

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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.

aroa
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.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
16th Jun 2014, 11:52
Couple of quotes

WRITING ON THE WALL

"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."

Sunfish
16th Jun 2014, 11:58
Like shutting down an airline on Christmas Eve?

004wercras
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??

Kharon
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.

PAIN_NET
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.

Sarcs
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)…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/ASRRsub239ToR3pg5.jpg
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/ASRRsub239ToR3pg6.jpg

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:


http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_061714_113118_AM.jpg
Kind of says it all really…:rolleyes:

Ps Thank you PAIN I can use that…MTF!:ok:

Creampuff
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?

Boratous
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.

Sarcs
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:
6. INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIP WITH CASA

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:

Sunfish
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.

Translation:

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.

Creampuff
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
Sunfish.
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.

Cheers

004wercras
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

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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

Kharon
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

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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.

aroa
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.

Sunfish
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.

Kharon
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.

004wercras
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:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ck4ND9W6tkU

aroa
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.!

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.

Kharon
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...

Sarcs
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...:{


TICK..TOCK!:E

Sarcs
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

Kharon
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.....

Sunfish
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!!!

Kharon
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?

Lookleft
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"?

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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.

004wercras
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!!

Sarcs
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....
":D:D

Six more days to the end of the month..err..TICK TOCK Miniscule..:E

halfmanhalfbiscuit
23rd Jun 2014, 16:12
Sarcs,

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?

Kharon
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. _._

Kharon
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.

004wercras
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!!!

Sarcs
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
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/snake.jpg

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!!

LeadSled
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!!

Sarcs
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

Kharon
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.

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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.


http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1001839_636769369684383_731648309_n.jpg

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)

Quotes from Article: AVIATION SAFETY - HUMAN FACTORS

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:

Kharon
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.

Creampuff
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:

004wercras
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.

D8
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:

Jinglie
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....

Sarcs
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:

Kharon
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..

Creampuff
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.

Kharon
9th Jul 2014, 04:48
For those who have managed to stay awake during the intermission– Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/industry-stalwart-appointed-to-casa-board)– have published a bit of news.

Although rumour has it things may be 'buoyed' up with an announcement.

Conversely there is still a skeleton at the feast – Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/09/atsb-cautious-optimism-on-mh370-is-a-media-stunt/)- Plane talking remains, as do all, unimpressed with ATSB. Perhaps we could petition the minuscule to give aviation to AMSA, they seem to be a calm, competent crew with their act together. Dolan is just an embarrassment.

Toot toot.

Kharon
9th Jul 2014, 21:52
ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/07/what-next-for-regulatory-reform-opinion/) - With the departure of the present CEO imminent, surely it would be timely now for the Minister to name without further delay the new CASA board and also the new CEO, who will face a daunting challenge on Monday September 1.

I expect the 'new' board will be part of the interview panel the final candidates ; I just wonder what the 'head-hunter' brief is and who scripted it. Seems to me that 'who' is left in the running at the final furlong marker will have been decided at the starting gate. Lets take a moment to consider how the handicappers decide which horses may run in a particular race. The Jockey club handicappers are obliged to ensure that the entrants are as evenly matched as possible; the ultimate art would be to have a dozen horses so close together at the finish you could throw a blanket over 'em. Honest, scrupulous folk, who make the napsters job tough...

In our little race for the DAS cup, the selection criteria have been published but the handicapper gets the first look in; sets the field as it were. There is no way of knowing how the handicapper is intending to select which pony gets a day out and which is sent back to stables.

Imagine, if you were asked some weighted questions, mixed with the banal; "Could you continue and complete the fine work started by McComic?". How would you answer a question like that; or, "Do you believe the executive team is rock solid?"; or, Do you feel Alan Hawke is an ideal chairman?".

To slow down fast horses, the handicapper "puts the weights up"; a crooked handicapper can, by simply 'weighting' a horse, affect the outcome of a race. No one is the wiser, least of all the mug punter who just lost his shirt, betting on the 'wrong' nag. Tricky business this 'orse racin'. The Jockey club rightly frown on such practice, but I wonder if the murky Machiavellian crowd have such scruples. Time will tell.....But if we get a clone, rather than a reformer, time to start manning the lifeboats.

Phelan (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/07/what-next-for-regulatory-reform-opinion/)- Of course reform is still several giant steps away, because it can only work when the new regulator’s new board and new management all accept that there exist obstructions that will take a cathartic change of corporate mindset to remove. The retraining or removal of the obstructionists will also be vital and should not be underestimated, because the philosophies that created the present system are still extant.

Sarcs
9th Jul 2014, 23:06
DN asks some good questions, what's with all the secret squirrel bullshit? It is also interesting that two days before one of the RAAA directors gets appointed (with no fanfare) to the CAsA board that RAAA come out fighting on the fuel excise levy to be made more equitable or be scrapped entirely? RAAA c (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/07/raaa-calls-for-fairer-deal-for-regionals/)alls for fairer deal for regionals

Need to push the DAS military aspirant to the side as not being acceptable to the industry (i.e. stick to the ASRR CV requirements for DAS), we all know who the other aspirant is and he is our pick!

09 Jul 2014 - Doug Nancarrow (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/aviation-business-editor-s-insights-10-july-2014)

It seemed rather strange to see the name of the new CASA board deputy chairman on the CASA website without any formal announcement drawing attention to such a momentous appointment. And momentous it indeed it, with regional sector professional Jeff Boyd getting the nod for that role.

It’s hard to understand why we’re being drip fed the new CASA board member names, but if they are of the same calibre as Jeff Boyd then we’re off to a very good start.

There’s still no consensus out there about the new Director of Safety, but I know of a couple of people who were invited to be interviewed and either of them would make an excellent DAS.

Could it be that a certain military gentleman is the front runner? How would industry react to yet another ex-military person at the top of the regulatory hierarchy?

Let’s hope we have all the pieces of the ‘new’ CASA in place asap so that industry knows what it’s in for and can get on with the job.

Kharon
10th Jul 2014, 01:36
Senator Xenophon has found one of three who have felt the hot breath of 'revenge' for being a witness or participating in the Truss WLR.

This is serious stuff; anyone who has been 'touched inappropriately' after daring to criticise or bear witness should contact the 'good' Senators a.s.a.p.

A matter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01ogdgcfFQ&feature=youtu.be) of privilege.

Don't be shy....They are interested.

Prince Niccolo M
10th Jul 2014, 14:28
Sarcs,


The ex-military bit is actually irrelevant - it will always get down to the character of the person.


A person who has the required attributes of honesty, integrity and a total embrace of procedural fairness will make the right decisions on the current facts and issues - not some perception of historical bias.

Sarcs
10th Jul 2014, 19:19
Phearless Phelan article - CASA hiring transparency lost in obfuscation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/10/casa-hiring-transparency-lost-in-obfuscation/) highlights the IOS dismay with the rumour that Hawke & Red (M&M) have stacked the deck in favour of another agreeable Muppet to fill the DAS shoes, coupla quotes:

Ken Cannane Executive Director AMROBA:

“We’ve raised the issue with the Minister of our concerns of the involvement of the current CASA board in the selection of the new people, because we see that the CASA board oversaw the industry and the development of the seriously negative issues that have been raised by the ASRR review. If Mr Hawke is going to be there, the remainder of the board should be involved with the selection as well, not just the Chairman.

“Before selections are made for the CEO, I think the Minister needs to be transparent now and either tell the industry he supports the review and its findings, or that he rejects them. If he supports them, it means that the CASA board should then be selecting a person who can implement the review, not a person who is going to continue on in the direction John McCormick has taken.”

Paul Tyrell CEO RAAA:

“The RAAA would welcome the recommendations of the ASRR being implemented as soon as possible. It is essential that the incoming CASA board members play a leading role in the appointment of the new CASA CEO. To do otherwise would make a mockery of the recent review. The new CEO must display a strong cost reflex in that he should exercise stringent control over CASA costs just as all modern aviation businesses must also do if they are to survive.”

miniscule harden up mate or get off the pot and let Barnaby take it to the Hawke!

TICK..TOCK miniscule.

Kharon
10th Jul 2014, 20:20
LL - this is why I like Mrdak where I can see the blighter; it's always easier to track a known quantity if you can follow a well defined trail. You can see from the Sarcs post above, neither Cannane, Tyrell or Phelan are fooled by the false trail. You can most easily imagine the conversation between the murky Machiavellian (MM) and Minuscule (M). A fairy tale, to be spun and woven into a Willyleaks form guide commentary.

M: "Erm, do we really need a horse race then?, must we have one? it's such a fuss"

MM: "Yers Minister, unfortunately we do".

M: "Oh dear, what's to be done, what's the procedure?"

MM: "Don't worry Sir, I have done this sort of thing before and if you allow, I'll take care of the whole dangerous event. The thing is fraught with political peril and the mob of punters at the gates will be howling for your blood if we don't; why don't you just relax and let me handle it".

M: "Oh, thank you. You have been a good and faithful servant and I would be most obliged if you could manage this insignificant, annoying detail for me. Now, where's my Ovaltine and Tim Tams?

MM scampers off to the kitchen to make the Ovaltine and while waiting for the kettle to boil. whips out the trusty mobile and rings one of his mates – a handicapper. "Meet me for lunch, usual place, we have a race to organise".

From lunch time onwards the betting selection is under the Machiavellian thumb. Above the surface to the punters, it looks ordered, open and transparent and so it is; in fact the whole thing, this faux race is flawlessly stage managed. MM whistles while he works knowing that his handpicked handicappers will knobble the rest of the field, before the off. Weighed down by loaded saddles, the runners will all slow down, allowing the lightweight MM fancy to win, by a length, ridden hands and heels. The punters loose their shirts, but then that's the nature of gambling; the only winners are the man who arranged the thing, the men who fixed the thing and those "in the know" who bet on the result.

The Jockey Club would not be impressed if they knew; but, as this was a private event, they don't signify.

Selah._.


Phil Hurst, Executive Director of the Agricultural Aviation Association of Australia (AAAA), says: “The process that we support is the one that is been outlined any number of times. It is that there should be a clean sweep of the CASA board. There should then be widespread consultation with industry for the appointments to that board. I understand that Jeff Boyd has already been appointed to the board as Deputy Chairman and we fully support his appointment because he is coming from industry and that’s exactly the sort of appointment that we welcome.

“I think that whoever takes the reins at CASA, they must have the trust of industry. That’s the critical issue and with the best will in the world, it’s very difficult for industry to trust people that have never operated in a commercial environment.

“My concern with the lack of transparency in all this is that anything that happens in the current environment is likely to be tainted. If the powers that be don’t understand the importance of transparency in this process, which will set the direction for CASA for the next however many years, then clearly we’ve got more work to do.”

Sunfish
10th Jul 2014, 21:04
Kharon, I think the race is over and we've lost our shirts.

The new board members are what is known as window dressing - to give the appearance of change. The new DAS, I predict, will be a female, preferably lesbian. That way further industry complaints can be written off as misogynous, sexist homophobic rants.

Ideally she should be what we call in management a "process Queen" - knows nothing about the industry at all, but fervently believes she can manage Aviation regulation by following "process". She will also market herself and be marketed as a "change agent".

Of course she will be ground down and fail in this, but not before the Minister, Mrdak and the Iron ring have secured their retirements.

Kharon
10th Jul 2014, 21:16
Or, to put that another way; the Fine Cotton affair was a boy scout organised, amateur hour lash up compared to the silken smooth, well rehearsed operation we are witnessing. I wonder who Xenophon has in his gun sight; I hear a whisper that the embattled Hawke has been throwing some weight about, probably a reaction to electricity, or was it water; no matter -I forget which one.

ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/10/casa-hiring-transparency-lost-in-obfuscation/) has been told that the Dr Hawke wrote to one industry association refuting its submission to the ASRR, and that the organisation rejected what it believed to be “bullying” on his part and brought the matter to Minister Truss’s attention.

Lookleft
12th Jul 2014, 00:51
If you are willing to accept Mrdak then you also have to accept Beaker. Both are career bureaucrats who really have no particular interest in the departments they run but are very interested in deflecting criticism and avoiding responsibility. The proof of that is despite the weight of evidence of incompetence, as determined by the Senate report, Beaker is still in the job as head of the ATSB. He only has one boss and that is Mrdak and Mrdak is well pleased with Beaker's performance. The only person to get the boot is McCormick. Probably Mrdak needed to offer one head on a stick and a non-career public servant was the prime candidate.

004wercras
12th Jul 2014, 11:05
Herr Skull is off overseas at the moment, enjoying the fruits of the taxpayer trough for one last time prior to his long anticipated, and somewhat overdue departure next month. Perhaps he is being interviewed for an ICAO position while he is abroad? Maybe he is collecting rare species of butterfly, or perhaps he is providing free aviation education to some third world country? (Sorry, I forgot, he already does that here!).

And while the cats away, the mice will play. And play they are. Much jockeying for positions higher up the toilet chain is going on, in fact it is almost frantic! Terry is smugly hobbling around the corridors of Spamberra, ego primed, as he contemplates what he sees as the next most suitable DAS - his good old self! Now how he intends to hold down such a coveted position while dabbling in I.T and maintaining a current A380 endo I really don't know! Forget CVD, will cataracts, incontinence and a pea size heart pass one of Dr Pooshans infallible medical standards?

Oh the internal shenanigans are well under way. Flyingfiend is aligning himself behind the bearded Philosopher, Messrs Boyd, Campbell, Peter a-ferret-a-day, and others are trying to shore up votes and support. Even the wascaly wabbit Wodger believes he is in for a sturdy promotion when the organisational deck chairs are rearranged over the coming months!

I've been stocking up on beer and popcorn for a few weeks now, waiting for the show to really begin. It's time to take my seat as the starters bell is about to be rung. C'mon Minister Truss, we have saved you a front row seat on the top deck of the Styx Houseboat, to watch the game unfold. Please come join us :ok:

'Tick Tock as the house of cards begins to rock'

halfmanhalfbiscuit
12th Jul 2014, 20:40
004 , sounds like fun. For giggles it'd be nice to see Byron return and see some of those frantically trying to hide under rocks in the more remote locations.

I don't understand why the DAS has not been announced by now though. Byron stayed on a couple of months to handover.

Sen X and Fawcett continue to stir things up too.

It's good entertainment.

Kharon
12th Jul 2014, 22:21
LL - If you are willing to accept Mrdak then you also have to accept Beaker.

"If in this Case there be no other (as the Proverb is) then -Hobson's (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hobsons-choice.html)- choice ... which is, chuse whether you will have this or none."
Lefty – "willing and accepting" imply a choice; and mate, like Hobson's, we have little to none. No options and fewer choices, we are stuck with it. The only glimmer of hope for meaningful change comes from the Forsyth report. The really clever folk, like Boyd, Cannane, Fawcett, Hurst, Xenophon et al, read between the WLR lines 'properly'; it recommends changes which imply the top three layers of CASA management must go, the board be changed and the MM department lift it's game.

As much as I'd love to see all that happen, I know it's politically and practically impossible. We can only work with the tools we've got. I do feel time will take care of Mrdak, there are some difficult questions for him to answer on many subjects. Pragmatically though, his performances during estimates questioning define a master of the game and so long as he has the reigns any small changes will be hard won; especially with only limp wrist support from a minuscule who is not oriented toward matters aeronautical.

That only leaves hope the 'new' board can influence real reform; but the facts so far reveal that Hawke is staying put and that the other 'new' board members will be selected from rejected DAS applicants. Which leaves us Jeff Boyd, David Fawcett and Nick Xenophon to drive the changes; of those, only Boyd is a known reformer with a board seat.

So old son, it's not a matter of being willing to accept – but taking the best we can from a long way behind. I personally think the industry has become so used to the 'way we are' they have forgotten the 'way we were' and that's a very long road to return along.

I would fire Beaker from a cannon, in a heart beat with malice, tar and feathers, the works. I would without a seconds hesitation publicly decimate the three top layers of CASA management. But if the MM leopard could see the benefits of changing it's spots, I'd think long and hard before I pulled the trigger. On balance, I'd probably pull that trigger too; just for the airports mischief; but only from a distance and not without serious misgivings.

Time for second coffee, reality fix required...

Toot toot...

Lookleft
13th Jul 2014, 07:50
I think Jeff's experience dealing with the owners of Canberra Airport will be useful when dealing with other Board members and the senior levels of the bureaucracy he is oversighting. Its a pity they couldn't get a two for one deal and have Lara there as well.

thorn bird
13th Jul 2014, 09:14
Got a very welcome invite by P7. (AKA Tom) to the Bar room Barristers darts night on Friday, if your ever lucky enough to get an invite don't miss it, its a real hoot.

Discussion ebbs an flows all night from the esoteric to at times surreal, to positively shocking.

The theme Friday coalesced into fervent argument of the level of corruption within CAsA.

Some said the regulatory reform project was corrupt because the iron ring had deliberately nobbled it thus costing the taxpayers 300 million dollars and the industry 25 years of mayhem and uncertainty.

Others said it wasn't corrupt, just incompetent, abiet 300 mils worth, but incompetence wasn't necessarily corrupt.

Anyway, the night progressed, much argument ensued about Qadrio's pineappling and how his pineappler had left CAsA to a cushy job in GA. ( Wonder who signed their approvals?)

I heard stuff I'd never heard about Polair and our geriatric A380 CAsA persons involvement in it, Airtex and how evidence was manufactured by a rascally rabbit etc etc, but towards the end of the night I just happened to overhear something that disturbed me greatly.

I am firmly convinced CAsA as an organisation is corrupt, there is just too much evidence out there, there is unfortunately, no place where that evidence can be bought for objective analysis, the police police the police where CAsA is concerned, given the rumours surrounding the DAS and the complaints commissioner that statement could very well be true, but if what I overheard friday night is true there is nothing esoteric about it, it is blatant outright corruption.

What I overheard concerns a certain FOI, who tested a certain CFI, and busted him back to acting "blank file".
All his approvals etc, the lot, gone! his whole career down the toilet.

Not unusual these days, I mean think of the RFDS in Melbourne, Hardies in Darwin, plenty of examples, which led to whole companies shutting down, throwing countless people out of work, to considerable financial penalty to others trying to defend themselves, where they are condemned as guilty before they even start.

In this particular case however this FOI, bless him, sacrificed his only begotten son to expunge the sins of the former by putting him into the role of CFI!!

What choice did this company have? without a CFI the company was Kaput.

.....What???

I mean this is way beyond the Adelaide FOI who insisted on an International "Proving flight" so he and his AWI mate could get a free couple of nights in the Darwin Casino, this is getting very close to the friday arvo brown paper bag!!

Minuscule WUSS...tick tock

Prince Niccolo M
13th Jul 2014, 10:57
I think you will find it was to fine tune the price for his return to his previous job, where the characteristics that led to the failure of his own business in Adelaide many moons ago signal a desirable flexibility in Territory RPT, coupled with an insider connection with CASA in the centre region :mad:

004wercras
13th Jul 2014, 12:09
I am in agreement with the majority of CAsA's critics - the ridiculous Board must also go. These individuals have also presided over the past 5 years of aviation decline, CAsA cronyism and systematic buggery of all things aviation.
It is ironic that Hawke is clinging on so tightly? Why? A life long bureaucrat who knows how to play the system would have no problems slipping into some other government agency where he can write glossy brochures, spin up a few pithy letters and meet 3 times per year for his $150k! The whole lot of them are a bad joke. Unless there is a clean sweep from the top, nothing will change. And to date the Miniscule has silently sat on his thumbs, Pumpkin Head has been reappointed and Hawke is meant to be staying.....that is not a good start folks, not by a long shot.

