View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

11th Aug 2014, 22:34
Apart from gifting CASA a subterranean, lethal weapon with a 'third' tier which is 'unnecessary' instead of an 'Advisory' method of compliance there is little to dispute coming from AAAA, AMROBA, AHIA and RAAA etc. All seem to be supporting the Forsyth report to the hilt. It is encouraging that even the 'traditionalist' Brits have seen the light. Bravo.

There is even a whisper that the Rev. himself is contemplating rolling up his sleeves and pushing, which is a sustainable rumour; a man like that would want to see 'his' report put to work, see the job done as it were.

Could someone turn on the miniscule's desk lamp; he might just see the piles of paper-work and get on with the job. Anytime soon would be good.

Is today DAS day???

Toot toot.

thorn bird
13th Aug 2014, 10:02
What will be the departing angry man Mr Mc Comic's legacy be?

We know his arrogance and demeanour rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, alienated most of the industry, and put CAsA at odds with those they regulated.

Just what did he achieve in the time he presided as the DAS? other than sociapathic toxisity spread throughout his organisation, and a pathalogic race among his minions to see who can do the most damage to the industry. I think the Bankstown/Sydney warren is streets ahead, closely followed by Far North QLD.

From my experience, people involved in the commercial side of aviation are a fairly conservative lot, in fact I think that statement probably applies to most people involved in aviation across the board, it takes a lot to get them riled.

The GA sector in particular is generally too busy trying to stay afloat than devote time to really examine, digest and form an opinion on anything until its too late and change is forced upon them.

Will that be McComics legacy?

Through his arrogance he presided over the destruction of the Australian aviation industry?

Its hard to find an aviation association, magazine or web sight that doesnt contain concern and criticism of CAsA and their "Reformed regulation", yet Minister "WUSS" ignores the evidence, ignores the industry and ignores the advice from the very inquiry he instigated as well as the Senate of this nation.

Will history show that Mr McComic was the most powerful person in the land. More powerful than our Parliament, our prime minister or any of our courts. Where his officers could snub their noses at us all and operate freely without fear of sanction?

At the end of this month Part 61 will be upon us, inflicting more regulatory burden and confusion. With it, indeterminate cost burdens on an industry already buckling, and very soon, Part 135 which should just about finish the job.

No doubt, Mr McComic will crow that he made Australia the safest place on the planet for aviation.That will be because there is no aviation in this country.

Part 61 will export most of our flying training to NZ, maintenance will die because there will be nothing to maintain.

Minister WUSS, or someone who is awake in the Guv'mint, have a look across the Tasman!! The Kiwi's are leaving us for dead!!

I think I recall big, cigar chomping Joe mentioning how he admired what the Kiwi's were achieving.

Hey Joe, make sure you reserve the funds to massively subsidise assential services when the McComic legacy comes to fruition. Getting close now!

15th Aug 2014, 21:27
TB # -"What will be the departing angry man Mr Mc Comic's legacy be?"

BRB last evening – ostensibly a preparatory meeting for cricket team selection and an international darts challenge; seems some Canadians fancy their chances; we shall see. A non related topic of conversation led to your question being examined, if not answered. It kicked off with the Tiger mess and devolved into a discussion of 'modern chief pilots'. A fair few of the guys have, shall we say, a passing knowledge of the GA world and how it wags and their input presented an 'interesting' point of view. Got nowhere near a majority vote; but they are still 'chewing on it' – the CASA generated Fifth Column.

In short the argument goes like this; in the quest for compliance with some of the darker/sillier/whimsical, not applicable edicts of NFI-FOI, the 'traditional' CP types who will (would) send them packing with an earful have been 'overlooked' in favour of the Casaphile type who will either take the least line of resistance or gratefully accept and execute whatever Inutile or dubious proposal as 'the gospel'. Gee whiz, there were a lot of anecdotes to support the proposition; I do mean a lot.

The antagonists have demanded 'proof' positive of the protagonists; so I dare say the phones and Skype will run hot as it's a tricky thing to support, we shall see. But it's a tempting proposition. A long hard look at the hand selected, McComic anointed golden circle shows a definite 'type' in favour. It sort of makes sense that like would seek like – all mates together. One fellah rattled off the names of half a dozen 'shoo ins' for CP jobs who had been rejected, some, even busted down to a lower license etc and an equal number of names which, perhaps, it is kinder to say would not stand a chance – in a sane world.

More to follow on this; being neutral I'll probably end up refereeing; but, the Bankstown chronicles have been requested in the interests of a 'balanced' argument. This could end up a very interesting debate, considering other matters in play at the moment.

Thorny, you should now have the date for the next indaba, be a good night and seeing as you framed the question, you'd better get there to see what you started. Bring your darts and wallet.

Toot toot.

thorn bird
15th Aug 2014, 21:33
aww jeez Kharon, I had a hell of a time getting the lampshade off after the last one!!

17th Aug 2014, 10:03
Here's your chance ask the miniscule a question..:*: QANDA Monday 18th August (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/ask-question.htm)

Go on I know some of you want to...:E

dubbleyew eight
17th Aug 2014, 10:09
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.

that quote has got to be the stupidest line I have ever read.

how about
1. a sensible act where casa isn't responsible for my actions as a pilot, I am.

2. plain english regulations that respect my skill as a pilot.

3. if there just has to be a third tier then lets have nicely printed casa toilet paper.
(to show that even in the bogs of australia we're thinking of them)

watching all of this is like watching a stockholm victims gathering. :mad:

18th Aug 2014, 00:10
It's always the same story with newbee's. Mate, lampshades are only de riguer for initiation pow wow's and the like; but not for 'darts and debate' evenings (D&D). A D&D indaba is much more a 'pipe and slippers' sort of event; pints and the gentle plunk of a well thrown dart, gently applauded as it hits the nominated mark (a miss costs points). Occasionally (and I think TB has sparked one) debates require a hard hat and Wellie's, we managed to outlaw stumps, cricket bats and billiard cues, but sometimes – well, 'nuff said.

The McComic legacy, the left over tenets of fear, intimidation, twisted law, emasculated operations departments and the removal of those that actively 'enforced', by fair means or foul the McComic diatribe will also need some attention; deeply ensconced and cunning as they are. Plenty of willing hands – but Truss has the shovels locked away.

W8 has raised one topic which, if we go with reforms will require all the tact and cunning the 'advisory' panel can muster; it's a hot topic and the 'sides' have very strong arguments, pro and con. 'The only means of compliance – black letter' or; 'Not the only means of compliance – but our advice is....etc'. A pot boiler.

Then there is the unholy Part 61 to consider; although it seems the vast majority favour a public burning of the thing and unspeakable 'things' done to the 'inventors'. NZ part 61 for ever (with slight modification) seem to be in favour.

The Canadian report sitting in the Truss in-tray may be released by the appointed time; although a digestion period will be required and any response must be tempered with the decisions Truss makes and the new DAS must be considered, before any worthwhile discussion of that little 'ugly spot' is possible. The Senate MoP may yet alter the whole thing, again.

Aye – there's a whole load of work to do; if Truss ever delivers the lumber and the nails turn up that is; meanwhile darts and limericks seem to the only pastime for the BRB to pursue; there are always rugby songs to help while away the time. "Why are we waiting, oh why, oh why".

Toot toot....;)

dubbleyew eight
18th Aug 2014, 06:15
I do sincerely hope that the new director of aviation safety (a nonsense concept if ever there was one) is a Canadian.

Break the bullshit australian way of embuggerated regulation by experts and bring in some "lets get it working again" sensible logic.

from my perspective the canadians have learnt lessons that the rest of the world have yet to realise.

canadian owner maintenance. brilliant concept.

provision to decertify a privately owned aircraft and maintain it on a stand alone basis. brilliant concept.

much of CAsA's problems lie in trying to enforce the nonsense of "Certification" on a population that can well understand aviation and don't need certifying of anything that is successful.
it has cost CAsA millions in lost law suits all because of the stupid way it persists in trying to do business.

imposition of wills arguments will never work in our egalitarian society.
far better to follow the canadian example and do what the people want.

in fact a read of canadian legislation shows it to have items unique to snow operations that would not be applicable here in australia.
but here is the rub.
if we introduced the canadian regulations in this country as a straight replacement of the voluminous garbage that CAsA has created there would be no actual impediment on safety. a great chunk of the regulations would be no less irrelevant than the garbage we have been dished up with to date.

can we have some sanity in this country or do I need to emigrate?

thorn bird
18th Aug 2014, 06:43
based on the inaction of minister WUSS,
I'd be trotting along to the Canook embassy.

18th Aug 2014, 07:44
QANDA- From Cooper Pedy resident: Warren Truss heard on Aunty today...
Council told to widen Coober Pedy runway (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/council-told-to-widen-coober-pedy-runway/5678102?&section=news)

Posted about 4 hours ago
Mon 18 Aug 2014, 12:13pm

Map: Coober Pedy 5723 (http://maps.google.com/?q=-28.9988,134.7573(Coober%20Pedy%205723)&z=5)

The District Council of Coober Pedy says it appears to have no choice but to widen the town's runway.
New Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations regarding runway widths come into place in February.

Mayor Steve Baines says council was under the impression the runway would not need to be widened but has now been told it does.
He says it could cost up to $500,000.

Councillor Baines says local government elections will make it difficult to complete the work in time.

"Our council will not be able to enter into a contract that exceeds $100,000 while in caretaker mode, that basically means that unless we obtain ministerial approval we will not be able to enter into the contract to widen our runway," he said.

"Although ... REX and Kendall have been flying into Coober Pedy for 20 years without incident, there now seems to be some requirement for that runway to be widened."
...also I have a mate, who has a couple of properties the size of Tassie, that sometimes require him to fly past beer'o'clock and he is now getting told by some foreign bloke in Canberra that being as he is colour blind he may no longer be able to do this legally...:ugh: So my question is when are going to tell these d**kheads to get back in their boxes...???:rolleyes:

18th Aug 2014, 07:59
From the 26 May 2014 Estimates hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Mr McCormick: I will ask our Acting Executive Manager, Aerodromes and Airspace Regulation Division, Ms Cheryl Allman, to give you the full picture. …

Ms Allman: I have asked Mr Rick Leeds, Acting Executive Manager of Standards, to accompany me as this is a regulatory development project, particularly around the narrow runways. So I might defer to his expertise. He might, with your permission, be able to answer your question better.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. Mr Leeds?

Mr Leeds: As has been pointed out, we currently have a standards development project underway to amend Civil Aviation Regulation 235A which goes to aircraft performance, specifically as it relates to operations on narrow runways. What we are trying to do is separate the responsibilities. It is not an aerodrome issue per se; it is an issue for the operators and the aircraft and the performance of those aircraft operating on those runways. As the director has pointed out, we are talking to manufacturers of aircraft, like SAAB, and the development of aircraft flight manual supplements that support the performance of those aircraft. Where those flight manual supplements exist, then the operation of those aircraft can continue on those runways.

Senator FAWCETT: Where is that process at? If the community want to know, what certainty do they have that the only service to their part of a fairly remote bit of South Australia is going to continue?

Mr Leeds: My understanding is that we are about to write to the aerodrome operator at Coober Pedy to give him the assurance that the NPRM process is just about finished. We should be releasing the amended CAR 235A that makes it very clear what the operator's responsibilities are concerning having the flight manual supplements that support the operation of the aircraft on the narrow runways. Again, we have been talking to the manufacturers. They are keen to get involved to produce the documentation. We do not envisage that there will be any interruption to services to Coober Pedy .

Dangly Bits
18th Aug 2014, 10:18
When the DAS becomes the Director General of ICAO in a few months, our runways will have to be as wide as they are long!

Time to find that number for the truck driving school.

18th Aug 2014, 11:05
If that happens, it will be the end of aviation as we know it (or used too).
Quote from Apocalypse Now; "the horror, the horror"!
There are a lot of similarities with Kurtz and the Skull. Think about it! Is Wodger the crazed photographer?

thorn bird
18th Aug 2014, 12:51
Bloody hell!!!..honestly you couldn't make this up...

Lets see...the wider the runway the safer it is??..okay Yup get that!

We have KSA runway 34/16..12,000 Ft approx.

So the theory is a runway 12,000 X 12,000 is much safer than a runway 12,000 X 45 meters.

What about a runway that's 12,000 ft long and 24,000 ft wide?..

Na sorry not long enough!!!

Not too many of us left that remember an all over field!!

OKAY.. fill in the rest of Botany bay, and de-mine Holsworthy...are we there yet????

How the hell are they going to fit Badgerys Creek into the Sydney basin??

18th Aug 2014, 13:14
"the horror, the horror"!

19th Aug 2014, 10:25
Not sure if the Planetalking headline...Huh! Truss says 2nd Sydney Airport won’t grow all that much (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/08/19/huh-truss-says-2nd-sydney-airport-wont-grow-all-that-much/)...was amended by design but the link heading at the top of the page actually reads...

"Has deputy PM Truss had brain fade over 2nd Sydney Airport?"

Oh well either way I wonder how long it will be before the MMSM start questioning the performance of a clearly more & more stage managed DPM?? ;)

More bad press for Fort Fumble..:=

Noticed that today Oz Flying had the following short article in follow up to their coverage (ref: CASA Advocates ASAAO for Community Service Flights (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-advocates-asaao-for-community-service-flights)) of yesterday's FF release of DP 13717OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/dp1317os.pdf) Angel Flight Reacts to Discussion Paper
19 Aug 2014

Angel Flight founder Bill Bristow, AM, has sent an e-mail to the organisation's pilots condemning CASA's Discussion Paper released yesterday (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-advocates-asaao-for-community-service-flights).

CASA released DP1317 suggesting that passengers on community service flights need the protection of regulation, and that their preferred option would be for the co-ordinating organisation to take on responsibility of ensuring safe operation.

"We have previously made personal representations to Minister Truss's senior advisers on this matter," Bristow says in the e-mail.

"We take the position that the intervention of CASA is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unreasonable. In short, there is nothing about our charity’s operation that needs addressing.

"There has been no demonstrated safety issue arising out of Angel Flight’s already greater than 16,500 missions and therefore the 'safety authority' appears to be introducing, in the circumstances, bureaucratic intervention which does not appear to us to have any foundation."

Angel Flight does not own or operate any aircraft itself, but is a co-ordinating charity that introduces people who need to travel for medical reasons to pilots who donate their time and aircraft costs. The flights are generally classified as private.

The discussion paper can be downloaded from the CASA website (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102133), and responses need to be sent to CASA no later than 10 October 2014. Also notice how the common theme to all the responses to the latest missives coming out of Fort Fumble is...

"...There has been no demonstrated safety issue.." :ugh::ugh:

TICK..TOCK RED! :rolleyes:


dubbleyew eight
19th Aug 2014, 15:06
the joke regarding narrow runways is of course on CAsA and our stupid government.
if the money that has been wasted on oversight and regulatory embuggerment had been spent by the government on actually widening the runways in question there would be no need for the embuggerment or the new regs.

I thought this was an infrastructure government :mad:

19th Aug 2014, 17:53
I thought this was an infrastructure government
But it is D8 it is - pink bats, school halls, ergonomic government only buildings and a handful of fighter planes, and existing fighter jets for which Defence has cut its fuel budget for. Sadly it's ingrained in our Australian political culture, moulded over the past century and it will never change. The day we finally get a proactive, balls out, constituent focused ruling power will be the day that our GA industry here at home becomes the envy of the world. And with people like Clive and Lambie waiting in the breeches do you think it's ever going to happen?

19th Aug 2014, 22:13
The mystique of aviation safety has always in the past provided sanctuary, a nice big rock to slither under from where stern edicts and warnings could be issued, to baffle the 'masters' and ensure the trough was always full. Easy game and being as how the Polly's mostly could care less, provided their arses were covered; all was well.

Rudderless; when the safety rock was disturbed there was a great need to re-establish the status quo, to do this some form of credibility needed to be regained, quick smart. The stumbling block was that from the top down to about layer two, there was no one left to show the way or lead the tribe back to the promised land, not with any sort of deniable credibility that is.

Clueless; left to their own devices and forced to meet away from safety rock, little groups got together and cobbled together twisted, convoluted little plans, designed to make them shine in the eyes of those who were looking at eradication. Lot's of silly little plots designed to show that 'the authority' was still in control and business was really as usual. The safety watch dog at work. So, the rule book was dragged out and changed, the notion being that when industry rejected it, with much tub thumping and self faradisation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faradise), the Regulator could return to it's customary role as 'the authority'. Then there's the CVD tribe, a nice safe little 'safety' drum to bang on, which should garner some kudos – it is after all a 'safety issue'. Some even decided that the naked safety risks posed by 'Angel flight' would provide the vehicle to stardom and re-establish the lustre on a soiled reputation. Not to be outdone, the airports and runways boys get an outing; more dust kicked up....Clueless? Oh yes...

Nowhere to hide ; except behind the skirts of the minuscule and the trusty watchdog. This, while providing temporary shelter is not a secure, long term bolt hole. The minuscule will only stand firm provided the opposition forwards don't push too hard. With an acceptable means to pass the ball to the backs, the minuscule will unload rather than get tackled and embroiled in a ruck. He needs to be fit and uninjured for the big game in Qld.

Aye well, the second half kicks off next week in a parliament near you, there will be some pre game entertainment before the kick off; but sooner or later, the whistle will blow for the start of play. I just hope the game justifies the price of the ticket. We shall see.


Frank Arouet
20th Aug 2014, 02:27
When the "great smoking black hole" happens, who will be the most vocal? (excepting of course the aviation industry that has been warning of it for years).

Yes folks, it's the poor bloody fare paying public who will scream most and loudest and they "WILL" effect change. The same public that made change to keep our "National Carrier" despite it being on the verge of non existence through a variety of fiscal, management, and environmental reasons. (What's their share price today)?

The same public that hold thousands and thousands more votes than the entire aviation industry and its family's dogs and cats and relatives.
Without alarming that same public by advising them their sorry backsides are in danger from an unelected inept and probably corrupt and destructive mob of public servants, (because that will probably be cause for action under some anti terror law), they are the ones this pitiful industry need to get on side.

I've given up preaching to those who can't effect change because they are irrelevant in the big scheme of things, and I intend to hitch my wagon to some ratbag populist mob like Wikileaks, Green or PUP Senators who WILL effect change because people do listen to them, (if only to criticize them). Bugga me, the left handed lesbian surfboard riders association have more members that the aviation industry. The industry Unions have more chance of making change. Look at the recent decision not to fly over war zones.

Before you dismiss this "ratbaggery", just look at some of the previous comments you have written here. One poster has linked Pink Batts, school halls, fighter planes to the current mob of political lightweights that somehow finds relevance in an aviation problem. The fact that Defence spending has increased is irrelevant because that's not what the public "THINK".

One problem, CAsA, which functions irrespective of political master. One solution and that solution is out of the aviation industry control. That solution is out of political control.

Actually it's the "problem" that's "IN CONTROL".

The public need to be afraid!

20th Aug 2014, 02:48
Just to remind you that the only reason the runway width issues has been created is "ICAO Compliance". For years we built runways to a set of standards that were the US standards.

Instead of the current "project" a simple way would have been to notify ICAO of a difference, but that would have raised the issue of CASA "liability" for allowing operations that did not meet ICAO SARPs.

On this basis, YSSY should be very carefully examined, runway width and length are not the only criteria for aerodrome standards --- I believe such an examination would result in operations rates on 16R/34L being severely curtailed.

That would get the attention of the Minister !!!!!

Tootle pip!!

20th Aug 2014, 09:33
Courtesy of Australian Flying:

Industry Keen for New CASA Relationship: TAAAF (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/industry-keen-for-new-casa-relationship-taaaf)

20 Aug 2014

An aviation industry forum has expressed its enthusiasm for resetting its relationship with CASA in the wake of the Forsyth Report.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for more co-operative interaction between CASA and the aviation industry, stating that the last five years have been damaging.

"The industry has a mature approach to aviation safety and recognizes that working with a regulator is far more likely to produce positive safety outcomes than the inappropriate aggressive regulatory stance identified in the Forsyth Report into CASA," Chris Manning, Honorary Chair of TAAAF said on behalf of the united associations.

"The Minister’s imminent announcement of the new CASA Board, the announcement of the successful candidate for the Director of Air Safety / CASA CEO position, the outlining of a new direction for CASA through the Government’s response to the Forsyth Report and the Government’s honouring of its pre-election commitments to an Aviation Industry Consultative Council and other measures represent a significant changing of the guard.

"Industry stands ready and enthusiastic to bring in a new era of enlightened regulation for aviation safety in Australia to repair the damage of recent years."

As well as expressing a desire to improve the strained relationship with the regulator, TAAAF also took aim at the new regulations scheduled to become effective on 1 September. Among those is the 1500-page CASR Part 61, which deals with a new licencing scheme, and Part 141, which details the requirements for non-integrated flying training.

"Many industry participants have reasonably asked for the parts’ commencement to be deferred again as CASA – and consequently industry – is simply not ready," Manning said.

"Part 61 is an overcomplicated and overweight document that would benefit from an intense period of quality control. The likely impacts on training businesses are significant.

"The final Manual of Standards is apparently still under development."

And from Australian Aviation: Industry forum says imminent announcement of new CASA boss a chance for fresh start (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/08/industry-forum-says-imminent-announcement-of-new-casa-boss-a-chance-for-fresh-start/)

Six days till parliament sits, maximum of eleven days till a new DAS is announced, not sure on the two new board member announcements..:bored:

TICK..TOCK RED nearly time to wake up the miniscule!:E

20th Aug 2014, 10:02
...a simple way would have been to notify ICAO of a difference, but that would have raised the issue of CASA "liability" for allowing operations that did not meet ICAO SARPs.

I'm not so sure that CASA would be too bothered about liability LS, what with 97 pages of differences filed at last count (AIP SUP H18/14).

And also, taking into account the difference filed by CASA with ICAO Annex 19 (Safety Management), Chapter 1. Industry codes of practice, because those aren't referred to in Australian legislation, it seems highly likely that to CASA the SARPs don't matter in any case. :ugh:

20th Aug 2014, 11:24
Hey Leadsled,

To whom and to what extent would CASA be liable by maintaining sovereign rules that differ from ICAO?

20th Aug 2014, 18:07
Six days till parliament sits, maximum of eleven days till a new DAS is announced, not sure on the two new board member announcements..

From The Australian
THE search is on for a new head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority after incumbent John McCormick opted not to renew his contract.

Mr McCormick will stay as director of aviation safety until August 31 while the CASA board hunts for a replacement and to handle any fallout from the federal government’s review into aviation safety regulation due to be completed in May.

So McCormick was /is due to finish on the 31st. Yet the new director has not been announced. Isn't it usual for a handover period.

Truss and senate inquiry well buried in the long grass. Just wondering if the independents can stir it up next week?

21st Aug 2014, 08:19
From Dougy's insight 21 August 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-21-august-2014):
I note that the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum has been quietly prodding the Minister this week, with a press release saying in part “while industry has been very patient over the last 12 months, it is now keen to see real change and a more positive, cooperative relationship with CASA that is the benchmark of good aviation safety regulation across the world”.

This comes on top of earlier calls from industry for the Minister to expedite the process, but there’s still no sign of an announcement about either the Director of Safety or two other board roles at CASA. I know it’s critical to get it right but how long can it take? You have to start to wonder whether the shortlist put forward has been rejected in total. The current DAS’s time runs out on 31 August and I strongly suspect neither he nor the Minister wants an extension. Hmm...Dougy is no wiser than the rest of the IOS..:(

"Like sand through the hourglass (or the TICK TOCK of a clock) so are the days of our lives"


21st Aug 2014, 20:24
I'm no longer certain the minuscule can tie his boot laces without makeup and medication let alone face down the 'Iron Rong' or escape from the clutches of the murky Machiavellian crew.

Qantas and Virgin are centre stage next week distracting the media and industry. There will never be a better time for a sneaky, low key announcement of the Rong DAS being appointed and of a soft white paper emerging; neatly hidden within the Qantas white noise.

Of the two remaining candidates there is only one serious contender; but the GWM don't want a bar of either a reform DAS or the reforms. There is enormous resistance, much subtle and some not so subtle pressure on Truss to renege on promises and dilute the process down to an Albo style of white paper and engage the department's Rong selection. Will he back down again is the big question? Can the Abbott government afford another broken promise is probably a bigger question; for without doubt if Truss drops the ball, that's what it will be. Aviation may be insignificant, but a broken promise in the hands of the opposition, even a small one can and will be used against.

The potential for damage to industry, particularly in rural electorates is immense. Truss is supposed to be National, Rural and to care for his constituents. When aviation crumbles, as it must, for it can no longer limp along as it does now; it will be the bush that suffers most. If Truss drops the ball will he be gifting his seat to the opposition or worse Palmer or even a green thing. Not many votes in aviation eh? – not until the opposition start working on another failure of the Abbott government promises.

Put the aviation industry first:-

Think of the millions saved and the millions brought in by a healthy robust industry.

Think of the international kudos for Truss and Australia; for people overseas know exactly how much shite the industry is in.

Please note: We pay for the service CASA provides; not the bloated bloody plutocrats blocking the changes. Man up, deep breath, support the reform, give the job to the right bloke and for once, do the right bloody thing; provide the changes which are expected and the reforms which are demanded.


22nd Aug 2014, 02:26
Don't hold back Ferryman...:D:DPlease note: We pay for the service CASA provides; not the bloated bloody plutocrats blocking the changes. Man up, deep breath, support the reform, give the job to the right bloke and for once, do the right bloody thing; provide the changes which are expected and the reforms which are demanded.
On peas & cajones: Noticed that SC from the MMSM stable has been busy of late...:ooh:

We don’t need any more CASA regulation: Angel Flight (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/we-dont-need-any-more-casa-regulation-angel-flight/story-e6frg95x-1227032336283)

Which is mostly a rehash of other Aviation MSM coverage with absolutely zilch opinion or commentary.:ugh:

Next... Tighter search-and-rescue chopper rules ‘risk lives’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/tighter-searchandrescue-chopper-rules-risk-lives/story-e6frg95x-1227032356330)

Actually not too bad, gives a different perspective with new material on another long running and contentious issue but really Steve (much like the previous article) you must have some view on this??Aviation consultant and former Civil Aviation Safety Auth*ority project manager Allister Polkinghorne said provisions in Civil Aviation Safety Regulations parts 133 and 138 could see some helicopters currently used in rescue and ambulance operations permanently parked...

...“Virtually every hospital heliport would be unavailable to anything except a helicopter with CAT A performance because the hospitals don’t have suitable forced landing areas on approach and departure paths,’’ Mr Polkinghorne said. “It will require bigger, noisier helicopters in noise and down-wash-sensitive areas.

“Where a rescue is performed for an injured patient, for example, surf rescue in a single-engine helicopter in Perth, the patient will be prevented from being transported to hospital by the new rules.’’...
Aeromedical Society of Australasia president Graeme Field said the society supported the move to the air-transport cate*gory, but had written to CASA *expressing concerns about issues it believed needed further discussion, including the category of helicopters that could be used as an air ambulance.

He said the regulator had to be cautious that it did not make the rules so hard that the industry could not fly.

“We thought CASA needed to work more closely with state health authorities and governments in relation to these hospital landing sites,’’...

“So I think it’s important that we’re not restricted in our endeavours to make do with the available resources,’’ he said.

“While it’s fine to compare us with overseas countries, and it is useful, I think any future legislation has to take into account our uniqueness, the uniqueness of the Australian environment in which we have to provide aeromedical operations.’’
CAsA spokesman: “However, CASA acknowledges that, in some cases, applying all of the air-transport operations suite of standards to medical transfer flights would not be practicable. Due to the highly specialised *nature of some medical transfer flights, some of the rules in the air transport operational rules will not apply.’’

“This is in recognition of the unique circumstances of a search-and-rescue situation,’’ he said. “CASA is seeking to improve the safety standard of search and rescue operations where possible, but without limiting the potential for these operations.’’ Next article is just another take on the TAAAF story carried a couple of days ago...

Deputy PM Warren Truss urged to push on with CASA shake-up (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/deputy-pm-warren-truss-urged-to-push-on-with-casa-shakeup/story-e6frg8zx-1227032330496)

...with the addition of some rather disturbing comments from the miniscule's spokesperson...:ugh:
A spokesman for Mr Truss said the government was carefully considering the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth Report and it would be tabled before year’s end.

“In relation to the commencement of CASE part 61 regulations on September 1, CASA will work with industry to enable an effective transition to the new arrangements over the next few years,’’ he said.

“In relation to part 141 (flying training) the government has agreed to regulation amendments that will reduce the administrative burden of existing requirements on the aviation industry.

“These amendments will also take effect from September 1 and allow industry to transition to the new arrangements over the next few years.’’ Still no hard nose in your face questioning, just wet lettuce comments regurgitated from a miniscule minion out of their depth and with NFI...:yuk::yuk:

Next Dick is at it again..:rolleyes:: ‘Guinea pigs’ fly courtesy of CASA, says Dick Smith (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/guinea-pigs-fly-courtesy-of-casa-says-dick-smith/story-e6frg95x-1227032328874)

"...FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has accused the air-safety regulator of using airline passengers as “safety guinea pigs’’ and mishandling changes it made to the radio frequency used by light aircraft at some small airstrips..."

All in all not bad coverage but seriously Steve when are you going to grow a set??:E

Addendum to Part 61 debate - FF say 61 addresses ATsB SRs?? :rolleyes:

Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-points-to-part-61-safety-benefits)

"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
Part 61 has come under fire from industry groups recently, who have called for the 1 September date to be pushed out further.

Perhaps most vocal has been the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, which has voiced concerns over the availablility of the new Flight Examiners (formerly Authorised Testing Officers) to cope with demand, and has called for the new regulations to be written in plain English.

Further support to postpone CASR Parts 61, 141 and 142 have come from the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association and from The Australian Aviation Associations Forum.

CASA has recently deferred mandatory transition to the new Flight Examiner rating by two years, and will keep the current regulations surrounding helicopter licensing until 2017.

It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations. MTF...:ok:

22nd Aug 2014, 22:13
Sarcs – "Don't hold back Ferryman".

I can assure you; I was holding back, very sanguine post I thought; considering the endless vacillation, dithering and general buggering about from the miniscule's office. I intend to be equally muted about the piss poor journalists who steal their money and spend days rehashing the old words of others without being able to put a constructive, analytical report or even an opinion to their long suffering readers. Quite apart from taking money under false pretences, this constant 'drip-feed' of party line sludge serves no purpose except that of the anointed spin doctors and ensuring advertising dollars; unless of course you count keeping a bunch of expensive legal types fat, dumb and untroubled.

Mind you, if the creature who drafted that 'thing' in the SMH yesterday is representative of 'independent' 'impartial' journalists, I'll stand bare arsed. Thirty pieces of silver to kick a cripple, not bad for 30 minutes of disgusting gutter work.

But don't hold your breath for Australian journalists to grow a pair; the only way they stand out in a mob of sheep is that small, but significant difference.

Toot toot....:yuk:...:rolleyes:

24th Aug 2014, 01:11
Kharon:...considering the endless vacillation, dithering and general buggering about from the miniscule's office... The biggest problem is with each passing day that this 'dithering' continues the more IOS speculation & anxiety grow...:{

In sport & politics time wasting/obfuscation only ever plays into the hands of the opposition. How many times have we watched a football match where the underdog side is grimly hanging onto a narrow lead only to be smashed & humiliated by an opposition goal right on the siren?? :(

The longer we remain in this state of flux the more damaging the rumours/ Chinese whispers become and the more opportunity for the GWM to run, yet another, destabilising rear guard action designed to put more doubt in an ailing miniscule's office, the ominous signs are already there...:ugh:


Media rumour not confirmed - "It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations."

GWM responseCourtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-points-to-part-61-safety-benefits)

"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..." The hypocrisy of this reasoning/justification by FF, to continue unabated with the Part 61 implementation, should not be lost on the IOS, given the disturbing findings documented in the PelAir report...:=

But the message is clear i.e. we've taken onboard those findings and we are now embracing the bureau's SRs to better enhance safety risk mitigation...:yuk:

There is also another disturbing example.,in recent days, that has some bizarre parallels to the PelAir ditching investigation. However this example also shows that a leopard doesn't change it's spots, as FF simply can't hide their contempt for the Senate, particularly towards Senator Xenophon..:=

Australian Aviation carried this story on Friday - Airnorth boosted pilot ranks, changed rosters after 2013 incident: ATSB (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/08/airnorth-boosted-pilot-ranks-changed-rosters-after-2013-incident-atsb/).

And this was the bureau report on the incident - AO-2013-010 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-010.aspx)

From the report a 'Safety Issue' was addressed to the operator & published on the bureau website - AO-2013-010-SI-01 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-010/si-01.aspx) Safety issue description

Although the operator’s rostering practices were consistent with the existing regulatory requirements, it had limited processes in place to proactively manage its flight crew rosters and ensure that fatigue risk due to restricted sleep was effectively minimised. {Comment: See the parallels now?? :E}

Then we have the proactive action from the Operator..:D:
Airnorth advised that, since the time of the occurrence, it had increased its E170 flight crew by about 30 per cent. This increase had resulted in flight crews doing less flight hours and providing more flexibility in rostering the flight crews.

In addition, Airnorth advised that due to changes in schedules, its rostering patterns had changed so that there were no longer any planned rosters that required overnight free of duty periods of less than 10 hours.

Occasionally there were actual overnight free of duty periods less than 10 hours when the day’s duty period was extended for operational reasons, but these were relatively rare. Lesson learnt and job well done...:ok:

But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
Although not in response to this occurrence, on 28 March 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released revised fatigue management and flight and duty time requirements in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013. These requirements were to take effect for existing operators on 30 April 2016.
The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.

If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:

a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.

Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts. Pretty hard to miss the 'up yours' in that statement directed towards Senator Xenophon (& by association AIPA) in his negatived attempt to disallow CAO 48.1...:ugh:

But the message is very clear to the miniscule's office..."Look what we've done to mitigate this potential safety risk!":yuk:

Of course we all know it is bollocks and is merely the last thrashings of a dying beast...:E

A word from Ken that more than highlights why the current FF strategy will not work: Delays & International Practices - GA

Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system.
This was also the direction of CASA before Byron/McCormick and is possible under the many recommendations and observations contained in the Forsyth Report.
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected.

Minister Truss, industry continues in damage control waiting for your decision.

The delay in appointing a new DAS
Directing adoption of the Forsyth Report recommendations; and
Amending the Act so the recommendations are permanently implemented.
So my advice to the IOS is to man up, hold the line and stop jumping at shadows past..;)

24th Aug 2014, 06:47

AHIA seeks closer contact with CASA to resolve Flight Crew Licensing concerns.

AHIA President, Peter Crook, recently wrote to CASA and stated; "The AHIA and other industry associations would welcome the opportunity to meet face to face with CASA to assist in achieving a SAFE, COST EFFECTIVE and OPERATIONALLY SOUND CASR PART 61. Crook strongly requested CASR Part 61 implementation due on 1 September 2014 be delayed until this consultative process takes place.

In response to his communiqué, CASA invited the AHIA Part 61 Review Team to a meeting in Canberra on Friday 29 August 2014.

