View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

1st Oct 2014, 06:29
I'm a bit confused...
Seems there is a few on here today that are confused....

Eddie D (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/548325-legal-experts-cao-20-18-10-a-4.html#post8678717) - "There seems to be confusion over class of operation and category of maintenance, then again that may not be the case because the confusion is confusing me."

:D:D...for a second post Eddie that is a classic...:E Kind of says it all when it comes to interpreting the regs, although it probably doesn't top AerialAg Phil's comment on Part 61..

“Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’;)

But back to scrubba's confusion, although not entirely guaranteed..:rolleyes:, perhaps this recent DRAFT version of the intended CAAP 235A might help:CAAP 235A-1(0) (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/airspace/download/draft-caap235a-1.pdf)

Why this publication was written
The purpose of this CAAP is to identify the minimum runway width requirements that apply to aeroplanes with a Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) greater than 5,700kg engaged in regular public transport (RPT) or charter (CHTR) operations. This CAAP identifies the recommended processes and considerations for the initial production of the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM), AFMS and operational documentation for narrow runway operations.
However if those 35 pages only add to your confusion scrubba perhaps the following parting good-will letter from the former DAS to REX may help your confused state of mind...:E:
Trim Ref.' EF14/283

29 August 2014
Mr Neville Howell
Chief Operating Officer
Regional Express
PO Box 807

Dear Mr Howell

I am writing to provide you with the currently available information regarding the ongoing
operation of SAAB 340 aircraft at Coober Pedy. Firstly, let me make it clear that as
previously communicated to you, CASA is seeking means to permit continued safe SAAB
340 operations at Coober Pedy and not to prevent these flights.

Previously, and at present, SAAB 340 operations to runways as narrow as 18m (including
Coober Pedy) have been conducted, in part, under the authority a Flight Manual Supplement
(FMS) that was developed and approved by the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1991.

CASA is developing a revised legislative package that provides for the assessment of the
capability of aeroplanes to conduct narrow runway operations. This is the alternative to
requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways at aerodromes that do not meet the
aerodrome standards for larger aeroplane types. The assessment will include evaluation of
aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities. lt should be noted that these approvals
frequently impose limitations, an example of which would be a reduced cross wind limit.

Other major regulators including the FAA, EASA and NZ CAA do not allow operations into
runways narrower than the aircraft code and without CASAs legislative package this kind of
operation would cease.

This revised legislative package (CAR 235A and CAAP) is proposed to come into effect as
early as 13th November 2014. Guidance on how to comply with that regulation, and CA SA's
policy on the matter, is provided in CAAP 235A-1 (0). The regulation remains subject to the
Government's normal regulation approval process, including approval by the GovernorGeneral.
CAAP 235A-1 (0) clarifies that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material.
Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel
shoulders on either side. This would be considered an 18m wide runway, not a 30m wide
runway for the purposes of the new regulation. This takes into account the effect of having
different braking and performance characteristics when one set of main landing gear wheels
is on gravel and the other on a sealed surface. Similarly, aircraft certification is based on
keeping both landing gear tracks wholly contained on the same surface with the same friction

The FMS previously approved by the CAA restricts operations on 18m wide runways by
application of a 17kt cross wind limitation. However, CASA has identified issues with the
basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in
the future.

Earlier this year CASA conducted some initial simulator testing and this indicated that the
cross wind limit may need to be reduced to 10kt in order to ensure the continued safe
operation of SAAB 340 aircraft on the 18m wide runway at Coober Pedy.

CASA has also sought assistance from SAAB to specifically facilitate ongoing operations at
Coober Pedy. Progressing this matter will need to be done in accordance with CASA's policy
as set out in the proposed CAAP 235. SAAB is currently considering if a suitable FMS might
be generated to allow operation to the 18m wide portion of the runway at Coober Pedy, or if
operations to the wider (30M) non-homogeneous Coober Pedy runway may be viable. lt
should be noted that the outcome of this analysis in no way guarantees that a less restrictive
cross wind limit than that proposed by CASA would result.

Based on the 10kt crosswind limitation proposed by CASA, services at the airport could be
affected up to 10% of the time. This is based on information contained in the 2008 report into
options for Coober Pedy airport that was prepared by Aerodrome Design Pty Ltd for the
Coober Pedy District Council.

Whilst there is no requirement in the regulations to widen the runway at Coober Pedy to a
30m homogenous surface, if the runway was widened it would mean that an FMS would not
be required for services to Coober Pedy with SAAB 340 aircraft, and that REX services could
continue with no operational limitations. An acceptable method to "widen" the runway
includes applying sealant to the gravel shoulders of the runway strip, so that the landing
surface would be extended to a 30 metre wide homogenous surface.

To permit continued SAAB 340 operations at Coober Pedy there are a number of options
1. Awaiting the outcome of SAAB's analysis while operating in accordance with CA SA's
recently determined limitations.
2. Sealing the runway shoulders to provide a homogenous 30m surface, allowing
operations of SAAB 340 aircraft with no additional operating limits.

Another option would be to conduct operations to Coober Pedy with an aircraft type such as
a Dash 8, Fokker 50 or Beech Kingair that has the necessary performance and handling
characteristics, and is already approved by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for
operations to an 18m runway.

{this is the bit scrubba...;)}
The new legislation proposed by CASA means that aeroplane operators will no longer need
to apply for exemptions for narrow runway operations. Instead, aeroplanes will need to have
been assessed by the OEM or by flight test of the aeroplane to determine their capability to
operate on narrow runways.

Irrespective of the proposed legislative changes CASA will continue to work with SAAB and
REX to facilitate ongoing operations of SAAB340 aircraft at Coober Pedy, noting that
depending on the option chosen this may be with appropriate operational limitations to
ensure the safety of such operations.

Yours sincerely

John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Errr...John REX don't operate Dash 8, Fokker 50 or B200 but nice thought though...:E


thorn bird
1st Oct 2014, 07:51
Just a thought Sarcs, are Saabs approved to operate from gravel?

If so tear up the whole bloody sealed portion of the runway and operate from gravel.

Is anyone surprised that aviation in Australia is being regulated out of business.
Absolutely unbelievable.

1st Oct 2014, 22:01
SAAB 340 brochure, page 9 of 22: gravel runways are ok.


1st Oct 2014, 22:35
It was my intention to ignore the last (hopefully) missive from McComic; this industry will take a decade to fully recover from the effects of what is probably the worst half decade of mismanagement, micro managed, misbegotten, left handed bastardry seen since Stalin. However, as the doyen of deviates has elected to have a parting shot before departing the fix, I thought I may make a riposte to an unpleasant missive which defines the McComic era.

Firstly, let me make it clear that as previously communicated to you, CASA is seeking means to permit continued safe SAAB 340 operations at Coober Pedy and not to prevent these flights.

Translation: It was perfectly safe before, it is safe now but "we" are going to try to make sure that 'you' can continue your safe operations. This, despite the fact that

[under] the authority a Flight Manual Supplement (FMS) that was developed and approved by the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1991.

Translation: It is unfortunate that you were in the past operating quite safely and legally; even more so that you now continue to do so, quite safely and legally but we have to stop you – anyway.

The assessment will include evaluation of aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities. lt should be noted that these approvals frequently impose limitations, an example of which would be a reduced cross wind limit.

Translation: Here's the rub – the tame CASA 'experts' will decide how much crosswind 'they' believe the aircraft can handle; seems to me there are a couple of regulations and some certification data to be wriggled around, but by artificially 'limiting' your operation, with artificial crosswind limits; we can be seen as 'helpful' while stopping your safe, approved, legal operations.

[and] without CASAs legislative package this kind of operation would cease.

Translation: WTF – lets see; CASA approved the operation, CASA issued the instruments, CASA can lodge the ICAO differences; but, CASA now want to blame the regulation of other authorities for the operation ceasing – without CASA 'assistance' to make it all artificially legal again, after they made it artificially illegal – despite it being legal anyway?

[clarifies] that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material. Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel shoulders on either side

Translation: So, to all practical intents and purpose; the runway is 30 meters – just not 'homogenous'; the surface is suitable for the purpose of a runway excursion in the rare event a Saab wanders away from the 'sealed' centre, but apart from the PIC being embarrassed by a cloud of dust training behind, no harm is done. Yes 30 meters of bitumen would be nice to have; but a safety case – I doubt it.

Similarly, aircraft certification is based on keeping both landing gear tracks wholly contained on the same surface with the same friction characteristics.

Translation: Disingenuous at best, it may fool a Polly or two, but industry experts – Nah.

The FMS previously approved by the CAA restricts operations on 18m wide runways by application of a 17kt cross wind limitation. However, CASA has identified issues with the basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in the future.

Translation: We intend to enforce our decision – no matter what. The simple fact that a generation of pilots have been landing there, without incident for years will not stop the 'withdrawal' due to 'issues', which are not for various reasons cited in the missive. Passing strange – indeed. So, 10 knots forecast – flight departs – 12 knots flight delayed. BOLLOCKS you bloody fool. Absolute Bollocks..

Progressing this matter will need to be done in accordance with CASA's policy as set out in the proposed CAAP 235.

Translation: Finally – a nugget of truth.

I promised myself only one page on this outrageous last, Parthian shot; there is more, much more to said about what is, hopefully, the last time I have to plough through any more of this disingenuous, devious, self serving clap-trap spouted by what is, undoubtedly the worst CASA boss the Murky Machiavellian crew has ever inflicted on a long suffering industry – and that boys and girls, is saying something. We need a Mike Smith, a Billson and a breath of fresh, clear air.

Now bugger off, make it permanent; take your little play mates and cuddly toys with you. We have no need of them.

Toot toot – Houseboat seat 1A is reserved, complimentary, courtesy of the IOS.

1st Oct 2014, 23:07
Top post Kharon, although given in obvious angst, you nail the complete and utter bulldust that constantly emanated from this horrible excuse for a DAS that was inflicted on the industry by that grub Albo...:ugh:

Much like the PMO embuggerance of CVD pilots the REX/KENDALL Cooper Pedy RPT run had a significant empirical safety case to espouse; from REX ASRR submission:
The new CAR 235A will require operators using runways narrower than the arbitrary
default standards set by ICAO to have procedures for the use of narrow runways set
out in both the aircraft’s Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) and the operator’s
Operations Manual. If the manufacturer does not supply the necessary narrow
runway certification then the operation is prohibited. For the Rex operation, SAAB
has indicated they will not engage in further flight testing to gain narrow runway
operation certification to comply with the ICAO aircraft reference codes (ARC). The
SAAB AFM does currently make provision for narrow runway operations, however
they are not in accordance with the mandated requirements of the CAAP and
therefore not acceptable under the proposed new CAR 235A. The new rule will
prohibit Regional Express Airlines, Pel-Air Aviation and Air Link from operating into
airports with narrow runways thus denying essential air services to some remote
regional communities.

For Rex, this will prevent operations to Coober Pedy where it and Kendell Airlines
have operated continuously since 23 August 1986. Coober Pedy Airport has a 30
metre wide runway with a homogenous 18 metre sealed centre section and to date
CASA has seen fit to issue Regional Express with an exemption (CASA Instrument
EX37/12) from the requirements of the current CAR 235A. The new prescriptive CAR
235A will remove CASA’s ability to issue such exemptions in the future and will
prevent Rex from operating to Coober Pedy after the exemption instrument expires
on 28 February 2015. This is despite more than 27 years of demonstrated safe operations.

The Skull 'olive branch' parting missive is indeed passing strange and smacks of a higher authority directive to get it sorted before his departure. However in true Skull style the weasel words are laced with typical malice & aforethought; perhaps a true depiction of what will be described as the McComic years. Six years of truly diabolical embuggerance that the industry may well not ever recover from...:{


2nd Oct 2014, 00:57
Shades of the CVD "recent research" smoke and mirrors:However, CASA has identified issues with the basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in the future.What, precisely, are those "issues"?

I find it dumbfounding that Mr McCormick considered it appropriate simply to make the bald assertion, without backing it up with any cited data or other information. The laws of physics are important in aviation. Lots of work goes into performance calculations and consequent limitations based on precise reality, not amorphous reference to "issues".

There are advantages to this approach, though. For example, it would make aircraft master caution panels simpler. One annunciator that says: "AIRCRAFT HAS ISSUES".

Imagine everyone in CASA being told their employment was going to be terminated. When asked the reasonable question: "WTF?", the answer is: "Somebody has identified issues with the basis used to approve your employment. We're not going to tell you what the "issues" are. We're just sacking you."

If there's hard data and information to support the assertion that the approval of the supplement was based on flawed data or information, just produce it and everyone will then understand the objective reasons for the change.

2nd Oct 2014, 04:32
Sarcs, thanks for that info.

I was less confused because I learnt that my original premise was correct but that CASA believes that the supplement is flawed. Love to know why... :E

But then my confusion soared!

Earlier this year CASA conducted some initial simulator testing and this indicated that the cross wind limit may need to be reduced to 10kt in order to ensure the continued safe operation of SAAB 340 aircraft on the 18m wide runway at Coober Pedy.

I presume that this was in the SAAB engineering development simulator and not in the common old garden variety pilot training simulator, since the data package in the latter is most likely not to have sufficient fidelity to accurately replicate the effect of crosswind on Vmcg nor is it tested for such. :mad:

How was the original 'flawed' supplement determined? :(

And another thing:

CAAP 235A-1 (0) clarifies that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material. Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel shoulders on either side. This would be considered an 18m wide runway, not a 30m wide runway for the purposes of the new regulation.

I thought that in such circumstances we used to treat it as a 30m gravel runway (worst case) and plan accordingly. If you have a gravel runway certification, no drama... :E

2nd Oct 2014, 06:11
CASA seems to have a habit of issuing "exemptions" when it suits them but pleading ICAO regulations as a crutch as well when it suits.

This reminds me of the pre reformation Catholic Church practice of issuing "Indulgences" allowing the faithful to sin for money, while the same sin was prohibited to the rest of us.

Frank Arouet
2nd Oct 2014, 06:40
The aviation industry is ruled by exemptions to the degree that removal of every of them would instantly ground all aircraft in Australia. A bit like the constitution really. What started out as a dozen pages has morphed into a library of amendments that take the size of the Commonwealth Archives to house them.

The ONLY way to rid ourselves of these exemptions is to adopt a new suite of regulations and not written by the current mob of incompetents.

thorn bird
2nd Oct 2014, 08:14
Kharon, mate,

Calm down, calm down, you'll have a coronary

Sarc'y not you to mate!! Oh good grief even Creamie!!!!!...err all you others..JEEZ

Now guys this is a serious anger management issue, I mean CAsA medical and all that, not fit and proper, thousands of $ in shrinks...!!

God, that mongrel bastard sure seems to be able generate some fury, even when we thought he was off the stage.

Guys there is a simple solution, line up the bulldozers, invite the press, the Theme?? CAsA considers it safer for us to tear up this nice patch of bitumen and replace it with Pristine GRAVEL, 45 meters wide of course.

2nd Oct 2014, 11:22
Thorny, perhaps the reason Sarcs and Kharon are angry is because the Witchdoctor has hexed them, placed a spell on them? I can see it now, Dr Voodoo and the A/g Director of Aviation Sentinel, wearing their slippers and giant robes and standing beside a giant boiling cauldron. In goes the following;
- 2 Cups of worm farm castings
- 4 potted plants
- A sprinkling of pony poo
- A Photograph of the Screaming Skull
- The entire Part 61 suite
- 15 Kg's of Coober Pedy runway gravel
Mix it all together, chant some secret ICAO code words while speaking in tongues and sprinkle a pinch of the magic dust in the direction of Can'tberra and hey presto - Sarcs, Kharon and the rest of the IOS are cursed.

*Disclaimer* - The above S.O.P, extracted from the CASA Ops manual, does not apply to FAA auditors, ICAO employees or the Ministers office.

2nd Oct 2014, 20:53
Sarcs, Thorny – not angry, foofle valve not challenged; McComic just don't signify enough to get me angry. It's more a matter of principal, never could abide to be bullied, just can't deal with those who tell fibs; and, I know it's wrong, but I cannot tolerate fools; not gladly at least. No, I just reckoned McComic's last words needed exposure to daylight, as they typify the regime and reflect the true nature of the man. As stated – a good riddance.
Sunny –"This reminds me of the pre reformation Catholic Church practice of issuing "Indulgences" allowing the faithful to sin for money, while the same sin was prohibited to the rest of us."

Spot on Sunny, much to remind us of that edifice from the McComic years, much indeed.

The interesting part is going to be watching estimates as the GWM boss Farq-u-hardson and his playmates try to explain away the chaos left behind. McComic may have set the tone and led the way, but you may rest assured that the blood will be on someone else's hands. If (IF) the rumoured inquiry into CASA gets underway, the GWM and it's legal team will be carrying not only their own burden of guilt, but that of their ring masters while trying to bury their own skeletons. Forced to defend themselves against not only a mountain of external evidence but against internal. Pay back is a bitch, but when driven by revenge and ambition the heat in the kitchen will surely rise to new levels.

Anyway – I, for one will watch with interest; hope they drag Truss in for a quiz session. It'll take two hours to explain to him that those funny little things flying over the sanatorium are not 'pretty birdies'; but aircraft and that he is responsible for them. Should be a hoot.

Toot toot.

PS – one of my favourite lines from a movie, when they bury a character, "God, we're sending you Curly; try not to piss him off"....;)

3rd Oct 2014, 02:15
Noted that the RAAA conference is on next week & the hot topics for discussion...

From the Oz today: "THE appointment of a new board and head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the government’s response to the aviation regulatory review are among the hot items to be discussed next week when regional airlines hold their annual national convention in the NSW Hunter Valley. Speakers include foreign and international affairs expert Keith Suter, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin and regulatory review chief David Forsyth. Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell said there would also be a focus on the expenses imposed on regional airlines by government."

Well no surprises there I guess but it will be interesting to hear the Reverend Forsyth's view on the current impasse with the miniscule & his Department...:rolleyes:

It will also be fascinating whether the Air Chief gets a grilling on the latest LOSA investigation report put out (with the usual zero fanfare & obligatory 2 year lag) by the bureau yesterday: AO-2012-031 (http://atsb.gov.au/media/5158675/ao-2012-131_final.pdf)

Also in keeping with the bureau BASR methodology the safety issues discovered in the course of the investigation can only now be viewed on the ATsB website...:ugh: However two of these safety issues are listed as recommendations and are still outstanding i.e. yet to be adequately addressed.
Risk controls for manual processing of transponder code changes (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131/si-01.aspx)

The Australian Defence Air Traffic System (ADATS) did not automatically process all system messages generated by The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System. In cases where transponder code changes were not automatically processed, the risk controls in place were not able to effectively ensure that the changes were identified and manually processed.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-01Who it affects:All Darwin Approach Supervisor, Approach and Planner rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Adequately addressed

Controller scan of green radar returns (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131/si-02.aspx)

Darwin Approach controllers were routinely exposed to green (limited data block) radar returns that were generally inconsequential in that Approach control environment, leading to a high level of expectancy that such tracks were not relevant for aircraft separation purposes. Refresher training did not emphasise the importance of scanning the green radar returns.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-02Who it affects:All Darwin Approach Supervisor, Approach and Planner rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Not addressed

CADAS risk assessment and review proces (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131/si-03.aspx)

The Department of Defence’s risk assessment and review processes for the implementation of the Comsoft Aeronautical Data Access System and removal of the flight data position did not effectively identify or manage the risks associated with the resulting increased workload in the Darwin Approach environment, in particular with regard to the Planner position.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-03Who it affects:All Darwin Approach Supervisor, Approach and Planner rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Adequately addressed

Long-range display effectiveness (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131/si-04.aspx)

The Darwin Approach long-range display was a low resolution screen that presented air traffic control system information with reduced clarity and resulted in it having diminished effectiveness as a situation awareness tool.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-04Who it affects:All Darwin Approach rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Adequately addressed

Compromised separation recovery refresher training (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131/si-05.aspx)

The Department of Defence had not provided Darwin-based controllers with regular practical refresher training in identifying and responding to compromised separation scenarios.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-05Who it affects:All Darwin-based Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Not addressed The release of this report also caught the attention of some media outlets...:D

Example from AA:ATSB says Defence yet to address all concerns after 2012 loss of separation incident (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/atsb-says-defence-yet-to-address-all-concerns-after-2012-loss-of-separation-incident/)
The Department of Defence said the Air Force was “committed to maintaining a safe air traffic control service in military airspace and believes that cooperation with civil safety agencies ensures a high level of transparency when conducting air safety investigations”.

“The [ATSB] report … detailed three safety issues that Defence has addressed to ATSB’s satisfaction ahead of the release of this report. Air Force will continue to work with the ATSB to address the report recommendations,” Defence said in a statement.

A previous 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,” that 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.”

Defence in its October 2 statement pointed out that: “Air Force and civil air traffic controllers have common qualifications and apply the same standards and procedures.” After reading this report I found the in bold statement quite disturbing..:(

As per SOP Ben was first onto this story and also as per SOP he doesn't hold back...{particular highlights are in bold}:D:D:Darwin ATC deletes vital message unread, imperils Qantas jets (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/02/darwin-atc-deletes-vital-message-unread-imperils-qantas-jets/)

Defence air traffic control at Darwin is arguably a greater risk to aviation than home grown terrorists

On 2 October 2012 near Darwin airport military air traffic controllers screwed up the safe separation of an arriving Qantaslink 717 and a departing Qantas 737 with a combined passenger capacity of about 283 seats because of a case of mistaken identity involving an RAAF C-130 which wasn’t even flying near the airport.

The C-130’s transponder code had also been inadvertently applied to the 717 flight by the civilian air traffic control system, but had been changed to a new code before it entered Darwin’s approach and departure airspace under defence control.

Except that Darwin military control had deleted the change message unread, leaving the officers handling the arrival in a state of momentary confusion as to who was doing what when suddenly nothing they were hearing or seeing at their desk matched their assumptions or expectations.

In its summary of this report the ATSB describes this inexplicable unprofessionalism or stupidity as “local contextual factors and confirmation bias”. The ATSB must think the Minister is an idiot. (See page 10 of the full report and ask yourself, if Darwin control can’t even be bothered to read AirServices messages how bleeding dangerous are these fools).


The labels in this ATSB image and related text prove it has a sense of the ridiculous

{Ps Hmm..:confused:..not sure but that pic could have been taken in my garden shed...:E}

The ATSB final report into this incident (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131.aspx) is highly technical and would probably put lay readers into a coma. Use the download button for the full report, don’t rely on the summary.

It needs one of those gripping YouTube videos favoured by America’s safety investigator the NTSB to explain with moving pictures the unsafe elements of this particular incident and highlight the unsatisfactory state of affairs in which our military controllers are entrusted with the lives of hundreds of airline passengers where defence flights cross paths with passenger jets .

While the incoming 717 crossed directly above the outgoing 737 with 900 feet to spare, infringing the safe separation distance by ‘only’ 100 feet, it is the stuff up in Darwin control that is of concern.

There has never been an incident exactly like this one, according to the ATSB report, but there is a long history of military incompetency in handling civilian aircraft movements in defence controlled airspace particularly at the shared facilities at Darwin and Newcastle airports.

And nothing, apart from the issuing of anodyne media releases by successive transport ministers, has even been done about this.

There seems to a death wish of disastrous proportions in the Department of Defence in that it continues to assert its professionalism and competency in handling passenger jets, and resist all efforts to allow civilian controllers to control civilian jets at these airports, until one day there is a terrible tragedy, because bugger all has even been done to fix the problem.

It is astonishing to read in this report that the Australian Defence Air Traffic System and the much larger civilian system have “only limited communication between them.”

The ATSB also expresses dissatisfaction with some of the responses it received from Defence.

The ATSB is not satisfied that the DoD has adequately addressed the safety issues regarding the provision of refresher training to air traffic controllers for the scanning of green radar returns and in compromised separation recovery requirements and techniques. As a result, the ATSB has made formal recommendations to the DoD to take further safety action on these issues.

Going on past performances, Defence will continue to ignore the ATSB in that nothing material will be done to end the risk that the actions of its controllers pose to the life and limb of civilian airliner passengers, and will resist as fiercely as it has in the past any suggestion that its controllers cease to exercise any control over civil movements.

However the chairmanship of AirServices Australia has passed to Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Retired) while its CEO is Margaret Staib, who also has a distinguished previous career in defence.

It may well be that they will recognise that this situation at shared military/civil airports in manifestly dangerous and untenable, and take decisive action to eliminate these risks. And in case you were wondering which Miniscule the ATsB thinks is an IDIOT here is the text from a promo tweep from Ben...

"...Lastest Oz ATC stuff up with two QF jets shows ATSB thinks Minister Truss is an idiot.."

To be fair to the bureau they would not be alone in their alleged assessment of the miniscule...:E

TICK..TOCK miniscule I don't believe, on past form, that Senator X (at least) will leave this one alone at the upcoming Senate Estimates..:p


3rd Oct 2014, 02:26
CASA rejects complaints about new licensing rules.

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it is conducting a comprehensive information and education campaign to get people up to speed on controversial new pilot licensing rules.

Operators of smaller aviation concerns have complained about confusion over the new rules, describing them as hard to comprehend, not backed by education, and contradictory in places.

Industry sectors such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to get the September 1 introduction of the Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 changes delayed because they did not believe either side was adequately prepared.

But CASA, which had issued 570 Part 61 licences by Tuesday, rejected the claims.

“There is a wealth of information on the CASA website for pilots, flying instructors and flying training organisations,” a CASA spokesman said. “We are progressively updating and refining this information based on feedback from the aviation community and the questions being asked.’’

The spokesman said there were currently 19 plain-English information sheets available covering topics ranging from student pilots through to flight reviews and proficiency checks, with three more about to be released. These were short and easy to follow, covering the central elements of the new licensing suite.

A series of AvSafety seminars focusing on the new rules had been running since July, with 22 already conducted and 20 more planned.

The authority also did not believe the new regulations contained contradictions. “However, we are always open to feedback and suggestions from people in the aviation community,’’ the spokesman said. “If there are indeed issues relating to the new regulations that can be usefully addressed, we will do so. CASA encourages anyone with comments or suggestions about the new licensing suite to bring them to our attention.’’

The spokesman also disputed the claims that the new rules were costing more and said CASA was not charging people to make the transition. He said pilots who held a licence before September 1 were issued a new Part 61 licence at no cost when they notified CASA of a flight review or proficiency check, or they gained a rating or endorsement.

There had been lengthy and detailed consultations with the aviation community during the development of the new licensing suite over a number of years and there was an extended transition period of four years for pilots and three years for training organisations.

“The new regulations bring in significant improvements for the flying training sector such as the abolition of the student pilot licence, the inclusion of the recreational pilot licence and the wider use of the aircraft class rating system,’’ he said.

“It introduces greater flexibility, more options and a common structure for all pilot training. Under the previous regulatory arrangements there were many different and sometimes inconsistent arrangements covering training which are now streamlined and standardised.

“This makes the rules easier to understand and provides for better safety outcomes.”

The Australian Newspaper - Fri 3 Oct '14.

thorn bird
3rd Oct 2014, 10:19

3rd Oct 2014, 10:52
When the following questions are answered we might (?) be a bit wiser...

In regard to Part 61
1) where is the cost benefit analysis ? (seems there are lots of costs...for what?)
2) what are the real safety benefits? (over previous regs)
3) how does it comply with Government policy on reducing red tape?

That will do for now!! :ugh:

3rd Oct 2014, 19:24
It requires no more than 3 clicks of the mouse key to Google CAA NZ – click Rules – click part 61 – click Download. Your NZ Part 61 will turn up, good to go in less than one minute. Spend 30 minutes, cherry pick a topic or two over a coffee and the difference becomes immediately apparent. – HERE (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Part_061_Brief.htm)- (lazy buggers).

Try and do that with the grotesque Australian parody of part 61.

The clearly drafted NZ regulation does not require an 800 odd page Manual of Standards to support an 800 page regulation. The NZ version is not larded with CASA "may" or "satisfied"; the personal opinion of whoever makes the CAA decision does not matter, a thing is legal or it is not. The options built into the Australian version leave the rule set wide open to subjective opinion and prosecution. Not to mention corruption.

The obsessive compulsion to micro manage, the overarching arrogance which ensures that some half wit FOI becomes 'god' in concert with a maniacal devotion to never being beaten on a point of law have given us the travesty which is 61.

Then you must add the CASA brainwashing of 'flight test examiners'. These come in two flavours, courtesy of the rule set. The pedantic, who will fail you because 'policy' is to reduce speed to V2 after an EFATO; and the 'Subterranean' who will be practical and not only allow command prerogative to be exercised, but encourage it; just can't let it be 'seen'.

The Kiwi mindset is streets ahead with half the worlds NAA chasing to catch up, ever wondered why?. You will note that Australia is not in the race toward clarity, but ambling off toward evermore massive, overbearing rule sets which have been acknowledged and demonstrated by the sane world, as detrimental to safety. Not to mention the massive cost burden and much more red tape.

The truly nauseating party piece in yesterdays 'Australian' (CASA propaganda rag) spells it all out; more regulation equals more safety, while robustly maintaining that industry is just too thick to get it. Oh, we get it all right. Right in the ass – again.

We must hope now that the new DAS is an ex FAA director; one look at 61 and it'll be in the skip. What a great way to start a new era, if Truss ever gets around to announcing the board that is, just so we get an inkling of the way things are going to be.

Toot toot.

Oh, Anyone seen Farq-u-hardson about the place lately?, not gone to sleep on train again has he. Who knows, maybe he's doing his homework for estimates. No doubt the Senate crew have been doing theirs.

3rd Oct 2014, 21:33
I have managed to persuade the PAIN associates to release part of an unedited 'Draft' version of their submission made to the ASRR. The final edited version was completed from the draft version released – HERE (http://www50.zippyshare.com/v/1205797/file.html) - with various supportive attachments and two 'confidential' supplementary submissions. There is no parliamentary privilege covering the final version, however, detailed submissions by associates were considered sensitive.

I believe the ASRR has been emasculated, this notion supported by the lack of meaningful response to Forsyth and there being no publication of industry response to the ASRR report. I hoped that offering the draft submission to those interested, may rekindle industry determination to demand that the recommendations made by the Senate and the Forsyth review be implemented and fully supported by the Abbott government, as a matter of urgency.

I had to do some plain and fancy talking to get this document released, the slave time due will be willingly provided along with the midnight oil, ink, quills and parchment.

P7 a.k.a. TOM expects me to remind those downloading the document to only click once on the - http://www50.zippyshare.com/images/download.png-.

Thanks guys.