Thorny - that is a nauseating story mate. However it is just another example of the level of secret men's business that goes on behind Fort Fumbles closed doors. Although not familiar with that travesty, there are myriads of other cases where the level of malfeasance is nothing short of breathtaking.

Halfmanhalfbiscuit - yes it would be interesting if Byron came back. However the Iron Ring had him shackled once before and they would do it again. They've been puppeteering CEO's/DAS's/Big Kahuna's or whatever you want to call them for years. Mr Smith also tried to implement some positive changes during his tenure but was also sideswiped, and very covertly might I add, by the Iron Ring.

As I said in an earlier post, the beer is on ice and popcorn in the microwave. Lots more chess moves to come yet. No real change will eventuate, I am a realist, but it is still fun watching the deck chairs being arranged, watching the rats scrambling around looking for a safe hiding place, watching individuals as they play the political game inside Sleepy Hollows musky walls, and watching Xenophon and Fawcett eagerly trying to take the field in umpiring positions! Oh boy I would like to see that, the Senators with whistles and striped shirts with the power to sin bin Fort Fumbles most slippery snakes :ok:

"Game on"

Kharon
13th Jul 2014, 22:37
This article from Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/14/an-australian-senators-defence-of-colour-blind-pilots/) – is worth the read; and it's very nice to have men in government who keep their word.. – Xenophon (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/09/15/independent-push-for-better-air-safety-standards-in-australia/) -.

The abuse of bureaucratic power is arguably, part of life. However the unwillingness of Government to do anything about it, other than to regurgitate statements by the same authorities that are accused of the original wrong doing, is something that ought to be of concern.

Kharon
13th Jul 2014, 22:44
Lefty is going to get the blame for this post – I have been much taken with the notion of shooting Muppets, tarred and feathered from cannons toward parliament house, since our last conversation. It provoked much hilarity at the Friday BRB QLD. (Quiet Little Drink). Thorny in attendance:– glad you enjoyed the evening. I will make no mention of the lampshade, nor false moustache episode (that's not where you wear 'em by the by) – promise. Heh, heh, heh. Neither will I post a picture of a dignified old school Captain being hauled home on the back of the Gobbledock' s beloved elephant. It will however be carefully kept in the 'family' photo album; for future reference and reunions.

One of the best bits (IMO) of the evening was the discussion on ways and means to get the ATSB some real teeth, horse and fire power. The argument that the NTSB, TSBC, AAIB etc do not go cap in hand to the 'regulator' and slobber about tactfully suggesting that 'perhaps' some minor adjustments could be made. They simply tell the regulator what's up, sometimes there is a negotiation or discussion but when, say the NTSB for example, 'crack the whip' and say jump; the regulator simply asks "how high".

The analogy of a 'Uriah Heep' style, begging and grovelling approach seems to fit. But why is it this way ?– it can't just be 'money'. The old BASI was fiercely independent and would, when the need arose go toe to toe with the 'regulator'. I keep coming back to the Miller review and the endless manipulation of the ubiquitous MoU. Anyway – it does not need an act of parliament to sort that little mess out. Just some gumption and old fashioned honesty. I and many others agreed; this wussy PC approach is uniquely different to that of other democratic countries. I'd like to see what the NTSB would do with the Pel Air incident; I'd bet a round of beers they would not be dancing about the daisies, wringing their hands and assisting in a solely pilot error load of old bollocks.

One of the really serious safety issues is fear of reporting; we all agreed on that at least. This invasive CASA generated 'sub-culture' where what's in book, don't happen on line and the lengths people must go to, to cover their arses is extreme. Then there's the shortage of valid 'educational' material; just risible reports so artfully nugatory as to provide little in the way 'useful' information. Not to mention that the ATSB spokesperson at a recent press conference could not explain why straight line tracks on a Mercator projection appeared curved; and, then proceeded to generally make a goose of it'self in front of the international aviation media. Some of the comments from 'aviation savvy' commentators were hilarious. In the end, I think they all went for a rehash of old material, rather than risk being seen as foolish enough to print the guff they were given.

While everyone is watching the CASA snakes and ladders show, the ATSB must not be allowed to slink off into anonymity, keeping their heads down and believing they have managed to slither, unnoticed out of the back door.

Minuscule – in very real terms, the ATSB is an essential part of air safety much more so than the 'regulator'; but don't rely on the BRB, ask the Americans, the Brits or the Canadians how they would feel about a toothless, irrelevant Transport Safety Board. Make the ATSB independent, free of obligation and funding wrangles: Oh, and please, lend me a cannon from the lawns on parliament hill, for a short ceremony; you can watch.

Toot toot.

The abuse of bureaucratic power is arguably, part of life. However the unwillingness of Government to do anything about it, other than to regurgitate statements by the same authorities that are accused of the original wrong doing, is something that ought to be of concern.

Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/14/an-australian-senators-defence-of-colour-blind-pilots/)- The defective and shameful Pel-Air crash report issued by the ATSB remains in place because of this Ministerial and self protective bureaucratic inertia. And this is unjust, and contrary to the public aviation safety interest. My bold...

aroa
13th Jul 2014, 22:53
CAsA = Corrupt Authority, Safety an Afterthought. :mad:

CAsA is CORRUPT morally and IN FACT.

AND I can prove it ...but who's listening and who will deal with it.?

NOBODY...as we know.

When a competitor company with ex employees within CAsA want a job done on someone...and do it. THATs CORRUPTION. :mad:

When AWIs (dopes?.. or just dope smokers?) concoct false testimony with a view to a criminal conviction, and are protected by the DAS and CAsA system ... THATS CORRUPTION. :mad:

The skullduggery and serious bureaucratic buggery that has gone on in the Quadrio Event is CORRUPTION with a capital C

Trouble is Govermnents of all persuasions have left CAsA to go more rotten as the years go by, all camouflaged by the mystique of "safety" with bs covering phrases like "not fit and proper" or " a serious and imminent threat to "safety"".

We have now reached the diabolical stage where those statements belong entirely to CaSA itself, which is now not a fit and proper "agency" to oversee the industry, and is itself a serious and current threat to real safety. :mad:

While there are good people within CAsA , and Ive met some .I can count them on one hand, but I need to qualify that as I used to work in a sawmill and I dont have many digits left.

Why does CAsA ride roughshod over GA. Because it can, because CORRUPT they are bum up, heads down in the trough snuffling self interest and with NO interest in the survival of GA. :mad:
And they CORRUPTLY believe the law doesnt apply to them.:mad:

Sarcs
14th Jul 2014, 03:47
AMROBA express concern for new DAS selection process.

Like many members of the IOS AMROBA has concerns with the current malaise of the miniscule (yet to blink) and the rumours going around that the next DAS will be selected by Hawke & the, largely, old board that has a history of poor choices when it comes to the CEO/DAS:CASA DAS Selection Process.

CASA DAS Selection Process (http://amroba.org.au/casa-das-selection-process.html)

AMROBA has written to the Minister with regards to the process of selecting CASA’s next Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Many members have raised concerns that the ASRR Report recommendations have not yet been accepted/rejected by the Minister prior to selecting the next DAS.

Considering the Victorian “head hunters” that recommended the last 3 CASA DAS are processing the current selection process, what criteria are they using to recommend their selections to the CASA Board?

If the report is endorsed by the Minister the DAS will need to be a person that understands the kind of regulator that the report recommends. If the report recommendations are rejected by the Minister then we will get a DAS that will serve up more of the same from CASA.

So what criteria are the 'head hunters' using to recommend a new DAS to the Board?

There are, we believe, 12 applicants that have made the final selection and the “head hunters” will be conferring with the CASA Chairman of the Board prior to having face-to-face interviews.

If the current Board repeats the selection criteria of the past, then the chance of CASA becoming a mature safety authority as proposed by the ASRR Report will have little chance of becoming a reality.

AMROBA has also written to the Minister and suggested that the Civil Aviation Act will need amending to permanently implement many of the report recommendations if the Minister adopts the report recommendations.

The more time that elapses, the more uncertainity is created in this industry.

Our biggest concern is that the Minister has not publicly stated the he supports his ASRR report recommendations. Therefore One can only assume that the selection criteria being used will be the same criteria that selected the last 3 CASA DAS. This is a worry.

If the Minister had publicly supported the report’s recommendations, then the selection criteria should have been changed to find someone that can implement the recommendations. However, the selection process started before the report was made public. Are we being given expectations that wont happen?

Lastly, AMROBA congratulates Mr Jeff Boyd being appointed to the CASA Board – he has a lot of industry experience.

FO (DF): “Captain (miniscule) you must listen!”

004wercras
14th Jul 2014, 11:57
While everyone is watching the CASA snakes and ladders show, the ATSB must not be allowed to slink off into anonymity, keeping their heads down and believing they have managed to slither, unnoticed out of the back door. Agreed. Although most attention is on CAsA and its misuse of power for decades, we cannot forget Beaker. He has managed in less than 5 years to take the once well respected and well reputed ATsB and turn it into a spineless limp wristed penny pinching accountancy firm. The quality, content and effectiveness of its investigative reports and processes are laughable and lamentable, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe providing a higher quality and higher standard than our ATsB. Dolans experimentation with 'beyond Reason' methodology is a failure and a complete joke. Placing budget ahead of the Pel Air aircraft retrieval is outright lunacy and incompetency at the highest level, not to mention having 3 commissioners of whom none have an aviation investigative background :ugh::ugh::ugh:
The true nuts and bolts of the ATsB are still there below the surface, thank god. What we need is for the top layer to receive a robust colonic irrigation and have all the shite and amoebas flushed away, and a new directive including a new top tier, increased budget for investigator training and for actual investigations work, as well as a renewed focus on 'balls out' reporting including facts and recommendations is needed. I believe the ATsB of old could be returned in less than 2 years with a little elbow grease and less use of the temporary product called 'turd polish'.

'Tick Tock Miniscule, tick tock Mr Mrdak, do something soon or your A380 smoking hole awaits you' :=:=

Sunfish
14th Jul 2014, 11:59
i believe I almost died last week along with four others in a C210 on a dodgy take off. I was a passenger and my evidence is, as such, inconclusive. Would I report ir? No. All that would do is destroy the business for zero safety outcome..

I just hope that the pilot learned from their mistake..

dubbleyew eight
14th Jul 2014, 12:54
you didn't almost die.
the stall warning sounds about 5 knots faster than the speed at which a stall is inevitable.

it is good that you got a scare.
you'll learn from it perhaps.


during the course of this thread I have finally worked out what a not fit and proper person is.
quite simply a fit and proper person agrees totally with the "we know safety" nutters in CAsA.
since I happen, as a result of experience over a period of 41 years, to hold the sincere belief that CAsA are totally incompetent of the needs that an aviation community has. I am thus a not fit and proper person.
however I am right and they are wrong. Like Galileo before me I hold true to my beliefs and expect one day to be excommunicated by the lords of the religion of safety.
Until that day I shall continue flying and ignore them totally.
after that date I shall continue flying and ignore them totally.

in 300 years time I'm sure my position will be vindicated, as was Galileo's.

thorn bird
14th Jul 2014, 19:09
A lot less than 300 Dubya, I believe the industry has less than 10 years if things go on as they are, unless our luck runs out and a smoking hole appears.


I hope miniscule WUSS has briefed the cabinet on how much they will have to find to subsidize CAsA's safety, so essential services can continue.

Jinglie
15th Jul 2014, 10:48
Sarcs, AMROBA,

Any word on who the chosen 12 may be? 12 seems an extraordinary long shortlist. I know in previous cases when the job has been offered, they got down to the 4th or 5th choice before someone would sign a contract!

Kharon
15th Jul 2014, 19:58
I do wish the Senate could crack on and get the current business cleared away; it's slowing down the Forsyth debate and giving the murky Machiavellian's time to hatch cunning plans. But, before they get to Forsyth though there is the tasty morsel before the 'Privileges committee' and CVD and, (drum roll) the DAS selection to consider. Busy, busy, busy.

But, alas, it's all to no avail. This review and reform is now as well ducked as the previous ones; perhaps even more so. IF the information related to the way in which DAS selection process is being executed turns out to be accurate. Impossible to ignore the ominous signs. The forces of evil have stolen the march and are, as we speak, grooming and primping the selected McComic clone candidate; the 'runner up' to be appointed to the Hawke controlled board (Trifecta). Boyd may well be clever, tough and well supported but will become a token gesture, a sop to the IOS, one lone voice sitting in the back row watching the performance, powerless to do anything else but applaud politely; when the 'wrong man' appointment is allowed to proceed.

Unless Boyd, Fawcett, Xenophon step in now (as in Now, now) and demand complete transparency (soup to nuts) of the DAS selection and appointment process, any meaningful reform will wither and die once the spotlights have been turned off. Truss did not pay the 2008 electricity bill and is equally disinclined to pay the 2014 one; in darkness the forces of evil will flourish.

With 'their' man's feet neatly tucked under the table the brakes will come on and slowly, but irrevocably the reform bus will grind to a halt. "Major changes cannot be made overnight; first we must do our homework, then we must consider, then we must hasten slowly". Imagine in five years time, no ATSB reform, no CASA reform, no regulatory reform, embuggerance enshrined as the national standard and the IOS shutdown; for ever.

Don't expect the Senators read much Pprune or are even aware of it's existence, but FWIW - the warning signs are all there; easily read by those who have watched and studied the form guide compiled from the many, long past, dismally failed attempts at reform. If those who can act don't; this proposed reform will end up down the same drain as every single one of the last dozen or so have. This one all starts and ends with the murky DAS selection process. It's no wonder no one at Sleepy Hollow seems worried about anything else but how high they can climb up the toilet chain.

Just add another five or six million to the 'dead pool' of aviation reform for this last little pantomime, and ignore it until the next 'inquiry' and the next round of mugging the punters begins, again, in a bout five years... Again....

Selah..

004wercras
15th Jul 2014, 21:40
Imagine in five years time, no ATSB reform, no CASA reform, no regulatory reform, embuggerance enshrined as the national standard and the IOS shutdown; for ever. Naughty Kharon, have you been peeking into the Australian governments mystical aviation crystal ball again, and with CVD rose coloured glasses, may I add?

Meanwhile, last night, at an undisclosed IOS frat house the topic of ASA raised its head. While indulging in smutty banter, aviation war stories and enjoying watching a buxom barmaid pulling pints of Guiness, our collective noted there appears to be a level of stability since Frau Staib came onboard and subsequently allowed the Hooded one off the leash since his arrival. It seems TIBA issues have quieted down, training for ATC has improved, all things fibre optic continue to improve, and importantly the $800 million dollar man Russell has become a distant memory. Is this evidence that a government organisation can morph into something tangible when the right people are Captaining the ship? Or are we being tricked by some Machiavellian smoke n mirror pony show, as we have been before? Perhaps our aircraft guiding tower boys and girls could provide us with a current scorecard for ASA? Personally I think it could be the fact that Hoody was already respected as a senior manager, and combine this with his frontline experience, and perhaps his penchant for nipple bling, we could be on to something? Even the Senators have gone quiet on ASA so perhaps one of three boxes have been ticked off, with just CAsA and ATsB to go? However I do feel that as long as the overweight turd massager Dr Hawke remains firmly planted within the CAsA Board there will be no long term adequate changes.

Either way, it's all a game really, just a bit of fun that pays pretty well. I mean sure, lives are at stake, lives have already been lost, investigations and findings ignored or twisted by the powers to be that earn taxpayer funded salaries, but jeez after all these years wouldn't things be boring if we suddenly had ethical, transparent, safety conscious governments and their departments caring for our industry??

Toot toot and a mighty fine morning to our fearless leaders in Canberra on this crisp early morning....(and make sure your willies don't shrink any smaller. Safety first and all that :ok: )

Kharon
15th Jul 2014, 22:17
Nail, head and hammer mate. Good managers value intelligent troops and use them. An unleashed Hood, for ASA can only be a good thing for all. It's the very best thing to watch a good pro at work. He impressed last estimates, relaxed the Senate crew and hopefully has found a niche where his good qualities are appreciated, rather than being the object of derision and slurs. (Guinness and nipple bling not withstanding).

Toot toot y'self...Fur lined jock straps and silver spurs all round I say...._.

Sunfish
17th Jul 2014, 20:55
Bump. Don't let this topic die. That is what the Minister and his Department is hoping for, reform fatigue.

Sarcs
17th Jul 2014, 23:40
We hear your concern Sunny, just at the moment trying to get my head around the MH17 tragedy...MH17 down near Donetsk (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk.html)...which appears to have been shot down by a SAM. Tragically there was 20 odd Australians on-board very disturbing & condolences to their families. PT covering here: MH17: Malaysia Airlines 777 ‘shot down’ over Ukraine 295 dead (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/18/mh17-malaysia-airlines-777-shot-down-over-ukraine-all-dead/)

Okay back to the thread...

Apparently the miniscule will not be responding to the Forsyth report till the Spring parliament sittings which, according to the parliamentary timetable, means the earliest we can possibly get a Government MAP will be 26th of August..:ugh: :ugh: However indications are that industry stalwarts will not ease up the pressure on the miniscule for strong, effective regulatory reform and adoption, with some tweaking, of nearly all 37 ASRR panel recommendations.

During the breaking news of flight MH17 the Oz released their Friday aviation articles and I'm afraid there is more bad press for Fort Fumble and (by association) the miniscule..:=:=

Starting with: CASA shortage left aerodrome unchecked (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-shortage-left-aerodrome-unchecked/story-e6frg95x-1226992577428)A SHORTAGE of Civil Aviation Safety Authority aerodrome staff meant at least one regional airport did not receive an in-person inspection for eight years, according to a new submission to the federal government’s safety review.

The issue is one of several raised by the Australian Airports Association in response to the recommendations released last month by the panel conducting the review into safety regulation.

The AAA said it understood that inspector staffing was down by as much as 30 per cent due to a combination of resignations, long service leave and retirements.

While these would normally be handled through the course of business, it said this had not happened due to budget restrictions and the federal government’s efficiency dividend.

The shortage and its impact became evident during recent consultations, according AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie.

“Given the size of the airport and the size of aircraft that service that airport, this is a very concerning outcome,’’ Ms Wilkie said in a letter to review chairman David Forsyth.

“Whilst the AAA is confident that the internal processes at that particular airport are sound and that inspections are regularly under*taken by an accredited third party inspector, it does raise questions about the scope and validity of the CASA inspection regime.

“To avoid potentially compromising safety in the future, it would be prudent to introduce a maximum allowable timeframe between aerodrome inspections, with any aerodrome inspections falling outside that timeframe to be reviewed as an urgent priority.’’

CASA said it had 17 aerodrome inspectors or associated roles and denied that “several vacancies’’ were adversely impacting on regulators’ functions.
It said a risk-based approach meant airports used by the majority of air travellers were “audited frequently’’. “For example, CASA aerodrome inspectors visit Sydney airport multiple times a year,’’ it said. “In most cases airports serviced by regular public transport operations are visited by CASA at least once a year.’’

The AAA also called for a person with airport experience to be appointed to the CASA board and reiterated its view that the Manual Operations of Standards Part 139 , which specifies the requirements of aerodrome and fire fighting services and defines a safety framework, needs to be quickly reviewed.