The AHIA Board indicated this is a great step forward. Although CASA has limited discussion to specific topics, AHIA believes it will provide an opportunity to table other important issues involving the Part 61 and associated MoS. A post-meeting report will be provided to the helicopter industry.

Peter Crook
AHIA – 24 August 2014.

Prince Niccolo M
24th Aug 2014, 06:56
hey K,

When you said:

But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:did you mean that CASA somehow forced the ATSB to put in that little plug for the new CAO 48.1?

It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty! :ugh:

Oh, and in regard to:

Lesson learnt and job well done...:ok:

that accolade falls into the same class as commending Pel-air's cleanup - and that class is: "oops, sprung, quick - add some numbers and write some new rules"...

Frank Arouet
24th Aug 2014, 07:21

QUOTE: "CASA has limited discussion to specific topics" QUOTE.

While it's always good to have an agenda, this censorship is usually a prelude to a given outcome, or a stalling of further discussion. The best you can hope for is a hearing within their terms of reference which may or may not be cause for celebration. I doubt the tabling of "other documents" may sway the pre ordained PART 61. I wish you well with this endeavor and hope it proves my cynicism wrong.

24th Aug 2014, 07:45
Hi Nick – I think you are quoting from Sarcs @ # 1144. But it does seem to me as though 48 may be getting some additional, defensive oxygen; the answer is of course obvious. But I'm certain Sarcs can and will respond.


Prince Niccolo M
24th Aug 2014, 16:35
Sorry K,

a bit of halo effect and too many bubbles in my shiraz...

Sarcs, can you pick up the response please?

24th Aug 2014, 22:35
Prince: did you mean that CASA somehow forced the ATSB to put in that little plug for the new CAO 48.1?

It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!
Totally agree it didn't seem out of place at all and it is entirely appropriate for the regulator to add such comment..:D Plus by design, the MoU and convention the bureau allow DIPs to comment.

My point is that until very recently unless FF were the actual addressee of the SR/SI they were very loathe to add much in the way of commentary. Also prior to the PelAir debacle if FF were the addressee a large part of their responses was spent arguing the toss on the SR/SI , followed by years of delays, excuses etc..etc. So the response & involvement in AO-2013-010-SI-01 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-010/si-01.aspx) is not SOP for the regulator of old, that is all I'm saying...:ok:

ps As for the thread drift into the debate on FRMS/CAO 48.1 and Senator Xenophon's long running campaign on the matter, well that is probably best left to discuss on the Senate thread. For now back to thread topic and I heard a whisper (all rumour of course..:E) that there will be a significant announcement coming out of the miniscule's office very soon...:rolleyes:

25th Aug 2014, 00:24
Let me guess..... An Acting (!) DAS from within the ranks until a final decision on the appointment is made from the final two!! I understand Cabinet must approve, so maybe a while yet?? How long is a bit of string???

25th Aug 2014, 02:59
I reckon the road block from the 'legal' department can only be shifted when there is a new DAS, which I think the 'full bored' will want to have a hand in selecting.

I reckon we'll get the board before that. If reform is fair dinkum we should see a solid 'aviation' team. Perhaps another from RAAA and someone with 'engineering' talent maybe; and a grass roots, heartland of real 'sport' flying type. There's some talent out there, shame not to use it.

Lets hope the DDAS can open enough golden parachutes before the reformation; make sure the rats get off before the cats arrive.

Speculative - Toot toot

Captain Dart
25th Aug 2014, 03:10
Another Star Chamber nasty gone from our lives at last. The boys at Cathay Pacific will be pleased.

25th Aug 2014, 03:18
Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.Which is why your treatment of pilots with colour vision deficiencies has been particularly egregious. :=

25th Aug 2014, 06:58
Steve is quick off the mark on the DAS (STBR) side swipe at IOS..:D

CASA boss McCormick to stand down at the end of the month (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-boss-mccormick-to-stand-down-at-the-end-of-the-month/story-e6frg95x-1227035817535)

by: Steve Creedy
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
August 25, 2014 11:28AM
THE outgoing head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has argued he is leaving the organisation a more effective regulator as he ends a controversial tenure at the end of the month.

In his last message to the aviation community, CASA boss John McCormick said his more than five years at the helm of the of the regulator was “challenging, satisfying and at times difficult”.

“I firmly believe that as I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world,’’ he said in an online briefing released today. “Like any good organisation CASA is a team of people with a mix of skills, knowledge and experience that when constructively managed deliver excellent outcomes.

“In 2014, I look at CASA and see a clearer focus on priorities, documented processes and procedures that are followed as required, better training and support for staff and an understanding that decision making must be transparent and fair.’’

Mr McCormick’s comments come as CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, representing eight industry associations, last week called on Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to move to reset the industry’s relationship with CASA “following the damage of the last five years’’.

Mr Truss has promised to react by year’s end to a report by industry veteran David Forsyth that called for sweeping reforms at the regulator and found that its ‘hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to a lack of trust between it and operators.

CASA also attracted flak from a Senate committee for its handling of the 2009 ocean ditching of a Pel Air crash.

The committee found regulatory procedures at the time of the crash were deficient and wrote to the Australian Federal Police to ensure “any appropriate action is taken’’ over a failure by CASA to provide documents to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

CASA stood by its handling of the controversial issue, despite an ABC Four Corners investigation that revealed a special audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and `serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick acknowledged that he and CASA had its critics and said constructive criticism had been welcomed and valued.

He said he had never pretended CASA had all the answers to every aviation safety issue and he had encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate’’.
“However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgments, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety,’’ he said. “Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.

“It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. “Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position.’’

Mr McCormick also hit out at the way the debate about the regulator had degenerated and become personal. He said this was not constructive and did nothing for aviation safety.

“It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves,’’ he said.
An international search has been underway for a replacement for Mr McCormick but Mr Truss has yet to make an announcement.
(Err...Steve you do know it's not Friday right??:E)


Must be a slow news day Oz Aviation is also onto it..;): CASA has global respect: McCormick (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/08/casa-has-global-respect-mccormick/)

Passing strange that on the one day that the media shows any interest in the CAsA site it apparently suffers a melt down??:ooh:


25th Aug 2014, 07:19
CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.[Bolding added]

What sections of the industry are happy with CASA's handling of regulatory change? :confused:

25th Aug 2014, 08:18
“Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.

Couldn't agree more. Let's see if the above features in the MoP the senators have lodged.

thorn bird
25th Aug 2014, 09:38
"The future for CASA will be positive." :yuk::yuk::yuk:

Pity the same cannot be said for the industry they have buggered.

" I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world."

Self aggrandizing Clown!! Must be all the cigars and expense account banquets in Montreal that gives him that idea.

From my experience overseas, mention CAsA to other regulators and they give you a pitying look and roll their eyes skywards.

"I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers."

Err... John..Mate!!...are you awake??? or just stupid!!

In case you hadn't noticed the aviation industry in Australia is spiraling down the gurgler!!

Meanwhile, across the Tasman, where they have "Proper" regulation, their industry goes from strength to strength.

John, go back to Hong Kong, there are one or two people who would love to have some constructive conversation. Any back street in Kowloon would do..

Don't bang the door on your way out!!

dubbleyew eight
25th Aug 2014, 13:17
I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety.

so why is it that the legislation is written to enforce just your view of the world?

why don't we have Canadian Owner maintenance? the canadians have enjoyed it for well over a decade.

why can't we de-certify a privately owned aeroplane and maintain it on a stand alone basis? in the case of two seat Cessna's I am aware of one with just 300 hours on it sitting in a hangar, I'm also aware of some with over 12,000 hours on them in training environments. why do they all need to undergo the SIDS program.

McCormick, you leave aviation as one of the greatest fckuwits ever to walk through the doors. Most of what you leave behind as a legacy will need to be redone by someone sensible. ....and we paid you 3 million dollars. can we have a refund?

Dick Smith
25th Aug 2014, 15:48
Tell us more about the Canadian maintenance self doing deal. Is it for fully certified aircraft or is it just for Ultralights and experimental!?

25th Aug 2014, 16:45

Part V - Standard 507 Appendix H - Aircraft Eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance

See link

Part V - Standard 507 Appendix H - Aircraft Eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm)

25th Aug 2014, 20:41
I have tried, very hard to make some sense of the quote below; only to be defeated. I can neither fathom the madness nor define the evil within it, save that it simply defies all known fact and ambient logic.

“Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.

Portria. - A gentle riddance.—Draw the curtains, go.—
Let all of his complexion choose me so.

The - Morocco (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/merchant/page_90.html) – part preceding is worth a moments consideration.

"Damn it! What’s this? It’s a skull with a scroll in its empty eye socket. I’ll read it aloud."

'Nuff sed methinks.....

25th Aug 2014, 22:05
McCormick, on your way out can you pick Mr. Navathe up as well? dumber and dumber...

ps, don't bang the door on your way out!!

25th Aug 2014, 22:23
McCormick hit out against those that resorted to personal attacks when CASA ruled against them.

“I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA,” McCormick said.

“But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position.

“Sadly when some of CASA’s critics have not got their own way the debate has degenerated and become personal, which is not constructive and does nothing for aviation safety.

“It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves.”

Folks, this is called "projection" in psychiatry - the act of attributing the characteristics of your own behaviour to your critics.

By all accounts, Mc Cormick got the nickname "the screaming skull" for his behaviour towards others when he didn't "get his own way" and to divert attention from his own behaviour.

Furthermore his participation in the "star chamber" process at Cathay involved intensely personal judgements based on no documented evidence or transparent process whatsoever.

The rest of the article indicates a man totally out of touch with reality because, unless the submissions and the conclusions contained in the inquiry report to Government are totally wrong, he has presided over a total basket case.

26th Aug 2014, 01:59
McCormick, on your way out can you pick Mr. Navathe up as well? dumber and dumber...
Nail in head..:D

And a choccy frog for Sunny..Folks, this is called "projection" in psychiatry - the act of attributing the characteristics of your own behaviour to your critics...

...The rest of the article indicates a man totally out of touch with reality because, unless the submissions and the conclusions contained in the inquiry report to Government are totally wrong, he has presided over a total basket case... And if you want evidence here it is...:E

Senate RRAT 26/05/14 - Fairwell Mr McCormick - YouTube

Notice that the SS still believes that he will have the final say on the CVD decision making process...:rolleyes: As Sunny indicates the guy is seriously delusional...:ugh:

Anyway (FLICK..:E) back to business...

Noticed that the AA mag carried an article from Senator David Fawcett in their July edition where he gives his appraisal of the Forsyth (ASRR) report..:D:D

A turning point (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/DJF%20ASRR%20Article.pdf)

The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review

It is my genuine hope that the Australian aviation community will be able to look back on June 2014 when the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) was tabled in Parliament and see it as a milestone that marked the beginning of a turnaround for the industry.

The review was undertaken by David Forsyth (Australia), Don Spruston (Canada) and Roger Whitefield (UK) but their work was only made possible because individuals and companies proved willing to engage with them in a constructive manner. This cooperation has resulted in a sweeping but balanced evaluation of the current state of industry-regulator relations. Most importantly, it has identified a number of achievable measures to create a safe and sustainable aviation industry across each of the various sectors involved.

Space dictates I can’t hope to comment on all 37 recommendations but I will pick up on some key themes and outcomes.


The panel acknowledges that there were positive comments about the regulator, reflecting the fact that many CASA staff work hard to support those whose livelihoods or recreation are tied up with aviation. The review makes clear however that the majority of industry feedback was critical, highlighting that CASA has become more heavy-handed in its approach to regulation over recent years and that communication or engagement with industry can no longer be characterised across the board as constructive.

To their great credit, the panel has taken a “whole of system” approach and highlights the role of leadership, from government, Department and the CASA board in promoting and developing a safe, secure and sustainable aviation industry in Australia. In my view, “sustainable” is a key word here as there is a strong link between commercial viability and capacity for safe operations. This concern also extends to the protection of airport flight paths and operations from the encroachment of on- and off -airport developments with the panel identifying this as an urgent policy issue with an emerging risk to the long term viability of Australia’s existing aviation infrastructure.

In addition to an enhanced Departmental role, I am pleased to see the panel’s view that the board should exercise full governance over CASA with non-executive directors possessing a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds in aviation, safety, management, risk, regulation and governance.

The panel also sees a leadership role for industry, particularly in respect to collaborative rule making, which is critically important to acceptance and commitment, but which in practice does not currently exist.

This increased accountability to a better informed and engaged Department, board and industry, perhaps allowed the panel to make a recommendation that while aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable, the next Director of Aviation Safety must have leadership and management experience with demonstrated capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. This will be an interesting space to watch.

Regulatory reform and future rule making

I’m not surprised that the long and sometimes tortuous process of regulatory reform was a key feature which the panel estimates will take at least another five years to complete if the current approach is retained.

More significantly, the review notes that the final product of the current regulatory reform process is unlikely to meet the aviation community’s needs and is unlikely to be consistent with the ICAO principles for plain language safety rules.

The panel therefore recommends a structured project management approach to complete all outstanding CASR Parts, overseen by a steering committee.

Linking back to the importance of accountability and leadership, I’m pleased to see the recommendation that this committee would report to the CASA board and would include a Department representative as well as two industry representatives appointed by the Minister.

Industry will also have a key role in the subject matter sub-teams for relevant aviation disciplines (spanning operations and maintenance ranging from high capacity RPT through to charter, airwork, agricultural and training to private GA operations).

These teams would include representatives from CASA and the industry selected on the basis of their knowledge, ability and commitment.

I’m very conscious that many in industry have expressed deep disappointment with what they see as “one-way communication” by CASA in the consultative arrangements that currently exist. I believe that the commitment to a meaningful role for industry’s voice in this new process is backed up by the panel’s recommendation that not only is industry’s time and knowledge required in this collaborative rule making effort, but that CASA would need to compensate them for it.

Culture and organisation

Key concepts here include trust, the appropriate use of discretion and service. Leading overseas regulators are using a ‘trust and verify’ approach which leads a generally collaborative relationship, working with industry to build safety outcomes, but taking a hard line when necessary. Most industry representatives I’ve spoken to would have no problems with such an approach.

The panel notes that CASA may need to be more reliant on industry delegates to issue low-risk approvals on its behalf. This builds on the successful ATO scheme and in a move that will be welcomed by industry, the recommendation is that CASA must continue to indemnify industry delegates, when they are making decisions on behalf of the regulator, to ensure that they are able to carry out these functions with confidence and legal certainty.

While not supporting the many calls for Australia to adopt the NZ CAA regulations outright, there is a call for CASA to adopt an organisational structure similar to that developed for New Zealand, which would structure CASA along the lines of industry’s activities (a client-oriented output model) rather than being structured around CASA’s activities. While I know many CASA staff already try to provide a service to industry, having a service oriented corporate structure and culture would make their job so much easier.

This could see a move back to having small, industry focused teams at secondary airports to assist industry in coordinating approvals and performing routine monitoring and ramp inspections. To overcome some of the current issues that lead to “office shopping” by industry, system audits would be conducted by audit teams from other CASA offices.

Having seen the success of third party industry audits such as BARS and IOSA, I’m really pleased to see a focus in the review on the potential for CASA to increase the acceptance of third-party expertise to contribute to ongoing audit and inspection schedules. There is also a focus on ensuring that CASA abides by international best practice in respect to audits through measures such as full disclosure of findings at exit briefings.

Finally, one of the measures that will be most welcome is a completely new approach to providing individuals and companies with a timely and affordable appeal mechanism. The proposed Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) review panel would provide a suitably separate and impartial review mechanism that gives the board direct insights into the impacts of CASA decision-making. It allows for timely review by a panel chaired by a CASA board member, supported by independent experts which will consider both the merits and process of matters (including AVMED). No officer of CASA is exempt from the ICC’s jurisdiction and while CASA can object to the ruling, they have to explain their decision to the board and parties still have recourse to the AAT.

The ASRR is not a silver bullet that will fix everything overnight, but it is a long overdue recognition that the concerns raised by all industry sectors over many years are valid. Importantly it provides a framework for stronger leadership, improved accountability, culture and regulatory process which I trust will enable Australia to have a safe and sustainable aviation industry into the future.

Good Riddance (Time Of Your Life) [Official Music Video] - YouTube

"..Another turning point a Fawcett stuck in the road.." :E


26th Aug 2014, 05:00
From an article titled “Some helpful advice for return of hostilities” by Nicholas Stuart and appearing in the 25 August 2014 Canberra Times:Ah, welcome back! Yes, the Parliamentary winter break always offers a good chance for pollies and their hard-partying staffers to escape dreary Canberra's cold and grab a bit of time in the sun. After all, it's a well-known fact that nothing ever happens (politically) during this entire period. What's that you say? Never been busier? Budget not passed? Economy stalling? Goodness gracious, but don't worry about that, I'm sure that nice Mr Tony Abbott has a terrific plan in his back pocket that will fix everything up quick smart. Nevertheless, and just in case he doesn't, it's obviously my civic duty to ride to the rescue with a few carefully chosen words to provide assistance. So here goes. Firstly a diagnosis of the problem, then the remedy. It's simple, really, and I'm sure my solutions will be of great assistance.

A cabinet full of old fuddy-duddies. A couple of problems here. Firstly, the hopeless ones are all on the frontbench while the talented ones sit further back. Unfortunately, the opportunity for a shake-up has passed with the winter break. Abbott can't afford to shuffle the ministry now because he'll be throwing the new chums into a baptism of fire without any chance to get across the issues in the portfolio. The counter-argument to this, of course, is that no one can really be worse than George "Voltaire" Brandis, Peter "chuckles" Dutton or what's his name, you know the bloke, he's Deputy Prime Minister, oh, it's on the tip of my tongue. No, sorry, lost it.

26th Aug 2014, 06:21
I am sure the Canberra cold weather shrinks politicians brains (amongst other things). And yes, all old fuddy duddy old geezers taking up valuable oxygen. They sit around in their silk suits while limousines line up outside waiting to jump to their every need, they potter about from luxurious office to office sitting on leather couches, breathing in the vapours of their 5 star lunch cuisine while they work out how to look like they are doing something while remaining non committal. They have meetings, lots of them, they talk, they discuss, they hypothesise, then they book the next 'international speaking engagement' to Greece, Italy, Canada or France which encompasses 2 hours work with the rest of the time spent looking at 'policies and processes' while staying at retreats, eating fine cuisine, touring the local tourist spots and cavorting with other like minded rorting dignitaries. Yes our hard working front benchers arise at 0300, have lunch at 1000, dinner at 1600 then lights out at 1830.
Oh the tough life of a bureaucrat with his/her snout buried in a trough or up a foreign Presidents ass. Indeed,"it's good to be the king"

Frank Arouet
26th Aug 2014, 06:35
Question time today saw Truss nearly nodding off. No questions and one answered by the assistant minister for RRA&T. I'd send him a hot water bottle to warm his brain except it's probably a waste of money.

26th Aug 2014, 08:54
Word on the street is that 'Fanta pants' from Brisbane's head office went nuts when GC jagged the GM Operations gig a little while ago. Fanta pants supposedly went on the warpath, ended up with some bullying claims levelled against him from some staff, and as a result came very close to being frog marched out of The Circuit. That being said, he is a mate of the Skull's, and the Skull coincidentally helped Fanta pants walk straight into the plum Brisbane field office manager job in the first place, plus he used to fly the big tin also, so naturally he too has some misguided sense of pride and feels all rights and privileges belong to him.

Frank, that's because it was midday and past his bedtime.

dubbleyew eight
26th Aug 2014, 10:31
Tell us more about the Canadian maintenance self doing deal. Is it for fully certified aircraft or is it just for Ultralights and experimental!?

sorry Dick I missed your question.

if you google "canadian owner maintenance regulations" you will find many references.
the amending act is itself quite a tidy document but I can't find it.

In canada there are areas so remote that people are able to fly aircraft in the backwoods for the entire lifetime of the aircraft without anyone being the wiser.
these are usually illegally owner maintained.
Transport Canada realised at one time that they actually had enough statistical information to work out whether the owner maintenance ever actually caused a problem. as a result of their study they found that owner maintained aircraft crashed no more often than those in certified maintenance. so they changed the canadian regulations to create an amateur maintenance category.
a canadian private owner can apply to have any privately owned aircraft placed in the amateur maintenance category.
in addition, since private aircraft have such wide variation in usage and hours they created a provision to allow a certified private aircraft to be decertified and maintained on a stand alone basis. the owner applies to the minister for aviation for decertification. the minister approves and instructs the owner to locate every serial number plate on the aircraft and stamp the letter X at each end of the serial number. the aircraft is then maintained by the owner under the owner maintenance category.
Canada also wrote a whole bundle of regulations requiring owners to be trained and approved. however Transport Canada told all the owners that while the accident rate remained where it was or got no worse the training requirements would not be implemented.

Of course the FAA in america will not recognise Canadian owner maintained aircraft so none of these are permitted to fly over the border to oshkosh.
When I found that the EAA would not support canadian owner maintenance I cancelled my membership.

White South Africa had something similar in the LS2 regulations.

talking with owners who have worked under both systems they have never seen problems caused by owner maintenance. in fact most aircraft seem to improve as owners take the time to undo the effects of time and wear on the aircraft.

admittedly not all owners have the necessary skills and knowledge off the bat when these changes are introduced, but owning the aircraft and meeting the costs of fixing stuff ups is a fairly powerful motivator to learn and become competent and lets face it aircraft aren't that complex. AC43-13/2b is a fairly good educational tool.

late amendment.
haven't found the regs I am after but start a browse with this page. it'll give you a smile.
and this one...

this isn't the amending reg I was looking for but is the full incorporated regulation.

you'll wish we all lived in canada.

27th Aug 2014, 07:51
AMROBA Ken request from members -

"What I need to create is a submission to government with examples of recent costs for regulatory services. If any member is willing to provide me with the costs and the service provided that is seen as excessive, then I will collate as evidence of over charging."

Ken can the IOS membership put their two bobs worth in??? ;)Increasing Costs & Red Tape (http://amroba.org.au/images/association_news/Red_Tape_Increasing_Costs.pdf)

Recently some of our members have been bringing to my attention the massive increase in red tape and costs, costs that we find are far beyond what the regulatory service should cost. It is obvious that CASA has not yet come under the influence of this government. It is to be expected based on their track record to ignore previ-ous government and judicial recommendations.

Back in 2013, the LNP Aviation Policy stated that the Coalition would support the growth of the aviation industry by reducing red tape, reform the structure of CASA, establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council and, among other promises, establish a high level review of aviation safety and regulation.

So far the government has only met one promise. The Forsyth Report achieved what had not been possible in the past, a government review of safety and regulation whose outcomes are industry supported. The govern-ment has issued Guide for Better Regulation but, based on what CASA continues to produce, the government Aviation Policy and Red Tape Reduction processes are being totally ignored. Red Tape Principles:

1. Regulation should not be the default option for policy makers: the policy option offering the greatest net ben-efit should always be the recommended option.
2. Regulation should be imposed only when it can be shown to offer an overall net benefit.
3. The cost burden of new regulation must be fully offset by reductions in existing regulatory burden.
4. Every substantive regulatory policy change must be the subject of a Regulation Impact Statement.
5. Policy makers should consult in a genuine and timely way with affected businesses, community organisations and individuals.
6. Policy makers must consult with each other to avoid creating cumulative or overlapping regulatory burdens.
7. The information upon which policy makers base their decisions must be published at the earliest opportunity.
8. Regulators must implement regulation with common sense, empathy and respect.
9. All regulation must be periodically reviewed to test its continuing relevance.
10. Policy makers must work closely with their portfolio Deregulation Units throughout the policy making pro-cess.

Why is industry still being subject to all the negatives that the Forsyth Report identified, and industry had also identified to the LNP prior to becoming government? - most now feel deceived because of the lack of govern-ment action. It is almost 12 months since the government was elected.

For instance, British GA will benefit from a GA system that will be closer to the FAR system than Australia, even though the non-airline sectors have been lobbying for the FAR system for the last decade. CASA consultation is a joke in that it does not listen to their own industry because "they know best" ????

CAA(UK) Red Tape Reduction program has commenced—it will be completed within two years.
The CAA(UK) Performance Based Regulation program will also be completed within two years.

For CAA(UK) future work there will be two guiding ambitions and principles:
deregulation and delegation to remove the bulk of GA from the current regulatory oversight of the CAA.

Since September last year when the government was sworn in, this industry has been patiently waiting for CASA to start to be seen as adopting and implementing government’s policies and directions. However, the industry has seen CASA continue with increasing prescriptive regulations and red tape.

Under the government guidelines, all regulations proposed and made during the past 5-10 years also need to be totally reviewed.

What I need to create is a submission to government with examples of recent costs for regulatory services. If any member is willing to provide me with the costs and the service provided that is seen as excessive, then I will collate as evidence of over charging.

Other government departments/agencies are working to reduce regulatory costs, if the principles were properly applied, not only would costs be lowered for industry but improved productivity would benefit all.
Here's one example nicely outlined in a RAAA briefing paper titled - ISSUES WITH CLASSIFICATION OF AIR OPERATIONS (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/briefing_notes/RAAA-BN-CAR206.html) VI. EFFECTS ON THE INDUSTRY

The case raises significant issues for operators of air tourism and similar flights. There may now be operators who have been safely conducting air tourism flights for many years as charters who are now considered to be unlawfully conducting RPT operations.

Prior to the decision being handed down this was a grey area, but now it is clear that any flights operating to fixed times/schedules on which members of the public can acquire tickets are likely to require an RPT licence.

In addition, not all air operations can actually comply with RPT standards.

For example, the rules for RPT impose certain minimum standards for runways and security screening at airports. However, many small airports from which air tours operate do not have these facilities and compliance may require structural upgrades which are not possible.

In the wake of the Direct Air decision, CASA has issued a notice to all charter operators which suggests a partial solution to the problem. CASA has stated that it will consider providing RPT AOCs with exemptions or deviations from otherwise applicable requirements, provided that an acceptable level of safety is maintained. However, this opportunity has only been offered for aircraft with 9 seats or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 8,618 kg or less. This does not provide a solution for the whole of industry and it is difficult to see why it should not be extended to other operators.

This paper is extracted from the RAAA - MAJOR ISSUES (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/major-issues.html) - webpage, where you'll find several more examples of Government Policy non-compliance (NCN) by FF i.e. Red Tape Reduction, I'm sure the IOS can contribute many more...:E


ps The RAAA (as previously mentioned on here) also wrote to the PMC on the subject -CUTTING RED TAPE (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/submissions/RAAA-Response-Cutting-Red-Tape-July14.html)

28th Aug 2014, 03:12
Much like all the other journo's with an aviation bent, Dougy is carrying the Red Rat bad news story front and centre...:{

Qantas loses billions but confident of the future (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/qantas-loses-billions-but-confident-of-the-future)

However he has also put out his weekly - Editor's Insights 28 August 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-28-august-2014) - where he has a rehash on the soon to be retired DAS missive...:ugh: But Dougy also leaks this positive information on the pending (when the miniscule wakes up) announcement of the final make up of the FF board...:D:...Anyway, we are about to move into a new era of CASA so we should be looking forward with positivity.

Speaking of which, we now know that the three final names for the CASA board are: Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and David Cox. Anita has been high profile with the Gliding Federation, Ian is an integral part of the AMDA and David is the executive in charge of Sydney University’s Engineering School (and formerly, of course, head of engineering at Qantas).

Add those names to those already on the board, including recent vice-chairman appointee Jeff Boyd, and we have a pretty potent combination.

The Minister has said that the board would appoint the new DAS, so with the full board in place perhaps we can expect that announcement in the not too distant future. (Though it has been suggested to me that it isn’t going to happen that quickly.) From what I hear there are two strong candidates left in the running. Hmm...interesting..:rolleyes:


28th Aug 2014, 06:43
David Cox, a 'potent combination'? Oh my god, heaven help us...... At least we have established that the CASA Board is looking for bureaucrats still!

28th Aug 2014, 22:37
Well, the darts challenge was met and the BRB team retained bragging rights. In deference to our overseas colleagues the gentlemanly thing to do would be simply to say 'your shout lads'.

Debate was interesting, and centred on the new board (has Truss announced this, or has he leaked - again?). So we have Hawke, Boyd, Danos, Taylor, Cox and Smith to select the DAS from the short list. One 'sane', interested Minister of yore put together a hit squad and was determined to clean out the mess; for some unknown reason this never happened but it was a productive period and things improved.

This started a line of reasoning which, after a while nearly everyone agreed was a good idea. In short; IF Truss ever decides to go with the reform, someone is going to have to lead the clean up squad, for a year at two at least. But once that job is done, the 'axe man' will be pretty much redundant and will be retired. So, IF Truss goes with reform; will Boyd and Cannane form the nucleus of the reform squad?, it makes sense. Short term consult – in and out – then back to normal; that clears the pathway for a new DAS who can smooth the very ruffled American feathers and select a team to drive the program. But the clean out has to be first. The board could act as 'independent' referee to sort out many of the complaints made against CASA officers, using that information as solid grounds for dismissal. Lord knows there's complaints aplenty. [Aside] I reckon Quadrio has the LSD by the balls, chopping them off would make a fine example of reform at work. It sort of makes sense and goes some way toward explaining the delay and prevarication.

The other notion that got some support was that the board would act in the vanguard role; clearing the mine field to allow the DAS the elbow room to get on with it and fresh air enough to crack on.

Then of course the Iron Rong could prevail; Aleck, Anastasi and that fellah who's name escaped us are bleating that the sky will fall in, the chooks will stop laying and the minuscule will end up with boils on his bottom if the reform travesty goes ahead. Doom, damnation and etc.

So it all revolves around Truss – speaking of whom, a curious thing in question time yesterday was brought up; when the question of Truss was asked, the 'Transport' word in his title was omitted: on two occasions. None of us could work out why? – any ideas??

Aye well – knitting was never really a spectator sport.

Toot toot.

PS. I wonder, what the bored would make of the Quadrio story and similar; if they ever got to hear them; that's a wall I'd love to be a fly on.

28th Aug 2014, 22:45
Send the DAS a Friday 16:59 fax.

29th Aug 2014, 00:19
Half Bikkie...Dont you know Friday is POETs day in the "public" (self) service.
Piss Off Early Today....its Friday.

A 16.59 farewell and good riddance fax to the Screamer will be way toooo late.
Better make it 10.59 before he departs for a looong lunch with some of the mesmerised bored members and synchophants. Dr Hawke will probably have a quiet weep in the dunny as his "god" departs (See his earlier hagiography of the Skull).:mad::mad:
Very upchuck inducing. Need the porcelain phone handy for a call.

Is it a red letter day for GA today.? One positive step at least. the xxxxxx timed out.! TCFT:ok::ok:
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

What next I wonder?. Will miniscule Truss awake and rise to the occassion...I doubt it.:mad:

Ah we are convicts still... in a "free" country but sorely bound by regulatory chains.

Canada sounds like the go. Positive and very practical, with common sense.
Pity about the cold.

Frank Arouet
29th Aug 2014, 00:39
Truss is transport minister but for some reason is not referred to as such in his title: Deputy PM, Leader of NATS, Minister Infrastructure-Regional development. From Wiki below,
Transport[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minister_for_Infrastructure_and_Regional_Dev elopment_(Australia)&action=edit&section=4)]

List of Transport Ministers[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minister_for_Infrastructure_and_Regional_Dev elopment_(Australia)&action=edit&section=5)]

MinisterPartyTenureMinisterial TitleThomas Paterson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paterson)Nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Party_of_Australia)1928–1929Minister for Markets and TransportParker Moloney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Moloney)Labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party)1929–1932Archdale Parkhill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdale_Parkhill)United Australia Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Australia_Party)1932Minister for TransportLarry Anthony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lawrence_Anthony)Country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Australia)1941George Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lawson_(Australian_politician))Labor1941–1943Eddie Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Ward)1943–1949Howard Beale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Beale_(Australian_politician))Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia)1949–1950George McLeay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McLeay)1950–1951Minister for Shipping, Fuel and Transport1951–1955Minister for Shipping and TransportJohn Spicer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spicer_(Australian_politician))1955Shane Paltridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Paltridge)1955–1960Hubert Opperman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Opperman)1960–1963Gordon Freeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeth)1963–1968Ian Sinclair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Sinclair)Country1968–1971Peter Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Nixon)1971–1972Gough Whitlam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam)Labor1972Charles Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Jones_(Australian_politician))1972–1975Minister for TransportPeter NixonNational Country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Australia)1975–1979Ralph Hunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Hunt_(Australian_politician))1979–19821982–1983Ministe r for Transport and ConstructionPeter Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Morris_(politician))Labor1983–1987Minister for TransportGareth Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Evans_(politician))1987–1988Minister for Transport and CommunicationsRalph Willis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Willis)1988–1990Kim Beazley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Beazley)1990–1991John Kerin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerin)1991–1991Graham Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Richardson)1991–1992Bob Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Collins_(Australian_politician))1992–1993Laurie Brereton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Brereton)1993–1996Minister for TransportJohn Sharp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sharp_(Australian_politician))National (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Australia)1996–1997Minister for Transport and Regional DevelopmentMark Vaile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Vaile)1997–1998John Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anderson_(Australian_politician))1998–2005Minister for Transport and Regional ServicesWarren Truss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Truss)2005–2006Mark Vaile2006–2007Anthony Albanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Albanese)Labor2007–2010Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Development and Local Government2010–2013Minister for Infrastructure and TransportWarren Truss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Truss)National2013–presentMinister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

I too noticed his title used yesterday in relation to East West Melbourne bypass with interjections by Albo, (ex Minister transport), and a transport matter but not used in his questions as it has been done in the past. Is someone using an obvious, perhaps intentional, Freudian slip to tell us something?

29th Aug 2014, 05:19
2 years ago today since Beaker launched the now infamous Norfolk/Pel-Air report.
2 years this coming Monday since 4 Corners busted the story to the world.
As a result, a Senate Inquiry resulting in 26 recommendations; the ASRR report resulting in 37 recommendations, and what's changed? SFA!!!!!
Wake up Warren!:{

dubbleyew eight
29th Aug 2014, 12:29
let me be the first to offer my sincere praise for Minister Warren Truss.

you're doing a real good job there warren.

....nah, come to think of it you've done nothing.

you're doing a real good job there warren. NOT

29th Aug 2014, 13:40
Also failed to get a new DAS in place.

29th Aug 2014, 14:19
Bit off topic but someone from PMC just landed a gig high up the ladder in OTS, so maybe a wordsmith from PMC will also be anointed as CASA DAS?
Just wish the FAA and ICAO would come back with a bag of pineapples and downgrade us, that will force some needed change and wake up all the silly old farts asleep at the aviation wheel.

dubbleyew eight
29th Aug 2014, 15:08
one of the great advances made by CAsA in recent years is to cease publishing the paper copy of the aviation safety digest.
for decades the message in it hasn't been relevant to actual aviation.
every month when it arrived I felt guilty not reading it.
occasionally I would succumb and have a browse. always just the same old same old.
now that it isn't posted out I don't feel in the least bit guilty in not logging on to the website.
the peace has been amazing.

I thought I was unique but I noticed last visit that the club librarian was throwing them out as well.

I love this electronic age. :E

30th Aug 2014, 03:35
Hmm...wonder what Phil & the AAAA have to say about this??

