Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review [Archive] - Page 5

Kharon

10th Jul 2014, 20:20

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

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

MM: "Yers Minister, unfortunately we do".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah._.

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

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

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

Sunfish

10th Jul 2014, 21:04

Kharon, I think the race is over and we've lost our shirts.

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

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

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

Kharon

10th Jul 2014, 21:16

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

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

Lookleft

12th Jul 2014, 00:51

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

004wercras

12th Jul 2014, 11:05

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

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

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

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

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

12th Jul 2014, 20:40

004 , sounds like fun. For giggles it'd be nice to see Byron return and see some of those frantically trying to hide under rocks in the more remote locations.

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

Sen X and Fawcett continue to stir things up too.

It's good entertainment.

Kharon

12th Jul 2014, 22:21

LL - If you are willing to accept Mrdak then you also have to accept Beaker.

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

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

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

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

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

Time for second coffee, reality fix required...

Toot toot...

Lookleft

13th Jul 2014, 07:50

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

thorn bird

13th Jul 2014, 09:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.....What???

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

Minuscule WUSS...tick tock

Prince Niccolo M

13th Jul 2014, 10:57

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

004wercras

13th Jul 2014, 12:09

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

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

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

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

"Game on"

Kharon

13th Jul 2014, 22:37

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

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

Kharon

13th Jul 2014, 22:44

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toot toot.

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

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

aroa

13th Jul 2014, 22:53

CAsA = Corrupt Authority, Safety an Afterthought. :mad:

CAsA is CORRUPT morally and IN FACT.

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

NOBODY...as we know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarcs

14th Jul 2014, 03:47

AMROBA express concern for new DAS selection process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

004wercras

14th Jul 2014, 11:57

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

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

Sunfish

14th Jul 2014, 11:59

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

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

dubbleyew eight

14th Jul 2014, 12:54

you didn't almost die.
the stall warning sounds about 5 knots faster than the speed at which a stall is inevitable.

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

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

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

thorn bird

14th Jul 2014, 19:09

A lot less than 300 Dubya, I believe the industry has less than 10 years if things go on as they are, unless our luck runs out and a smoking hole appears.

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

Jinglie

15th Jul 2014, 10:48

Sarcs, AMROBA,

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

Kharon

15th Jul 2014, 19:58

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah..

004wercras

15th Jul 2014, 21:40

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

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

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

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

Kharon

15th Jul 2014, 22:17

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

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

Sunfish

17th Jul 2014, 20:55

Bump. Don't let this topic die. That is what the Minister and his Department is hoping for, reform fatigue.

Sarcs

17th Jul 2014, 23:40

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

Okay back to the thread...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kharon

18th Jul 2014, 03:29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

004wercras

18th Jul 2014, 13:23

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

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

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

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

Kharon

18th Jul 2014, 20:17

004 – "I believe I mentioned Herr Manning some time ago as being the Number 1 contender in the DAS race."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah.

Sarcs

19th Jul 2014, 01:35

The Forsyth report suggested criteria for the DAS position recommended:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTF...:ok:

dubbleyew eight

19th Jul 2014, 02:45

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

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

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

Prince Niccolo M

19th Jul 2014, 09:07

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

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

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

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

dubbleyew eight

19th Jul 2014, 09:33

there are no "highly respected pilots in australian aviation" it is a level playing field.
some of us anonymous guys are better pilots than any of the high profile w@nkers.
flying a commercial airliner make you a pilot of a commercial airliner.
flying a mirage fighter makes you a fighter pilot (canon fodder)
flying a cessna makes you a cessna pilot.

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

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

004wercras

19th Jul 2014, 10:02

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

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

thorn bird

19th Jul 2014, 10:23

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

We need a reforming DAS.

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

19th Jul 2014, 11:29

We need a reforming DAS.

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

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

004wercras

21st Jul 2014, 13:07

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

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

thorn bird

21st Jul 2014, 21:18

Oh good grief!! what are they thinking!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunfish

22nd Jul 2014, 09:40

Beaker is the perfect person to send to the Ukraine. He is guaranteed to come up with the party line verdict - that the Rebels shot down the aircraft.

004wercras

22nd Jul 2014, 11:03

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

Jinglie

22nd Jul 2014, 12:05

Like he added an important piece to the Norfolk Ditching report.