The association said a post implementation review of the standard had not been undertaken since its inception in 2008 despite the fact it was supposed to happen two years after implementation.

“By any standard, the review of MOS Part 139 is in incredibly overdue,” Ms Wilkie said, noting that plans to conduct the review announced last October had been further delayed. “The apparent ongoing lack of concern displayed by CASA, given the important need to undertake a review of MOS Part 139 is alarming.

“The industry has identified more than 100 issues that need to be urgently addressed in the document, through our paper titled ‘AAA Review of Manual of Standards 139’.

“This was provided to CASA in May 2014.’’

The association said it was comfortable with the report’s 37 key recommendations and strongly supported recommendation 18, allowing the use of discretion in inspections.

“The AAA believes that this would allow for a much more collaborative approach between CASA and aerodrome operators, allowing for a practical and *efficient outcome to be achieved in remedying any perceived breaches,’’ it said.

The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia supports or strongly supports 21 of the recommendations and another 13 with reservations or conditions.

It opposes a recommendation that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and CASA use the bilateral memorandum of understanding to accredit CASA observers to air crash investigations.

The association cited “significant ongoing concerns with CASA and its lack of understanding of a ‘just culture’ ’’ in its response to the report. It said its concerns about the importance of maintaining and enhancing the de-identification of safety information provided to CASA would remain until this changed. :D:D

Here is a link for the AAA letter to Forsyth: AAA response to ASRR report (http://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AAA-submission-Aviation-Saftey-Regulation-Review-report-9-July-2014.pdf)

"...The AAA has reviewed the ASRR report and is comfortable with the 37 key recommendations that have been proposed. Safety is of paramount importance for airport operators and the aviation industry as a whole, and it is pleasing to see that this issue has been identified as a priority.

In particular, the AAA strongly supports recommendation 18 of the report, which provides for CASA to reintroduce the ‘use of discretion’ procedure in its inspection processes. The AAA believes that this would allow for a much more collaborative approach between CASA and aerodrome operators, allowing for a practical and efficient outcome to be achieved in remedying any perceived breaches.

While many of the recommendations arising from the review are wide-ranging, they fundamentally highlight the importance of a more productive and collaborative relationship between the regulator and the aviation industry in the interests of improving the aviation safety regime for Australia. This is timely given that the industry has recently voiced its distress in relation to the current resourcing and operation of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)..."

While on the subject of industry responses to the Forsyth report, here is the RAAA response: RAAA SUBMISSION - AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW REPORT (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/submissions/pdf/2014/RAAA-Response-ASRR-Report.pdf)

Which is (unsurprisingly) pretty much mirrored by the REX response, which can be clicked on HERE (http://www.rex.com.au/MediaAndPressClippings/RexPublicSubmission.aspx); or summary viewed HERE (http://www.rex.com.au/NewspaperClip/SubmittedDocs/Regional%20Express%20response%20to%20ASRR%20Panel%20Recommen dations_30-06-2014.pdf)

{Comment: Maybe the miniscule could task RED (PH), much like the submissions, to publish the industry response submissions for ease of IOS reference...:E}

Agree with Sunny...don't get complacent now when we're rapidly approaching the vinegar stroke, the miniscule has a long history of slipping out the back door when the spotlight gets flicked to the next actor on the stage...:ugh:

Much more to follow for the Sarcs weekly wrap...:ok:

Kharon
18th Jul 2014, 03:29
Chris Manning says the government must investigate why Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports have a disproportionately high number of “loss of separation” incidents. The term is used when passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of a mid-air collision.

Mr Manning, Qantas’s chief pilot between 2002 and 2008 and one of the most respected figures in Australian aviation, said while the three airports were not unsafe, they were less safe than the country’s other major airports and this was unacceptable.

“It is safe but, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report, there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he told The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes that civil aircraft use.”

Rather refreshing to witness an epiphany, in the press, of a senior industry figure 'suddenly' seeing the light and feeling the urge to pipe up. I wonder why it took so long for the light to come on, it's not as though there hasn't been ample opportunity to 'stick an oar in' to date. Nothing to do with a series of job interviews underway at the moment is it? Nah, course not.

Anyway – news from Townsville re-fueller is that some candidates have declined to complete the process, choosing rather to depart the fix, with much flouncing of skirts and in high dudgeon than remain in the holding pattern.

But in these cases
We still have judgement here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return,
To plague the inventor; this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on th' other.

Macbeth seems somehow more apt than Hamlet these days. Aye well, such is life...

004wercras
18th Jul 2014, 13:23
A SHORTAGE of Civil Aviation Safety Authority aerodrome staff meant at least one regional airport did not receive an in-person inspection for eight years, according to a new submission to the federal government’s safety review.

Probably got something to do with the fact that CAsA traditionally focus on the flying side of things. To them, and someone like the Skull, pilots are the main focus. That's why Fort Fumble has stacks of FOI's. AWI's and airworthiness comes next, and the poor lowly Aerodrome inspectors come last. No risk at airports boys!! Airport oversight wasn't respected even back in Dick's days. He got the ball rolling by slashing the inspectorate number and it has never gotten back up to an acceptable level. CAsA, in all its stupidity, dumped SMS into the lap of aerodromes back in 2005 and said 'here you go, you need to do this', and walked away. In the meantime they hit AOC and COA operators with SMS in and around 2008 onwards, and did a better job at it. But it is only in the past year that they have gone back to looking at aerodromes. The problem is there has been minimal consultation, a lot of the aerodrome inspectors don't understand SMS, and a lot of the aerodromes, some that are pretty darn large, don't even have a safety manager, yet are meant to operate the same way as a large airline when it comes to safety management systems! There simply aren't enough aerodrome inspectors, and until CAsA gets rid of people like the Skull who think the only risk or important thing in aviation is the pointy end of a plane, there is no hope for better safety outcomes. I can assure you that there are aerodromes out there that pose a larger safety risk than some airlines or maintenance operators. And from my last recollection there are around 300 certified aerodromes, all of which should have a SMS, and as part of the SMS one must have a safety manager with relevant qualifications accord to the regs, and very few, if any, have one. So how is that compliant??
Frau Wilkie is justified in her comments about CAsA, and I am sure that you all welcome her with open arms to the IOS. Her gift pack is in the mail :ok:
Who knows, perhaps the next DAS won't have his blinkers on and will be able to see the big picture rather than just the front end of a plane?

Kharon you magnificent creature, nice pick up on the statement by Manning;
Rather refreshing to witness an epiphany, in the press, of a senior industry figure 'suddenly' seeing the light and feeling the urge to pipe up. I wonder why it took so long for the light to come on, it's not as though there hasn't been ample opportunity to 'stick an oar in' to date. Nothing to do with a series of job interviews underway at the moment is it? Nah, course not. I believe I mentioned Herr Manning some time ago as being the Number 1 contender in the DAS race. Could this be the first of numerous public statements? Could he be now greasing the aviation wheels, slowly and subtly, preparing us for his imminent arrival, starting to massage us an inch at a time, so to speak?

No Tick Tock tonight, to be con't.............

Kharon
18th Jul 2014, 20:17
004 – "I believe I mentioned Herr Manning some time ago as being the Number 1 contender in the DAS race."

Yes, you did; but, and with all due respect to Chris Manning; is he the "type" we need as DAS? I'm sure Chris Manning is as fine a fellahin as you could wish to meet; highly qualified with a resume to match; no doubt about it. However: In troubled times, the Mafia used a war time Consigliere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consigliere), in WWII, the Brits had Churchill as a war Prime Minister, cometh the hour, cometh the man and the situation within CASA must be looked on as serious trouble. Hell's bells, the waring factions alone are enough to keep a honest man awake at night.

Another major challenge is the minuscule; he had the same information available in 2008, the same troubles and the same advisors; and, apart from being six years closer to the grave; nothing has changed his disinclination to act. Perhaps the pictures from the Ukraine can show him what happens after any type of real smoking hole event and gently point out the ensuing, international and domestic ramifications.

Both the Senate and the Rev. Forsyth have clearly, unequivocally and absolutely shown that major reform is urgently required (soup to nuts). A chief Pilot of a major carrier requires a number of skills and talents; but are those traditional qualifications sufficient to comprehensibly take an angry industry into a true renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Renaissance)?

A 'Manning' type, going in 'cold' without specialised training will not spot the dodges and wheezes in time. Dealing with relatively 'honest' folk in airline operations cannot possibly prepare the candidate for a swim in the cesspool, no amount of Kevlar will protect the soft spots and learning to walk on quicksand is no easy task. Nope; with great respect for Capt. Manning he'll get eaten alive in the snake pit before the bell for round one is rung.

You must set a thief to catch a thief; we need a reformer who is capable of dragging the CASA into the light by whatever means are necessary, unafraid to spill blood, shit or snot as and when required. There's a requirement to remove three layers of morally corrupt management, before the reinstallation task can even begin. There's the incompetent, pedantic, overly aggressive FOI department to weed out, before starting to get the flight training, engineering, medical and administrative 'sheltered workshops' whipped into shape. Even then, still sitting there, mouldering away are the Hag (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hag-ridden) ridden, benighted (https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=benighted) regulations.

The genetically modified, artificially inseminated abomination spawned by the McComic era will not go quietly into the night. It's very alive, dangerous and hungry. Dealing with this is not a job for polite, traditional, honest, intelligent, hard working chief pilot 'types'. Not by a country mile it ain't: it's in through the belly of the beast – and out through the daemons ass.

Disclaimer, please note; this is not in any way an attack on Chris; quite the reverse. If he is considering tackling the job he'll need every bit of help, warning and knowledge he can get....See Byron for on the job training notes; or, better still, grab a seat on the board, sit next to Boyd and support whoever is unlucky enough to fall into the snake pit.

Selah.

Sarcs
19th Jul 2014, 01:35
The Forsyth report suggested criteria for the DAS position recommended:

7. The next Director of Aviation Safety has leadership and management experience and capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. Aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable.
And in the Executive Summary this criteria was expanded...

"...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..."

CM would have no problem with the latter part of the criteria but the 1st part could prove a major stumbling block. Discounting the Irish Bomber's bizarre attempts to bankrupt the company (& not being a Sky God myself so not really in the know), but I can't remember the last time that the Red Rat had a major cultural change within...?? Therefore maybe this isn't so much a sales pitch from CM but a case of sour grapes, either way it is certainly passing strange??:rolleyes:

Also passing strange (& almost before the ink had dried on the CM diatribe), there was this follow up article from the Oz...Dick Smith joins air traffic control safety row (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/dick-smith-joins-air-traffic-control-safety-row/story-e6frg95x-1226994044567)

THE former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Dick Smith, has warned the Defence Minister that he could be responsible for the nation’s first jet airline crash because of the shortcomings of military air traffic controllers.


In an extraordinary letter to David Johnston, Mr Smith warns that tough decisions are needed now because it was clear that safety levels for passenger planes at the military controlled airports of Darwin, Newcastle and Townsville were inadequate.

“Minister this is a shocker!” Mr Smith writes in a letter obtained by The Weekend Australian. “I am sure you do not want to be responsible for the first jet airline fatalities in Australia’s history!

“After 30 years experience in our civil aviation history, my view is that the military simply do not have the efficiencies of scale to be able to adequately operate an acceptably safe air traffic system for civilian aircraft.”

News of Mr Smith’s letter, written last month, follows a call yesterday by former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning for an urgent inquiry into safety at airports that are manned by military air traffic controllers.

Mr Manning, Qantas chief pilot from 2003 to 2008, is angry that the government has virtually ignored a damning Australian Transport Safety Bureau report from October last year, which found that air force controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts. Because they are near air force bases, Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports are run
by military air traffic controllers despite the fact that the vast majority of planes — 94 per cent at Darwin and 88 per cent at Townsville — are civil aircraft.

Mr Smith, in a separate letter to Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss, says that travellers should be told of this fact ­before they fly into these airports.

The ATSB report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers controlled 25 per cent of air traffic but were involved in 36 per cent of loss of separation incidents — when planes pass too close to each other, increasing the risk of a mid-air ­collision.

Defence has defended its 250 controllers, insisting they have the same training as their civilian counterparts and that rigorous safety standards are applied to their operations. Defence disputes the findings of the ATSB report, saying that it “does not agree with an implication that the number of loss of separation per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety”.

“Military-controlled airspace is inherently different to civilian-controlled airspace — with high traffic peaks but low overall aircraft movement statistics, diverse aircraft types and constrained airspace — which makes the statistical comparison flawed,” a Defence spokesman said.

CASA has responded to the critical ATSB report by conducting a joint safety study of Newcastle airport, but it insists that it has a constructive relationship with Defence on safety issues. Strange bed pals indeed..:ooh:

Kharon:I wonder why it took so long for the light to come on, it's not as though there hasn't been ample opportunity to 'stick an oar in' to date. Ample opportunity indeed "K"...:D And I'd suggest that there have been many less controversial but no less significant examples of Fort Fumble completely ignoring (proverbial middle finger..:ugh:), delaying, arguing the toss, on any bureau SSI/SR(s) addressed to the regulator in recent times. The classic example was the initially notified CSI associated with the Norfolk ditching report, that over 2 1/2 years was slowly whittled down to minor and is still outstanding in action response: AO-2009-072-SI-01 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072/si-01.aspx)
On 25 June 2012, CASA advised that amendment 36 to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6, State Letter AN 11/1.32-12/10 detailed a number of new Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) in regard to fuel planning, in-flight fuel management, the selection of alternates and extended diversion time operations (EDTO). In this respect, CASA provided the following update:


CASA intends to review Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1 relating to fuel requirements. The ICAO fuel and alternate Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are the basis of these changes and will be coordinated by CASA project OS09/13. While this project will focus specifically on passenger-carrying commercial flights the project will also be reviewing fuel requirements generally. The project will now be conducted in four phases. The first three phases will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Order (CAO) applicable Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1 and Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234. The project objectives are as follows:

Phase 1 will involve amendments to the relevant CAOs and a review of CAAP 234-1 for flights to isolated aerodromes in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass fuel and operational requirements for flights to isolated aerodromes and will also consider the provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome from a destination that is a designated isolated aerodrome. The CAAP 234-1 will also be expanded to provide guidance and considerations necessary for flights to any isolated aerodrome, in particular when, and under what circumstances, a pilot should consider a diversion.
Phase 2 will involve amendments to the relevant CAOs and further review of CAAP 234 in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass regulatory changes related to the implementation of general fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes. This review will include the methods by which pilots and operators calculate fuel required and fuel on-board.
Phase 3 will involve amendment to CAR 234 to specify that the pilot in command, or the operator, must take reasonable steps to ensure sufficient fuel and oil shall be carried to undertake and continue the flight in safety. In addition, for flights conducted in accordance with Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO), CAO 82 and CAR 234 shall be amended to require consideration of a "critical fuel scenario" taking into account an aeroplane system failure or malfunction which could adversely affect safety of flight. It is anticipated that the methods chosen by the pilot-in-command and operator will therefore be sufficient to meet the requirements of CAR 234 to enable a flight to be undertaken and continue in safety.
Phase 4 will involve the publication of internal and external educational material along with conducting briefings where necessary.


and that:
The amendment to the ICAO Annex 6 standards will be considered, and where appropriate, incorporated into the relevant legislation/advisory publication. In addition it is anticipated that there will be guidance material for operators who can demonstrate a particular level of performance-based compliance. The intent is to provide a bridge from the conventional approach to safety to the contemporary approach that uses process- based methods and Safety Risk Management (SRM) principles.

The ICAO Fuel and Flight Planning Manual are reflected in the SARP to Annex 6. Inclusion of the provisions of the Amendment 36 SARPs will be captured throughout this project. The ICAO SARP becomes effective from November 2012.

CASA will endeavour to make the changes as soon as possible - subject to third party arrangements such as drafting and resource availability. However the timing of the CAR changes will be subject to a timetable that is not necessarily able to be controlled by CASA. This MSI is also directly relevant to the ATsB YMIA incident investigation AO-2013-100 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4172363/ao-2013-100_prelim.pdf), therefore giving CM the perfect excuse to weigh in on i.e. less controversial and far more relevant...:D

MTF...:ok:

dubbleyew eight
19th Jul 2014, 02:45
interesting to me that the money that it would have cost to widen the narrow runways in outback queensland (provided it wasn't done by a corrupt operator) is probably less than the cost of all the regulatory adjustments needed to allow for operation into the deficient strips.

in the fuel requirements example in the preceding post a viable industry not subject to the embuggerance of a clueless CAsA would probably generate enough business for a remote refuelling facility to survive commercially.
a remote fuelling facility would solve all the problems completely.
in the case of whyalla the guys put in an avtur tank with 10,000 litres of fuel beside the avgas tank. in the entire life of the avtur tank they had sold 125 litres to a rex guy who decided to top up in the face of a storm at destination.
I think the local aero club took over the facility just to keep it functioning.
a viable industry would keep all this infrastructure financially viable.

CAsA you really are totally wrong in your approach. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM in australian aviation. no amount of waffle will ever fix the problems you cause.

Prince Niccolo M
19th Jul 2014, 09:07
I became aware of the Chris Manning blitzkrieg for both public profile and relevance while part way through breakfast. I immediately struggled with choosing between two reasons for this very belated step into the limelight: was it because Spencer Stuart had just told him that he didn't fit the Forsyth anti-pilot template or was it because the Miniscule had just told him he might? :confused:

Then I read that dribble about "one of the most respected figures in Australian aviation" and never fully recovered from the taste of vomitus, subsequently revisited on hearing of Smith's latest raving... :eek: :ugh:

Maybe that was overcame Nick in the Senate - the fear that a Manning/Smith alliance might become the EXACTA (or PERFECTA) (http://horseracing.about.com/od/helpfornewfans/g/aawager4.htm)

Nonetheless, it does remain a great example of how slithering from President of AIPA across to QF Chief Pilot may look good on the CV without ever revealing competence in either role... := :{

dubbleyew eight
19th Jul 2014, 09:33
there are no "highly respected pilots in australian aviation" it is a level playing field.
some of us anonymous guys are better pilots than any of the high profile [email protected]
flying a commercial airliner make you a pilot of a commercial airliner.
flying a mirage fighter makes you a fighter pilot (canon fodder)
flying a cessna makes you a cessna pilot.

have you ever designed a successful aeroplane?
designed a successful aero engine?
ever written a successful book on aviation?
no? you've a long way to go then.
50,000 hours in the log book. whoopee. it is all past history. hope you enjoyed it.

announce to the world that you are a respected aviator. give us a break.
go enjoy your flying and let the rest of us get on with ours. ....and stop being a tosser.

004wercras
19th Jul 2014, 10:02
It really doesn't matter who is assigned the lofty position of DAS; it could be Manning, Smith again, Vladamir Putin of the head of ISIS - as long as the Iron Ring remains real change will not be possible, at all, so everyone can keep clicking their heels together and dreaming of a happy place. It isn't going to happen. If we were to have another pilot captaining the CAsA ship it would be good to see someone in their mid to late 40's, almost straight out of industry, perhaps a 20 year PNG chopper veteran who really knows what the real flying world is about, someone who understands change management, all aspects of safety, technologies and operations.....and no, I have nobody specific in mind who fits that mould, I just think that is the type of character we need in charge.