Courtesy of Bladeslappers:Meeting AHIA & CASA cancelled

A meeting between the Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) and CASA planned for Friday 29 August 2014 to discuss Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing) was cancelled after several eleventh hour teleconferences.

AHIA President, Peter Crook had requested a face to face meeting with senior CASA staff to seek a delay in the introduction of the new rules on 1 September 2014. However, the AHIA and CASA agreed so many final changes were underway; the meeting would not achieve its objective; being scheduled on the last working day prior to the new rules coming into effect. However, some critical elements were clarified by the CASA’s AHIA Liaison Officer from the Standards Division.

Firefighting Authorisations. From 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement.

The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1) do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement. To overcome the problem, CASA is preparing an exemption which will relieve pilots from the requirement to hold an aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement subject to certain conditions. The conditions would be consistent with the requirements that apply to pilots currently when conducting firefighting operations with a focus on an operator’s training and checking requirements when managed under a CAR 217 organisation or the assessment of the operator’s Chief Pilot.

Pilots that would qualify for the exemption would be those that held requisite authorisations under CAR 1988; for example, for aeroplane pilots, an agricultural rating (aeroplane) and for helicopter pilots conducting bucket operations, a low level permission and sling endorsement.

Pilots would also still need to complete training in firefighting operations conducted by the operator and a proficiency check also conducted by the operator, as they do currently. The training operations would need to be conducted under an AOC that authorises that kind of operation. The exemption, if made, would be in force until 31 August 2015. So Part 61 with a combined total of over 1600 pages (and even before the ink has had a chance to dry), FF are already negotiating putting in place an exemption to placate one small sector of the industry...:yuk::yuk::yuk:

Don't get me wrong I do admire the AHIA's, as a relatively new industry association, endeavour to try to negotiate less regulatory burden for their concerned members. But FF have played this game for far too long to simply allow one small sector of the IOS to have a win and there is always a catch and a devious ulterior motive...:=

Memo for Boyd & co:

Stop this bollocks now!:ugh:

Possible solution to Part 61 (all 1600+ pages of it): Part 61- CAA Consolidation,10 November 2011 - Pilot Licences and Ratings (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Consolidations/Part_061_Consolidation.pdf)

Now if we accept that our uniquely Australian conditions, where topography and bushfires are much more significant an issue than in NZ, water bombing therefore is an essential service to containing these bushfires.

Okay so we have a point of difference with NZed. So using the AHIA Firefighting Authorisations example above, & accepting the NZed Part 61 as a barebones blueprint for our own Part 61. We then go to the relevant section for Agricultural Ratings (Aerial Application etc), which is contained within six pages, pg 66-72.

After real consultation with the relevant associations, whose members operate in this unique environment, we then allow these same experts to partake in a draft addendum to Part 61 which would with minor changes end up as law.

Therefore straight up we've cut down the red tape, years of procrastination & industry anxiety and finally any need for further exemptions to Part 61 (Oz style 1600 + pages). At the same time the Part 61 (NZed blueprint) would still be well within a 100 page count and much more easily readable/understandable for the average operator/pilot...:D :D

Come on Boyd & co you know it makes sense...:ok:

30th Aug 2014, 19:39
Has Truss finally managed to publicly announce the CASA board – No?; well he should because there's work for it to do. Even allowing Cox, Smith and Taylor a weekend to digest Part 61, Boyd, Danos and Hawke have had ample time to realise that the part is 1600 wasted pages, wasted time, money and effort; (anyone guess on the cost?). The board should advise the minuscule to delay the introduction until the patent errors have been addressed.

One major issue is the need to negotiate instruments and exemptions. This alone is open to the suggestion of corruption, simply by being highly subjective. A 1600 page part 61 with multiple 'accommodations' made at the whim of a FOI is potentially as 'unsafe' from a legal standpoint as it is from an operational purview. One of the major headaches and complaints raised during the Forsyth review by industry was/ is the wide variation in regulatory interpretation by individual FOI.

Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.

The board could earn it's corn, get off it's collective rump compare the FAA/CAA/NZCAA regulation to the 'thing' which is to become Australia's millstone and have a quiet word to the minuscule. Now would be good; but no later than Monday.

Sarcs "Come on Boyd & co you know it makes sense."

Second the comrade Sarcs motion....:ok:

31st Aug 2014, 01:00
Kharon:Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.
Interesting that by default Part 61 (all 1600 + pages of it..:() appears to be acceptable law and is being actively embraced by the recently sighted 'fabled bull elephant' (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-107.html#post8587452)...:rolleyes:

Insurer to provide PI so flight examiners don’t fly solo (http://www.insurancebusinessonline.com.au/news/insurer-to-provide-pi-so-flight-examiners-dont-fly-solo-191145.aspx)

All in a selfless interest of course...

“supporting the long-term health of the local aviation industry”


“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”

...because:ATOs had been protected for professional liability by CASA however the Authority announced earlier this month that existing ATOs will be transitioned to a FER on 30 June 2016, at which point protection would cease. Those transitioning to or commencing as FERs from 1 September 2014 will also no longer be covered by CASA and will be required to make their own insurance arrangements.
Call me cynical..:E..but could Part 61 be the new age 'bad-law' equivalent of CAR 206?? Lets face it with LHR, Hempel (see footnote #1) & the PelAir embuggerance CAR 206 as a 'cash cow' has almost passed it's use by date...:ugh:

Footnote #1 - Hempel sighting of FBE...:ooh: Email one:

Adam, Narelle,
I received a phone call from the individual below. He claimed to represent the insurers of Hempel Aviation, (blank) have received a claim from Hempel's Aviation. He also stated that Hempel's has provided a document on a record that showed Barry Hempel still held all his ratings at the time of the accident.

He also stated that he has seen the request for information on the CASA web site and that he has doubts as to the truthfulness of the claim.

I did not discuss any of the details of the investigation but did commit to have someone contact him to determine if he constitutes a bonafide interested party.

Email 2 (fwd):

I advised (blank) that you were the most appropriate person to handle this.

Email 3 (reply):

I spoke to Mr (blank) - I advised him of Mr Hempel's licence status at the time of the accident- he will make an FOI request seeking relevant documents, he was very cooperative and said he considers Hempels are trying to make a fraudulent insurance claim.

(blank) -he said he is happy to speak to you in the event you would like any information you may not already have.
{Disclaimer: The email chain excerpts are extracted from documents released under the FOI Act 1982}

Q/ So will Part 61 be as equally & eagerly manipulated to the advantage of the true puppet masters of Oz aviation regulation?? :{

Buyer beware: Any current ATOs or future FERs signing up to the PI offered, FFS get your lawyer (lawyer friend) to decipher the Fine print..:cool:


dubbleyew eight
31st Aug 2014, 04:31
the trick with insurance is to exaggerate the risk way higher than it actually is.
promote the fear that the exaggerated risk will occur.
then offer to carry the exaggerated risk for a financial consideration.
all the while writing into the agreement such weasel words that you can escape making any payouts for the eventuality of the actual risk.

ponzie schemes are illegal in australia but insurance and superannuation are scams of high profit for some. :mad:

thorn bird
31st Aug 2014, 11:35
“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”

Hmmm, wonder which CAsA iron ring members have suddenly become major shareholders in QBE??:p

31st Aug 2014, 21:31
Today is 1 September 2014 - CASR Part 61 is alive!

Due to intense interest from the Australian industry - we will create a new thread for the Flight Crew Licensing changes; which are still coming as various concessions are worked out.

Also, media interest is intense; probably as fire fighting qualifications did not come across into the new legislation today. In theory, no fire fighting operations until CASA promulgates a short term concession. Hopefully today.

To be fair we need to give CASA a chance to catch this bouncing ball, thus a need for a specific thread on the technical aspects of the new legislation; allowing the more political discussions to continue on other threads such those commenting on the Truss issues (or lack of) - ASRR + Industry follow through. Now scheduled for late 2014?

Please send your questions to us and we will do our best to find someone who is up to date on the latest rule changes.

Regulatory Review Coordinator
[email protected]

31st Aug 2014, 22:32
RR # "In theory, no fire fighting operations until CASA promulgates a short term concession. Hopefully today.

Oh pretty please can we have a concession; don't want to rush you, but Victoria is on fire and we would really like to go to work; if that's ok with you, today ??. Oh thank you; thank you very much, bow, grovel, crawl, slobber. Bollocks. FCOL....:mad:

The ball is not bouncing; it has been well and truly dropped – by CASA. What sort of a rule needs immediate concession?, what is the point of having a 1600 page rule set which required 1600 pages of concessions, instruments and exemptions. It's a complete, total utter waste of time, money and energy. Once you have been 'granted' a concession, you are owned and have to play nice to keep it. Tell them to stick their bloody concessions where the sun don't shine and fix this unmitigated pile of crap you paid for..:mad:..

Watch as the AIHA, standing alone are sucked into a trap; the old one, used for years to defer, delay, dilute. :mad:

The AHIA have no business attempting to 'negotiate' without the other industry bodies being involved. They are leaping into trap two - divide and conquer and exemptions out the wazoo.....

The industry should just slap the NZ part 61 on the table and say this is what we want – with these variations. Industry has paid for this legislation, not CASA – it's 'our' legislation. Tell them it's no ducking good, not worth the expense and get them to fix it....:mad:

If you paid an engineer to fix your aircraft and it came back a complete Cock-up; there would be hell to pay. What makes a pile of crap work from CASA any different????.....:mad:

FFS Don't ask them – tell them.

thorn bird
31st Aug 2014, 22:51
Woke up this morning quite surprised.
The sun actually came up and the sky hadn't fallen.
But then the reality that Australia's unique Part 61 is with us.
No last minute court order to delay the execution.
No call from the governor to grant clemency.
The industry is strapped to the gurney and CAsA is going to proceed
with the bizarre, macabre little ritual of killing an industry in cold blood.
Unfortunately is wont be a quick and painless death, it will be slow and painful as 1600 pages of indecipherable poorly drafted gobblegook slowly suffocate the condemned.
Could it be that is the only way for the powers that be come to realize the folly in the way our tyrant regulator is allowed to trample on the dreams and aspirations of so many.

The example is just across the Tasman of what good regulation can do.

Hopefully when the Australian Aviation industry is dead, wiser heads will
prevail, its tormentor reformed allowing the industry to be reborn and be a as vibrant and productive as in other countries.

31st Aug 2014, 23:24
Hey Rob how about having a chat with Phil to get a feel for how your current conciliatory approach will eventually end in tears while dealing with the current toxic FF culture. I'm sure he will enlighten you...:ugh:

See pages 6-7 & appendix one here: ASRR Recommendations – Responses from AAAA (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Portals/0/AAAA%20Response%20to%20ASSR%20Recommendations%20June%202014( 1)_opt.pdf)

"The more concerning issue, however, is that the current members of the CASA Board thought it appropriate to write to AAAA while the review process was still in train.

The apparent intent of the CASA letter appears to be to intimidate a representative body participating in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review and to undermine the validity of the AAAA submission.

The willingness of the CASA Board to actively participate in the ‘politics’ of the ASRR process should sound clear alarm bells to the Minister and anyone else interested in the appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the current CASA Board.

Apart from its factual errors, the CASA letter served no purpose other than to provide further evidence to the ASRR Panel (if more was needed) of the very problems of poor culture, bullying and intimidation highlighted in many of the submissions – with clear evidence – to the ASRR."

Also RR FFS ask PH what AAAA's considered opinion is on what should be happening to Part 61 (in it's current form). Or if you prefer read the following:

CASR Parts 61, 141, 142

Recommendation 31 says that all regulations not currently made should be reshaped into a three tier structure with the aim of gaining significant simplification and thereby improved compliance.

AAAA strongly believes that the current CASR Parts 61,141 and 142 should again be deferred for implementation and should be the first regulations subject to the ASRR Recommendation 31.

The simple fact that CASA have only recently released critical parts of the Manual of Standards for industry to consider, and that there is ongoing conjecture from within CASA about the transition of roles such as ‘approved pilots’ in aerial application, suggests that any move to make the regulation ‘active’ by September is simply premature.

The complexity of the writing of the CASR 61 itself works against compliance by being so difficult to understand. Consider the difficulties when trying to trace the requirements for training, licensing and, critically, privileges of each licence/rating/endorsement across a number of licences (eg CPL, low-level rating, application rating, firefighting endorsement, etc), having to manage both the regulations and the MOS of over 1500 pages.

"In addition, some areas of the MOS that cover competencies for aerial application and firefighting are not acceptable to industry in their current form and require further refinement. It appears that a range of prerequisites suggested by industry have not been included, nor has adequate recognition of prior learning for an application pilot, for example, to attain a firefighting endorsement."

To ask industry to absorb and be functionally capable of working with over 1500 pages of regulations and standards when the latest requirements have only been released in the last few weeks makes a mockery of any implementation ‘strategy’.

For those companies having to transition to Part 141 operations so as to be able to provide the critical role of training for aerial application sector within the current timeframe is another problem. It is highly unlikely that the companies will be able to develop the appropriate operations manuals now required under CASA’s ‘simplified’ approach within the current timeframe due to the need to develop curriculum and competency training syllabus and assessment procedures that are in line with the new Part 61/141. The flight test requirements were only released in the last few weeks and have NOT been the subject of industry consultation – as is the case with much of the recent MOS related publications.

It is also highly unlikely that CASA will be able to assess and accept the various requirements mandated in the MOS and Part 141 before the commencement of operations under the new regulations.

The only logical outcome is to put the current Part 61/141/142 on hold until it can be subject to the ASRR recommendations. As an absolute minimum the September start date should be deferred for at least 12 months to enable training organisations to absorb what has only recently been released...

Here you go here is the contact details webpage: AAAA contact (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Contacts.aspx)


1st Sep 2014, 01:21
The apparent intent of the CASA letter appears to be to intimidate a representative body participating in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review and to undermine the validity of the AAAA submission.
The willingness of the CASA Board to actively participate in the ‘politics’ of the ASRR process should sound clear alarm bells to the Minister and anyone else interested in the appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the current CASA Board.
So let me get this straight. CASA has a history of bullying industry, as well as it's lower ranked people. It had the Skull (of Star Chamber fame) at the forefront, followed by lieutenants who have had a hand in the Pel Air debacle, Lockhart mismanagement, Butson pineappling and the outright assault on the rights of one John Quadrio. Now we add into the mix the Board, the people who are expected to uphold integrity and transparency, also acting in a despicable bullying manner, as has been revealed in their correspondence with AAAA. And the Minister, throughout all of this has done...........that's correct, nothing, except grudgingly ordering a review and then keeping that damning reviews outcome under lock and key. Oh yes, I forgot, he approved Mr Mrdak's reappointment as the Conductor who has been presiding over this mess for years. So there you have it, the rot, the cancer, is embedded all the way to the PMC....what a disgrace to the taxpayer.

The situation is toxic, it is putrid, and if ever there was a reason for a royal commission it is now. Now is the time for a social campaign against those responsible for the embuggerance of our livelihoods. Now is the time to seek out all those Independent politicians in our communities and charge them with righting the wrongs. This is the only way that our decrepit system can be fixed.
Oh I forgot, in amongst all this it would be also nice to see levels of SAFETY returned to our industry! Just a side point that is forgotten by the political parties playing with the safety of the publics lives.

1st Sep 2014, 02:16
CASA and Media misunderstanding - Fire fighting pilots.

Today there has been a lot of media reports about the fire fighting pilots being grounded - see previous. In reply, CASA Standards have said their intention is to issue an exemption which has been proposed verbally and by email; but not officially yet.

However, the AHIA is asking how this will be done? - A Media Release or similar. President, Peter Crook has been in contact with CASA Standards who have again confirmed a Media Release is imminent. We are not sure of the 'legal' form it will take; being Day 1 of Part 61, etc.

Maybe when the CASA position is formally stated as the regulator, then this confusion will be cleared up.

So in the meantime - don't let your kids play with matches?? But we believe it will all be resolved in a few hours. So have an extra beer with lunch!


1st Sep 2014, 21:28
Sarcs - "Hey Rob how about having a chat with Phil to get a feel for how your current conciliatory approach will eventually end in tears while dealing with the current toxic FF culture.

Strewth Sarcs; Phil has a track record of equable dealing with CASA and a reputation for being able to negotiate and balance the 'regulator' and 'industry' standpoints. He has done and continues to do so, very well indeed without selling out to the dark side. It's what AOPAA and now the looks like the (RR version) of AIHA have failed miserably to do; it will all come down to money in the end. Government money, to foster and promote the 'agency' standpoint. Casasexuals are notorious for 'selective hearing', the rustle of crisp $100 bills creating foreground noise. I doubt Phil would waste his wind or time. If AIHA was 'fair dinkum' they would seek to collaborate with the various 'alphabet' groups, not independently negotiate with CASA. By joining in the chorus for 'reform'; we may even get it if the 'industry' sticks together. There are those in 'Chopper world' who simply cannot stay in business if this part 61 rule set, as it stands is allowed to take root.

The time to kill it was during the 'consulting' phase; now it's law the industry is screaming. To change it, retrospectively will require a big effort from all; all together. The introduction should be deferred until a 'proper', open, honest consultation and MoS have been considered and debated. As it is we're stuck with it, everyone looking to the other for salvation; or what's in it for me. Sad testimony of industry, even the 'heavies' have failed to weigh in. We are, it seems an industry conditioned to serve the regulator; that's arse about face if you think on it.

Much is written on the perils of doing deals, or dancing with devil. I notice each story, every time, ends in tears. With settlement money rapidly diminishing, perhaps some of the wiser heads in AHIA could have a quiet word before the inevitable happens. If that seems cryptic – I suggest a little independent research; it's not a happy story, but then real life rarely is.

Toot toot

Frank Arouet
2nd Sep 2014, 02:40
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

This mornings CAsA "blurb".

"CASA has transition arrangements in place to facilitate aerial firefighting operations for this season. An exemption has been made that commenced on 1 September and applies to pilots who intend to conduct firefighting operations from this date".

For years CAsA has ruled by "exemption" because the "Regs" were dysfunctional. If CAsa were to repeal all the exemptions immediately, aviation as we know it would be ended. The regulatory review process was supposed to give us a new suite. A joke I think, but if they thought the new "Parts" were relevant, they are off to a bad start with "exemptions".

2nd Sep 2014, 03:20
Interestingly, FAA is moving to provide industry delegates with Professional Indemnity cover , as CASA removes it.

Why?? Because FAA realizes that PI is becoming, or in some case, already is unaffordable, and FAA is smart enough to realize that lack of affordable PI cover drives experienced Check Airmen etc. out of the industry, something the industry cannot afford.

Is this why CASA is removing PI --- to get rid of ATOs etc., and make more work for CASA employees ---- not really, it is ideological, with CAAP Admin. 1 being viewed as an industry "subsidy".

In fact, it costs CASA nothing to extend the cover of its own employees to industry delegates --- established at Senate Estimates, this was even the case when CASA had to buy commercial policies, before Comcover took over CASA coverage.

This morning I was listening to Professor Alan Fells talking about ineffective anti-monopoly legislation in Australia.

He pointed out that, at the point in question, the US legislation was less than a page --- AND EFFECTIVE, the EEC legislation was one page --- AND EFFECTIVE.

The equivalent Australian legislation is seventy two (72) pages, and is INEFFECTIVE.

Canberra needs sorting out generally ---- this Government's anti-red tape drive hasn't scratched to surface, and has already stalled.

Maybe what we need is a couple of tactical nukes, "surgically" applied.

Tootle pip!!

2nd Sep 2014, 03:59
Frank, exemptions issued on day one is indicative of a system that is flawed and being managed by complete idiots. CASA should have listened to the real experts out in industry who were telling them that part 61 was shite, would impose a great burden upon those trying to comply, and that it would potentially ruin some areas of industry, helicopter operators for starters. But of course they wanted to save face, rush it out there and to hell with those it will effect (not them of course as they swan around and office drinking coffee an adjusting the office temperature). Dopes

2nd Sep 2014, 04:06
Kharon - Much is written on the perils of doing deals, or dancing with devil. I notice each story, every time, ends in tears. With settlement money rapidly diminishing, perhaps some of the wiser heads in AHIA could have a quiet word before the inevitable happens. If that seems cryptic – I suggest a little independent research; it's not a happy story, but then real life rarely is.
Hmm...strange dichotomy???:rolleyes: From Phelan article - Flawed safety laws must be stalled, says Helicopter Association (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/08/01/flawed-safety-laws-must-be-stalled-says-helicopter-association/) - we had this from the President to the miniscule...

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 mooted 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?


Peter Crook, President, Australian Helicopter Industry Association


Perhaps the AHIA would do well to read Creamy's overview of the FF RRP and in particular Part 61 (post #8 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/546706-part-61-changes-test-forms.html#post8634278)):"Why is it us Aussies detest change so much?"

Can't talk for other transport modes, but in aviation it's not change as such. In aviation it's generally the 'collateral damage' arising from:

- non-existent, poor or counter-productive pre-commencement industry education
- unintended consequences that consume resources for no safety or other benefits
- multiple, complex exemptions, rendering an already complicated set of rules even more complicated and meaningless on their face
- more rules that require approvals, permits, certificates, authorisations, endorsements and ratings that depend on CASA "acceptance" or "satisfaction", increasing the scope for zealots on a crusade to implement their view of aviation utopia (for a fee and after a delay, of course)
- inconsistent interpretations by different people
- dozens of offences added to the already-bloated and ever-growing body of criminal law,

... none of which does much to alter behaviour or safety outcomes. Top summary Creamy...:ok:

2nd Sep 2014, 07:10
AA catching up with the DPM Truss Glacier {careful mugshot included..:E}:Farquharson to fill in as CASA director of aviation safety (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/farquharson-to-fill-in-as-casa-director-of-aviation-safety/)

Terry Farquharson is filling in as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) acting director of aviation safety until the successor to John McCormick is named.

McCormick ended his five and a half year run as the director of aviation safety on Sunday, August 31 and has left the organisation.

CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson said Farquharson, currently the deputy director of aviation safety, started as acting director on Monday.

The appointment of a new director of aviation safety would have to wait until a full board of CASA has been formed. That was due to occur after the formal announcement of three new board members.

Aviation Business reported last Friday the three new people to be appointed to the board were Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and David Cox.

Taylor was most recently was president of the Gliding Australia, Smith is the Australian Maritime and Defence Foundation of Australia president, while Cox is chief operating officer of the faculty of engineering and information technologies at Sydney University and a former head of engineering at Qantas.

It was understood the three names have been submitted to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss.

CASA’s three current board members were chair Allan Hawke, as well as the recently-appointed deputy chair Jeff Boyd plus Trevor Danos. The director of aviation safety also sits on the CASA board.

The fully formed CASA board would then consider the best candidate from an international search undertaken by an external recruitment company.
The process was believed to have come down to two candidates. However, the appointment of a new director of aviation safety was expected to be some time away given the minister’s office needed to approve any name put forward by the CASA board and take that name to cabinet.

Australian Aviation has sought comment from Minister Truss’s office. {Along with every other Tom, Dick & Harry...:ugh:}
Psss TF watch the monkey...:E


And no need to ask for permission anymore e.g. :=
Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:36
To: McCormick, John
Subject: FW: Pel air Accident VH-NGA Final Report [SEC=UNCLASSIAED]

The attached Pel Air report has been finalised. Subject to one final confirmation of the fuel calculations by (being conducted this week), is comfortable with the report's content, to the extent that it correlates with the AAT material to be submitted shortly and that there are no differences that can be highlighted by the opposing legal

The release of this report will provide Ops with the material to begin consideration of any further action that may be necessary against the any of those involved in the accident.

When has confirmed the fuel calculations, would like to discuss in general the report with ATSB. In any discussions would not provide the ATSB with a copy of the report but would talk about the salient points. This is in keeping with the spirit of the MOU.

Your approval to release the report is requested.


thorn bird
2nd Sep 2014, 10:08
and if anyone in the industry was in any doubt CAsA was corrupt, Sarcs says it all!!

Cactus, they have been having trouble getting Terry to take his afternoon nap since his A380 Type rating.

He sits there every afternoon playing airline pilot on his IPad simulator.

Keeps him amused I suppose.

Considering the amount of damage he's inflicted on the industry over the years better to leave him to that.

2nd Sep 2014, 10:14
The fatal flaw that dooms any prospect of reform is that the DAS sits on the Board and presumably has a vote. I was not aware of this until now.

The DAS should be appointed by the Minister on the advice of the Board and the DAS should be removable again by the Minister on the advice of the Board. He should be "in attendance" - non voting, at Board meetings at the pleasure of the Board.

What will happen now is predictable. The new DAS will abrogate the responsibilities of the Board and become a law until herself, with of course the support of Messrs Farqueson et al. The embuggerance will then continue, redoubled. For example, what good is a complaints process reporting at Board level when the DAS sits on the Board?

I participated in the removal of one such dominating public figure from public office many years ago. Our report on his behaviour and domination of the alleged supervisory Board was not pleasant reading.

There seems little point in continuing this thread, or attempting to engage with CASA further.

To put that another way, BOHICA.

thorn bird
2nd Sep 2014, 10:22
Yeah Sunny, your right, I always thought the CEO reported to the board, and the board directed the CEO.

One has to ask the question, what is the CAsA board for?

Other than providing a place at the trough for political appointees.

2nd Sep 2014, 18:53
I reckon the next estimates might prove interesting.

2nd Sep 2014, 23:00
I don't know how many of you caught the ABC 'Australian story (http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/australian-story/NC1456Q030S00)' last week, it's not one I usually watch, but just as I reached for the remote (love the STFU button) the lady being interviewed caught my attention. Joanne McCarthy a journalist with the Newcastle Herald (http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1940637/video-joanne-mccarthy-wins-gold-walkley/) won the prestigious Gold Walkley for her efforts reporting and exposing child sex abuse. The lady runs marathons and used the race as an analogy to explain her campaign; starting off fresh, working through the middle barriers and finally to the business end – finishing. She likened the final stages of her 'campaign' to those last few clicks – and freely admits that the most difficult part was actually seeing the job through to the end. Bravo Ms. McCarthy....:D

I believe there is a parallel story running with aviation reform; the last few clicks once again being the toughest; so nearly there but not yet across 'that' line. It is of little value to be petulant because our own wishes were not gratified, immediately. Stopping now because it all seems too hard simply allows the competition to run on past and win the trophy. Being beaten after a full on effort is acceptable, pride and self worth an added bonus; but to quit is diminishing. You can only loose to yourself. As Jo McCarthy discovered, it all comes down to you and that last little bit.

That is where I believe we are; the Senators have been and remain magnificent support; the Rev. Forsyth report is there cheering; the TSBC waving flags and cheering the FAA looking on holding their breath. But they are spectators, industry is the one in the race and if it means to win; it must find the willpower, courage and determination to finish the bloody race.

The crowd will always applaud the winner, the bookies always make a dollar, the spectators will end up tucked in warm and cosy at home; the competitors are left with the question – did I do all I could - to win? If the answer is yes; then the willpower and courage to try again is reinforced. If no, then you weren't beaten; you lost. IF (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/175772).

I hear there is some good news in the wind today. We shall see..


2nd Sep 2014, 23:48
It would appear that the DPM is in the mood for making announcements for Boards and CEOs for other government agencies in his remit. So why the procrastination & apparent disconnect with aviation that is causing much angst to many industry stakeholders??:ugh:

2 days ago...

Infrastructure Australia Board announced (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/September/wt160_2014.aspx)

Last week...

Mick Kinley appointed new CEO of AMSA (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/August/wt154_2014.aspx)

With the CEO of AMSA did we hear any protestations, cries of 'the sky will now surely fall in' by any of the marine industries stakeholders?? No?

Internally is there any rumours of sycophants, Sociopaths or zealots on crusades?? No, well none that has been publicly leaked or revealed in Senate Estimates.

Is there a constant revolving door of Senate Inquiries, AAT or Federal Court hearings?? No??? :ooh:

So apparently the Marine crew are happy (on the surface at least..:E) with their lot...:D:D

It should be of interest that the CEO of AMSA also sits on the Board and that the Board comprises not six members but eight:AMSA Board

Mr Leo Zussino (Chairman) (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Leo_Zussino)
Mr Stuart Richey AM (Deputy Chairman) (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#richey)
Mr Michael Kinley (Chief Executive Officer) (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Mick KInley)
Dr Russell Reichelt (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Russell_Reichelt)
Professor Sarah Derrington (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Sarah_Derrington)
Ms Jennifer Clark (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Jennifer_Clark)
Mr Andrew Wilson, Departmental Member (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Andrew_Wilson)
Capt. Fred Ross (https://www.amsa.gov.au/about-amsa/organisational-structure/amsa-board/#Fred_Ross)
Again do we hear any bad press about, what would appear to be, an over bloated group of bureaucrats?? Do we hear about a completely dysfunctional board that simply kowtows to the whims of the AMSA CEO & Executive?? :rolleyes:

No not a peep! How can this be..:confused:

Sure there is more than likely internal rifts and disagreement that we will never know about. But for all intents and purposes the AMSA model would appear to be quietly working and getting on with regulating industry..:D

However most importantly it would appear that AMSA and the board have the trust of industry and that is a huge point of difference...:ok:

3rd Sep 2014, 01:13
Gents, the same applies to NOPSEMA. Like AMSA, they have an important safety role related to a high risk industry, yet you don't hear the howling for change, hear the story's about systematic abuse of the industry it oversights, nor do you have an Org structure stacked the way CASA's is set up - to evade scrutiny and cover up malfeasance. In general NOPSEMA are a well oiled outfit that operates transparently and in the interest of maintaining compliance and safety. Imagine seeing that in CASA's charter!! Compliance and safety with the interests of the community at large in mind! Have you ever heard of such a robust idea?
Yep, the fact that other regulatory bodies can for the most part get it right, proves that the entire CASA structure is flawed, has failed, and in its present form cannot be fixed.

Something do you to think about, Minister.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Sep 2014, 02:58
look at it this way.

things are on the up in CAsA.

Terry Farquarson would have to be the worst possible choice for Director of Safety that it is humanly possible to put in the position.

....so what follows after him must be better.

it pays to see the silver lining in even the most ominous of thunder clouds.
besides he's harmless when he's asleep :E ...so the afternoons are looking good.

3rd Sep 2014, 21:20
Alert: I have not as yet been able to confirm any of the following; however there does seem to be some straws in the wind which might add up to a haystack. So for what its worth.

It seems the minuscule's advisors has had a somewhat 'robust', head on introduction to industry concerns during the 'doings' in Canberra this week. Very few punches being pulled on the ludicrous Part 61 and the impact it will have; the moronic engineering rule set was hammered; the disgraceful Avmed department was thumped and generally, the "not happy Jan" message was delivered, long and loud, face to face, to the man himself. Rumour is that Truss is "unhappy" with CASA and all those who sail in her.

Let's see now, that's the Senate, the Board, the Minister and the industry all 'unhappy' with the GWM crew over at Sleepy Hollow; if you add a dash of American disfavour, Canadian open disgust and pinch of UK incredulity; things look rough for the home team.

Some days – it's just smile,..:D smile,..:D smile..:D

MTF - Toot toot.

4th Sep 2014, 01:12
Interesting development. If the Minister is truly becoming agitated by CASA it means he is copping some serious heat from some high level players. Good! Placing the Minister in the spotlight is the only way to fix the problems. With only a year or so to go until Australia's trough dwellers start seeking re-election perhaps the Minister for bad skin and Tony are starting to feel a little uneasy about some turbulent waters approaching their harbour side palace?
Game on......

4th Sep 2014, 02:05
I don't know what Truss was thinking but appointing Ms Taylor to the Board is the equivalent of putting McCormick on it. She is immediate past president of GFA (resigned August 23, 2014) which has a contract with CASA to administer gliding in Australia on a MONOPOLY basis. This makes the GFA CASA as far as gliding is concerned.

Let alone her lack of technical or operational expertise. God help us all!

GFA has also negotiated (on Ms Taylor's watch) with CASA, an ICAO compliant CASA Glider pilot Licence so that Australians can fly overseas including in competitions by having their qualifications recognised by OS countries aviation authorities.

The licence, however isn't valid for use inside Australia. Ya think CASA is the laughing stock of the world's aviation regulators?

4th Sep 2014, 03:14
The - AMROBA (http://www10.zippyshare.com/v/24953508/file.html)- scorecard out of 10 of government achievement against each of their policy promises. We thought it 'topical'.

From Zippyshare – Click one on the large red DOWNLOAD NOW button in the top right hand corner, to avoid spam.

P8. a.k.a. Two pot screamer.

4th Sep 2014, 07:37
When the Coalition won the last election, there was great support from the aviation industry for what the LNP promulgated as the Coalition Aviation Policy. In the Policy they included a Plan. The following is AMROBA score, out of ten, of government’s achievement against each of their policy
promises. Total 37/160 Not very good. Not many items have started.

The Government’s Plan

1.Abolish the Carbon Tax- The Coalition will abolish the carbon tax.
Score: 10/10

2. Establish Formal Industry Consultation with the Minister- The Coalition will establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council that will meet on a regular basis with the Minister to discuss matters of concern to the broader aviation industry and ensure that the industry’s views have a forum for discussion and development.
Score: 0/10 – no indication so far.

3. Ensure Best Practice in Aviation Safety is Maintained-The Coalition will establish an external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia.
Score: 10/10 – will LNP implement recommendations? 2/10 at this stage

4. Reform the Structure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)- The Coalition will seek to enhance CASA’s abilities to function as Australia’s key aviation safety regulator.

a. Strategic direction - Enhancing CASA’s capability as Australia’s aviation safety regulator must start with establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation. Score: 0/10 ASRR recommendation also identified changes needed.

b. CASA board - CASA’s board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established again.
Score: 5/10 1 new member announced, 3 more rumoured.

c. Industry Complaints Commissioner- The Coalition recognises the importance of having a reliable, robust and transparent complaints process that is managed in a timely manner Score: 2/10 ASRR recommendation report to CASA Board

5. Focus on the Better Utilisation of Australian Airspace-The Coalition will task Airservices Australia with fast-tracking technological improvements at airports where they are supported by both airlines and airports and will have a significant impact on the reliability of the aviation network, or where it will lessen the impact of aircraft noise.Score: 2/10 No info available

6.Support Regional Aviation-The Coalition will introduce a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme for regional commercial airline carriers to support low volume and new routes to small and remote communities.

Score: 4/10 Some changes introduced

7. Recognise the Importance of Our Airports - The Coalition reaffirms our commitment that airports must be dedicated to providing aviation services and other developments on site should not be approved if they compromise the current or future aviation operations of the airport.
Score: 3/10 Some statements and monies allocated

a. Regional aerodrome weather services - The Coalition acknowledges the benefits that aerodrome weather services provide in regional communities, not just for aviation but also for local weather forecasting and for use by emergency services personnel. Score: 0/10

b. Sydney Airport - If elected, the Coalition will make a decision on the site for a second Sydney Airport in the first term of government.