P9 a.k.a K9

Frank Arouet
4th Oct 2014, 00:00
Rumor has it Terry was seen in Montreal at Isabelle's Fashion House getting quotes for an Elephant Tutu. It was alleged he was unsteady on his feet as he demonstrated a pirouette.

thorn bird
4th Oct 2014, 01:16
"In regard to Part 61
1) where is the cost benefit analysis ? (seems there are lots of costs...for what?)
2) what are the real safety benefits? (over previous regs)
3) how does it comply with Government policy on reducing red tape?"

In Answer:
1) for what?...Zilch!
2) None
3) It doesn't

"Oh, Anyone seen Farq-u-hardson about the place lately?"

Unless he's dozed off in the John again it could be he's in retreat with CAsA legal.

A rumour is getting about of a boys in blue investigation underway, allegedly of corruption in Wodgers Warren, hope its not another kiddie fiddler.

Kharon the PAIN submission is well worth a read, thanks for organizing that. Put together with many of the others such as the RAA, hellio and AG boys, it paints a picure and it aint the one the Bullsh.t in Fridays Australian attempted to paint.

5th Oct 2014, 05:01
The future of commercial air transport safety regulation and oversight should be based on carrier operational performance, not on documentary compliance with regulatory minutiae. according to lATA's regional director safety and operations for Europe, Giancarlo Buono.

Speaking at the 16-17 September Flightglobal Flight Safety 2014 conference at London Heathrow, Buono said: "It's the outcome that matters. The means of achieving a good safety performance is a matter of risk assessment usingng a safety management system."

He predicts the days of a "Tom and Jerry" relationship between regulator and regulated airlines will be consigned to history, and a system built on co-operation and performance will replace the old "cornpliar1ce-based" oversight system based on minimum legal standards.

Speaking at the same conference, the performance-based regulation manager at the lJK Civil Aviation Authority, John Clark, says the CAA began changing its safety oversight system from a compliance-based system to one based on measurable safety performance in April this year, and the evolution to U1e new system will be complete by April 2016. This transformation, Clark says, is not necessary only because it will produce better safety performance at airline level, but because national aviation authorities will face a resources crisis, and regulator/ airline co-operation is the only way to meet regulatory needs in a growing industry.

Buono confirms th at both the US Federal Aviation Administration and Europe's EASA are committed to moving to performance-based regulation, hacked by lCAO.

Courtesy - Flight Global – Safety – David Learmount.

25 years, AUD $230,000,000 all for naught; I'd call that a national embarrassment. Yet our home grown Frankenstein designers robustly maintain – it's all our fault and we are all just too dense to 'get' Parts 145 or 61.


thorn bird
5th Oct 2014, 06:11
"25 years, AUD $230,000,000 all for naught;"

An Embarrassment?? I'd call it Corrupt misuse of public money

"This transformation, Clark says, is not necessary only because it will produce better safety performance at airline level, but because national aviation authorities will face a resources crisis, and regulator/ airline co-operation is the only way to meet regulatory needs in a growing industry."

It could be said that CAsA are already scraping the bottom of the gene pool finding anyone competent to fill positions in regulatory oversight.

Plenty of lawyers out there, but anyone with knowledge and experience in operations or maintenance are getting hard to find even for the industry.

I cant remember where I saw it but I think I read somewhere that the average age of LAME's was now in the fifties.

CAsA harassment and bullying is a massive impediment to anyone half way competent accepting a CP or Check and training role.

Both are poisoned challises with the very real threat of finishing your career as a "Not a Fit and Proper Person" with a felony conviction which puts paid to ever escaping from the madhouse aviation has become in Australia.

CAsA is already finding it difficult to recruit and as the industry dies, even harder. The inordinate length of time it takes them to approve anything is an impediment to investment, along with the capital risk, when the whole business can be pulled out from under you on the whim of a Wabbit, or FOI.

The regulations as they are, are an invitation to corruption. How long before their standard excuse, "We are sorry for the delay, we do not have the resources available at the moment to process your application" is followed by...." however for a small incentive I may be able to move you to the head of the queue."

If it isn't already happening.

5th Oct 2014, 19:53
Thornbird, you don't give "incentives" that would be illegal. You give "presents". I don't believe I've ever smelt a whiff of corruption involving money, but the AAT is littered with examples of personal vendettas pursued by CASA.

Bad and imprecise legislation and regulation is an open invitation to corruption. In particular the use of the weasel words and phrases beloved by CASA are extremely dangerous.

For example the fact that CASA never "approves" a lot of things, it merely "accepts" them....or not. Then there is the "fit and proper person" test and of course those weasel words "acceptable" and "appropriate".

Fit and proper, acceptable and appropriate to whom? When? CASA declares it has the right to make subjective decisions which are the very anti thesis of the Weberian principles of public administration and the Government has totally abrogated their role to keep these clowns in line.

My guess now is that the Governments non response to the review will be released between Christmas and New Year together with the announcement that Mr. Farqueson is no longer the acting but now permanent Director Of Air Safety, to the general grief of what’s left of Australian Aviation.

5th Oct 2014, 21:21
Sunny – "I don't believe I've ever smelt a whiff of corruption involving money,". etc.
I had to dig back five years into the BK chronicles to find any reference to 'money' changing hands; the story was purported to be 'dinkum', with photographs, documents etc. and touted to be a big 'Hoo-Haa'. But it never amounted to anything, partly because the flying school went belly up, partly because it involved overseas students and partly because the case was never driven to conclusion; but it's the only one ever broke the surface.
[but] the AAT is littered with examples of personal vendettas pursued by CASA.

Again hard to make a call of honest fiscal corruption; but moral and legal corruption rule supreme. For example, the protected species, the 'pet' chief pilot, the willing accomplice and the true evil – the unsubstantiated 'hearsay' transmogrified into 'facts and circumstances' all benefit from and thrive under the umbrella provided by the 'regulator'. The tales are many, legend and provable; the unfortunate part is that they land in the AAT, which "stands in the shoes of the regulator". There is tribe of unfortunates who tread the dimly lit pathways to the FoIA, to ICC, to Ombudsman, to politicians, to media, to medical experts, to lawyers, to defective administration, to coroner: all in vain.

We see a few examples briefly aired on Pprune, but if real regulatory reform is to be achieved, this bloody awful administration must be brought to heel. No matter how good the rule set – without a regulator who is absolutely above suspicion, we will simply continue in the same vane, with new rules,

This new FAA reject – soon to be DAS better bring body armour and a SWAT team; the other side will. They are the home team with years of practice at covering the pug marks leading up to the kill, have all the local support and an entrenched system of protection which reaches into the deepest, darkest portals of the 'Crat Mutual Protection Society'. The Murky Machiavellian club is only the first layer of opposition, after that, even if you beat it, the senior league will grind any real reformer into the cold, arid desert of 25 years and counting.

Clean out the top three layers, encourage the 'white hats' and grab a big stick, like the Senate committee to provide top cover, the Bored to cover your arse and the CDPP to prosecute the known offenders; then maybe things will change. A new minuscule would be a great first step; can't see the new DAS pitching up to Abbott's office asking for a new minuscule somehow and getting it; can you??

Aye well – the BBQ needs a clean and Minnie is in spring cleaning mode. Best crack on.

Toot toot..

Frank Arouet
5th Oct 2014, 21:49
Corruption: n 1. The act of corrupting or state of being corrupt. 2. moral perversion; depravity. 3. dishonesty, esp bribery 4. putrefaction or decay. 5. alteration, as of a manuscript. 6. an altered form of a word. Corruptible adj susceptible to corruption; capable of being corrupted.
Corrupt. 1. lacking in integrity; open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices. 2 morally depraved. 3. putrid or rotten. 4. contaminated; unclean. 5. made meaningless or different in meaning from the original by scribal errors or alterations. 6. containing errors. 7. to become or cause to become dishonest or disloyal. 8. to debase or become debased morally; deprave. 9. infect or contaminate; taint. 10. to cause to become rotten.

No, nothing seems to have changed. Perhaps there is a legal interpretation of the word corrupt. There is obviously a CAsA definition which would be a corruption of the original.

5th Oct 2014, 22:01
Kharon - 25 years, AUD $230,000,000 all for naught; I'd call that a national embarrassment. Yet our home grown Frankenstein designers robustly maintain – it's all our fault and we are all just too dense to 'get' Parts 145 or 61. Global embarrassment more like it...:ugh::ugh:

From AMROBA latest newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 10
October — 2014 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%2010.pdf):
Global/State Aviation Safety

Regulation alone cannot improve the safety record.
The most important role of the law of aviation is to provide
a framework that keeps the aviation industry safe, fair, and

Aviation safety is a term encompassing the theory, investigation,
and categorisation of flight failures, and the prevention
of such failures through regulation, education, and
training. It can also be applied in the context of campaigns
that inform the public as to the safety of air travel.

Though often viewed as a simple entity (the safety record,
as it is called), safety is an extremely complex matter. It
depends upon a dedicated and talented workforce.

ICAO Annex 19 comprises Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARPs) related to the implementation of State
safety programmes (SSP) and safety management systems
(SMS), including provisions for the collection, analysis,
protection and exchange of safety information. These requirements
are essential to the successful evolution of a
proactive safety strategy.

The underlined paragraph is the basis why the ASRR report
recommended the philosophies of CASA needs to
change and so does the aviation law to enable the new
approach highlighted within Annex 19.

Maintenance personnel employed by airlines and aircraft
maintenance organisations are required to perform their
jobs in a manner that will result in a safe aircraft.

After approval for return to service the pilots, and other
flight crew members, are then expected to perform their
duties with the ultimate goal of a safe journey for passengers.
Implementation of aviation safety requirements worldwide
are varied. UN Regions: North America 93%; Europe 74%;
Asia 69%; Latin America & Caribbean 67%; Oceania 48%
& Africa 44%.

These are ICAO 2013 published figures.

Australia, like so many other countries, has an implementation
record above the global average of 61 per cent.

Australia has 5 government agencies involved in cooperation
programs in the Asia Pacific region, in particular with
Indonesia and PNG. Department of Infrastructure, CASA,
ATSB, ASA & AMSA cooperation and enhancement programs
include training, mentoring, and capability building
activities assisting the Pacific Aviation Safety Office.

ICAO will continue to progress safety-related projects
such as harmonization and recognition of approved
maintenance organizations, States’ responsibilities
when a type certificate is suspended or revoked, and security
sensitive airworthiness directives.

How can Australia participate in the Asia Pacific Region
providing assistance when it continues to develop uniquely
Australian aviation law? We are not harmonised.

Australia’s unique aviation legislative maintenance requirements
are not compatible with EASRs or FARs. No
matter where you look, we are out of step globally.
Down'unda once dubbed the 'lucky country', now we're in danger of sliding off the bottom of the map into oblivion and 3rd world mediocrity, example from AIG - National CEO Survey...The regulatory burdens faced by Australian businesses are high relative to those faced in other countries and
this relative position has worsened in recent years and has been a major factor in the deterioration of our
overall competitiveness ranking (Table 1).


This deterioration makes it more difficult for Australian businesses to compete globally, but it also adds to our
growing international reputation as a high cost country in which to do business and detracts from Australia’s
attractiveness as a destination for business investment and collaboration.
However while we continue to have a dinosaur of a miniscule that is asleep at the wheel and seemingly cannot (or will not) accept that he is being ill advised by his agencies & dept...well?? Basically put we're all stuffed!:{

6th Oct 2014, 20:08
However while we continue to have a dinosaur of a miniscule that is asleep at the wheel and seemingly cannot (or will not) accept that he is being ill advised by his agencies & dept...well?? Basically put we're all stuffed!
The hard working ministers, who are grappling not only with the burden of red and green tape, a bureaucratic system which not only runs the country but self protects, a mountain of bad and outdated law, strive to help the public; must be going nuts about this sluggard Truss. Bit like playing for a crack team with the bosses nephew, 'Butterfingers' behind the wicket, working for the bookie.

Perhaps it's time we stepped around the road block, appealed to the Prime minister, Barnaby Joyce and any of the hard working 'kosher' senators; any of those with enough juice to 'goose the goose'.

Asleep at the wheel be damned – check his pulse....:ugh:

6th Oct 2014, 21:08
The Australian Helicopter Industry Association has always proudly stated that over past decades the Civic Aviation Safety Authority's Aircraft Register has grown by 6 to 8% each year. (Or at least twice the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, and three to four times faster than General Aviation aeroplane fleet listing).

FISCAL 2013/2014 (1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014) showed an increase from 1,951 to 2104 helicopters, up by 153 registrations. This was an increase of 7.8% to 30 Jun ’14, which was a good result.

As an aside Australia has the second largest helicopter fleet in the Western World; so any fleet variations are questioned closely.

However, AHIA is concerned at the slump of growth during First Quarter of the current FISCAL Year. (July to September). Our fleet only increased from 2104 to 2110, or 6. This represents an annual growth rate of only 1.14%.


AHIA is conducting an investigation on behalf of their members and will provide a report ASAP. Some clues are that some major flying schools appear to have very low numbers at present, no doubt due to the need to sort out troublesome new CASR Part 61 Flight Crew Training requirements and associated costs which are hard to calculate due to changes flowing from the CASA/Industry working groups finding problems that need “exemptions”; some of these may incur extra costs during the transition period.

And as an aside, a major LAME training facility went into liquidation – and we need more technical people due to our ageing engineers and few trainees!

The AHIA study will be published in the next edition of Helicopters Australasia – a free e-newsletter – see AHIA website.

Putting aside the potential error of making too much of short-term data variations; the sudden change is unusual and we are watching with great interest.

As you can see below we are working with other government agencies that have to translate and implement the new CASRs into their language (or legal speak). In particular, schools providing courses for international students have to comply with CASA rules and Skills Council protocols in order to obtain approval to accept student visas or similar.

Rob Rich
AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator for
Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council (Aircrew) and manufacturing Skills Australia (Maintenance technicians)
E: [email protected]

7th Oct 2014, 08:41
Did you know – the 'Truss' thread has averaged 16,800 reads per 28 days. Just saying.

Did you know the Senate thread in this embuggered iteration has averaged a touch over 18,000 reads per month. Just saying.

My rough numbers – but even a thicky could or should see that they are 'significant'; that's Uhmm what? – 35, 000 reads per 28 days give or take.

Well done IOS – Choccy frogs all around. Senate questions on notice next? – Wotchasay??

Toot Toot

7th Oct 2014, 11:01
"K" - Senate questions on notice next? – Wotchasay??
Happy to oblige...:E

From FF AQONs on ASA safety issues continuing to be obfuscated i.e. smoke'n'mirrored...:ugh::ugh::
Question no.: 270
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Loss of Separation Assurance Incident
Proof Hansard Page: Written
Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:
CASA would be aware of a report released in late February by the ATSB regarding a loss of separation assurance incident in March 2012, involving two Garuda Airbus A330s. The ATSB was very critical of Airservices’ response to the safety issues in the report, and obviously this follows CASA’s audit of Airservices.

1. What actions is CASA currently involved in to improve the procedures within Airservices?

2. When can we expect to see a reduction in loss of separation incidents as a result of such improvements and better oversight?

3. Is CASA also working with Airservices in relation to their oversight of the provision of weather advice, with particular reference to the Mildura incident in 2013?

4. CASA would also be aware that the ATSB has just released a report into fume and smoke incidents in Australian aircraft. What steps will CASA be taking to respond to this report?


1. CASA continues with ongoing surveillance of Airservices using a risk based software surveillance tool and regular reviews of air traffic service related incident data in order to streamline and best focus its operational surveillance activities.This includes, as necessary, a sampling of Airservices’ contingency and business continuity plans.CASA also holds regular meetings with Airservices to review and enhance existing air traffic procedures as well as to introduce new procedures where appropriate. { Err...BOLLOCKS}

2. CASA will maintain effective oversight of Airservices, identifying issues requiring attention and action, and taking such further steps as may be necessary to ensure those issues are effectively addressed. {Again absolute BOLLOCKS}

3. CASA is providing information to the ATSB investigation of the Mildura incident. In addition, both CASA and Airservices are participating in the development of a Bureau of Meteorology Aviation Weather Strategic Plan.

4. The report was a joint research project undertaken by CASA and the ATSB as members of the Joint Agency Aviation Safety Analysis Coordination Group (JAASACG). There is no requirement to formally respond to the report; however CASA has undertaken to act on the relevant recommendations. Along the same lines (i.e. ASA & by default CAsA addressing safety issues..:\) I noticed the following Exclusive article from the MMSM stable the Oz...:rolleyes:: Act on radar safety or I’ll sue: Dick Smith warns CASA (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/act-on-radar-safety-or-ill-sue-dick-smith-warns-casa/story-e6frg95x-1227080743843)

However I do wonder if the MMSM article is only a knee jerk, regurgitated & selectively edited version of the following from the UK independently owned Daily Mail...:rolleyes: 'Eventually there will be an accident': Aviator Dick Smith says pilots are 'flying blind' at regional airports as safety recommendations are ignored

Entrepreneur Dick Smith says 2004 ministerial safety directive which said radars should be installed at 10 regional airports has been ignored
The former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority claims profit is being put before safety
Implementing radar services at the regional airports would cost tens of millions of dollars
Airports without radars include Alice Springs and Coffs Harbour
'It's obvious that if you don't install it that eventually you will have an accident,' Mr Smith said
By Sarah Dean for Daily Mail Australia (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Sarah+Dean+for+Daily+Mail+Australia)
Published: 14:27 AEST, 6 October 2014 | Updated: 17:17 AEST, 6 October 2014

Thousands of planes are 'flying blind without radar' when they land at regional airports because Airservices Australia has refused to comply with safety instructions, aviator and entrepreneur Dick Smith has warned.

The millionaire and former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority claimed that lives are being put at risk because the AA has been 'completely irresponsible' in not implementing a 2004 ministerial safety directive relating to radar at 10 airports.

Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Maroochydore, Rockhampton and Tamworth airports currently do not use radar for incoming flights.

'They have to obey the ministerial directive and they have not obeyed it purely so they can make more profits,' Mr Smith told Daily Mail Australia.


Former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Dick Smith said profits are being put before safety at regional airports across Australia

In 2004 a ministerial safety directive told CASA to implement radar systems for air traffic controllers at 10 regional airports but ten years later these airports still do not have radar

He warned the AA board members that not implementing radar technology means 'they will be personally liable and they will lose their houses' if an accident occurs.

The implementation was supposed to have taken one year but has still not been carried out after 10 years.

Mr Smith said that although there have not been any accidents because of a lack of radar so far, it is only a matter of time.

'It hasn't caused a crash yet but you don't have a ministerial safety directive that requires something to be implemented for no reason.

Eventually there will be an accident... it's obvious that if you don't install it that eventually you will have an accident.'

He explained that the category of air space that the airports use 'requires radar to operate properly'.

Alice Springs is one of the regional airports that was advised to install radar technology in 2004

Hamilton Island airport, where thousands of tourists fly into every year, was also told to get radar

'It means if you are flying an aircraft it's on the radar screen. But at the moment they are flying blind without radar. Air traffic control have to call them up and work out where they are and they say "20 miles" away,' Mr Smith said.


According to 2010 data from The Civil Aviation Authority thousands of planes fly out of the 10 regional airports every year:

Albury has 180 RPT flights a week
Alice Springs has 128 RPT flights per week
Coffs Harbour has 144 RPT flights a week in
Hamilton Island has over 3,800 RPT flights a year
Hobart has 14,285 RPT flights a year
Launceston has 11,812 RPT flights a year.
Mackay has 11,000 RPT flights a year
Sunshine Coast/Maroochydore has 6,263 RPT flights a year
Rockhampton has 11,500 RPT flights a year
Tamworth has 2,911 RPT flights a year
Implementing radar services at the regional airports would cost tens of millions of dollars and Mr Smith believes this is the reason why the safety directive has been ignored.

'They have worked out that if they don't put the radar in and if they force the industry to put black boxes in instead they would make higher profits.'
Responding to legal advice issued by Mr Smith to Airservices Australia in relation to the radars, AA chairman Air Chief Marshal Houston, told the The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/act-on-radar-safety-or-ill-sue-dick-smith-warns-casa/story-e6frg95x-1227080743843): 'Airservices has continued to progress technological and operational changes to enhance the safety of our services in regional Australia.

'There are now advanced technologies which in the near *future will, to a large extent, replace radar surveillance.'

However, Mr Smith refuted Mr Houston's claims that the airports are using new safety technology instead of radars.

'Their answer is modern technology will save money but it hasn't come in to use yet. They are putting profit in front of safety,' he said.

In a 2010 report that reassessed the ministerial advice, The Civil Aviation Authority noted: 'Radar is no longer the only technology available to provide surveillance to ATC. The introduction of satellite systems, air-to-ground data links and the emergence of new techniques provide surveillance coverage to ATC and will eventually replace the use of radar systems.

'Radar is considered to be old technology and is expensive to install and maintain when compared to newer technologies.'

The report also noted the high cost of installing radar technology and admitted that: 'The level of radar coverage surrounding the 10 Regional Aerodromes has not changed since the Ministerial Direction was given in 2004 although the TASWAM network has improved coverage in Tasmania.'


In 2010, there were 6,263 RPT flights a year from the Sunshine Coast Airport
No matter how bizarre and improbable you may consider Dick's rant in this article there is no denying that he does get the MSM coverage; & in this case from a UK news outlet that has online followers of over 3 million people...:ooh:

Bravo Dick...:ok:

7th Oct 2014, 11:47
Dick very succinctly highlights one of the ongoing 'groundhog day' issues - the system is defective, an inquiry is held, recommendations are made, said recommendations always get ignored. It's a common theme that has become the norm. In all due respect to Houston and people like Staib - they always toe the party line because they have spent their careers, latter careers at least, serving their political masters by being their puppets and yes men/women and getting paid handsomely as a reward. They will never betray those who pull their strings, never. It's all a game of survival - survive your career as a bureaucrat right up to the last pay packet then retire off the back of the taxpayer! What these people do is not for the good of mankind I can assure you. Their spin, deceit, bullshit and deception is a part of their job position description. Just the way a fighter pilot is trained to fire a missile and destroy life without being emotionally attached to his actions, so too are our politicians and their bureaucratic department heads also trained to make decisions including lying, deceiving and obsfucating even to the point of putting our families and friends lives at risk and in some cases death has occurred, and they do so while sipping Cognac and eating cucumber sandwiches. No conscience, no morals, no care in the world. Its all a game.

We live and work within a crooked system, where life is cheap and government are even more crooked. We are absorbed within a system devoid of decency, transparency and honesty, where those making, enforcing, changing the rules are one and the same. The numbers are stacked. The cards are stacked. The judicial system is stacked. The outcomes are stacked. The only way to change the system is to attack it head on. Any bureaucracy can be smashed by the people if the support and numbers are there. The very citizens a government takes an oath to protect are also the very thing they are the most scared of. If you have strength in numbers you can move mountains boys. Unless there is some kind of civil aviation uprising change won't occur. You are talking about a 200 year old system that has been fine tuned and massaged to ensure that YOU never come off as the victor. It's time to change tact, adapt, surprise, and shock. Playing by their rules will result in absolutely nothing. We need to make the rules and then put a grapple in their mouths and drag them to the fight.

thorn bird
7th Oct 2014, 12:00
"so too are our politicians and their bureaucratic department heads also trained to make decisions including lying, deceiving and obsfucating even to the point of putting our families and friends lives at risk and in some cases death has occurred, and they do so while sipping Cognac and eating cucumber sandwiches. No conscience, no morals, no care in the world. Its all a game."

There is a certain flight nurse who can attest to that, from bitter experience.

Fobbed off by a miniscules department head like she was a piece of cow shit stuck to his trousers.

8th Oct 2014, 00:35
Here are a group of dedicated people doing something about this appalling airport privatisation situation and the Minister's complete lack of action.
Please consider making a contribution as this is the culmination of over eight (8) years of work and tireless effort to bring those responsible kicking and screaming to be held to account.

Minister Warren Truss is using your tax-payer dollars to fund a high-powered legal team - Ashurst Lawyers from Canberra to defend a position he rejected when he was last in Government.

If successful this action will be a watershed moment and turn the airport privatisation model on its head.


Website - AACCI (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/1728g/1772506/ce39d14p8b.html)

We Need YOU!

Dear fellow Aviator,


AAT Proceedings

As you should be aware by now your Chamber (AACCI) has had proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) since August 2012. Our action is challenging ex-Minister Anthony Albanese's disastrous decision in May 2012 to approve the 2011-2031 Archerfield Airport Master Plan.

If permitted to stand unchallenged by your Chamber, the Minister’s approval would clear the way for Archerfield Airport Corporation (AAC) to proceed with an irreversible and permanent downgrading of the critical aviation infrastructure that exists at Archerfield Airport. This includes the unacceptable loss of the 04/22 runway complex, the Archerfield Control Tower, the fuel farms and above all would obliterate many aviation businesses without compensation.

This is solely an industrial land grab by AAC without appropriate regard to the consequences to and requirements of the aviation users (that's YOU!) and also the overall public interest both now and into the future.

The Chamber's action is now set down for trial commencing from the 18th November to 26th November 2014 with an airport site visit by the AAT Deputy President Hack on the 17th November 2014.

Up to twenty-seven (27) witnesses, (most of whom have made extensive written statements) will be appearing for the Chamber - including our expert witnesses. If you are a witness you will soon be receiving a summons to appear before the AAT. Although this will be for the entire period from and including the 18th November, the exact day or days you will be required will be confirmed closer to the time. Persons pre-approved by the AAT will be able to provide evidence by phone or video link.

All members and their supporters are welcome to attend the hearing but everyone who receives a summons cannot be present in the hearing room until after they have given their evidence as a witness. If you attend the AAT before you are called, objections could be raised against your evidence including the possibly of totally invalidating your evidence – so please exercise extreme care about this.

What will be achieved?

The AAT has stated they are not running a royal commission. That said, the main issues, properly prosecuted by expert legal counsel will result in the 2011-2031 Master Plan being rejected by the AAT and possibly replaced by the Chamber’s alternative master plan (which was ratified by the Chamber in General Meeting) being approved by the AAT to then become the 2011-2031 Master Plan.

This decision will not only help rescue Archerfield Airport from unscrupulous land development, but will help every other secondary airport and the ALOP airports throughout Australia.

It is extremely important to understand that this is not just an action for the benefit of Archerfield Airport alone.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Department of Infrastructure and Transport clearly do not know their own rules. Both Government Departments have been acting merely as a post office and have not done their job.

There will be significant ramifications for the Minister and section heads of these departments from our proceedings as the spotlight is now turned on to what they have done.

Running these proceedings in the AAT has been and continues to be a massive and resource demanding undertaking.

This is a "one off" exercise to save your airport and your business – an opportunity that will not present itself again.

It is now the time for your focus, for your action, for you to play your part, and to help with the heavy lifting others have shouldered to “get us all over the line”.

To prosecute the trial for the Chamber, we are represented by our Solicitor and Barrister, both of whom have aviation qualifications and are familiar with Archerfield Airport. In addition to this we also have litigation support personnel (who are also pilots) and iconic expert witnesses donating their professional time.

Our solicitor costs $2000 per trial day and Barrister $4,000 per trial and preparation day.

We request each and every member to sponsor either the solicitor or the Barrister or both for one or more days. For most aviation businesses this is fully tax deductible.

You do not need to be a member of the Chamber to sponsor. The Chamber is an approved organisation to receive public donations for this purpose under the Collections Act 1966 (Qld). Donations can be made with anonymity.

You may chose the day (or days) that you want to sponsor. A list of the days and slots requiring sponsorship will soon be up on the Chambers Website and kept updated . (Note no names will appear thereon – unless you specifically request same) .

The AAT is open to the public and (unless you are a witness) you can attend to see what you are getting for your sponsorship day.

Where do I send my sponsorship funds?

The Chamber’s Bank Account Details for the “AAT Case Fighting Fund” are as follows:
Account Name: Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.
Bank of Queensland – Springwood
BSB No: 124057
Account No:20220853
Don’t have the cash? – we can accept your credit card – donate on-line by clicking here (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/1728g/1834064/ce39d5cbp.html) and then selecting the 'Donate' button.

Know others that want to Help?

Help in sponsorship and extra litigation support and special project staff are needed.

Email this to your friend.

Lindsay Snell
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc
GPO Box 2511
Brisbane Qld 4001
Website (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/1728g/1772506/ce39d14p8b-1.html):- www.aacci.org.au (http://www.aacci.org.au/)

8th Oct 2014, 02:12
Top job AACCI take it up to this poor excuse for a Minister and his self-preserving Dept Head, if I was able I'd be donating in a heartbeat...:D:D

However perhaps I can assist in other ways...;)

Example - topical videos perhaps...:E

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

Anyway best of luck & 'may the force be with you' (& also with John O'Brien) in the upcoming QLD AAT hearings...:ok:

Addendum - A miniscule reminder..:rolleyes:

The Coalition’s plan for Aviation (http://www.warrentruss.com/portfolio_press.php?id=2076)

30th August, 2013THE Coalition will strengthen our aviation industry to ensure that it is safe, reliable, competitive and proud to be Australian.

The Coalition’s Policy for Aviation will improve consultation, reform the structure of key safety agencies and provide support to struggling sectors of the industry.

The Coalition will invest an additional $3.5 million to support regional aviation by introducing 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.

The Coalition will establish a high level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia to provide a root and branch assessment of current practices and provide a long-term framework for the future of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

Additionally, the Coalition will:

* focus on the better utilisation of Australian airspace, including tasking Airservices Australia with fast-tracking technological and navigational improvements at airports and pursuing methods to decrease aircraft noise for communities;

* recognise the importance of Australian airports to the economy, from our major gateway airports and small regional airports, to those that support flight training and general aviation;

* revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda and establish a regular dialogue with the general aviation sector to address industry issues;

* continue to promote aviation liberalisation while recognising the need to protect our national interest;

* enhance aviation skills, training and development by undertaking a study into skills shortages in the broader aviation industry; and

* ensure that aviation security measures are risk based and implemented in a practical and common sense way.

Over the past six years Labor’s approach to aviation policy has seen cost after cost added to the bottom lines of airlines and airports, pilots and passengers.

Labor has introduced the carbon tax, increased red tape, raised the Passenger Movement Charge and abolished the En Route Rebate Scheme for small regional airlines.

The Coalition recognises that our aviation sector is a vital part of the economy. It employs in excess of 100,000 people and contributes an estimated $17.3 billion to the Australian economy.

The Coalition’s Policy for Aviation will invest $6 million to boost the productivity, safety and competitiveness of our aviation sector.