All and all Manning is a good bloke, an experienced pilot, articulate, understands the game of politics and would command respect from the troops, however the sheer depth of the shit at CAsA would shock him, and the antics of the Iron Ring would bury him. Although my source has seen Manning's name high up the list of 'potential candidates', I don't believe that now is his time. Perhaps in three years time after the wrecking ball has been put through Fort Fumble, then bring in the cleaner. But unless that robust wrecking ball is released sometime soon, Captain Manning's future career would be better served at ICAO or some place where CAsA's nuclear payload cannot reach him.

thorn bird
19th Jul 2014, 10:23
004, I have to agree with you. The "Iron Ring" and their acolytes would eat Manning for breakfast, even if he was of a mind to reform, which I doubt.
Qantas to a certain extent has failed to modernise its procedures and tends to live in the past. No doubt Manning was inured with the good old Aussie "All the rest of the world is wrong, we are right attitude, and that will be strenuously reinforced by the iron ring.

We need a reforming DAS.

The sad thing is until there is a major hull loss in Australia it more than likely won't happen.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
19th Jul 2014, 11:29
We need a reforming DAS.

How many have promised that. As 004 says the iron ring needs sorting.

As was discussed earlier too much focus is given to the FOI area at the expense of other areas.

004wercras
21st Jul 2014, 13:07
What a farce, the Beaker flew out to the Ukraine today to assist with the investigation of MH17!!! Are you f:mad:ing serious? What on earth could this buffoon provide by way of assistance? Perhaps he will teach the Russian separatists how to manage their budget? Is Beaker there as a 'financial adviser' and he will teach the other investigating countries how to simply not undertake the most important investigation requirements so as to save money? Perhaps he will investigate by using his 'beyond reason' methodology? Or perhaps he is there as the drinks boy and will run drinks back and forth to the real investigators?
I vote that Beaker return home immediately and go back to counting pennies, and Alan Stray be despatched immediately to the crash site. At least we would have an actual technical expert there, experienced and respected in frontline activities, rather than have that other fool over there walking around going mi mi mi mi.

P.S Has anybody warned Beaker that there will be decomposing bodies and body parts along with human effluent and other assorted nasties? I think he may be shocked at what actually lies beyond business class seats and the cushion under MrDaks desk!

thorn bird
21st Jul 2014, 21:18
Oh good grief!! what are they thinking!

Then again they have to put on some sort of show.

The "Investigation" will be a farce anyway. The site has been sanitised and there will be very little to find, even the victims have been interfered with.

Good old Beaker will sit around the hotel sipping Lattes, maybe do a bit of sightseeing, with a bit of luck get popped by a drunken separatist, but I doubt he'll get to see a bit of road kill, let alone anything else.

Hmm, "popped by a rebel"..maybe thats why their sending him?

Better to keep our competent investigators at home, they might be needed anytime, Tick Tock and all that...

The world already knows about beaker, so he can't embarrass us much further.

Sunfish
22nd Jul 2014, 09:40
Beaker is the perfect person to send to the Ukraine. He is guaranteed to come up with the party line verdict - that the Rebels shot down the aircraft.

004wercras
22nd Jul 2014, 11:03
Beaker is the perfect person to send to the Ukraine. He is guaranteed to come up with the party line verdict - that the Rebels shot down the aircraft.Perhaps Beaker will join the UN at the conclusion of his new ATsB contract? They have lots of funding and tins of money for him to shuffle, plus they also like to dress in Armani suits, sit on leather and mahogany furniture and dribble philosophical shit while society (not the ills) collapses around their ears. Perfect match!!

Jinglie
22nd Jul 2014, 12:05
Like he added an important piece to the Norfolk Ditching report.

"There was no fire"!!!!! A jet out of fuel, ditching!!! What else wasn't there??? Why the fcuk mention that???

Yes, it will piss me off completely when that idiot confirms what the world has known for 5 days!!

The ATC recordings will tell all, but that's for another thread.

RIP lost souls

Jinglie
22nd Jul 2014, 12:32
Quote from the Air Force Media release;

"Recent media reporting on the safety of our air traffic control, has used ‘loss of separation (LOS)’ statistics from an ATSB report, and incorrectly assumed these events have a direct correlation to safety.
The ATSB report found that Moorabin and Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport had the highest LOS figures in Australia, yet the ATSB made no recommendations regarding either airspace. Similarly, the ATSB report made no recommendations regarding civil airspace, despite more than 80 percent of LOS occurring in that airspace.
More than 97 percent of LOS incidents in military airspace involved ‘Nil’ or ‘Minimal’ collision risk or were attributable to pilot error. Only three of the LOS incidents attributable to military air traffic control had ‘Elevated’ collision risk. By contrast, the report fails to address the 40 LOS incidents with ‘Some’ or ‘Elevated’ collision risk that occurred in civil tower/terminal Area airspace."

Easy one for the Air Force. The ATSB don't do anything these days just coffee and biccies! Chi anyone?????

Kharon
22nd Jul 2014, 20:50
How; in the seven hells did anyone expect any other form of response from the Air Force Chief than this _HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/544039-chief-air-force-response-atsb-report.html#post8573909)_.

Stone the bloody crows; someone buy a couple of bus tickets; get Civvy Hoody and Military Hoody together in a pub out in the bush and let them sort it out; probably have a working agreement by second beers; draft report sketched out by the fourth beers and have a good working relationship by the time wine was served with dinner.

Did you ever have an irrepressible urge to bang heads together. Bloody Beaker, catamite to the Machiavellian glee club.

(No offence Mach.E.)..

Sarcs
23rd Jul 2014, 00:00
Jinglie good pick up...:D

I too thought the statement from the CAF was a lot more than a pushback against the (passing strange) Dick/CM alliance, to me it was a direct assault on ATsBeaker's obvious bias displayed in their LOSA research paper recommendations...:ugh:

004 normally I don't question your sources as they tend to be quite reliable but take a look at the following pic, borrowed courtesy of the SMH (warning bucket maybe required..:yuk:):

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/art-850568720-620x349.jpg

Now despite the very different and stern look by the beardless Beaker, this doesn't look like a man about to depart for Kiev whereas the two Senior Transport Investigators very much do..:D

Here is a possible scenario for this phot...:E

The two bureau STSI gentleman tasked with the MH-17 investigation discretely meet up at the airport (notice no caps or high viz jackets with ATSB plastered all over them), the strategy being to get past the 24/7 media soundbite pack unnoticed and off the record. Enter stage left Beaker singing out.."Oh bbbboys your forgot your packed lunches!" One of the media scrum photographers picks up on the muppet in the suit and subsequently rounds up the (now) trio...Beaker whispers to the duo..."I'll handle this" and the following is a rough summation of what follows...:rolleyes:(caution bucket maybe required again):MH17 investigation 'could take a year' (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/07/21/mh17-investigation-could-take-year)

The head of Australia's transport safety body has warned there will be no quick answers to the downing of MH17, saying it could take up to a year to complete an investigation.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau dispatched two senior investigators to Kiev on Monday to assist an international inquiry into the disaster.
But chief commissioner Martin Dolan dampened expectations of a speedy determination.

"We normally say as investigators it can take up to a year to get a firm result," he told reporters at Canberra airport.

"It's quite possible that there will be no quick response to this."

Mr Dolan said it was "disappointing and upsetting" to see Russian-backed rebels tampering with evidence at the crash site in eastern Ukraine, which has been a target of international condemnation since last week's crash.
However, he hopes basic information will still be available to investigators, whose work will be coordinated by Ukrainian authorities.

Paul Ballard, one of the two ATSB officers deployed to the Ukraine, voiced concerns about the safety of investigators in a war zone.

But he is philosophical about the way the site has been treated by rebels.
"We've got to understand this isn't a site within Australia, so it will get treated in the manner that it does in those countries," he said.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described the scene as "more like a garden clean-up than a forensic investigation". Notice that Beaker was unable to muzzle that one small comment from his (highly credentialed) Senior coalface subordinate, a comment that displays the true professionalism of these two gentleman...:D

No that short article more than questions the cred of your source 004, my bet is that after that brief photo opportunity Beaker slinked off back to his office to happily play with his new (MH-370 funded) abacus, flicking a cursory email to RED effectively saying.."mi..mi..mi..job done!"

Coming back to this interesting development of the ADF taking on the integrity of the ATsB independence, perhaps there is more to this tale than meets the eye..:cool:

Consider this PM media release..:Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston to lead Australia's response to MH17 investigation and recovery efforts (https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-07-21/air-chief-marshal-angus-houston-lead-australias-response-mh17-investigation-and)

Monday, 21 July 2014
Prime Minister
E&OE

Air Chief Marshal (retired) Angus Houston AC AFC has been appointed the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy and will lead Australia’s efforts on the ground in Ukraine to help recover, identify and repatriate Australians killed in the MH17 crash.

He will remain in Ukraine as long as necessary to complete the task.

Once the site can be accessed by international investigators, Air Chief Marshal Houston will coordinate Australia’s consular, diplomatic, disaster and crash site investigation response in Ukraine.

He will work closely with local and international authorities on consular support for the families of the Australian victims, on disaster victim identification and on the crash investigation itself.

The first priority will be to recover the remains of the victims and to secure safe and sustained access to the MH17 site.

In close cooperation with the Ukraine government, the International Civil Aviation Organisation and other international partners, Air Chief Marshal Houston will work to ensure a comprehensive investigation into the MH17 crash is swiftly underway.

To date, the Australian Government has deployed 45 officials to assist including 20 personnel from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 Australian Federal Police Officers, two Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators and three Defence officials.

The Australian Ambassador in Warsaw (who is accredited to Ukraine), a regional consular officer and embassy officials from Moscow, London and Warsaw, have also arrived in Kiev as part of Australia’s response team.
Other specialist teams are on standby for immediate deployment when access to the site is secured. A C17 military transport aircraft is on standby to depart for Ukraine.

The recovery, identification and repatriation process will be complex and will likely take a number of weeks to complete. This will be a difficult and painful period, and the families of the victims will have the Government’s full support.

Our thoughts continue to be with the families of the victims.

21 July 2014

{NB.Notice 004 there is no mention of certain muppets tagging along}

Fascinating that the PM's 'chosen one' in both Malaysian aircrash investigations is the former CAF & ADF Chief Angus Houston...:D

ACM (retired) Angus has more horsepower and serious cred in his little pinky than any former Comcare muppet will ever have in an entire career.

Hmm...surmising wonder if Cook and crew are part of the AH special envoy team and I bet you Senator DF can get an audience with AH with little to no effort....:D

Interesting times indeed...

TICK TOCK RED your taking on the big boys now!:E

MTF...:ok:

004wercras
23rd Jul 2014, 00:21
Sarcs, you could be right old friend. Keeping track of bureaucratic comings and goings as well as the depth of their troughs and following their labyrinth of bread crumbs is a difficult task and one that a single IOS member cannot keep up with, so perhaps I am incorrect. However my source insists that the beardless one did head overseas, so who knows for sure. Perhaps the Townsville refueller could provide the required piece of the puzzle? Or maybe Beaker will pop up on TV in Can'tberra today or tomorrow, on a Muppets special, and we will see where this chameleon of air travel truly is?

Either way, there is nothing that Beaker can do by way of helping the investigation. And if as he says it is only a 12 month investigation then obviously the Australian team are minimally involved as Beaker normally takes a good 3 years to massage his way through an investigation. But don't worry, his budget is under control and the spreadsheet and abacus will be front and center of his desk.

thorn bird
23rd Jul 2014, 03:45
"We normally say as investigators it can take up to a year to get a firm result,"

Is beaker putting himself in the same class as actual investigators?? I thought he was a career bureaucrat! Highly skilled in A..licking, trough dwelling and bonus development. But a "Safety Investigator"???

Does anyone who joins these Govmint corporations instantly become "Experts"??

I thought only CAsA FOI's and AWI's could do that.

dubbleyew eight
23rd Jul 2014, 09:58
it might take a year when the cause of the prang is not known.
ffs we know what caused the accident.
a perfectly serviceable Boeing 777 was shot down by a rebel fired BUK missile.

The shamans of safety obviously haven't realised just what fools they all look.
what would set it all off is a richly tapestried pointy hat and a smoking brazier on a gold chain. they could make a really good show of blowing smoke over everyone. what a pack of fckuwits.:mad:

Jinglie
23rd Jul 2014, 10:12
Agree, and Beaker an "investigator". What a joke. He should be dumped by Wuss just for that. Assumed designation is a serious breach in the Public Service arena. Besides that the Senate have already "outed" him, he continues to put on the show. Does he not realise that the industry, and Senate are laughing at him????

004wercras
23rd Jul 2014, 11:28
what would set it all off is a richly tapestried pointy hat and a smoking brazier on a gold chain. they could make a really good show of blowing smoke over everyone. Why drag the Screaming Skull in to this?? :E

halfmanhalfbiscuit
23rd Jul 2014, 13:29
According to Flight the Dutch authorities are to lead.

MH17: Dutch authority takes over as lead investigator - 7/23/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh17-dutch-authority-takes-over-as-lead-investigator-401904/)


MH17: Dutch authority takes over as lead investigator
By: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROWLONDON Source: 4 hours ago
Dutch investigators are to assume the lead role in the inquiry into the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine.

Under normal protocols the state of incident would normally head the investigation. MH17 came down in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border.

But Ukraine’s accident investigation authority, the NBAAI, says it has prepared an agreement to “transfer” the inquiry to its counterpart in the Netherlands, the Dutch Safety Board.

Ukrainian representatives will have the right to participate, it adds.

The Dutch Safety Board confirms the handover of the investigation. Most of the 298 occupants of the Malaysian Boeing 777-200 were Dutch nationals.

Investigators are working on collecting and analysing data from various sources, says the Dutch Safety Board, even though secure access to the crash site has yet to be ensured.

"It is not possible for the investigators to visit safely," it states. It adds that, while the crash site has been disturbed, it expects to collect sufficient information for the inquiry.

Transfer of authority, it says, will give the international inquiry team, comprising 24 investigators, "more space" to co-ordinate its activities.

Both the cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders have been handed to the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch in Farnborough, which confirms it has received them from the Dutch authority.

The Dutch Safety Board says the analysis of the recorders is a "priority" but that this might take several weeks to complete.

In parallel with the international MH17 inquiry the authority will also carry out an investigation into related aspects, focused on decision-making on air routes as well as passenger list availability.


I expect Professor Patrick Hudson to be involved in this with his links to Dutch CAA and ICAO.

004, I don't think 'beyond reason' will get a look in but James Reason is odds on.

Redzone
24th Jul 2014, 05:04
Just spoken with Manning. Says he definitely hasn't either applied for or been asked to apply for the DAS or any other position. Says he's way too old for it.

Sarcs
24th Jul 2014, 07:09
Interesting article today from the Oz...:rolleyes:Too close for comfort (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/too-close-for-comfort/story-e6frg6z6-1226999240114)

THE pilots of the Virgin Australia Boeing 737 with more than 100 passengers on board heard the collision alarm go off moments before they saw the business jet flash before them.
They had just taken off from Newcastle airport, climbing to 5000 feet (1524m), but the pilots were unaware that a business jet coming in to land had just been granted permission by military air traffic controllers to descend to 5000 feet.

Both jets were being handled by separate air traffic controllers as they hurtled towards one another, but these controllers were not communicating with each other — resulting, in the words of investigators, “in both aircraft being assigned the same level (altitude) and with conflicting tracks (flight paths)”. To make matters worse, an automated near-miss alert function on the controllers’ screens had been deactivated because, with military aircraft in formation also using the airport, it had set off too many false alarms.

It was only the anti-collision warning in the cockpit that led the Virgin Australia crew to take evasive action, and both jets passed with only 112m vertical separation and 1300m horizontally — one-third of the minimum safe clearance levels.

In March 2012, when the Australian Transport Safety Bureau delivered its report into this February 2011 incident, it was scathing of the training and procedures used by air force air traffic controllers at Newcastle airport.

“Overall the controllers did not resolve the situation effectively, and this was due at least in part to the Department of Defence not providing its air traffic controllers with compromised separation recovery training.”

What’s more, the ATSB noted there had been no fewer than nine so-called “breakdowns of separation’’ of aircraft at Newcastle airport in the previous 18 months.

What was going on?

Last October, when the ATSB examined the nat­ional pattern of so-called loss of separation incidents, it came to a disturbing conclusion. Three major airports in Australia that were run by military air traffic controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts. Put simply, Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville — each of which is run by military ATCs because of their proximity to air force bases — had more LOS incidents, where passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of midair collisions.

The ATSB report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers were involved in 36 per cent of all LOS incidents, despite controlling only 25 per cent of air traffic near terminals.

“This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown (Newcastle) in particular,” the ATSB said.
It was a damning finding and one quietly supported by some ­pilots of passenger planes using these military-controlled airports, who tell The Australian they have observed discrepancies in the handling of planes compared with civilian-controlled airports.

But when the ATSB’s findings came out, it was clear the agency had stepped on some powerful toes. Defence fired back saying it simply did not accept the ATSB’s findings and claimed that LOS incidents were not an accurate indicator of safety levels. The air safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, also challenged the report, saying that while it did not have oversight authority over Defence ATCs, it had a close relationship with Defence that the ATSB “fails to acknowledge”.

Perhaps this internal squabble over safety is why the Coalition government appears to have all but ignored the report and its implications for the safety of travelling Australians.

Which is why during the past week key aviation figures have spoken out in frustration, demanding the government set up an inquiry into Australia’s ATC system and review whether it remains a good idea for military air traffic controllers to direct passenger jets at Australian airports.

Former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning says while the three main airports operated by military ATCs are not unsafe, they are clearly less safe that the country’s other major airports.

“It is safe, but according to the ATSB report there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he tells The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes.”
Manning’s call for an independent inquiry into these safety issues carries weight. As a veteran pilot, and chief Qantas pilot from 2003 to 2008, he is well regarded in the industry. He has previously lauded Australia’s aviation safety record and, when Tiger Airways was facing safety issues in 2011, the airline turned to him for advice.

Manning says it is time the regulations were changed to allow CASA to have formal oversight of military air traffic controllers. “I would much prefer to see one standard that was audited by CASA throughout Australia,” he says.

Paul Tyrrell, head of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, is concerned there does not appear to have been any robust response to such findings. “The ATSB report was a serious report but regional airline operators haven’t seen any serious response from the military or the government, so we would ask the question, what will their response be?”

The acting chief of Air Force, Air Vice-Marshal Leo Davies, says he fundamentally disagrees with the implication in the ATSB report that military air traffic controllers are less safe than civilian ones.

“We (RAAF) control a couple of hundred thousand civil flights each year and we do that safely,” Davies says. “If I felt there was something that required immediate attention I would address that. I am a military aviator myself, I have flown in civil and military airspace in Australia, and I have no concerns with Australian military air traffic control standards.”

Former CASA chairman and aviation safety activist Dick Smith has also joined the fray, writing to Defence Minister David Johnston and Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss.

“Minister, this is a shocker,” Smith wrote to Johnston. “I am sure you do not want to be responsible for the first jet airline fatalities in Australia’s history.

“After 30 years of experience in our civil aviation industry, my view is that the military simply do not have the efficiencies of scale to be able to adequately operate an acceptably safe air traffic system for civilian aircraft.
“They also have a real problem with change; that is, it is obvious they find it nearly impossible to move forward and follow the very latest safety procedure and airspace classifications in the world.”