Score: 10/10 Decision has been made

8. Encourage Aviation Manufacturing - The Coalition acknowledges the important role of aircraft and aviation component manufacturing in Australia.
Score: 0/10 Less manufacturing today – no growth yet seen

9.Revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda - The Coalition will revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda and establish a regular dialogue with the general aviation sector to address industry issues.
Score: 0/10 No action at this moment. Need to adopt FARs

10.Promote Aviation Liberalisation - The Coalition acknowledges the importance of international aviation to our tourism industry and our broader economy. We recognise the potential of Australia as a prime tourism destination within the Asia-Pacific region.
Score: 0/10 No action

11.Enhance Industry Training and Development - The Coalition will undertake a study into the state of the workforce in the broader aviation industry to inform future skills development and training policies. This will include a consideration of whether high upfront training costs are acting as a barrier to entry. The study into the state of the aviation workforce will be undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport and conducted within existing resources.
Score: 0/10 Study not yet started

12.Ensure Aviation Security is Risk-Based - The Coalition will review security risk assessments regularly to ensure that existing measures are adequate or still necessary and new rules are appropriately implemented.

Score: 1/10 Some consideration to changes

September 2014

Ken Cannane


Phone: (02) 97592715

Mobile: 0408029329
AMROBA - Safety all around | Australia's aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul industry (http://www.amroba.org.au/)

Safety All Around.

But Ken the miniscule is getting on with it just very, very slowly...:ugh::ugh:

Here he is today (just before leaving for question time as Ag PM) rubbing shoulders with other aviation luminaries {which included the Ag DAS who showed his commitment to a greater cause by foregoing his afternoon nap..:E}...


Truss confirms govt to respond to Forsyth report by the en of 2014 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/truss-says-govt-to-respond-to-forsyth-report-by-end-of-2014/)

Item by Jordan Chong (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/jordan-chong/) at 1:35 pm, Thursday September 4 2014 Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/truss-says-govt-to-respond-to-forsyth-report-by-end-of-2014/#comments)

Acting Prime Minister Warren Truss has reaffirmed the government’s commitment to respond to the Forsyth inquiry into Australia’s aviation regulatory system before the end of the year.

Speaking at Airservices’ annual Waypoint conference in Canberra on Thursday, Truss said the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) found Australia had a good safety record but identified “opportunities for improvement”.

“The government is now carefully considering all of the 37 recommendations and other matters arising from the report,” said Truss, who is also the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

“We intend to provide a comprehensive response before the year is out. Above all, we are committed to ensuring that aviation maintains an appropriate safety regulatory framework that will provide the platform for the industry’s future growth.”

The ASRR report, released in June (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/), called for substantial cultural and structural change at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies. Moreover, it said the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

The review, also known as the Forsyth Report, said the appointment of a new director of aviation safety was a chance to reform the culture of the organisation.

Truss was speaking at a public event for the first time since John McCormick ended his five-and-a-half-year term as the director of aviation safety at CASA on August 31. But he did not address the matter of McCormick’s replacement or the three new directors due to be appointed to the CASA board.

CASA deputy director of aviation safety Terry Farquharson, who will be acting director of aviation safety until a permanent replacement is named (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/farquharson-to-fill-in-as-casa-director-of-aviation-safety/), was in the audience at the Airservices conference.

Truss said the government was committed to reducing the regulatory burden on business by cutting unnecessary red tape and allowing more competition to facilitate job creation. Regulation was a particular feature of the aviation sector, he said.

“Aviation has more regulation per square inch than any other industry I know and I would like to get rid of most of them,” Truss said.

“But I know that that will compromise confidence in our safety record.”

However, there were some things that the government is able to do, such as lifting the regulatory burden on the nation’s airports.

“My department has been engaging with stakeholders to identify areas of regulation duplication and overlap affecting our airports,” Truss said.

“In particular we are consulting on proposals to streamline the master plan and major development plan processes. The airport owners tell me they would like to see a longer duration between master plans and that further productivity gains could be achieved if the financial thresholds around major development plans were amended.

“I think these objectives are achievable.”

While he was there he also announced this bit of good news for Biz Jet Operators: Government opens consultation on quieter business jets at Sydney Airport (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/September/wt165_2014.aspx)

Hmm maybe Tone should go away a bit more often it seems to have inspired the DPM..:D

Oh and apparently Dougy was also there...:rolleyes:

"...I’m in Canberra today, at Waypoint, Airservices’ annual hosting of its customers (and others) for a day of information exchange and networking. It’s always a professional and very useful dialogue, capped off by a dinner and, from this year, the Peter Lloyd lecture. Airservices’ chairman Angus Houston will share the hosting with CEO Margaret Staib. I’ll share the highlights with you asap..."

Dougy also had this little snippet of intel...

"..As an aside, I’m hearing that the delay in the naming of a new DAS for CASA is simply that it’s stuck on a desk in the Prime Minister’s office. I would have thought that if it was going to be delayed in any office it would be that of the Deputy PM, as the relevant minister. Anyway, apparently the decision has been made, so let’s hope it’s the right one..."

FFS the miniscule's desk must be groaning under the tombs of complaint correspondence etc...:E


4th Sep 2014, 08:04
“Aviation has more regulation per square inch than any other industry I know and I would like to get rid of most of them,” Truss said.

“But I know that that will compromise confidence in our safety record.”You see: It’s all about perception, not substance.

More and more regulations make aviation appear safer to punters. If punters are scared of the 30,000’ death plunge, all governments need to do is point to the thousands of pages of regulations (and sacrifice a few pilots with colour vision deficiency). The response to one fatal accident during an Angel Flight must be more regulation.

And the bureaucracy is always ready to help with that.

It’s pathetic. :yuk:

thorn bird
4th Sep 2014, 09:06
“Aviation has more regulation per square inch than any other industry"

Perhaps that should have been prefixed with "In Australia..."

“But I know that that will compromise confidence in our safety record.”

Compromise who's confidence? The punters don't give a shite they just want $50 fares.

Oh and Terry, don't believe CAsA's spin, our safety record aint that flash compared with the US and after the last audit I'm sure their regulator knows why. The "Canooks" sure do after their little foray into aviation safety oversight down under.

“In particular we are consulting on proposals to streamline the master plan and major development plan processes. The airport owners tell me they would like to see a longer duration between master plans and that further productivity gains could be achieved if the financial thresholds around major development plans were amended".

err... Terence old mate,

Your lot flogged off the airports to property developers and loan sharks.

In case you haven't noticed, Sydney as an example, has been turning over a billion a year for the past ten years.

How much tax have they paid?? or are they paying tax in Bermuda?

and you want to give them further concessions?

Bugger all point in having airports if nobody can afford to use them.

"Moreover, it said the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

Well DUUHH!! that's because of the ACT, change that, accept Kiwi reg's and we can all get on with business. The way things are, there will be no business.

"Truss said the government was committed to reducing the regulatory burden on business by cutting unnecessary red tape and allowing more competition to facilitate job creation. Regulation was a particular feature of the aviation sector, he said".

Terence, you'd better get on with it while you still have an industry to save.

In case you haven't noticed, CAsA are anti competition, their regulations force small operators out of business, the dwindling amount of work is picked up by fewer large operators who finish up in monopoly positions until the law of diminishing return catches up with them.

Look what's happening in the maintenance sector, more businesses closing than new ones coming online, Why??

Its all just becoming too hard, there are easier ways to make a buck.

We can only look with envy across the Tasman.

"You see: It’s all about perception, not substance".

Creamie for the board!!!

dubbleyew eight
4th Sep 2014, 09:11
I will believe not one word of any promise of change for the better until I see John Quadrio's commercial pilots licence reinstated.

not one word of it minister.

thorn bird
4th Sep 2014, 09:17

not my turn, but I'd add...and the unprincipled assh&le that stitched him up, spend some happy hours in the showers at a correctional facility near you!

dubbleyew eight
4th Sep 2014, 09:23
I agree. quite a few people in CAsA deserve prison sentences for their particular brand of self serving corruption.

the present temporary head of CAsA being one of them in all probability.

4th Sep 2014, 16:09
Byron and Quinn almost got there. Byron was all for EASA and Quinn was way ahead of outcome based regulation philosophy. He's a genius with regards to risk management. And now we've had the Screamer, and as a touché, the cardboard cut-out Terry! No sleeping next month in Estimates Terry! I think Sky Sentinal might be high on the agenda. Your brainchild wasn't it? PAWS ring a bell?? FOI JD being paid? Ring a bell??? All hell is about to break loose! Besides the individuals who spoke to the ASRR, Heavyweights I've been in contact with are fed up. As Wuss is asleep at the wheel, it's being directly taken to PMC (and the FAA). If they merged AMSA and CASA we may get some sense. Actually, dump the CASA Board, let AMSA run the joint!
Wake up Warren, you aren't a Wiggle!

4th Sep 2014, 23:06
W8 - I agree. quite a few people in CAsA deserve prison sentences for their particular brand of self serving corruption.

There are several Gordian knots for the minuscule to unpick, before he can release the hounds and clean out Sleepy Hollow. This is one of the major ones. Truss must be at least vaguely aware of some of the more blatant, border line criminal actions committed in the name of "Safety", McComic style. The list is long, the victims many but strangely enough the list of suspects is fairly short. But to address the issues, even in camera at the Senate will be a major embarrassment to the Government. Any real inquiry must start and will probably end in the LSD and Nuremburg never provided a sustainable defence. Many of the atrocities committed by the very few who willingly worked the system for a predetermined outcome were known to and supported by the LSD. It would take a better man than Truss to 'fess up and publicly take the LSD to task.

The more subtle approach would be to identify the 'bad boys and girls' and backtrack. There has been some extensive research done and evidence collated – but there is no venue to impartially examine these cases. At the moment whispered 'deals' and non disclosure seem to be the only avenue for negotiation and even those are few and far between.

The Senate Committee know this; Rev. Forsyth and his team mates know this; industry knows this and more to be true. One of the Gordian knots tying the cord strangling industry is the blatant, fully supported, deliberate misuse of the regulations. Administrative embuggerance and total immunity providing a well defended base from which the rogue elements may freely operate; with impunity; without let or hindrance.

Truss may well want to open Pandora's box; but look at what happened last time. Truss may well know he has to deal with these issues; perhaps the Board and a truly independent ICC can provide a soft landing, before time and patience run out.

Heh heh; wonder how many knifes were stuck in McComic's back as he left the building; probably by his most trusted catamites while patting him there (to find a nice soft spot); those who will squeal longest and loudest when prodded.

Aye well – it was never going to be quick, clean and easy. No guarantees in a game of Russian roulette.

5th Sep 2014, 00:10
I would like to see a senior bureaucrat from Prime Minister and Cabinet as DAS. They are the true masters of the bureaucracy and can see through most if not all bureaucratic ploys.

Frank Arouet
5th Sep 2014, 01:16
Any DAS has to be accountable and disposable, must meet Ministerial and Industry benchmarks that set performance based salary paid annually, (set also as is the contract tenure but open to Ministerial renewal). Must report directly to The Minister and not sit on The Board. (which should be sent to the local pub with a 12 drink stipend to meet every ten years to discuss pot plants). The Minister should prepare a performance report to Industry every six months that is open to response.

No senior bureaucrat would agree to that. Who did you have in mind?

5th Sep 2014, 01:16
Is there finally a light at the end of the tunnel?

Kharon #1211
It seems the minuscule's advisors has had a somewhat 'robust', head on introduction to industry concerns during the 'doings' in Canberra this week. Very few punches being pulled on the ludicrous Part 61 and the impact it will have; the moronic engineering rule set was hammered; the disgraceful Avmed department was thumped and generally, the "not happy Jan" message was delivered, long and loud, face to face, to the man himself. Rumour is that Truss is "unhappy" with CASA and all those who sail in her.
Jingilee #1221
All hell is about to break loose! Besides the individuals who spoke to the ASRR, Heavyweights I've been in contact with are fed up. As Wuss is asleep at the wheel, it's being directly taken to PMC (and the FAA).

5th Sep 2014, 03:58
From MMSM Steve: Warren Truss floats older business jet ban in curfew hours (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/warren-truss-floats-older-business-jet-ban-in-curfew-hours/story-e6frg95x-1227048049139)

Conference attendees hoping for further insight into the government’s reaction to the aviation safety review conducted by industry veteran David Forsyth came away disappointed.

Mr Truss said that the government was still “carefully ­considering’’ the report’s 37 recommendations and other matters raised.
It intended to provide a comprehensive response before the year was out, he said. Flying Oz Editor Steve Hitchen: The Last Minute Hitch: 5 September 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-5-september-2014)This week in general aviation is one we could label "optimistic", and that's not something we have been able to do much in the past five years or so. Three stories emerged this week about developments and improvements at airports, where most of the time airports make the news because of pressing public complaints, declining infrastructure and threatened closures.

Lethbridge in Victoria has opened the first stage of its government-funded improvements (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/lethbridge-opens-1-million-upgrade), which have effectively provided Geelong with a new general aviation airport, Gympie has a new airpark well underway (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/new-airpark-rises-at-gympie) and aviation's miracle, Belmont Airport, is making a comeback (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/belmont-development-under-full-power) under the new consortium of owners. Good news all around!

However, I have to greet the news that Warren Truss has promised to respond to the Forsyth Report (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-to-respond-to-forsyth-by-year-end)by the end of the year with some disappointment. Like many aviation industry observers, we expected the response to be imminent. Surely, as the report came out in the first week of June, the government would have something to say about it by September, three months later. Now they are saying it could be the end of the year. If so, that will be seven months without any comment. I am going to put my "optimism" cap back on and say this could be to enable them to develop plans to implement the recommendations. However, experience says they could also be developing reasons to make only token improvements as well. Either way, this silence is certainly not golden.

Matt Hall races in Dallas Fort-Worth this weekend, an event that might represent his best chance for a maiden win in this series. Matt likes to fly in hot weather, having finished on the podium in the two hottest races of the year so far: Malaysia and Poland. For you die-hard fans, the race starts at 3.15 am AEST on Monday morning. MTF...:ok:

5th Sep 2014, 07:27
Sorry, Truss has just killed any plans for reform stone dead, kaput, finished.

Truss used the words "By the end of the year" referring to the Governments response, which has a very specific meaning when it comes to politics; it means "in the period between 25th December and 1 January".

This time is reserved for the release of unpalatable information, most probably in this case, the Governments outright rejection of most of the recommendations. Everyone is on holidays including all the journalists and all the aviation peak bodies. This means that there can be no credible industry response till mid February at the very earliest, by which time the Governments response is old news and in any case industry anger has evaporated. Its difficult to "maintain the rage" when you are on holidays, sunning your self on a beach somewhere.

What happens in mid February is a little lukewarm industry angst at what might have been.

The public servants will say the are already implementing it and simply tell you to move on and "try again in five years" as the saying goes.

Folks it's over. We are watching a classic case of a bureaucratic fighting retreat. The iron ring will write a volume on why each of the recommendations is flawed and unsafe, they will simply wear Truss and the new DAS down with paper. This is why you need someone from PMC to head this mess - they understand about file stuffing and other tricks. Truss and his staff do not. A PMC person needs to send the ring packing on day one. If that isn't done, the embuggerance willl continue unabated.

5th Sep 2014, 08:14
You are correct.

Frank Arouet
5th Sep 2014, 08:44
I concur unfortunately.

thorn bird
5th Sep 2014, 09:51

I've never been a lucky person, cant even win a chook raffle at the pub!!

Some years ago, there was a possible job in the offering which needed a recognized license, Australian didn't figure but Kiwi did. So I went and got a Kiwi ATPL. Smartest and luckiest thing I ever did.

Picked up three jobs over time based on the Kiwi license.

Never got a job based on my Australian license.

Since it would appear the "Guvmint" is determined to kill off Australian aviation, perhaps the advice to the newbies should be "Go East young man"!!

That's if you can find a place in a Kiwi flying school, from what I hear they are all full.

Only people who will come here will be them more interested in a Passport than a pilots licence.

What happens with these "Iron Ring" people when aviation breaths its last in Australia??...are they given the "Order of Australia" for services to the aviation industry??

Just beyond belief that our leaders can be so incredibly stupid.

If the "Guvmint" aint prepared to act on what's been slapped across their face then the only hope is International reaction.

Are the Iron ring good enough to smoke and mirror the GuvMint if the FAA downgrade us??

5th Sep 2014, 12:31
The best we can hope for is that the new DAS is told to calm things down in there. Similar to Byron's brief. Hopefully an end to the big R regulator and an adversarial approach. The first year will show us with the exec movements. A decent ICC appointment?

But hey, I still believe in father Xmas and tooth fairy.

6th Sep 2014, 02:38
The doomsayers on here may indeed be correct and that by the New Year the industry will be extinct...:{

However the whispers that Jinglie...All hell is about to break loose! Besides the individuals who spoke to the ASRR, Heavyweights I've been in contact with are fed up. As Wuss is asleep at the wheel, it's being directly taken to PMC (and the FAA). & Kharon:It seems the minuscule's advisors has had a somewhat 'robust', head on introduction to industry concerns during the 'doings' in Canberra this week. Very few punches being pulled on the ludicrous Part 61 and the impact it will have; the moronic engineering rule set was hammered; the disgraceful Avmed department was thumped and generally, the "not happy Jan" message was delivered, long and loud, face to face, to the man himself. Rumour is that Truss is "unhappy" with CASA and all those who sail in her. ...are apparently not too far off the mark to what is actually happening behind the scenes...:rolleyes:

Apparently these heavy weights are sick of trying to catch the miniscule in one of his more lucid moments & are now seeking audience with the PMC i.e. cutting out the middleman.:D

That middleman is not the ailing miniscule but the Murky Machiavellian RED and given the recent bad press from the HIP inquiry, & his soon to be exposed embuggerance of Govt leased airports, is looking for any form of diversion all in the interest of self preservation of course...:ugh: (more on that coming to the Senate thread soon..:E).

Fact check: Sunny - Truss used the words "By the end of the year" referring to the Governments response, which has a very specific meaning when it comes to politics; it means "in the period between 25th December and 1 January".
That may be what RED intends to happen but it is not what was promised by the miniscule (perhaps in a less lucid moment :zzz:) or at least his most Senior adviser who in response to the following questions back in July...

Can the Minister provide the expected timetable and sequence for the naming of the new CASA board members?
Will the new board be participating in the final decision on the selection of the new Chief Executive Officer of CASA?
What department or agency is tasked with preparation of the government’s response to the ASRR Panel report? And
When is that response intended to be presented?
Is the Minister considering formal industry requests that he immediately terminate the current CASA board and Chair under the provisions of 60 (3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988?
...had this to say...
1. The Government has already appointed Mr Jeff Boyd, as the new Deputy Chair of the CASA Board from 1 July 2014. Mr Boyd will bring relevant technical, operational and managerial aviation experience to the Board and help the Board play a more active leadership and review role in steering CASA’s future strategic direction. The Government expects to finalise the appointment of other new CASA Board members shortly.
2. Yes.
3. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development in consultation with other relevant agencies.
4. The Government expects to finalise its response to the Report in the Spring 2014 sittings of Parliament.
5. No.


Brett Heffernan

Senior Media Advisor

Office of the Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
T: 02 6277 7680 | M: 0467 650 020
Suite MG 41, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Now it is true that the Spring sittings go up until Thursday 04 December but it is obvious from the email that it is the intention of the miniscule to formally table the Governments response prior to that date.

Now I wonder if RED (M&M) was privy to this undertaking by the miniscule?? :E

But either way you cut it 3 months (7 months total) is too long for the response to the Forsyth report and that is why we should be getting behind the so called 'heavy weights' of the industry in their attempts to cut out the middleman RED.


6th Sep 2014, 02:58
A "senior media advisor" no less.


Once the media advisors get involved, you can be sure there's something going on which the government has to really make an effort to pretend to take seriously.

7th Sep 2014, 21:46
When a safety management system receives a report or audit result, particularly one from the regulator changes are initiated. Any request for Requested Corrective Action or notification of non-compliance is given priority, actioned and acquitted by the regulator. Should a company receive multiple NCN over a period of time; such as Barrier did, the company will be closed down, as Barrier was. CASA allow very little time to respond and even less for the discussion of issues; and, non whatsoever, of whether the company will or will not accept the audit result.

And yet the regulator seems impervious to audit report and will refute any unpalatable safety recommendation from the ATSB. There are literally thousands of pages which support the fact that despite all logic, CASA will not accept the recommendations of either coroner or the ATSB, but would rather spend time and money addressing and abrogating the identified area of responsibility, not with a view to improvement, but to reduction of 'liability' and responsibility.

I believe it is time the travelling public were made aware of just how little the regulator values their lives and how their safety will be sacrificed in order to preserve the safety of the regulator.

At the moment the CASA is staring down a damning report from a Senate committee, which through the investigation of one small incident uncovered a nightmare web of deception, incompetence, 'flexibility' of standards and a total disregard of expert advice. Notwithstanding the flagrant disregard for due process, protocol and the law the most sinister aspect of CASA process was revealed – a willingness to cloud over or cover up the absolute shambles. There can, from the evidence provided, be seen a clear trail of collusion, second agenda and the absolutely crystal clear intention of the manager overseeing the process to manipulate the investigation to suit a predetermined outcome. On May 23, 2013 the Senate released a damning report which, supported by an acknowledged aviation expert, made 26 serious, far reaching recommendations for reform of the regulator, which have simply been ignored by the current Minister, the CASA board and CASA.

The Senate AAI report prompted Minister Truss to order a further report to be conducted by three independent, acknowledged 'safety' experts; two from overseas. The ASRR although limited in scope was released on June 03, 2014. The shocked panel produced 37 further serious, far reaching recommendations for reform of the regulator, which have simply been ignored by the Minister, the CASA board and CASA.

This is a total of 63, serious, important recommendations, produced by expert, independent aviation specialists publicly demanding immediate, far reaching changes to the regulatory system and the regulator. IGNORED.

It begs the questions; is the Minister deliberately misleading the public? and if so, why? If the publicly available documents indicate that 63 changes must be made, how many more have been concealed from view?

There can be no doubt the current situation if not addressed will impinge on public safety, just as surely as it is impacting on industry. Australian aviation is clearly unsafe and becoming less safe each and every minute that slips by, without the serious, clear and imminent danger being addressed.

Shame on the Minister, shame on your sloth, obfuscation, lack of meaningful response or direction.

Shame on the Minister for failing to act in 2008 and failing again in 2014.

Shame on you Minister for denying your responsibility; the reports you ordered clearly indicate there are deep, significant flaws within the regulator, the abomination reflected in the toxic culture and abysmal, expensive almost useless regulations, you claim will protect the Australian people, who you, may I respectfully remind you; are sworn to serve.

Shame on you Minister, you are rapidly becoming a cornerstone of the problem and being made fully aware of the problems, by denying their existence and failing to act, become as culpable as those you are protecting.

By shaming yourself, you demean every Australian.


8th Sep 2014, 03:41
Kharkov, I'm afraid you are right. The only things available now are an appeal to the public and / or strike action. However that latter course opens you to being declared not to be a "fit and proper person".

9th Sep 2014, 00:06
{Addendum to post - Leopard & spots - Part two. (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/542738-petition-minister-truss-4.html#post8645783)}

Well do we slash our wrists now Soteria...:{...or do we, like the Member for Grey, simply cut out the middleman...:D:D
Ramsey Angry at CASA’s Inflexibility (http://www.rowanramsey.com.au/MediaHub/MediaReleases/tabid/68/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/356/Ramsey-Angry-at-CASAs-Inflexibility.aspx)

Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey has responded angrily to a decision by CASA which threatens to kill off the Rex service to Coober Pedy.

“I am very angry that a Federal bureaucracy in CASA has shown its sheer bloody-mindedness in trying to hitch on to international regulations to which Coober Pedy has an exemption for 27 years.

“Rex airlines and before them Kendall have operated a safe, efficient and incident free service for almost three decades.

“A ruling by CASA has put air services to Coober Pedy in jeopardy and caused enormous angst in the business community, for tourist operators and locals.

“Because Coober Pedy is so isolated it is simply not acceptable that we would not have a commercial air service servicing the town, particularly when we have a very good operator happy to supply the service.

“Now after an edict on his last day of employment with CASA, the Director of Aviation Safety John McCormack, has effectively closed down Coober Pedy’s air services.

“Rex will be in contravention of the ACCC if they sell tickets beyond the period when service can be guaranteed and as a result has withdrawn bookings beyond Nov 13th. CASA has informed Rex it will not be able to land in Coober Pedy if there are cross-winds greater than 10 knots post November 13.

“Conditions outside this parameter occur approximately ten percent of the time and would render the service unviable.

“In effect, if the Rex service arrived in Coober Pedy in conditions of greater than 10 knot winds they would have to turn around and return to Adelaide with all their passengers.

“Since 2002 this service has been operated by Rex Airlines using their Australia wide of Saab 340’s.

“I have brought this issue to the Prime Minister’s attention and he is as concerned as I am regarding the ramifications this decision will have on Coober Pedy.

“The Government has no control of CASA, it merely appoints the board and CASA operates as an independent body at arms-length from Government.

“This is appropriate, however at the end of the day, CASA are public servants and I have always believed public servants should help the public, not ruin businesses and lives to satisfy some red-tape sensitive souls who are not prepared to stand up and make a common sense decision.

“I will pursue this to the highest office in the land to seek a reversal of this decision. If that is simply not possible, I believe the Federal Government has indirect responsibility for this decision and accordingly I will seeking the funding to widen the air strip, even though I believe, having operated the service safely for 27 years, such an undertaking is a complete waste of public money.”
Think you should add MP RR to the shortlist of Pollies that reside with the angels...:ok:

The thing people need to decide is whether our GA industry is worth fighting for or are we prepared to let it all go the way of the Dodo bird...:(


9th Sep 2014, 01:13
It is now abundantly clear that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority exists only to keep its employees, the Public Service and the Government of the day "Safe" from any responsibility for aviation activity in any form. If Aviation could be totally banned in Australia, then it would be, that is their mentality.

Since total banning of aviation to minimise Government liability would make Australia the laughing stock of the world, their approach is to minimise the posiblity of any risk to themselves by disclaiming all resposibility as far as possible. This is why CASA never "approves" anything, it merely "accepts" things. An approval implies a certain level of fitness for purpose and if something then fails that then either the either the operator failed to comply with the terms of the approval or Horror! The approval was wrongly provided.

Instead to protect itself and the Government, CASA settled on the tactic of:

(a) Forbidding all forms of aviation activities - which is why the legislation and regulations are written in the form "A pilot/operator shall not" banning everything. This is followed by a maze of modifying clauses producing specific exemptions from the blanket ban in certain cases.

When this negative, expensive and wholly unproductive approach produces a nonsensity, they respond by issuing a specific exemption, but of course never a blanket exemption but a time limited specific one to certain individuals at the whim of CASA. This is a recipe for corruption.

By way of example, Rex wlll no doubt be issued a specific exemption for Coober Pedy today, limited of course to the remainder of the Governments term in office.

(b) Armed with a negative structure of regulations CASA deliberately engages in selective enforcement by again refusing to state absolutely what is required to comply, but instead suggesting "acceptable (that word again) methods of compliance". This leaves the authority of its inspectors completely unfettered because what is acceptable to one isn't acceptable to another, depending on the weather, their alcohol intake and time of the month.

This state of affairs was highlighted by a friend who asked for a simple list of compliance points for a Cessna 172 and was told "its too hard" by a CASA inspector.

I could go on. CASA needs a clause in the Act that requires it to foster aviation, period. Without that it will continue to fulfil its legislative purpose by preventing aviation.

9th Sep 2014, 01:29
Best bit of news I have heard for a while, Clive Palmer is showing some interest (seeing the political possibilities??) in the shambles that surround CASA.

"Aviation safety" is a very emotive issue, and we all know that our performance is not as good as the "rose coloured glasses" official view.

Given the unfinished business of multiple critical reports going nowhere, all about aviation safety shortcomings, and CASA/ATSB, this is a potentially highly charges politically for somebody like Palmer, if they are smart enough to push it!

In short, headline stuff, the lifeblood of political life for PUP.

Palmer is just the person to put a bomb under Warren Truss, and get some real action (as opposed to a bureaucratic whitewash) on the Forsyth report.

And all the other problems besetting the aviation sector, driving the sector into the ground.

Nothing but political pressure will shift the Minister into action, Palmer is just the person to create that pressure on Truss.

After all, Palmer has a number of aircraft, he could not not be aware, and I can personally vouch for the fact that, prior his election, he had shown personal interest in some specific aviation problems in Queensland.

More to the point, some of our industry colleagues, who are not politically dead from the neck up, realise he is one of the few avenues to get some action.

Make this small start move, by writing, calling or talking to Palmer's staff.

Tootle pip!!

9th Sep 2014, 01:53
Sunfish - By way of example, Rex wlll no doubt be issued a specific exemption for Coober Pedy today, limited of course to the remainder of the Governments term in office.
Except it was issued four days ago, from Cooper Pedy Regional Times...

RAMSEY PLEASED: CASA ALTERS LANGUAGE ON COOBER PEDY AIR SERVICES (http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/ramsey-pleased-casa-alters-language-on-coober-pedy-air-services/)

Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey said he is pleased CASA seems to be giving the green light to REX continuing services into Coober Pedy until the strip can be widened.

After ruling the Coober Pedy airstrip must widen its runway from 18 to 30 metres to meet aviation regulations on Friday the 29th August, CASA informed REX that beyond Nov 13th Rex could not land at the airstrip in cross winds of 10 knots or more, effectively bringing the service to a halt from November 13.

“I have now been advised CASA has committed to allow the service to continue irrespective of the proposed legislative changes beyond the November 13 deadline previously set, even though there appears to be a small ambiguity in their language that REX is seeking clarification of before committing to an ongoing service.” he said.

“It now seems clear CASA is insisting on the strip being widened. If CASA had been clearer in their intent and language through the last nine months it is highly likely we may have had the problem fixed by now.

“However up until their communication in late August I had always believed they would allow for the continuation of service on a strip that has been perfectly adequate for the last 27 years.

“CASA is an independent body beyond the control of government, and I thank the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure Jamie Briggs, for his efforts over the last few weeks to bring urgent attention to this problem.

“I am hoping that in the very near future REX will confirm with CASA that they are clear to continue the service and I will be pressuring Warren Truss for a substantial contribution from the Commonwealth to help the Coober Pedy Council with the upgrade.

“This vital service simply must continue and is hugely important for the town of Coober Pedy.”

CAsA rule 101 - "Divide & conquer"...:{

Hmm...I wonder how many other electorates are facing a downgrade of their air services due to the sheer bloody mindedness of CAsA..:confused:


Frank Arouet
9th Sep 2014, 02:16
General Contacts. Clive Palmer.

Postal: GPO Box 3138 Brisbane QLD 4001
Landline Phone Number: (07) 3233 0888http://www.pprune.org/skypec2c://r/204(07) 3233 0888
Fax Number: (07) 3036 6666
Street Address: 380 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000
General Email: [email protected]
Membership Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PalmerUtdParty
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PalmerUnitedParty1

Dear Mr Pamer.

As an aircraft operator I'm assuming you are aware of the shambles inflicted our aviation industry in Australia by The Civil Aviation Safety Authority under the stewardship of The Minister for Aviation Warren Truss. Can you please seek to get some answers to a few simple questions that we, as an industry are unable to access due to the political protection granted to this out of control bureaucratic regulatory train wreck.

1) When can we expect a Ministerial response to the Senate RRA&T inquiries into CASA?

2) When can we expect Ministerial action on the Ministers own CASA review, (ASRR), and its recommendations?

3) When will the Minister release the ICAO audit into CASA that appears to be lost on his desk somewhere?

4) When will somebody advise the fare paying airline travelling public that their very lives are at risk because of a dysfunctional and erratic watchdog who is mainly engaged in regulating to cover up their own shortcomings?

5) When will the new Director of Aviation Safety be announced?

Yours most sincerely...

9th Sep 2014, 03:45
Surely we as an industry have not become that desperate that we need to resort to using this guy?

9th Sep 2014, 04:07
Hey Clive seems to be running the country. The Libs need him & really the Libs would probably give him anything he wanted to do with CASA, to get something else they want to get thru the senate.

Having a few jets, he must have some idea of mess that is CASA, although think they are registered in Caymans, so he probably doesn't need to deal with CASA ever.

9th Sep 2014, 04:14
Desperate measures for desperate times, I hope you really understand just what trouble the whole sector is suffering.

Any better ideas to shift Truss into action, rather than just accept the "advice" of "the department", which got us into this trouble in the first place.

As I hear it, the confidential submissions from the major airliners to the Forsyth report are just as explosive as many of the GA submissions.

This morning, I have also heard that the Ag. guys are talking to the independents and PUP, to get some action from Truss. They won't get it from CASA or Infrastructure, who are very miffed at the AAAA telling it like it is.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Why have we now got this Minister supporting Labor policies actions that are 180 degrees different to when Truss was the Minister in the Howard government, and completely contrary to his own aviation policy. This is "capture" by the bureaucrats that even Sir Humphrey Appleby would applaud.

PS: I gather that one of Clive's aircraft has been thoroughly done over by CASA, and he is not happy --- anybody with any further information.

Capn Bloggs
9th Sep 2014, 04:58
Dear Mr Pamer.
Not a good look... :}

I can see it now...Clive Palmer President, Dick Smith Prime Minister...then swap after 4 years, then swap again... :D

9th Sep 2014, 05:05
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/clive-palmers-10m-in-taxhaven-jets-sitting-idle/story-e6frgczx-1226937815115)

9th Sep 2014, 05:12
His GLEX is registered in Isle of Man.

9th Sep 2014, 05:12
Problem is the corpulent one has a short attention span and no interest in anything which doesn't either benefit him directly, or provide some political leverage. Whilst I understand the attraction of using him to put a bomb under Truss n co, he is just as likely to go charging off, following his own agenda and could easily do as much harm as good.

9th Sep 2014, 05:31
Clive will crucify CASA. CASA had better be very very careful Clive is very powerful, as long as controls the senate & Libs want to get things thru senate.

9th Sep 2014, 05:35
His GLEX is registered in Isle of Man.
That would be the one with the giant Australian flag painted on the tail. :hmm::hmm::hmm::rolleyes::suspect:

9th Sep 2014, 06:26
From memory Clive has a CP in Australia, or at least used to. That CP would be more than familiar with the Australian aviation environment including the antics of CASA.
As for those bagging out Clive, well the big man couldn't do much worse than the other obsfucating deceptive politicians who have raped our industry bare. I say good on him :D Good on Clive if he has an agenda, so what, nobody else has an agenda? Please, spare the 'nobody is in it for themselves speech'. If anybody thinks Clive has no pull, then I suggest you re-visit some of the parliamentary events of the past month. Clive May shoot from the hip, let his mouth fly and put his big foot in it on occasion, but the only difference between that way of doing business and the current government is that they are simply covert and underhanded behind closed doors whereas Clive is upfront and outspoken.

The only way we will see change is if a massive load of pain is dumped on Truss's desk, the PM's desk and into the spotlight. I agree with the move to give support to Clive and any other minor party or independent that wants to gain leverage from the aviation debacle we are sick of. Bring it on! Focusing on CASA is a waste of time and only dents their armour. Time to take aim at the head and take out the Minister and PM. Hitting them in the sweet spot will hurt them, and it will force change if the damage is great enough. CASA does what it does because the Government allows it too. So it is time to target the high end of the Government and stop going after minor players like the CASA DAS or ridiculous Board.