8th Oct 2014, 20:28
For those interested in keeping aerodromes operational and the miasma of 'dodgy doings' the Paul Phelan article in – ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/10/08/saving-your-airport/#more-2403) – and its supporting piece – HERE (http://proaviation.com.au/2013/04/25/day-of-reckoning-for-albanese-2/) -is worth a read. It's been a low key event to date, but you get the feeling that the heat is being turned up – certainly got the Senate attention; if not that of 'our' minuscule....;)

8th Oct 2014, 21:59
Strange Dichotomy

Yesterday miniscule Wuss in a very longwinded spiel...:zzz:...to the SEGRA (Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia) conference in Alice Springs did not once mention the dreaded "A" words (i.e. aviation, airports or aircraft)...:ugh::ugh: But then in the five short paragraphs contained within his conclusion he mentions the "A" words no less than ten times...:E: Keynote Address: SEGRA 2014 Connecting Matters (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2014/wts024_2014.aspx)

For those in the crowd who may not be aware, Alice Springs Airport is now home to Australia's first aircraft storage facility.

It is an exciting step for aviation in Australia and is the first Asia-Pacific based alternative to the Mojave Desert in California and Arizona's 840-hectare Pinal Airpark for airlines with aircraft based or operating throughout our region.

Australian-based company Asia Pacific Aircraft Storage and Northern Territory Airports management are to be congratulated on the development which will be able to accommodate up to 250 to 300 aircraft.
The latest arrivals are, I understand, a Qantas 767 and four Airbus single-aisle planes from Tigerair Singapore.

Not only has this facility created jobs during construction but will continue to generate local jobs in terms of aircraft maintenance and the like, but I think I can safely say that it will be yet another popular tourist destination for visitors to the Red Centre.

Thank you. Hmm...much like the government's hunt for remote landholders that have available & applicable land for a nuclear waste dump, maybe some enterprising regional airports, or even farmer Joe, should consider following the lead of APAS/NTA...:E

Safe skies are empty skies & safe airports are aircraft boneyards...:{:{


9th Oct 2014, 04:57
While the miniscule is busy promoting the government's infrastructure programs, promising billions to all other modes of transport.. :ugh:..and apparently inspecting the government funded Tennis Alice Springs new facilities - New tennis club house served up for Masters Games (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/october/wt194_2014.aspx)...

Meanwhile in a land far removed from the Red Centre the RAAA are convening a large assembly of aviation stalwarts - some of whom actually give a toss about our industry...:E

From AA online today: New CASA board members to come soon (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/new-casa-board-members-to-come-soon/)
Further appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board will be made soon, parliamentary secretary to the minister for industry Bob Baldwin says.

Baldwin says the federal government is committed to increasing the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board “to better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation”.

“I understand the deputy prime minister hopes to make further appointments to the CASA board very shorty,” Baldwin told delegates at the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) national conference on Thursday.

It was understood the government had chosen three new CASA directors – Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and David Cox.

Taylor was most recently was president of 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 formerly head of engineering at Qantas.

CASA’s three current board members were chair Allan Hawke, as well as the recently-appointed deputy chair Jeff Boyd plus Trevor Danos.
A fully formed CASA board needed to be in place before a new CASA director of aviation safety could be named.

Meanwhile, Baldwin reiterated the government’s commitment to respond to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) report before the end of 2014.

“I am aware of the significant level of interest in the independent aviation safety regulation review report,” Baldwin said.

“The government is now carefully considering all of the 37 recommendations and other matters arising from the report and we intend to provide a comprehensive response before this year is out.”

Deputy Prime Minister and minister for infrastructure and regional development Warren Truss made a similar commitment at the Airservices Waypoint conference in September.

The head of the ASRR, David Forsyth, was due to speak at the RAAA conference on Friday.

The report, published in June, highlighted the sometimes “adversarial” relationship between CASA and the industry and called for substantial structural and culture change at the regulator, among other matters.

RAAA chairman and Regional Express director Jim Davis said the reform of CASA had a “long way to go”.

David said a new director of aviation safety and new CASA board members needed to be named without any further delay.

“Every day that CASA is without a permanent head and a fully constituted board is a day’s delay in taking the important decisions that will make CASA a more responsive and effective organisation,” Davis told delegates at the conference, held in the NSW Hunter Valley.

“I’ve always firmly believed that the industry working in partnership with CASA is by far the best approach and achieves the best safety outcomes.”
“Sadly this has not been the case in recent years.” Also from Dougy, who is now back from his 3 weeks of international jet setting...;):...I was somewhat surprised to return to no news of a new director of safety for CASA. But I understand that we will not have to wait much longer.

Getting the new CASA board members names off the Cabinet table and out to industry has taken an understandably lower profile than some of the issues that the Federal Government has had to deal with lately. Though one might also have thought that it is still of considerable importance to the Australian industry and that ways could have been found to deal with it outside the Cabinet process. The delay in the announcement of the new DAS has been more complicated and some of it has been associated with a determination to deliver the right outcome. But it is believed that that ‘right’ outcome has been arrived at and that an announcement is imminent.

That outcome is likely to include a team approach rather than the appointment of a single individual, to take full advantage of some considerable talent that has been unearthed by the process.

I’m at the RAAA Conference today and tomorrow. The Hunter Valley (NSW) venue was perhaps a bit of a risk given accessibility issues, but the turnout has been strong in both quality and quantity. And there’s not a dinosaur in sight! And the program is also something of an experiment, with ‘marquee’ speakers alongside the usual. Paul Tyrell and his team have scored heavyweights such as Terry Farquharson (CASA), Greg Hood (Airservices), ACM Mark Binskin (ADF), Martin Dolan (ATSB) and David Forsyth (ASRR plus). Highlights will follow. Careful Terry..:rolleyes:..better watch your intake of Chardy, that excellent Hunter stuff has a habit of creeping up on you mate...:E

Hmmm...on second thoughts Teza have a couple more...:ugh:

CASA hopes for improved relationship with industry (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/casa-hopes-for-improved-relationship-with-industry/)

TF - “Safety is an element of what the industry does, it is the reason for CASA being there and the government have made no suggestions they are going to rehash the Civil Aviation Act in any fundamental way.”:yuk::yuk: Farquarson said CASA, in its role as aviation safety regulator, had to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions. He also acknowledged it was currently a period of change with “a lot of stuff coming through” as they moved to new systems and regulations.
“Most importantly, we need to move into the future with a mutually respectful understanding of each other’s roles,” Farquarson said.
“Chucking bricks, going into the trenches is unhelpful in the extreme.
“I hope this gives us a platform to work conjointly for a better safety future.”

From the man who brought to the Senate this insipid performance -


And just like back then by the Heff..:D..I'm calling it now Teza - "BOLLOCKS absolute BOLLOCKS!":ugh:


9th Oct 2014, 08:14
"Paul Tyrell and his team have scored heavyweights such as Terry Farquharson (CASA), Greg Hood (Airservices), ACM Mark Binskin (ADF), Martin Dolan (ATSB) and David Forsyth (ASRR plus)."

"Dolan a heavyweight" ??????? :{ Now I've heard it all:{
IMHO, one of these guys is a heavyweight, one is a middleweight, one is mumbling idiot-weight, one is in the a..e-kissing weight and the last is in the narcissist-weight. In no particular order, of course. I'm sure any decent IOSS member can figure my choice.

9th Oct 2014, 11:19
“Chucking bricks, going into the trenches is unhelpful in the extreme.
“I hope this gives us a platform to work conjointly for a better safety future.” I agree, chucking bricks is useless. You are better off chucking fresh poo, poison darts or sharpened knives, much more effective.

Message to Terry (I will whisper as you will be asleep) - Please Mr Heavyweight, take your A380 ticket, Sky Sentinel, Jason recliner chair and Viagra and leave the building immediately. Nobody is listening to you and nobody really wants too. It's time for you to go bye byes, please. And one other thing - take Boyd, Campbell, Ferrit-a-day, Gibson and Wodger with you and please don't bang the door on the way out, ok?

9th Oct 2014, 12:35

I agree. I wonder does the acting role come with the Mistress? After the display at last years RAAA, it wouldn't surprise me.
And an interesting anecdote, was Sleepy actually interviewed for his Deputy job or just appointed by his mate Herr Screamer?? MM like to comment?:=:= That runs against government protocols.

Sleepy needs to get out of FF before the Senate or the AFP get onto the SKySentinel deal. Could be too late for that;)

9th Oct 2014, 13:41
Late news!

Sleepy (Tezza) was reported to the ICC by a female CASA officer on the grounds of sexual discrimination. No doubt the "mistress" (ICC) took little notice or no action regarding that. CORRUPTION!!!!!

9th Oct 2014, 16:11
Didn't think employees could report stuff to the icc? Not much point in HR but guess have to try that route. I'd go straight to a decent lawyer and there are a couple that have won against casa. There was one newbie manager to casa that got a bullying case against him within 6 months. Apparently the complainent (iOS) used a good lawyer based in Melbourne. The manager put some nasty stuff in writing amongst other things. Still there the complainent isn't though. Although a number of jobs are being restructured now.

Funny how bullying and harassment keeps cropping up. Casa has a duty to provide a safe workplace and that includes emotionally safe too.

Always worth a read

9th Oct 2014, 20:22
Biscuit, Mr Fanta pants in Brisbane had some pretty serious accusations levelled against him as well for bullying staff. He lost the plot after not receiving an executive role he felt entitled too and started taking it out on staff. What a shock! Anyway that's just one little story. And who could forget FOI 'Pothole'? He still trawls the Brisbane office hallways like a prize rooster wearing his silly boots and belt, eager to fill any listening ear with countless stories of flying 737's and how absolutely wonderful he is! Puke :yuk: Most people run the other way when Herr Pothole is doing his rounds. I don't believe there is one single person within industry or Fort Fumble who haven't been offended by his bullying tactics.

As for the impending senate estimates, it should be a great laugh. As usual Fort Fumble will sit under the spotlight, the Senators will give them a good dusting, lots of QON's will eventuate and ultimately team Pumpkin Head will sweep all under the carpet. It's a game of tautology, it's played every so often and it's fun to watch. But nothing will actually come out of the process, never does. But I do recommend front row seats if you can get them, watching turkey neck Terry trying to answer intelligent questions and not fumble, stammer or sleep his way through the answers is priceless!! Sadly we won't get to see JMac turning purple with veins protruding from his neck anymore, but that's ok as there are other players to watch. I would like to see the Senators place a torch to Boyds toes if he is on the 'pineapple panel', he is a conceited sneak who holds contempt for the Senators, I reckon if he were to be given a JMac style grilling for a few hours he would either break down in tears or explode with the force of Terry's weak bladder in the middle of the night. Priceless!!

Now enjoy your weekend flying you kids and fly safe.

9th Oct 2014, 21:59
If I was running CASA, I would be extremely worried about its future because a vicious circle is forming very quickly.

Administration is not cheap. If administrative costs keep increasing to the point where market participants start leaving the industry, a vicious circle forms where increasing administrative charges have to be born by a decreasing number of participants.

The major airlines can not be milked - they have political clout and can tell CASA where to stick it and in any case CASA don't have the skills, experience, courage and capabilities in depth to make any meaningful regulatory impact on Qantas and its competitors, let alone value add. That is why Terry Farquesons A380 endorsement is a joke - Qantas will not permit CASA to have anything to do with its operations apart from a little window dressing for appearances sake, and that by the way from a Qantas pilot mate.

That leaves the Third tier airlines, charter, GA and recreational sectors to pick up CASA's tab. My impression is that those people are fast running out of money to pay for "exemptions", "permissions" and "acceptances", the cost of which are now apparently escalating to stratospheric heights.

At some point the last straw breaks the camels back and CASA will be overtaken by events. Let me tell you where I see the trends going and why I would be concerned if I was CASA:

- Rapid technological change, particularly in Avionics, is going to put very major pressure on CASA to approve/accept. call it what you will, a bewildering array of new technologies and do it fast or risk becoming a laughing stock as well as courting widespread disobedience and flaunting of its rules. The whole electronic flight bag / iPad issue is a case in point.

For example, I can already access the marine AIS (automatic identification system) via an App. I can even paint myself on radar screens as displacing 20,000 tons if i want to.


I wonder how fast the aviation equivalent "plane beacon" App will arrive and how that will totally disrupt ADS-B?

- Civil disobedience, although I have no knowledge of it, I would expect that at some point, a proportion of aircraft operators are going to start to decide to operate illegally making the judgement that the cost and likelihood of getting caught is smaller than the cost and complexity of compliance. If that proportion is significant it will swamp whatever oversight mechanism CASA thinks it has.

- A general economic downturn will also contribute to this vicious circle. I do not believe the Federal Treasurer is going to allow CASA to continue wasting money.

By my way of thinking, it is not a good idea for CASA management to assume that the Government will continue to put up with their antics. A good place to start would be the Senate Estimates Committee asking very pointed questions about the need for the Acting DAS to get an A380 endorsement.

9th Oct 2014, 22:28
Although the potential Angel Flight embuggerance, instigated by our big "R" regulator, has slid slightly to the edge of the radar it is still very much a political hot potato for the Wuss & his minions...:= Example - Scott Lobbies For Angel Flight (http://southburnett.com.au/news2/2014/09/scott-lobbies-for-angel-flight/):
Member for Maranoa Bruce Scott says the Federal Government is all about “removing red tape” rather than creating “onerous obstacles” for charity organisations such as Angel Flight.

Angel Flight CEO Bill Bristow recently criticised a Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) discussion paper that suggested the charity group should be included under a new aviation organisation which would approve pilots and aircraft types, and monitor safety standards.

“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 … bureaucratic intervention which does not appear to us to have any foundation,” Mr Bristow told The Australian newspaper.

Mr Scott said today he had made urgent representations to the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to ensure Angel Flight, “a well-respected and admired community organisation”, could continue its work.

“Angel Flight does outstanding work across Australia with its volunteers, including the pilots, giving their time and resources so country people with health issues – who are under financial hardship – can obtain the treatment they need,” Mr Scott said.

“The Liberal National Coalition Government is all about removing red tape and cutting regulations that place unreasonable burdens on businesses and community organisations.

“We are not in favour of creating onerous obstacles where none are needed.

“CASA is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of civil aircraft and that objective will not be compromised.

“From time to time, CASA issues discussion papers when it’s considering options to revise regulatory measures. The purpose of discussion papers is to ensure that options being considered are the best available before beginning any new rule making procedures.

“The government has recently completed a major review of CASA and will shortly respond to its major recommendations.

“The government is also in the process of appointing new CASA board members and a new CEO.”

Angel Flight co-ordinates non-emergency flights from volunteer pilots to transport patients from rural areas to hospital. Today is the last day to show support for Angel Flight through the FF DP1317OS. (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/dp1317os.pdf)All you have to do is answer - not acceptable under any circumstances (here (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/dp1317os-annexa.docx)) - to all available options...:D

Now if you are after inspiration to pass comment/condemnation..;).. perhaps some of the following replies to the AA article may help - Angel Flight anger over proposed CASA changes (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/angel-flight-anger-over-proposed-casa-changes/comment-page-1/#comment-26533)Frank says:

Another example of just how out of touch CASA is would be a sad day for the community if licensed people decided it was too tiresome to volunteer their time. Disgraceful!

Fred says:

This is ridiculous.
CASA is the regulatory body that is supposed to ensure private pilots are competent and safe upon issuance of their licence and ensures that the individual pilot maintains, at least legally, some proficiency by regular flight reviews, etc. By imposing this “ASAAO” upon Angel Flight, CASA is really just struggling to admit that their own ability to regulate private operations is either ineffective or that they are under resourced and can’t meet the regulatory demand.

Angel Flight operations are regular private flights and carry no greater risk to the passengers than any non-Angel Flight organised trip. An individual pilot making poor operational decisions under the banner of Angel Flight should be reprimanded by CASA directly. An Angel Flight pilot is never under any pressure to complete a “mission”. In fact, they are encouraged to give up their mission if there is any doubt as to the conditions and the pilot’s ability. A pilot is always purely a volunteer, operating privately. The Angel Flight organisation should never be held responsible for the individual’s decision.

As far as I understand, why should one of the most well-meaning and effective charities in Australia take on the regulatory responsibility of a government-funded department?

Joanna van der Drift says:

To place the responsibility of all of that onto to provider is ridiculous. A licence to fly comes with obligations, owning and running an aircarft comes with obligations and registration is subject to the plane being fit to fly. Why bring into the equation another body to be rsponsible for this as well?

Scott says:

A beheamonth of a beauracracy thats totally out of touch with GA and recreational flying and desperate to over-regulate to death, those with the least resources, therefore creating safety issues for CASA to resolve and regulate with glee. Without the “burden” of GA, CASA would only have to regulate several hundred jet aircraft with the huge resources it currently wastes at tax payers expense. Why any private flight below 1200kg needs to hold a Class 2 Medical, and often redundant ASIC for a bit of recreational flying and the odd Angel Flight is unintelligent. 20 years ago we had CASA grounding light aircraft operators for having undersized rego letters, henious safety issue that it was, seems not much has changed at the retirement factory for those who couldn’t make it in the real world of proffit and loss…! Or you could refer to the following leaked response to the DP from the former CAsA boss Mick Toller...:E:Ex-CASA chief blasts Angel Flight curbs (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/excasa-chief-blasts-angel-flight-curbs/story-e6frg95x-1227085515881?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20TheAustralianBusAviation%20(The%20Aus tralian%20%7C%20Business%20%7C%20Aviation))

FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mick Toller has slammed as unnecessary and unfounded a proposal to more tightly regulate community service organisations such as Angel Flight.

In a submission obtained by The Australian, Mr Toller told CASA there was no evidence or solid data in a discussion paper *released by the authority suggesting there were problems with *operations in the community *service sector.

“The discussion paper states that there are identified safety concerns regarding varying pilot qualifications and experience levels as well as aircraft certification and maintenance standards,’’ he said. “No examples of these identified concerns are given.’’

Mr Toller is among the Angel Flight volunteers lining up to support the group, which has also received support from local authorities and patients potentially affected by any move by CASA to increase regulation.
He headed CASA when Angel Flight was set up in 2003 and gave the organisation the green light to start operations co-ordinating non-emergency flights for needy patients, relatives and carers. It now has about 2600 pilots on its register and has helped more than 2500 people across the country.

CASA has emphasised that it may not proceed with any changes that would affect Angel Flight, but its decision to specify a preferred option in its discussion paper has alarmed the organisation’s management and volunteers.

Its preferred option would see an organisation set up to assess and authorise pilots, require proficiency checks and assessments and approve aircraft types. It *argues it could monitor safety standards under the system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.

The authority subsequently rejected claims it was moving to shut down community service flights, but said it made no apologies for canvassing safety issues.

Other options in its paper include taking no action at all, *special passenger briefings on community service flights, additional pilot training, a volunteer registration system and operations under an air operator’s certificate.
The authority this week reiterated its stance that no decision had been made and it would consider all responses to the discussion paper before deciding what, or if, further action was appropriate.

“If any changes to the current safety management of community service flights are to be proposed these will be subject to full consultation with all stakeholders,’’ a spokesman said.

“Currently community service flights are considered to be private flights and the safety rules do not take into account the special characteristics of these operations.’’

But Mr Toller noted in his submission that Angel Flight policy already required pilots to have 250 hours experience, in excess of the requirements for a commercial *pilots’ licence, and their aircraft have a valid airworthiness certificate and current maintenance release. “It is not possible to impose a greater requirement than a valid certificate of airworthiness and current maintenance release on any operation,’’ he said.

“The question therefore has to be asked — what problem are you trying to solve?

“Neither is there a lack of transparency regarding choice of aircraft or pilot as alleged.

“What does not seem to be clearly understood by CASA is that Angel Flight and any future similar organisation is a facilitator, not an operator. It links people who elect to fly rather than travel by car, bus or train, if the option is available, with pilots keen to offer their time to assist.

“As such each flight is a normal private flight subject to the rules, regulations and requirements imposed on all private flights.’’
Mr Toller said CASA’s proposal would add a unique classification of operations not existing anywhere else in the world.

He said this was contrary to the policy of harmonisation that had been at the core of all regulatory reform and underpinned the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

A simple solution that endorsed the current safety levels and precluded any newcomer operating at a minimum standard would be to require a memorandum of understanding with each charity based “on the current proven standards that have served the community well”. He added: “We are talking about private operations, operated in accordance with all CASA rules and regulations, with additional safeguards required by the charity.” Hmm...interesting comments from MT???:rolleyes:


10th Oct 2014, 09:36
From AA online today...:D:D

Forsyth suggests two-year timeline to restore industry’s relationship with CASA (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/forsyth-suggests-two-year-timeline-to-restore-industrys-relationship-with-casa/)

Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) author David Forsyth estimates it will take about two years to fix the relationship between the industry and the regulator.

However, trust between Australia’s aviation players and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would take longer, Forsyth says.

In an indication of the lack of trust in Australia compared with other countries, Forsyth noted carriers such as British Airways and Easyjet freely sent the majority of their operational safety data through to their national regulator, something that would be unheard of here.

“I would never have done it in Qantas 10-12 years ago and you can be damn sure no one is going to do it in this country now,” Forsyth told delegates at the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) national convention in the NSW Hunter Valley on Friday.

“Overseas, operators share some and in some cases operators share all of that in-house data with the regulator.”

“That’s not happening in Australia. In fact, the reverse is true.”

Forsyth said the industry’s view that the relationship with CASA was both inappropriate and unhealthy centred on the availability and use of safety data.

Technological advancements in aircraft design and production meant safety systems had evolved, making operations more reliable and eliminating the likes of fixed interval overhauls and “over-the-shoulder” inspection and quality assurance roles. As a result, regulators needed to know more than what was available from incident reports, such as information from airlines’ increasingly sophisticated data and analytical tools within their safety management systems.

However, Australian carriers were increasingly reluctant to share any more than was legally required to CASA.

“There was even some evidence that some people were actually not even reporting the mandatory data to CASA,” Forsyth said.

While airlines in some countries sent their safety data directly to the regulator, Forsyth noted Australian operators sent their information to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), where it was “de-identified” before a summary was produced for CASA. He described that process as “clearly out of step with best practice”.

“This issue revolves around trust.”

The ASRR report highlighted the at-times “adversarial” relationship between the industry and CASA, and that a new director of aviation safety (DAS) would be a chance for structural and cultural change.

“Their view was that you could certainly within two years if you approached it the right way get the relationship with the industry fixed,” Forsyth said.

“But it will take time for the industry – to use the T word – to trust the regulator.”

“Their view was that a year or two, or at the most three, in the right circumstances you could restore the balance to where it needs to be.”

Reviews into Australian aviation were nothing new, Forsyth said, with the ASRR the 10th government-initiated probe into the sector since the Plane Safe inquiry of 1995. Moreover, there had been seven reviews in the past seven years, including two conducted by a Senate Committee.

“Even in Australian aeropolitics that is not normal,” Forsyth said.

The federal government has pledged to respond to the report’s 37 recommendations before the end of 2014.


thorn bird
10th Oct 2014, 09:55
Trust CAsA!!!!!

with all the evidence available I'd trust ISL before I'd trust CAsA.

10th Oct 2014, 12:12
Reviews into Australian aviation were nothing new, Forsyth said, with the ASRR the 10th government-initiated probe into the sector since the Plane Safe inquiry of 1995. Moreover, there had been seven reviews in the past seven years, including two conducted by a Senate Committee.Quite simply it goes to show how utterly fu#ked CASA is and how utterly corrupt successive governments have been when at the end of the day nothing has changed after all these years, inquires and reviews.

10th Oct 2014, 21:01

Quite simply it goes to show how utterly fu#ked CASA is and how utterly corrupt successive governments have been when at the end of the day nothing has changed after all these years, inquires and reviews.

CASA puts a very simple value proposition to successive Governments that they always accept:

1. Aviation issues will never win you an election. The only aviation issue the public is concerned about are cheap flights, aviation noise in inner Sydney and a second airport at Badgerys creek. There is therefore no need for you to invest any time and effort on the subject.

2. If you take any action apart from spouting motherhood policy statements, you will be blamed by the public if a major crash occurs. There is no electoral "upside" from messing with this. There is only "downside" if you meddle.

3. Considering there is no upside and only downside for you in acting in aviation, then leave us in charge to do what we like. We give you electoral protection via plausible deniability and diffusion of responsibility. You can always blame us, we will then provide sacrificial lambs to absolve you of any guilt whatsoever."

....and each Government since at least as early as 1990 has accepted that bargain for those reasons.

11th Oct 2014, 23:14
It's taken you quite a while to get there, Sunny, but you're there. Well done.

This is why folks like Lookleft and I have been saying, for some time, that it's practically pointless to focus energy on arguing with CASA or the Minister, or to wait with credulous wonder for the Senate latest inquiry or new messiah to precipitate any substantial change.

Subject to one possible exception, the only glimmer of hope is the non-major party aligned Senators. They have the power to pressure governments to make real changes, in return for something the government really wants. As I've said before, if the non-major party aligned Senators said they won't vote for some controversial piece of legislation that the government was gagging to get through the Senate, unless ATCers wear pink bunny suits at the console, ATCers would be paid handsomely to agree a pink bunny suit obligation in their EBA by the close of business on the same day.

The one possible exception arises from Dick Smith's recent return to the aviation foray. If he put his formible profile and influence to work to create a credible threat to e.g. Barnaby Joyce's security in his House of Reps seat in NSW, unless specified substantial changes were made in the aviation sector, there may be substantial change. The challenge would be to ensure Dick didn't get distracted, as he has been before, by the political equivalent of shiny beads and cosy blankets.

Face it everyone: It's always about base politics, not high principle.

12th Oct 2014, 20:22

Face it everyone: It's always about base politics, not high principle.

Therefore we need a cleanskin non pilot to start an "aviation enthusiasts party" that we can vote for with a mission to influence the composition of the Senate.

You do that not by getting your own candidate elected, you do it by preference deals to make sure your target is NOT elected.

Where and what are the marginal seats such a party could target?

Frank Arouet
12th Oct 2014, 22:08
Creampuff. Once again you have identified a problem which most all would agree with. Now, can one assume yourself and your banal associate, have approached the non major party aligned Senators. May we know what their response to you was?
I doubt, that there would have been a Senate inquiry, a review, or an overseas audit, without some prompting by someone, (possibly you two), and further I believe PPRune has played a vital part up to the hiatus we now find ourselves at.
As for Dick, I believe your encouragement lacks sincerity. Perhaps reference to beads and blankets is not the best way to get him on board. Ridicule would, in my opinion, cement the reasons he gave up last time and probably be treated with contempt and have the opposite effect. Some may engineer that to achieve such an aim.

Sunfish. There is a plethora of "independants" (small i), who will probably suffer the same fate as any other "single issue" mob at the next election. I believe the "electability" and "preference issue" will be addressed by both major party's before then.

13th Oct 2014, 20:30
If the Laborials can't manage to get legislative amendments through to undo the above-the-line preference swap mechanism (that was, ironically, originally intended to ensure minor candidates' preferences always ended up in the same place - a Laborial), there might be a chance of getting some influence through the Senate election process. Given that the Laborials are just that - a 'unity ticket' on this issue - the likelihood is, unfortunately, that the amendments will be pushed through. Assuming they aren't...

Register a political party. Call it anything you like e.g. the Aviation Promotion Party. The name just needs to be recognisable to anyone involved in anything to do with aviation. The rest don't care. All the party needs is a few hundred members and, hopefully, at least one candidate for each State, the NT and ACT.

Then you encourage anyone and everyone connected with aviation to vote APP above the line on the Senate ballot. Simple policies e.g:

- dismantle CASA and rebuild the regulatory structure from the ground up.
- kill, cremate and bury the regulatory reform Frankenstein, and adopt the NZ rules
- turn airports back into airports.

Behind the scenes the key is to do preference swap deals with other minor parties/independents with similar aims/interests/philosophies. That way, whatever way the preferences flow, there's a greater likelihood of electing candidates with APP sympathies.

The APP will, of course, be internally divided and eventually disintegrate due to the egos involved. But all it needs is a few years with a government's nuts in a Senate deadlock vise, to get fundamental changes to the aviation sector.

13th Oct 2014, 20:50

The APP will, of course, be internally divided and eventually disintegrate due to the egos involved. But all it needs is a few years with a government's nuts in a Senate deadlock vise, to get fundamental changes to the aviation sector.

Correction, all it needs is the threat of placing a Governments nuts in a vice.

Truss and his ilk on both sides of politics will receive very unfavourable attention from their compatriots if they are deemed responsible for creating an electoral irritation like the APP.

Is there enough interest in the aviation community to create such a beast?

13th Oct 2014, 21:46
I noted with interest the fact that the government rep chosen to speak at the RAAA conference was the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister for industry...:ooh:

Some may say this is typical of government (past & present) obvious dis-interest in all things aviation but on a quick perusal of Bob Baldwin's CV it is quite obvious this man is not a light weight in political circles, the man is a doer rather than (like Wuss) a snoozer...:ugh:

Now the doomsayers may also say - "so what"- & that this is just more political posturing from the laborials but IMO this is an obvious sign that the government RTRB (Red Tape Reduction Brigade), of which BB is heavily involved, has been tasked with getting stuck into the 20+ year mess that is Fort Fumble's RRP...:=

As noted in Progressive's thread here (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/549250-casa-red-tape-reduction-audit.html), yesterday FF quietly/stealthily..:rolleyes:.. released their contribution to the RTR program - Red Tape Reduction and Audit (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102201):The Australian Government has committed to a red tape reduction programme to boost productivity growth and enhance competitiveness across the Australian economy. One component of the programme is to undertake an audit of all regulations and estimate the compliance cost for a sample of those regulations. Further information about the red tape reduction programme can be found at: Cutting Red Tape (http://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/) website. Some of the spin & bulldust in the FF Ranking of Regulations (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/documents/audit-ranking.xlsx) (28KB) is truly vomitus..:yuk:..& perhaps deserves further comment on here but for a simple summary here is the Oz Flying take:CASA Calls for Input to Regulatory Burden Rankings -
13 Oct 2014

CASA has called for industry input in to the regulatory burden rankings as part of the Australian Government's Red Tape Reduction program.
The regulator has posted a list on it's website and ranked each Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) or Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) according to whether or not it sees the burden on industry as High, Medium or Low. The industry has been invited to submit their own rankings.
CASA's initial rankings were based on:

the type of requirements the regulation imposes
the complexity of the regulation
the reach of the regulation
the frequency of interactions with the regulation
currency of review
scope for reform.
Some of the rankings are likely to cause controversy as the CASA list appears to be at odds with what the industry believes is excessive burden. The following CASRs, which have proven contentious since introduction, have all been ranked as having low burden on the aviation industry.

CASR Part 141- Flight training other than integrated courses
CASR Part 142- Integrated and multi-crew flight training courses
CASR Part 147- Continuing airworthiness, maintenance training organisations
CASR Part 66- Aircraft engineer licences and ratings
CASR Part 61- Licensing has been ranked medium burden on the CASA list and Part 67- medicals has been ranked high burden, which is something
the industry will probably be happy to agree with.
The rankings list and instructions for input are all on the CASA website (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102201). Strange world of Politics - On another front (i.e. Airports) there was a media release (13/10/14) put out by the miniscule on funding for Pormpuraaw Airport: WT204/2014 (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/October/wt204_2014.aspx)

The funding contribution from the Fed/State government was..