That civilian and military air traffic controllers direct passenger aircraft in Australia is a quirk of history, reflecting the fact airports in some locations were shared by civilian and military planes. The military planes needed military ATCs so it was decided they might as well ­direct civilian planes also.

Defence has about 250 controllers looking after its 11 air bases, but in Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin these controllers also direct civilian planes, including large passenger jets, some operated by Virgin Australian and Jetstar. Military controllers operate completely different computer systems to their civilian counterparts and have different skills because their jobs go beyond just directing civilian aircraft.

Defence makes the brazen arg­ument that military airspace at these airports is tight and less predictable so it should not be judged using the same safety criteria as civilian airports.

“Defence does not agree with an implication that the number of LOS per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety,” a Defence spokesman tells The Australian. “Military-controlled airspace is inherently different to civilian-controlled airspace — with high traffic peaks but low overall aircraft movement statistics, diverse aircraft types and constrained airspace — which makes the statistical comparison flawed.”

Smith says this is cold comfort for civilian passengers and is not good enough when Australian aircraft movements are forecast to grow by 60 per cent across the next 20 years.

“The concern about military airspace is that the procedures and airspace classification have not been updated for many decades, and what might have been OK in 1950 can’t be accepted now because aircraft move much faster and carry more people,” he says.

Smith emphasises he is not criticising the abilities of military ATCs, just the system and procedures under which they operate.

“You simply have to have the most experienced controllers guiding passenger jets and there is no way that the small number of military controllers can get that level of experience and training.”

Defence maintains that its controllers “have common qualifications and apply the same standards and procedures”, saying while CASA does not have oversight of military ATCs, CASA has a significant input into Defence’s safety policies.

But the ATSB says this is not enough.

“A reliance on Defence sharing the same operations manual as (the civilian ATC operators) Airservices and internal auditing and oversight, including involvement, guidance and advice by CASA, will not guarantee an equivalent level of safety is provided to civilian aircraft operating in and out of Defence-operated aerodromes as for civilian aerodromes,” the ATSB says.

Most disturbing is the ATSB’s belief that the closed nature of Defence is not allowing proper scrutiny of its safety levels, despite the fact the safety of civilian passengers is at stake.

“At present there is no comprehensive and independent assessment of the levels of safety and compliance with respect to civil aircraft operations at these airports and no transparency for industry in respect to any differences in the levels of service provided or safety afforded.”

Although Defence was angered by the ATSB report and does not agree with its key findings, it is now reviewing its traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown to improve its techniques for separating aircraft.

It also has stepped up training for its controllers on how to recover from an LOS situation.

CASA was also hostile to the ATSB report, believing it to be an attack on CASA’s own dealings with Defence, but it has since initiated a joint safety study of Newcastle airport due for release later this year.

Smith says these measures are too little, too late, and that if there were a mid-air accident at any of these airports today the government would have blood on its hands for failing to act despite receiving ample warning.

Smith wants a new system whereby military air traffic controllers are responsible only for military aircraft while civilians ATCs are responsible for civilian aircraft. He points out that former Defence chief Angus Houston said in 2002: “Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems.”

Both military and civilian ATCs will use the same systems by 2020 under a plan called OneSKY but there is no plan at present to limit military controllers to military aircraft.

Former Qantas chief pilot Manning simply wants an independent inquiry to reassess the manner in which Australia man­ages its airspace to ensure it is as safe as it can be. “My suggestion would be to have a panel of three to review the ATSB report and have a real look at the airspace requirements of the military as well as civil so that both can be accommodated as efficiently as possible,” he says.

“The panel might say the current system is the best, although somehow I doubt it.”Battlelines being defined, popcorn & beer stocked up 'let the games begin!':E

Also noted the following from Dougy's weekly insight (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-24-july-2014)...:ooh:

"...Last night I attended the annual Sir Hudson Fysh lecture and dinner in Brisbane at the invitation of the Queensland branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society. The guest lecturer was David Forsyth, the chairman of the recent Aviation Safety Regulatory Review panel. It was a stellar turnout with Industry very well represented at the event. Congratulations to Cam McPhee and his team for organizing it all and for garnering such significant industry involvement.

The obvious themes to emerge from the lecture and the subsequent Q&A were industry’s satisfaction with the ASRR report itself and a growing sense of frustration that nothing has been done about any of it yet. The fact that there are still two members to be appointed to the CASA board and that we are no closer to an appointment of a new DAS is a high-profile element of the discontent. There was even talk of a high-level march on the Minister’s office to drill home the sense of frustration. The Minister should be advised that the people talking such talk are not industry lightweights.

It also appears that new Deputy Chair of the CASA board, Jeff Boyd, has not yet had an invitation to catch up with re-appointed (for the time being) Chairman Allan Hawke. Let’s hope board functionality gets better than that before there are serious matters to discuss...":D:D

TICK...TOCK miniscule...:E

Oh and RED can you get your muppet to release that TSBC report...:ugh:

MTF..:ok:

004wercras
24th Jul 2014, 10:59
The obvious themes to emerge from the lecture and the subsequent Q&A were industry’s satisfaction with the ASRR report itself and a growing sense of frustration that nothing has been done about any of it yet. The fact that there are still two members to be appointed to the CASA board and that we are no closer to an appointment of a new DAS is a high-profile element of the discontent. There was even talk of a high-level march on the Minister’s office to drill home the sense of frustration. The Minister should be advised that the people talking such talk are not industry lightweights.
Oh me oh my, it seems that some of the IOS more 'heavy weights' have lost their ever ebbing patience as the industry plateaus at probably its lowest point in history! We have an obsfucating Miniscule whose only interest in aviation is the QF Chairmans lounge and having cucumber sandwiches with Joyce. Then you have the re-appointed Pumpkin Head who is synonymous with doing SFA. Add to this you have the bloated Chairman Hawke reappointed to the CAsA Board, and you have Beaker reappointed to the ATsB for 2 more years. What a clusterf#ck!!!! Sarcs, definitely time to stack the fridge, fill the cupboards and pick a comfy armchair as the show is beginning shortly :ok:

Also;

It also appears that new Deputy Chair of the CASA board, Jeff Boyd, has not yet had an invitation to catch up with re-appointed (for the time being) Chairman Allan Hawke. Let’s hope board functionality gets better than that before there are serious matters to discuss..."If this little gem is true, then Houston we have a huge problem. I would speculate that Herr Hawke wanted another lapdog appointed to the Board, not someone with a measure of decency. Is it possible that Boyd can't or won't be moulded by Herr Hawke, hence the frosty reception? Or are we reading into this, maybe the Chairman was busy consuming yet another taxpayer funded lavish meal, or he was wake boarding through a giant trough, or maybe he was getting some updated business cards made up and he was ensuring that all the spiffy letters that follow his name were all correct?? "Sorry Jeff, tis been a busy week".

It is very obvious to most that the depth of our aviation disaster is deeper than most previously thought. It is obvious that the Miniscule, and his Master, Slugger Abbott, have another political shit storm forming above the Can'tberra hills! The ball of twine is unwinding rapidly and these nimrods have no idea how to fix things, even though the IOS which includes all level of industry, some good Senators, and even the good people in these government agencies are yelling out that the Titanics final song 'Autumn' is currently playing!

TICK TOCK

Sunfish
24th Jul 2014, 19:23
A very quick scan of Dr. Hawkes entry on Wikipedia suggests to me that he is a very experienced "safe pair of hands", a Mandarins mandarin, to put it another way, with long experience of cleaning out Augean stables.

I fail to understand why he has allowed CASA to deteriorate, in the industry's perception at least, to the point where he has had to cop the Truss review findings, it must be a shock to his system, assuming he is not a raving narcissist who rejects the entire review findings, which I doubt.

The question I would expect the Minister is still asking is exactly who wants to be part of the team to clean up this mess and if they have the qualifications for the job? No one who can read between the lines would underestimate the amount of work and risk to individual careers that the DAS role or a Board appointment would entail.

Even if the Board and DAS earnestly apply themselves to reform, they commit career suicide if there is a major accident before:

(a) A favourable FAA/ICAO review is achieved.

(b) Industry metrics show acceptable performance (note: I don't believe CASA or ASA have even signed up to any international benchmarking process).

(c) Regulatory reform is in place and hitting demonstrable targets.

(d) Industry surveys show an indisputably significant increase in the strength of relationships with the regulator.

...and (e) Ahem, regular favourable comment on Pprune and the more distinguished parts of the aviation press.

There are probably another half dozen outcomes to be added to this list.

Dr. Hawke? I expect he is stuck with the Chairmanship until it pleases the Minister to release him.

To put that another way, I think the Minister is still looking for candidates who are game to clean up the place and perhaps finding there aren't many takers.

Kharon
24th Jul 2014, 20:56
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. (Boz – A tale of two cities).

It's been a busy week for the IOS, what with one thing and the other. Spoiled for choice – Joyce. Now I know the minuscule is only vaguely aware that we do have aircraft now in Australia also that they are a long way down his list of priorities and apart from winning the Qld elections, time for trivial matters is hard to find. Perhaps some one could check to make sure he still has a pulse then gently waft some paperwork in his direction and get it signed before the medication wears off. He is going to need to stay awake at least long enough to be briefed on the little bombshell ticking away in the Senate.

There are three (in total) Matters of Privilege before the committee. No one knows who or what is involved, clues are hard to find, information even harder. This is unfair of course, the public service has a duty to leak, but, alas, not this time. There are a few well founded speculative arguments, my personal choice is the tricky business with the Pel Air inquiry, which drags White and Chambers into the funny coloured light of the MoU, unsigned NCN, the gross insults to Ben Cook and Mal Christie which led to resignation. Couple of bright, highly qualified, skilled, dedicated honourable men cannot tolerate or be associated with an aberration such as CAIR 09/3 and other 'manipulated' documents. If the Senate have uncovered any sort of skulduggery, there'll be hell to pay and ferry fares to find.

ATSB cop a straight right from the Air Force Chief, not entirely a surprise, considering the ATSB 'report'. For an outfit determined not to lay blame, point the bone or take any sort of stand; they have certainly ruffled the RAAF feathers. Makes you wonder though; I mean if they are going to 'come out' and start shouting the odds, they could have picked a slightly less prickly target. Beyond all Reason strikes again.

Then the ATSB appear again, the picture Sarcs (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-53.html#post8575579) posted is priceless. Beaker looks like a Beagle puppy, caught pissing on the mat; the other two with 1000 yard stares, desperately trying to disassociate. Why would you blame them, the chance to escape from the apron strings, do some real work and generate 'factual' reports, which people will appreciate is why these two highly qualified men are in their field. Real investigation, real reports and a chance to use their not inconsiderable skills. Bonus, no Beaker and a chance to work with real agencies, with teeth and muscles.

We have Boyd, doing his policeman at Herne Bay imitation. On his Pat Malone, awaiting his summons to the high table. If the murky Machiavellians have their way, the expression don't take a knife to a gun fight, will take on new significance for Boyd. 5-1 is the expected score line and if the DAS is the 'right stuff' it will be 6-1. We will have to wait (again) to see how much 'management' the miniscule is going to allow in stacking the board. Boyd could of course go see the miniscule, bang on table to wake him up and like Oliver, ask for more. Cup of tea, chocolate Monte, lots of nodding and smiling, warm handshake and out the door a.s.a.p. Once the door is closed, the minders move in and the hypnotic, will sapping whispering begins again.

Last, but by no means least – the CVD tribe – who's woes are set to continue, unabated. Seems McComic is determined to continue his assault on the industry he loathes until the last minute. Driven by only the gods know what and terrified of 'liability' issues (not medical but legal it seems), he continues to use his willing accomplice to present the 'real' issues. The fact that Pooshams tenuous hold on any sort of reputation will be totally destroyed; whichever way it turns out is of no importance to the 49'ers Nemesis. I doubt the PMO can see past his well flattered ego and work this out. Word on the street is some of the McComic acolytes already carry 'show cause' notices and are facing a 'grim' future, banished from the Sleepy Hollow sheltered workshops; perhaps the PMO can join them, maybe they will care about his woes...

Aye; I'd like to think Karma was real and active. Anyone got her number?, someone should ring and tell her there's real work to be done in the sun burnt country, lots of it.

Selah.

Whistles up dogs and happily goes vermin hunting. Bats in the belfry, rats in the barn and bloody rabbits – everywhere..._._

Sarcs
25th Jul 2014, 02:32
Kharon:It's been a busy week for the IOS, what with one thing and the other. Spoiled for choice – Joyce. Now I know the minuscule is only vaguely aware that we do have aircraft now in Australia also that they are a long way down his list of priorities and apart from winning the Qld elections, time for trivial matters is hard to find. Perhaps some one could check to make sure he still has a pulse then gently waft some paperwork in his direction and get it signed before the medication wears off. He is going to need to stay awake at least long enough to be briefed on the little bombshell ticking away in the Senate.
Also spoilt for choice on your post "K"...;) Hmm..but let us start with the miniscule's recent OBs.

Warning: The following pic may cause unpredictable, adverse, physical and/or psychological side effects.

Sometimes (much like the photo of Beaker and his boys :E) a picture is worth a thousand words...

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/07/24/1227000/634001-4d8eb97e-12d0-11e4-a315-b9a4afcb14fe.jpg
Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss this week. Source: Getty Images

Despite the fact that the miniscule has been sighted this week upright (& presumably with a pulse) doesn't he have an uncanny resemblance to Blinky Bill...:E

This photo accompanied an article from SC at the Oz, which more than proves that not only does the DPM have a pulse but he is also very much aware of the growing number of Boardroom & aviation elephants in the room..:rolleyes:: New faces at CASA, Airservices (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/new-faces-at-casa-airservices/story-e6frg95x-1227000632374)

A SEARCH for a suitable replacement for outgoing Civil Aviation Safety Authority head John McCormick still has “some time to run,’’ according to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.
A recruitment company is putting together a short list of candidates for interview by a panel of CASA board members and the head of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Mike Mrdak.

Some aviation organisations have been pushing for a total renewal of the CASA board and the recent Aviation Safety Regulatory Review recommended sweeping reforms at the regulator after accusing it of adopting “an across-the-board hardline philosophy’’.

CASA caused a stir recently when it revealed without a formal announcement the that former Brindabella Airlines owner Jeff Boyd had been appointed the authority’s deputy chairman.

Mr Truss said there had been a good response to Mr Boyd’s appointment. “I think the remaining appointments, I’m hoping, will be equally favourably received,’’ he said. “What the previous board perhaps lacked was the practical aviation experience and we’ll be dealing with that in the appointments yet to come.

“But you still need to have *people with the skills to run a large organisation and with the kind of background that’s necessary to ensure that it works properly as a business as well as a regulator.’’

Mr Truss on Friday announced that former Brisbane Airport Corp CFO Tim Rothwell and ex-Australian Rail Track Corp chief ex*ec*utive David Marchant would join the board of Airservices Australia. He also appointed existing board member Tony Matthews, currently chairman of Airservices’ safety committee, as deputy chairman.

A director of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, Mr Matthews has more than 40 years’ experience in the industry and has worked as a manager and pilot with organisations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service and Qantas regional airlines. He has been a member of the board since June 2012.

“Mr Mathews’s significant aviation experience makes him well suited to serve as deputy chair building on his important role as the chair of the board’s safety committee,” Mr Truss said.

Mr Rothwell was CFO at Brisbane Airport for almost 20 years before his departure last year and has been on various boards.

Mr Marchant chaired the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board and was a managing director for Lend Lease Infrastructure Services and director of the *Hunter Valley Coal Chain Co-*ordination Co.

Mr Truss said both Mr Marchant and Mr Rothwell brought extensive expertise in transport, infrastructure investment, fin*ance, governance and risk management to the board. So miniscule has a pulse & is aware of the growing number of IOS/aviation elephants in the room - CHECK.

Paragraph 2 of the "K" post on the 'MoP Stakes' perhaps deserves a 'Selleys moment' post on the Senate thread, so I'll flick past para 2. Likewise para 3-5 but para 6 and the despicable FF take/attack on CVD pilots still very much troubles me...:=

Throughout the history of the Oz aviation regulator, exposure to possible 'liability' has nearly always been the underlying primary concern, under the 'iron ring' this concern has manifested itself to an extreme level of 'liability paranoia' and consequently negatively effects all the decision making processes by FF in their administration & regulation of aviation safety in this country.

However with the Avmed 180 on CVD pilots I think there is an additional element, that was previously merely paid lip service to by the iron ring, that is ICAO compliance.

Incidentally the CVD pilot matter is not the only regulatory issue that CAsA suddenly appears to have had an attack of the ICAO guilt's..:ugh: Recent examples can be seen in..the draft of CAAP 235A (Multi-Engine Aeroplane Minimum Runway Width); CAAP 235-2(2) (Child carriage/restraint in aircraft); draft of Manual of Standards Part 61 – Flight Crew Licensing; and perhaps certain sections of the NPRM 1202OS – Fatigue Management for Flight Crew.

Much like the CVD matter the CAsA/media announcements on these policy/regulatory changes almost always starts with the words.."in line with...or alignment of..ICAO"

Example from a couple of days ago:...Australia Brings Helicopter Landing Site Guidance in Line with ICAO
Jul 21, 2014 - 15:39 GMT

Australia has released new guidance material on helicopter landing sites as part of its efforts to bring standards in line with those of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The new guidance material is also designed to help helicopter operators transition to new Australian regulations that are under development as part of the country’s lengthy regulatory reform…

...New guidance material from CASA on helicopter landing sites has been released as part of a transition to new regulations and alignment of Australian standards with those of ICAO. The new material encourages the adoption of the new standards in new landing site construction but does not require upgrade of existing helicopter facilities... All passing strange indeed..:confused:..from a regulator who normally couldn't give a rat's arse about being compliant with ICAO (refer the huge list of notified differences H18/14 (http://airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf))...:ugh:

MTF..:ok:

ps Surmising..could it be that RED has got wind of a pending friendly visit from ICAO to perhaps review the progress of his much laboured over & beloved SSP (Annex 19)..:rolleyes:

Word of advice RED until your FF/ATsB minions understand the concept of 'Just Culture' & are willing to embrace this philosophy, you can write all the flowery words you like in your SSP manual but it will continue to amount to 'Just Words' instead of 'Just Culture'....:=

dubbleyew eight
25th Jul 2014, 10:08
sarcs this is all total codswallop.
if these people really bring so much experience to the board why don't we ever see any evidence of it?
why are CAsA so perpetually stupid that the only safe flying option is to ignore all their waffle and get on with it.

if CAsA and the ATSB ceased to exist tomorrow for at least 6 months would anyone notice?
it is like the airfields in england with control towers that aren't manned on sundays. more flying occurs on sundays than the entire rest of the week.

as the chinese say, the mountains are high and the mandarin is a long way beyond them.
(meaning that they ignore his overbearing presence totally)

to think that Truss is so stupid that he actually thinks that the current direction CAsA is taking is actually desired.
What a fckuwit you are Truss. you've blown 300,000,000 dollars so far. how much more can the country afford?

halfmanhalfbiscuit
25th Jul 2014, 15:50
A SEARCH for a suitable replacement for outgoing Civil Aviation Safety Authority head John McCormick still has “some time to run,’’ according to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.
A recruitment company is putting together a short list of candidates for interview by a panel of CASA board members and the head of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Mike Mrdak.

Hard to believe this is taking so long. Were they expecting an internal candidate to get the gig? Thought it was a 5 year appointment expiring August?