I hope Clive has some fun planned! I would like to see the litigious big man take on CASA's LSD for a bit of entertainment :E Either way if Clive is smart he will know there is the potential for up to 100 000 aviation votes if he were to take the wrecking ball to CASA! Plus he would receive a lifetime IOS membership (redeemable for minerals only)

Go Clive!!

9th Sep 2014, 07:41
Isle Of Man, Caymans who cares. I think hisold MD80's were registered in Caymans.

How can CASA interfere with a "foreign" aircraft that's not used for commercial purposes ?

Would love to see Clive kick a few public servant heads (in) !!!!

Sack em all Clive & we can run by NZ CAA rules, just as any NZL registered aircraft can domestically in OZ, without CASAs intrusion.

10th Sep 2014, 00:01
Perhaps we need an 'Aviation enthusiasts political party" (AEPP) and do some deals to support independents, particularly in Senate contests.

thorn bird
10th Sep 2014, 10:49
Cheap shot Sunny!!..Are you deliberately trying to put the fear of god into those poor misunderstood members of the CAsA iron ring?

Bloody good idea but!!

10th Sep 2014, 11:52
A stunned silence – opinion (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/09/10/a-stunned-silence-opinion/)

Aviation Industry “disappointment” is quickly morphing into outrage over what many stakeholders now see as the government’s lethargic reaction to the “Forsyth Review” which has clearly ex-posed a need for major organisational changes to various aspects of the way the regulator goes about its business.

They are alarmed at the lack of any visible response from Deputy PM and Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss who although he has acknowledged the Air Safety Regulation Review’s (ASRR) recommendations, does not appear to have set out an urgent plan of action for their adoption. There also hasn’t been any visible response from CASA or Mr Truss’s Department. The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, representing several major and diverse industry groups, has been seeking a meeting with the Minister for several days but without success.

The situation has created a perceived void of policy that is now affecting the futures of individuals, manufacturers, AOC holders and MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) certificate holders alike.

Many believe that the Minister now finds himself isolated in a very awkward situation, with the report he commissioned having been entirely at variance from what he may have anticipated. But they remain adamant that “The ASRR’s report must not be allowed to die.”

The more pivotal of the review’s findings made it quite clear that industry distrust has trashed CASA’s ability in its present form to deliver on its obligations, and that the government and the regulator must now introduce new, positive and safety-effective processes; while also restructuring regulations that have become ineffective, and in some cases close to unintelligible. At the same time the regulator (if the ASRR recommendations are to be adopted) must design and implement a new, binding and auditable strategy to restore industry trust and cooperation. It would be naive to expect that could be achieved without facing down the stolid resistance of entrenched opponents to reform at almost all levels within CASA, many of whose talents may need to be diverted into more appropriate fields of endeavour. The quality of their replacements will rely heavily on improved selection, training and direction, which will be a further ongoing challenge to any new management.

Some stakeholders believe that individuals working within the regulatory reform program (RRP) have simply been appointed without adequate training, backgrounding and direction, and that re-training could be part of the RRP solution when those deficiencies have been addressed.

Several have also expressed surprise that the role of CASA’s legal department in regulatory development and in adversarial regulatory conduct appears to have escaped the scrutiny of the ASRR and other analyses.

Reporting on the newly-presented report on June 3, ProAviation commented that:

“The remaining challenge for the Minister will be to protect the ASRR recommendations from the watering-down that was inflicted on the Pel-Air/ATSB/CASA investigation.”

“Watering-down” now appears to describe exactly what is happening. Asked in mid-June when the government’s response would be presented, the Ministers office told ProAviation, “The government expects to finalise its response to the report in the spring 2014 sittings of Parliament.”

Unfortunately that timeframe means “some time in the period between August 26 and December 4,” the latter being the date that marks the commencement of a lengthy period of parliamentary and public service disengagement. This is a popular time of year to make such announcements because they are unlikely to see effective public scrutiny until mid-February at the earliest.

The Minister’s more recent update of the government’s intended response was “before the end of the year” which, we are told is political language for “in the period between December 25 and January 1.”

Industry Concerns are further heightened by the vacuum of information and the confusion surrounding the selection and appointment of new Board members (although everybody knows who they are) and of CASA’s new CEO. Some sources believe the CEO selection has narrowed down to two applicants, at least one of them from overseas and neither from an aviation background.

It is impossible to visualise how an incoming CEO from overseas, entrusted with the task of sorting out an organisation that is already shown to be dysfunctional, can be expected to determine with certainty who is competently addressing the problem and who is part of it.

Minister Truss’s June 3 statement to Parliament (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2014/wts013_2014.aspx) which repeated the word “safety” 16 times in CASA’s well-known style, did absolutely nothing to reflect the urgency that industry believes must now attach to implementing the ASRR’s 37 recommendations. In the understatement of the year the Minister only acknowledged that the report “also recognises that there are opportunities for the system to be improved to ensure Australia remains a global aviation leader.”

The opportunities have already been accurately identified in the ASRR’s recommendations, which are accompanied by ample analysis to identify viable solutions.

The urgency of improving the system was further highlighted by the regulatory ructions over the highly controversial flight crew licensing legislation known as the “Part 61 suite.” Having already deferred its implementation on December 12, 2013, CASA dumped the revised version on the industry’s doorstep the day after former CASA CEO John McCormick’s departure, along with a truckload of amendments and a maze of explanatory material (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101870) explaining what the confusing amendments were claimed to have achieved.

“Does this tell you something about the standards within the original legislation and the competency of those who produced it?” queries a retired CASA executive.

ProAviation suggests that the elements in government aviation-related agencies targeted by the incisive analysis, comments and recommendations of the ASRR, will have been far from idle since the release of the review. Industry cynics believe they will be planning rear guard strategies in the intervening time, producing reams of vigorous ‘safety’ based objections to the analysis and its recommendations.
A well-known (but unidentified) Internet commentator encapsulates industry concerns:

“We are watching a classic case of a bureaucratic fighting retreat. The Iron Ring will write a volume on why each of the recommendations is flawed and unsafe. They will simply wear Truss and the new DAS down with paper. That is why you need someone from PMC [Prime Minister & Cabinet office] to head this mess – they understand about file stuffing and other tricks. Truss and his staff do not. A PMC person needs to send the Iron Ring packing on day one. If that isn’t done, the embuggerance will continue unabated.)

(The ‘Iron Ring’ is one of several popular industry epithets covering the cadre of mostly faceless anti-reform activists that help populate the regulator’s mid-level and higher ranks.)

Added to industry concerns over the ASRR response are similar issues related to the ATSB’s and CASA’s responses to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into aviation accident investigations, tabled in May 2013. Senator David Fawcett’s speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBbaNXkChho) on the AAI Report in June 2013 and the dialogue between Senator Nick Xenophon and Mr Bryan Aherne (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M5Q5H_K1ko), an independent air safety and investigation specialist, will reassure readers that at least some parliamentarians are maintaining their strong awareness on these critical matters.

The aviation community is happier for knowing those two senators will be keeping an eye on the ball, especially when everybody settles down to study the impacts of what a phone caller has just described the new Part 61 as “The greatest debacle in regulatory implementation in my last 30 years of dealing with aviation regulation.”

More soon.


thorn bird
10th Sep 2014, 14:16
I really wonder why Minister "Wuss" is being so tardy in releasing the Canadian report. Is there something rather damning contained in that report? or something more sinister?

10th Sep 2014, 18:50
It is impossible to visualise how an incoming CEO from overseas, entrusted with the task of sorting out an organisation that is already shown to be dysfunctional, can be expected to determine with certainty who is competently addressing the problem and who is part of it.

I reckon we should all write to the new DAS to address those issues that were ignored or brushed under the carpet. That way certain peoples names will be known very quickly. That should help him/her get a good start! Most of the bullies would then be exposed.

The TSB can't be too pleased to have been used to play games and become shelf ware.

10th Sep 2014, 22:23
HMHB "I reckon we should all write to the new DAS to address those issues that were ignored or brushed under the carpet. That way certain peoples names will be known very quickly.

For a much better 'double whammy' why not load the ethics committee up first; with names, dates, times and places; the let them do their thing – dismissing those complaints. Then, once their collective heads where in the noose; expose the rotten system for what it is. "What it is" you ask – well it's simple. Those who make up the committee must simply judge whether their own past actions have been fair, reasonable and compliant. Once 'they' have judged themselves 'innocent' of their own crimes; the 'confessions' are signed, sealed and delivered. And that, my friend, you can take to court first and the bank second.

It's a ludicrous, piss-pottical system cynically designed to foster and promote those who twist, manipulate and make mock of the last hope for a fair hearing under AUD$1,000,000, for the victims.

Nothing to loose by trying. Quadrio, for example would make a perfect overture to the symphony.


10th Sep 2014, 22:43
The Canadian Report? I don't see how it can ever be released for one seriously major reason of national security - the MH17 investigation.

The ATSB is balls deep in the investigation of the MH17 shoot down.

The release of any report criticising the probity of the ATSB in the slightest will be pounced on by Russia.

You can bet that the Americans and Canadians would not like that report to be released.

For better or worse, Dolan is now stuck with being a minor player in a situation that has already led to the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and might even lead to nuclear war.

I don't think he would be enjoying the intense pressure and scrutiny in the slightest.

To put that another way, from the ComCare sleepy hollow to the world stage under the eye of Sauron?

Frank Arouet
10th Sep 2014, 23:50
Then The Labor Party should get off their collective arse's and put at ease the public and industry concern for national air safety and bring the matter up in The House of representatives and be prepared to loose a motion of no confidence in The Deputy PM and Minister for things that should be flying and are now grounded. That shouldn't impinge on the "national security" bi-partisan excuse. The Press Gallery, should be prepared to report to the public the simple fact that their lives may be at risk because of a dysfunctional and incompetent CAsA and ATSB. Oh, and "dipsy-dozy" Minister.

10th Sep 2014, 23:54
Sunny –"The release of any report criticising the probity of the ATSB in the slightest will be pounced on by Russia."

A dab of mild disagreement here Sunny – the Russians are not silly, not by a long shot. Anyone who thinks that Ivan doesn't know or can't find out the brand of jocks Beaker wears or the amount of beard trims per month is deluded. I'd hazard a guess that they have respect for our 'investigators' in the field but none, whatsoever, for our ATSB management, or it's minuscule. Have a read of the MH 370 thread, the clever folk there are already fully aware of the ATSB managements' inability to find a cat, in a cathouse with a candle. ATSB is a bit player in both the MH17 and MH 370 saga.

They have, as we all do a justified faith in Houston and the MSA, but covering the antics of Beaker and tainting the integrity of the fine Canadian TSB is just plain wrong. It would be better to be seen to act; acknowledge the systematic breakdown and look to the national interest first, rather than be seen openly sneaking about the back alleys, trying to cover an open secret.

The only way to stop the sniggering going on in private is to openly admit the problem and rectify it.

Truss is making an international mockery of our Senate, our integrity and restricting our ability to act as a grown up, fully paid up member of the first tier in the aviation hierarchy.

Sunny – "You can bet that the Americans and Canadians would not like that report to be released."

Why would they give a plain or fancy fark if it gets released or not – they know already – and have done since the last FAA audit; reinforced by the Senate report, reinforced by Forsyth and defined by the TSBC. There is no secret to conceal; just ineptitude and the shame, humiliation and embarrassment that brings. Truss and his 'advisors' may be able to shrug off the shame; but it's his reputation that will be damaged along with industry when the FAA are forced to act, because he didn't.

Resign Minister, go sit in the orchestra pit with Albo and the other banjo players. Perhaps you can manage to do that right; with some semblance of honour, piety and probity..

11th Sep 2014, 12:34
Strong rumour is VA met with the CASA Regional Director this week to complain that the regulatory situation was becoming "unworkable". Thats great diplomacy, but kudos to them for having a voice!:D

11th Sep 2014, 12:56
Made a bet some months ago that the warren truss of a bridge girder would have more "steel" than Warren Truss the mini-miniscule.
Aviation ...WTF is that??
And so it is. Bridges are go.

If he thought the ASRR would be a CAsA covering rabbit he could pull out of his hat, then he is sadly mistaken. If he even realizes the fact.

Q What do you call a guy with a rabbit lodged in his cheeks?
A. Warren

Snakecharma...betcha cant charm any of the vipers in CAsA..!

Bombed a missive re CAsA (vomit) and the good Senators efforts to PUP.
May peek their interest..you never know. The machinations in CBR can be strange and convoluted.

I fly ...and I vote.

And if that doesnt do any good the revolution must come. :ok:

11th Sep 2014, 14:48
Without stating the obvious, how can Truss be in possession of the AAI, ASRR and TSB reports, which each alone ring alarm bells yet all together? Then publicly state that he'll reply by the end of the year!!!! Aviation safety CAN'T be a priority. But I'm sure we'll hear more of that spin in reply. Pathetic!
Sleep on wazza, watch your portfolio die under YOUR control:{

actus reus
11th Sep 2014, 15:20
The reason Minister Truss has not responded to this report is because the report is indefensible.
It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.
Because the 'industry' said 'it'; 'it' must be correct.
In all my years in this industry (40+) that I will admit has been spent in most places in the world other than the first 15 years or so in Australia, I am still amazed by the the ridiculous attitude of the couple of people who post on here with such conviction.
Grow up. All the predictions of the 'end of GA'; 'Part 166 will result in more aviation accidents at non controlled airfields'; 'Part 66 will end LAMEs'; Part 61 will kill GA (supposed to be 01Sep14 but now extended to the end of 'the year' by those who know on PPRune)

11th Sep 2014, 15:35

So I assume your happy with the state of play from the minuscule? I'm no doom-sayer, but it's pretty clear that all is not well. Do you disagree with the AAI and ASRR? if so, name the parts. Tea and bicci's with the Sec tomorrow arvo?

11th Sep 2014, 15:55

So who exactly is the author of your comment regarding:It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.

The Senate, including David Fawcett, ex Empire Test Pilot School, or the ASRR with 3 gents with about 100 years combined in the industry at senior levels?

The IOS respect individuals who can better that, with solid opinion. Up to you?


actus reus
11th Sep 2014, 16:26
This is not a personal issue. The review was supposed to look at all agencies involved in aviation. What about the ATSB report that came out in October 2013 about breakdown in separation events in Australia between 2008 and 2012; what about the inappropriate use on In flight broadcast areas (a third world procedure) that resulted in an 'unknown' Indonesian aircraft 'appearing' in OZ airspace without AsA having any knowledge of it (I seem to recall that was opposite direction, same level as a QF flight), what about Defence totally rejecting the findings re Darwin and other places, what about the countless 'loss of separation assurance' events that AsA has had?
Now, AsA controllers are some of the best in the world; it has not been only their issues. They work in the system that they work in.
But; none of this got into the the 'Forsyth' review.
I guess it is just incidental that Forsyth was the chairman of the AsA board during most of the time when these things were happening?
BTW, who has not been a test pilot?

11th Sep 2014, 16:57

Violin out already? Don't believe any crap the ATSB produce, they've been found inept. As for ASA, great people doing their jobs. I'm aware of numerous issues where the Indonesian's (Angkasa Pura II) have had to correct ASA clearances.
The Indonesian aircraft was probably because all Australia (ASA) could provide was TIBA for international aircraft. That in itself is so sad it's not funny. I spoke to multitudes or foreign carriers pilots who operated into Australia at the time and the common theme was "like being in a GA training area with all sorts of traffic whilst commanding a 400 seat pax A/C, see-and-avoid basically"
Shall we even bother about WLM? A bigger risk!

11th Sep 2014, 17:20

The reason Forsyth didn't cover ASA is it was an Aviation Safety REGULATORY Review. ASA is a service provider, not a regulator.
I hear a review of ASA is imminent. There are some prominent people in this country who have strong ties with the FAA and EuroControl.

Get the music and violin going. Lots of smiles:p

11th Sep 2014, 21:04
Interesting posts Andre, and such strange timing. The heat must really be building in the kitchen? Enjoy the next CASA symphony as I believe "duelling banjo's" is next on the playlist.

11th Sep 2014, 21:58
It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.

Sounds more like criticism of the Pooh-Shambollic CVD diatribe than of the ASR.

Because the 'industry' said 'it'; 'it' must be correct.

Valid point - Before team Truss dreamed up the ASRR (Wet Lettuce Review) to deflect and distract; there was a serious call for a 'judicial' review; to establish the facts. As arscis says, it's all hearsay and has not been tested. All seems passing strange until you realise that once any sort 'real' independent assessment of 'evidence' was made, there would be a very large, very public outcry. The wasted money alone, not to mention the carnage, the corruption and the incompetence; all proven beyond reasonable doubt would have the FAA and probably every other NAA in Australia doing audits. But, Truss won't accept that challenge, he dare not; he'll hide behind the smoke, mirrors and Machiavellian whispers, which are his preferred tools of trade.

Anyway – no matter; once the cabinet is shuffled; he can simply revert to being irrelevant window dressing, anchoring the Qld votes before shuffling off to the nearest five star nursing home to enjoy his dotage. There to indulge in porridge dribbling, laxatives and boring witless anyone he can corner, with tales of political 'derring do'. Can't come soon enough.

= = = = = = = = = == = =
BRB report:-

Good turn out last night, great ipad video of our 'John and Libby' holding hands and cooing in the front seats of a DHC8 – some people really are very naughty. The happy couple may not be front page of the Telegraph news, but they are a feature of many a ribald comment, two limericks and generally a source of great amusement to the BRB. The –U-bend Tube option was considered but voted down; the 'vision' being enjoyed far too much to share.

Once that ribald episode settled down and the last chuckles dissipated, the first main topic for discussion was what options were available to David Fawcett? Although David Fawcett is enmeshed and constrained by 'party', the consensus was that his patience must just about be exhausted. There is it seems (as we understand it) a mountain of complaint 'paperwork' against CASA, McComic and his happy little band. Too much for one man to deal with, too serious to dismiss and with no clear offer of assistance from the minuscule; a problem.

The unanimous vote went to his calling for a full dress inquiry into the mountain of complaints lodged against CASA, by a frustrated industry with nowhere else to go, but to his front door. As it's not 'his' problem, a call for an inquiry would garner solid bi-partisan support from the committee and could force an inquiry. More to follow we thought...

Item last – REPCON. The BRB were (strangely) once again unanimous. The proposal to send a REPCON to every NAA which has passengers travelling to Australia and using domestic air services was fully supported. The elements of the submission defining that there are some 60 odd, independently identified, deficiencies within the Australian system, which despite industries best efforts, the government have failed or are unwilling to address. The submission recommends that all external NAA initiate an audit process to ensure the safety of their nationals within Australian airspace. Particularly regarding insurance issues.

As it's a 'big' move; the BRB suggested that before PAIN was turned loose and the REPCON generated, a straw pole of opinion from Pprune readers should be called for.

So – what say you Ppruners?.. Repcon or repercussions??

Toot toot

11th Sep 2014, 23:54
Actus Reus your suggestion that criticism of CASA and the regulations is merely froth and bubble is simply wrong. CASA is a monster that is costing Australia jobs, growth and investment in the entire Aviation sector.

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not an "industry insider". My career has been mostly in other fields but with a smattering of Aviation. I perhaps unwisely decided to learn to fly before studying the regulatory landscape, for if I had, I probably would have invested in learning Golf. However despite coming from other fields, including a short stint working for Government and time as a CEO and in various general management positions. I failed to do my due diligence on the regulatory environment because by and large Australian regulations are well written and conscientiously and honestly administered(outside NSW). What I found in aviation simply stank.

When I first started reading the regulations, they didn't pass the smell test. Simple I thought, I'm not holding my mouth right, there must be a magic key to interpreting this minefield that I don't yet have. Well Reus, I still don't have it, and nobody else does either. The regulations are deliberately confusing, imprecise and far more complex than required.

What I then discovered, from a variety of sources, is that the regulations are capriciously applied, as evidenced in the continuing stream of AAT cases, including the case of a man who was stripped of his job and licence on the flimsy basis of a Youtube video.

What I then noticed was the deliberate cruelty and regulatory bastardry as evidenced by the predilection of the regulator to take action on the late afternoon of a Friday or the day before a public holiday, which is the legal equivalent of shoving a turd in someone’s mailbox. CASA is supposed to behave as a model litigant. It doesn't.

To put that another way Reus; what sort of complete arsehole grounds an airline on Christmas Eve?

I will not bore you with further tales of the casual, and perhaps even deliberate cruelty and mismanagement of CASA and its ongoing self serving parasitic destruction of aviation. You are simply wrong.

Frank Arouet
11th Sep 2014, 23:54
Interesting handle. May have relevance in precedent to our own regulators who appear to have left the gate open;

Pittwood R v Wright J:
[Murder – the actus reus of - omissions- duty under a contract]
D was a level crossing keeper who negligently left open the crossing gate. This led to the death of a carter whose cart was struck by a train.

Held: D had a duty (arising from his contract of employment) to shut the gate, and although this duty was owed to his employers rather than to the public at large, it was enough that his negligent failure to act could lead to conviction.

Guilty of manslaughter

12th Sep 2014, 00:02
Kharon - Anyway – no matter; once the cabinet is shuffled; he can simply revert to being irrelevant window dressing, anchoring the Qld votes before shuffling off to the nearest five star nursing home to enjoy his dotage. There to indulge in porridge dribbling, laxatives and boring witless anyone he can corner, with tales of political 'derring do'. Can't come soon enough.
Apparently there is a rumour floating around in the Cantberra MSM press scrum of a cabinet reshuffle...:D Caught this on the tail end of a 7:30 Leigh interview of the man with perhaps the worst job on the Govt front bench..:ugh:: Scott Morrison talks to Leigh Sales about terrorism and national security (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4085221.htm)

SCOTT MORRISON: I think it's simply the transition of events. And as I said, David Irvine, as the Director-General, makes these assessments independently. These aren't decisions made by politicians. He is there to set those threat levels and that's what he has been commenting on. Now the Government has been receiving advice from our agencies about the emerging threat and we've been responding to that and we've been, I think, very upfront with the Australian people about that.

LEIGH SALES: Briefly before you go, there are rumours of a potential reshuffle in the Abbott frontbench. Are you ready to move on from Immigration?

SCOTT MORRISON: I'm totally committed to the job that I have in front of me. We have not yet fully stopped the boats, but the boats are stopping and there are the many threats across the border that I've referred to today in my speech. These matters are always for the Prime Minister to determine, but he has a very strong team and we've had a very strong year.

LEIGH SALES: Do you consider that you deserve a reward for the progress you've made in stopping the boats?

SCOTT MORRISON: To be able to be able to do what we said we'd do and get the results that we said we would get, that is the satisfaction I take from the job.

LEIGH SALES: Scott Morrison, thank you.

SCOTT MORRISON: Thanks, Leigh. Hmm...S&M assigned to sort out the aviation imbroglio, that I would like to see as there is no denying that the man is a definite doer..:ooh: Then again he could simply decide to deport all the IOS & GWM to Manus to sort it out or be stuck there indefinitely...:ouch:As it's a 'big' move; the BRB suggested that before PAIN was turned loose and the REPCON generated, a straw pole of opinion from Pprune readers should be called for.
Got my vote..;) Although it would be helpful if we could get a leaked version of the TSBC report before exposing to the world...:confused:

Perhaps Julian (https://wikileaks.org/) can help us out??:rolleyes:

Hmm..anyone fluent in Mandarin...:E: CHINA - Sino Confidential Aviation Safety reporting System (SCASS) [2004] (http://scass.air-safety.com/)


dubbleyew eight
12th Sep 2014, 01:39
the inca hierarchy were convinced that the sun wouldn't come up again unless a beating heart was offered in sacrifice each sunset.

I notice that despite the demise of the incas the sun still rises every morning.

CAsA should be the subject of a Royal Commission.

the royal commission needs to sort out what level of oversight of safety is actually needed.
the royal commission needs to investigate the history of regulatory bastardry and correct it.

If CAsA was abolished tomorrow THERE WOULD BE NO SAFETY DETRIMENT.
most, if not all, the experienced people in aviation pay no real heed to their nonsense at all anyway. lip service is not obedience. never was.

12th Sep 2014, 07:08


HEARD THAT THE AG RECKONS CAsA is out on its own and nothing can be done by the Government.!! Hullo? Do we have a Soviet state separate from the Commonwealth. I dont think so...but thats what it smells like.


BRING IT ON.!:ok::ok:

thorn bird
12th Sep 2014, 11:17
Heard the same rumour mentioned by Jinglie that VA were a tad pissed as I am told is Qantas. I have also heard the airline submissions to the "wet lettuce" review were even more scathing than GA.

It occurs to me that in the past our RPT brethren didn't much bother about CAsA imposts on their bottom line, they could just up the ticket price a few bucks to cover it. Perhaps the costs are starting to bite.

Kharon's idea of "Repcons" to the world has merit, but maybe its time for the industry associations as a whole to join together to fight this nonsense.

A joint press release from GA and the RPT industry would surely make main stream media sit up and take notice.

GA on its own, thanks to the carefully crafted spin from CAsA, the general public believes we are a bunch of homicidal maniacs, so ours is a voice in the wilderness. Qantas on the other hand is the safest airline in the world in the publics mind, they have credibility.

One thing is for sure, it would seem the bureaucrats are working hard to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and with such a weak minister are likely to win the battle, but if the industry as a whole made their views known,could the Pollies ignore it? After all it is in the Airlines interest that GA remains viable.

12th Sep 2014, 11:56

Agree with all your comments. I'm talking with the ABC about getting a Q&A on the subject. It may need to be broader transport to have public appeal, but Truss will have to be front and centre. I'll happily represent the IOS. Any other taker's?

12th Sep 2014, 13:44
Sarcs, heard the same rumour about a cabinet reshuffle. Bring it on. It doesn't matter if it is Truss, Morrison, Vladamir Putin or the anti-Christ himself in charge if infrastructure (which supposedly includes aviation), if whoever is Minister of the day continues to sit on his/her thumbs and sweep everything under the carpet then the IOS will quite simply adjust their crosshairs and take aim at the new shyster, not a problem. They are fools if they think the momentum of Australian aviations contempt and disgust in the government for what it has allowed its agencies to do, for many decades in some cases, will go unnoticed or lose steam just because a new trough dweller is shuffled into the portfolio, they ought to think long and hard.....your old bureaucratic handbook needs updating boys, the old tricks don't work anymore, you are dealing with a different era of IOS.

HEARD THAT THE AG RECKONS CAsA is out on its own and nothing can be done by the Government.!! Hullo? Do we have a Soviet state separate from the Commonwealth. I dont think so...but thats what it smells like. If this is the case then the tail is certainly wagging the dog. An Ag who has his balls held in a vice like grip by government agencies is a spineless batty boy, if the rumour is true. And forget a soviet state, you should call CASA 'Vatican state', an untouchable, corrupt, protected, financially fat Kingdom answerable to nobody.

12th Sep 2014, 14:48
Minuscule Wuss has had a year now to clean up the obvious mess. Now he's after a few months to comment! I'm surprised he didn't strike in opposition after Albo was outed by the Senate. It was a gift, yet left alone......? Maybe Sleepy has forgotten about the Albo years and slipped straight back his former useless minuscule role?
I met with John Anderson back in those days and his "off the record" comments about Wuss weren't flattering. Anderson basically described nothing would change. He used the word "stable". Did Anderson have a crystal ball??? seems like it.:{

12th Sep 2014, 15:21
It is now quite clear that CASA has made a devils bargain with Truss. The regulations are impenetrable. That is CASA's advantage. The only hope we have is that CASA agrees to retire in its own good time.

The alternative painted by CASA is Armageddon.

12th Sep 2014, 22:41
Arscis "It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.

It appears I must correct my initial notion of the true origin of the fatuous statement above. It seems there is some dispute as to when the comment was made for the first time. There is a claim that it was made in 2008 after a Wodger attempt to justify a 'slightly modified', although unqualified version of a FRMS argument to those who understood the game; but then, another crowd claim it was made, as an aside after the Senate committee session which dealt with the "Chambers Report". Either way, it seems Pooh-Shambollic only cribbed the style from his mate; the accolade being recycled by a CVD wit. These may, or may not be the facts....:D..:D

TB "It occurs to me that in the past our RPT brethren didn't much bother about CAsA imposts on their bottom line, they could just up the ticket price a few bucks to cover it. Perhaps the costs are starting to bite."

Good idea, but can't quite see Big Q or VA making any sort of public statement. A worried public will be reflected in ticket sales, unless they spin it around to be another government generated 'impost' passed along to the punters issue. Again it's unlikely – given the current climate. I wonder if any of the 'bigger' small operators have weighed in?. There are some pretty impressive companies with big investments in aviation who's opinion would signify and could; with a push, influence the minuscule particularly combined with the 'alphabet' organisations hard work and well won credibility. One of the problems (IMO) with that would be the 'habit'. It is always easier to 'accommodate' a new rule set; shuffle the COM and adapt the operation quietly, rather than challenging CASA. Anyway in response to any challenge now; the Sleepy Hollow boys will simply say "you had a chance to comment during the consultation period, too late now, it's the law". "You blew it"...

The kicker is, they'll be right. The time honoured tradition of rule by exemption and instrument is deeply entrenched and valued by industry – they see an advantage over the 'competition' if they have a special 'exemption' someone else has not.

It's a little academic, but I should add here that one of the mainstays supporting a 'three tier' rule set is the valid argument that it will eliminate the 'instrument and exemption' system. The system can be perceived as 'capturing' an operation and potentially be exposed to allegations of corruption. This system can be eliminated through a two tier system, but it needs a mature regulator with 'honest' intentions. Fat chance.

Aye – 'tis a funny old game; - when played rough and down in the weeds.

Toot toot..:ok:

PS - My Google translated a 10 page document to French in about 30 seconds; why must we wait until the whimsical, non specific estimate of 'hopefully late Autumn' for the TSBC to translate and publish 'the report'?. Now is that Canadian or Australian late 'Autumn'? And when in all the seven hells is 'late Autumn' anyway? Ye gods: and we just put up with it.. :ugh:

Words fail at this point, we hope to resume normal service after second coffee....:mad:

15th Sep 2014, 07:39
Err KC this..
6. Support Regional Aviation
The Coalition will introduce a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme
for regional commercial airline carriers to support low volume and new routes to
small and remote communities.
Score: 4/10 Some changes introduced
...may need a remark, it would appear the miniscule woke up sometime today...:E: Media Release - WT171/2014 - 15 September 2014 (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/September/wt171_2014.aspx)

Oz Aviation wins the prize for catching a glimpse of the miniscule before his afternoon nap...:D:D:Government revives enroute scheme (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/government-revives-enroute-scheme/)

The federal government will spend $1 million a year to bring back a scheme that subsidises the cost of navigation charges for flights to smaller regional centres. Called the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme, airlines will be able to recoup 60 per cent of air navigation charges levied by Airservices on existing routes and 100 per cent of the charge for new routes for up to three years.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss says the scheme, which was cut under the previous government, would support vulnerable air routes to regional and remote communities.

“The Coalition in government is focused on encouraging the growth of regional aviation services across Australia and expanding the current network by giving impetus for operators to test whether a new route can be commercially viable,” Truss said in a statement on Monday.

“It can take years for new regional routes to establish sufficient support to become viable, which is why we are providing this additional support for up to three years. If we want to better connect regional Australia we must better target government support to where it is needed for those start-up and marginal routes. A relatively modest amount of government assistance can make a big difference.”

Truss, who is the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, said airlines would be able to apply for assistance on routes carrying up to 15,000 passengers a year using aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 15 tonnes. Priority would be given to routes that linked a regional or remote community with a capital city or major regional centre.

“This ensures people have the best possible access to health and other professional services, as well as providing essential links for doing business in regional areas,” Truss said.

The scheme, which would cost $1 million a year for four years, came on top of the $1 million each year allocated to supporting vital aeromedical services such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Truss said.

Applications, which can be made at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/regional), were now open for all eligible services flown since July 1 2014. Maybe REX pending doom statement from it's Chair had some effect in disturbing the miniscule's slumber...:=:=: Rex says aviation sector in “deep crisis” (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/08/rex-says-aviation-sector-in-deep-crisis/)

Meanwhile over at Sleepy Hollow the other geriatrics are busy working out how best to continue to white ant the government's Red Tape Reduction policy, while pineappling other smaller players in the industry to keep with their policy of 'safe skies are empty skies'....:yuk: :yuk: :Angel Flight services not in danger (http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/2558029/angel-flight-services-not-in-danger/?cs=112)
Sept. 15, 2014, 4 a.m.

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.

It comes after Angel Flight, an organisation that uses volunteer pilots to provide air transport for rural and regional people to access medical care in larger centres, raised concerns it could be grounded by unworkable and expensive red tape imposed by the aviation watchdog.

"CASA is looking at imposing an additional regulatory layer of bureaucracy on Angel Flight, with the charity required to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance," the charity said in a statement.

Angel Flight founder and CEO Bill Bristow said CASA in 2003 gave the charity it's "blessing" in written approval to start operations but was now seeking to impose new rules to "regulate" Angel Flight in the future. He said flights co-ordinated by Angel Flight were no different to private general aviation flights in Australia.

"All of our 2700 volunteer pilots who generously give their time to assist struggling families must adhere to the rules and regulations already imposed and rigorously controlled by CASA," Mr Bristow said.

"When we first heard about CASA proposing regulatory changes, I presented our grave concerns to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's chief of staff David Whitrow in March this year. However, it seems that those concerns have fallen on deaf ears."

He said he was worried the cost of complying with "onerous federal regulations" would financially cripple Angel Flight.

CASA rejected suggestions it was planning to impose crippling red tape, saying all it had done was start a discussion about aviation safety issues relating to community service flights.

A discussion paper on options for safety standards had been released for public comment so the public could understand them and consider whether there might be ways of managing safety more effectively, CASA said.

It said at the moment community service flights were considered to be private flights and pilots had varying levels of qualifications and experience and the aircraft involved differed in size, power and sophistication.

"If any changes to the safety standards covering community service flights are proposed in the future there would be further and comprehensive consultation before any action was taken," a CASA spokesperson said. Funny how the PG statement has a familiar undertone to that given for the CVD & Cooper Pedy embuggerances...:ugh:


thorn bird
15th Sep 2014, 09:01

Interesting stuff from minister "Wuss" but a few bucks thrown at air nav charges unfortunately wont cut the mustard.

The millions of dollars and years of delay to gain regulatory approval make any form of regional RPT unviable.

The new Part 61 adds further unsustainable $$$ to operating costs on top of Australia's asinine maintenance regulations.

The current Regionals are operating profitably for now on grandfather infrastructure in place before MComic turned up.

As they have to ramp up their ticket price to comply with new regulations and the regulatory cost of introducing new equipment more and more of their customers will decide to hit the road rather than their wallets.

Effectively we are going back to the two airline days where punters would drive to Bn or Mel from syd to attend a weekend wedding because they couldn't afford or justify the ticket price.

That price was dictated by monopoly, but also by union intransience.

Today the price is driven by regulatory compliance.

Often wonder how many of the punters became casualties of that folly, and I wonder how many in the future from the current CAsA folly. Will CAsA be culpable for those casualties??...should be!!! but of course CAsA are never responsible for anything.