"...The $1.04 million project was jointly funded by the Australian Government which invested $790,000 and the Queensland Government which contributed $250,000..."

...meanwhile, just last week, in a positive development for Coober Pedy..:D :Coober Pedy gets runway upgrade, keeps Rex service

Construction on widening the runway at Coober Pedy Airport will commence in November after the project secured state funding, in a move that ensures Regional Express (Rex) will be able to maintain services from Adelaide using Saab 340 aircraft.

The South Australian government has backed $1.3 million project to widen the runway to 30 metres, from 18 metres currently, so it will meet international regulations.

Coober Pedy district council mayor Steve Baines said the council was ready to begin work once the paperwork was settled.

“The threat to our vital air service has been lifted,” Cr Baines said in a statement.

“Losing the Rex flights would have killed off the tourism industry and had major impact on the residents of Coober Pedy and surrounding areas. Council and I are delighted that this has been resolved.”

Figures from the SA government showed 75 per cent of passengers on flights to Coober Pedy were visitors to the town.

SA transport and infrastructure minister Stephen Mulligan said the runway upgrade would allow regular passengers services to continue unrestricted to Coober Pedy.

“The prospect of losing commercial flights to Coober Pedy was unacceptable to the South Australian Government,” Mulligan said.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said on September 4 aspects of the current arrangements for Rex to operate to Coober Pedy did not provide the “appropriate continued management of safety on an 18-metre sealed runway with gravel edges”.

“CASA believes it is in the best interests of the travelling public to introduce new safety standards for all narrow runway operations across Australia, including Coober Pedy,” CASA said.

CASA said Rex would be permitted to operate into Coober Pedy while the runway widening work was carried out.

“It should be noted that leading aviation nations such as the United States, Europe and New Zealand do not allow narrow runway operations under the arrangements that have been in place in Australia,” CASA said.

“However, CASA believes it is in the interests of the Coober Pedy community to allow these flights to continue in the short-term because any restrictions could cause social and economic disruption.” So the miniscule dodged a bullet there...:rolleyes:

While in Victoria there was another airports & politics issue, from the - Last Minute Hitch: 10 October 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-10-october-2014):
The $1 million grant to Tyabb is causing some controversy, as it is the home club of Minister Gordon Rich-Phillips. Naturally, the opposition is calling it a conflict of interest and saying the airport doesn't qualify under the guidelines of the fund (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/minister-cops-flak-over-tyabb-grant). Firstly, Rich-Phillips has stated that he took the conflict to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and washed his hands of the grant. That was absolutely the right thing to do, and it is what the Labor Party would be saying he should have done had he not done it. Secondly, the aviation fund is for regional airports be they public or private ... it says so in the guidelines.

But, the biggest question in my mind comes when you reverse the situation. Should Tyabb have been excluded from funding because the minister was a member? That doesn't seem fair to me; Tyabb has the right to apply the same as any airport does. As for the issue of the airport being privately-run, where were Labor's slings and arrows when Lethbridge was given a motza to seal their runway? I wonder if we'd even be reporting this story were a state election not coming up in November. The strange..strange world of politics...:rolleyes:


14th Oct 2014, 08:44
From AA today...:D: Alliance backs ASRR recommendations (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/alliance-backs-asrr-recommendations/)
Alliance Aviation Services managing director Scott McMillan has called on the government to get on with acting on the 37 recommendations of the recently published review into Australia’s aviation sector.

McMillan told shareholders at Alliance’s annual general meeting the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) had identified a wide range of recommendations that would benefit the industry.

“We look forward to the Commonwealth government implementing the wide range of recommendations from the recently published Aviation Safety Regulation Review,” McMillan said in prepared remarks on Tuesday.

“These much needed changes will go a long way towards reducing the unnecessary regulatory burden and inefficiency that our industry had endured for many years.”

The ASRR was commissioned by the federal government and authored by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, former Director-General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada Don Spruston and former Head of Safety at British Airways Roger Whitefield. The report, published in June, called for substantial cultural and structural change at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as well as better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.

It noted that Australia had an “excellent” airline safety record and an “advanced” aviation regulatory system.

However, there were “opportunities for the system to be improved to ensure Australia remains a leading aviation state”.

The federal government has pledged to respond to the review’s 37 recommendations before the end of 2014.

Meanwhile, Alliance chairman Steve Padgett said Alliance was the current economic environment brought with it some challenges.

“We also must accept that we are operating in a competitive environment and we need to continually meet the needs of our customers,” Padgett said.

“As a result we remain focused on the development of the new revenue resources for Alliance and looking for opportunities to diversify the business and sources of revenue.”

14th Oct 2014, 11:21
Oh yes, good ol Scotty Mac. He never did think to highly of fort fumble, and to be honest he probably had good reason. I do recall one particular CASA inspector who was ex Alliance who would at any opportunity make his former employer go through living hell over any and all small and insignificant issues. He was more vengeful than Osama bin laden in New York City!!!

Dangly Bits
14th Oct 2014, 11:40

More vengeful than Osama Bin Laden in New York is a terrible thing to say! To equate the actions of a minor public servant to the actions of a purely evil man with no regard for human life is sickening.

Your comment is offensive! Especially to those who have lost loved ones to terrorism!

gassed budgie
14th Oct 2014, 13:57
More vengeful than Osama Bin Laden in New York is a terrible thing to say! To equate the actions of a minor public servant to the actions of a purely evil man with no regard for human life is sickening.

Your comment is offensive! Especially to those who have lost loved ones to terrorism!

.....well I for one wasn't offended. We really are becoming a bubble rap society.

15th Oct 2014, 11:55

Get over yourself and grab a Kleenex. Wipe your eyes. Those comments of Soteria were merely an analogy. When you consider the cartel and protection regime, largely sponsored by MrDak for CASA & the ATSB, I agree with the frustrations of other IOSS members. Why don't you focus your efforts on the real issue at hand, the cartel?

17th Oct 2014, 02:18
Kudos to SC from the Oz for following up on last week's article - Ex-CASA chief blasts Angel Flight curbs (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/excasa-chief-blasts-angel-flight-curbs/story-e6frg95x-1227085515881?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20TheAustralianBusAviation%20(The%20Aus tralian%20%7C%20Business%20%7C%20Aviation)) - with this...Angel Flight rails at ‘discrimination’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/angel-flight-rails-at-discrimination/story-e6frg95x-1227092958294)...;)

It would appear that MT has combined forces with another former heavyweight to help author the 80 odd page AF submission addressing the FF DP1317OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/dp1317os.pdf)...:D:ANGEL Flight has urged the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to abandon its “proposed regulatory discrimination’’ in a lengthy submission that warns any move to make the charity organisation a regulator or part of a regulated authority would be unworkable.

The organisation, which has the backing of senior aviation ­figures such as former CASA boss Mick Toller and former Virgin Blue chief pilot John Raby, lodged an 80-page document that urges CASA to review its own licensing and maintenance regime if it ­believes it is inadequate.

The submission is in response to a CASA discussion paper into safety standards for voluntary community service flights such as those operated by Angel Flight carrying disadvantaged regional patients and their families to medical centres.

CASA stirred up a hornet’s nest in regional Australia by expressing a preference for an option that would see an organisation formed to assess and authorise ­pilots, require proficiency checks and assessments and approve aircraft types. It ­argues it could monitor safety standards under the system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.

It has since emphasised that it may not proceed with any changes that would affect Angel Flight but made no apologies for canvassing safety issues.

Angel Flight’s submission rejected all options as “not acceptable under any circumstances’’, except the one to do nothing. :D

It noted that there have been no safety issues identified by CASA in 84,500 flights {Hmm..flight hours maybe Steve??} flown by volunteer pilots in the 16,900 flights Angel Flight has facilitated since its ­inception. It said the ­organisation “could not and would not” become a regulatory authority or part of one.

“Angel Flight has approximately 6000 volunteer drivers and pilots,’’ it said. “To become ­either a regulator or a regulated aviation body would be unworkable due to the expense, skills and training required to regulate, administer, or comply, as an aviation organisation, with an independent aviation regulator, particularly in circumstances where the pilot volunteers have a broad spectrum of licences, skills, endorsements, ratings, and where the different aircraft types would number hundreds.

“Moreover, where pilots and their aircraft are dispersed across the entire nation, often in remote locations, the training and checking regimes would be a financial and practical impossibility: that is the job of the government regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority — not a registered charity.’’ The submission said the charity’s mercy missions were private flights operating under rules set by CASA.

If CASA was satisfied with its current standards, there was no need to create a special category dedicated to the type of people flown or the purpose of the flight.

“Angel flights are not ambulance flights,’’ it said. “They are not commercial flights. They are not airline transport or RPT flights. They are private flights conducted under the rules relating to such flights as set by CASA. Provided pilots comply with these rules, there is no need for intervention. If pilots fail to comply with relevant rules, then they are subject to the administrative, regulatory and/or criminal sanctions that apply to them as individuals.’’

In his submission to CASA, Mr Raby accused the authority of a flawed approach that drew “sweeping conclusions” from an analysis of the one fatal accident Angel Flight had suffered in some 17,000 flights.

Mr Raby disputed that community service organisations were insufficiently regulated and said issues raised by CASA as germane to community service flights were relevant to all flying operations.

“There is simply no credible measure presented which indicates targeted activity presents a safety risk above and beyond that inherent in all general aviation activity,’’ he said. Mr Raby don't you know by now that FF are simply not interested in empirical evidence that proves a safety issue is really a non-issue...:ugh:

Oh well hopefully FF will soon make the DP submissions publicly available, it could make for some fascinating reading...;)

RAAA convention wrap & other related matters:

In Dougy's insight this week he gives a summary of the RAAA convention..:D: Editor's Insights 16 October 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-16-october-2014)

The bit that amused me was the part on Tezza's speech, which apparently went down like a fart in an elevator with the delegates..:E:Acting DAS Terry Farquharson delivered a sober defence of the Regulator which didn’t go down so well with industry delegates. I was surprised that Terry would front the RAAA given that he’s just keeping the seat warm until the new DAS is named (any day now). So I guess it was a courageous appearance, even if a bit out of tune with the mood of the audience. While on the new DAS position SC in another article - New CASA chief on final approach (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/new-casa-chief-on-final-approach/story-e6frg95x-1227092963229) - apparently has the goss that the former FAA heavyweight has suddenly got cold feet & pulled the pin..:ooh: : A NEW head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is expected to be announced in the next two weeks, government sources have confirmed.

The announcement comes after the appointment was apparently delayed by a false start in which a US candidate favoured for the job is understood to have withdrawn his application.

It is believed the new candidate is local and the appointment is due to go before Cabinet towards the end of the month.Which is certainly strange because rumour was, that even after reading the ASRR report (& possibly pprune) etc..etc., that this gentleman was very much relishing the opportunity to clean out the FF trough & dismantle the iron ring; I think there is a little more to this sudden withdrawal by said preferred candidate...:rolleyes:

Moving on...SC also gives Paul Tyrell from the RAAA the opportunity to provide a bit of a wrap on the convention last week..:D:
The appointment and the safety review response were hot topics at last week’s annual convention of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia.

Association chief executive Paul Tyrrell welcomed the news that an appointment of a new CASA director of aviation safety was imminent, and said the appointment of industry veteran Jeff Boyd to the CASA board was also a tick for the government.

“The rest of the board hasn’t been appointed and that’s something we really need,” Mr Tyrrell said.

“The government’s response to the ASRR is also eagerly awaited.’’

Mr Tyrell also called on Mr Truss to follow through on the “long-awaited’’ ministerial advisory council that was part of the ­coalition’s aviation election platform. He said his association’s conference also heard that the Part 61 pilot licensing rules were continuing to cause angst “not because it’s a bad regulation but because it was rushed and the education program hasn’t been well managed’’.

However, the interaction with CASA on changes to parts 135 and 121 appeared to be much better.

On the safety review, Mr Tyrrell said the industry had responded months ago with almost as many submissions as had been lodged initially. “So there’s a huge amount of data and feedback they’ve got,’’ he said.
“They know exactly what the industry thinks, so we’re hoping the government’s working very hard on the response.’’

More generally, Mr Tyrrell said a theme of the convention had been to avoid talking down the ­industry. “We have a lot of international visitors and they commented that it always appears a struggle in the Australian aviation industry and they don’t get that in other parts of the world,’’ he said. “So we’ve got to be careful we don’t get too enmeshed in the problems and fail to look to the future.’’

He said this meant encouraging young people into the industry and looking beyond Australia’s shores to see where the local industry could engage and add value with what was essentially an international industry.

“We’re trying not be too gloomy,’’ he said.

“It’s more that it’s sort of a limbo period at the moment.’’ Hmm.. IMO this statement by PT on why Part 61 continues to cause angst...

“not because it’s a bad regulation but because it was rushed and the education program hasn’t been well managed’’

...is nothing more than a load of bollocks..:= Perhaps PT should get out more, stop listening to the crat-spin and have a chat to some of the other TAAAF members, especially Aerialag Phil who has been quite vocal in regards to the Part 61 monster - Pilot licensing rules put aviation sector in a tailspin (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilot-licensing-rules-put-aviation-sector-in-a-tailspin/story-e6frg95x-1227070695141)...

“I think the industry will give you a pretty firm view that this is just so overcomplicated for the task it does that we’ve actually gone backwards,’’ he said.

“I’d challenge anyone to get their head around the 800 pages of regulations and clearly enunciate how all of those rules work ­together.’’

Phil (or SC) could probably put PT in touch with this bloke for a real at the coalface perspective on Part 61:
A veteran flying training operator with almost four decades in the industry said there was a lack of background, forms that didn’t yet exist and information that was still in draft form.

“The industry is crying,’’ the operator said.

He said the industry had been promised there would be no ­additional cost but there were “horrific costs involved’’.

“There are government guidelines saying there should be the removal of red tape, that there should be stuff done in simple ­language,’’ he said.

“Everything’s been done in legal speak again that we can’t understand.

There are actually things in different parts of the regs that contravene each other.’’ Maybe PT was misquoted or he had a few too many Chardy's but either way IMO that statement does not enhance the credibility of the RAAA...:=


17th Oct 2014, 06:20
Nice to see the Rev. on song and leading the faithful toward salvation, but as usual the forces of evil won't go away, because one good man says they must, will they now children??. Bit like children's belief in the Bogey Man; it's all well and good for Mummy to tell the kids not to worry, no such thing: but when things go bump in the night and the murky Machiavellian crew are out to hunt and haunt – Mum's glib remarks seem somehow – inadequate.

Sarcs # 1412 - Rev Forsyth – "However, trust between Australia’s aviation players and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would take longer, Forsyth says."

Oh; Just a bit of it – and the 'powers that be' – are not helping to regain the trust which is an absolute given in ant decent relationship. The persistent rumour that Farq-u-hardson is tu tu be DAS is just a starter; seems the FAA high roller has pulled the pin, if the reports, quotes and rumours floating about the place are true. Whether these are just a 'sampler' to see what the general reaction is; or, that the FAA are coming – mob handed and there is a conflict of interest; or, as Sarcs mentioned, the mutt has read Pprune and decided the game is not worth the candle, are just some of the speculations in the wind today. Lets make it clear – the boss of the Golden West Mafia (GWM) his cronies, catamites and sycophants are unacceptable; at any level. They are perceived as being the radical cause of most of the surface level 'trust' issues which have, through the McComic Regime brought the administration and management of Australian aviation to this sorry impasse.

To add fuel to the flames, the idiots who 'developed' Part 61 are begging industry assistance to sort out the unbelievable mess. If this industry wants to survive it must tell the CASA to take 61 away, do the homework and impact statements we paid them to do, re-write the regulation, seek industry consultation and then, suggest a proper period of adjustment, education and assistance to bed the revised law down. As it stands Part 61 is open slather on operators, exemptions, instruments , 'accommodations'; all 'at discretion'. It's bollocks and they have the hide to expect industry to fish their chestnuts out of the flames – after having paid the fools to write it. Your response to the pitiful CASA cries for assistance should be a simple one: - "We paid for it, you stuffed it, now, stick it where the sun don't shine; bring it back fixed; or, pay us for the time we must spend sorting out your amateurish, second rate work". Fools, shiftless, lazy, incompetent, purblind bloody fools and sneaky with it.

Trust the current outfit ? fix up 61 for them?? – what strange, whimsical notions.

17th Oct 2014, 09:44
Good to see you back Mr Ferryman..:ok:..it was a bit quiet around here without you...:(

This week in the last minute Hitch (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-17-october-2014)...:D:One thing CASA doesn't lack is the courage to pick up a stick and ram it hard into the side of a large bear. They've done it again with their rankings of regulatory burden (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-calls-for-input-to-regulatory-burden-rankings). CASR Parts 66 and 147 have been ranked low burden, whilst CASR Part 145 has been ranked as medium burden. The maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry may consider all of this as high burden in their review, if their past stance on these suites is any indicator. On the upside, CASA has ranked Part 67 on medicals as high burden. Those with long memories, however, will recall the Byron days when the burden was officially recognised, resulting in nothing happening at all. Same under McCormick, so we have to question if this high ranking for Part 67 means anything of substance. We have the opportunity to send CASA our own rankings, but we need to be honest and resist the temptation to rank everything as high burden; that would give CASA an excuse to ignore our input.

Richard Rudd and Rob Cumming's Caravan to Canberra expedition (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/caravan-to-canberra) highlights where the general aviation industry is at with the regulator: they've had enough. Richard and Rob will arrive in the capital this weekend bringing exactly that message on a mobile billboard. It's true that there is not a lot they can tell politicians that the politicians haven't been told before, and although they will get a sympathetic ear from supporters, they'll still get a deaf ear from CASA. However, Richard and Rob are doing something rather than just sitting and complaining, and you've got to applaud that.

Qantas Founders Museum (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/qantas-founders-museum-adds-super-connie) has added a Super Connie to their museum in Longreach, The aircraft has been derelict in The Philippines for years, so it will need a good clean-up and restoration before taking up its spot beside the B707 and B747 already there. The Connie is a significant aircraft for Qantas and a vital addition to their collection. What might have been nice is if the announcement had been about flying a B767 up there instead of consigning them all to the graveyards in the USA. There might still be time for them to consider this, although Qantas might not feel the 76 deserves a place in their history, despite being their first Extended Twin Engine Operations (ETOPS) aircraft and having the first glass cockpits in the Qantas fleet. There's also the matter of money; they might still be able to sell some of them given the economy they still represent.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch Hmm...no comment..:rolleyes:


psss if you want to know more about FF's dodgy regulatory burden rankings go here (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/549250-casa-red-tape-reduction-audit.html#post8699770) and please think about calling bollocks by making a response as I suggested...

"...Perhaps those IOS members contemplating responding to the FF bollocks - FF self-assessed RTR audit results - should cc to the OBPR, PC, PMC, TA & his Parliamentary Secretary Josh Frydenberg..."

17th Oct 2014, 20:52
Soteria - "It's time for you to go bye byes, please. And one other thing - take Boyd, Campbell, Ferrit-a-day, Gibson and Wodger with you and please don't bang the door on the way out, ok?

What a way to start the day watching that crew being run out town on a rail, Sot, you omitted a few from the IOS hit-list, such as W2 and a couple from the AWI team; but, I hear the AFP are actively interested in some matters. Perhaps it's all going to get 'interesting'.

Jinglie "[And} an interesting anecdote, was Sleepy actually interviewed for his Deputy job or just appointed by his mate Herr Screamer??

Asked a couple of the BRB about that – seems old mate wanted to stay over in the West and play in his sand pit with the rest of his 'mates', but McComic 'persuaded' him to return to the East. This was the radical McComic philosophy which was to release those permanently assigned to pencil sharpening duties, by more reasonable men to 'active' duty. The classic statement being along the lines of "well, if they have annoyed the industry that badly, they must be doing their jobs properly". And so it came to pass that the GWM was formed and the creatures from the dark forest were released to become part of the 'like minded' crew which would perform their antics to satisfy their masters every whim. MM's hand picked selection of their master was, despite howls of protest from more honourable, qualified folk supported by Albo – who signed the infamous Big R carte blanche. Unlike Pandora, who at least could claim ignorance as a defence, Albo knew exactly what he was unleashing. The rest as they say – history and Hansard.

Sunny – "By my way of thinking, it is not a good idea for CASA management to assume that the Government will continue to put up with their antics."

Gee whiz Sunny – I'd like to think so, the inclusion of Bob Baldwin at RAAA lends some valid support for the argument, the rumours related to the next estimates, if true, may prove 'interesting'. It's passing strange, nearly every minister and department seem to be really trying to genuinely get things moving – or so the rhetoric suggests; but, as you quite rightly pointed out (way back) should the government decide to make an example of one department, to pull the rest into gear, CASA would be the perfect place to start. We can only hope.

Sarcs – "Or you could refer to the following leaked response to the DP from the former CAsA boss Mick Toller."

I never minded Mick Toller too much, sure he was hard headed and the title Ayatollah was used more in jest than in anger, he was at least fair minded and sane. I doubt he, like Byron would have allowed the current AF mess to develop. As he says in the Angel flight debate – it's a bollocks. The whole thing has been generated by a department desperately seeking a way to reassert their relevance to aviation by picking on yet another soft target. You have admire their determination to bully and subjugate the minority groups as an example to the larger, Tiger, CVD, Angel flight etc. Disgusting creatures.

Sarcs – "Some may say this is typical of government (past & present) obvious dis-interest in all things aviation but on a quick perusal of Bob Baldwin's CV it is quite obvious this man is not a light weight in political circles, the man is a doer rather". etc.

This kind of supports the Sunny assertions that an example will be made, but it's also supporting the rumour that the minuscule has been reduced to a Qld election bulwark. Only allowed, under strict adult supervision to make speeches at tennis courts and pat small children. The general dismay at the complete lack of action – on any matter within his portfolio – is starting to raise some very smart eyebrows, the WTF is he doing question becoming a daily mantra – the answer is of course – 'Sod all'.

Sarcs – thanks for the Hitch link – interesting. Why I am not surprised at the CASA signed confession, that a CP is only valued at AUD $35 ph, or that they have no clue about the impact their Frankenstein has on the cost of doing business with CASA. I believe part of their remit is to do a cost/benefit analysis (impact) of new regulation. The Muppets supporting Part 61 certainly did no such thing, and now they want 'us' to analyse the ducking thing and report back. How flaming condescending, arrogant, ignorant of them and how very obliging of us to once again, unquestioningly, to do their bidding (and work) at our expense.

I will only join the Creampuff Laborial Aviation Party (CLAP) if pink bunny suits are made mandatory (strict liability – no option); what a hoot – bet they never saw a sight like that – in daylight at least - coming up the drive to parliament house..Led by the R&R ute, with the hand painted signs and VH- F#c^D flying overhead. ...:D

Toot toot.

17th Oct 2014, 20:57
Which is certainly strange because rumour was, that even after reading the ASRR report (& possibly PPRuNe) etc..etc., that this gentleman was very much relishing the opportunity to clean out the FF trough & dismantle the iron ring; I think there is a little more to this sudden withdrawal by said preferred candidate...

My guess would be that the last hurdle was an interview with Mr. Mrdak and perhaps a Ministerial advisor at which the FAA person was told:

(a) You are not being appointed to "reform" CASA, you are being appointed to appear to reform CASA in order to silence CASAs critics.

(b) You do not have authority from me to reform anything. You must not make waves or cause the Government or me and my department any trouble at all.

This is the trouble with Americans in management....they actually want to DO SOMETHING..... and we can't have that, can we?

thorn bird
17th Oct 2014, 21:37

I think you perhaps have hit the old nail squarely on the head.

Mrdak is an absolute piece of work. His Machiavellian fingers have fiddled in many pies from engineering the sell off of GA airports, to pink bats.

He tried to influence the DAS selection at the start but was thwarted when people started asking questions about transparency. People like him do not give up easily, I would not be surprised at all if the fiddle went in.

The man has no soul, illustrated, I'm told when confronted by the flight nurse from the Pelair debacle seeking assistance from someone, anyone, to obtain some reasonable support for her ongoing medical issues, he brushed her off like she was a piece of cow sh..t stuck to his trousers, not even a kind word of sympathy.

17th Oct 2014, 23:40
TB - I think you perhaps have hit the old nail squarely on the head.

Mrdak is an absolute piece of work. His Machiavellian fingers have fiddled in many pies from engineering the sell off of GA airports, to pink bats.
Ah yes the sticky fingers of M&M, behind closed doors, yet again manipulating the many & various two-bit players for his own self-serving, self-preserving reasons...:ugh: The most worrying thing is that this bloke has a key to the PM&C vault and has probably already corrupted many of the seriously smart individuals from that office...:{

The other problem is that although (in the case of the DAS selection) M&M is waiting the outcome of plan B; if that doesn't work he probably has back up plans all the way out to Z...:ooh:

Kharon - I believe part of their remit is to do a cost/benefit analysis (impact) of new regulation. This obfuscation and poor administration by FF of their obligations to the OBPR for all new/amended regulations was, among many other issues, highlighted in the REX ASRR submission:
The Australian Government’s handbook on Best Practice Regulation states that
stimulating productivity remains at the forefront of government policy. It also states
that the centrepiece of the Government’s best practice legislation is a Regulation
Impact Statement (RIS) that is mandatory for all decisions made by the Australian
Government and its agencies that are likely to have a regulatory impact on business.
Given CASA’s blatant disregard for its regulatory impact on productivity and the
inadequate or non existent RIS that accompanies each regulatory proposal, CASA is
clearly not following this process but is seemingly a law unto itself.
The resulting increased cost to industry without any demonstrated safety benefit is
felt to be a significant factor in the declining regional aviation sector. The regulatory
barriers for entry into this part of the aviation industry are now almost
The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR), in the Department of Prime Minister
and Cabinet, has published a handbook of guidelines [Dept of Finance and
Deregulation, July 2013] for Australian Government agencies involved in regulatory
reform. Any agency that introduces new rules that may have a regulatory impact on
business must first produce a RIS as part of the regulatory process. The OBPR must
be notified and the agency is required to publish an Annual Regulatory Plan. It
appears that CASA does not comply with any of these OBPR mandatory guidelines.
FF back in 2012 did put out a RIS for Part 61 (see here (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comlaw.gov.au%2FDetails%2FF2013L00218%2 F6b3523f0-4a46-4cd9-a6b9-358947eec395&ei=PaBBVPy9AcrxoASLmYD4Cg&usg=AFQjCNEiD750Ng6t6coiC45pKFLWWmSotA&sig2=s_F87RTdRwmN9urclyktPQ&bvm=bv.77880786,d.cGU)). However it would appear that they did not conduct an amended RIS (as is supposed to happen) to reflect the many & varied amendments/changes to Part 61 since that time...:confused:

So our only point of reference is the 2012 RIS that now has outdated figures..:ugh:

Example SMS set up/ongoing costs for Flying Schools:Upfront costs
For small businesses employing six or less safety sensitive staff would require an understanding of the safety management system principles and human factor training and the development of safety dataset. CASA has developed a micro SMS tool to assist these businesses.
It is estimated that it would require 2 days for a small business manager to understand SMS principles and a further 2 days training in human factor training for all staff, and 1/2 day to setup an excel spreadsheet for the safety dataset. For small businesses, this would generate an upfront cost of $2689, based on 4.5 days of time valued at the average salary of $128 500 per year and $1600 in human factor training from an external provider for the two days of training, deriving a cost of $4289 per business. In aggregate for the 164 small businesses this would generate a total cost of $0.7m.
For small/medium training businesses employing less than 20 people, the time cost will similar to sole traders with the addition of 2.5 days in time for developing staff training material and an investigation and audit program for the organisation. For individual small organisations this will cost 7 days valued at the average salary of $128 500 per year, generating a cost of $4183 per business, plus $1600 in human factor training from an external provider. In aggregate for the 35 small/medium businesses this will cost a total of $0.2m.
For medium businesses employing up to 50 the time cost will similar to small/medium business, however, the implementation of safety management system will require 2 days in time for developing staff training material and an investigation and audit program for the organisation. For medium businesses the time is estimated at 9 days valued at $5378, plus $1600 in human factor training from an external provider. In aggregate for these 5 businesses this will cost a total of $0.034m.

Ongoing costs
For small businesses, there will be ongoing requirement to demonstrate an understanding the principles of safety management systems and human factors, at a cost of 1 day per year and 1 day to record any safety incident in the database and comply with a safety audit.
The ongoing cost for the SMS will be 2 days per year valued at a salary of $128 500 that is $1195 per small business, plus $800 per year in human factors training, resulting in a total ongoing cost of $1995. With 164 small businesses this is will generate an annual cost of $0.46m.
For small/medium organisations the ongoing costs will be more significant, there will be more safety incidents to report, which will need to be investigated, ongoing risk assessments will be required for assessment of safety risks, developing means of reducing risks and training staff in safety. It is estimated that this will be the equivalent of 20% of the full-time workload for a person nominated as a safety manager within the organisation and when valued at the salary of $128 500, this will cost small/medium businesses approximately $25 700 each year. The human factors training is estimated to cost $800 per employee and assuming 5 employees per business this will cost $4000 per year resulting in a total ongoing cost of $29 700 per business. When aggregated across the 35 small/medium businesses this will generate an ongoing cost of $1.04m.
For training businesses employing up to 50 will be required to perform the same ongoing tasks of a medium sized business, but the additional employees will generate more safety incidents and risks to be assessed and staff to be trained. It is estimated that this will require 40% of the full time workload of one person, valued at $51 400 for each business. The human factors training is estimated to cost $800 per employee and assuming 20 employees per business this will cost $16000 per year resulting in a total ongoing cost of $67 400 per business When aggregated across these 5 businesses this will generate an ongoing cost of $0.34m. The projected total impact cost to industry was tabled (table 6) on page 16 accompanied by this statement:
Overall Costs
In developing the proposals, CASA has been careful to offset any increased requirements with reductions in other requirements, particularly administrative requirements which have a less direct impact on safety. The total increased costs are estimated to be approximately $8m per year, or $56.3m when discounted over a 10 year period (Table 6).
Oh but the benefits, according to CAsA, will far outweigh the costs..:rolleyes::
In developing the proposals CASA is not introducing a new regulatory regime, but is simply refining the existing requirements. The options, while making some changes to existing requirements, do not introduce any substantial new imposts on the aviation industry and in fact, will alleviate and simplify a significant number of current requirements.

The purpose of the proposals is to provide clear and consistent regulations for licensing flight crew without significantly increasing industry costs, but they do incorporate proposals for systemic changes designed to improve aviation safety.