Anybody know when the senators get their Mops heard? Could just cause some ripples. Need to get beer and popcorn.

Kharon
25th Jul 2014, 22:35
HMHB "Hard to believe this is taking so long. Were they expecting an internal candidate to get the gig? Thought it was a 5 year appointment expiring August?

Be hard pushed to find (or appoint) an internal candidate; any decent DAS must start at management level and clean out the coop; it's really very dark and dirty in there. It's to be hoped that various parts of the IOS have not been storing data, gathering evidence and joining the dots for the new DAS to consider when selecting his 'team'. I'd bet Pel Air was a mere bagatelle compared to the media holocaust which could conceivably follow if any form of blind eye treatment of those issues, particularly those emanating from the Pel Air or other notable fiascos was spotted. The Senate committee is certainly not letting these matters slide by and the new boy must consider this. These matters must, as a matter of conscience and clarity, be openly and fairly addressed: if the new boy intends to be on the square, with industry that is.

The selectors really do need to get it right, because if the lid comes off when the FAA or ICAO are paying attention and the world is very focussed on matters of aeronautical safety – things can go pear shaped very quickly. That you can bet on and this gummermint doesn't need that level of aggravation, noise and publicity. What price Qantas then, Australia relegated to ICAO Cat 2?, and ICAO do need a scalp or two right now, being very sensitive to public comment on their past ancestry, present value and future worth. Now that is a big apple cart to upset.

No, there may be a desire for an internal acolyte; but that can't happen. No amount of posturing, pressing the flesh and posing as qualified at RAS gatherings and other notable events can protect those who need it from a public thrashing. The bad apples have been clearly identified and if the new DAS won't throw them out then it becomes a matter for the consumer to deal with. Tick tock – indeed...

This is not an easy fix, both the Senate and miniscule's report confirm this. A band aid and an aspirin is no solution where major surgery is required, just won't do. From the heady heights of the board room, to the junior FOI visiting the smallest flight school, things must be seen to change, for the better.

By the by – Thursday 14 or Friday 15 for DAS announcement is heavily backed. Time is running short and needs must, when the devil drives.

Toot toot.

004wercras
26th Jul 2014, 10:46
Ferryman;
By the by – Thursday 14 or Friday 15 for DAS announcement is heavily backed. Time is running short and needs must, when the devil drives. 'K', could very well be. I haven't heard any internal talk about the announcement date, but a whisper coming out of the corridors is that they may announce a temporary internal DAS while they continue finalising the search and appointment of the new Kahuna. The Gov'mints issue apparently is that all three DAS's roles, the CAsA structure, and the Board are complete shite. A lot more than the replacement of one DAS is required, so the Miniscule has much to do and his very robust supply of turd polish seems to have run very dry.

Tick tock

thorn bird
26th Jul 2014, 12:09
"Is it just me – or does Truss look like Blinky Bill in that photo"


"I think the Miniscule looks more like a scrub turkey...gobble gobble"



Na Kharon & 004, look at the prominent eyebrows, the sloping back forehead, no neck, no chin...a few thousand years, some archaeologist digging up an ancient graveyard will conclude that Neanderthals lived amongst us!! we probably bred with them!!...Oh good grief..and people wonder why he's thick!! its in the genes!!

004wercras
27th Jul 2014, 10:05
A SEARCH for a suitable replacement for outgoing Civil Aviation Safety Authority head John McCormick still has “some time to run,’’ according to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss. A recruitment company is putting together a short list of candidates for interview by a panel of CASA board members and the head of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Mike Mrdak.Perhaps Gary Harbor the Consultant will be assisting in the process?

And after the short list is ratified and internal interviews are undertaken, who will be on the internal selection panel? This guy perhaps;

http://au.linkedin.com/pub/roger-chambers/9/b7/80b

halfmanhalfbiscuit
27th Jul 2014, 10:38
Lots of interesting departures in 2010.

Passing strange how bullying and harassment keeps raising its head. Even CVD is looking at harassment.

Whoever becomes the next head of casa those with unsuccessfully resolved issues need to ask for reconsideration.

Kharon
27th Jul 2014, 20:03
It's not really an Australian thing, but in the UK, November the fifth is 'Guy Fawkes night'. The fellah was 'not amused' by the delays and prevarication of the government, ran out of patience and thought it would be a fine thing to put a bomb under them; see if he could wake 'em up. (Not accurate but it will suffice).

I wonder how much longer the industry is prepared to be patient with the minuscule; before someone jumps out of the pipe and slippers cupboard; screaming with frustration just to see if they can wake him up. From the very top to the humblest of grass roots the industry is on 'tenterhooks', so many decisions in abeyance just waiting for him to blink. Part 61 is just one major change which needs to be addressed, and quickly. Because if it passes into 'law', as it stands; things are going to get really ugly, very quickly. The rule was written with the intention of doing away with subjective 'dispensation' and to remove the 'whim' of local FOI from the decision process. The way things are only those who are prepared to curry favour can secure a 'dispo' which leaves the whole thing wide open to the potential shout of corruption.

A decision on the WLR must be made – a dynamic industry cannot be held in stasis; everyone desperately wants the reform and the changes it will bring. Truss and his hypnotist know full well that the board and the top three layers of CASA management cannot be allowed to continue as they did when Albo gave McComic 'carte blanche' to become the big R regulator. Albo is, thankfully, along with his mate a thing of history; the minuscule has had more than enough time to sort out a plan, the materials are there so why FFS are we sitting about idle.

We are, normally, a relatively civilised, conservative crowd; Shirley we don't have to resort to the (turn your volume down)extreme.

CaptainMidnight
28th Jul 2014, 09:23
Recommendation 12.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority delegates responsibility for the day-to-day operational management of airspace to Airservices Australia, including the designation of air routes, short-term designations of temporary Restricted Areas, and temporary changes to the classification of airspace for operational reasons.
Have heard a rumour CASA may not support this recommendation, though why staff in their airspace regulation office in CBR would be involved in the designation of air routes and short term designations of temporary restricted areas I don't know.

Air routes are to assist flight planning and ATC traffic handling, and temporary restricted areas tend to be for such things as police sieges and other short notice emergency situations, which one would think should be handled by ATC as part of their real-time airspace management.

Sunfish
28th Jul 2014, 18:17
Midnight:

Have heard a rumour CASA may not support this recommendation, though why staff in their airspace regulation office in CBR would be involved in the designation of air routes and short term designations of temporary restricted areas I don't know.


Why should CASA be involved? Simple really, because it creates jobs for CASA staff and management positions for CASA managers.

That includes:

Executive Manager
Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division

I would have thought however that according to the aerodrome owners, such staff could be better used visiting aerodromes on a regular basis.

Kharon
28th Jul 2014, 21:52
Good catch Midnight – I just wonder if CASA are going to be allowed the freedom to pick and choose what they may or may not accept; without questions being asked and serious explanations being given. McComic and his crew have pretty much destroyed CASA credibility along with the self perpetuated myth of never being able to be challenged.

For airspace, Greg Hood is a very able man and more than capable of sorting out the 'airspace' issues, even the vexed military controlled airspace questions. Should he and his military counterpart sit down to an an open, honest dialogue, practical, sensible solutions could be found; unhindered by 'expert' opinion from the Sleepy Hollow sheltered workshop that is.

What CASA can't seem to accept is that major change is demanded and industry expects those changes; but the concept is alien to them. They have become very used to, and good at ignoring the likes of coroners, ATSB, FAA and ICAO; but this time the step from the sublime to ridiculous trod on a lot of toes. Since Pel Air and the Forsyth report, the way in which government perceive CASA, particularly in the Senate has changed. Make no mistake – the winds of change are indeed heading towards the ivory tower, like it or not.

In short, perhaps CASA will no longer be able to thumb their nose at industry, Senate and the recommendations of 'other' organisations; not with impunity anyway. CASA have, by a fair minded, impartial jury of peers been weighed, measured and definitely been found wanting. Speculating, but I reckon the Rev. Forsyth wisely allowed to overseas guru's enough latitude to form their own opinions; without his input. Their considered, expert opinion fully justified the Senate findings on the Pel Air ditching. CASA~have arrogantly been the architects of their own demise and must now attempt to be reconciled with industry as the WLR demands.

The only area of concern is Truss, but as an astute politician, one could reasonably expect him to follow the wishes of the majority. We pay, in one way or another, a lot of money for the service CASA provides to industry; it is perhaps time CASA learned that lesson; once and for all. Staring with the DAS and finishing with some of the purblind fools let loose to dictate terms to industry experts, before someone else gets hurt attempting to follow their amateurish vision of how to get the job done.

Come on Warren, get on with it. The sky won't fall in; honest, it won't....:ok:

Sunfish
28th Jul 2014, 23:31
Kharon, you forget the old saw:


"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning
to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later
in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress
while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

I feel that Truss may fall for this tactic delivered by Mr. Mrdak. However unless heads roll, nothing can change.

"Minister, this changes everything!":ugh:

Strainer
29th Jul 2014, 02:38
A recruitment company is putting together a short list of candidates for interview by a panel of CASA board members and the head of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Mike Mrdak

Would this be the same recruitment company that gave us McComic? FFS. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Kharon
29th Jul 2014, 03:10
Strainer - Would this be the same recruitment company that gave us McComic? FFS. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

It is indeed, the last three DAS I believe. The latest from Townsville is it's down to a four horse race, under starters orders from Monday Aug.04, with 'apparently' a full board of stewards – hope they ordered a vet, a farrier and a good old St Johns crew of stretcher bearers.

Sarcs
30th Jul 2014, 10:13
While we continue to wait for the miniscule to blink the elephants in the room are happily putting on weight and some are reaching the end of a lengthy gestation period and about to multiply...:E

Recent arrivals to the miniscule elephant herd...

ATC/Defence elephant update: Apparently VIPA have made a donation to the feeding of this elephant, not that it was needed as this elephant was already off the scales in terms of weight gain:Virgin pilots call for air traffic control inquiry (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/07/virgin-pilots-call-for-air-traffic-control-inquiry/)

One of the unions representing Virgin Australia pilots has called for a government inquiry into Australia’s air traffic control systems.

The Virgin Independent Pilots Association (VIPA) says federal infrastructure minister Warren Truss needs to hold a comprehensive and independent inquiry into the management of Australian airspace.

VIPA executive director Simon O’Hara says the government needed to look at the “extent that we may need to examine one traffic control system for Australian airspace”.

“VIPA is now calling on Minister Truss to review and replace the current ATC system with a new air traffic system which better manages the separation of aircraft in controlled airspace,” O’Hara said in a statement.

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report released in October 2013 found a higher rate of loss of separation (LOS) incidents at airports where air traffic control was administered by military air traffic services (ATS).

“Military ATS were involved in a disproportionate number of loss of separation occurrences involving civilian aircraft in terminal area airspace relative to the amount of traffic they control,” the ATSB report said.
“Military ATS are responsible for about 25 per cent of the aircraft movements in terminal areas, but were involved in 36 per cent of LOS occurrences in terminal areas.”

O’Hara said VIPA was deeply concerned by the report’s findings, which highlighted a number of serious safety issues regarding Australia’s current ATC system.

“Safety is paramount for Australian airline passengers and the government cannot continue sit on this report for any longer,” O’Hara said.
“The Minister must act before it’s too late.” International war zone overflight elephant: In typical miniscule style this elephant was summarily dismissed as being someone else’s problem:
The International Air Transport Association said this week governments needed to take the lead in reviewing how airspace risk assessments were made.

Chief executive Tony Tyler said airlines and governments were partners in supporting global connectivity, with governments and air navigation providers telling airlines the routes they could fly and with what restrictions.

He said airlines complied with that guidance and this was the case with MH17, which had been shot down “in complete violation of international laws, standards and conventions while broadcasting its identity and presence on an open and busy air corridor at an altitude that was deemed to be safe”.

However, Australia has been lukewarm on the FSF call, with Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss saying it is too early to make judgments. Mr Truss said he was not sure there was a lack of information and he believed it would be difficult to put in place rules and laws guaranteeing a greater level of security.

“If there are deficiencies in the current system presumably that will be identified to some extent in the inevitable inquiries that will follow this event,’’ he said.
However after the ICAO/IATA meeting yesterday there are now additional calls from IATA/ICAO for the miniscule to take custody of this fast growing baby Dumbo:

MH17 tragedy 'exposed gap' in safety procedures, admits aviation industry (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/mh17-tragedy-exposed-gap-in-safety-procedures-admits-aviation-industry-20140730-zyc80.html#ixzz38vvPm28M)

IATA Chief Tony Tyler again:“This is the responsibility of states,” he said. “There are no excuses. Even sensitive information can be sanitised in a way that ensures airlines get essential and actionable information without compromising methods or sources.”

“This is all far from the authoritative, accurate, consistent, and unequivocal information needed to support effective decisions on such an important issue,” Mr Tyler said. “Governments must do better.”
Even the TWU is pointing the accusatory finger at the government, the miniscule & his Dept Head RED :=:Transport Workers Union national secretary Tony Sheldon, who represents aviation workers, said airlines should reroute flights away from world conflict zones and the government should ensure Australian aircraft complied with global safety warnings.

“The ultimate decision on air routes is being made by the airlines themselves,” he said. “And that means cost will always be calculated against risk. Air safety warnings should not be subject to this kind of economic calculation.” TICK..TOCK miniscule, I mean really "how much can a Koala Bear??":ugh:

MTF…:ok:

{Side issue on airlines overflying war zones: Contrary to Emirates the Red Rat has decided to continue to overfly Iraq: Qantas to fly where Emirates fears to go, but for how long? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/28/qantas-to-fly-where-emirates-fears-to-go-but-for-how-long/)

Which kind of places FF in an interesting conundrum after deciding to get involved in the media hype post MH17: Advice on Eastern Ukraine airspace (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102103)}

004wercras
30th Jul 2014, 10:45
Here is the link to ICAO's release today;

Joint Statement on Risks to Civil Aviation Arising from Conflict Zones (http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Joint-Statement-on-Risks-to-Civil-Aviation-Arising-from-Conflict-Zones.aspx)

Sarcs, you can be rest assured that Fort Fumble will have a lineup of delegates also attending the next special convening in February 2015. But in the meantime will the Regulator and it's resident airspace executive Herr Cromarty be doing anything of value in relation to the current concerns? What do the Regulatory experts think about QF's decision? Not much I imagine. Even if they thought the Rat was making a bad call they don't have the testicular fortitude to take decisive action. Now, if it was a wayward Helo pilot, that would be different.......

CAsA will, as always, do very little, if anything. As for QF's decision, well that comes as no great shock. However I do wonder what the FAA would think of QF using that parcel of airspace with perhaps dozens of American citizens/tourists/business people/grey nomads onboard?

Tick tock Miniscule, the scene of the world is changing rapidly and you silly old plonkers are still stuck in the 1960's timewarp!

TICK TOCK

Kharon
30th Jul 2014, 20:57
What is it with Transport miniscule's and elephants; that fool Albo let them breed as and where pleased, he even hired an trained expert to assist with process. You'd think Blinky Bill would have got at least some of the mess cleaned up by now.

It's all very well keeping elephants; we are always happy to have the Gobbledocks mighty beast to stay over when he's off on a secret mission for the IOS or Willyleaks; but the mess is appalling and takes some shifting.

It's also very cruel to keep them locked and chained in an office, even one with pot plants; perhaps the IOS should start a campaign to have the gu'ment elephants released after vet examination, that way the public could enjoy the show. I'm sure they would be delighted to see the produce of an intense, carefully managed breeding programme.

There now; nice new page for them as wants it.

Toot toot.-.

Sarcs
30th Jul 2014, 22:19
004...

"...Hypothesising as to whether Wodger mentions MH17 during tonight's 'lecture'?.."

Good question perhaps we should ask the panel facilitator Dougy for an appraisal of Wodgers performance...:confused::

Panel Discussion at 18:30
“Contemporary Aviation Safety Issues”

Panel facilitated by Doug Nancarrow, Editor Aviation Business

Although I somehow doubt whether MH17 would be at the forefront of Wodger's cranium as he seems to be stuck in the past and currently in the nines..:E:


Synopsis: On 19 July 1989 United Airlines Flight 232 experienced loss of all hydraulic systems as a result of the catastrophic failure of the number 2 engine. The crew and a check captain who was a passenger on the aircraft worked together as a team to exert a semblance of control over the aircraft despite not having been trained for the specific event, and subsequently made a somewhat controlled landing at Gateway Airport, Sioux City, Iowa. Despite the loss of 111 passengers and crew, 185 persons survived this event thanks to the teamwork of the crew.

On 1 June 2009, Air France Flight 447 experienced inconsistencies in air speed measurement over the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals. The crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately the aircraft entered an aerodynamic stall which was not recovered. Tragically 228 persons lost their lives.
I also noticed that Dougy was early with his weekly insight..:D..perhaps it had something to do with the upcoming evening's festivities...:E

Oh well since Dougy's piece is extremely topical, given the last couple of posts, I've decided to copy (almost) in full (apologies in advance DN have chopped the Airnorth correction and the plug for your mate..;)):Editor's Insights 31st July 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-31st-july-2014)
30 Jul 2014
Doug Nancarrow

Interviews for the Director of Safety position at CASA are being held early next week and I understand there are five candidates. The appointment of the DAS was to be by the CASA board, but that’s not complete yet so it’s likely the Chairman and new Deputy Chairman will be representing the board on the interview panel. And there’s bound to be some Departmental representation. Maybe we can expect a quick decision on this critical appointment. The industry watches with great interest and not a little apprehension.

Media debate about Qantas declaring that it’s safe to fly over Iraq is bordering on the irresponsible. And calls for airlines to make public their flight paths are fair enough but it may be something that’s difficult to deliver. If the public expectation becomes absolute safety then how can that expectation be met? When is a zone of unrest acceptable at 33,000ft and when is it not? If there’s actual armed conflict of any degree? Routes between South East Asia and Europe are going to be hard to find if there’s total exclusion from areas of uncertainty.

I mean where does the need-to-know thing stop if we start to head in this direction? Should the captain’s medical record be made available to the passengers of a particular flight? What about the maintenance records for the aircraft?

We have to maintain a culture of confidence in our airlines so that they are trusted to make decisions in the best interests of all.

The thing that (hopefully) makes the MH17 case unique is the supply of hard-core anti-aircraft weapons by the Russian military (and hence government). Common sense and good judgement need to be utilised in making decisions about safe air routes. Let’s hope that‘s what the current powwow involving ICAO, IATA, CANSO and other groups on this subject takes into account.

We’re taking a thorough look at the regional airline industry in the next print issue of Aviation Business, which will be with you in early September.

Did you realise that 16 regional airlines have gone out of business in the last 10 years? I didn’t until I stopped to count them. That’s a pretty tragic toll and it’s surely worth looking at the state-of-the-nation for that industry sector. If you have a perspective you’d care to share with me I’ll be happy to consider including it in the coming report. "The industry watches with great interest and not a little apprehension."

Certainly got that right...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

TBM-Legend
30th Jul 2014, 23:20
Three military types on the shortlist including the head of ADFA I believe...