Unfortunately minister "Wuss" aint awake, he's blind

The answer is so simple, instead of doing a Europe and killing our industry, do a Kiwi and watch our industry take off.

How much is it going to cost the "Guv mint" subsidizing essential services when aviation in Australia does a Europe??

Angel flight?...same parameters...a real charity, not a pseudo charity like the RFDS or Care flight.

Commercial entities masquerading as charities, bidding for commercial contracts with a definitive advantage over their competitors.

Angel Flight fills a gap where no $$$ are currently available for a commercial operator, and does it very well.

CAsA hates an anomaly that they cant control or manipulate, so they will kill angel flight.

The punters left with little choice but to hit the road Jack!!

Frank Arouet
15th Sep 2014, 11:28
Reducing en route nav charges means they won't tax you as much. (A bit like being shot with a .22 instead of a .308), However it would be well intentioned if the local airport operators don't adjust their charges by the logarithmic amount. Does anybody remember Compass? They were mainly sent broke by a government policy Not to waive some government charges that may have helped save the company and save the jobs. I think it was Labor wasn't it?

15th Sep 2014, 20:13
Thornbird, the existing regulations plus CASA enforcement, a few accidents in experimental and RAA aircraft, coupled with an increase in security requirements beyond the ASIC, coupled with privatisation of regional airports and perhaps some more medical requirements (sleep apnoea + Colour vision issues) will kill all forms of domestic aviation apart from major RPT, stone dead.

One can already see that if the RAA and SAAA accept the mantle of becoming "designated authorities" or whatever its called, CASA will just pile requirement after requirement onto them until they sink like the commercial GA sector.

16th Sep 2014, 04:36
Between the pass and fell incensèd points Of mighty opposites.

Is the Canadian TSBC now compromised? tainted by association with Australian obfuscation and deceit. It's sure is starting to look that way – but whodathunkit?

Is the Pel Air cover-up going to drag on forever? Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/09/16/is-the-pel-air-cover-up-going-to-drag-on-forever/)– Plane Talking -

Bloody good question Ben, and an inkling of what the minuscule and his department may expect when the now valueless report is finally allowed to be seen, after editing and translation and modification and embuggerance.

" It is difficult to imagine an experienced minister leaving advice on such an important matter to the same department responsible for both CASA and the ATSB, which according to evidence before the Senate committee, conspired to hide information that the regulator had failed to carry out its duties in relation to oversight of the flawed Pel-Air Westwind operation."

Only in Australia we thought; but it now seems to be a Canadian habit; delay and render the report nugatory – "Oh that report – Naw, it's old hat now, we fixed it all up a year ago; see all better now."

Shame on the whole rotten lot, even more shame on industry and the people paid to represent the travelling public for tolerating a single word of it.

It's immoral, despicable and disgusting to see the work follow the money, time and effort down the sewer. Too little too late was a bad option – but sweet bugger all, sometime never is no option at all. BOHICA...in spades.

Iago: "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

Frank Arouet
16th Sep 2014, 06:34
Avweb now have this Sandilands article.

16th Sep 2014, 11:17
PG the consummate bull-sh*t artist - "Trust me I work for CAsA!" :ugh:

Angel Flight not threatened by red tape - CASA

16/09/2014 , 10:00 AM by stuart stansfield

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has moved to reassure rural communities that charities such as Angel Flight are not under threat.
But a discussion paper on safety standards for community service flights is being circulated.

Interview with CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.
(Image: Angel Flight)

PETER GIBSON AUDIO (http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/peter-gibson-audio.mp3)

16th Sep 2014, 12:21
An update on AHIA's continuing concern - CASR 61 - Week 2.

From AHIA's Official Journal - Airwaves October 2014.

As this is the first edition after the launch of CASR Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing); I have asked our President, Peter Crook to start this column with a brief overview of things happening at his end of the line. Peter is in Sydney and your editor (AHIA Secretary) resides in Brisbane.

Peter’s comments:

We are almost through the second week the implementation of the new CASR Part 61 and associated MoS and I and other members of the AHIA have been fielding a considerable number of questions from the industry. Some of the more pertinent issues are:

From fixed and rotary wing flying schools, "I cannot understand the new Regulation, the wording is unclear and in some cases ambiguous. Can you please help in the interpretation; we do not want to operate illegally".

One fixed wing flying school has made some calculations which indicate the cost of an endorsement on a basic light twin will increase by around $1,000.00. This is due to the instructor, who is not an ATO, now being unable to sign off the endorsement as before. They will have to hire in an ATO to carry out the competency check flight. "Some young students just don't have the additional funds available".

The Chief Pilot of a helicopter operation has held approvals to train and endorse pilots on a medium helicopter for many years. As he is not an ATO they will have to hire these services, as per the previous case. The additional cost of the ATO and the competency check flight could add around $7,000.00 to each endorsement.

As well as the additional cost there is also a degree of risk as the Chief Pilot has the knowledge and experience to conduct the training and check flight in a safe manner. The ATO who most likely would have minimum time on these machines could unwittingly compromise the safety of the check flight by not having the same level of experience and currency.

It was disappointing CASA did not listen to the number of individual aviation professionals, the major aviation associations via the TAAAF (The Australian Aviation Associations Forum) to further delay the introduction of CASR Part 61 until more of the problems were rectified.

Subsequent to my letter to The Hon. Warren Truss requesting a delay, a reply from his office states the delay in implementation from December 2013 to September 2014 was to allow changes in the regulation sought by industry be made in December 2013 and for recent amendments to related provisions under CASR Part 141 to also be approved which will reduce compliance costs for the industry.

Unfortunately from May 2014 to September 2014 there were several changes made to the legislation and associated MoS which were not made available for comment from the industry.

The reply from The Hon Warren Truss also suggests the understanding and implementation of the regulations will be further improved by a range of information available and being enhanced on the CASA website and Aviation Safety Seminars being held by CASA with industry around the country. One would have thought the Seminars should have been held prior to the implementation so as to avoid the obvious misunderstanding that currently exists.

The AHIA is working though Part 61 to prepare a report with constructive criticism and suggestions to amend what we have for the benefit of all. CASA has suggested this review should be completed in late March 2015. The AHIA will run several seminars to gather feedback from our members prior to March 2015.

Secretary AHIA

thorn bird
16th Sep 2014, 21:26
Weasle words indeed Sarc's.

Angel flight may as well pack it in now.

They will allegedly consult, then implement the rules they have already descided on.

Country people should all get their cars serviced in preparation of lenghthy usafe drives...all in the name of safe skies are empty skies.

Dick Smith
16th Sep 2014, 22:21
Rob. What is the position in the USA? Would all these extra costs happen there as well? That's an important point to communicate.

Very good chance of getting changed if the new rules result in greater costs than in one of our major trading partners.

16th Sep 2014, 22:44
I refer to a post I made some time ago: "Jobs, investment and growth". Keep reciting that mantra at every opportunity.

Any letter to the Minister needs to make the following point in the First and last paragraph. "This action (or inaction) by CASA has the potential to adversely impact the number of jobs, new investment and growth in the industry".

Then explain why.

Then explain exactly what you want the Minister to ask CASA to do. The format should be "that you direct/require etc." ie: the act you want him to take - it must be an act or the letter is a pointless begging whining complaining letter which goes straight in the bin.

To put that another way; if you request that a Minister DO something, and they don't without seeking advice that contradicts your request and communicating that to you , and then something goes wrong, the Minister wears it if you go screaming to the press yelling "look at this! I told him what was wrong and he did nothing!".

Then repeat the jobs mantra in the final paragraph.

In my opinion the peak body of associations needs to send an ultimatum to Truss spelling out exactly what they think is going to happen if the Thirty Seven recommendations of the report are ignored. The letter has to state that the health and viability of the entire industry sector as well as the safety of the travelling public is at risk if CASA is allowed to continue on its current course.

If you write individual letters with vague complaints, all you are doing is building up a mountain of evidence that things aren’t as bad as they seem, that industry is divided, that the industry isn't unanimous, that CASA is simply doing its best to try to satisfy a vast amount of competing agendas (as evidenced by your lack of unanimity) the best way it can in a difficult budget situation, etc. etc,.

Get it down to a single unanimous letter with no let outs and nail the Minister right now. And if it was me, I'd go out on a limb and say words to the effect that we suspect you are going to do nothing and release your response after Christmas. although I'd couch it in polite terms that don't look like a direct accusation. eg: "could we be forgiven for thinking.....?

To put that another way, when the Governments response is released between Christmas and New Year, and whoever is first back to the office after the holdiays writes a whining non specific letter of complaint, it's too late!!!

16th Sep 2014, 23:13
Safety first. Absolutely.

My questions are:

Last year CASA was a "Gold Sponsor" at the Aviation Law Conference, mainly for lawyers, brokers and insurers. Quite an expensive amount I would assume.
Rubbing shoulders with the insurers and creating throat cutting plans to protect themselves, well, from themselves.
This money would be better spent on providing pure non-profit organisations such as Angel Flight with ALL resources and staff to allow not only enhance safety, but give the company an applaud, assistance rather than throw them away like "oh well, so sad, too bad". Sound familiar.
With the Senate findings, ASRR and huge industry movement, all logic falls on the institutionalised minds of those that care only to protect the Gov'mutts posteriors.
How could the Gov'mutts be wrong.

We all know they are.
After reading the excellent article that Ben wrote regarding the "Pel-Air" cover-up, I pondered....

I spoke to a Gov'Mutt and asked two questions.
Were we protected by law from you prior to the ditching?
Is there protection/law in which I now fall in to?
Both answers were no.
I asked for that in writing.
A few days later, of course, nothing.
I call, complete attitude change telling me I can no longer help you.
This is the truth. Batty.

Same for the DP. Ridiculous responses.
Canadians. Well, well well.

What on Earth is happening Minister?

I would be so very pleased to organise a protest for transparent, fair aviation in Australia. No more mute voices. Kills, hurts and put great companies out of business.

CASA-I do not believe you should have anything to do with the insurers/lawyers conference. Spend your budget correctly. Angel flight needs your assistance. The industry wants to be heard.
Insurance companies that slowly try to shove you off if unfortunate to be a survivor, family member of loved one that have had their life cut short through the incompetences of our own Gov'Mutts. Botched investigations and more. Enter the Insurers. Dear oh dear.

So, who is running the country again?
Large co-ops, especially in the aviation loop?

I thought we voted to have our voices heard.
When that fails, which it has, united people can make change.
On the steps of Parliament.
PM if interested. This can happen, only if voiced. Not typed.
A date will be pending, soon.

I have to go for a bit. Still seeing the other sides medical team. Half a decade.
No resolve, just words and broken promises from my own Gov'Mutt.

Now Angel Flight turmoil.

Disgraceful behaviour and disloyalty to our own citizens.

Who's in? Loud and clear.

Never give up. Not done yet! Momentum, momentum, momentum!

How do they sleep at night? Shame.


Frank Arouet
17th Sep 2014, 02:57

Everyone is a wakeup to the AAT and various Ombudsmen. CAsA won't take matters to real Courts. Aviation Lawyers will soon go broke. When people stop flying there will be no need for aircraft insurance except ground risks. Aviation Insurance company's and brokers will go broke. When there are no more aircraft flying CAsA will have no reason to exist and the bureaurats will have to find other jobs to infect.

When all this happens we can start afresh.

17th Sep 2014, 05:02

We are doing our best to pin costs and handle hiccups. Some hiccups in the aeroplane world overflow into the rotorcraft operations. Heard a developing story today - problem with getting a Cessna Caravan endorsement - will be a problem for parachutist operators; according to our sources.

Colin (Chairperson -Part 61 Review Team) is running a check to see if we are heading into this problem. Will advise when more known - and of course how much will it cost to resolve the issue.

AHIA queries CASA’s lack of cost benefit analysis for CASR Part 61 after receipt of US data.

A recent NTSB report shows a US civilian accident rate of only 3.94 accidents per 100,000 hours. (A very good result). By comparison, the ATSB Transport Safety Report of October 2013 states our rate is 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours. Put simply, the FAA operators have an accident rate that is 2.74 times less than our CASA rotorcraft industry.

The AHIA is vigorously pursuing a study of extra expenses appearing as the CASR Part 61 Suite is being rolled out; our work is being slowed due to the number of exemptions, concessions and extra transition time needed to facilitate introduction of the new rules. The AHIA estimates on aircrew testing, ATO and FTE study (and looming shortages) will be a shock to many; especially when heavy multi-engine helicopters segment is looked at more closely.

AHIA members are constantly asking their executive why the cost of regulation is increasing at such an uncomfortable rate due to our nation’s alignment with the EASA system; a past political decision now so unpopular with Australian aviation community. Maybe the solution has always been on our doorstep? Industry comments state a need for a less complicated, less verbose and plain English regulatory system; which has been jointly developed by a regulator sensitive to industry needs.

Despite CASA’s media reports to the contrary; there has been little consultation with the helicopter industry. This unfortunate fact was confirmed when another version of both the CASR Part 61 Instrument and Manual of Standards was released only several days prior to the implementation date on 1 September 2014.

Rob Rich
AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator for
E: secret[email protected]

17th Sep 2014, 15:15

Happy to protest if that what it takes! At the end of the day it all comes down to Truss. Act of Grace payments can be approved by a Minister.
It's interesting that Truss was the only person ,in opposition, to the Senate AAI! Why on earth would he do that in opposition? Well, when the Chairman of PEL-AIR is an old mate, do favours come around? Also let's go back to Albo dumping money on REX!
So how much influence has Sharp had on things? How do PEL-AIR get away with such blindingly obvious facts presented here, and in the Senate AAI and ASRR get off free? Actually, "the Board has taken steps to prevent it happening again". DJ was never trained in FRMS, nor the use of emergency exists. The ATSB and Minuscule ignore this!
My verdict: Corruption!
So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.

17th Sep 2014, 19:34
Jinglie: So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.

I know what you mean. I'm in Europe now and when people moan about their experience with EASA I just tell them to have a read of some of these threads. No big R regulation problems in Europe. I do believe EASA is well aware of CASA issues. The HF community is using Pel Air as a case study and BC isn't the IOS.

17th Sep 2014, 21:01
The reason we aligned with EASA is to maximise the number of European business trips for our regulators.

Aligning with the NZ/FAA regulations merely gets you to Auckland or Wellington, not Paris or Brussels.

Same reason the Army, Navy and Air force always buys foreign kit.

17th Sep 2014, 21:55
Sunfish, good point. Who wants a trip to Oklahoma. Problem is they started aligning with the FAA then switched to EASA half way through.

I like you thought adopting NZ rules was a practical way of integrating with FAA and EASA rules. But big egos and big trips !

17th Sep 2014, 22:02
As requested – HF 2009 (http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/73300961/file.html) – OCR version. The link is to Zippyshare; only click the red DOWNLOAD NOW (top right corner) button to avoid spam and unwanted links.


P18. a.k.a. Blind Freddy...:ok:

17th Sep 2014, 22:31
Jinglie (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-65.html#post8660369) –"The ATSB and Minuscule ignore this! My verdict: Corruption!"

Good shot Greedy;
I suppose the truth is that this behaviour has always gone on but the hypocrisy by the wegulator and its wabbits galls.

It's only when you really start peeling back the layers of filth you see the true nature of the beast hidden beneath. But; we must keep faith with the Creampuff Razor doggerel – when faced with the choice of Cock-up or Conspiracy; start with the former and if that fails the smell test; only then may you reach for the conspiracy jigsaw.

The BC analysis of the Pel-Air FRMS was scathing, but he is an expert. The problem began with the introduction of FRMS and the lack of training given to the FOI and managers, combined with a natural tendency to not RTFT (read the fracking thing). Operators just grabbed the opportunity to keep crew on deck longer, also without RTFT; the manual is long and academic. The notion of 'selecting' a nominal score and running the FAID system seemed simple and helpful – if you ignore the awkward bits. Same, same CASA. The parts like an approved roster, published one month in advance were inconvenient, the ramifications not understood and thus, cheerfully ignored.

The lack of FOI education to properly understand the system prevented them guiding operators through and realising the very real limitations FRMS can impose. Done properly, FRMS is in some instances at least as limiting as 48 and in some iterations more onerous. You can see this clearly in the Cook audit. Cook wasn't looking for scalps or scapegoats, he wanted to see the system understood and used correctly, by both sides.

Now W1 is, first and foremost a GWM ladder climbing man and at that time had his sights firmly set on achieving his absolute, definitive level of incompetence. He fancied he could teach ATO how to do their job 'proper' (and that is a hilarious tale from the Bankstown chronicles, reserved for a wet Sunday ramble). To be fair, he did manage the 'Basin' office quite well and being actually qualified as a pilot was approachable, reasonable and fair minded, within his intellectual limitations; he probably had more faith in his minions than was wise; but – I ramble, that story later. Anyway he shuffled onwards and upwards to be replaced by W2. Then as Sarcs mentions, the utterly fatigued James unfortunately makes a series of errors which resulted in the Norfolk ditching.

Well and truly was the scene set and the transition from 'understandable' cock-up' to blatant, high speed cover-up began. At this point, there still remained hope for a honest, transparent solution. Ben Cook rightly pointed out that chronic, lousy fatigue management issues had contributed, as had other damning elements. It's all there in the transcripts and reports. So what happened?

Whether it was done as a favour for 'old mates', or as a sop to a corporate ego; or simply out of spite and malice is unclear. But the combination of ego, arrogance and the opportunity to wield untrammelled power was irresistible. Just blame it all on the pilot – easy fix. The funny thing is, had they played the thing straight, the entire thing would have slipped through to the keeper and not much said. Honestly admitting some error on both the CASA and company part, followed by self correction would have seen the whole thing out of the woods, very neatly.

But, W2 was fired up and determined to impress the top floor, unfortunate bumps in the road to fame and fortune, such as the Cook audit and unsigned RCA were swept, disrespectfully aside. Under orders the inconvenient truth and unflattering pictures were dismissed and with a twirl of the golden pen – all was put to rights in record time. Was the boss pleased – Oh yes. Wodger had the added bonus of crucifying his own men, getting the job done in record time and he got to completely destroy the career of a pilot: a habit to which he became increasingly addicted.

For the IOS all the proof required is there in Hansard and the audit reports from the FOIA requests. Damn me, but the Senate committee went so close to having a wabbit pie, shame Truss put the kybosh on that – and you have to wonder why; seeing as now it leaves him vulnerable to attack, by the opposition. The old saw of 'not embarrassing' the minuscule won't cut the mustard; on the red face index, Pel Air just don't signify. Hells bells, he could have had Albo on toast over this episode, but he chose not to bring it to the attention of the Hoi Polloi. Passing strange I'd say, for a professional Polly to waive away a points scoring free kick before an election.. Strange are the ways of gummint.

But, FWIW, IMO a promotion to the 'international' managers desk and being feted at the RAeS smacks of rewards from the GWM, for a job well done.

As the day is my own and the dogs always enjoy a ramble, I believe I shall seek some quiet place for a while; far away from the awful stench emanating from the posterior office of matters aeronautical. Fresh air and sunshine; balm for the soul.

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!


17th Sep 2014, 23:37
..:in the name of Aviation Safety and Regulation.

For your interest.

I met JS in PH elevator lobby when I met with Truss last year.
He told me he saw Truss the day before. Stacks of boxes with brochures/books for Regional Expansion.
I saw Truss that day, JS from P/A saw him the day before and there again the day I was to speak with Truss.

Just thought worth mentioning.

18th Sep 2014, 02:21
Why am I not surprised Ziggy...:ugh:

There was also this bit of trivia mentioned in a February 2014 SMH article - Rex hyperbole aside, Australia's airlines are genuinely hurting (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/rex-hyperbole-aside-australias-airlines-are-genuinely-hurting-20140210-32cxp.html#ixzz3DckrJb7Q):With John Sharp, a former transport minister in the Howard government, as its deputy chairman, Rex knows what it takes to apply the blowtorch in order to serve its own interests. The airline was a large donor to both sides of politics last financial year. While it was a vocal critic of Gillard government policies, it was also one of Labor's biggest benefactors, injecting $250,000 into the party's coffers.
And sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words...:E


On another related matter I was doing some research on the FF runway width edict about to be inflicted on some..:{ operators. Many of these AOC holders have been operating safely and incident free, in some cases for more than 2 decades, with exemptions to ICAO minimum runway width requirements..:D However from 13 November 2014 FF (BASR) will suddenly deem these operators as unsafe...:ugh:

Going through the non-legislative instruments (exemptions) I was able to find 22 min runway width exemptions that are yet to expire:
Runway width exemptions current as of 18 September 2014:
1. CASA EX83/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14083.pdf)– Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)
2. CASA EX62/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14062.pdf) - Expires end of July 2017.(not<30m)
3. CASA EX47/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14047.pdf) - Expires end of May 2017.(not<23m)
4. CASA EX45/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14045.pdf) - Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)
5. CASA EX40/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14040.pdf) - Expires end of April 2017.(not<30m)
6. CASA EX18/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casa14018.pdf) – Expires (earlier of) 28 February 2017.(not<18m)
7. CASA EX107/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex107.pdf) –Expires 31 August 2016.(not<30m)
8. CASA EX94/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex94.pdf)– Expires 31 July 2016.(not<30m)
9. CASA EX92/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex13092.pdf) – Expires end of July 2016. (Aerodrome Operator)
10. CASA EX79/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex79.pdf) – Expires end of June 2016. (Aerodrome Operator)
11. CASA EX39/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex39.pdf) – Expires end of October 2014.(not<18m)
12. CASA EX187/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex187.pdf) – Expires 30 November 2014.(not<30m)
13. CASA EX96/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex96.pdf) – Expires 30 June 2015.(not<30m)
14. CASA EX75/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex75.pdf) – Expires end of April 2015.(not<30m)
15. CASA EX37/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex37.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(REX)
16. CASA EX36/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex36.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(Pel-Air)
17. CASA EX28/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex28.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
18. CASA EX27/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex27.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
19. CASA EX25/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex25.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
20. CASA EX24/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex24.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)
21. CASA EX23/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex23.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
22. CASA EX22/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex22.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
Going through one by one it becomes very obvious (No. 1 is a classic) that FF have absolutely no intention of stopping their rule 101 'divide & conquer' embuggerance of smaller operators...:= Safety case be buggered it is simply 'pay the piper' or else suffer the consequences..i.e. BOHICA.


19th Sep 2014, 03:22
Great pic Sarcs – indeed, in today's light it's quite informative. How to cut the aeronautical cake, the minuscule hand being guided by industry, lest he cut his brain off (fly undone).

I hear that stern words have been uttered regarding the complete bollocks and deception created by whoever decided that runways should now be a broad as they are long. I thought that was the Irish approach; "Jazus and begorah – it's not very long Paddy, but it's really, really wide, now".. How anyone could believe that with a stroke of a pen, the operators would give up their exemptions in November without a brawl; or, that manufacturers of the older aircraft (those still in business) could or would be even remotely interested in developing exclusive performance data, for unique conditions, for a handful of aging aircraft beggars all belief; except of course that of the only man dopey enough to swallow it, whole, and smile.

The dear old 'exemption' game, as rightly pointed out is beloved of the regulator and operators alike. It's a sick system which ingratiates CASA, while enslaving and controlling the operator; but, reform will come – perhaps in time for the next ice age and then we won't need exemption upon exemption from the ever increasing pile of evermore complex, prescriptive regulation.

Perhaps someone could awaken the minuscule and inform him that the Senate have 27 urgent recommendations tabled to improve the safety of the travelling public and while they have his attention waft the 37 recommendations from his own independent panel (nudge him if he starts drifting off again) which independently call for massive, serious changes to aviation administration, essential to the fiscal and legal well being of a multi million dollar industry. If they were really quick, they could add that he has not, as yet, introduced the new whizz-bang board to industry and we have had rather a long wait for a new CEO of CASA, to guide us out of the valley of death, don't mention Part 61 or 48 (overload warning); but the Canucks do need a well aimed boot, just in case they have dozed off, anticipating the eternal Canadian Autumn.

No matter, take it easy – just so long as he enjoys sharing his cake with his mates; all is well.

Now I do know Rome was not built in a day – be they did, eventually manage to get it finished; I guess the trick was, they actually started.

Have I mentioned this before?, have I got time warp syndrome??

Toot, Squeak, Toot, Squeak......

19th Sep 2014, 07:38
Kharon, the Romans also pioneered the art of piping shit. Obviously CASA are descendants of Ancient Rome! (not to mention Hoody's infamous toga parties!)

It's funny how the Canucks aren't saying too much at the moment. Oh well, they are obviously quite content to have their residents flown to, in and around Australia? Let's hope nothing adverse occurs hey, otherwise any reports, audits or assessments the Canucks have taken into Australian aviation, even if buried, could surface, and that could be financially and legally embarrassing to their government. It's drawing a long bow, but stranger things have happenned. And yes Miniscule Truss, if you continue to sit on your sleepy ass and something awful was to occur, you would also be thrust into the spotlight as you too have remained stagnant and refused to act over safety issues after they have been brought to your personal attention by numerous sources over a long period of time. That, in my book makes you accountable!!!

19th Sep 2014, 11:19
Great photo SARCS!
Let's not forget the history of the Honourable Minister Sharp.

From Wikipedia:
"Sharp resigned from the ministry on 24 September 1997 after becoming involved in a scandal over misuse of parliamentary travel allowances. The "Travel Rorts Affair"....":=:= Rather (dis)Honourable Minister!

And straight after the PEL-AIR ditching he describes the actions of DJ as, "This is the equivalent to a gold medal for aviation." I think he has now given the gold medal to Wuss (literally)!

Not so Sharp when you think about it. And this is Truss's cake mate!! Words fail me!:{

19th Sep 2014, 22:16
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mrdak has effectively refused to allow the Minister to act, and Truss can't and won't act on his own. To put that another way, the Ministers hands are tied.

I also suspect that the candidates on the short list, having done their due diligence on the current state of affairs, have declined the offer of the position.

Anyone with substantial business experience can read between the lines of the review, it's published submissions and the Senate Estimates minutes and reach a conclusion about what must be done. Then of course the existence of unpublished submissions, the unpublished report into the ATSB and the Senates threats regarding parliamentary privilege and retribution by the regulator would not have gone unnoticed and are enough for anyone who has ever held a senior executive position to conclude that there are Augean stables to be cleaned.

When cleaning Augean stables, the first rule is that you require:

(1) The tools for the job.

(2) An unfettered ability to act as you see fit.

(3) Sufficient resources.

(4) And finally, the unbending support of your superiors.

Otherwise, don't even begin to try - speaking from personal and bitter experience.

I don't believe items (1) through (4) are available. I don't believe the Government or Department will even admit that there is an Augean stable, or if they do, that it contains more than a few broom strokes of possum poo in it.

I believe that the iron ring is entrenched in very well defended positions within CASA and that they will fight to the death. I believe that the same group have sufficiently threatened, and scared the Department, the Minister and the Government to the point where they will avoid bureaucratic bloodshed ( as opposed to passenger blood) at all costs.

The result is that the terms of reference for the appointment of the new Director are highly constrained and support for drastic action by her is not available from either the Department or the Government.

As an aside, if I were the iron ring, I would be pushing for one of the recommendations to be implemented immediately - the conversion of CASA staff to public servant status which would give them the full protections of the Public Service Act and the associated plethora of natural justice and procedural fairness provisions surrounding their removal from office.

My thoughts are therefore that the next Director Of Air Safety is going to be another narcissistic bully or some dumb idiot whose ambition exceeds their talents. No sane adult is going to try to clean up this mess.

To put that another way, don't hold your breath waiting for another night of the long knives when justice is meted out to evildoers, said evildoers will retire very nicely to the South Coast when they feel like it.

19th Sep 2014, 22:31
Oh, bad Soteria and wicked Jinglie – to cast Nasturtiums on the grave of industry. Dont'cha know we have a dynamic, highly motivated minuscule at the helm. It's great puzzle to him why his mate has not collected and driven through the changes, even if just in self interest, a mighty conundrum that is. One of the great beneficiaries of any reform or easement, purely in financial terms must the likes of Rex; you'd think their boss would be publicly panting for it, soap boxes and rhetoric, in spades redoubled. But no, silence and a very un-rocked boat seems to be the go – wonder why?

It's all passing strange. Speaking of strange things passing – I was looking for some data on Canadian time frames for report and I stumbled, quite by accident onto a couple of interesting reports, done by an external agency for the Kiwi brethren. Good work this, mused I, wonder who did such a professional job, so quickly and well. You'll never guess, twas our very own, much maligned ATSB.

The subjects may be found –HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ae-2013-223.aspx) - and – HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-018.aspx) - . The thing that drew my attention and earned some admiration was the quality of work which the ATSB is capable of producing – when playing away from home. Some cynics would say – far away from malign influences; I reckon it's pure frustration from our well qualified, competent troops at the coal face. Released and given a chance to shine – they do. Bravo..:D

Perhaps the minuscule, some time 'in the late Autumn' can manage to realise that the boys and girls at the ATSB are a very good team, being stifled and nobbled by the bookies with a vested interest in the match result, not how the game is played. Match fixing, last time I checked was illegal.

Aye, it's a funny old world..

Toot toot..
Technical assistance to the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, involving the analysis of an audio recording of communications between air traffic control and the pilot of Beechcraft Baron G58, registered N254F on 30 March 2013
Assistance to the TAIC - Flight control maintenance event involving Boeing 737-800, ZK-ZQG, Auckland, New Zealand on 7 June 2013

21st Sep 2014, 02:55
On the road to GA industry extinction - The week just passed...:{

Dougy is away so instead from AB's stablemate...;): The Last Minute Hitch: 19 September 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-19-september-2014)
CASA's GA Task Force is in a state of flux at the moment after the retirement of Peter John. Nominally the new head of the GATF (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ga-task-force-gets-new-boss)is Southern Region safety advisor Michael White, but he has been described as "holding the fort" whilst CASA decides what to do with the GATF. This is not good news for us. Although Michael's appointment is a bonus, the fact that CASA is deciding what to do means they aren't sure if they want a GATF at all! That's the bad news. OK, the GATF didn't revolutionise general aviation, but it was at least recognition that GA is different from the airlines and has very different requirements. That hasn't changed, so a GATF is still needed.
Hopefully, who ever gets the job as the new Director of Aviation Safety will come armed with a similar point of view.

The Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) has been hammering CASA over Part 61 again (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/easa-alignment-expensive-ahia). They were given some exemptions to the rules that came in on 1 September, but is still chipping away at the new regulations and their perceived lack of consultation. Like most aviation associations, the AHIA will be resource-poor and seems to be shouting at a devil that is wearing complaint-canceling headphones. The rotary industry has been in growth over the past few years, so hopefully their issues with the new regs don't put the brakes on.

Regional Express (Rex) has never shied away from telling it how it is, and there's a hidden message for all of us in their concerns for regional aviation (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/rebates-return-but-rex-not-impressed). The government's parsimonious rebate scheme will not do much to save regional air routes, and comes with the frightening rider that the Truss department is not the great friend of aviation that is has portrayed itself to be. That is evident in their response when questioned why the rebate scheme is only 15% of the previous subsidies: we're in a budget crisis and it's all Labor's fault. Doesn't that sort of hint that they have no ideas and so revert to blaming the other mob?

Someone needs to tell them that party-political rhetoric never does anything to fix problems.

May your gauges always be in the green,

A much more disturbing segment from a Courier Mail Opinion piece...:bored::

Angel Flight, set up by Bill Bristow, is under threat of being shut down. Picture: Jono Searle Source: News Limited

WHEN his cancer made an unwelcome return to his brain, Augathella shearer Gary Zohl called Angel Flight.

Like thousands of other Australians whose homes are too far away from specialist medical care, the Angel Flight charity flew into action and organised everything.

A volunteer pilot in his own plane picked Gary up in the western Queensland town and whisked him to Brisbane 748km east. A volunteer driver was waiting at Archerfield aerodrome to take him to hospital or his motel.

In his brave, five-year battle Gary has made the journey to Brisbane 20 times for doctors’ appointments, chemotherapy, surgeries, MRIs, and stereotactic radiation therapy. And it hasn’t cost him a cent.
“We’d be lost without it,” he told me.

Gary was too ill to make the 12-hour road trip to Brisbane, his wife Jan said.

Angel Flight, which was set up in 2003 by Brisbane advertising guru Bill Bristow has notched up 16,800 missions of mercy transporting 2600 patients and their families. There have been children with leukaemia from the Gulf, drovers with broken spines and an endless list of other ailments.
Volunteer pilots around the country crisscross the skies almost daily in a free service helping mostly outback families. Sometimes they ferry lifesaving drugs or blood products. Angel Flight has not received any government funding and the pilots aren’t paid.

Now the charity is under threat with the busybodies from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority proposing “regulatory changes”. That’s Canberra-speak for red tape.

“They want us to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance,’’ said Bristow, 70, himself a pilot.
“We are a charity, not an aviation company.’’ He’s scratching his head because the pilots have already undergone exacting safety training.

He said CASA had shown a lack of understanding for the plight of sick people.

Bristow has been shunned. For 11 months he has tried, but failed to get an audience with the minister responsible for CASA, Warren Truss.

Insultingly, Truss is the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the Nationals and member for Wide Bay who is supposed to look after the interests of regional Australia. He could solve this problem with a phone call.
Now Truss may be left with blood on his hands.

“There has been no consultation with us whatsoever,’’ Bristow said. “I’m just about ready to close the door and walk away.” RED TAPE REDUCTION...easy just regulate them out of existence and you automatically get rid of the problem...:ugh:

Hmm...how hard is it to migrate to NZed?? :E

Prince Niccolo M
21st Sep 2014, 09:01
Well, everyone said that the CVD issue was small and irrelevant to the majority of Australian aviators. Fortunately, those who were self-interested, short-sighted and mentally constrained were totally submerged in a sea of bigger people guarding bigger agendas and the Miniscule, the Skull and the Prince of Post-nominal found themselves facing an unexpected and unprecedented push back from some key players. There was nowhere to hide and many eyes will be on the AAT proceedings and how CASA conducts itself. There will be very close eyes on the costs involved when the next Estimates roll around. :cool:

So, if the Miniscule for regional everything is allowing his favourite red tape agency to bugger up an arrangement that services only regional Australia and costs the Government nothing, how does he expect it not to get as much light as CVD? What possible excuse could he have for not finding time for Bill Bristow? :eek: :ugh:

I wonder where Angel Flight sits in the hearts and minds of National Party members? :O :mad: :=

I wonder where the imbuggerance of Angel Flight sits within the Liberal Party's anti-red tape agenda? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

I sense another Coliseum moment approaching the Senate... :E

21st Sep 2014, 09:51
Understand that Mr Truss isn't supposed to be there and, in any event, he's from Queensland, so he doesn't have any power in the party room.

Barnaby Joyce was supposed to replace Mr Truss as leader of the parliamentary Nationals and Fiona Nash was supposed to become the deputy. However, the controversies that led to Arthur Sinodinos and Fiona Nash stepping back from Ministerial duties resulted in a set-back to those plans.

That's why Mr Truss is doing a very good impression of someone who's not in control of anything.

Frank Arouet
21st Sep 2014, 10:52
Yes, as been said before, he knows what he thinks he's doing. I hear from our ABC this morning a reshuffle is to take place shortly. They wouldn't tell fibs would they?