Whilst there is a strong case for introducing better flight crew training requirements to improve safety, CASA accepts that the cost of flight training is already high. To contain costs there needs to be a reduction in requirements not directly contributing to safety to allow for additional safety targeted measures. In addition, Australia benefits from aligning flight crew licensing requirements closely with international standards.

Wherever possible CASA has sought to reduce administrative requirements in the flight crew licensing system that do not directly contribute to safety, so that other proposals addressing safety issues do not result in a significant cost to industry. Although some sectors of industry will experience modest increases, the overall result should tend to reduce rather than increase costs.
Errr..again no comment..:(


thorn bird
18th Oct 2014, 01:45
"The purpose of the proposals is to provide clear and consistent regulations for licensing flight crew without significantly increasing industry costs, but they do incorporate proposals for systemic changes designed to improve aviation safety."

Pity they don't follow their own spin. Until they devote a little time to training their own enforcers, inconsistency will reign supreme. Ten different FOI's ten different opinions, therefore ten different operators conducting operations differently.

If CAsA cant get "Consistency" in their own interpretation and enforcement of the regulations they write, then the biggest thing they could do to assist the industry is to provide generic operations manuals, approved at the highest echelon, that FOI's cannot fiddle with.

That would go a long way to removing inconsistency, and relieve a lot of CP angst, everyone would be operating on the same page. We are all supposed to be complying with the same regulations, to the same standards.

Why should everyone have to be different?

I believe the Ag boys had great success with generic operations manuals under Byron, who would skin an FOI alive if they tried to tamper with it.

The arrival of the skull put paid to that when the rogue FOI's were let off their leads to run rampant through the industry. Might explain Air Ag's anger and frustration today?

Its always seemed to me to be completely inconsistent that many of the costly checks we are required conduct are not common across the industry. For example, a 20:11 check with one operator should be acceptable to another, same for proficiency checks.

I know of one operator who has been inflicted by their FOI with pilot induction requirements that cost upwards of 20K just to employ a pilot for a simple piston twin, and that's for a person current, qualified and experienced.

These sort of impositions and costs are simply unsustainable for the small businesses that GA operators are and do nothing to improve safety.

"Whilst there is a strong case for introducing better flight crew training requirements to improve safety, CASA accepts that the cost of flight training is already high. To contain costs there needs to be a reduction in requirements not directly contributing to safety to allow for additional safety targeted measures. In addition, Australia benefits from aligning flight crew licensing requirements closely with international standards."

I'm not at all sure that we have "Aligned" with international standards.
I have certainly never experienced anything like Part 61 and 142 anywhere else in the world.

These two parts alone positively encourage commercial operators to export their checking and training overseas.

I believe that without the government subsidy of Vets, flying schools in Australia would simply vanish.

Travel around the country airports and count the paint peeling signs for the Galaganbone Aeroclub or the Kickatinalong flying school, empty, but for the spider webs and echo's of memories past.

Contrast us with NZ. How is it they can elucidate a clear, plain language rule set for pilot standards also called part 61 in eighty odd pages,bout the same as the US.

Why does it take our regulator 800 pages of legalise plus a MOS which is supposed to explain the legalize, but in effect makes it about as clear as mud? .

NZ aviation is thriving, their safety record is "World Class" their regulations are being adopted across the region.

Australia is just an international Joke, a pimple on the ass of the aviation world.

If, as I suspect our regulator believes safety is entirely dependent on the volume of regulations, why is our safety record worse than the US? Why is our industry all but dead, when it could be contributing so much to the economy of this country?

18th Oct 2014, 10:00
Sunny has it in one.

Busy week with estimates and the CVD case at the AAT.

18th Oct 2014, 11:04

Not to mention the Sky Sentinel debacle, all of which is Tezza's doing. He will be a rabbit in the spotlight this week. He's got Boyd backing him up. He's going to need a lot more than that wimp. The Voodoo man could be going into overdrive with more babble and spin.

18th Oct 2014, 20:21
Jinglie –"The Voodoo man could be going into overdrive with more babble and spin."

I think Half baked is on the money, big week coming up; that is if the Senators have determined to continue. There is no guarantee they will and politics is a strange game, but it's a fair bet they will. If they do no amount babble and spin will save the day – in fact the LSD should probably sit very still and very quietly in a dark corner, praying no one notices they are there. Thus far LSD has managed to avoid the glare of the spotlight; the defence being that as corporate legal, they are only there to facilitate the whim and outrages of their masters. The LSD will be aware that this argument did not work at Nuremberg and have been burning the midnight oil to ensure they have iron clad coverage to prevent their rock from being tipped over. I bet a choccy frog, there are some olive branches being extended to some of the grievously offended and the odd scapegoat tethered to the old chopping block. The 'shock-horror' defence strategy in all its glory.

Senator – "Well, you must have been aware of the travesty inflicted on this chopper pilot; you provided the paper work for the case, supplied the legal team for the AAT, interviewed the star witness in prison; supplied the police escorts and examined all the evidence; then, despite CDPP advice, ran the case in the AAT and achieved a massive victory, further, you managed to spend in the region of AUD $250,000 to ruin the career of one individual; a humble joy flight pilot".

LSD – "We were shocked to discover that our department had been used to facilitate such a travesty". "We were horrified to learn of the tactics employed to support the case and that we had been misled". "We have now brought the matter to the ethics committee, instigated an AFP investigation and are attempting to reach an under the counter agreement with the injured party; see here, this is what we have done so far".

Course, it's all bollocks and neatly steps around the fact that the injured party is complaining about the very people who sit on the ethics committee; including the ICC who was the leading light in achieving the CASA victory in the AAT.

The Monday morning prayers at FF will include a delicately phrased request that the Murky Machiavellian crew can pull enough levers and push enough buttons to cover the collective CASA ass. A rider will be that the clever lads in the Senate have not got a plan, a pile of evidence and that the collective disgust for CASA has, overnight, turned into some form of benevolent protection credo. I doubt it; (IMO) there is a fully hatched plan, but we shall see. Just can't see the MM crew strolling into the inner sanctum and saying, "how about knocking off fellah's, we can fix this internally"; not if they intend to pursue lucrative careers.

Babble and spin, Babble and spin in the land where deception thrives.
Babble and spin, Babble and spin in the wrecking of other folks lives;
Babble and spin, Babble and spin mixed with open contempt, can lead to another planet, where Her Majesty pays your rent.

Anyway – He-who-do-voodoo has more sense – even if it's just a sense of self preservation. I shall watch with interest and not be disapointed; at the very least there'll be a laugh or two in the video and gods know, we could stand a laugh or two.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.
Lewis Carroll. (http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html)


Toot toot.

18th Oct 2014, 21:47
Just remember that the best defence is a good attack: : "Senator, your actions are compromising air safety!".

19th Oct 2014, 20:41
On who's hands will be the blood??; them as knows, that's who. The world and it's wife knows and Fawcett is no shirker. One of the larger stumbling blocks CASA face is 'expert' opinion from someone with enough horsepower to stare them down on the technical side and enough guts to call bull- on the 'operational' safety case. Then, there is the question of legal argument with folk who can and do understand the law. It's a pretty even contest, but this time, the committee is not an obliging team of nodding Muppets. CASA is on uncertain ground in a hostile environment, armed only with an unreliable minuscule and being led along by one will sell 'em down the river to protect his rice bowl. The rules of engagement allow for penalties to be given for telling gross porkies. There is far too much on the debit side of the ledger for Truss to balance, he'll let the Senate do his dirty work; he has little to loose and much to gain from the exercise and he keeps his hands pristine (ish).

Sunny - "Senator, your actions are compromising air safety!".

Isaiah 59.3. "For your hands are defiled with blood And your fingers with iniquity; Your lips have spoken falsehood, Your tongue mutters wickedness. No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly. They trust in confusion and speak lies; They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.…

Don't think that will bluff the Senators anymore than it would bluff industry; we all know its a load of old


19th Oct 2014, 21:09
The use of CAA 9A by skull in the last estimates against a question by the Heff, was noted in a CVD question.

This certainly seems to be the fall-back position to take, where "...the safety of air navigation can be compromised..." - 9A applies.

20th Oct 2014, 04:25

CASA is totally ignoring its statutory obligation to regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.


22nd Oct 2014, 21:27
The minuscule may have forgotten or chooses to remain in the ridiculous position assumed by the ostrich during the mating season; but Pel Air ain't going away – not ever. Dolan is just a national embarrassment, the Pel Air report a national disgrace, the Canadian willing compliance in delaying publication is disgusting and the dismissal of some 60 safety system recommendations simply and cynically shows what the Australian public voted for. Hells Bells – the Chem-trails loons now how their own tame Senator. Shame on you minuscule, shame.

From Sandilands – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/22/mh370-and-more-hypocritical-nonsense-from-the-atsb-chief/).

There is a large body of privileged testimony to a Senate Committee on the inadequate role played by the ATSB, the lack of confidence the all party committee had in Mr Dolan’s contribution to the hearings, and the discovery that the safety regulator, CASA, failed to properly oversight Pel-Air and withheld from the ATSB an internal document which found that had it, CASA, done its job, the accident might have been avoided.

Why under the circumstances, should we believe Mr Dolan over his hand wringing for MH370 when he can’t get a simple Australian accident report right. Even the Coalition’s own review of Australian air safety regulations found that the Pel-Air report was an “aberration”, although apparently the government thinks its OK to leave this second rate report uncorrected on the public air safety records, where it is the object of derision.

From me – food for thought.

The sexual life of the ostrich is stranger than that of man.
At the height of the mating season she buries her head in the sand.
When along comes the male of the species and sees that ass flying high in the air,
He wonder's if it's male or female, and says "What the duck do I care?!?"

We care - Toot toot.

23rd Oct 2014, 00:46
Kharon - The minuscule may have forgotten or choose to remain in the ridiculous position assumed by the ostrich during the mating season; but Pel Air ain't going away – not ever. Dolan is just a national embarrassment, the Pel Air report a national disgrace, the Canadian willing compliance in delaying publication is disgusting and the dismissal of some 60 safety system recommendations simply and cynically shows what the Australian public voted for. Dan's comment from Ben's article deserves a choccy frog...:D:Dan Dair
Posted October 23, 2014 at 3:55 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/22/mh370-and-more-hypocritical-nonsense-from-the-atsb-chief/#comment-29118)
Much as I (& many others on this blog) can sometimes get a bit fed-up with Ben keeping ‘banging-on’ about the Norfolk Island, Pel-Air crash;
The fact is that the ATSB has made a rod-for-it’s-own-back over this issue & Ben is right to try to keep it in the public eye..

The Westwind FDR’s could be recovered for the amount they’ll spend on toilet paper, during the time it’ll take to complete the MH370 search.!!!
If anyone in Government or in the governance of the ATSB had any balls, (which clearly they haven’t (Nick Xenophon excepted)) they’d get this monkey off their back by recovering the FDR’s & having them independently analysed.

The results would either vindicate the existing report or tear it to shreds.
Either way, so long as the current, significantly flawed report is allowed to stand as the official record, the ATSB will be a laughing-stock
any claims that it’ll have the “full confidence” of the rest of the world over this issue is as likely as if they’d given the job of co-ordination to the (deliberately disingenuous) Malaysian Government.

Should the MH370 search ultimately not find anything meaningful over the next couple of years, I’m reasonably certain that the Chinese & Malaysian Governments will be quick to point out the ‘well known’ failings of the ATSB & attempt to leave Australia ‘holding the baby’ for the mission-failure.

(perhaps if it actually got to that stage, the solution to recovering some of the nations self-esteem might then be to resolve the Pel-Air issue & publicly castigate those responsible for the original failings as well as the possible future) MH370 ones.??) The fact that Beaker is still painfully being trotted out at Senate Estimates & in pressers to do with the MH370 search (besides being vomitus..:yuk:..& cringe-worthy) is perhaps a true reflection of the current status quo of the administration of aviation safety in this country...:ugh: However maybe there is another reason (other than an inept, seemingly disinterested miniscule asleep at the wheel..:zzz:) that Beaker still remains in the top bureau job?? :rolleyes:

First let me reflect on a "K" post from the Senate thread to do with Secondary Airports:No one has as yet mentioned the 'redefining' of what constitutes 'air-transport'; you notice the Mrdak careful selection of 'words', for the devil is in the detail of 'his version' of the translation, he did after all redefine the meaning to exclude pretty much any class of operation bar 'heavy' RPT. Hmm...interesting how the 'classification of operations' & in particular 'air transport' will again be redefined in the upcoming (maybe next decade) Part 135, 121 & 133.

Perhaps an example of how AT maybe be re-defined is highlighted in the recently proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 'Carriage of Fuel on Flights to a Remote Island' - Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/draft-cao82-0-amendment-island-alternates.pdf)and in the NPRM - Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter ‘ambulance function’ flights as Air Transport operations. (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nprm/nprm1304os.pdf)Where it would seem that FF (at least) is attempting to bring us in line with the ICAO definition for...

"..commercial air transport operation (is) an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire."

Interestingly back before M&M became embroiled in the Commonwealth Govt Airport sell off/lease agreement project (& ultimately his rise to Dept head) both Beaker and M&M were on an equal footing in the ranks of the PS:

Mr Mike Mrdak, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Territories and Regional Support Division.

Mr Martin Dolan, First Assistant Secretary, Airports Division

However the point of interest is that Beaker (before going to COMCARE) had a significant role in administering the airport sell off, from Estimates Hansard May 2001:
Senator O’BRIEN—In relation to the government’s policy for the Sydney basin and the planned sale of Kingsford Smith airport, according to Mr Anderson, KSA, Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park airports are to be sold through a 100 per cent trade sale in the second half of this year, that is in the next six months. Is all of that on track as far as the department is aware?

Mr Dolan—The other Sydney basin airports are due for sale in the second half of 2002.

Senator O’BRIEN—So only KSA this year?

Mr Dolan—KSA is for this calendar year.

Senator O’BRIEN—And Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park?

Mr Dolan—Second half of 2002.

Senator O’BRIEN—So getting back to the Kingsford Smith sale, is that process proceeding.

Mr Dolan—Yes. Expressions of interest were sought and have been received. They have been evaluated and the results of that evaluation are currently with the Minister for Finance and Administration for his consideration.

Senator O’BRIEN—What is the government’s financial expectation from the sale?

Mr Dolan—I do not know. OASITO is the sale manager and they are the ones who are arriving at those sorts of valuations and expectations.

Senator O’BRIEN—What role does the department have in the sale process?

Mr Dolan—Our role is to ensure that the Airports Act is fully met and complied with in the sale process and that the sorts of objectives which are associated with the act are taken into account in the sale process. We are the regulators, if you like, in this process.

Senator O’BRIEN—So the department does not have any preparatory work to do in relation to the sale?

Mr Dolan—We had a lot of preparatory work to do in relation to the sale in terms of the information memorandum that is currently being finalised for potential bidders and in terms of a range of other sale documentation to ensure that matters covered by the airports legislation are appropriately reflected so that owners—I am sorry, bidders—make fully informed bids.

Senator O’BRIEN—I would have hoped the owners already knew. In his media release dated 29 March, Mr Anderson said:
Additional work will be undertaken by relevant agencies to determine the nature of airspace re-design, and terminal and runway developments required at Bankstown Airport to ensure that it operates as an overflow for Sydney Airport ...
He says in that statement that these changes will be ‘subject to the completion of environmental assessments’. Firstly, which agencies are doing that work?

Mr Dolan—Over time, a range of agencies will be doing work. The key work being done at the moment relates to the air traffic arrangements and will be done largely by Airservices.

The other work, which is to do with what we would hope to see from potential bidders for Bankstown in terms of developments in Bankstown airport, will probably be done in the second half of this year, after the bulk of the work on the Kingsford Smith sale has been completed.

Senator O’BRIEN—Who did you say was doing the work?

Mr Dolan—There will be work on the air traffic arrangements by Airservices Australia. We will work with OASITO and the Department of Finance and Administration, as the owners are exercising the ownership responsibilities of government for the current companies to look at the sorts of requirements or expectations we would have for potential bidders for
Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden.
Hmm...maybe tenuous but their is a connection...:cool:

Addendum - More on Airports from Oz Flying: Senate grills Department over Development Threat (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/senate-grills-department-over-development-threat)

22 Oct 2014

The Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) has questioned the Department of Infrastructure about development on federally-leased airports.

The question was put during the Senate Estimates hearing on Monday night, 20 October in Canberra.

Senator Heffernan opened the proceedings with a direct question to department Secretary Mike Mrdak.

"What guarantees can we give the Australian general aviation industry that they will have airports at which they can land planes in the future, given the pressure on the land space surrounding airports by developers getting a quid by putting up high rise and aerials on top, et cetera?", Heffernan asked. "Do you see a risk from the power of developers co-operating with state governments to the future of general aviation operating out of the likes of Archerfield, Bankstown and other airports?"

Mrdak replied: "I think some concern is warranted in relation to the development pressures around our general aviation airports and our major capital city airports in a number of our cities. Quite clearly, as state planning policies come into effect seeking to increase the density of development in our urban areas, there is pressure to build right up to the boundaries, including in some high noise areas around our airports.

"There is also pressure to increasingly look at high rise developments which start to impinge on the PANS-OPS [Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Operations] and OLS [Obstacle Limitation Surfaces] services of the airports. There are two critical areas. Firstly, the Australian government is very firm in its view that these sites will be and must be retained for aviation usage as the primary purpose. Hence the master planning process for airports such as Archerfield is very much driven to making sure that sufficient aerodevelopment takes place on the site for continuation and there is no reduction of access for aviation.

"Secondly, as you would be aware, over the last few years under successive governments we have sought to work with the state planning agencies under a process called NASAG—National Aviation Safeguarding Advisory Group—where we have sought to get planning arrangements agreed with the states that mean we can protect the approaches to those aerodromes and we do not have development pressure which impinges on the safe operation. That process has been ongoing and it continues to be ongoing."

Senator Heffernan, who chairs the RRAT committee, returned to the issue later in the session, this time targeting the department's approval of the draft master plan for Archerfield Airport, asking Mrdak if the department shared the view that the master plan provided for the loss of runway 04/22, as alluded to in correspondance to the senate.

Mrdak: "Certainly, our view is not—as you have outlined—that that has that impact on the general aviation industry. The master plan has been carefully assessed, and our advice and the advice of the aviation regulatory agency is that the master plan does provide for a continuation of aviation operations. We would not share the view expressed in your correspondence there in relation to the impact on general aviation."

The Archerfield master plan was approved by Anthony Albanese under the previous government, but will be the subject of an upcoming appeal in the Australian Administrative Tribunal.


thorn bird
23rd Oct 2014, 04:53

Sarc's old mate, About as murky as a mud puddle and the transactions about as transparent as a fart in a thunderstorm.

Some questions about rumors:

What company holds the head lease to KSA?

Is that companies place of business registered in the Bahamas?

Is the Bahamas known as a Tax haven?

What has the turnover for the operators of KSA been since they took control?

What is the $$ proportion spent by the operators of KSA on direct operational aviation infrastructure compared to non aviation infrastructure since they took control of the airport?

How much tax has the operator of KSA paid since they took control?

With regards to the GA airports:

Was the leasing arrangement for these airports under the jurisdiction of NSW State law?

If so, was stamp duty paid to the NSW government?

Was compensation paid to any rightful owners or their heirs of Camden airport by the commonwealth?

Was the ability for freehold sale of Hoxton park a condition required by the lessee?

Since Hoxton Park has been turned into an Industrial Park and developed as a 24/7 interstate truck depot, are there noise complaints from residents living adjacent to this Depot?

Are there issues with the commonwealth being able to provide title to the land at Hoxton Park to the developers?

Has the Commonwealth paid compensation to any rightful owners or their heirs, of the land at Hoxton Park?

Have the developers of Hoxton Park had to make complicated trusts to disguise any Title issue with the Commonwealth?

And before the Gov. trolls let loose, I have doc's

23rd Oct 2014, 20:48
There were some interesting 'side bars' from last estimates in 'Part 1'. The link – HERE (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=240597) – will get you there, but be warned, some of it is stultifying; so I've chased some timer marks to save sanity. For starters - this

CHAIR: You are asking infrastructure questions. I might just see whether there is anyone else—I do not think there is. Does anyone have questions on corporate? Could I go back to the airport issue briefly? My understanding is that there is an appeal coming up with the AAT on the action plan for the Archerfield Airport Master Plan. As I am instructed, if permitted to stand unchallenged by the chamber representing the airport users, the Minister's approval (reversed reversal?l)would 'clear the way for Archerfield Airport Corporation to proceed with an irreversible and permanent downgrading of the critical aviation infrastructure that exists at Archerfield Airport. This includes the unacceptable loss of runway complex 04/22, the Archerfield Control Tower, the fuel farms and above all would obliterate many aviation businesses without compensation.' The correspondence I have here goes on about the 'land grab', which we are familiar with around airports. Is the department aware of this coming up as an appeal with the AAT; and is that your view of the consequences if it confirms the master plan, which was set up by a previous government?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly, we are aware of the AAT appeal against the minister's decision to approve the master plan. Certainly, our view is not—as you have outlined—that that has that impact on the general aviation industry. (not 'air transport' operations) The master plan has been carefully assessed, and our advice and the advice of the aviation regulatory agency is that the master plan does provide for a continuation of aviation operations. We would not share the view expressed in your correspondence there in relation to the impact on general aviation. (My bold and comments)

Then, a little later there is an interesting passage of play – Hansard fails the reader here and without the 'vision' (as they call it) so to explain properly you need to watch the 'vision'; it is in the early morning session, Part 1 – starts at 01.06.00 – ends at 01.19. on the timer.

Ms. Nicole Spencer – is romping along, full bottle on even Bills blasted mudguards (which you can skip, but worth watching) answering questions almost from memory, details at her fingertips, from the magic manual which she seems to have put together with care. Certainly a good example of a public servant on top of the Senate game. Enter the dragon (Gasp) Part 61 and a mundane question; the previous smooth, easy flow of answers stops – dead. Suddenly the magic manual fails, long pregnant silence interrupted only by the frantic turning pages. Then the Murky Machiavellian crew weigh in – one would assume to fill the void; Mrdak and Wilson in full flight, question unanswered and the motley crew depart the 61 fix for less inflammatory topics. Apart from taking an inordinate amount of the limited time for others members questions; you get the feeling that Conroy is part of the team.

At least he's not piddling about with Chemilnecal Trails; or, farting on about smokers; or, bewailing the lack of federal coppers in Hobart, to protect 'important' personages travelling from there. Is there something in the Hobart water I wonder?

Anyway – FWIW – I thought it was all worth a post

Senator CONROY: Can I refer to one saving identified by CASR, in particular part 21. Are you familiar with that one? You might have mentioned it earlier.

Ms Spencer : I did not mention that specific one.\

Senator CONROY: What is the value?

Ms Spencer : It would be in our list of 160 potentially.

Senator CONROY: What is the value of that saving for that particular one? You can gasbag. Let me hear about this one.

Mr Mrdak : We will get you that detail. I am not sure we have it with us. Can I take that on notice?

Ms Spencer : It is $500,000.

So far – so good, the lady earns her corn; then the stumble:-

Senator CONROY: I know that Senator Heffernan is going to be interested in this one as well. Could I ask about removing the requirement for a student pilot licence and pilot proficiency checks in certain circumstances, part 61? What is the change there that you have identified?

Ms Spencer : Sorry, if I can just have a moment to find that answer.

Senator CONROY: No worries.

Ms Spencer : Sorry, there are 160 to go through. Are there any other questions that you wanted to ask whilst I am looking for that particular one?

Senator CONROY: What are the savings? What is the change? Has a risk assessment been undertaken for this measure?

Mr Mrdak : The part 61 measures were the subject of many years of consultation and study in terms of the future changes. We will come back to you on notice with some advice from Civil Aviation Safety Authority, if you do not mind, on that one.

Senator CONROY: I do not have to release you, under the new standing orders, until I get the answers to my questions during the day. You should be advised that I am not releasing this section and, if necessary, will call you back on Friday under the new standing orders. You will be able to track this information down for me during the morning.

Mr Mrdak : I do not think I was giving you any indication I would do other than that.

Senator CONROY: No. You are taking it on notice, which means you did not have to come back. I am saying to you no, I am prepared to wait. Under the new standing orders I do not have to release you until my questions are finished. My questions will not be finished until you give me that information. No-one, when they get up from the table at whatever stage—Etc. etc.

As so it goes on; but the transition from swanlike graceful swimming, to faltering ugly duckling paddling is remarkable. I think the lady took a hit – for team MM. Bravo anyway.

Toot toot. (I figure if I keep blowing the houseboat foghorn, sooner or later the minuscule will arouse from his self induced Zen state and reconnect with the real world). Perhaps if I change the sound it makes, we'll get on better.

Houseboat Hooter :- Mk 2.

23rd Oct 2014, 21:19
I wonder why nothing has been said about the 39 airports that have contaminated land due to the chemicals used in ARFF fire fighting foam which has saturated and environmentally polluted a lot of land? My understanding is that ASA have a secret war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars squirrelled aside to cover this issue. Can anyone confirm?
I also heard that ASA have been sitting on their thumbs on this issue, and where it is becoming very complex and sloppy is that state governments in their haste to approve ridiculous airport land use plans so as to appease developers thirst for greed and profits, have now got a situation where developers may not be able to build on the contaminated land as it will need to be remediated first. The developers feel ripped off and don't want to pay for remediation, the federal government is shitting itself as it (ASA) may/will have to pay out big dollars to clean up land they have allowed to be polluted, and they don't want any 'bad publicity'! Ironically a number of airport developments are ready to be started and some of the big airport owners (super funds, JP Morgan etc) are not happy that their precious assets and investments are being held back from development due to this issue!

I have heard that in reality this issue could run into the very very high hundred of millions, and beyond :=
Oh well, where is Greg Russell when you need him the most! Have fun Margaret!

P.S And poor Hoody. Yet again I see another potential poison chalice being thrust into his lap, so to speak :eek:

As Sarcs would say, if I may, MTF

23rd Oct 2014, 22:21
Depends on the type of foam. A lot of foams are protein based and make excellent biodegradable fertilizer. AFFF is another matter.

thorn bird
23rd Oct 2014, 23:58
I suppose the oil sprayed all over Bankstown by the Yanks, or the live ammunition that keeps turning up whenever they dig a hole dont signify as contamination?

24th Oct 2014, 01:33
Thorny perhaps in regards to some of your 'rumour QONs' - in particular GA airports - you could drop Beaker a line..:E Given his penchant for facts & figures it is quite possible, that contained within the stuffing in his noggin, he may well be able to provide some answers for you, although you will have to pander to his ego & it wouldn't hurt to extract the puppet-master's hand (M&M) stuck up his :mad:....;)

While on the subject of Airports I note that the NSW Parliamentary Standing Committee on State Development yesterday released their report & recommendations from the inquiry into Regional Aviation Services (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/3680f0707af461eeca257d79007e2ab2/$FILE/Report%2038%20-%20Regional%20aviation%20services%20-%2023%20October%202014.pdf).

Many of the recommendations, either directly or indirectly, require some sort of response/action from the miniscule and his department..:{


Recommendation 1
That local communities, the mining industry, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the NSW
Government discuss opportunities to pursue a more coordinated approach to the provision of air
services that recognise the needs of local communities and the resources industry.

Recommendation 2
That the NSW Government write to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development,
to encourage the expansion of the current Direction 93, made under subsection 95X of the Competition and Consumer Act 1910
(Cth) to include pricing for other Sydney Airport services,
including hangar space, airline office space, storage facilities, and other infrastructure used by

regional airlines.

Recommendation 3
That the NSW Government write to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
to encourage a review of the current slot allocation and movements cap systems in place at
Sydney Airport, which should include eliminating the 15 minute movement cap and the removal
of regional turboprop aircraft from the movements cap.

Recommendation 4
That the NSW Government write to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
and request that the Federal Government consider the possibility of allocating a limited number
of the reserved regional slots into Sydney Airport to specific regional communities.

Recommendation 5
That the NSW Government in its correspondence with the Minister for Infrastructure and
Regional Development urge the Federal Government to amend the Sydney Airport Demand Act
1997 to ensure the access of regional regular passenger transport services to Sydney Airport is


Recommendation 6

That the NSW Government establish a roundtable of stakeholders, headed by the Minister for
Regional Infrastructure and Services to develop an on-going funding arrangement for the

continued maintenance of the network of essential airfields across the state.

& R8 even goes so far as to criticise the legislation and (God forbid..;)) the regs...:E

Recommendation 8

That the NSW Government write to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to note the

concerns of regional airports that they are overburdened and overwhelmed by the frequent
changes to civil aviation safety legislation and regulations. Furthermore, the committee
recommends that the NSW Government urges the Minister to consider the impact of security
and safety regulations on regional airports and encourage the adoption of a risk management
approach. The Minister will also be asked to provide funding to support regulatory change that

requires upgrades to be made to infrastructure.

Hmm..wonder if these future correspondences will remain piled up with the rest of the elephants gathering dust in the miniscule's aviation in-tray - especially given that the NSW Coalition govt will soon be facing the polls???

TICK..TOCK..miniscule you may have to WAAKKE U..UP soon...:ugh:

Addendum: From - The Last Minute Hitch: 24 October 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-24-october-2014)
...Senator Heffernan looks to be on the warpath over protecting GA airports from encroaching development. In the Senate Estimates hearing last Monday night (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/senate-grills-department-over-development-threat)he asked Department of Infrastructure and Transport Secretary Mike Mrdak what guarantees the department could give GA that they would have airports to land on in the future. The answer was worrying. As well as being in time-honoured officialese of the professional bureaucrat, it basically said that the government is committed to preserving the capital city GA airports, but the state governments were not being so co-operative with planning laws. In Victoria, the state government came out and made a supportive statement over Essendon (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/government-confirms-essendon-support). Perhaps it's time the other states told us clearly what value they put on their GA airports.

The opening question to the CASA group on Monday night was effectively "when are you going to appoint a CEO?" In ways it was pleasing to see that the senate committee couldn't get more info from CASA than anyone else could. The answer was "the next few weeks." CASA has known they needed a new Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) since February and we still don't have one eight months later. John McCormick didn't actually leave until 31 August, so you have to ask if they sat on their hands until then. Eight months is plenty enough to fill any position. Let's hope there's word soon...


24th Oct 2014, 02:24
Depends on the type of foam. A lot of foams are protein based and make excellent biodegradable fertilizer. AFFF is another matter.
I believe the chemicals are ones that date back to the 70's. They have contaminated multiple sites at each airport due to the various locations that fire fighting practise facilities have been shuffled around the airports over the decades.

I think the time for a Junior Minister for Aviation is long overdue. Minister farm boy is out of his league and depth, and the issues keep growing and growing and growing - just like the depth of a politicians trough!