004wercras
31st Jul 2014, 20:43
A moment in history. Our current DAS is the only one to be refereed by the Senate to the AFP, and opinions are big on the Movement of Privilege by the Senate! What an achievement!!Indeed, a fine thing to include on ones CV, listed after 'Star Chamber member'. Is there a section on ones CV template to include 'bad temper' and 'bullying'?
I hope all of this is included in his LinkedIn profile, only 4 weeks to go and he will be 'on the market'!!
Caveat emptor

Sunfish
31st Jul 2014, 21:04
If its true that the military are going to take over again, I'll slash my wrists now. CASA needs someone to go in and clean house with a chainsaw.

A "process queen" or "sensitive and nuanced cultural change" type is going to be eaten alive.

Heads have to roll, fast. Then you need to find simplicators to cut through the miles of legal bullshit and give us something like the FAA/NZ regulations

Kharon
31st Jul 2014, 21:18
Good call Sunny, herewith my CV humbly tendered in application for the position. (Is that ten).

My application.

bankrunner
1st Aug 2014, 00:40
What's Ralph Norris doing nowadays? :ok:

Sarcs
1st Aug 2014, 02:00
Flawed safety laws must be stalled, says helicopter association (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/flawed-safety-laws-must-be-stalled-says-helicopter-association/story-e6frg95x-1227009045735)

ROB RICH Comment
August 01, 2014 12:00AM
AUSTRALIAN Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook has written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to request Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 not be implemented on September 1, just 20 working days from now.

CASR Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing) became law on February 14 last year with a start date of December 4 that year and a four-year transition period ending on December 3, 2017. However, little could be done until the Manual of Standards (MoS) was released in June last year with a comment *period of 11 weeks.

It was quickly noted that helicopter operators would suffer more than their aeroplane cousins as the need to include instrument familiarisation training and integrated and non-integrated *courses (the former not yet designed) would be an expensive compliance exercise. Furthermore, the AHIA working group struggled with the need to make the MoS line up with the parent instrument (regulation). Many of these issues are still a “work in progress”.

Prior to the December deadline, the AHIA briefed senator David Fawcett and indicated CASA was not yet ready to introduce the flight crew licensing rules, despite claims to the contrary by CASA.

As a result, CASR Part 61 was deferred to September 1. However, a number of industry associations requested it be further deferred as the legislation needed to be in the “three-tier format”. The third tier is a guide in plain English. This has not occurred.

An AHIA CASR Part 61 review committee member said the flight testing regime required by the new rules would require a large increase in flight examiners at a time when the industry was already short of qualified testing officers. CASA’s capacity to approve more testing officers is limited. We have been advised that CASA’s intent not to grant its flight operations inspectors flight testing approvals, due to the cost of maintaining an individual’s qualifications, will only exacerbate the problem.

CASA has no implementation plan in this regard and this has the potential to seriously impact the capacity of the industry to function, particularly in the emergency service support, fire and aerial agriculture operations.
The only solution offered by CASA’s officers is the promise of concessions. But if new legislation needs such concessions upon implementation, it is fundamentally flawed. How can operators manage our risk if we don’t even know what the concessions are? Those concessions should be published well in advance so the industry can scrutinise them.

The industry also refutes CASA claims that the changes are “like-for-like’’ and only a restructure. That is not true. An example is the requirement for firefighting pilots to hold a firefighting rating. No such requirement currently exists and it is an additional operational and financial burden on the industry, and not a restructure.

Some of the syllabus items in the MoS encourage unsafe practices and in some instances are technically incorrect.

For individuals and organisations to manage their risk, concessions will also have to be given so these unsafe practices can be removed as a requirement of a *rating being issued. An example is the potential for serious accidents when people attempt to demonstrate and practise a rotor-blade stall.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that very few people understand the content and the impact of these changes. This supports the argument that the proposed legislative elements are badly written and too complex.
One senior instructor said: “Now imagine a student pilot preparing for an air law examination based on the new regulations. If nobody understands them, then who can teach them? What hope do you have of passing?”
Rob Rich is the secretary of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association.

Dear Minister,

Urgent Request to Defer CASR Part 61

The initiative for the Aviation Safety Regulation Review was applauded by the Aviation Industry. The release of the report was welcomed by the Industry and by-in-large accepted as read. The industry was asked for comment which has been provided. Since the deadline for comment, the silence has been deafening.

I personally have been in the Aviation Industry, as a pilot, company co-owner, manager, sales representative for 51 years. Never in this time have I seen such turmoil and mistrust in the Regulator.

As President of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, I am very concerned with the difficulties our CASR Part 61 Regulatory Review Team, and others, are having with understanding the muted changes to this Regulation. The introduction of a completely new licensing system together with new training syllabuses, with no perceived safety benefits, but additional cost, in the current “Two Tier” format is not understood. Legislation needs to be in the “Three Tier” format, in plain English and not in the Criminal Code format which is understood by Judges but not Aviators.

As this third tier has not yet been introduced we, the Australian Helicopter Industry, respectfully request the introduction of CASR Part 61 be further delayed to allow time for Industry to negotiate the proposed changes further with CASA. Why introduce a Regulation which will require concessions to operate until the Regulation is in the proper format, should it not be fixed prior to introduction on 1 September 2014?

Regards
Peter Crook
President
Australian Helicopter Industry Association Also reported on by Oz Flying..:D:AHIA Moves to Stall Part 61 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ahia-moves-to-stall-part-61)

Hmm...the minuscule IN TRAY must be almost overflowing right about now...:E

MTF..:ok:

004wercras
1st Aug 2014, 06:22
Ben Cook has now gone to Work for Transport Victoria. A gain for them, but still a loss for aviation. A guy that knows the military and commercial side of aviation safety and human factors was allowed to walk out CAsA's door :ugh::ugh:
Would be nice to see CAsA hold on to the good people, must be a reason for the departures? As halfmanhalfbiscuit pointed out, since 2010 all the good guys have bailed, and continue to bail......

Tick Tock Miniscule, Tick Tock pumpkin head, Tick Tock Chairman Hawke

Lookleft
1st Aug 2014, 22:31
And for the average person on the street and the media the use of acronyms makes the statement meaningless. What difference will unattributed signs make that 19 fatalities at Lockhart River and two Senate inquiries haven't yet made?

Frank Arouet
1st Aug 2014, 23:23
"eternity" is similarly meaningless but is etched in Sydney history.


Apart from posing nothing as an alternative except Lockhart River, which to the average pedestrian is similarly meaningless, can we assume you don't agree with the sentiment expressed.


Personally I can't see how it hurts anybody except those who take offence, and they know what it means.


Oh, and "Bill Posters". Everybody is out to get him.

Lookleft
1st Aug 2014, 23:52
For a start the gentleman who expressed his faith on the streets of Sydney got his message writ large on the Harbour Bridge at the turn of this century so I think he actually succeeded in getting his message across.

The photo of the poster has no context. It could be on someone's bedroom door for all we know.

Finally George W if you're not for us you're against us? Wake up to yourself Frank. I don't have to tie my colours to any ill conceived protest movement through your attempts to "shame" me into submission.

Outside of the State of NSW, ICAC is something you blow out of your nose and for the majority of Australians CASA is probably Spanish for something. My point once again for the dull of mind was that if 19 deaths in an aeroplane is not enough to stir the public consciousness then posters with no context is just silly.

Frank Arouet
2nd Aug 2014, 00:54
I just don't get your stance on things. In the past, creampuff and I used to cross swords regularly until I got the drift that he was playing "devils advocate". He directed the subject matter into more positive territory. You will note now we rarely have issues except when boredom sets in and I get an urge to chuck a rock at him. When you post you criticize, but don't lead the thread anywhere which leads others including myself to question your motives. It's not "them and us", there is a group of individuals beholden to CAsA for their existence and have become hostages to a Stockholm syndrome. These people are more dangerous to any "ill conceived protest movement" than the CAsA themselves. I hope you are not one such individual, I sincerely do.


"Ill conceived protest movements" have made more inroads to reform than snipers sitting on the sidelines taking out individuals and disrupting threads. Do you really think the Senate would have acted without input from many of the PPRune posters? Do you think Truss wouldn't have attempted to gazump the Senate with a "review" that garnered hundreds of submissions, many from PPRune posters? Would the IOS have been seen as significant enough for The skull to brand them "ills of society" and mendacious bloggers"? Would the ill conceived protest movement have had enough impact for someone to post bills accusing CAsA of being corrupt? (no matter how valuable the advertising message).


Out of interest, exactly what is your agenda?


Incidentally, the "eternity" message, although blazing in glory on the bridge, is still lost on me. What exactly was his message, other than it was a message. (Probably extraterrestrial).

Lookleft
2nd Aug 2014, 01:26
Because its Saturday its too cold to be outside and I am taking a break from more serious matters let me go through your points Frank.

In the past, creampuff and I used to cross swords regularly until I got the drift that he was playing "devils advocate". He directed the subject matter into more positive territory. You will note now we rarely have issues except when boredom sets in and I get an urge to chuck a rock at him.

Creampuff and I are rarely in disagreement, what does that tell you? What is the difference between chucking rocks and sniping?

It's not "them and us", there is a group of individuals beholden to CAsA for their existence and have become hostages to a Stockholm syndrome. These people are more dangerous to any "ill conceived protest movement" than the CAsA themselves. I hope you are not one such individual, I sincerely do.

You have asked that question before in a PM. I don't work for CASA. Look at my postings. There are about 750 odd scattered around Pprrune so its fairly easy to work out my background and current employment.

"Ill conceived protest movements" have made more inroads to reform than snipers sitting on the sidelines taking out individuals and disrupting threads. Do you really think the Senate would have acted without input from many of the PPRune posters? Do you think Truss wouldn't have attempted to gazump the Senate with a "review" that garnered hundreds of submissions, many from PPRune posters?

Making a submission to Senate inquiries and posting on Pprune are two separate activities. I don't think Pprune has that much influence and I'm sure the Mods don't think so either. Senators are serious people doing serious things, they don't rely on Bulletin Boards to inquire into serious matters. I have met some of the people who were advising Senator X. They weren't wearing IOS t-shirts or quoting Pprune, so the answer is no.

Would the IOS have been seen as significant enough for The skull to brand them "ills of society" and mendacious bloggers"? Would the ill conceived protest movement have had enough impact for someone to post bills accusing CAsA of being corrupt? (no matter how valuable the advertising message).

We all think McCormick is unhinged so why would what he thinks be of any relevance? Given the lack of context for that photo of the poster I really think it has no more impact than Jinglie's t-shirt and as Jinglie posted the picture, I would not be surprised if the origins of the poster are closely linked.

Out of interest, exactly what is your agenda?

Don't have one Frank. I'm just an observer. Why do you think everyone needs an agenda? Having a different point of view does not imply agenda. Asking people to be accountable for what they post does not imply agenda. When others want to go bare knuckle on the keyboard and I choose to respond does not imply agenda. I don't do sudoku I post on Pprune, thats as basic as it gets.

I assume your last statement was a thought bubble so I'll leave you with it. Have a good weekend.;)

Frank Arouet
2nd Aug 2014, 03:54
Quickly so I too can go out and sun myself;

1) Rocks vs rifle. Interesting. Would you like to stand 50 meters in front of me chucking rocks or firing a rifle with sights at you?

2) I have never sent a PM to you. Do you have any other identities I may have written to that you have mistaken subliminally?

3) You're delusional. CAsA are probably responsible for most "hits" on ANZ&P- PPRune. I know Senators X and Fawcett do read these threads. I have directed them to many and have acknowledgements. None openly contribute.

4) Your opinion, and as I don't know I can't help you. This thread is about the Truss ASSR. The street poster seems apt and suitable for inclusion here. Not sure about T shirts though, I've a better idea, a bit like the Abbott one.

5) I asked the question, what did the writer of "eternity" mean. As I don't know, I would be interested in your opinion. You seem have many for a simple "observer". (who contributes).

"Ditto" the weekend, thanks.

004wercras
2nd Aug 2014, 09:01
Hi Frank. Send me an email (not a PM as they can be 'read'). I will let you know who LL is. You should have just asked me in the first place :=

Sarcs, thanks for posting the Whirlybird letter written by Messr Crook re Part 61. The compliance requirements are a nightmare and the additional training requirements are not only expensive but in this current aviation/economical climate will be business savaging to say the least. Another Fort Fumble exercise that is doomed to not work properly. They will end up manipulating, massaging and twisting it more than the Skull does to his cigars on a bad day!

Tick tock

004wercras
4th Aug 2014, 05:35
The final interview from the short list of DAS candidates was meant to take place today, with the winners name announced in the coming week or two.
I wonder if the final interview included a game of corporate snakes and ladders, a team building exercise with Chairman Hawke around one of Can'tberras finest buffets, or maybe some apple bobbing? Either way the announcement is just around the corner, and many wait with baited breath. Personally I don't hold out any hope really, not unless Reverend Forsythe becomes anointed as Junior Minister for aviation, the entire board (except Boyd) is terminated, DAS's 2 and 3 are given their marching orders, and it starts snowing in Apia!!
As Sunny would say 'to put that another way' - I don't believe anything will change. However, and here is the silver lining - the next federal election may hold the key. If the punters are truly sick of the Abbott/Shorten mess of recent years and vote in the independents, the PUP's, Greens, the Lawnbowl party and whatever, then we may see change. Otherwise it is BOHICA time boys and gals (another option for a t-shirt Jinglie?).

Tick tock

Kharon
4th Aug 2014, 19:32
No mate, not fishin' – ambled over to the cat house, someone trod on a tigers tail and all hell broke loose, it's the real deal; drugs, sex and rock'n roll, the works. Most diverting.

I also heard DAS interviews on today. There is a whisper that certain individuals were chained up and sharp implements confiscated to prevent candidate carnage. I am curious though – a full panel? who are they; you can see Mrdak and Hawke being there, Boyd, (if they told him it was on), that makes two board and the miniscule's man, McComic is in the sin bin, so who were the other three? ? ?. So, couple or three days, chin wag with the minuscule and we'll know – all. This is a critical piece of the jigsaw puzzle and will answer many questions. Just hope 'they' have got it right because if there is to be true reform, as demanded and expected, the DAS will be pivotal.

Think on - If 'they' get it right, we would report the good things, tell happy stories about a flourishing, confident, robust industry. We could even put the house boat in dry dock for a while, it needs some TLC, Gobbledock could come home and we can laze about the place all day, run morning tea into lunch and declare beer-o-clock whenever it pleased.. I don't want to even think about the 'wrong' call.

My breath ain't quite bated, but every now and then, I hold it for a few seconds, then shake the old wooden head and plough on. We shall see; soon enough, not many sleeps to go now.

Toot toot..-.-

Oh, a mate over in the Ukraine says it's a good thing Beaker didn't go; he reckons the cadaver dogs would have had him, for certain sure. (quiet chuckle).

Two of my favourite things – in one;

“Bated” is one of those words that only appears as part of a phrase (“with bated breath”). It first appears in the Merchant of Venice:

Shall I bend low and in a bondman’s key,
With bated breath and whispering humbleness, Say this;
‘Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;
You spurn’d me such a day; another time
You call’d me dog; and for these courtesies
I’ll lend you thus much moneys’?

So what does it mean? When a hawk is tethered it’s called “bated” – it’s a contraction of “abated,” meaning “restrained.” So to listen with bated breath means to listen whilst restraining, or holding, your breath.

Occasionally, the phrase is erroneously written as “baited breath” (including, it’s alleged, in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) – clearly that makes practically no sense.

Sponsored by IOS chapter for peace in our time.

PAIN_NET
5th Aug 2014, 04:17
The PAIN association has been advised that certain individuals are purporting to represent, or to actually be an active part of the network to various individuals and agencies.

If anyone, or someone you know has received any form of communication from; or, been approached for comment or information by anyone claiming to represent PAIN within the preceding six months, could they please contact us through the Pprune private message service. We are particularly interested in any electronic communications from the following email address.

[email protected]

We apologise for any inconvenience or annoyance caused through unauthorised communication, we are taking steps toward resolving the issue.

Thank you.

P7. a.k.a. TOM.

Creampuff
5th Aug 2014, 04:23
Errrmm, your post purports to represent "PAIN_NET".

Don't you think it's a little silly, all this melodromatic secrecy? It invites false identity theft....

PAIN_NET
5th Aug 2014, 05:48
Creampuff – with respect; the association is neither melodramatic or 'secret' in any respect, but it is discrete. The core research group are all very experienced aviation professionals, from many disciplines who have worked hard to earn a little credibility where it matters. The groups fundamental purpose is to assist, where possible others in the industry with their issues and problems.

I doubt anyone would steal a false identity as you opine:

It invites false identity theft

- but how would you respond if 'someone' purporting to be you was talking with CASA board members or other industry heavyweights?

All we are simply asking is that if anyone from Pprune has been contacted or have had an email from the address above; they inform us. We do not as a rule initiate contact or engage with people unknown to one of the core group.

P7 a.k.a. TOM

Creampuff
5th Aug 2014, 06:57
Discrete? If you say so …

We’re not particularly fussed about what people say about Creampuff. We are a discreet alliance of nobodies dedicated to the promotion of the group’s clay pigeon shooting averages. :ok:

Jinglie
5th Aug 2014, 10:00
White flag! The re-appointment of BEAKER says it all. As a proud professional with 30 in the industry, i've decided Australia is not the place to be anymore. Going with great skills to a brighter future. Well done Wuss, and Albo! Pathetic!
I don't suffer fool's lightly!
I won't say tick tock, but I will say "brace brace brace"!
:p

004wercras
5th Aug 2014, 11:32
Latest from the Beaker files;

"In the meantime, ATSB chief Martin Dolan will be spending weeks sifting through the bids with the help of five bureaucrats, the WSJ reports".

Stellar groups jostle for MH370 search contract - Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/270440)

This will keep him busy! Contracts, consultants, a giant pot money to the tune of $60 million, decisions decisions, the bald beardless one will mi mi mi be in his element! I wonder if he will pack his abacus and Bow tie analysis tool and head off to W.A for a visit offshore to the search site?

Jinglie
5th Aug 2014, 11:45
004, A "man can only take so much! When a ""govt takes too much" it's time to move on! Thanks. Ppruners and IOS, well done!

Kharon
5th Aug 2014, 21:18
Don't know as yet if the reappointment of Beaker is cause for alarm; only a faint whisper, but I did hear his appointment was 'short term' and future tenure depends very much on the Canadian report. Also, it's worth remembering that there is a recommendation in the Forsyth review for 'experience' to be brought into the ATSB, mindful that the 'Senators' may be smooth on the surface, but Beaker has gravely offended them, on more than one occasion.

Much to consider; if Truss is as ga ga as persistent rumours insist; perhaps the changes will start at the top; even if he digs in and stays on until the Qld elections, Abbott is no mug and his aviation flank is exposed. Could perhaps a junior minister be appointed? one with competence and experience, given the potential for bad reports being published; would be politically advantageous and operationally expedient.

Probably not, but they do need drivers – airframe – in China and I like the food and beer well enough. I'll give it month or so before grabbing the big port from storage and blowing the dust off.

Kharon
7th Aug 2014, 21:28
I wonder what heinous crime 004 has committed, this time? the posts I can read seem positively sanguine, with barely a curse to offend the delicate sensibilities.

Aye well – We can only hope it's a temporary. I will miss the pawky sallies, mulled wit and pointed barbs. But, you pays your money and takes your chances.

Sad little Toot toot.