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

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

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

RIP lost souls

Jinglie

22nd Jul 2014, 12:32

Quote from the Air Force Media release;

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

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

Kharon

22nd Jul 2014, 20:50

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

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

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

(No offence Mach.E.)..

Sarcs

23rd Jul 2014, 00:00

Jinglie good pick up...:D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, 21 July 2014
Prime Minister
E&OE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 July 2014

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

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

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

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

Interesting times indeed...

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

MTF...:ok:

004wercras

23rd Jul 2014, 00:21

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

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

thorn bird

23rd Jul 2014, 03:45

"We normally say as investigators it can take up to a year to get a firm result,"

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

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

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

dubbleyew eight

23rd Jul 2014, 09:58

it might take a year when the cause of the prang is not known.
ffs we know what caused the accident.
a perfectly serviceable Boeing 777 was shot down by a rebel fired BUK missile.

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

Jinglie

23rd Jul 2014, 10:12

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

004wercras

23rd Jul 2014, 11:28

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

23rd Jul 2014, 13:29

According to Flight the Dutch authorities are to lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redzone

24th Jul 2014, 05:04

Just spoken with Manning. Says he definitely hasn't either applied for or been asked to apply for the DAS or any other position. Says he's way too old for it.

Sarcs

24th Jul 2014, 07:09

Interesting article today from the Oz...:rolleyes:Too close for comfort (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/too-close-for-comfort/story-e6frg6z6-1226999240114)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the ATSB says this is not enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TICK...TOCK miniscule...:E

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

MTF..:ok:

004wercras

24th Jul 2014, 10:59

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

Also;

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

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

TICK TOCK

Sunfish

24th Jul 2014, 19:23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kharon

24th Jul 2014, 20:56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah.

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

Sarcs

25th Jul 2014, 02:32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTF..:ok:

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

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

dubbleyew eight

25th Jul 2014, 10:08

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

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

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

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

25th Jul 2014, 15:50

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

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

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

Kharon

25th Jul 2014, 22:35

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toot toot.

004wercras

26th Jul 2014, 10:46

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

Tick tock

thorn bird

26th Jul 2014, 12:09

"Is it just me – or does Truss look like Blinky Bill in that photo"

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

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

004wercras

27th Jul 2014, 10:05

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

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

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

27th Jul 2014, 10:38

Lots of interesting departures in 2010.

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

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

Kharon

27th Jul 2014, 20:03

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

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

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

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

CaptainMidnight

28th Jul 2014, 09:23

Recommendation 12.

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

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

Sunfish

28th Jul 2014, 18:17

Midnight:

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

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

That includes:

Executive Manager
Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division

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

Kharon

28th Jul 2014, 21:52

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunfish

28th Jul 2014, 23:31

Kharon, you forget the old saw:

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

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

"Minister, this changes everything!":ugh:

Strainer

29th Jul 2014, 02:38

A recruitment company is putting together a short list of candidates for interview by a panel of CASA board members and the head of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Mike Mrdak

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

Kharon

29th Jul 2014, 03:10

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

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

Sarcs

30th Jul 2014, 10:13

While we continue to wait for the miniscule to blink the elephants in the room are happily putting on weight and some are reaching the end of a lengthy gestation period and about to multiply...:E

Recent arrivals to the miniscule elephant herd...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTF…:ok:

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

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

004wercras

30th Jul 2014, 10:45

Here is the link to ICAO's release today;

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

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

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

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

TICK TOCK

Kharon

30th Jul 2014, 20:57

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

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

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

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

Toot toot.-.

Sarcs

30th Jul 2014, 22:19

004...

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

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

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

Panel facilitated by Doug Nancarrow, Editor Aviation Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly got that right...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

TBM-Legend

30th Jul 2014, 23:20

Three military types on the shortlist including the head of ADFA I believe...

004wercras

31st Jul 2014, 20:43

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

Sunfish

31st Jul 2014, 21:04

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

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

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

Kharon

31st Jul 2014, 21:18

Good call Sunny, herewith my CV humbly tendered in application for the position. (Is that ten).

My application.

bankrunner

1st Aug 2014, 00:40

What's Ralph Norris doing nowadays? :ok:

Sarcs

1st Aug 2014, 02:00

Flawed safety laws must be stalled, says helicopter association (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/flawed-safety-laws-must-be-stalled-says-helicopter-association/story-e6frg95x-1227009045735)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Minister,

Urgent Request to Defer CASR Part 61

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTF..:ok:

004wercras

1st Aug 2014, 06:22

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

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

Lookleft

1st Aug 2014, 22:31

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

Frank Arouet

1st Aug 2014, 23:23

"eternity" is similarly meaningless but is etched in Sydney history.