24th Oct 2014, 15:06

Do you really believe that the theatrical comedy, at Senate Estimates, actually ever leads to any worthwhile changes?

(By the way.. Thanks for the Caravan updates that I requested on another thread.)

24th Oct 2014, 21:40
Sarcs - [ & ] it wouldn't hurt to extract the puppet-master's hand (M&M) stuck up his – (unmentionable).

Memory fuzzy on this one, but wasn't Beaker the 'architect' of the current 'airport' edifice and MM the willing accomplice. Perhaps that's why Beaker is still employed; perhaps the dummy is the ventriloquist. May be worth a walk down memory lane to winnow the wheat from the chaff, as 'twere.

Good on the NSW team, I wonder if they have the juice to penetrate the ministerial coma; if it were Queensland – things may be different, as the small amount of grey matter available for minuscule use is dedicated to Qld elections. Perhaps if 'aviation' became a Qld 'issue' it would get 'sorted' with a speed Angel flight may yet come to enjoy. Who knows what secrets the tea leaves hold.

Hitch has penned an entertaining article which misses the point entirely – until it is accepted that GA don't qualify as 'air transport' and we are talking about GA fields – it's all a waste of pen, ink and paper. The devil is in the detail and non of our 'aviation' journalists along with the Polly's seem to grasp why MM is still quietly smiling up his well padded sleeve. Buy shares in Westfield if you want win the round; or, demand 'the facts' and look at the upcoming regulations – there is a story to be had right there; for the want of some digging and homework. But, good on Hitch for trying....:ok:

Not that anything will happen – on the wind is a very strong, part supported rumour that not only are the minuscules crew fed up, fielding the tidal wave of 'complaint' but the parliamentary colleagues and their minions have had a guts full of this aging, moribund satyr who has, through the Nats power base no one to answer to and can sit there fat, dumb and as happy as Larry until the Qld election is secure and transport to the nearest five star nursing home is arranged. Sod the country – secure the seats.

Strange indeed is the world of politics. – Australian style.

25th Oct 2014, 10:23
The difference between AMSA and CASA is actually quite simple - AMSA has not had a Mafioso of shonks as it's backbone for the past two decades. The AMSA ship has been steered by numerous identities who although not perfect, have focused on the application of workable regulations, have wrapped their operation around a framework that is based upon safety, and they have retained relatively open and transparent dialogue with the industry they oversight. (I know I know Creampuff would be getting a chubby over such a glowing testimony!)

As I have said before but will not repeat again - CASA will not change, and the next DAS will be another worthless pint of bile. MrDak was re-appointed, 'Wake Up Terry' is being lauded, Beaker has been re-appointed. The Bored, under the direction and Chairmanship of Australia's most decorated spin director, continues to feed loads of bullshit onto Minsiter Farm boy's plate (while he attends BBQ's and flower shows), and the evidence of a future where nothing changes has been made abundantly clear. A glance into the aviation crystal ball (once all the poo has been cleaned off it) reveals more of the same tautological events - the IOS call out CASA and the ATSB, future Senate inquiries call out CASA and the ATSB, the cries for CASA and ATSB blood reach crescendos of immeasurable magnitude, while the echelons of Government corruptly protect it's out of control beast. Indeed this is a game not to be missed, a bit of fun for the armchair viewer and the aviation critique, a way to pass time and be entertained as the aviation bubble has it's life ebbed away, but it is nothing more than that - a sick, twisted, tautological piece of somewhat expensive entertainment.

So my kettle has boiled, I just got a few bundles of jerky out of the pantry, the beers are also cold and the popcorn has popped. Anyone want to come around to watch the next instalment of 'Farmer Truss Needs A DAS'? I have heard some of the potential brides are doozies!

25th Oct 2014, 19:50
We have started a new 'book' for BRB members – but it's a Sweepstake this time. You tip your $10 bucks in (corporate cards not accepted) and the nearest date and time to the announcement of the Truss departure takes the pot. Precision is required by the adjudicators: date, time and importantly; the spin. The quality and accuracy of the 'spin' statement will be used to determine the outright winner.

We have decided to give Ppruners a hint – no guarantees on it's veracity as this is a fierce competition – but somewhere between 30 and 40 days is a popular (if slightly biblical) bet. The reason being that they (corporate services) are sick of replacing the carpet between the miniscule's office and the 'department' door and the track to Sleepy Hollow...:D.

Toot toot..:suspect:

26th Oct 2014, 19:20
My bet for a Cabinet reshuffle is Melbourne Cup Day.

That day is also my bet for the announcement that Mr. Farquesons acting position as DAS is made permanent.

26th Oct 2014, 20:28
I don't like the look of the track, it's very soft, plus there seems to be a lot of geldings listed for this race. And knowing the history of those involved in this superlative racing event makes me believe the risk of a 'Fine Cotton affair' is high. The odds will be fairly tight also with a 90/1 long shot very unlikely. The bookies will be making a lot of money from some spurious early betting so it will most certainly be an entertaining main race to watch come race day, and one thin is for certain - there will be mounds of steaming horse dung littering the field once this event is over!

27th Oct 2014, 12:44
Governments are meant to solve problems. They clearly haven't.
Regulators (CASA) are tasked with achieving that. They clearly haven't. (political capture)
Accident Investigators (ATSB) are tasked with establishing facts, they clearly haven't. (political capture and incompetence)

So the system here relies on competent professionals and deep pockets of passionate aviation owners.

How pathetic. It's a sad state of affairs. None of the above looks like changing, therefore, more misery. It will take a new Minister, a new DAS and a new Chief Commissioner ATSB all to be ALIGNED with a strategy for the future.

Individual heroics like the skull, or wimps like Beaker won't help. ALIGNMENT of minds is key. I know Senator Fawcett is a supporter of this approach. He needs to be heard!

27th Oct 2014, 19:25
Jinglie –"I know Senator Fawcett is a supporter of this approach. He needs to be heard!"

Fawcett is an intelligent, patient man; a qualified aviation 'expert' with an excellent support team, the respect and trust of his fellow Senate committee members and industry, miles and miles of useful information and the wit to understand it. He has I would expect a better chance than anyone outside of parliament of getting to see the PM or any of the other 'big hitters', explaining the situation and setting the wheels in motion.

It's a sad case when even a man of Fawcett's calibre can be white anted by the likes of the Murky Machiavellian crew, but even sadder when, despite the Abbott rhetoric for the mug in the street about 'cutting both red and green tape, nothing of any significance has occurred. The compromised Truss denying that either he or the department have seen the "Canuck Soft White Papier" or that the selection of the bored or DAS has not been a placebo for the masses is a clear indication that even the Senate committee cannot and will not be allowed to mess with the mystique. The simple fact that the industry estimates was on after dinner (almost bed time) and only 30 minutes was allocated to ATSB and CASA speaks of priority of scale; that the rabble with 'other' agendas stole so much of the very short time given speaks volumes. Then to top it off, Chemilnecal Trails burned up so much of that time trying, not too subtly to score a cheap political point or two off MH 370 made a mockery of Fawcett and his crew. The sad part is - they allowed it.

If we must have Truss inflicted on the country, then 'aviation' needs to be taken off his desk and as far away from the 'department' as possible and placed in the hands of someone who is not suffering Stockholm syndrome and very, very aware of what goes on behind the closed doors in the corridors of power.

It's time to clean the clock, reset and wind; before it just expires for lack of routine maintenance. Aye - there's no so blind as those who will not see.


27th Oct 2014, 22:05
Sorry guys, it's game set and match to Mr. Mrdak and his complaint slaves in CASA and ATSB.

The only good we can do now is to continue to build the mountain of evidence of inefficiency, expense and perhaps duplicity, dishonesty and outright corruption against the time when three smoking holes appear in relatively quick succession and trigger a royal commission.

We told you so........

Frank Arouet
28th Oct 2014, 00:15
Terry just sent me an email. Everything is OK, got the survey results to prove it.

28th Oct 2014, 00:20
The only good we can do now is to continue to build the mountain of evidence of inefficiency, expense and perhaps duplicity, dishonesty and outright corruption against the time when three smoking holes appear in relatively quick succession and trigger a royal commission.
The only way a royal commission will be held is if the Government of the day want to hang somebody and smear the names of former or present opponents. Abbott and Co don't want to hang themselves so it will never happen.

28th Oct 2014, 00:25
The only good we can do now is to continue to build the mountain of evidence of inefficiency, expense and perhaps duplicity, dishonesty and outright corruption against the time when three smoking holes appear in relatively quick succession and trigger a royal commission
The only way a royal commission will be held is if the Government of the day want to hang somebody and smear the names of former or present opponents. Abbott and Co don't want to hang themselves so it won't happen.

Terry just sent me an email. Everything is OK, got the survey results to prove it.Survey undertaken using Sky Sentinel software?

Frank Arouet
28th Oct 2014, 03:49
A senior CasA Board identity once said that things will have to get worse before they can get better. Said with such sincerity it caused raised eyelids with many already afflicted by the regulatory nepotism, the psychopathic incompetence, the arrogance, the indifference to adherence of the bureaucratic role, a bipartisan and chronic lack of political will, and an apathetic industry. Those quoted words above are becoming reality today and general aviation in particular leads the stampede to destruction. Lemmings at the cliff face who don’t appear to care until the actual fall and then squeal for help on the way down.

For all intents and purpose, it seems minority groups have little power of persuasion unless their cause is newsworthy, and appeals to at least 50% of the voting public, (or at least enough as to make a dent in marginal seats). Such minority groups need to be involved with activist groups of radicals and many of these involve genuine moral and social justice or socialistic ideals. It helps if those radicals can involve their ideals with the teaching industry as it helps train the next generations to that way thinking.

The general aviation minority group has lost its opportunity to seize this status. The regulator has divided and conquered and now has the moral high ground. The regulator controls the teachers of the next generations.

An extract from a social media site came across my desk the other day, and without commenting on the reason it was thought I may be interested, some remarks caused me to capture a sample for reproduction here as it appears there are people who don’t think there is a problem of their own making in Australia. One contributor is a Chief Flying Instructor.

1. Malcontents and shonks are the only people who allege CASA corruption.
2. Dumb people, they’re everywhere agree with the summation of those who allege corruption.
3. Bunch of idiots.
4. A poor reflection of a very small part of our industry.
5. Guards at work, bullet proof glass, airfields made no go areas to protect us against these whack jobs.
6. Worried that they will make the whole industry look like a bunch of yokels.
7. These guys are nuts.
8. With over 30 years and 150,000 hours of operation nationally and internationally, I have never had a cross word, maybe 1 or 2 minor NCN’s and anything but cordial and civilized relations with CASA (or its predecessors).
9. Heavy jet international unrestricted world wide operations AOC gained in 100 days flat.

While some of these comments seem misguided, they are in answer to a question I had not seen about regulatory corruption, (nor was interested in enough to engage with), I can only believe the people who wrote them, fervently believe their opinions are true. Unfortunately they are at odds with what I’ve witnessed in my 49 years in the industry and especially of late. Of note were the comments from the flying instructor at point 1.

This aspect is of concern because it highlights the intergenerational radical educational agendas at work with a bend towards the "establishment" which is clearly replicated in society and educational socialism. It’s not a good system to train people to a political, or other will of the day, when they may be forced to deal with self preservation strategy’s that evolve with other political, social or or bureaucratic environments.

The notion of flying training is a matter of manual dexterity. The subsequent training is for mathematical and engineering competence, physiological function and maintenance of skills. To say flying training must include legal interpretations, bureaucratic and political considerations or bending to the wont of the instructor is plain stupid and dangerous. To implant pre-judgments about others misfortunes or their need to fight for their own crusades is stupid and dangerous and likely to alienate the pupil with his peers from other educational establishments.

Or is this the new "compliant" flying school who has a business today only because of the kindly regulators model?

I have no great interest in flying any more in the current environment. I doubt it will get better before it gets worse. In fact I’m convinced that to hasten the end would be a mercy. I believe we are well on the way to a complete shut down of general aviation in Australia. When this happens the CASA goal of only airlines and military will have been achieved and these can effectively self regulate within the confines of the national security needs of the day and ICAO.

There will be no need for CASA any more. There will be no need for a new DAS to pass the hot grenade to. There will be no need for a regulatory review process. There will be no need for government budgetary concerns and there will be no need for the public servants who have engineered their own devolution.

Only then can the process start over again. Only then can someone put a regulatory framework in place that can be tolerant, workable, forgiving, understandable, non confrontational, and cost effective. There is only a political solution to the regulatory problem which the industry has allowed to be a self fulfilling prophecy. As there is no political will, the only option is to allow nature to take its course and let CASA self destruct. In the interim those who have suffered from the regulatory malaise continue to push their case for justice which is denied them by delay.

Definition: Free radicals. Molecules with unpaired electrons searching to find other molecules during which they are very reactive and cause damage to surrounding molecules.

28th Oct 2014, 06:36
Yesterday in the Senate the AR for FF FY13/14 was tabled with apparently absolutely zilch recognition or acknowledgement from the big "R" regulator..WTF?? :rolleyes:

Anyway I managed to track down a link, see here (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100257/ar1314.pdf) but what first caught my eye was the glossy front cover, especially in light of the JO CVD case currently before the AAT...:E


Hmm...not much colour in the frame, one would almost say it is pretty much black and white...:p

Going down to page 2 and reading under the heading - Design Rationale - also made me chuckle...:p


Normally I'm not into fairy tales (about wascily wabbits feeding at the trough..:ugh:) but given the amusement I have found in just two pages perhaps I should take the time to read a chapter or two...:E

Back to other matters I noticed that AMROBA are yet to give up the ghost on behalf of their members...

"...The adage "there is strength in numbers" is absolutely true when it comes to influencing government regulations and policy. No one company, no matter how big or successful, can keep up on all the regulatory issues directly impacting businesses.

AMROBA is dedicated to serving the businesses that are responsible for the in-service continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical
products, including the manufacture of replacement parts for in-service aircraft. This segment of the industry has never had a dedicated advocate until now..." :D

...and have recently published an additional newsletter for the month -
Volume 11, Issue 10A October — 2014 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%2010A.pdf) - which largely tackles the issue of RTR & CAsA and a proposed submission to the RTR crew:

AMROBA is making a submission to CASA’s Red Tape Reduction and Deregulation Program.

Suggested changes to the burden level of individual regulations may be provided in the spreadsheet and sent via an email attachment to [email protected] ([email protected]). CASA has provided an excel format spreadsheet that you can use. It can be accessed at Red Tape Reduction .

The problem is that, over many years, AMROBA, and other associations and individuals have been submitting to CASA how they can reduce red tape and deregulate many aspects of the aviation industry without affecting safety. Have they the right people to meet this government initiative?

Since their decision to follow the European system, the growth in red tape and regulation has continued unabated. AMROBA has made many submissions over the years that would reduce the red tape and also reduce the size of CASA.

A major issue with the direction of regulatory changes is that CASA is purposely moving away from a “rule of law” system, where you are treated

as innocent until proven guilty, to a system where compliance is to [hidden] CASA policy, advisory material & other non regulative requirements.

Unlike the attitude of the CAA when the CARs were introduced, the reduction in administrative processes were high on the agenda. However, like every legislative change since moving away from ANRs, industry was subjected to more laws, red tape and advisory documents that were used as quasi-regulations.

To reduce the red tape, CASA really needs to start from asking: “what needs to have a regulatory requirement?” We are over-regulated.

Not all ICAO SARPs need to be in legislation. Many of the SARPs are common sense and are abided to by aviation participants but anything that industry must comply with should be in documents tabled in Parliament.

Pre 1991, GA maintenance organisations were approved by CASA and had to comply with one set of standards specified in CAOs. No AMO documented ‘quality system’ in a manual, similar approach to the FARs for GA.

Very successful for GA and relied on “direct supervision” in small AMOs.

Compliance was with legislative requirements tabled in Parliament—Regulations and CAOs. The government provided ‘legislative oversight’ of the Orders.

However, that system was discredited by senior management utilisation of “exemptions, alternative means of compliance, etc. that some saw as providing a preferential or uneven application of the requirements.

That is when it was decided to re-write the requirements so all requirements in Orders had a “Head of Power” in the Regulations that also had a “Head of Power” in the Act.

New CASA management kept changing the goals until Byron decided Europe had it right. In the last decade, industry has suffered by bad laws.

Today, industry participants are being audited to advisory material. The following is from a CASA audit finding on an AMO.


The CoA Handbook is another level of compliance — we no longer work under the rule-of-law as other citizens of Australia do. This is a return to the 1980s.

“The Handbook sets out the criteria that CASA would expect an Applicant to meet to obtain a COA. Meeting these criteria should ensure that the Applicant will have the systems, including procedures, equipment and staff necessary to ensure that aviation safety is not compromised, thus satisfying government, CASA, and public expectation.”

One would have thought the criteria and policy was set out in legislation and/or instruments made under the legislation that the government oversighted.

History will continue to repeat itself unless the Federal Government changes the Act.

Compliance should always be with legislative requirements in documents oversighted by Parliament.

Complies with the Rule of Law principles.

Perhaps KC should consider a cc or two to some of the more proactive frontbenchers like Josh&co; c/o the PMC of course...;)
On page 2 of the AMROBA newsletter I noticed that a useful list of past CEOs is provided so I thought (to wile away the time to oblivion..:E) I should reproduce and the IOS could rate each individual from bad to even worse...:{:

CEO & GM, CAA Colin W. Freeland
CEO, CAA J.F.S. 'Frank' Baldwin
DAS, CAA Alan Heggen
DAS, CAA Ron Cooper
CEO, CAA Doug J. Roser
CEO, CAA (Atg) Buck A. Brooksbank
DAS, CAA George Macionis
DAS, CASA Leroy Keith
DAS, CASA (Atg) John Pike
DAS, CASA Mick Toller
DAS, CASA (Atg) Bruce Gemmell
CEO & DAS, CASA W. Bruce Byron
DAS, CASA John McCormick
DAS, CASA (Atg) Terry Farquharson
Have fun..:D


28th Oct 2014, 18:20

Yesterday in the Senate the AR for FF FY13/14 was tabled with apparently absolutely zilch recognition or acknowledgement from the big "R" regulator..WTF??

Anyway I managed to track down a link, see here but what first caught my eye was the glossy front cover, especially in light of the JO CVD case currently before the AAT...

Your postings, and those of some others, are symptomatic of why pilots have trouble communicating with the general public and advancing your political and regulatory agenda.

You over use acronyms, slang and nicknames until peoples eyes glaze over.

What you meant to communicate was that the annual report of the Civil Aviation Authority for last financial year was tables in the Senate yesterday and received little or no attention.

Cryptic postings require readers to invest too much time in trying to decode your statements. Thus, no matter how profound the insights you wish to bestow, your writings are ignored.

Good English requires that if you wish to use acronyms for brevity, you first identify the acronym as in: Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Avoid displays of cleverness like referring to The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as Fort Fumble (FF).

29th Oct 2014, 01:58
Mark Skidmore is the new DAS (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/mark-skidmore-is-the-new-das)

29 Oct 2014
Doug Nancarrow

AVM Mark Skidmore AM is the new head of CASA. Expect a formal announcement before the end of this week.

Wikipedia link - Mark Skidmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore)
Early life and career[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Skidmore&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

Skidmore was born in Kowloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon), Hong Kong on 15 March 1959, and joined the Royal Australian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force) (RAAF) as an Officer Cadet in 1977.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore#cite_note-airpower-2) He completed Number 113 Pilots Course and was posted to No. 1 Squadron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1_Squadron_RAAF), RAAF Base Amberley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Amberley) to fly the General Dynamics F-111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark).

Following his tour on F-111s, Skidmore undertook the United States Naval Test Pilot School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Test_Pilot_School) Fixed Wing course in 1985. At the completion of the course he was posted to the Aircraft Research and Development Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Research_and_Development_Unit_RAAF), RAAF Base Edinburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Edinburgh), where he flew F-111, Dassault Mirage III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_III), Macchi MB-326H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_MB-326), AESL CT/4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_CT/4_Airtrainer) and Douglas C-47 Dakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47_Skytrain) aircraft.

In 1989, Skidmore returned to RAAF Base Amberley and completed tours at No. 1 Squadron as the Operational Flight Commander and No. 82 Wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._82_Wing_RAAF) as the Operations Officer. This was followed by a posting as the Flight Test Director on the F-111C Avionics Update Program in California, USA. Returning to Australia in 1996, he served as the Staff Officer Operational Systems at Headquarters Air Command, RAAF Base Glenbrook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Glenbrook), before resigning from the RAAF in March 1998. Skidmore joined Aerospace Technical Services in 1998 as the Senior Test Pilot and Business Development Executive, positions he maintained following the company's acquisition in 1999 by Raytheon Systems Company.

Skidmore rejoined the RAAF in 2000 and completed the Defence Staff Course at Weston Creek before being posted again to the Aircraft Research and Development Unit, this time as the Commanding Officer. From 2003 he was Director of Operational Requirements for the New Air Combat Capability project.

Prior to assuming the position of Joint Force Air Component Commander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Air_Component_Commander) in 2005 he attended the Defence and Strategic Studies Course at the Australian Defence College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_College), Weston Creek. During 2005 he was deployed to the Middle East Area of Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Area_of_Operations) where he served as the Director Combined Air Operations Centre. For this service he was awarded a Commendation for Distinguished Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_for_Distinguished_Service) in the 2007 Australia Day Honours List.

Skidmore was promoted to the rank of Air Vice Marshal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Vice_Marshal_(Australia)) and appointed as the Air Commander Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Air_Command) on 27 June 2008.

In 2013 Skidmore test flew the RAAF Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Museum) replica Bristol Boxkite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Boxkite) at Point Cook, Victoria for about 1000 metres and reached a speed of 42 mph.
[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore#cite_note-Military_aviation_history_takes_flight_at_RAAF_Museum-3) Skidmore was quoted as saying "It was an exhilarating and humbling experience, I am honoured and proud to follow those aviators who pioneered military aviation in this country" and "I now also have the honour of being the only RAAF pilot who has flown both the fastest and slowest aircraft in the Air Force."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore#cite_note-4)

Frank Arouet
29th Oct 2014, 03:00
Could well be capable of handling the hot grenade and I wish him well. He certainly doesn't have big shoes to fill.

Although born in Kowloon, hasn't worked for Cathay, (which is unusual in itself). Generally military types don't suffer fools well, so we could be in for some wild rides with those at the trough face. How Mrdak handles him could be of more interest. I'm unsure how well the military fit with GA. As a rule they are secretive, rarely open to discussing matters, and subscribe to the "military or airline" dogma of CAsA.

Truss gets a brief respite until the first stuff up.

Skidmore has a brief period of probation in this job.

29th Oct 2014, 03:07
New CASA DAS is Mark Skidmore, a source informed me last night. This should be announced today or later this week, keep an eye out for the standard retarded email posted by Sleepy Truss department. Arise Sir Skidmore, and please be aware of your GWM colleagues and Wodger, they will be watching you with great interest, as will the IOS.

thorn bird
29th Oct 2014, 04:24
Pretty impressive CV for someone interested in war games.

Little thin on anything connected to economics or the civilian aviation industry.

Hope someone points out to him that we actually have to pay for what we do.

29th Oct 2014, 08:18
It will be interesting to see the dynamics with the Board. If Boyd can get into his head about what's wrong with CASA, we have a chance. If the Chairman rules, we're in for more Ground Hog days.
Welcome to politics Mark, good luck, you'll need it.

Dick Smith
29th Oct 2014, 14:00
I have put my comments on the GA pacific thread!

29th Oct 2014, 19:35
LL –"So do you think Sarcs that she has been coached on how to respond to the questions?"

In short – Yes, but it's not just Staib. Since the Senate committee caught a fleeting glimpse of the monster lurking beneath the bed through the Pel Air investigation there has been a frantic effort to convince the committee that they had only imagined seeing the beast.

The CASA, ATSB, Air Services (ASA) and the BoM were in some way exposed. Rather than strive to redeem their reputations all, to some extent have elected to hide behind the mystique of 'safety', relying on the smoke and mirrors strategy which has always served so well. They were collectively stopped cold by the united efforts of a very savvy Senate committee.

The reasons for Pel Air escaping the CASA axe are fairly clear and all would have been well had the likes of Cook, Watson and Hatley been able to stomach, or even find a conscionable reason to let the Pel Air audit be swept under the carpet. The story becomes grim once the reality of that dawns on the CASA, bit like one of those murder mysteries where two or three corpses turn up in order to disguise the primary target. To get Pel Air below the radar it became essential to 'persuade' other agencies to join in.

Now Wodger was in the cat seat – controlling the data, his mate the new AILU ducked under the new, but not yet ratified MoU and set to work undermining the ATSB 'white hats', Beaker had to be 'comfortable and confident' with the spin and elected to join in. One of the most pathetic, weak kneed, disgraceful excuses for the non recovery of the CVR/FDR units was trotted out and despite having "Joe" on site with a rope around the tail of the aircraft, all the toys to lift it and even access to the RAN to help raise a ton and a half of aircraft tail out of the water – it was all too expensive and dangerous.

And so the saga began and to this very day – continues. There is a pressing need to avoid any loose talk and the seals must be well trained lest they say one word which leads to further investigation of what lays, like the West-wind, just beneath the surface.

Minor inconveniencies such as the Transport Safety Act, ICAO annexe 13, Senate reports, Independent (Forsyth) revues and even the useless Canadian TSB audit are all swept away – in order to preserve a failed, morally bankrupt system which is destroying not only Australia's light and regional aviation, but it's reputation as well. Even the minuscule could not, even if he wanted to, break the iron ring supported by the GWM, does this make him their willing accomplice?.

Truss should put up or shut up – retire, or get in behind the 'new' DAS and acknowledge the good work done by the Senate and the Rev. Forsyth; all he has to do is pick up the phone; but will he do it ?, now the bored is established and a DAS on the horizon. Perhaps if he gets approval from the Murky Machiavellian crew he might. But then again if Barnaby gets his job all bets are off; he will not need permission from the minders.

We shall see, I expect. Now, where are those tea leaves Min and the crystal ball?.

Toot toot (MkII).

29th Oct 2014, 20:10
If it's another RAAF driver as Director Of Air Safety, then I think its game over for GA.

With one or Two exceptions, most of the RAAF officers I've had the misfortune to work with are what I call "concrete thinkers".

...As in their attitudes and beliefs are set in concrete and anything that challenges those attitudes and beliefs triggers a massive aggressive response. They therefore exhibit a Yes/No, Right/Wrong, Black/White binary belief system and are totally intolerant of the existence of shades of grey or the possibility that todays wrong answer might be tomorrows right answer.

Two I remember just hated civilians and thought themselves special beings. Another devoted about half his working time to developing his lawsuit for hearing loss allegedly suffered in a Mirage Squadron. Another never got over the fact that he had a miserable childhood, told everyone about it, and took it out on any subordinate he could.

My guess would be that an RAAF type in the chair is not going to produce an inclusive, collaborative culture within CASA let alone restore any trust between industry and the regulator.

One might perhaps be forgiven for paraphrasing Groucho Marx's famous comment: anybody who actually wants the job of the Director Of Air Safety is automatically unfit for the position?

To put that another way; the chances that this guy (if the rumor is true) is the saviour of the General Aviation sector is close to zero.

30th Oct 2014, 00:31
New CASA Director of Aviation Safety appointed

Media Release
30 October 2014
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today welcomed the appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Mark Skidmore AM as the new Director of Aviation Safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The five year appointment by the CASA Board was announced by Chairman, Dr Alan Hawke AC earlier today.

“I look forward to working with Mark, the CASA Board and industry as the Government implements its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review due to be released before the end of the year,” Mr Truss said.
Air Vice Marshal Skidmore has more than 30 years' experience in both civilian and military aviation.

He has worked in civilian aviation as a test pilot and has experience flying a number of different aircraft types, including gliders and helicopters.
AVM Skidmore also has experience as a business development manager and company director.

AVM Skidmore had an outstanding military aviation career, reaching the rank of Air Vice Marshal before retiring from the RAAF in 2012.

He has been an active part of the general aviation community for a number of years, owning and regularly flying a Globe GC-1B Swift aircraft.
The new Director of Aviation Safety was chosen by the Board after an international search.

From Dougy: Editor's Insights 30 October 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-30-october-2014)
30 Oct 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-30-october-2014)
Doug Nancarrow

Special CASA DAS edition:
Well it took a while but now we know who’s going to be heading up CASA for the next few years.

Mark Skidmore comes with an impeccable record at the RAAF, finishing there are Air Commander Australia before retiring in 2012.

Industry people I have shared this news with are fairly united in their approval of the man as an exceptional candidate for the demanding job; though some are surprised that yet another civil aviation bureaucracy finds itself with an ex-military head. There were those, including me, who thought that the selection process would dodge the ex-military ranks to avoid any controversy along those lines.

Well now we have an expanded board, with some exceptional talent there as well, and our new DAS. Time to get down to business and start the process of conferring with industry.

Your comments are, as always welcome.

This is such a big story that I’m cutting Editor’s Insights short this week to get it out to you. I’ll make up the news and commentary content next Thursday – or indeed on the website and Twitter earlier if there’s any more critical news. Oz Flying: Mark Skidmore to run CASA (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/mark-skidmore-tipped-to-run-casa)

Australian Aviation: Ex RAAF Air Commander Mark Skidmore new CASA boss (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/ex-raaf-air-commander-new-casa-boss/)


Frank Arouet
30th Oct 2014, 04:24
QUOTE I look forward to working with Mark, the CASA Board and industry as the Government implements its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review due to be released before the end of the year,” Mr Truss said QUOTE.

So the RRP is complete. How many years did that take?

Hang on, .... he's going to implement a response to it, or he's going to release the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review?

I'm guessing he means the Forsyth review recommendation's will be responded to before the end of the year.... 2014, I presume. Very tricky.

Mach E Avelli
30th Oct 2014, 04:32
Nothing wrong with a good military man. The top blokes are very often brilliant minds, good managers and leaders of men (and women).
But as well as being a 'good guy' we can only hope that he is totally ruthless and takes a flamethrower to all the dross at CASA. Like, next week. Pay them out. It will cost the taxpayer in the short term, but think of the ongoing savings if so many snouts are removed from the trough.
Once he's done that, maybe he can order whoever survives the cull to cut and paste the NZ regulations in their entirety. No more stuffing about with why Australia is 'different' to NZ. No more pandering to EASA or ICAO. File the differences. ICAO will suck it up.
Then exert muscle to have the rules quickly passed into law. Forget further industry consultation too, because if it works in NZ it will work here. For once just admit the Kiwis did get it mostly right. Live with the imperfections, such as they are.
Sometimes I hanker for benevolent dictatorship.....