The following should get the tin carrot, anally inserted, with a DCM and bar.


Turnbull should be moved.

Joyce and Fawcett should be given higher rank.

Morrison will get Homeland Security.

21st Sep 2014, 21:39
I'm afraid Creampuff is right. It is now abundantly clear that Truss, Mrdak and CASA will fight any efforts to reform anything at all. This ultimately leads to the demise of GA and the realisation of the CASA dream: no aviation unless associated with the needs of the major airlines and the military. That is why the GA task force appears to be facing "difficulties", it's not needed if there is no General Aviation.

I also wish to remind youof the old Army maxim: "Nothing is more permanent than the temporary". Mr. Farqueson is "Acting" Director of Air Safety. He will remain so until he decides to retire. The normal procedure for such appointments is to wait a few months and then make his appointment permanent for "administrative convenience".

So there you go folks: your Christmas present is going to be the Governments outright rejection of the recommendations of the Aviation review coupled with the promotion of an opponent of reform to the top job.

Such is life.

21st Sep 2014, 22:32
The sooner people come to grips with the fact that, so far as governments are concerned, CASA is doing a great job, the sooner people will be more likely to focus their attention on the source of the problem.

The power bases of the Laborials don't care if GA dies. The death of GA affects the important people equally, so GA doesn't matter. Just 'leave it to the experts' to work on keeping Seat 1A on the jet comfy and safe. Job done! :ok:

21st Sep 2014, 22:39
An " Aviation lovers party" is needed in every state to focus on Senate elections. That is the only way forward, If someone formed such a beast, I bet everyone here would donate.

thorn bird
22nd Sep 2014, 00:06
Very much inclined to agree with Creamie and Sunny,
It would seem it is impossible to break the "iron Ring".

I wonder now how long it will be before the corruption becomes overt instead of covert.

Those on the bottom of the food chain at CAsA are largely excluded from the "Trough", very little dribbles down to the rank and file.

The victory of their upper management over the IOS must lead even the bottom of the pile to conclude they are invincible and invulnerable.

We may soon have to stock up on brown paper bags.

Given the ever increasing number of separate approvals required for various functions perhaps someone there could publish a clandestine price list to add to the CAsA fee, or even a percentage on top to cover the signature in the box.

Probably not a bad idea really, extra few bucks and get your medical on time, or that $5 million dollar investment off the ground and earning money instead of stuck in the back of the hanger waiting a couple of years for an inclusion on the AOC. What was the old term?? "Grease the wheels?"

Frank Arouet
22nd Sep 2014, 00:28
Time for pragmatism.

If the government is the problem, the opposition is the solution.

Albanese could well be the new leader of The Labor Party given Shorten has lost the plot and probably the support with Caucus. (Albanese did have the overwhelming rank and file vote). Maybe he should be persuaded to attack the cause of this whole aviation mess. It would give him political advantage with a head worth kicking, (like Truss). If one puts aside any prejudices this man has baggage to hide and can easily do what Truss should have done. Blame the other bloke.

22nd Sep 2014, 04:54
Albanese and the Labor party the solution??? Based on past performance you are dreaming.

I say again, an "aviation lovers Party" that is able to get candidates on the Senate ticket in each State is the only way forward now.

The purpose of such a party is to get preferences at Senate elections.

The party then uses these preferences to prevent the election of candidates we regard as unhelpful to aviation, generally sitting members.

The sooner you start that movement, the sooner things will change. GA has to become an electoral threat to both Labor and Liberal members to have a hope of effecting reform.

22nd Sep 2014, 06:56
Letter from mini non- miniscule truss..todays Courier Mail says it all.
"Truss cannot direct CAsA"

Which proves the point that CAsA the Soviet State is free to run its own fiefdom as it sees fit, doing what it does best, buggerizing an industry.:mad:

So with NO oversight, no directives, no power to instill change, ...and NO interest,,I think we might be fcuked.:mad::mad::mad:

Still the CAsA Anti Corruption Caravan to Canberra will get rolling shortly so we'll see if we can raise an eyebrow or three.:ok::ok:
Some PR on this issue desperately needed...so no harm in trying.:ok::ok:

Chocks away.!!

22nd Sep 2014, 07:25
If the government is the problem, the opposition is the solutionIt is that kind of thinking that got us the current government. And come to think of it, the government before that.

What will happen once CASA destroys GA? What will the airlines demand the government do about the lack of skilled pilots? Can anyone say 457 Visa?

thorn bird
22nd Sep 2014, 08:36

the whole CAsA "Iron Ring" philosophy was that no aviation accept the RAAF and airlines would occur.

CAsA was first stacked with ex RAAF failures, they then over time manipulated things until CAsA became unaccountable.

Now they are regulating GA out of existence. The theory is, if you want to be a pilot join the RAAF, serve your commission, then move on to an airline,in other words a closed RAAF shop.

Frank Arouet
22nd Sep 2014, 11:41
Sometimes when quoting someone, you should run the whole line to get a grasp on what was intended in the thinking.

QUOTE "Time for pragmatism. If the government is the problem, the opposition is the solution" QUOTE.

Am I being too pragmatic by suggesting the use of an opposition to oppose something.

22nd Sep 2014, 12:22
You are not paying attention.

Both 'sides' are the problem. Both 'sides' win when only one or the other gets to take turns sucking the body politic dry.

If you didn't keep electing one or the other, or if at least you scared them both into thinking neither of them might not win, things might actually change in aviation.

Get it?

22nd Sep 2014, 13:55
Folks, Creampuff has really really laid it out very plain and simple in his last post. Now creamy is a bit of a diplomat, somewhat intelligent in his commentary, one could say 'even gentleman like'. Creampuffs comments probably resonate well with the more intellectual end of the aviation scale.
My approach is different, a more grass roots working class style, so here it is for the rest of the viewers - both Liberal and Labor do not give a handful of monkey crap whether aviation in this country lives, survives, is profitable, is safe, or is nuked out of existence by some kind of rogue country that is hell bent on world dominance! Get my drift? The industry is fukced because nobody else gives a toss about it. Why would it bother them if GA fails? They are politicians - they are crooks, multi millionaires and part of the privileged 1%. Chairmans lounge and 1A is all that they will ever use, and it's all they care about. They won't be travelling on Shitbox Airways in an 8 seat scud runner, indeed not! They do not care because they don't have to.

Now, there is always a glimmer of hope, and here it is - Creampuffs independents. Why? Well they are the minority. Many have an axe to grind. They need votes, and lots of them, so they are always looking for an edge, an angle, a way to gain support in an effort to work their way up to the golden trough - Parliament House. Don't get me wrong, some are genuine, but most are interested in what every other politician is interested in - becoming extremely rich and eternally fed from the taxpayer trough. But that's fine with me, we all have an agenda don't we folks? So let's all use each other I say. Let's support the Independents. We will help them attain that golden trough by giving them the votes and support they need, but in return they need to give us back our aviation trainset and comply with numerous other demands, and trust me the IOS list is long and non-negotiable. It's a partnership made in heaven. Thoughts?

22nd Sep 2014, 14:20
If you didn't keep electing one or the other, or if at least you scared them both into thinking neither of them might not win, things might actually change in aviation.

Get it
A good illustration was the panic in London last week caused by the Scots indendence vote resulting in all 3 leaders racing to Scotland. They all had a lot to lose and suddenly Scotland was important to them.

22nd Sep 2014, 22:23
Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/09/22/pel-air-is-2nd-rate-crash-report-good-enough-for-australia/) - on Plane Talking dares to say what the rest of the pathetic media will not, or dare not say. What we have is a 'cluster of ducks' a big one, there's the airport ducks, the Senate ducks, the Rev. Forsyth's ducks, the Canadian ducks, the industry ducks, the bored ducks and the DAS ducks. All huddled together awaiting minuscule action; but alas, they wait in the wrong yard – the minuscule admits – he cannot control air transport in the country he is sworn to serve.
It’s reasonable to persist with these questions, and to sharpen the focus.

Why does Minister Truss think it acceptable that a second rate and deeply flawed and compromised accident investigation by the ATSB be allowed to stand?

Why does the Minister embrace second rate as good enough for Australia?

Does the Minister give a damn that one person was seriously injured in this crash and has not been compensated for her injuries and loss of income, while the operator goes unpunished?

If the Minister does give a damn, what is he going to do about it?

Does the Minister accept that the parliament of Australia ought to be as concerned with the welfare of air accident victims as it appears to be with a culture of protection and cover up among public bodies charged with protecting the safety of users of air services conducted under the laws of this country?

First, the questions, gently phrased, but lethal. Then the summary.

The crash of a small corporate jet may not seem material to the interests of the travelling public, however if neither CASA nor the ATSB can be trusted to honestly and professionally deal with their obligations in relation to the Pel-Air accident, what peril or risk does this pose to the users of the larger Australian airlines for which those bodies have legislated obligations?

Then conclusion;
The Minister has a second rate administrative scandal on his hands. It needs a first rate response.

Hope the minuscule is going to get the good ducking he richly deserves, perhaps the Murky Machiavellian crew can assist to make the slaughter as painless as possible; what a shambles, what a mockery, what the hell are they thinking.

Heigh ho – Toot toot.

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 00:28

23rd Sep 2014, 00:35
Sunny on Augean stables IMO hit the nail on the head..:ugh:I also suspect that the candidates on the short list, having done their due diligence on the current state of affairs, have declined the offer of the position.

Anyone with substantial business experience can read between the lines of the review, it's published submissions and the Senate Estimates minutes and reach a conclusion about what must be done. Then of course the existence of unpublished submissions, the unpublished report into the ATSB and the Senates threats regarding parliamentary privilege and retribution by the regulator would not have gone unnoticed and are enough for anyone who has ever held a senior executive position to conclude that there are Augean stables to be cleaned.
Hmm...I know of at least one individual, who was on the short-list, that was willing & extremely able plus immediately available, so just another piss poor excuse (PPE) me-thinks...:ugh:

Just like the one the miniscule used in his defence for not stepping in to stop the embuggerance of Angel Flight: Truss (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-114.html#post8667753) - “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”
The Ferryman's blast to that statement is priceless...:E:BOLLOCKS !! - Then who can, you painted, decrepit clown? What a deceitful, despicable, back sliding road to take; and this to further disadvantage the disadvantaged, who can't fight back. Further empowering an organisation the minister freely admits, he can't control. Porridge for brains and the backbone of an amoeba. What's next then, hit squads in bush to exterminate those who inconveniently get sick and cannot travel to hospital? or will the minuscule now pay for 'free' RFDS services; or, subsidised air fares? Yeah, right. You may still drink the water here, but don't get sick or be poor; not in Warren's version of the bush anyway.
Indeed absolute BOLLOCKS!! :yuk::yuk:

This PPE for a miniscule, plus some on here, will say that the Board system and the CAC Act (1997) is to be blamed for the creation of the uncontrollable law unto itself behemoth that is our disgraceful NAA...:=

However you don't have to look too far to see where another Federal agency operates quite satisfactorily and without much vocal criticism under that very same system...:D

A media release from the same PPE miniscule that can't get off his backside & help Angel Flight (or indeed CVD pilots): MUA all at sea over shipping facts and the need for reform (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/September/wt178_2014.aspx)
Media Release
19 September 2014

Predictable but erroneous claims by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) that changes to coastal shipping regulation will cost Australian jobs or maritime skills are not only wrong, but expose a desperate bid to stifle debate on vital industry reforms.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss confirmed the Australian Government is actively considering a raft of reforms to turnaround the stark decline in coastal shipping to rescue and, ultimately, rebuild Australia's domestic maritime sector.

“Recent hikes in Australian shipping freight rates have seen shipping sink as a transport mode, with customers reporting increases of up to 63% in coastal freight charges in just the first year of Labor's botched Coastal Trading Act,” Mr Truss said.

“Between 2000 and 2012 shipping's share of national freight fell from a paltry 27% to less than 17% at a time when Australian freight actually grew by 57%. That means more congestion on roads and rail, which drives up their costs too.

“The Australian Government makes no apologies for working to remove the red tape that is unnecessarily burdening our coastal shipping industry, so we can reduce freight costs for shippers and their customers and bring shipping back on an even keel with road and rail.

“My address to the some 300-strong audience at yesterday's Shipping Australia Luncheon drew a sigh of relief from an industry under the pump and heralded a wave of support from the Minerals Council of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Logistics Council, the Australian Mines and Metals Association and the Port of Brisbane.

“Current protectionist regulations are burdensome and ineffective. Even when an Australian shipper prevents a foreign ship getting a licence, the cargo often may not be awarded to an Australian carrier. The sale goes offshore. How can that be good for Australian business?

“Yesterday, the MUA claimed reform would cost jobs. On the contrary, the Government's agenda of removing red tape is expected to boost activity in the sector and grow the economy, which means more jobs in this country.
“Claims of 2,000 direct job s and 8,000 indirect jobs on the ‘chopping block’ are ridiculous.

“The 2013 industry census identified some 10,000 seafarers employed in Australia. Of that number, the largest single group are, in fact, Navy personnel (4,158), and many of the remaining seafarers (2,893) work in industries unaffected by our proposed reforms, such as the offshore sector, pilotage, dredging or in ports.

“Shore-based jobs in associated industries can only benefit by increasing shipping activity in Australia and reforms to the Act are the only way to have more ships operating around the Australian coast.

“The claim that 500 jobs in towage could be lost is simply not true, as towage workers are engaged regardless of whether a ship is Australian or foreign flagged.

“The Union's claims of an increase in the number of ships licensed as proof of the system working are a fantasy. There are 47 Australian-flagged general licence vessels under the Coastal Trading Act 2012, of which only 18 are major coastal trading ships, 28 are small coastal vessels and one is a scientific vessel.

“The five additional major vessels mentioned by the MUA have capacities of between 2,000 and 3,400 deadweight tonnes, which service the Torres Strait Islands. While this is an important local task it does not significantly add to our coastal trading capacity.

“More telling is that over the two years of Labor's Coastal Trading Act, Australia's coastal shipping capacity fell by a massive 64%.
“There is no basis for the MUA's speculation that is ‘highly likely’ we have seen increases in activity following changes in 2012.

“The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics confirms that Australian ports loaded 49 million tonnes of coastal freight in 2012–13, but that five years earlier (2007–08) it was over 59 million tonnes—a 2.4% average annual decline. This is the proof that the system does not work and the slide has continued.

“Finally, the MUA's claim that ‘no such regulation exists’ in reference to the industry example of ships remaining idle in port for a day before loading can begin exposes an appalling lack of knowledge of the sector in which the MUA operates.

“The system implemented by the previous Labor government includes a mandatory minimum 24-hour period to approve a variation, which means vessels can wait in port for a day for a variation to be approved before cargo loading can commence.

“The system is broken and we must act to fix it.

“Without action, coastal shipping will continue to lose market share to road and rail, adding to congestion in our cities, spiralling costs and causing extra wear and tear on land infrastructure. Only rapid reform will help to rescue coastal trading as a viable freight option.” The hypocrisy of this PPE miniscule knows no bounds...:yuk::yuk:


{Comment: Ironically the only reason that the miniscule has replied to the CM opinion piece on Angel Flight is that he knows that this is one aviation issue that could potentially effect the Nationals voter base in upcoming State elections...:=}

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 00:38
Creampuff, I know you're not "fick" but please pay attention when I say using an opposition to oppose is not advocating anybody elect any, either or both poltical party's. It's simply being pragmatic enough to use the limited tools that are available to you. CAsA do this all the time, called divide and conquer or something, so why not set Albanese to kicking Truss' head which is eminently kickable right now. This will come to the attention of the press gallery, who have a limited attention span I know, but this will get the matter to the general fare paying passenger, who out numbers pilots by hundreds to one, and, importantly garner more votes than us, and doesn't impinge on any anti terrorism laws that may disturb somebody if pilots were to hand out leaflets at airport terminals.

How bloody hard is that?

23rd Sep 2014, 01:07
Ms McGOWAN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F123674%22;quer ytype=;rec=0)(Indi) (16:10): Charity organisation Angel Flight flies rural and regional patients and their families to vital medical appointments. For more than 10 years Angel Flight has carried out $50 million worth of mercy missions in isolated areas throughout Australia.

However, the Civil Aviation and Safety Administration is proposing changes that will increase regulation and have a serious impact on this volunteer service. These changes include setting up an organisation to be responsible for assessing and authorising Angel Flight pilots and requiring pilot proficiency tests and assessment. This will be costly and time-consuming.

The regulation is a duplication of what is already being completed by pilots volunteering within this organisation and the proposed changes would add red tape and compliance costs. These changes pose a real threat of forcing the closure of this valuable organisation to rural Australia.

Angel Flight plays an important role in my electorate of Indi. As an example, a gentleman from Mount Beauty regularly needs chemotherapy in Melbourne. Angel Flight ensures his travel time is minimised and he is able to spend as many of his last days as possible at home in Mount Beauty.

The financial impact of implementing more bureaucratic measures would be catastrophic for this volunteer based organisation. Angel Flight is totally dependent on private donations and receives no government funding. I call on the CASA to reconsider this proposed change and find a way to ensure that Angel Flight can continue its important work.


Trough update - A word from the 'Don is good'...:ugh:

Warning BYO Bucket..:yuk:
Business as usual at CASA as search for new DAS continues (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/business-as-usual-at-casa-as-search-for-new-das-continues/)

{Double speak for the flogging of all current & suspected IOS members will continue..:E}

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) acting director of aviation safety says it is business as usual at the regulator while the industry waits for a successor to John McCormick to be named.

Terry Farquarson says the process for appointment of a permanent director of aviation safety is well and truly underway, with a rigorous process in place to find the best candidate involving the CASA board, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss “and beyond”.

“The completion of this process takes time – time that is well spent making sure the best possible person is selected to lead CASA,” Farquarson wrote in September’s CASA Briefing published on Tuesday.

“I have told CASA that during this period we must, as always, work hard and continue to execute our plans in accordance with our set priorities. No aspect of CASA’s work is being put on the backburner or ignored during this transition time.”

McCormick stepped down as director of aviation safety on August 31 at the end of his contract term after five and a half years in the job.
Farquarson, the deputy director of aviation safety, was named acting director.

CASA was also due to receive three additional board members shortly.
Memories??? Remember this one..:rolleyes:..in one of those rare moments that McComic allowed the Don to speak...:zzz::


Hmm...do you believe this man??:=

23rd Sep 2014, 01:19
Now they are regulating GA out of existence. The theory is, if you want to be a pilot join the RAAF, serve your commission, then move on to an airline,in other words a closed RAAF shop. Which will probably work until the replacement to the F-35 arrives, as it most likely be a unmanned fighter.

thorn bird
23rd Sep 2014, 02:27
I agree, but that would release a lot of RAAF pilots for airlines,
Problem then would be the next generation of pilots.
Probably have pilotless airlines by then and there's always 457.

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 03:55
As evidence in todays CAsA "blurb" Terry Farquarshon came to work sober today.

23rd Sep 2014, 05:06
If Truss admits he can't direct CASA, surely this gives credence to the Senator X submission to the AAI, aptly entitled, "WHO GUARDS THE GUARDS THEMSELVES"? Not Truss obviously! Senator X called for an Inspector General of Aviation Safety, with the powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA and the ATSB. This position to be completely independent of the Minister and Dept.

In the current void of control, maybe this is the solution to sort out the current disgrace.

23rd Sep 2014, 06:01
[ S]o why not set Albanese to kicking Truss' head which is eminently kickable right now.*sigh*

Because Mr Albanese knows that Mr Truss knows that Mr Albanese created as much of the mess as Mr Truss did, and therefore it’s in neither of their interests to point the finger at the other or suggest the government should intervene.

Both ‘sides’ long ago abdicated, to CASA, responsibility for the setting of standards for and regulating aviation safety. Neither 'side' has any political interest or need to get the resulting Frankenstein under control.

The people being damaged by the Frankenstein don’t matter to the power base of either ‘side’. The people who matter to the power bases of both sides are RPT-flying city-dwellers in NSW and Victoria, because they determine what ‘side’ gets its snout in the trough from time to time. The rest are paid lip service. And that includes their representatives in the Parliament (with the exception, of course, of the non-major party aligned Senators if they have the balance of power…)

The probabilities of a major hull loss are infinitesimally small, it could just as easily happen one ‘side’s’ watch as the other, and in any case the scapegoat has already been tied: CASA.

Why would any government be silly enough to take control of aviation safety regulation?

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 07:23
Now having positively and irrefutably identified the problem my guess is we consult Emily's List for a solution. Or the non-major party aligned Senators if they have the balance of power. Someone like Palmer perhaps, he's very non aligned and could do with a balance as well. Should we dismiss Fawcett because he's aligned.

Probably the best short term thing could be a Transport Minister. We appear to be lacking one of them. In the meantime, because we have a government who can't control CAsA, may one ask "Who's watching the watchdog"? (g'day Paul). *sigh*

23rd Sep 2014, 09:13
Creampuff is right; the purpose of CASA is to insulate the Government from responsibility from anything to do with aviation safety.

Liberal or Labor, it makes no difference, neither side will upset the apple cart.

Let us consider the worst case scenario; a fully loaded Qantas A 380 crashes in Collins street Melbourne or Martin place Sydney in peak hour.

The Government of the day is completely protected because "CASA is an independent statutory body".

The price for CASA assuming that risk is a free hand to embuggerise anyone and everyone it wants to.

The only way out of this mess is for aviation enthusiasts to start their own political party and target marginal senate seats with a view to directing preferences as a way of keeping people OUT of power.

To put it another way, the only law any government respects is the law of the ballot box.

Look for marginal liberal and labor senators and MP's and act!

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 10:08
I'll be at the Pub.

23rd Sep 2014, 11:48
In the result of a large smoking hole in this country there will be a Royal Commission, or two, no doubt. The "independent statutory authority" rubbish goes out the window in this scenario. Particularly with what is on the government record at present regarding the Senate AAI and ASRR by David Forsyth.

Truss may thinks he's protected by CASA, however that's a bit like saying that the DAS is protected by having a Board. If I was the new DAS I'd be removing myself from the Board to add another layer of personal risk exposure protection. The smart Senators, have unanimously, put a very strong expert view on public record which is not only responsible action and what taxpayers and the travelling punter expect, it demonstrates their own concerns and diligence.:D Albo, Truss and Mrdak are simply rolling the dice. Gamble responsibly boys!:=

23rd Sep 2014, 13:04
So Truss, as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia has no control of CASA, a government agency? So why then do we have CASA at all? Why have an overpaid public servant like MrDak who reports to Mr Truss on matters that Mr Truss has no control over? All seems like a bit of a waste of time don't you think? And what about other government agencies such as the armed forces, ASIO, and the ATO? Does the sleepy old farmer, aka Deputy Prime Minister have any control over those government departments? Somebody then please remind me why we pay Mr Truss a salary? Poor old Mr Truss, neutered by CASA, in fact admitting that he is CASA's bitch, how embarrassing! Tsk tsk. I will never be able to look at his weather beaten crusty bald head the same way again.

And from one bald buffoon to another;

Terry Farquarson says the process for appointment of a permanent director of aviation safety is well and truly underway, with a rigorous process in place to find the best candidate involving the CASA board, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss “and beyond”.Ummm earth to Terry, are you sure Truss is involved in the selection process? After all he doesn't have the authority or testicles to direct anything to do with CASA, so why get involved in choosing a new DAS?

And this little dig at the IOS from the A/g Director A380 Safety;

Despite some dire predictions, Monday 1 September 2014 came and went and the aviation world did not come to a halt. Good to see that Terry is continuing with the McComic style of ever so gently twisting the knife blade between the shoulders of the very industry he has agreed to work with! Good work Terry, top marks.

The full nauseating brief here;

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - September (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102169)

Oh well, ho hum and all that. Tis all just a game really isn't it? It helps widdle the time away while these mighty men of bureaucratic power count down the years, days and taxpayers dollars until the day they retire fat, dumb and happy.

23rd Sep 2014, 13:46
Well said Sot!
Tezza is up to neck in it with SkySentinel. He started the movement, guaranteeing it was going to cost about $40,000, and it was rock solid. What a joke! Plus the IP issues which the Richard Dreyfuss discounted!
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Herr Skull say "come hell or high water" the regulatory reform project will be complete under his tenure? Well I'm not hot or wet!
And whilst CASA maintains the spotlight, what the hell is going on with the ATSB? The Commission has failed. Beaker is seen as an idiot (cause he is), and yet life goes on! The ASASI are hosting the annual ISASI conference in ADL next month. I suspect Beaker might get thrown a few very awkward questions on the panel in front of an expert international audience. Actually, I don't suspect it, he will! Should be a great evening of comedy!:ok:

Anyway enough rant. Regarding you comment Soteria,

[QUOTE]So Truss, as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia has no control of CASA, a government agency?/QUOTE].

The minuscule can't "direct" safety regulation (as per the Act), but he can certainly influence decision making and set policy. Also, has the accountability to resolve corruption and collusion within his ranks (including MrDak). THAT'S HIS ROLE!
And where is the beloved Dr Hawke in this mess? Never gets a mention, yet he is Chairman of the Board! Bring on an Inspector General reporting to the AG. The only way to get rid of the current malfeasance. Someone outside the portfolio needs to "watching and reporting".

As for the new CASA Board members, I'd be very surprised if David Cox has accepted. He certainly has enemies, but one of the smartest guys I've ever met. Boeing used to seek his opinion! Enough said.
If the current philosophy stays (under Hawke) maybe they'll look at Ita Buttrose for the role. Good on TV at least. "Clip Clop" Hawke doesn't look good at all on TV - old fart with a beard who mumbles about himself a lot. Maybe get Cate Blanchett on the Board. At least a great look, and a better actor/ress than Wuss, Hawke and MrDak!

23rd Sep 2014, 22:04
Hmm...I know of at least one individual, who was on the short-list, that was willing & extremely able plus immediately available, so just another piss poor excuse (PPE) me-thinks.

When those who write history seek answers, one of the most telling reasons for Australia becoming the poor man of world aviation will be the selection 'process' for the next DAS and board. That people, the calibre of Cox, Smith and Watson who should have been recruited, but have not, will be a tombstone. A fellah, like Mike Smith in tandem with a Watson would neatly, quietly and effectively clean Sunny's stables, relax the FAA and ICAO; and, with a good team in support regain industry and probably Senate faith; take them about nine months I reckon.

But one, standing alone, has no hope – Cox is smart enough to know that and Boyd bloody well should be. Isolated and outnumbered, the lone reformer will perish; even if the Mrdak seal of approval for change was granted – which it won't be. The only changes young Mike wants to see are clever ones, akin to the fine print on airport paper work, deftly redefining 'air transport' to allow access to those who prefer housing estates on land initially gifted to the Commonwealth, making profits and not paying their stamp duty to the State which was granted the gifted land when the war was over. Shameless and bad economics – look at the contribution aviation makes to NZ economy, the difference is stark and self evident.

Sarcs - in one of those rare moments that McComic allowed the Don to speak.

@# 1331 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-67.html#post8667971) the clip is solid gold, for students of human nature – watch the first 60 seconds. The look on the Farqu-hard-sons visage (@25 seconds) is a perfect study of a rabbit caught in the headlights. A WTF moment defined and captured.

The minuscule can't "direct" safety regulation (as per the Act), but he can certainly influence decision making and set policy.

A little further along @ about 30 seconds; there is a salutary lesson for our miniscule. Watch carefully to see just how a CASA heavy can easily be intimidated by a politician. The part where Bill Heffernan shuts McComic down with a wave of his finger. McComic backed up so fast he would have fallen over his own feet; had they not been planted firmly in his mouth. You see minuscule, despite your puling, piddling excuses you do have the juice to shut the fools down. Which leaves us the vexed question, why don't you? Even the fearless Wodger the reforming Wabbit nearly wet his pants when a minor State Polly barked at him one day; so Shirley a deputy prime minuscule and a leader of a party and a minuscule of the crown could persuade a bunch of public servants play nice or bliss off.

Just remember – it's not up to CASA to decide if change and reform will occur. The industry demands it, your own research proves it and it is, as the responsible Minister your duty to provide the tax payer with the very best system we can sensibly afford. Now, for pities sake – Crack on.

Watch again as Uncle Bill shows you exactly how it's done. Repeat as often necessary.

DYI vermin control.

Tot toot...Bravo Bill - Bravo..:ok:...:D
Roosevelt – "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

24th Sep 2014, 08:55
The Minister has no control over CASA? Balls, Bullshit, crap.

The Government of the day, advised by The Minister, makes budgetary provisions for CASA. They hold the purse strings. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER CASA. Sorry for shouting.

24th Sep 2014, 09:56
So, this question must be asked - Why would the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia say he has no control over CASA, if in fact he does have control over CASA? Why would he lie? What is his motivation? What is his 'intent'? Seems like some shenanigans going on with this obsfucating Minister. Why why why?

24th Sep 2014, 10:39
The government can also introduce into the Parliament and pass stuff called "legislation". Governments don't seem to have too much trouble in producing lots of it.

CASA exists because of one section in one piece of legislation: The Civil Aviation Act.

That Act can be changed. CASA can be given different powers and functions.

That Act can be repealed. CASA would cease to exist if it were repealed.

That is the ultimate and absolute control.

(Soteria: Because Mr Truss and all his predecessors in recent decades don't want to be seen to have any means of control.)

24th Sep 2014, 12:06
All good questions Soty and Creamy's answer is fairly close to the mark but there is another element and that is the crazy swings & roundabouts of QLD politics, in particular the internal boiling pot of the LNP. After all why do you think DPM Wuss was drawn out in the first place to reply to an article on what can only be described as a minor voter issue i.e. Angel Flight. Why would he bother?? Well probably because at least half of QLD (North of Wide Bay) absolutely hate the guy and it would appear that they're none to fond of Barnaby...:=: Push for Lawrence Springborg to replace Warren Truss as deputy PM (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/push-for-lawrence-springborg-to-replace-warren-truss-as-deputy-pm/story-fnihsrf2-1227042465256#social-comments)

SENIOR Newman Government minister Lawrence Springborg is being touted as a possible replacement for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.

The Sunday Mail understands a push is on for Mr Springborg to leave George Street for Canberra and replace Nationals stalwart Bruce Scott as the federal Member for Maranoa so he can be considered for the Nationals leadership - and deputy prime minister role.

TRUSS: Slow and steady wins the race (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/slow-and-steady-wins-the-political-race-for-the-nations-deputy-leader-warren-truss/story-fnihsrf2-1226804553206)

Federal Liberal and National MPs unhappy with the performance of Nationals deputy leader Barnaby Joyce are behind the push.
Mr Joyce is considered the next in line to replace Mr Truss .

Mr Springborg admitted yesterday LNP figures had approached him previously about switching to Maranoa, but said the speculation about him replacing Mr Truss as deputy prime minister was “intriguing”.

“I’ve never heard about that. I don’t know where it’s come from,” he said.“If I said I was flattered by it, it would probably be an over-exaggeration. I’m more bemused by it than anything else.” {Weasel words for..."my bags are packed just give me the nod"..:E}

Mr Springborg said he was committed to remaining in the Queensland Parliament. It would also appear that the Courier Mail has also got the knives out for the Wuss?? Let me explain, here is the CM version of the Wuss reply letter (as supplied by Frank..;)):


However it would appear that the Courier Mail has taken selective editing to a whole new level...:ugh:

Apparently this was the true version of the Wuss reply letter (edited parts are in bold which includes the title)..:rolleyes::Angel Flight well respected: Truss

20th September, 2014

Had anyone from the Courier-Mail bothered to contact my office before publishing ‘Deputy PM turns back on the bush’ (20 September 2014), a few salient facts may have helped your readers.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of civil aircraft and that objective will not be compromised. Australia has an enviable reputation for safe flying.

CASA is statutory body and, as Minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.

From time to time, CASA issues discussion papers when it is considering options to revise regulatory measures. The purpose of discussion papers is to ensure that options being considered are the best available before beginning any new rule making procedures.

This Australian Government is all about removing red tape and cutting regulations that place unreasonable burdens on businesses and community organisations. We are not in favour of creating onerous obstacles where none are needed.

Angel Flight is a well respected and admired community organisation. Its volunteers (including the pilots) give freely of their time and resources so that country people with health issues, who are under financial hardship, can obtain the treatment they need.

Angel Flight does outstanding work across Australia, which is greatly appreciated by country communities. The government is anxious to ensure that this work can continue without interruption.

Angel Flight already complies with all CASA regulations. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau report into an August 2011 fatal accident near Horsham Airport involving an Angel Flight arranged aircraft attributed no fault to the charity.

The report also noted that Angel Flight passenger transport operations were classified as private flights with operational responsibility resting with the pilot in command.

In those circumstances CASA would need to mount a strong argument to justify taking a more heavy-handed regulatory approach to volunteer community organisations.

It is also worth noting that the Government has recently completed a major review of CASA and will shortly respond to its major recommendations. The Government is in the process of appointing new Board members and a new CEO.
Puts a slightly different spin on it I guess but we all know that the Wuss is well known for speaking with forked tongue himself...:ugh:

Example from last year...:E:Air crash investigation needs full throttle response

27th May, 2013“MINISTER Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Nationals leader and Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss said today.

“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.

“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.

“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.

“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

“Specifically, the report states:

‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.

“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.

“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.

“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.

“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”
Meanwhile the plight of Angel Flight is starting to come onto some more MSM radars (i.e. other than QLD):

Air angels under threat, warns founder (http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/air-angels-under-threat-warns-founder-20140923-10krk9.html)

Angels fearing clipped wings (http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/angels-fearing-clipped-wings/2396912/)

Angel Flight anger over proposed CASA changes (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/angel-flight-anger-over-proposed-casa-changes/)

Somehow I don't think this will be the last that the Wuss will hear about Angel Flight..:rolleyes:


24th Sep 2014, 12:11
Truss has to approve the new DAS! Seems like "total control" to me. The Truss logic makes no sense - he approves a person who has serious powers, yet has no control over them! ABSOLUTE CRAP!:yuk:

24th Sep 2014, 15:48
If you watch the video posted by Sarcs closely, you'll see the Skull bail to Dr Voodoo (aka R Dreyfuss) and he talks about transparency and the ability to improve reports through open communication. He didn't know the Senate Committee were full throttle on the Chambers report at the time. Fool!
Watch again! Its in the last 20 seconds of the video. Gold!

Senator Heffernan Person at the back of the room 150213 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=00G9Wfzv5cg)

So how did all this honesty result in keeping critical documents and information kept secret? Mmmmm.:=

Falling Leaf
24th Sep 2014, 21:21
Australia has an enviable reputation for safe flying.

This always cracks me up, and is the first thing CASA and the ATSB wheel out in their glossy brochures - as if they were responsible for it!

I think the truth is that Australia is essentially a flat country with benign weather. Transplant our regulator over to NZ with Mountainous terrain and shit weather and they would be parking aircraft into the hills every week…

I've also been told that the US has more aircraft movements in a day then we have in a year. So our statistics are vulnerable to one accident which would completely blow our rate through the roof to 'African' levels of safety...