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

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

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

Lookleft

1st Aug 2014, 23:52

For a start the gentleman who expressed his faith on the streets of Sydney got his message writ large on the Harbour Bridge at the turn of this century so I think he actually succeeded in getting his message across.

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

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

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

Frank Arouet

2nd Aug 2014, 00:54

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

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

Out of interest, exactly what is your agenda?

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

Lookleft

2nd Aug 2014, 01:26

Because its Saturday its too cold to be outside and I am taking a break from more serious matters let me go through your points Frank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of interest, exactly what is your agenda?

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

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

Frank Arouet

2nd Aug 2014, 03:54

Quickly so I too can go out and sun myself;

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

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

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

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

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

"Ditto" the weekend, thanks.

004wercras

2nd Aug 2014, 09:01

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

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

Tick tock

004wercras

4th Aug 2014, 05:35

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

Tick tock

Kharon

4th Aug 2014, 19:32

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

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

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

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

Toot toot..-.-

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

Two of my favourite things – in one;

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

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

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

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

Sponsored by IOS chapter for peace in our time.

PAIN_NET

5th Aug 2014, 04:17

The PAIN association has been advised that certain individuals are purporting to represent, or to actually be an active part of the network to various individuals and agencies.

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

[email protected]

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

Thank you.

P7. a.k.a. TOM.

Creampuff

5th Aug 2014, 04:23

Errrmm, your post purports to represent "PAIN_NET".

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

PAIN_NET

5th Aug 2014, 05:48

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

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

It invites false identity theft

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

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

P7 a.k.a. TOM

Creampuff

5th Aug 2014, 06:57

Discrete? If you say so …

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

Jinglie

5th Aug 2014, 10:00

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

004wercras

5th Aug 2014, 11:32

Latest from the Beaker files;

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

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

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

Jinglie

5th Aug 2014, 11:45

004, A "man can only take so much! When a ""govt takes too much" it's time to move on! Thanks. Ppruners and IOS, well done!

Kharon

5th Aug 2014, 21:18

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

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

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

Kharon

7th Aug 2014, 21:28

I wonder what heinous crime 004 has committed, this time? the posts I can read seem positively sanguine, with barely a curse to offend the delicate sensibilities.

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

Sad little Toot toot.

Sarcs

7th Aug 2014, 23:19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTF..:ok:

Sarcs

8th Aug 2014, 05:51

From Oz Flying today...

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

08 Aug 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIUYA

8th Aug 2014, 08:58

New Approach to Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

Source: AeroSafety WORLD July-August 2014

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

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

MINISTER - DO SOMETHING!

Kharon

8th Aug 2014, 19:51

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

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

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

Frank Arouet

8th Aug 2014, 23:16

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

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

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

Where have all the sophists gone?

Sarcs

9th Aug 2014, 23:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"...Performance-based regulation (PBR) is central to EASA's and ICAO’s future plans. The CAA is working closely with our international colleagues to shape how PBR works in practice. The UK industry has fed back that it believes PBR should make the CAA more proportionate and targeted, have a greater degree of commercial awareness and be more transparent about how money is spent..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kharon

10th Aug 2014, 21:39

The issues raised in item 'V' (5 in new money) only lightly, almost unnoticeably touches on the very real issues associated with "manuals".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toot toot...