30th Oct 2014, 05:30
Great news. The appointment of the new military DAS to the civil world means us GA/Airlines guys can live in hope that maybe we have a shot at an AVM or AC job! That would go down like a lead balloon!
I wish the DAS all the best, but I find it bizarre that after a world-wide search they couldn't find a candidate with proven civil experience for the job.

30th Oct 2014, 05:45
I find it bizarre that after a world-wide search they couldn't find a candidate with proven civil experience for the job.

Perhaps you mean they ? couldn't find anyone prepared to take on the poison chalice.

I'm sure there are plenty of suitably qualified people out there, but who in their right mind would want such a role.

tipsy (ret'd):D

30th Oct 2014, 07:45
Although the debate and comments on here are extremely entertaining, for mine, Mach E Avelli gets the post of the day award...:D:D:But as well as being a 'good guy' we can only hope that he is totally ruthless and takes a flamethrower to all the dross at CASA. Like, next week. Pay them out. It will cost the taxpayer in the short term, but think of the ongoing savings if so many snouts are removed from the trough.

Once he's done that, maybe he can order whoever survives the cull to cut and paste the NZ regulations in their entirety. No more stuffing about with why Australia is 'different' to NZ. No more pandering to EASA or ICAO. File the differences. ICAO will suck it up.

Then exert muscle to have the rules quickly passed into law. Forget further industry consultation too, because if it works in NZ it will work here. For once just admit the Kiwis did get it mostly right. Live with the imperfections, such as they are.

Sometimes I hanker for benevolent dictatorship..... There is no doubt that the former RAAF Commander will have to hit the floor running...:ooh: And from Kharon's post above it would appear the first matter to address is Part 61...:ugh: Hopefully the new DAS will take on-board such helpful advice freely provided by Mach and decides to totally bin Part 61..:D and implement the CAANZ (with a few minor tweaks) Part 61 - see here (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Consolidations/Part_061_Consolidation.pdf). To do so would totally give all the right messages to the IOS and should be warmly embraced by M&M as it would surely (in one fell swoop) exceed the CAsA RTR set target of $12 million dollars in savings to industry (gold stars all round..:E)...

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - CASA Part 1 - YouTube

...not to mention that it would be in line with the miniscule & dept policy and Future areas of focus (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/deregulation/files/Factsheet_Deregulation_in_aviation.pdf) in regard to deregulation within the aviation sector:

Future areas of focus

The Government is actively considering its response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.pprune.org/Aviation%20Safety%20Regulation%20Review), released on 3 June 2014. A key finding is the importance of regulator behaviour, which is also a major component of the Government’s drive for best practice regulation.
 The Department is continuing to undertake reforms at the 19 leased federal airports in light of the feedback from a comprehensive Review of the Airports Building Control and Environment Protection Regulations (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/planning/) in 2013.
 The Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, has encouraged regulatory agencies to adopt best practice regulation standards, with a particular focus on achieving transparency, accountability, clear communications and risk-based approaches wherever possible. Big job maybe but it would certainly set in stone that the new DAS has indeed the cojones to take on the iron ring and their 20 odd year history of industry embuggerance...:{

Addendum: From AA online - Skidmore to make listening a priority (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/skidmore-to-make-listening-a-priority/) (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/skidmore-to-make-listening-a-priority/)


Frank Arouet
30th Oct 2014, 08:27
The man owns a Globe Swift.

He has class and taste. First points his way from Frank.

30th Oct 2014, 09:29
The Globe Swift is to be admired. Don't get to carried away though. The former DAS owned a YAK and loved the poser rights that come with doing aerobatic displays over Noosa regularly. Didn't stop him from screwing GA!

30th Oct 2014, 12:31
Just read the AA article. ASR is on the agenda but note it states most people are happy with casa performance. The complainers are the minority. Time will tell if they are listened too or dismissed.

As Creamy said the next phrase we'll hear is something like 'regulatory reform is on track and will soon be complete'.

Oh, tour of offices and welcome bbq's.

30th Oct 2014, 19:40
Mach E #1416 –"But as well as being a 'good guy' we can only hope that he is totally ruthless and takes a flamethrower to all the dross at CASA. Like, next week. Pay them out. It will cost the taxpayer in the short term, but think of the ongoing savings if so many snouts are removed from the trough.

Once he's done that, maybe he can order whoever survives the cull to cut and paste the NZ regulations in their entirety. No more stuffing about with why Australia is 'different' to NZ. No more pandering to EASA or ICAO. File the differences. ICAO will suck it up.

Don't hold your breath Mach – Sarcs (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-120.html#post8720928) has posted the 'first' load of waffle, from the ever willing 'Australian' spin factory – seems the tone and pace have been publicly set. THE pilot is starting off in 'auto smooth – soft ride' mode, established in the holding pattern (brilliant); waiting to see how the political masters choose to respond to the ASRR. But, on the bright side 'we' did get a promotion (I think) no longer the IOS but mutterers, mumbler's and murmerers – terrific stuff. I'm all agog.

Toot toot.

30th Oct 2014, 20:15
Game over; Mr. Mrdak has found what the British insurers at Lloyds once called a "Nodding Donkey" - underwriters who could be persuaded to take on almost any risk after a long lunch and a glass of port. The nodding donkeys led their insurance syndicate members into insuring horrendous risks like Piper Alpha, which claimed Malcolm Frasers fortune.

AVM. Skidmore might be playing with a dead bat, but I doubt it - nodding donkey. Pass the port.

"Skidmore acknowledged that some in the aviation community had concerns about CASA, but was positive about the general relationship between industry and the regulator.

“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.

“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.

“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said."

Now just wait till a CASA minion finds an arithmetic mistake in his aircraft’s maintenance release and he gets the same treatment as Toller.

30th Oct 2014, 21:52
I believe an adequate description to Australias aviation regulation predicament can be found in the work of Joseph Tainter, a social theorist working in the field of complex societies.

His theory involves the concept of diminishing returns - where successive investments produce less and less return, finally reaching the point of zero return where the benefit matches the capital cost of providing it, before finally producing negative returns,, where each successive investment costs more than it benefits.

If we apply this to regulation, there are obvious parallels; we decide to drive on the left side of the road and car crashes diminish, a simple law produces a major benefit. We introduce speed limits and right of way rules, ditto. However as each layer of investment is added the compliance costs increase and the benefits decrease.

We now reach the point, for example, of requiring random drug and alcohol testing of the entire pilot, Air traffic controller and LAME populations, complete with mandatory management plans at a cost of many, many millions to the industry for what return? How many participants have been detected? Two? Six? This is a clear case of an investment providing a totally negative return.

Another case is the massive investment in time and money by CASA in a crusade against pilots with colour vision defects. FOr what benefit? Improving safety? There hasn't been any incident let alone accident involving a colour vision defect in 25 years! Exactly why are we making this investment?

As the extract below puts it, complex societies and organisations got that way be regulation and organisation, and the automatic response to a perceived problem is more of the same - more regulation.

The massive tomes of regulation being emitted by CASA are thus explained. Their solution to everything is more regulation, even if the point of diminishing returns is long past and we are far into negative return territory.

More examples anyone??

When a society begins to add layers of social complexity—for example, expanding the reach of the division of labor, setting up hierarchies to centralize decisionmaking, and so on—the initial rounds pay off substantially in terms of additional wealth and the capacity to deal with challenges from other societies and the natural world. Here again, though, there’s a point of diminishing returns, after which additional investments in social complexity yield less and less in the way of benefits, and there’s a point of zero marginal return, after which each additional increment of complexity subtracts from the wealth and resilience of the society.

There’s a mordant irony to what happens next. Societies in crisis reliably respond by doing what they know how to do. In the case of complex societies, what they know how to amounts to adding on new layers of complexity—after all, that’s what’s worked in the past. I mentioned at the beginning of this month, in an earlier post in this sequence, the way this plays out in political terms. The same thing happens in every other sphere of collective life—economic, cultural, intellectual, and so on down the list. If too much complexity is at the root of the problems besetting a society, though, what happens when its leaders keep adding even more complexity to solve those problems?


Toruk Macto
30th Oct 2014, 22:02
Affordable safety ?

31st Oct 2014, 02:30
Unlike MMSM Steve & AA's Frawley..:ugh:..at least Hitch has an opinion..:ok:
The Last Minute Hitch: 31 October 2014

31 Oct 2014

Aviation analysts are in overload at the moment with the announcement of Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the new CASA Director of Aviation Safety (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/mark-skidmore-to-run-casa) (DAS). Since February when John McCormick flagged his departure, the industry has been boiling with speculation about who would take the helm, heated by the results of the Forsyth Report. Nine months later we have our new DAS, but the bubbling continues. There is little doubt Mark Skidmore has the skills and integrity to do the job, but his appointment seems to fall in line with the previous practice of giving top civil jobs to ex-RAAF people. Margaret Staib at Airservices was air force, as was John McC himself (admittedly via Cathay Pacific). Curiously, this appointment seems to fly in the face of the Forsyth Report that said the new DAS needed to have skills in culture change. When was the last time there was a culture change in the RAAF? Still, Mark comes well credentialed, so we have to hope he can see a clear path through what has become a murky regulator.

Speaking of CASA bosses, former head Dick Smith has teed-off at the regulator over their advice to pilots (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/dick-smith-labels-casa-frequency-advice-dangerous)to use the area VHF when broadcasting from airfields not marked on the charts. Dick believes interference could lead to an airline accident. I half agree. The advice is off the mark, and we are all better off sticking to 126.7 for all non-CTAF airfields. However, I'm not sure about not broadcasting on the area. True, VFR aircraft operating in G airspace need to be careful when making calls, just as we do entering VFR lanes or making over-water skeds, but I don't believe frequency congestion is an issue on the areas, or that it will lead to a major accident. Fortunately, CAAPs are advisory and don't have to be complied with.

CASA commissioned a survey to gauge whether or not the general public thinks they are doing a good job. (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/private-ga-needs-more-oversight-survey) The result showed that most people are pretty happy, but it also showed that nearly half of all Australians want more regulation over private flights. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the survey population admit to never having been on a private flight. This is nothing new to us; public comments over general aviation have been wide of the mark for years. Warning bells are sounding, because this gives CASA an excuse for tightening the screws on the industry. Afterall, they have stated for years that the general public is the primary focus of their safety. Over to you, Mr Skidmore.

On the upside, the year-to-date delivery figures (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/piston-aircraft-gather-strength-in-delivery-figures)show further strengthening of sales in the piston-engine market. This sector contains most the aircraft flown in general aviation, be it private, training or small charter. That can only be good for all of us, and points towards the recession fading from influence.

May your gauges always be in the green,


31st Oct 2014, 07:50
Having bucket loads of fast jet experience is admirable, however, understanding the regulatory craft and contemporary safety practice is more important for the DAS. I hope he has both. Fawcett certainly does, in abundance. Performance or outcome based regulation (which is where we should be heading, i.e., NZ) requires a steady hand and a skilled safety practitioner. Even if the DAS has these skills, he needs to convert the FOI and AWI rot he inherits. They see this approach as a removal of their all-powerful rights.

The rebellion started back in the Byron days when the current rot set in. Compliance based regulation is history (most advanced countries acknowledge this). The industry is best placed to understand the risks they face. Byron was criticised by the Senate for stating CASA needed a "partnership" with industry. Back then none of the Senators had any aviation experience and pushed the capital R regulator concept, largely driven by the ALAEU and the Lockhardt Coronial. Transair was a significant catalyst for the push. Whilst the Senate thrust was made with the right intentions, it provided the wrong results. Also, political industrial issues never result in improvements in safety. At least Fawcett is there now to provide some sense and guidance to the Senate Committee. This is exactly what's required.

Without trust and engagement, nothing will change. Forsyth made that very clear in the ASRR.
IMHO, The DAS needs to have to balls to take a torch to the joint, otherwise he won't achieve a thing. Just 5 more years of fumbling that will result in the industry being torched.
RIP capital R regulator!

31st Oct 2014, 09:43
CASA’s new director of safety faces multiple public safety threats

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Oct 31, 2014 4:25PM | EMAIL | PRINT (http://javascript<b></b>:window.print();)

Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore in his element, courtesy Australian Aviation

Opinion Retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore has been accorded polite, even deferential media on his being appointed as the new director of safety at CASA.

He has in this brief report in Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/skidmore-to-make-listening-a-priority/) said he will be a ‘good listener’.

With respect to the new DAS, he will also have to be a reformer, and a remover of various CASA identities, to bring the body back to one that merits respect and carries out its obligations to properly and effectively regulate aviation safety in this country.

The regulatory reform process has been so atrociously mishandled by CASA that four years after the Pel-Air crash the regulatory issues that were exposed in the ditching of that medical evacuation Westwind jet near Norfolk Island remain unresolved.

As a declared good listener, retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Skidmore needs to sit down with Senators Bill Heffernan, David Fawcett, Glenn Sterle, and Nick Xenophon to learn how they came to distrust the testimony of his predecessor John McCormick and the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, after reading as of course he would have already done, the Hansard of the proceedings and final report of the committee that inquired into the procedures that were followed in the ATSB arriving at a seriously compromised final report into the accident.

It’s not about a ‘small’ plane crash. It’s about a large issue of honesty and transparency.

If the legacy of disrepect and distrust of CASA caused by these and other events isn’t addressed (including the withdrawal of the second rate accident report) Skidmore has no chance of fulfilling his commendable ambitions for the regulator under his direction.

Other bloody incidents that hang over CASA are the 2008 Barry Hempel crash and the 2005 Lockhardt River crash. It is respectfully suggested that DAS Skidmore not read any of the media coverage reported on Plane Talking or mainstream publications on these matters, but the actual coronial documents and testimonies that are covered by legal or parliamentary privilege.

These are serious matters. They cannot be forgiven, ever, given the deep harm done to the public by CASA’s inability or reluctance to carry out its obligations, but the culture that tried to defend and bury these scandals can be broken by a strong and determined DAS.

To remake CASA, Skidmore will need to risk his own appointment. He will need to say and do things that the Minister won’t like, and he will need to take the public, as well as the industry, with him.

If it turns out that Skidmore gets himself terminated through being courageous and principled, that sacrifice will in itself render the state of CASA so unacceptable even to the Government of the day, that major and constructive reforms of the air safety regulator will at last ensue.


thorn bird
31st Oct 2014, 10:35
Thank you Ben,

Hear Hear.:D:D:D:D

31st Oct 2014, 15:04
QANTAS had a AVM as their COO for a while. That was a disaster. Ted was a nice guy though!

31st Oct 2014, 18:48
Normally, I'll drift down the bar and get as far away as possible from anyone who starts a MH 370 discussion within my hearing. There I was, minding my own business when a couple of bright sparks kicked off a MH 370 'chat' – I started looking for a quiet corner to finish my ale and tuning the noise out until I realised they were talking about the incident in terms of 'social media' and, they seemed to know their onions. The conversation mentioned numbers of 'tweets', posts, comments, 're-tweets' etc. etc. related to the topic. Even if these boys were wrong, by double, the sheer volume of 'traffic' they were discussing was staggering.

Even our own modest Pprune stands behind nearly 19 and a half million 'reads' of the MH 370 matter, with some 11 thousand odd mostly intelligent, informed comment and that is a very humble total compared to the numbers being bandied about by the two chaps I could overhear.

A little later ambling home quietly mulling over those numbers, a small thought crept in. I wondered how many of those countless people interested in the topic thought that our very own Beaker was in the class of the ex military Houston; which lead me to consider the amount folk who quite innocently believe that the beyond reason, Beaker version of the Australian ATSB is 'sound' and may be relied on. The Senate certainly don't:-

(My bold) - Sandilands – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/31/casas-new-director-of-safety-faces-multiple-public-safety-threats/)- "As a declared good listener, retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Skidmore needs to sit down with Senators Bill Heffernan, David Fawcett, Glenn Sterle, and Nick Xenophon to learn how they came to distrust the testimony of his predecessor John McCormick and the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, after reading as of course he would have already done, the Hansard of the proceedings and final report of the committee that inquired into the procedures that were followed in the ATSB arriving at a seriously compromised final report into the accident.

It’s not about a ‘small’ plane crash. It’s about a large issue of honesty and transparency.

Then I wondered what those millions of folk would make of the little example (below) of who they are relying on. Watch as a concerned Senator is confounded, during an inquiry into the 'ditching' of an aircraft, in shallow water (50 m), close to land (<10 clicks), where the 'black boxes' were not recovered. Too expensive, dangerous and neither significant nor important was the 'official' line. The disingenuous part is where the 'new' version of the ICAO annexe was used to support the argument, rather than the version applicable at the time.

Lucky 13.

The Senator was correct. It leaves you wondering about what will be done in an inquiry mounted for a large, public interest case, like MH 370 – if it's ever found.

While I may wonder about and find 'sensible' explanation for why Houston was not coordinating and managing the effort, or why AMSA were taken off a marine search, I can find no logical explanation for Beaker being reinstated after the Pel Air debacle, let alone being entrusted with a job the world and it's wife are very interested in. Perhaps the Minister has the answer.

Nice to see Ben and Hitch retain their journalistic talent and integrity. Bravo both and thank you....:ok:..:D

Toot toot.

31st Oct 2014, 20:28
Even an amateur diver could have recovered those black boxes on heliox with decompression stops. For a professional it would be a doddle.



31st Oct 2014, 20:36
Aye – But what makes it even stranger is they had a rope on the tail end, a crane on a cargo ship to lift it and an investigator on site, to preserve the 'evidence chain'. I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle. But, then again, there are many mysteries of life that elude me.

Hiegh ho – back to my knitting...:confused:

31st Oct 2014, 23:04
Some topics of interest for the weekend love it..:ok:

But first Hitch brings up some very valid points in supplement to his weekly wrap focus on the new DAS..:D:
SteveHitchen (http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=631cbe4b&f=australianflying&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.australianflying.com.au%2Fnews%2Fthe-last-minute-hitch-31-october-2014&t_d=The%20Last%20Minute%20Hitch%3A%2031%20October%202014&t_t=The%20Last%20Minute%20Hitch%3A%2031%20October%202014&s_o=default#) In some respects there has been quite a bit of culture change within the RAAF over the past 20 years; roles for women is the obvious one. However, the culture of most military (if not all) is that the rules shall be obeyed without question. What we need now is someone who is going to say "the rules don't work and are even damaging; we need to recognise that and move on to a new set of rules." Is there a lot of that going on in the RAAF? I agree that there has been more culture change in the RAAF in the past 20 years than civvy street, but that says more about civvy street than the RAAF. I honestly hope Mark Skidmore is the man, but his appointment doesn't appear at first to be a good match to what the Forsyth Report said was needed. Sunny if you go to the Bounty Divers website you will eventually find this link - Norfolk Island - Bounty Divers- Crashed Pel Air West Wind (http://bountydivers.********.com.au/2010/03/norfolk-island-bounty-divers-crashed.html)that gives a good description of that dive on the PelAir wreck: Bounty Divers managed to dive on the crashed Pel Air West Wind a few months ago after the area ban was lifted.

We did not get all the way down to the aircraft as this dive was just a reco dive to see if we thought it was possible and/or safe.

As you can see from the footage the fuselage is in two pieces. The rear part is shown very clearly, but we could not see the front section at all. The rear section is the prt that we want to have a look at as is has all of the important parts in and on it ie. the wings, the engines etc.

We have some extremely good divers on Norfolk Island and Bounty Divers will be going down to have another look as soon as the weather permits.

The wreck is sitting at 54m. The video footage was taken from 40m initially and then we moved down to 45m. Before we go any deeper than that we have some serious planning and safety precautions to take care of first. Hmm...so did they get there?? And who or what roped off the tail of VH-NGA and placed a buoy on that rope?? Was it the Vic water coppers rover...

vh nga underwater - YouTube

...or someone else?? :E

Moving on to the "K" post on social media - of which I have somewhat of a fascination...;)

Currently on the t.w.i.t.t.e.r-verse one of the most hit on hashtags is #MH370, so much more than #MH17 - why is this so?? Well I believe it is because people have an extreme fascination for a mystery or - God forbid - a possible conspiracy. Social media therefore provides the perfect platform for people to get involved by actively searching for any snippet of information to help feed human nature's natural inclination to solve a mystery.

While on #MH370 came across a couple of snippets..:E..of interest in regards to the "K" post above. The first was from an app that allows you to expand or make longer t:mad:ts:MuOne:

“If Inmarsat are still holding some cards close it seems ATSB are complicit?

“I still think, it will be the Malaysians (Indonesians, and maybe Thai?) that deserve the stick, for holding back on radar data release.”

I’ll ask again: to the degree that information is being withheld (and that appears to be the case — and by more than one “party” here), how would that be done WITHOUT the complicity of the other stakeholders? Put another way, if Malaysia and Indonesia are the only culprits here, why haven’t they been fully outed? There are competing interests here. And the aviation industry lives (or dies) on certainty — and the flying public’s belief that it’s statistically safer to travel by air than drive a car or cross the street on foot...

...Very clearly, the “authorities” – whether we’re talking about Malaysia, ATSB, AAIB (UK), or the FAA – have convergent interests here. But they have divergent interests as well. In that regard (and before we put ALL of the obfuscation around MH370 in Malaysia’s lap), do people recall what Duncan Steel said about the French (BEA) getting stonewalled?

Remi Jouvet, a member of the French delegation sent to Malaysia, said “The plane was made invisible intentionally.” But UK’s AAIB refused to give MH370 ping data to the French who were INVITED by the Malaysians, because of their expertise gained as a result of AF447. So the French left Malaysia empty-handed.
Ok then there is the many millions of links (to more & more information...:ooh:) that is provided by the many social media platforms...the amount of information available to any individual on the planet is (pardon the pun) absolutely mind boggling! :rolleyes:

Again using #MH370 for yet another Australian connection: The Aussie Connection (https://plus.google.com/102683253990040028382/posts/T7UAMbdVBKm)
...Summary: The Aussie connection and high politics

We see that the military commander at the critical hours of MH370 was probably an Australian officer not a Malaysian. This may help us understand the Australian involvement later during the search after MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean.

The FPDA exists for more than forty years and against all expectations has flourished. Its secret is that it was kept quiet and undemanding. It's not a formal mutual defense treaty and formally the five sides are required only to consult each other in case of defense emergency. The Malaysians are playing "hard to get" and feel smug that the Australians are trying to please them.

Into this delicate web the MH370 affair fell like a bomb. Most Malaysians wouldn't like to hear that an Australian officer is commanding their air defense and if he made a fatal mistake in this case the FPDA is in real danger. We should remember that the FPDA is crucial to the US in its plans to contain China and it'll do whatever needed protect it... Hmm interesting...yet another AVM diligently following Govt orders...;)


1st Nov 2014, 01:01
This from the UK CAA web site;

A ‘root and branch’ review of how the UK’s Air Navigation Order (ANO) impacts on general aviation (GA) has begun, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed today. The wide-ranging review will look at how a more proportionate and lighter touch regulation for general aviation can be achieved.

The review follows a commitment made by the CAA in response to the Government’s Red Tape Challenge last year - which committed the CAA to reforming the regulatory regime for the UK’s GA sector. The first stage of this major project will see the CAA examine all ANO provisions relating to general aviation - from licensing requirements to operations and airworthiness rules – with a view to deregulating or delegating where possible, in order to simplify compliance for GA pilots and organisations. An amended ANO will also speed up the CAA’s ability to introduce reforms already identified.

The initial review is expected to be completed by March 2015, followed by a public consultation on initial concepts and a second consultation in September 2015 on the CAA’s specific recommendations. Any changes to the ANO will have to be approved by the Department for Transport. DfT officials will be working closely with the CAA throughout the review process.

The review will follow the principles already adopted by the CAA in its oversight of general aviation, which include:

• only regulate when necessary, and to do so proportionately;
• deregulate where it can;
• delegate where appropriate;
• not to gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists;
• help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.

The CAA has also established an independent GA Challenge Panel, chaired by Julian Scarfe, Vice President of Europe Air Sports, to oversee the ANO review.

Launching the review, Padhraic Kelleher, the CAA’s Head of Intelligence, Strategy and Policy, said: “The Air Navigation Order has developed over many years, but with the large amount of change that has taken place over recent years, we have to ensure that the ANO is suitable from a GA perspective. I am confident that by the end of the review process we will be well on the way to a simpler, more streamlined and, ultimately more successful, General Aviation sector.”

The CAA’s General Aviation Unit, which was formed earlier this year, has already published a work plan outlining a number of proposed reforms . The CAA and AOPA are also jointly engaged in a project to identify and tackle areas where EU regulations have been 'gold plated'.

thorn bird
1st Nov 2014, 02:21
"The initial review is expected to be completed by March 2015".


They are being a tad ambitious aren't they??

If Australia started today, the initial review would be half finished by, oh, around 2035.
At that point our regulations would have grown to around one hundred volumes of around ten thousand pages each.

CAsA would petition the Government that as it is impossible to complete the process because new regulations keep growing at a faster rate than its possible to review them, the review should be postponed to a date in the future.

There is a possibility that if the review panel could be increased to 150 members, there was a possibility of half finishing the other half of the half already completed.
This would require the fuel levee to be increased by five dollars a liter.

With only 50 aircraft still operating in Australia CAsA had to concede that it was becoming increasingly difficult to achieve the surplus required by government, without an increase in the levee there was no way they could complete the review.

1st Nov 2014, 02:34
I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle.Because they confidently predicted that they would get away with it, scott free.

Their prediction has proved correct.

1st Nov 2014, 02:52
Their prediction has proved correct.

...to date!

1st Nov 2014, 02:59
A ‘root and branch’ review of how the UK’s Air Navigation Order (ANO) impacts on general aviation (GA) has begun, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed today. The wide-ranging review will look at how a more proportionate and lighter touch regulation for general aviation can be achieved.

It is a pity that the industry in this country is not collective and has so many parts pulling in their own direction and not for the greater good.

All attempts to have a real industry consultative forum in Oz have failed since the first was established in the mid 90's. It failed then because the then leader of one org wanted to go alone. It just didn't work, and wont until everyone, but everyone gets together and speaks with one united voice. In doing so, not everyone will achieve their aims, but the industry as a whole is more likely to have a win.

Maybe we can lobby the new DAS to consider something similar to what the UK CAA are doing... heaven help us, we certainly need it!

1st Nov 2014, 03:26
Maybe we can lobby the new DAS to consider something similar to what the UK CAA are doing... heaven help us, we certainly need it!
Waste of time. You need to lobby MrDak, Credlin, the Miniscule and the GWM for permission to do such a thing. The DAS doesn't Captain the S.S CASA. Herr Skull found that out pretty quick :=

1st Nov 2014, 03:31
Thorn bird,

In the past I have had the good fortune of working for two regulatory authorities, D of A (which morphed into the CAA and then CASA) and the UK CAA, in that order. Things were simpler in those days I think, but the professionalism of the CAA was excellent. Things may have changed from my time with them but by the projected review as discussed previously shows that they have the will to get the job done. If it would be possible for CASA to use the CAA review model and experience then why not? We, as an industry are not that far apart surely?


thorn bird
1st Nov 2014, 03:42

Mate with due respect,

CAsA never uses anyone else's "Model"!!! a look at our 25 years in the making half a billion Dollar regulations would convince anyone of that.

All the rest of the world is totally wrong, Australia and our regulator are the only ones who know everything there is to know about aviation, a read of CAsA's press releases would convince most people of that.

1st Nov 2014, 04:02
Thorn bird

You may well be right, but notwithstanding the obstacles and negativity that will be placed in the path of the incoming DAS I hope that he succeeds where others have not.


thorn bird
1st Nov 2014, 05:13

on my bended knees every night I pray, because after 48 years, I saw the best, and the dramatic slide into oblivion that has occurred since.

I don't know how many inquiries we've had, and reviews. Creamie would be the one to tell you that, and that they achieved absolutely ZILCH, at great taxpayer expense.

There is a cadre in CAsA who pull the strings, with top cover provided by a public servant Mandarins mandarin. Any DAS with reformist stars in their eye's are fairly smartly brought into line, and if that doesn't work, stabbed in the back.

From all indications CAsA is not a very pleasant place to work.

So please excuse us if we seem a tad skeptical, most of us have seen it all before.

For me it perhaps doesn't matter much, but I was one of those star struck kids once, hanging off the aerodrome fence.

Its their future I weep for.

Sandy Reith
1st Nov 2014, 06:04
In regard to Mark Skidmore being appointed as CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority there will be many in General Aviation (GA) who were hoping for a person with a wide background, especially in GA.

Steve Creedy's article in the Aus tells us that Mr. Skidmore has experience in civil aviation, quoting Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board Chairman Allan Hawke: “Mark has worked in civilian aviation as a test pilot, business development manager and company director,’’
From the article it seems that Mr Skidmore has very little commercial experience, he has been a career military man nearly all of his working life. No doubt Dr. Hawke, the Board and the Minister will try to deflect the criticism that will surely come about in General Aviation by this appointment.

I'm sure all of us in General Aviation (GA) will wish Mark Skidmore well, but, until there are positive signs to the contrary, we will be left thinking that Canberra has decided that a Canberra man will do what is best for Canberra.

Civil aviation is very different to the military scene, General Aviation is seriously in need of reform, it has stagnated or been declining for many years owing to a lack of airports policy and a regulator bent on hammering GA into oblivion. The recent Regulatory Review Panel has seen fit to suggest a number of reforms that might go some way to redressing the ills that have bedeviled GA for many years. We hope Mr. Skidmore will control CASA and help put General Aviation back on the map where it should be.

Maybe Canberra will once again have a flying school, airline pilots might be taken off the 457 visa list, and CASA might finalise the 25 year process of regulatory reform, reform that New Zealand did in five years. Maybe the taxpayer will get value for money and maybe GA will once again prosper, what is sure is that many skeptics will be watching.

1st Nov 2014, 06:17
Thorn bird

Your sentiments are understood.

My son sits in a cockpit of an RPT operated aircraft flying within Australia. My daughter trundles a trolley up and down the aisle of an international airline. I have now retired, but am drawn to the discussions on this medium in the hope of gaining an insight on the why's and wherefore's of the regulatory system that I was a part of for so many years and which appears to have gone 'wonky'!

At times I am at a loss to explain to my kids the reasons why situations have developed to the point of stupidity. So I say again, I hope the incoming DAS can get a grip and manage the situation to enable us all to slip away from the criticism that tends to colour our thoughts.


1st Nov 2014, 07:32

In your last post you responded to the quote:

I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle.

Because they confidently predicted that they would get away with it, scott free.

Their prediction has proved correct.

I have to agree with you Creampuff, but the $64K questions are:

1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?

2. Why did they do what they did?

I have to say, I'm buggered if I can work it out.

All I can conclude is that the stakes must have been mighty high for both to have done what they did.

Suggestions/answers anyone? :confused:

1st Nov 2014, 07:51
Suggestions/answers anyone?