Sarcs
7th Aug 2014, 23:19
It is my solemn duty to officially welcome the AHIA, back from the dark side, to join the swelling ranks of the IOS (membership card is in the mail..;)):AHIA mobilises industry volunteers to help with regulatory review. (http://www.bladeslapper.com/content/bb/viewtopic.php?p=64831#p64831)

"...But their requests have fallen on deaf ears; in fact, the silence from the politicians handling the fallout of the ASRR and post ASRR recommendations is concerning...

...If you think CASR Part 61 was hard to understand - just wait for the 133 (Air Transport) and 138 (Aerialwork) review. AHIA is looking ahead and there are some very expensive options coming up for things we have been doing for decades with no incidents...

...and starting a "call to arms" seeking experienced operators who can guide us all and provide timely feedback to the regulators to avoid draft rules being ignored and then later we cause a riot when they become law! (But you will need a speed reading course as everything seems to hundreds of pages long!)..." :D:D

However before entering the IOS favourite haunt (war room) for the Friday arvo constitutional (i.e. beer'n'nuts) can you please tie up that bloody rabid dog of yours...:rolleyes:

MMSM right of reply: CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-says-helicopter-associations-claims-are-wide-of-the-mark/story-e6frg95x-1227017017154)

"...For these reasons, among others, I was disappointed to see the negative comments made by the Australian Helicopter Industry Association about the new licensing suite of regulations, which take effect from September 1...

...Many of the claims made by the association were wide of the mark and do not reflect the close consultation CASA has been undertaking with the broader helicopter community, including association representatives..."

Hmm..where have I heard this before..:rolleyes::CASA rejects the claim that elements of the manual can encourage unsafe practices. Where earlier drafts of the manual revealed some unintended consequences, appropriate changes were made, informed by constructive feedback from the industry. That is one of the purposes of the consultation process. It goes without saying that CASA would never intentionally introduce or retain requirements that might be detrimental to safety. Oh well moving on..

Dougy's weekly insight (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-7-august-2014) yesterday: Besides paying tribute to the sad passing of Aussie aviation safety legend Macarthur Job (RIP), Dougy makes mention of the GDB ('Great {new} DAS debate'): More than one correspondent has expressed the view that the new CASA DAS will need a broad range of skills, rather than specific industry experience. People have talked of elements such as risk management and communications. I would add vision and the ability to pick the right people to perform functional roles at the next level of management exceptionally. Well, we should now know sooner rather than later whether that’s the sort of package we’re getting.

I’m continuing to pick up on a rising tide of frustration and indeed anger at the lack of decision making in the Minister’s office. What had seemed to be a spirit of real engagement with industry has evaporated. Let’s hope it’s not irretrievable. So Dougy feels it is all still to play for....next ;)

From the RAAA 'Winter Newsletter' (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/newsletter/pdf/RAAA-Newsletter-Winter-2014.pdf) Paul Tyrell (from the RHS) seems to be still reasonably upbeat :D:
It may be winter in Canberra but things certainly haven’t cooled down for the RAAA. As many of you are aware the long awaited Aviation Safety Regulation Review was released.

The RAAA had significant input including five face to face meetings with the review panel. Of the thirty seven recommendations we only disagreed with three.

Prima facie it appears that the panel has listened carefully to RAAA and industry concerns. In some ways though, the report is the easy part. The test will be to see how Deputy Prime Minister Truss responds to the recommendations. He certainly has the ammunition to instigate significant change but it is unusual for government to act on every piece of advice.
 
Jeff Boyd, our immediate past Chairman, is warmly congratulated on his appointment to the Deputy Chair role at CASA. It is a sign that the government values regional aviation and long-term practical industry experience. We wish Jeff every success in this vital and challenging role...

...Soon we hope to hear who are the new CASA Board members. A new Director of Aviation Safety will also be appointed by 1 September and

followed closely by a fresh Industry Complaints Commissioner, with new responsibilities, joining the CASA team.

It is also likely that an extra ATSB Commissioner with significant aviation experience will be appointed in the near future. Finally, it is hoped that the announcement of the make-up of the Minister’s Aviation Advisory Council is not far away.
Time is ticking miniscule..:zzz: :ugh:

What is it to be the long drop or the 'Last Hurrah'??:E

MTF..:ok:

Sarcs
8th Aug 2014, 05:51
From Oz Flying today...

Aviation Bodies Call for New Rules to be Deferred (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aviation-bodies-call-for-new-rules-to-be-deferred)

08 Aug 2014



Aviation bodies have lobbyed Minister Warren Truss to have the new CASR Parts 61 and 141 deferred further.

The new regulations were due to be introduced on 1 September, having already been postponed from 4 December last year.

Part 61 deals with new licence and endorsement procedures, and Part 141 relates to training organisations.

Phil Hurst, CEO of the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) told Australian Flying that they support any moves to stop the new rules coming into force in three weeks time.

"Our problem is that CASA is more and more like a rudderless ship on this issue and no-one seems to see what is coming – ie from 14 September all new licences must be trained for and issued under the new requirements," he said.

"The training orgs have not been reached out to by CASA or case managed so that they can start with compliant training from day one. The real weakness seems to be the Part 141 transition process – or lack of process perhaps.

"If companies are unable to start training under the new requirements in September because they have not been transitioned across to Part 141 by that time, I think you can imagine the outcome.

"Our particular concern remains the lack of a case-management strategy for all the companies likely to transition to a 141 organisation from the current ATO (Authorised Testing Officer) arrangements. While the requirements have been simplified, there is still a lot of work to be done on both sides. And of course there remain unresolved issues such as the role of ‘approved pilots’ under the new regime."

Last week, the Australian Helicopter Industry Association announced they had written to Warren Truss with similar concerns (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ahia-moves-to-stall-part-61), and further support has since come from the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA).

"Like most associations we have written to the Minister supporting this approach," said AMROBA CEO Ken Cannane.

"Because CASA is currently in a state of flux awaiting on the appointment of new Board members and a new DAS [Director of Aviation Safety] and the Minister is yet to announce the Government’s response to the damning criticisms of CASA in the Forsyth Report, all regulatory development should be put on hold.

"The Forsyth Report has strong industry support for most of the recommendations. The Minister must direct the Board/CASA to await the outcome of the above. The three-tier system will reduce the red tape created by this Part."

A key recommendation of the Forsyth Report was that CASA adopt a three-tier system of regulations, which are 1. Act 2. Regulation 3. Plain-English Standards.

The third tier is being seen by most aviation bodies as key to a better understanding of regulations.

Someone check the miniscule's vitals and FFS empty out his intray...:{

...I've now got some irate bloke on the line from the TWU banging on about whether we'd received his letter asking for an urgent meeting and had we read the Oz article apparently titled..Govt failing to act on safer skies: union (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/govt-failing-to-act-on-safer-skies-union/story-fn3dxiwe-1227017016377)A SENIOR union leader has threatened internationally-backed industrial action to force the Abbott government to stop airlines from flying over war zones following the MH17 disaster.

TRANSPORT Workers Union (TWU) secretary Tony Sheldon also lashed out at the International Civil Aviation Organisation after their global conference last week in Montreal failed to deliver measures like enabling flight crews to stand down from work if they are set to fly over a conflict zone.

The union said that Australian government representatives were at the meeting which resolved to let airlines continue to assess safety risks.


"They've just re-stated the same failed policy that saw so many people lose their lives in Ukraine (on MH17)," Mr Sheldon said.


He accused the watchdog and government of allowing airlines to prioritise profit over the safety of passengers and aircrews.


Mr Sheldon said it would have cost Malaysia Airlines an additional $28,000 to take a different route to the fatal path taken by MH17.


"They chose profit before safety and now we are mourning dead ones today," Mr Sheldon said.


Aviation security expert Ron Bartsch said that while airlines are best positioned to assess the risks of flight paths, it is critical for governments to proactively share information if they want to prevent another tragedy like MH17.


"The Australian government is not alone in being behind the eight-ball here," said the former head of safety at Qantas.


"Governments need to be more active in communicating information about hazards and danger areas to the international body who can then disseminate those crucial details to the carriers."


The TWU indicated that they would take the issue to the International Transport Federation to force authorities to act.


"Since MH17, we've seen government inaction, airline inaction and watchdog inaction," Mr Sheldon said.


Qantas recently buckled to public pressure following the US regulator's warnings about flying over Iraq.


They joined Emirates and Virgin Atlantic airlines in diverting their Dubai to London route away from the conflict zone in the Middle East. TICK..TOCK..TA, JH & WT...:ok:

SIUYA
8th Aug 2014, 08:58
New Approach to Regulation

The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says it is moving toward "regulating in a more proportionate, effective and risk-based way," using the safety management systems in place at airlines, airports and ground handling organizations to help identify areas that present the greatest risks to safety.

"Performance-based regulation takes our safety oversight to a new level," Mark Swan, director of the CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group, said in early June. "By working hand-in-hand with the aviation industry, EASA [the European Aviation Safety Agency] and other national authorities to identify and manage risk effectively, we can concentrate our attention where it is most needed."

Swan added that industry cooperation would ensure the success of the new regulatory effort.

The CAA said that the new system would help the agency measure "the true extent of the risks to U.K. passengers and the general public" and identify and implement appropriate actions to manage risks. One key element calls for cooperating with civil aviation authorities in other countries that could take action to mitigate risks to U.K. operations.

The agency expects to have a full performance-based regulation system in place by April 2016 but already has established several elements of the system, including a new method of safety oversight based on identified risks and safety performance and a series of risk-mitigation activities and associated safety projects. The CAA also has established requirements for "an integrated safety risk-reporting and management system to better inform strategic decisions made by the CAA Board and the allocation of resources to act on them."

Source: AeroSafety WORLD July-August 2014

UK CAA can get its regulations overhauled to the new model in a couple of years, but here in Australia the numbnuts at CASA have dragged the process out for over 20 years while successive Ministers have sat on their ar$es twiddling their thumbs and doing fcuk-all to ensure that the mess we call our regulations got fixed.

To make matters worse (if that's at all possible) we apparently have Dolan reappointed as the Chief Commissioner. :ugh:


MINISTER - DO SOMETHING!

Kharon
8th Aug 2014, 19:51
I did mention that the Abbott aviation flank was exposed; when MH 17 was destroyed, blind Freddy could see it was going to turn into a political bun-fight; and so it has. We now have 'Air safety' as a headline; no matter that the topics are 'flight paths', closed air space etc. it matters that the words air and safety are very topical.

If the idiot press (and some of the better ones) ever latch on to the notion that Australian aviation has got it's tits in the mangle, the spotlight will be on the Abbott government's aviation policy and what will they find? an industry on the brink of collapse, bad reports on CASA and worse on the ATSB; in short a shambles, not a good look. Maybe it's time to shut some of the stable doors, before the horses bugger off.

I'll second what Siuya says; with equal gusto.

Frank Arouet
8th Aug 2014, 23:16
Truss must have a medical problem to let Albanese off the hook when he had the chance. He could have blamed everything CAsA on Labor, alongside the GFC, Union embuggerance, The Greens, Palmer, UN, ICAO, Malaysia, global warming/ cooling, (insert name of the week), gay marriage, breast cancer, The ABC, Fairfax and of course the Ills of Society.


Now he's stuck with the baby and the bath water, the phone's ringing and The Jehovah's witnesses are knocking at the door.


Put your feet up Minister, give the job to Barnaby and Fawcett and let loose the dogs of war. Enough with the metaphors.


Where have all the sophists gone?

Sarcs
9th Aug 2014, 23:40
A good point you make SIUYA, 2 conservative governments with the same desire to reduce red tape and therefore cost to industry stakeholders. However that is where the similarity stops...:ugh:

The UK initiative started with the govt putting down the GA red tape challenge (RTC)...

CAP 1123 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap1123%20caa%20response%20to%20ga%20red%20tape%20challenge. pdf)quote from the CEO of the CAA
The UK General Aviation (GA) sector finds itself under increasing strain as costs of operation rise due to fiscal pressures, a greater focus on environmental issues and the application of a European regulatory framework, and perceived over regulation by the CAA. Too much prescription in the rules and a lack of proportionality have both impacted adversely on the sector.

The Government's GA Red Tape Challenge (RTC) was both timely and welcome. It has given my colleagues and I at the CAA a powerful reminder that we need to inject more pace into how we introduce a more proportionate and risk-based regulatory regime for the UK GA sector and push harder for change across Europe to meet the demand evident from
the GA community.
Hmm..certain parts of the following sound very familiar..:{
A fundamental theme running across the Red Tape Challenge was communication between the CAA and the GA community. Many felt that the CAA’s website could be improved and accessibility of CAA guidance made better. The Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory Requirements, Policy and Guidance2, CAP 804, attracted particular criticism.

Another common concern was that regulations appeared to be introduced without due consideration of how they might impact on the GA sector. Many suggested that before any new regulations, interventions or guidance are introduced, their impact on the GA sector should be assessed and suitable changes made to reduce the impact, without compromising safety.

They asked that regulatory interventions should be risk-based, proportionate and the minimum necessary for safety.

There was naturally a strong desire to see greater efficiency from the CAA and a more customer-centric approach.

There was a general dissatisfaction with EASA rules and a perception that the CAA is prone to gold-plating these rules. The CAA has already responded publicly to this challenge. The CAA announced on 4 June that it is "committed to identifying and eliminating any such gold-plating".3
Interesting that the PBR approach (SIUYA post) is apparently strongly backed by EASA & ICAO..:D

Mark Swan (CAP 1184 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201184%20PBR%20online.pdf)):

"...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..."



And the timeframe/progress report so far for the UK CAA PBR initiative We aim to adopt a full PBR approach by April 2016. So far we have established:
Performance-based oversight – A new process for carrying out safety oversight based on known risks and safety performance.
An initial total aviation risk picture and a series of prioritised risk mitigation activities with associated safety projects.
The requirements for an integrated safety risk reporting and management system to better inform strategic decisions made by the CAA Board, and the allocation of resources to act on them.
The key governance fora (a Safety Action Group and Safety Review Board) that will underpin the CAA’s internal Safety Management System.
Great initiative but unfortunately it doesn't really help us much...:ugh:

However before we all start drowning our sorrows in despair or jumping the ditch to NZed, please reconsider the rather optimistic message from the RAAA newsletter. Then consider the following recent RAAA submission to the PMC (cc'd to the miniscule): RAAA SUBMISSION - CUTTING RED TAPE (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/submissions/RAAA-Response-Cutting-Red-Tape-July14.html)Table of Contents
I. RAAA BACKGROUND 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
III. EXPENSIVE, UNNECESSARY CASA MAINTENANCE VISITS OVERSEAS 4
IV. CASA AUDITS 4
V. CASA APPROVAL OF MANUALS 5
VI. DRUG & ALCOHOL PROGRAM 5
VII. OVERLAPPING BUILDING CONTROL REGULATIONS 5
VIII. FAILURE TO UP-DATE NOISE CURFEW REGULATION TO
RECOGNISE NEWER, QUIETER AIRCRAFT 6
IX. LACK OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CASA REGULATORY
SERVICES 6
X. MEDICAL RENEWALS 7
XI. LETTERS TO DAMES, PILOTS AND AOC HOLDERS REGARDING
COLOUR VISION DEFECTS (CVD) 7
XII. ENGLISH PROFICIENCY FOR STUDENT PILOT LICENCE 7
XIII. SIMULATORS 7
XIV. CONCLUSION
II. Executive Summary
The Government has published the document “The Australian Government’s Guide to Regulation” to help policy makers in the future ensure that regulation is never adopted as the default solution, but rather introduced as a means of last resort(1). This initiative is welcomed by the RAAA but does not address the excessive regulatory burden currently
borne by industry.

The examples below are indicators that historic government monopoly and service behaviour is having a significant and deleterious effect on the regional aviation industry’s ability to grow and thrive.

Such behaviours must be expunged and the dead-weight of the government aviation bureaucracies lifted from an industry that is essential to Australia’s economic and social development.

Excessive red-tape only serves bureaucracies and throttles the industries that actually pay the taxes that keep government functioning.

Aviation is particularly susceptible to excessive red-tape because it is a highly regulated industry. Overblown safety and security arguments are often used to enable increases in red-tape and regulation for zero safety or operational gain.

The RAAA hopes sincerely that the government’s red-tape review is a serious attempt to release industry, and aviation specifically, from systems that serve no-one except the people administering them.

Given the losses or poor margins experienced by most parts of the aviation industry action on government red-tape can’t come soon enough.
Considering the above, & the fact that the previous RAAA Chairman is now sitting on the FF board, does anyone seriously think (for a moment) that the RAAA are just going to chuck it in cause we currently have another small speed bump (i.e. an ailing miniscule)?? Put your feet up Minister, give the job to Barnaby and Fawcett and let loose the dogs of war.TICK..TOCK miniscule :E

ps Love the CVD para..:ok:Whatever the merits of any arguments about CVDs, the letters mentioned above were totally inappropriate in the way they attempted to shift responsibility to assess the medical risks to the letter recipients. CASA issues medical certificates and industry participants are entitled to rely on those certificates. Creating uncertainty in this way, when supposedly new medical evidence has not been tested and the manner in which implications when tested might be applied to aviation had not been discussed with or forecast to the industry, was entirely unacceptable.

When this argument is juxtaposed with the fact that a closely related issue is being tested currently at the AAT, the reasons and justifications for the CASA letter appear problematic, possibly an abuse of process, and out of step with the Government’s guidelines for cutting red tape.

Kharon
10th Aug 2014, 21:39
The issues raised in item 'V' (5 in new money) only lightly, almost unnoticeably touches on the very real issues associated with "manuals".

For starters; the very grey and much abused "accepted" or "approved" area is (IMO) one that must be addressed. As it stands, it's open slather and Raffetry's rules. This must be clearly redefined to the FOI dealing. If a thing is to be accepted then a personal 'preference' may be discussed, but ultimately it's the Chief pilot, not the FOI who carries then can. Where an "approval" is to be issued, then the FOI is only obliged to ensure compliance; not dictate how a manual may be structured and what it should or should not contain. This dislocation is most clearly apparent on "FCOM" and "Check lists". Subjective opinion is inflicted under duress lest the delay in obtaining 'approval' become financially unacceptable. For example this ridiculous idea of regurgitating almost the entire AFM into 'Part B' is so wrong, in so many way it's beyond being even remotely sane. Check systems (not lists) are another very contentious issue, some examples bordering on lunacy are actually out there, in use......Tick tock.

The idea of renewing an AOC to include a new, similar aircraft type is a great little earner. The costs are phenomenal, the time taken unbelievable and achieve little in the way of 'improved' safety. It's really just a rip off.

The good idea of 'upgrading' an AOC is another time consuming, expensive operation; another area which needs to be streamlined.

To actually start from scratch and obtain an AOC the patience of Job, the wealth of Croecus and the wisdom of Solomon are essential prerequisites; thats bad enough but the creatures to be dealt with beggar the imagination. The Kiwi's and even EASA guarantee three months and will refund any monies not used during process. Australia – can take up to a twelve month and will require a financial 'top up' at least once during process.

The 'red tape' and 'system' collude so very well, but unlike a tick, which will leave the host when the animal is dead, once CASA latches on – it stays on, feeding on the rotting carcass.

2008 was the time for the demanded changes; the Albo era gave us the McComic system of glutinous, black letter micro management and embuggerance. The Senate and Forsyth report insist there must be real changes. How about it, just once; can we have some value for the unimaginable amounts of money the industry has ploughed into the dead soil of 'Reform'; yes Sir, that is Real Reform with a capitol R.

Toot toot...