Sarcs

11th Aug 2014, 10:02

Has the ASRR report and recommendations created a false hope of reform to aviation. Prior to the election, the LNP met with many in the aviation industry and pro-duced the LNP Aviation Policy that was supported by most participants in this industry. The government’s aviation policy published last August has industry support and many are now asking when will anything constructive happen.
“Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.”
Many changes need to happen so the industry can grow in a safe, competitive, productive environment. The reversal of current direction being taken by CASA to create a regulatory environment based on EASA “organisational structure” to all sectors of aviation would be a start. The Minister’s ASRR has produced a report with recom-mendations generally supported by industry partici-pants. This report would change the regulatory direc-tion of CASA but the government has not yet endorsed the recommendations.
‘The public and industry comment period on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report is now closed. The Government is considering its response to the Report's recommendations and other matters arising out of the Report.”
The fear and concerns from industry participants is that the bureaucrats reviewing this report will not endorse the recommendations because it will affect the size and responsibility of their future roles. We are aware of interviews being carried out by the same ‘head -hunters’ from Melbourne obviously working with the same criteria as previously used to employ the last 3 CASA Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Will CASA end up with a new DAS committed to implement the Report or one that will continue on with the direction that CASA has taken under the stewardship of Byron and McCormick. Industry knows that it is others in CASA that are hell -bent on implementing EASA organisation structures to all sectors of aviation. EASA has accepted their blunder but not CASA. If the Report is taken honestly by the government, then the Civil Aviation Act will need to be amended so the outcome of the recommendations for CASA, CASA’s philosophy, its management structure and the development and promulgation of aviation standards comply with the criteria in the report.
Congratulations to Jeff Boyd being appointed as Deputy Chair of the CASA Board. Jeff has AMROBA support for this position and we hope that more aviation persons like Jeff are appointed to the Board. He is only one new ap-pointment, we wait anxiously for the rest to be appointed. The Minister must get the right people so the Board man-ages CASA, not CASA managing the Board.
Over the last decade, creating legislation has become the default approach to aviation safety. You can legislate safety in the design of products but it takes a lot more to create and maintain a safety culture with humans. The challenge to CASA is for them to develop and prom-ulgate requirement for industry participants to follow, without the need to “satisfy” CASA. If CASA standards were written as standards then there is no need to ‘satisfy’ CASA —all CASA needs to confirm is that the applicant/participant is following the standard. Real consultation died some time ago with CASA.
They have an attitude that their regulatory development pro-cess is best for safety without any consideration to the sustainability of the actual participants in this industry. You will get the argument from public servants that there are more than just the aviation regulatory requirements that are affecting the sustainability of various sectors of aviation. However, the same people point out that recrea-tional aviation is booming under a less rigid regime. If this regime is safe, then why isn’t it applied to all like aircraft in Australia? Why are some sectors discriminated against by the application of organisational requirements on sectors where the FAA, for instance, simply depend on individuals to take responsibility? Even if the ASRR Report recommendations were fully adopted, the rest of the regulatory system completed in 12 months, and the philosophy of CASA changed, will it enable the revival of those sectors that are suffering?
Even if the current regulatory system was revamped into the 3 tier system proposed by the Report, would there be a resurgence in those sectors suffering at present. It can, but it will take a determined DAS to bring back life into the aviation industry. All aviation can benefit if the new DAS creates an administrative structure similar to what the ASRR Report recommended and they have a re-sponsibility for safety and sustainability of their respec-tive aviation sectors. Adopting ASRR recommended international standards to all commercial aviation sectors would be the first step.
(From AMROBA newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 08 (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14077512434676&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=f8d628e1-91ea-4b65-b61b-29b417db966d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%252F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Famroba.org.au%252Fimages %252Fnewsletters%252FVol%25252011%252520Issue%2525208.pdf%26 ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%252F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F&title=Merged%3A%20Senate%20Inquiry%20-%20Page%20110%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=From%20AMROBA%20newsletter%20-%20Volume%2011%2C%20Issue%2008%20)August — 2014 (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Famroba.org.au%2Fimages%2Fnewsletters%2FVol% 252011%2520Issue%25208.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F))

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

11th Aug 2014, 21:34

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, 09:02

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!

Kharon

15th Aug 2014, 20:27

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, 20:33

aww jeez Kharon, I had a hell of a time getting the lampshade off after the last one!!

Sarcs

17th Aug 2014, 09:03

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, 09:09

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:

Kharon

17th Aug 2014, 23:10

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, 05:15

I do sincerely hope that the new director of aviation safety (a nonsense concept if ever there was one) is a Canadian.

Break the bull**** 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, 05:43

Dubya,
based on the inaction of minister WUSS,
I'd be trotting along to the Canook embassy.

Sarcs

18th Aug 2014, 06:44

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:

Creampuff

18th Aug 2014, 06:59

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, 09:18

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.

Jinglie

18th Aug 2014, 10:05

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, 11:51

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??

Jinglie

18th Aug 2014, 12:14

"the horror, the horror"!

Sarcs

19th Aug 2014, 09:25

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:

MTF...:ok:

dubbleyew eight

19th Aug 2014, 14:06

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:

Soteria

19th Aug 2014, 16:53

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?

Kharon

19th Aug 2014, 21:13

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.

Selah....