I wish someone would smash this little piece of mis-advertising...

thorn bird
24th Sep 2014, 22:58
a comparison between Australia and the USA statistics reveals just how big a lie regarding Australia's so called enviable "safety" standard is.

Bureaucrats are experts at massaging statistics to suit their agenda.

Compare the NTSB reported accidents per 100 thousand flying hours in the US against the ATSB reported accidents per 100 thousand hours.

Might give you a shock.

Using those statistics our billion Dollar rewrite of aviation reg's (it'll end up being a billion if they ever finish them) has been a complete and utter failure in achieving a single benchmark of what the government directed CAsA to do, nor has it had the slightest affect on safety, if anything the exact opposite.

In fact the industry is more likely to be completely gone long before the rewrite is completed.

Which sort of makes you wonder, why not just stop where they are?

The current reg's are very effectively grinding the GA industry into oblivion, why waste even more money?

The RPT guys are bleeding, maybe foreign operators will be given unfettered access to our domestic market, either way it won't make much difference, under Australian reg's our airfares will go back to the old unaffordable two airline days.

Minuscule and his mates better start saving now, widening highways is a costly business. We could end up with the pacific highway as wide as its long...Oh yeah someone else already thought of that!

Regardless of CAsA's failure and the corrupt waste of taxpayer's money, minuscule Wuss states he has no control over them and by inference neither does the government.

One thing seems very evident, CAsA can happily go on squandering public money, completely embuggering an industry and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Was someone right to call for civil disobedience?

Australia is an example of how inane very poor legislation can hobble an industry.

New Zealand is an example of how good legislation can let an industry reach it's potential, contributing significantly to the national wealth and wellbeing.

24th Sep 2014, 23:15
BRB last evening – there being no darts challenge to meet, was a fairly routine affair; the big topic of course – the extraordinary statement made by the hush power minuscule who, even at the best of times, operates on minimum thrust, which well and truly buggers up the OTP figures.

Most of the BRB are 'practical' folk, not naturally inclined to spend sunny days pawing through legal tomes, getting all dusty. But the existing high level of outrage relating directly to the manner in which matters aeronautical, of some importance are being brushed aside created a fairly hostile atmosphere. It would not, not initially at least, have been a good idea for Truss to 'pop in' for quick one on his way home. However, good sense and sage advice managed to sooth the beast. It seems 'technically' one of the very few parts of the letter to the BCM was quite factual. Enter the legal eagles: herewith, the potted version, you will I hope forgive any inaccuracy due to my translation and reporting; so E&OE:-

The 'Angel Flight' conundrum for CASA is the 1988 Reg 2 (7) and 7A. It seems that by effectively having to turn a blind eye, CASA are exposed, in the event of death or injury. The 'problem' is make sure that the 'operations' are clearly outside the direct responsibility of CASA. This by either a change to regulation; or, some form of self administration system established and probably some minimum qualification regime. Note: there was a modicum of sympathy for the CASA position expressed and that says something, coming from the BRB..

The minuscule playing his 'get out jail card' works in this instance, the weasel words in the rest of the published missive just dump the whole shooting match back on the CASA doorstep (more sympathy). But in fairness, there is little he can do – upfront for Angel Flight, however it does indicate a general shout of like it or lump it as he slithers out the back door. The 'kicker', CASA must be satisfied, does not bode well for AF, but so far no blood on the minuscule's hands.

Next, as CASA is a statutory body, CA Act sections 8, 12, 12A and 12 B, seem to define the ministers role in CASA affairs. It's a top flight legal job to decode as there are more by-ways and back alleys leading to the wriggle room and although it all borders on the old 'constitutional' wrangle; (State v Commonwealth) it would take a brave, young, very wealthy individual or group to tackle it.

It was agreed that it all comes down to willpower; or in the minuscule case – won't power. He can issue broad directions (interpreted to suit) and in matters regulatory directions of a 'general' nature; CASA are obliged to obey those; but, and once again, the 'interpreted to suit' trump card is played and it's back to court. Much to the general satisfaction and future well being of the legal teams.

A stronger, more determined man could shake this all loose, some of the past ministerial types have had an impact and cracked the whip. Is Truss such man? – BRB verdict a resounding, unanimous NO..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

The MoP remains a 'hot topic' and served well to restore the usual bonhomie; theories abound. One of the crew suggested a new 'wrinkle' and a couple of questions which generated some discussion. (Q) Was Mike Watson interviewed by the Canucks ?, if not why not? (Q) Are the ATSB are playing footsy with the Canucks, swapping 'fact' checks and doing all that collective executive team and investigator in charge input crap. As this is a family show, the speculative comments and agreements may not be published, being as how we've gone all PC and coy. But the notion that Beaker and his merry band of word benders are going to get off, Scot free is a whimsical dream. If the lid is ever blown off this little lot, even the media may get beyond just publishing well crafted media releases, edited to suit.

And that's about it, for on topic subjects that is; unless you want the on going saga of TB's beloved lampshade?? Recherché?, of course it is.

Toot toot....:D

25th Sep 2014, 00:25
Back in the good ‘ol days, when Dick had their attention because he threatened to campaign in support of Tony Windsor in John Anderson’s seat, and Dick got to play with airspace:Mr ANDERSON —The person who asked the question now asks me for my professional advice on air safety. It needs to be recognised that the model set up by the member for Kingsford-Smith, when he was the minister for aviation, clearly set up CASA as the body responsible for air safety in this country.

Ms Kernot —So you're in charge now?

Mr ANDERSON —I suggest that the member for Dickson should go and have a look at how the model was set up. It makes CASA responsible for air safety.

Frank Arouet
25th Sep 2014, 00:30
Falling Leaf;

Any "enviable" safety record, we may have, is in spite of CAsA, not because of CAsA. If there were no regulatory bodies as we now know them, there would be no impact upon safety, only financial industry security. EDIT to note Ceampuffs contribution that spells out clearly who is in charge of the asylum.

The BRB verdict on "Noddy Trust" was too kind in the reporting I would say. Having failed to gain admittance to Leftlegs group therapy class, the waste of my time was exaggerated by the lack of darts comp called off at the last minute. The absence of logic on the Trist question defied all attempts to reach any sane objective agreement except maybe the wheels had fallen off his mobile meth lab and the resulting vapors had him in a perpetual comatose state. He is dwelling in an induced intellectual comfort zone, (see Kharon post), and although having no control over CAsA, believes their invidious pious and sanctimonious policy's will see him through to his retirement at the Pete Slippery sanatorium where there is a work program to keep him busy. The Ills Of Society, (IOS), put forth a motion of name change to "aviation organized crime" (AOC), but was narrowly defeated under the anti terrorism clause in the constitution. The irony of risk of continued use of that acronym was not lost however.

Meritorious mention was made of the senior public service robot who has been added to the "I told you so" list of responsible identities.

Kicking a cat on the way home I mused at the mention of the minuscule living in the outback. In fact he was born at Kingaroy, the home of the nationals I guess, and lives and works near Hervey bay. There is more chance he has salt on the brain than cranial exposure to the outback sun. He did get a centurion gong I think, being one hundred years old or of Roman descent and drives a chariot. Something about being a centurion. (tank perhaps).

Anyway, the pub opens in half an hour.

25th Sep 2014, 00:39
This always cracks me up, and is the first thing CASA and the ATSB wheel out in their glossy brochures - as if they were responsible for it! Good point you make Falling Leaf, it is called the MOAS (mystique of aviation safety) and is the said agencies first line of defence when potentially threatened with any bad press. Just take a look at the PG missive trotted out two days ago when the MSM began asking for responses to the Angel Flight embuggerance...:ugh::No move to shutdown community service flights - CASA

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority rejects claims it is moving to shutdown community service flights.

CASA recognises the importance of community service flights such as Angel Flight to rural and regional Australia.

However, CASA makes no apologies for canvassing issues that relate to the safety of community service flights.

It is CASA’s role to continually look for ways to manage aviation safety in the most effective manner. It is this commitment that has helped to ensure Australia’s proud aviation safety record is maintained and improved.

In the case of community service flights CASA has issued a discussion paper which looks at safety issues relating to these flights and puts forward options for consideration.

Options include taking no action at all, special passenger briefings on community service flights, additional pilot training, a volunteer registration system, an approved self-administering organisation model and operations under an air operator’s certificate.

No decisions have been taken on any of these options and they have been released in order to promote informed discussion.

CASA will carefully consider all submissions in response to the discussion paper before deciding what-if any-further action may be appropriate.
If any changes to the current safety management of community service flights are to be proposed these will be subject to full consultation with all stakeholders.

Currently community service flights are considered to be private flights and the safety rules do not take into account the special characteristics of these operations.

CASA is well aware rural and regional communities benefit from the generous donation of time, expertise and money by all the volunteers and
donors to the community service flight charities.

However, CASA has a duty to ensure all Australians are provided with the most appropriate levels of aviation safety.
Read the community service flight discussion paper (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102133).

Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected]
Ref: MR10614
Still don't know why they even bother?? The IOS seem to be the only ones that know that such missives are just weasel words for the fact that Angel Flight's days are now numbered. What are they trying to protect their integrity, their reputation, they simply don't have any..:=

These days the industry don't believe any missive coming out of Sleepy Hollow, still I guess PG probably feels the need to protect his corner of the trough..:E

Here you go Jinglie Hansard for you..;):

Mr McCormick : I will just ask Dr Aleck to add a little bit to that.

Dr Aleck : The thrust of much of the discussion this morning has been, fairly enough, on the importance of ensuring an open and frank exchange of information between two agencies. The purpose of that has to be to bring to the attention of one agency or the other the view that maybe you have got something wrong or maybe you need to think about this or maybe this needs to be different. I would be concerned if the product of those exchanges did not from time to time lead to agencies changing their—

CHAIR: I accept that, but I would be concerned if it lead to a jointly agreeable neutral position.

Dr Aleck : I would share that concern, but I do not think that is the case. And it is at 04:10 ;):

Senator Heffernan Person at the back of the room 150213 - YouTube

And the email passages to which the Heff refers are all linked in my post from the Senate thread: Part three – Late entrants to the MoP Stakes (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html#post8614876)

{Comment: Interesting part in the Hansard prior to the Heff person at the back of the room vid...:confused:...which I think needs further investigation...:cool: Perhaps (for the sake of not drifting) not here but on the Senate thread....:oh:

Might help explain why the original Norfolk ditching IIC was apparently not referred to by the TSBC (bottom of last Kharon post), nor involved in the ATSB fact check review of the TSBC DRAFT report. Might also help firm up the odds for the MoP stakes..;)}


26th Sep 2014, 01:03
MMSM Steve has strangely descended from the Flight Levels this week...;)...maybe it has something to do with being trumped by a fellow MMSM stablemate a week before and then by the MSM opposition only three days ago, who knows?? Also surprising is that SC has not simply regurgitated the CM opinion piece but put another spin on the POTA {IOS selectively edited...:E}...:D:Charity group Angel Flight battles CASA regulation bid (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/charity-group-angel-flight-battles-casa-regulation-bid/story-e6frg95x-1227070713825)ANGEL Flight is appealing to local governments to lobby state and federal MPs as it moves to head off potential plans by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to boost regulation of its operations.

Founder and chief executive Bill Bristow said the community organisation had written to rural councils last week in all states except Tasmania and the Northern Territory asking them to explain to parliamentarians the importance of the service and the difficulties that shutting it down would cause.

Angel Flight co-ordinates non-emergency flights provided free to transport needy patients, relatives and carers, and medical supplies. It has about 2600 pilots on its register and has helped more than 2500 people across the country.

The charity depends on donations and, to help offset pilot operating costs, it negotiates the waiver of landing fees and air navigation charges.

“The local councils really are where the rubber hits the road,’’ Mr Bristow said.

“These are ­people dealing with the sick ­people in their community. They know them, they meet them down the street, so I’m hoping they will be an impassioned pressure group and they’ll talk to the federal politicians, ideally, and make them aware this is significant.’’

Angel Flight has also written to health professionals alerting them to a CASA discussion paper suggesting organisations under which it could be brought.

CASA says its preferred option would be to set up an organisation responsible for functions such as assessing and authorising pilots, requiring pilot proficiency checks and assessment, and approval of aircraft types.

The authority argues it could monitor safety standards under this system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.

But Mr Bristow argued there were no problems with his organisation that needed addressing.

He said he had yet to hear from CASA, although he had seen “unsatisfactory’’ responses from the authority’s spokesman to media articles.

“Disappointingly, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister whose department it is was just recently quoted as saying he doesn’t have any control over CASA,’’ Mr Bristow said.

“So he can’t help us.’’ More bad press for 'the WUSS!':=

Part 61 - 'Cold War' rhetoric

While SC was strangely down in the weeds (must be a poor news week for the Sky Gods) he must of bumped into IOS lifetime members Aerialag Phil, Rotor Head Crook & some 40 year CFI/owner boffin...:D:D:Pilot licensing rules put aviation sector in a tailspin (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilot-licensing-rules-put-aviation-sector-in-a-tailspin/story-e6frg95x-1227070695141)

Again I have used editorial privilege but this time there is a different reason, I'll call it the 20:4 ratio..:E

First the complainant 20:SMALLER aviation operators say they have been plunged into confusion by new pilot licensing rules that are hard to comprehend, not backed by education and contradictory in places.

Sections of the industry representing segments such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to have Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 delayed because neither side was adequately ­prepared.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum described Part 61 as “an overcomplicated and overweight document’’, while the Australian Helicopter Industry Association has raised safety ­issues and called for a “safe, cost- effective and operationally sound” version of the new rules.

Appeals to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to intervene were unsuccessful, and less than a month after the rules were introduced, industry members say their worst fears have been ­realised.

Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the lack of education was a big problem.

“It’s just appalling as in CASA has been caught with their pants down not having any educational material that’s easy to understand,’’ Mr Hurst said, noting the association had raised this issue in submissions in 2012 and 2013.

Mr Hurst said there was some advisory material but people were unable to find information unless they already knew the regulations and exactly what they were looking for. “I’ve been sitting on working groups since 1999 on this issue and I’m struggling to find stuff,’’ he said. “Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’

A veteran flying training operator with almost four decades in the industry said there was a lack of background, forms that didn’t yet exist and information that was still in draft form.

“The industry is crying,’’ the operator said.

He said the industry had been promised there would be no ­additional cost but there were “horrific costs involved’’.

“There are government guidelines saying there should be the removal of red tape, that there should be stuff done in simple ­language,’’ he said.
“Everything’s been done in legal speak again that we can’t understand. There are actually things in different parts of the regs that contravene each other.’’

AHIA president Peter Crook said rotary- and fixed-wing flying schools had told the association they could not understand the new regulations because of ­unclear and ambiguous wording.

Mr Crook said fixed-wing schools had calculated the cost of an endorsement on basic light twin-engine aircraft would rise by about $1000 and a helicopter training organisation said they could add $7000 to each of its ­endorsements because of the need to hire an approved testing officer.

The AHIA has questioned the move towards a European-influenced regulatory system given the US accident rate of 3.94 crashes per 100,000 hours compared to 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours in Australia.
Another problem raised by both rotary- and fixed-wing operators is the amount of untested material in the new regulations that relates to the competencies pilots are required to demonstrate.

The AAAA’s Mr Hurst said the association wrote many of the competencies in the new regulations for the aerial application ­rating and fire fighting endorsement. “But then they weren’t ­actually tested,’’ he said. “We ­expected there would be some quality assurance to say we’ve been out and we’ve tried to teach someone this sequence and we’ve found this problem or that ­problem.’’

Mr Hurst questioned whether the new rules were better than those they had replaced.

“I think the industry will give you a pretty firm view that this is just so overcomplicated for the task it does that we’ve actually gone backwards,’’ he said.

“I’d challenge anyone to get their head around the 800 pages of regulations and clearly enunciate how all of those rules work ­together.’’
Love Phil's plain language...:E

“Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’

Now for the respondent 4, first a pic to lighten the mood and IMO best describes the R4..;)


A CASA spokesman referred the operators to the authority’s website and said it was doing ­dozens of face-to-face presentations on the changes.

In the latest CASA briefing, acting chief Terry Farquharson said the introduction of the new rules, which heralded a four-year transition period, had happened without the world coming to a halt. “In fact, rather than a welter of problems caused by the new regulations our main challenge has been keeping up with the number of people keen to move their licence over to the new regime as soon as possible,’’ he said.

“CASA’s licensing team are doing their best to keep up with the influx of applications but I do ask for your forbearance during this initial busy period and remind everyone that it is not essential to have a new Part 61 licence ­immediately.’’

Mr Farquharson said CASA had engaged research company Colmar Brunton to conduct an online survey during next month about its safety promotion activities and called on the industry to provide feedback. {Observation: Passing strange is that less than a month ago it would have been totally unheard of for their to be a 20:4 ratio from SC for the complainant??}

Finally, as noted on the Senate thread, the AQONs are out:Addendum - AQON links

By the way for those interested the AQONs for the last Budget Estimates have finally been released...:D

Here are the relevant links of most interest:

229 - 240 Aviation and Airports (AAA)(PDF 180KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/AAA.pdf))QoN230A-B (PDF 106KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/attachments/QoN230A_B.pdf))

241 - 257 Airservices Australia (AA)(PDF 256KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/Airservices.pdf))

258 - 262 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)(PDF 92KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/ATSB.pdf))

263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf))
One AQON that I found interesting (that may give credence to Frank's Albo idea) was an answer to a QON from that loud mouth clown Senator Conroy:
Question as clarified by SE Committee:

What areas within CASA and AMSA have been identified to assist the Portfolio with making savings in order to meet the red tape or regulatory cost reduction target of $60 million per annum?

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is progressing initiatives to change a number of regulatory and service delivery processes to minimise the regulatory compliance and/or administrative burden and costs on aviation industry participants.

These initiatives include:
- amendments to Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) to reduce the complexity of flight training organisation approvals;
- amendments to CASR Part 61 to remove the requirement for a student pilot licence and reduce requirements for pilot proficiency checks in certain cases;
- limiting the need for aerial work operators to apply for and operate under an Air Operator’s Certificate and/or other authorisations for certain low risk and non-complex operations;
- developing proposals to provide administrative relief for small aircraft operators conducting local scenic flights as well as domestic freight operations;
- amending CASR Part 21 to expand the list of recognised countries for the purpose of mutual recognition in relation to airworthiness engineering and airworthiness approvals;
- permitting CASR Part 42 and Part 145 organisations to manage and maintain non-regular public transport aircraft, in addition to regular public transport aircraft, which avoids the need for organisations to hold both approvals (CASR Part 145 and CAR 30) and maintain two sets of manuals and other documentation;
- improvements to Advisory Circulars for aviation-related manufacturing industry participants to provide better guidance on application processes and the required supporting documentation; and

- streamlining medical administrative processes including enabling Class 2 medical certificates to be issued at the time of the medical examination by a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner.
There is plenty more AQONs of interest so fill your boots...:ok:

26th Sep 2014, 03:52
263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf))

In relation to a particular aircraft’s suitability to operate to a particular runway at an aerodrome, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.4 is applicable to aeroplanes, not above 5700 kg, conducting regular public transport operations (single -engine aeroplanes only), private operations, aerial work operations (excluding agricultural operations ) and charter operations. The take-off distance required can be determined for a level, short, dry, grass surface with factors of between 1.15 and 1.25 applied to the distance in the Aircraft Flight Manual for certain maximum take-off weights.

However, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. CAO 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.

Determining whether the take-off distance available is adequate to ensure safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of the pilot in command.
Weasel words. :yuk: Try operating this way in the real world. Any (if not all) of the CAsA FOI's I know would be all over this. I know its legal to operate on foreign AFM's but have had the conversation before.


28th Sep 2014, 21:41
Back in the old days, when folks worshipped the 'old gods', stone idols, bits of old bones or a pile of pony-pooh – if it pleased them, they looked for 'a sign' – always a sign. They were too realistic to expect actual words to be uttered by a stone idol. Chicken innards, fish guts, a couple of birds or the crops growing were all seen as auguries that the gods had listened, were happy and had bestowed that good will on the happy peasants and their masters alike.

I have determined to try some of the old time 'reading of the signs', just in case we expect too much from 'the gods', in the general way of communication. It is, I confess a slightly modified. 'modern' idea; inspired by 'the life of Brian', the gourd or the sandal type of decision. My first inkling that we should 'look to the past' for answers came when the sky didn't fall in when 61 went live. One of the problems of the old system of divination, by sign was that the gods could be ambiguous. For example, demigod Farq-u-hardson sent us a sign that all was well; for indeed, the sky did not fall in – however, this failed to explian why an earthquake stuck a flying school, a charter operator went mad, or why the chooks stopped laying. Tricky business this readin' of augury.

We probably do expect too much and really should hone our arcane skills. Was that rumble of thunder the gods decision to publish the industry responses to the WLR?, was that dead spider some god speak defining the reform or not question?; perhaps if I count the grains of sugar which missed my coffee cup the answers to old questions can be numerically deduced.

Don't know; but another month has rolled by and we can comfortably assume the rest of this one will follow suite, without response. So for the benefit and mental well being of our happy (IOS) peasants I shall Google some voodoo rituals, a tea leaf reading course and perhaps, chook guts reading: just to see what, if any answers may be gleaned from the gods, determined by a more scientific approach to finding out WTF is going on (or not, as the case may be).

No!, by Golly – I'm off to the dark cave, to visit the three Aunts: now that's a sure fire winner.

First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Toot toot...:D...:bored:

29th Sep 2014, 10:32
Update on Cooper Pedy runway width issue, from Aunty today...:D:Coober Pedy flights fix sparks hope of 'better relations' between airlines and CASA (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-29/coober-pedy-flights-resolution-sparks-hopes-of/5776184)

Australia's Regional Aviation Association is hoping a resolution over commercial flights to Coober Pedy is part of ongoing improvements in relations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Last Thursday, Regional Express (Rex) reversed a decision stopping future flights to Coober Pedy after resolving issues with CASA over the width of the town's runway.

Flights will continue as normal while the runway is widened.

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA, which is undergoing changes including a new board.
"I think the previous decision that was restricting Rex airlines so much that they really were finding it difficult to fly in - that was a bad decision - now there's some sense come into this," he said.

"Rex and the council, everybody has been given some time to make the surface appropriate and not stop any services.

"It couldn't have got much worse over the last five or six years and I'm not laying blame on either side, I'm just saying the relationship had broken down rather fundamentally.

"There is a new board being appointed, a new head of CASA being organised, so we're hoping for much better relations in the future." So a new hope?? Or a vain hope?? :rolleyes:

Also noticed that this back-down by FF was stated as being a 2 year extension to the previous exemption, does this mean all strips that REX operates to that need the exemption are included??


Frank Arouet
29th Sep 2014, 11:36
So the dangerously narrow strip is, for the time being, now OK and not dangerous. The flights can continue as normal, but only while while the runway is being widened because normal is abnormal but will soon be normal again.

Fair enough.

29th Sep 2014, 21:18
Well done All. Common sense prevails, choccy frog to CASA...:ok:

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA, which is undergoing changes including a new board.

"I think the previous decision that was restricting Rex airlines so much that they really were finding it difficult to fly in - that was a bad decision - now there's some sense come into this," he said.

Colour me happy....:D:D

30th Sep 2014, 06:50
Bravo bravo and well done on Coober Pedy. Could this be a 'baby step' towards sensibilty? Have CASA and industry just enjoyed their first act of foreplay? Maybe, maybe not. Either way Paul Tyrrell has proven one thing - Industry is more than happy to co-exist with the Regulator, and only asks to be listened to and treated with fairness. This small olive leaf could be turned into the start a new regime, an equitable working relationship. The ball is, and always has been in CASA's court.

30th Sep 2014, 08:06
From Aunty last week on this back-down by FF:Flights between Adelaide and Coober Pedy to continue after agreement to widen runway
Posted Fri at 10:33amFri 26 Sep 2014, 10:33am
Related Story: MP questions need for Coober Pedy runway widening (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/mp-questions-need-for-coober-pedy-runway-widening/5727380)
Related Story: Council told to widen Coober Pedy runway (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/council-told-to-widen-coober-pedy-runway/5678102)
Related Story: Flights to Coober Pedy to continue (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-07-25/flights-to-coober-pedy-to-continue/2014788)

Map: SA (http://maps.google.com/?q=-35.2333,138.7500(SA)&z=5)

Flights between Adelaide and Coober Pedy in South Australia's north are to continue after an agreement was reached for the town to widen its runway.
The Regional Express airline had planned to stop operating the route from November 13 due to new runway width requirements imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

But the firm's director Jim Davis said the local council had now agreed to widen the runway.

He said the route would continue running as the CASA had relaxed the rules since an agreement was now in place.

"There'll be no more disruption to services as long as the runway widening is carried out within a reasonable time," Mr Davis said.

"That time's not specified, so CASA has been fairly reasonable in allowing the work to take place.

"The work will have to take place within a reasonable timeframe once the funding's obtained."

District Council of Coober Pedy Mayor Steve Baines said it would be business as usual as long as the council could obtain funding and carry out the work.

Mr Baines said last month that widening the runway could cost up to $500,000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/council-told-to-widen-coober-pedy-runway/5678102).

Yes Soty sounds more like a classic FF 'stick and carrot' play...:ugh: I do wonder though if this opens the door for other operators with runway width exemptions expiring 13 November 2014??

After all (from what I can find), in the case of REX & PelAir, they were given a general exemption due to expire February 2015 and not just a one off exemption for Cooper Pedy: 15. CASA EX37/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex37.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(REX)
16. CASA EX36/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex36.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(Pel-Air)

[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety
6 March 2012
Exemption — from minimum runway width instructions
1 Duration
This instrument:
(a) commences on 8 March 2012; and
(b) stops having effect at the end of February 2015.
2 Application
This instrument only applies to the SAAB Model A and B aircraft operated by Regional Express Pty Limited, Aviation Reference Number 752788.
3 Exemption
The aircraft are exempt from compliance with the instructions in instrument CASA 61/12.
4 Conditions
The exemption is subject to the conditions mentioned in Schedule 1.
Schedule 1 Conditions
1 The aircraft must not land on, or take off from, a runway that is less than 18 metres wide.
2 Operations on a runway that is not less than 18 metres wide must be conducted in accordance with the Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement #20 for the SAAB SF340A and Supplement #16 for the SAAB 340B.
Examples would be Hardy Aviation - CASA EX83/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14083.pdf)– Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m) - or Pearl Aviation - CASA EX45/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14045.pdf) - Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)...:rolleyes:

From RAAA ASRR submission:
CAR 235A – minimum runway width

CAR235A describes a process to develop standards of operations
on narrow runways. It also introduces additional requirements that
may restrict or prohibit operations to remote regional communities.
Additionally, the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) contains
contradictions in regard to crew training and does not provide an
alternative means of achieving equivalent safety outcomes. One of
our Members indicated that CAR 235A has put regular public transport
services to at least one remote regional location in jeopardy.

Another of our members had a local inspector do all the checks at
Clermont Qld for reduced runway width and submitted the Standard
Form of Recommendation (SFR) to CASA where it was signed off by
the applicable section. After this it went to the General Manager within
CASA for final approval who refused to sign it without reason. The
CASA General Manager revisited the SFR twice ultimately waiting till
the maximum time period (3 months) specified in the regulations was
just about expired and then approved the SFR. Due to the excessive
period taken by CASA the client of our Member had decided not to
proceed with the project (mining) at that time.
Hmm...maybe the RAAA could put forward an application for a general (blanket) exemption for all it's effected members, with the proviso that the various effected airports acquire funding and start construction, for widening their runways, within an acceptable time-frame. Certainly test the veracity of this supposed goodwill gesture from FF...:E

While on Cooper Pedy I noticed that a certain PC-12/47 had a run in with a fence while landing just the other day.
The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a runway undershoot involving a Pilatus Aircraft, PC-12/47, VH-HIG at Coober Pedy Airport, South Australia on 23 September 2014.

During an approach to runway 32 in gusty conditions, the pilot encountered reducing visibility due to dust, and a high sink rate. The aircraft touched down short of the runway and collided with a fence.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and seek information from the operator.

A report will be released within several months.Maybe FF will now require operators to apply for runway length exemptions??? ;)


thorn bird
30th Sep 2014, 12:12
Simple fix for the problem Sarc's is to require all runways in Australia to be as wide as they are long...in the old days they called them "all over fields" Bankstown used to be an all over field, now its an industrial estate.

How many pages of differences with ICAO reside in our AIP???

How simple to include one dealing with runway width because the ICAO requirements are specifically to deal with contaminated runways...ever heard of snow/slush at sunshine coast???

30th Sep 2014, 21:18
Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA,

Had this statement been made a year ago; I'd have been shaking my head. But Paul Tyrrell and the rest of the RAA board are no where near silly, nor are they gullible. The RAA submission to the WLR was powerful and defined, very clearly that the RAA understood 'the system', were unafraid of the CASA stick and would not be fobbed off with a carrot. It's not a perfect solution, but if Tyrrell and his crew are able to negotiate a 'sensible' outcome, it's a good start along a very long path.

Heh, heh; ...the PC 12 story is beautifully ironic; "no problem with the existing width, officer on the centreline all the way in, just a bit too short for landing in contrary winds that's all".

Murphy Rules – OK....:ok:

Toot toot.

1st Oct 2014, 05:22
I'm a bit confused...

Operations on a runway that is not less than 18 metres wide must be conducted in accordance with the Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement #20 for the SAAB SF340A and Supplement #16 for the SAAB 340B.

I thought the whole idea of the "Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement" was that the operations to narrow runways was now part of the accepted certification of the 'airplane' and thus a permanent exemption from CAR 235A - am I missing something?

1st Oct 2014, 07:29
I'm a bit confused...
Seems there is a few on here today that are confused....

Eddie D (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/548325-legal-experts-cao-20-18-10-a-4.html#post8678717) - "There seems to be confusion over class of operation and category of maintenance, then again that may not be the case because the confusion is confusing me."

:D:D...for a second post Eddie that is a classic...:E Kind of says it all when it comes to interpreting the regs, although it probably doesn't top AerialAg Phil's comment on Part 61..

“Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’;)

But back to scrubba's confusion, although not entirely guaranteed..:rolleyes:, perhaps this recent DRAFT version of the intended CAAP 235A might help:CAAP 235A-1(0) (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/airspace/download/draft-caap235a-1.pdf)

Why this publication was written
The purpose of this CAAP is to identify the minimum runway width requirements that apply to aeroplanes with a Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) greater than 5,700kg engaged in regular public transport (RPT) or charter (CHTR) operations. This CAAP identifies the recommended processes and considerations for the initial production of the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM), AFMS and operational documentation for narrow runway operations.
However if those 35 pages only add to your confusion scrubba perhaps the following parting good-will letter from the former DAS to REX may help your confused state of mind...:E:
Trim Ref.' EF14/283

29 August 2014
Mr Neville Howell
Chief Operating Officer
Regional Express
PO Box 807

Dear Mr Howell

I am writing to provide you with the currently available information regarding the ongoing
operation of SAAB 340 aircraft at Coober Pedy. Firstly, let me make it clear that as
previously communicated to you, CASA is seeking means to permit continued safe SAAB
340 operations at Coober Pedy and not to prevent these flights.

Previously, and at present, SAAB 340 operations to runways as narrow as 18m (including
Coober Pedy) have been conducted, in part, under the authority a Flight Manual Supplement
(FMS) that was developed and approved by the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1991.

CASA is developing a revised legislative package that provides for the assessment of the
capability of aeroplanes to conduct narrow runway operations. This is the alternative to
requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways at aerodromes that do not meet the
aerodrome standards for larger aeroplane types. The assessment will include evaluation of
aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities. lt should be noted that these approvals
frequently impose limitations, an example of which would be a reduced cross wind limit.

Other major regulators including the FAA, EASA and NZ CAA do not allow operations into
runways narrower than the aircraft code and without CASAs legislative package this kind of
operation would cease.

This revised legislative package (CAR 235A and CAAP) is proposed to come into effect as
early as 13th November 2014. Guidance on how to comply with that regulation, and CA SA's
policy on the matter, is provided in CAAP 235A-1 (0). The regulation remains subject to the
Government's normal regulation approval process, including approval by the GovernorGeneral.
CAAP 235A-1 (0) clarifies that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material.
Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel
shoulders on either side. This would be considered an 18m wide runway, not a 30m wide
runway for the purposes of the new regulation. This takes into account the effect of having
different braking and performance characteristics when one set of main landing gear wheels
is on gravel and the other on a sealed surface. Similarly, aircraft certification is based on
keeping both landing gear tracks wholly contained on the same surface with the same friction

The FMS previously approved by the CAA restricts operations on 18m wide runways by
application of a 17kt cross wind limitation. However, CASA has identified issues with the
basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in
the future.

Earlier this year CASA conducted some initial simulator testing and this indicated that the
cross wind limit may need to be reduced to 10kt in order to ensure the continued safe
operation of SAAB 340 aircraft on the 18m wide runway at Coober Pedy.

CASA has also sought assistance from SAAB to specifically facilitate ongoing operations at
Coober Pedy. Progressing this matter will need to be done in accordance with CASA's policy
as set out in the proposed CAAP 235. SAAB is currently considering if a suitable FMS might
be generated to allow operation to the 18m wide portion of the runway at Coober Pedy, or if
operations to the wider (30M) non-homogeneous Coober Pedy runway may be viable. lt
should be noted that the outcome of this analysis in no way guarantees that a less restrictive
cross wind limit than that proposed by CASA would result.

Based on the 10kt crosswind limitation proposed by CASA, services at the airport could be
affected up to 10% of the time. This is based on information contained in the 2008 report into
options for Coober Pedy airport that was prepared by Aerodrome Design Pty Ltd for the
Coober Pedy District Council.

Whilst there is no requirement in the regulations to widen the runway at Coober Pedy to a
30m homogenous surface, if the runway was widened it would mean that an FMS would not
be required for services to Coober Pedy with SAAB 340 aircraft, and that REX services could
continue with no operational limitations. An acceptable method to "widen" the runway
includes applying sealant to the gravel shoulders of the runway strip, so that the landing
surface would be extended to a 30 metre wide homogenous surface.

To permit continued SAAB 340 operations at Coober Pedy there are a number of options
1. Awaiting the outcome of SAAB's analysis while operating in accordance with CA SA's
recently determined limitations.
2. Sealing the runway shoulders to provide a homogenous 30m surface, allowing
operations of SAAB 340 aircraft with no additional operating limits.

Another option would be to conduct operations to Coober Pedy with an aircraft type such as
a Dash 8, Fokker 50 or Beech Kingair that has the necessary performance and handling
characteristics, and is already approved by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for
operations to an 18m runway.

{this is the bit scrubba...;)}
The new legislation proposed by CASA means that aeroplane operators will no longer need
to apply for exemptions for narrow runway operations. Instead, aeroplanes will need to have
been assessed by the OEM or by flight test of the aeroplane to determine their capability to
operate on narrow runways.

Irrespective of the proposed legislative changes CASA will continue to work with SAAB and
REX to facilitate ongoing operations of SAAB340 aircraft at Coober Pedy, noting that
depending on the option chosen this may be with appropriate operational limitations to
ensure the safety of such operations.

Yours sincerely

John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Errr...John REX don't operate Dash 8, Fokker 50 or B200 but nice thought though...:E