Frank Arouet

20th Aug 2014, 01:27

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!

LeadSled

20th Aug 2014, 01:48

Folks,
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!!

Sarcs

20th Aug 2014, 08:33

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

SIUYA

20th Aug 2014, 09:02

...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:

scrubba

20th Aug 2014, 10:24

Hey Leadsled,

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

20th Aug 2014, 17:07

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?

Sarcs

21st Aug 2014, 07:19

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"

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

21st Aug 2014, 19:24

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 ****e 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.

Selah..

Sarcs

22nd Aug 2014, 01:26

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:

Kharon

22nd Aug 2014, 21:13

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:

Sarcs

24th Aug 2014, 00:11

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:

Example:

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..;)

robsrich

24th Aug 2014, 05:47

AHIA MEDIA RELEASE – 24 Aug ‘14

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
President
AHIA – 24 August 2014.

Prince Niccolo M

24th Aug 2014, 05:56

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, 06:21

Peter;

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.

Kharon

24th Aug 2014, 06:45

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.

-.-....:ok:

Prince Niccolo M

24th Aug 2014, 15:35

Sorry K,

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

Sarcs, can you pick up the response please?

Sarcs

24th Aug 2014, 21:35

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:

triadic

24th Aug 2014, 23:24

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???

Kharon

25th Aug 2014, 01:59

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

Cactusjack

25th Aug 2014, 02:00

Asta lavista

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102132

This is the last time I will be communicating with the aviation community in my role as CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety. My slightly extended term as Director is completed at the end of August 2014. The last five and a half years have been 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. 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. Safe skies for all is the goal that drives CASA.
Never-the-less I know CASA and myself in particular have our critics. Some of the critics offer constructive criticism and this is welcomed and indeed valued. I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety. Right through my term I have encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate. I know this work to get the best possible safety outcomes through joint efforts by CASA and the aviation community will continue. However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgements, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety. 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 an d 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. 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.
The future for CASA will be positive. Our people are committed to their work, their organisation and Australian aviation. I am sure any changes made to CASA in the future will further strengthen the organisation and the outcomes it delivers for all Australians. I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers.
Best regards
John F McCormick
His final spray at the IOS? Of course. And what about the bit about CASA being looked up to by other regulators around the world? WTF, has he lost his mind?

Farewell, good riddance and don’t bang the door on the way out....

Captain Dart

25th Aug 2014, 02:10

Another Star Chamber nasty gone from our lives at last. The boys at Cathay Pacific will be pleased.

Creampuff

25th Aug 2014, 02:18

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. :=

Sarcs

25th Aug 2014, 05:58

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)

Addendum

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:

MTF...:ok:

Creampuff

25th Aug 2014, 06:19

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:

halfmanhalfbiscuit

25th Aug 2014, 07:18

“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, 08:38

"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, 12:17

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, 14:48

Tell us more about the Canadian maintenance self doing deal. Is it for fully certified aircraft or is it just for Ultralights and experimental!?

halfmanhalfbiscuit

25th Aug 2014, 15:45

Dick,

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)

Kharon

25th Aug 2014, 19:41

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.....

windforce

25th Aug 2014, 21:05

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!!

Sunfish

25th Aug 2014, 21:23

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.

Sarcs

26th Aug 2014, 00:59

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.

Leadership

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

MTF..:ok:

Creampuff

26th Aug 2014, 04:00

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.
…

Soteria

26th Aug 2014, 05:21

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, 05:35

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.

Soteria

26th Aug 2014, 07:54

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, 09:31

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.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm
and this one...
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/maintenance-aarpe-recreational-classification-2752.htm

this isn't the amending reg I was looking for but is the full incorporated regulation.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-507s-1804.htm#507s_03

you'll wish we all lived in canada.

Sarcs

27th Aug 2014, 06:51

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

MTF...:ok:

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)

Sarcs

28th Aug 2014, 02:12

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:

MTF...:ok:

Soteria

28th Aug 2014, 05:43

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!

Kharon

28th Aug 2014, 21:37

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.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

28th Aug 2014, 21:45

Send the DAS a Friday 16:59 fax.

aroa

28th Aug 2014, 23:19

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

28th Aug 2014, 23:39

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?

Jinglie

29th Aug 2014, 04:19

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, 11:29

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

halfmanhalfbiscuit

29th Aug 2014, 12:40

Also failed to get a new DAS in place.

Soteria

29th Aug 2014, 13:19

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, 14:08

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

Sarcs

30th Aug 2014, 02:35

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:

Kharon

30th Aug 2014, 18:39

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:

Sarcs

31st Aug 2014, 00:00

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):

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

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:

MTF...:ok:

dubbleyew eight

31st Aug 2014, 03:31

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, 10:35

“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

robsrich

31st Aug 2014, 20:31

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.

AHIA
Regulatory Review Coordinator
[email protected]

Kharon

31st Aug 2014, 21:32

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, 21:51

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.

Sarcs

31st Aug 2014, 22:24

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)

MTF...:ok:

Soteria

1st Sep 2014, 00:21

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.

robsrich

1st Sep 2014, 01:16

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!

AHIA

Kharon

1st Sep 2014, 20:28

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, 01:40

“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".

LeadSled

2nd Sep 2014, 02:20

Folks,
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!!

Soteria

2nd Sep 2014, 02:59

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 ****e, 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

Sarcs

2nd Sep 2014, 03:06

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?

Regards

Peter Crook, President, Australian Helicopter Industry Association

:D:D:D

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:

Sarcs

2nd Sep 2014, 06:10

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

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

And no need to ask for permission anymore e.g. :=
From: FARQUHARSON, TERENCE
Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:36
To: McCormick, John
Cc:
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
team.

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.

Regards
MTF...:ok:

Cactusjack

2nd Sep 2014, 08:27

Will they provide Terry with a cot so that he can lay down and have an afternoon nap?

thorn bird

2nd Sep 2014, 09:08

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.

Sunfish

2nd Sep 2014, 09:14

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, 09:22

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.

Cactusjack

2nd Sep 2014, 11:15

One has to ask the question, what is the CAsA board for?
Other than providing a place at the trough for political appointees.
Thats exactly how it works, particularly in government departments. Most Board positions are quite simply a 'reward', a nicely remunerated 'thank you' for providing armoured protection to the bureaucracies over the years - covering mistakes, polishing turds, writing glowing reports, kissing babies and PM's asses, that sort of stuff. Many Board members have come through PMC and are associate professors and other highly educated 'bull**** artists' who have succinctly learned the art of smoke and mirrors and spin.....Yes indeed, a Board position is a delicacy, a juicy taxpayer funded reward for many years of service protecting their political masters from falling on axes.

On a lighter note, Mr Hawk's bio makes interesting reading. Otherwise for those of you well versed in the game called 'Australian politics' you will understand only too well why he pops up on Board after Board.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

2nd Sep 2014, 17:53

I reckon the next estimates might prove interesting.

Kharon

2nd Sep 2014, 22:00

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..

Selah...

Sarcs

2nd Sep 2014, 22:48

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:

Soteria

3rd Sep 2014, 00:13

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, 01:58

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.

Kharon

3rd Sep 2014, 20:20

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.

Soteria

4th Sep 2014, 00:12

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......

Eyrie

4th Sep 2014, 01:05

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?

PAIN_NET

4th Sep 2014, 02:14

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.

Sarcs

4th Sep 2014, 06:37

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

AMROBA

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}...

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Truss-Waypoint.jpg

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

MTF...:ok:

Creampuff

4th Sep 2014, 07:04

“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, 08:06

“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 ****e 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, 08:11

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, 08:17

Dubya,

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, 08:23

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.

Jinglie

4th Sep 2014, 15:09

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!

Kharon

4th Sep 2014, 22:06

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.

Sunfish

4th Sep 2014, 23:10

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, 00:16

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?

Two_dogs

5th Sep 2014, 00:16

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).

Sarcs

5th Sep 2014, 02:58

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:

Sunfish

5th Sep 2014, 06:27

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.

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 07:14

You are correct.

Frank Arouet

5th Sep 2014, 07:44

I concur unfortunately.

thorn bird

5th Sep 2014, 08:51

Jeez,

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??

halfmanhalfbiscuit

5th Sep 2014, 11:31

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.

Sarcs

6th Sep 2014, 01:38

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.

Cheers,

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.

MTF...:ok:

Creampuff

6th Sep 2014, 01:58

A "senior media advisor" no less.

Wow.

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.

Kharon

7th Sep 2014, 20:46

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.

Selah.

Sunfish

8th Sep 2014, 02:41

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".

Sarcs

8th Sep 2014, 23:06

{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...:(

MTF...;)