Maybe ask John Sharpe


1st Nov 2014, 10:06
Yep, Sharpe is written all over this. Also, a bully regulator and an incompetent investigator. I can't see Beaker trying to take on the Skull.
What's more bizarre is how there can be SO much damning public evidence and yet the government does SFA! So much for democracy. The whole case is a sad indictment on our country. Mrdak, you should be ashamed.

Prince Niccolo M
1st Nov 2014, 13:02

In the world to which Creamie refers, I think the answers are clear:

1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?

2. Why did they do what they did?

simply because there was no identified risk because both agencies thought that the event would be ignored - it was not RPT and no one was considered to be a passenger.

I think John Sharpe has a lot of friends and I think there were a lot of people who considered that their career trajectories meant that it would be wise not to make him (and therefore his political connections in both major parties) enemies...

I think that the three main agency players thought that they would sweep away the problematic issues while no one was paying attention, as so often had been the case before. However, as has thankfully been the case before, a number of players considered previously to be of no import chose not to read or accept the script and played with a straight bat, thus allowing the light to be shone where others wanted the dark to remain.

After that, it just became a test of damage control, reticence and political inertia.

Simple really...

yr right
1st Nov 2014, 19:32
This is how you pass your mistake back onto the industry


What engineer is going to do this after what has happened and then place them selfs and the lions door if they miss some thing.

1st Nov 2014, 20:15
Regrettably, probably since the cave, the use of 'influence' has been an accepted norm; one way or another we all do it and by and large society accepts that this happens. So, no one is too surprised, shocked or even offended when Sharpe uses his 'influence' to shape an outcome; particularly if it is in defence of a company which employs a lot of folks, has sensitive contracts to protect and a public image to maintain. It would be quite natural to speak softly in receptive ears – to ensure that the accident was given a 'minimum fuss', low key treatment. I find it hard to believe a man like Sharpe would deliberately set out to conspire with 'the powers that be' to bury the incident or to crucify the pilot. It would be counterproductive, whereas a little judicious 'hosing down' of the situation would be expected and of benefit. Sharpe is probably clever enough to know that.

With a little imagination, one can see Sharpe 'having a word' – asking for a softly-softly approach, as little fuss as possible along with an iron clad guarantee to 'sort out' whatever problems or discrepancies were discovered; to keep the books balanced. McComic was away and Farq-u-hardson was on deck, he threw the juicy bone to his favourite dog and game on. The rest as they say – is history.

The 'risk' was subliminal; I doubt anyone factored in the overly enthusiastic, opportunistic, reactive, self serving, vicious response from the ambitious lower management levels. A careful study of the pertinent 'management' ploys reveals much, the pathway clearly defined through the paper-trail, where clearly defined breeches of policy, protocol and manipulation of 'the law' have been cobbled together, crudely and in some haste, not to promote safety; but to satisfy personal, twisted ambition, a symptom of a very deep psychosis.

No, the part that puzzles me is why so many gold stars were flushed down the pan. CASA could have said that 'they', through diligent audit had discovered some elevated systematic risk areas within Pel Air and their own system and was moving swiftly, in cooperation with the company to plug up the holes. Gold star and no more said you'd think.

Nope, quality audit and expert opinion was rejected or diminished, those that wrote the summaries were denigrated and the serious, systematic flaws in the CASA/Pel-Air cheese not only went unplugged, but were treated in a very cavalier manner. The fix to both systems being applied and accepted in a breathtakingly short period. The 'experts' rightly miffed, outraged and offended wanted no further part. And so, without really fixing up the identified problem in both areas, a magic wand (or golden pen) was twirled and all was, once again, rosy in the garden. Two bonuses were extracted, a pilot was crucified with the option to devastate a career and, a not so carefully plagiarised 'report' could be winnowed out, to help further career advancement.

I reckon Sharpe and even McComic were shocked at the depth of depravity; but, they were stuck with it, being the 'executive' and all. Whether it was dogged determination to defend his troops or old fashioned arrogance and bile that gave us the Pel-Air inquiry is not known (for certain): what is known is that with sane, calm management the Nick Xenophon quest could have been headed off at the pass. The real risks were taken not during the soft handling of the Norfolk ditching event, which could have been quietly (as requested) managed to insignificance; but in allowing the whole shambles to become public and subjected to Senate scrutiny. Once there, it was too late for anything else but honesty; even then, that was denied.

I doubt I'd have risked it all, not at those odds. I'd have sacrificed the management team so fast it would make your head spin. "Senator, we are revisiting the Pel Air incident, we find that the audit was badly handled by the management team, who have since been dismissed." "We have appointed an acknowledged, qualified expert to complete the task and look forward to implementing the across the board improvements to air safety, we at CASA are dedicated to providing". "Pel Air has been allowed, in the interests of procedural fairness to continue it's operations under a regime of monthly audit and increased surveillance". Gold star.

It turned out that they couldn't do the snow job properly: hadn't got the brains to spin their way out of bother; or even the nouse enough to get off the track when the train was coming, then it became a high risk, high stakes game. The world is watching the MH 370 effort, the PM has his nuts in a vice with Chemilnecal Trails looking to score off any loose words; and we put up an ATSB highly compromised by cooperation with a safety authority that can't manage a simple, low key fix of what was a fairly straightforward event.

Perhaps CASA never, ever, for a moment considered that answers would be sought. Had it been managed properly, from the off, those questions would never have been asked. Had 'they' allowed normal process under policy to take place, the Senate would not be anything other than vaguely aware that there had been an incident and CASA was in control.

So, Creamy and Nick – I can agree that there was no consideration of 'being caught' in the matrix – but I doubt the cognitive or intellectual horsepower was available to 'predict' the eventual outcome. I could believe arrogant assumption, in fact, I'd bet on it. Apart from McComic (and the honourable resigned), do you know everyone involved with Pel Air is still drawing wages, expenses and super. Some have even been promoted.

The sad part is that the Pel Air disgrace was but a 'minor' embuggerance compared to some of the better covered, non examined cases CASA have 'managed'. Instead of gold stars and choc frogs for 'clever' management they have deeply annoyed a Senate, almost endangered two minuscules, embarrassed an industry and now, though association the ATSB is set to compromise the government; as any shadow passing over the MH 370 situation will be closely examined by the world.

Absolutely stellar: the stuff of legend; and, quite a legacy for the new chum to live down. Get in first mate – demand a judicial (or Senate) inquiry, even if only for top cover – lest the tar brush be applied to some nether regions when all is revealed. Guilty by association is not a great way to start.

Ends Sunday ramble, saddles up the Gobbledock's mighty beast, whistles up dogs and heads off along the river bank anticipating fresh coffee and blueberry muffins (gods willing – weather permitting) on return.


yr right
1st Nov 2014, 21:36
Now also please remember that the AAAA are trying for self regulation. Casa went against the manufacture in allowing the we'll over weight limitation. Plus we lost life's over this.

The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.

1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.

yr right
1st Nov 2014, 22:04
Now also please remember that the AAAA are trying for self regulation. Casa went against the manufacture in allowing the we'll over weight limitation. Plus we lost life's over this.

The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.

1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.

1st Nov 2014, 23:25
It made as much sense the second time as the first. :ok:

2nd Nov 2014, 00:44
I note that I didn't say they confidently predicted they would not get caught.

What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free.

Eddie O'Beid got caught. His response is to yawn. There's a reason for that.

yr right
2nd Nov 2014, 01:05
Yeh creamie you been in the 1% group haven't you

Prince Niccolo M
2nd Nov 2014, 12:00
I kept seeing "yr right" as "you're right", but now I see that it is actually "yeah, right!"...

And, reluctantly, I disagree with Creamie in that repetition made it even worse!

But I am in heated agreement with Creamie that a little bit of embarrassment is quite bearable when there is no real consequence. The days of men of integrity falling on their swords for a failure to maintain the public's (or shareholders') expectations of fiduciary excellence are long gone.

2nd Nov 2014, 18:48
I had Two long talks with people about CASA this weekend. Neither of them were reassuring.

One was with an Optometrist acquaintance who had completed the CASA course but on reading the CASA legal agreement to be appointed a CASA testing officer, declined to sign it.

The reasons were:

(A) The ocular standards required for pilots were far too strict in his opinion. One misread letter is a fail. He felt that the standards were ridiculously tight to the point where he could just about fail anybody if he had a mind to.

(B) CASA required him to report to CASA even the suspicion of a developing condition of any sort. For example, Glaucoma, which, according to him, may take Thirty years before it has a detectable effect on vision. Then of course eye photography now provides indications of potential cholesterol, diabetes and blood pressure conditions, he said. Needless to say, once reported to CASA Aviation Medicine, the medical certificate is only going to get issued by CASA after thousands of dollars of further tests each year. The Optometrist felt he was being asked to be a CASA spy, since even consultations not related to a medical certificate still required him to dob in any pilot he thought might have an issue.

(C) CASA waved the big "Conflict of interest" stick! If he tested a pilot and discovered his vision needed correction via prescribing glasses, then these had to be prescribed by a second separate Optometrist because he had a conflict of interest!!!!!!!

Can you believe that??? Here is CASA, the most conflicted entity in the entire country - regulator, policeman, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, and they are primly telling a professional Optometrist to beware of conflict of interest???? This just beggars belief!

As he explained it. If you go to a CASA approved Optometrist for an eye test, not even not connected with your medical certificate, you risk getting reported to CASA!

Furthermore, here is a freedom of information request for someone: How many "renew by CASA only" pilot medical certificates exist and what are the numbers issued by year for the last Ten years or so? I have a sneaking suspicion that a little empire is being built in the medical section by inflating the numbers of medical certificates that require CASA consideration to renew them.

Second conversation was with an ex public servant senior enough to hob nob socially with Ministers and even the PM. When I explained my perplexity at CASAs alleged behaviour, he explained that it was consistent with neither major political party wanting anything to do with aviation at all.

The only workable solution according to him was political. Industry talking sweet reason to the regulator is a waste of time, even internal CASA staff talking sweet reason to their bosses is a waste of time. The bosses have been told to just ensure that aviation does not impinge on the body politic. The pilots have about the same political pull as prisoners rights groups - nobody cares.

The solution needs to be political action including the possibility of strike action that gets positive (not negative) media attention, and given pilot disunity that isn't going to happen.

2nd Nov 2014, 18:53
CP –"What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free."

QED, and same-same furious agreement. No consideration was given to being caught. Why? well even if caught 'in flagranti delicto' the regulators are secure in the knowledge that 'they' are not only above the law, but very well protected from prosecution under the law, by those offended or by those charged with upholding the law.

Yet if some poor mutt dares to contravene a small part of some arcane law, the full weight of the authority, using public money; in the name of safety is used to enforce that law, policy or whim – as, when and if it suits.

It leaves us living in a well padded state of reversed anarchy – under the rule of the of the regulator, where daring to question is a heinous crime, let alone protest. Challenge is treated as open rebellion, the challenger destroyed, at any price.

Australia – love it or leave it.

3rd Nov 2014, 20:08
Melbourne Cup Day - One of the traditional times for Government to release bad news. I wonder if we get the Governments response to the review today or do we get it as a belated after Christmas present?

Sandy Reith
3rd Nov 2014, 22:20
It is unlikely that the government's response to the review will make much difference unless some Coalition MP's bring pressure to bear on Truss through cabinet. In other words I hope no one is self asphyxiated waiting for nearly nothing. The Skidmore appointment is not a portent for change. Your ordinary MP might take note that airline pilots are on the 457 visa list. I've asked my MP to consider that it is better to home grow pilots for economical and safety reasons.
Another suggestion to an MP; there could be bad publicity in the offing if there is no reform.

What is needed is political action of any and all sorts.

It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.

3rd Nov 2014, 22:41

It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.

Because CASA do not have the competence, capability or experience to regulate Qantas and Virgin, they are left to their own devices, although the formalities are preserved. This was even the case when I worked at Ansett in the 1970's.

Cowardly CASA therefore sticks to terrorising the GA sector.

3rd Nov 2014, 22:54
Wren460, the reason why most pilots are reasonably quiet is because they have spent decades and a lot of money in pursuit of the career they love and they know that just one outspoken public criticism of CASA could see their career, future and retirement plans flushed down the shitter in the blink of an eye. Now those who live with the fairies won't believe that for a second, but those who know and play within the system know this only too well - Butsons, Quadrio's et al.
The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government.
CASA won't change because it doesn't have to. The Government, ICAO, the UN, our laws, our politicians and all the demons in heaven don't want change, don't care about change, don't want to mandate change, couldn't give a shit about change. Change will only come about if there is an Australian revolution or an A380 pancakes itself on top of the Australian war memorial (will likely be blamed on a Captain with alleged CVD anyway) . In the meantime boys, remember the film The Castle and keep dreaming.

thorn bird
4th Nov 2014, 02:30
Err Soty old mate,

"The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government".

Tad harsh old boy!!...

been trying to think what you left out?

Ah, you forgot corrupt!!

Anybody have anything else?

4th Nov 2014, 18:46
Wren - Many of the 'senior' airline pilots have spoken out, but as a cohesive group, in compliance with company policy and dignity, when and where it mattered, through the 'union' system.

'They' have spoken eloquently and effectively at every one of the Senate inquiries, i.e. Pilot training (derailed by the Tiger smoke and mirrors show), the Pel Air inquiry and responded very well to the Forsyth review; the 'pilot bodies' and I suspect the companies provided massive support to John O'Brien and the Colour Vision debacle. The GA associations have also contributed, in a similar fashion. I fail to understand what more you believe could have been done, short of camping on the Truss lawn and setting off fireworks to wake the lazy, useless blighter from his self induced trance.

'Industry' has responded magnificently, (considering the risk) whether the investment of time, skill, trouble and effort, all voluntary, (blood sweat and tears) has been in vain or not only time will tell.

I'd just say thank you, to all: well done; and never, ever quit. Bravo.

Toot toot. MkII.

5th Nov 2014, 04:09
Mid-week around the traps...:cool:

Borghetti keen to ease regulation to improve productivity (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/borghetti-keen-to-ease-regulation-to-improve-productivity/)
Virgin Australia chief executive John Borghetti says government should ensure regulation does not stifle the growth and productivity of Australia’s airlines.

Speaking in Canberra to the Transport and Tourism Forum leadership summit’s audience of political and industry figures, Borghetti noted airline productivity had been a key driver of the growth in Australia’s aviation industry over the past decade, and said government had a key role to play to ensure regulatory burdens did not throttle that growth.

“Ensuring that the regulatory and compliance burden is not impeding the growth and competitiveness of the industry is an area where government can very clearly play a role,” Borghetti said on October 29.

“Undertaking the usual business approach of robust cost-benefit analyses before introducing new regulations and considering opportunities to streamline current regulations, or for that matter looking at new approaches rather than simply adding layers and layers of regulation over time, and keeping on putting bandaids in place, are cases in point.” But your pitching your message to the wrong bloke JB...:ugh: Our miniscule is currently either fluffing in the bath with his beloved boats or playing with his full replica Thomas the Tank Engine set...:E

Meanwhile over at Fort Fumble it is good to see someone in the airspace office is awake and did not miss Dick's broadside at the big "R" regulator - Dick Smith warns pilots to be wary of new rules at uncharted airports (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/dick-smith-warns-pilots-to-be-wary-of-new-rules-at-uncharted-airports/story-e6frg95x-1227107623063) - here is the response as relayed by the Hitch crew:CASA responds to ALA Frequency Question (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-responds-to-ala-frequency-question)
05 Nov 2014

CASA has responded to criticisms over their advice to broadcast on the area VHF frequency when operating from a airfield not marked on charts.
Former CASA boss Dick Smith highlighted the issue on Friday (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/dick-smith-labels-casa-frequency-advice-dangerous) with a scathing response to advice provided in a Civil Aviation Advisory publication (CAAP).

A CASA spokesperson reiterated the regulator's position in an e-mail sent to Australian Flying.

"The multicom frequency (126.7) is not appropriate here because pilots who are unaware of the unmarked aerodrome will be using the Area frequency, and will not hear multicom broadcasts," the e-mail stated. "Pilots transiting at low levels over uncharted aerodromes will not be monitoring multicom—they could be flying on the same track not knowing traffic is coming up.

"Multicom was never a national frequency—it was the frequency to be used at, or in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes without a discrete frequency.

"The area frequency also has an advantage in an emergency, for receiving ATC alerts, and to receive a surveillance information service (SIS) if required.

"Uncharted aerodromes can be very busy. If you are concerned about frequency congestion, and wish to have an aerodrome charted, the best approach is for the aerodrome owner to work through the local Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) to seek a change.
"It is not possible to develop guidance addressing every possible circumstance. This is because radio alerted see-and-avoid in Class G airspace is subject to many variables, not least of which is that not all aircraft will be VHF-radio equipped. So pilots must exercise judgement and airmanship to determine what broadcasts should be made and on what frequency.

"Pilots must check all applicable charts—WAC, VTC, VNC etc. This is important because chart limitations mean that an aerodrome may be marked on one chart but not another."
Smith's objection to the advice is based on the possibility that broadcasts on the area frequency may block out important instructions given to passenger jets.

Your Say
We're keen to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment below and tell us if you think 126.7 or the area VHF frequency should be used for airfields not marked on ANY chart. Could someone send Hitch a link for the relevant thread on this subject - plenty of comments in there...:E

While on Fort Fumble it would appear that there has been some spring-cleaning going on pending the arrival of the new DAS...:rolleyes: Trouble is they couldn't rouse Tezza from his arvo slumber to pen his moniker to this missive to the Heff...;):

1.) Correspondence received on 31 October 2014 from Mr Terry Farquharson, Acting Director of Aviation Safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 684 KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/CASA_31102014.pdf))

Trim Ref: SE1415

28October 2014

Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport Parliament House

Dear Senator Heffernan

Clarification of an issue raised at Estimates

I write regarding an issue raised at the October 2014 Estimates hearing regarding credit card transactions.

During the hearing, Senator Sterle asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to advise the Committee' ... how many employees have had to pay back money for private expenses that were claimed on cash or credit card' (Hansard (proof) at p. 153).

In responding to Senator Sterle's questions on this matter, Ms Gillian Savage and Mr Craig Jordan inadvertently overstated the number of employees who have had to repay money for private expenses made on CASA credit cards during the financial year 2014-15, and understated somewhat the estimated amounts of typical charges of this kind. The correct information is provided below.

Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.

As Mr Jordan advised during the hearing, all monies related to inadvertent purchases have been repaid. CASA also advises that no instances of fraud were identified.

I trust this advice clarifies matters on this issue.

Yours sincerely

Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety

5th Nov 2014, 18:41
Deadly boring warning, just couldn't let it slide by. I expect there are those who would call me a cynic, or at least not a troo bloo believer in CASA speak, but even the most gooey eyed Casaphile deconstructing the statement below, even using CASA applied 'logic' would have pause.

Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.

"Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse": that's July, August and September this year (three months or a quater for the purist) which is 4.333' incidents per month, so a reasonable forecast of 51.96 incidents a year, :: one a week.

"with 11 instances being self-reported". You notice that the 'terms of use' are not specified and there is no yardstick to measure the 'legitimate' uses of the card against the 'illegitimate' which is passing strange enough, but who were the 'volunteers' who so selflessly owned up? and why did they feel they could use 'the card' illegitimately in the first instance?, perhaps it's those naughty suffer-market scanners, or McDonalds don't take Mastercard.

"and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes". Is it for this useful purpose, (like the DAMP), we pay a 441 strong 'corporate services' outfit to hunt down these perpetrators of credit card misuse. It seems highly possible, going on CASA numbers that it costs more to 'audit' the loss than the small transactions acknowledged cost.

"The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43". Tricky numbers there, one $150 misuse a week for the year = $7920.26. The $622 'misuse' is probably a genuine 'Whoops'; it's the little ones that are a worry; who uses a credit card to buy a $2.00 bus ticket?, it costs more to use the card. But a multitude of between $20 and $50 touches soon add up and pay the golf club membership, so essential to Can'tberra living.

I don't care about the money so much as I care that the CASA actually believe that the Senators or even Joe Public are naive enough to actually believe this rubbish or dopey enough to accept it. What is needed? – well the Auditor General through CASA, ASA and perhaps even ATSB would be a start – a goodwill gesture if you like; now that would be of interest in the 'self reporting' stakes.

No wonder Terry didn't sign the missive; I'm sure I wouldn't have either...;)

5th Nov 2014, 19:27
And I reiterate that:

- they apparently issue corporate credit cards with the PayWave function enabled; and

- the holders of these cards apparently wave their wallets at the PayWave terminal with the expectation that it will magically 'pick' and charge the personal credit card.

Comedy gold. :D

5th Nov 2014, 20:50
The pay wave instructions are that card is removed from wallet and waved in front of reader. Approx 4cm.

7th Nov 2014, 03:24
From - The Last Minute Hitch: 7 November 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-7-november-2014) :D:D:
When John McCormick announced his departure as CASA Director of Aviation Safety, I was very quick to point out that we were naive if we thought that changing leaders was enough to fix culture at CASA. Similarly, just because the head of the aviation medical division Pooshan Navathe will leave next year (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/avmed-boss-to-leave-casa-next-year), we are foolish to think the culture within AVMED will automatically change. Of all the divisions within CASA, it is AVMED that is drawing the greatest amount of derision from the industry. Hardly a week goes by when we don't hear of another story of a pilot treated harshly by a seeming lack of logic and fairness from AVMED. There is a long way to go, and hopefully Mark Skidmore is the man to step out on the journey.

CASA has hit back on the matter of radio frequencies for airfields not marked on charts (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-responds-to-ala-frequency-question). They are reiterating their position on the need to use the area VHF not 126.7. This is a classic example of the old saying: in aviation, if you ask five people what they think you'll get six opinions. Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.
Ps Confusing isn't it Creamy...:confused:

Perhaps this helps or not...:E
.AR201400065 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2014/ar201400065.aspx)Date reported- 07 August 2014
Concern title - The processes used by CASA and Airservices Australia to make changes to Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
Concern summary - The concern related to the procedures used by both CASA and Airservices to make changes to the AIP.
Industry / Operation affected - Aviation: General aviation
Concern subject type - Aviation: Airspace

Reporter's concern

The reporter expressed a safety concern regarding the procedures CASA and Airservices Australia have in place when changes are made to the AIP.
The reporter pointed out that changes were made to the AIP on the 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency which was to be used at aerodromes which did not have a specific CTAF [Common Traffic Advisory Frequency]. These changes contradicted other areas of the AIP (such as the definition of 'Multicom') and resulted in the likelihood of two aircraft operating to an aerodrome on different frequencies, diminishing the collision avoidance benefits of radio-alerted see and avoid, and creating additional radio broadcasts and over transmissions on frequencies used regularly by airlines. These changes were followed by a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) released in December 2013 again contradicting statements within the AIP. The CASA safety advisors do not seem to have been consulted or made aware of the changes, leaving them giving again contradictory messages as to which frequency should be used.
The Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) was not consulted about these changes. The frequency confusion caused by non-aligned documentation and lack of industry education has existed for more than 12 months.

Operator's response (Operator 1)

Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding the changes made to the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) on 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency to be used at aerodromes which do not have a specific Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF).
Airservices clarifies that there is a formal process agreed by CASA and Airservices for amending the AIP, and in accordance with this process, the agency (CASA or Airservices) initiating the change is responsible for assessing the impact of the change and taking relevant actions such as industry consultation and education to manage any associated risks.
Where AIP changes are initiated by Airservices they are managed in accordance with Airservices Safety Management System (SMS). By applying our SMS, Airservices ensures that the impact of the change is clearly understood and any associated risks to air traffic management are identified and managed appropriately. Once approved by Airservices and CASA, changes are sent to Airservices Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) group who are responsible for publishing updates to the AIP.
As the change referred to by the reporter was initiated by CASA, Airservices suggests that CASA would be best placed to respond to the specific concerns raised in this REPCON.
Airservices notes that as a result of a CASA Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the implemented AIP change and associated Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) additional amendments were made to the AIP. These changes are to be published on 21 August 2014 (AIP issue AL80) and address the reporter's concern.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

There is a documented process in place to affect changes to the AIP as well as agreed procedures between CASA and Airservices to progress change requests to the AIP which is:
The procedures for approving changes to the AIP are included in a manual which is stored in CASA's corporate records management system;
There is a Letter of Agreement between CASA and Airservices on how both organisations progress approval of changes to the AIP;
A standard template has been developed to facilitate AIP changes;
AIP changes within CASA are approved by a selected group of senior managers who consult within their teams;
Approvals for AIP changes are recorded in CASA's corporate records management system; and
Only changes approved by CASA can be published in the AIP.
In relation to this specific change, the original change to the AIP regarding CTAF, Broadcast Areas (BAs) and Area VHF frequency was initiated on the request of CASA's Aviation Safety Advisors to clarify to pilots which frequency they should be on in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome and away from aerodromes. It did not seek to introduce a change in procedures or frequency.
Generally, changes to AIP are not consulted with RAPACs. RAPACs are used as a vehicle to review frequencies in use at an aerodrome or by a group of aerodromes and may recommend establishing a discrete CTAF at an aerodrome, allocating a discrete CTAF used by neighbouring aerodromes or establishing BAs.

7th Nov 2014, 06:11
I wasn't aware that AIP was a CAAP. :confused:

8th Nov 2014, 19:10
Hitch – "Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.

CAAP and compliance with. This is one of the many 'issues' which will 'test' the resolve, probity, integrity and probably the patience of the Skidmore regime. And, it will have to be a 'true' consult with industry, the greatest good for the greatest number, in the 'true' sense of accepting the umpires decision at the end of it all.

The great debate of whether a two tier or a three tier system needs to be employed. There is serious support for both propositions, valid argument for and against, there is even a school of thought which would like to see a 'spilt system', three layers for 'engineering' two layers for 'operations'. If Skidmore allows a 'fair dinkum' debate it will be as fierce as it will be entertaining.

OMO – but one of the 'elements' missing is a phrase something like "a method of compliance, but not the only method" which implies that the 'Advisory' as provided by the 'third' tier is 'preferred' but an alternative method may be approved; bit like a MEL, equivalent safety standard if you like. Where in theory you believe you can disregard a CAAP, you can; but do so at your own peril. Say you run out of noise and you have been operating a system which does not comply with the CAAP; if there is no approval for the 'difference' then the CAAP will be viewed as 'the law' by a judge and CASA. Even if there is a two tier system and you propose an alternative means of compliance, it must be a formally accepted and approved 'difference'.

The above is a potted version and not legally nice, but it's one of the 'big' decisions industry will have to form an opinion on; if industry wants to have a say that is. I have provided (with permission) below part of one of the many opinions on the matter for discussion. It's a worthy, important topic, even if as dry as dust. It is one of the many reasons why Truss must publish the industry response to the WLR and is failing industry by not doing so; the issue needs to be addressed, in full, consultation between industry and CASA essential.

It is not the only argument, nor is it the necessarily a right one, but it is food for thought; and, if we are to regain some semblance of 'say' in how industry is managed, your point of view must be considered. FWIW:-

Items 30 and 31.

Officially, Australia has, since 1998 operated in a two tier legislative structure. The two tier structure has worked well for over 15 years, the recently introduced third tier has not. Participants involved with a CASR Part 42/145 organisation for example will confirm and define exactly what the problems are, even to a simple, routine matter such as negotiating a 'variation'.

To have a third tier of legislation (by whatever name, Manuals of Standards, Aviation Standards, CAO etc.) which require no less than full parliamentary process for each operational change is a significant impost; but, it is the built in rigidity, the 'inflexibility', which raises objections from an industry already enraged, disadvantaged by and burdened with the cost of regulation, combined with an aggressive, obsessive culture of micro management.

The premeditated, deliberate CASA manipulation of the “Manuals of Standards” (MOS) has been designed in such a way that Australia has, to all intents and purpose, been returned to a third tier structure; this without the benefit of industry consultation, consideration or acceptance.

The “manual of standard” terminology was originally used to describe certificates issued under CASR Part 21 such as aircraft TC, STC, APMA, ATSO. etc. It was never intended to meet 'aviation safety standards' specified in 9(1)(c).

Simply put, there is no risk reduction (safety benefit) in the current interpretation of 'third tier' of legislation. Arguably the reverse is true, due to regulator inability to act or respond 'quickly' to rapidly changing aviation circumstance. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the inflexibility of three tier regulation increases operational and accidental breech risk levels.

Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth), the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth); and, due process to create/enact/change a legislative instrument, change can take years, while an AC/AMC (1) advisory) can be changed within days of a requirement becoming known.

(1) An incorrect, although commonly made statement is "Advisory Circulars (AC) are not enforceable". This is a complete misrepresentation of the legal position. The preamble to every AC states: “A way but not the only way to comply with Regulation ABC; (the regulation which raises the AC). However "not the only way” clearly releases the operator to 'negotiate' an alternative Acceptable Means of Compliance (ACM) with CASA.

Three tier legislation, modelled on the Canadian system would be acceptable, provided changes the current two-tier regulatory framework evolved to where the third-tier standards are drafted in plain, easy to understand language and Regulations are drafted in a clear succinct style, defining provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences.

Third tier ‘standards’; provided as either 'legislation' or Advisory (Acceptable Means of Compliance) - must comply with CASA function under Sec 9 (1)( c) of the Act to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. Amending ‘standards’ specified in the regulations to “aviation safety standards” specified in regulations, to be provided in either Operational Specification or as an Instrument.

Section 98 5AB of the Act states that a legislative instrument can be issued. An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.

Thanks P7 a.k.a. TOM....:ok:

8th Nov 2014, 20:36
Kharon, basically CASA is capricious and it likes to that way because it affords more power to its staff without adding any responsibility for outcomes.

Hence its use of "Accepted" rather than "Approved", "a method of compliance, but not the only method", "Appropriate" , "Fit and Proper" "safety" and half a dozen other nominatives that can mean anything you like with the aid of a complaisant Administrative Appeals Tribunal and an expensive lawyer.

If CASA were a genuine aviation regulator instead of a sham, the wording of regulations would remove all reference to nominatives; they would exclusively use "Approved", "required", and "Recommended". "Fit and proper" would be gone.

"Safety" would be replaced by the words "risk analysis has demonstrated".

If you follow "Approved" or "recommended" procedures and satisfy "requirements" then you are immune from prosecution. Conversely, deviate from "recommended" and the onus is now on you to make the safety case.

To put that another way; I challenge CASA to produce a simple one sided A4 page checklist, written in plain English, set in Twelve point type, that specifies the requirements a Cessna 172 Pilot and aircraft must meet in order to automatically pass a ramp check (roadworthy to non pilots) without a single weasel word nominative in it, or reference to any other publications or regulation. I know at least one pilot who asked for this and was told it was "too hard".

The above is the essence of Weberian bureaucracy, designed at least a century ago to stamp out corruption - rigid requirements, rigid authorities and rigid procedures and rigid decision criteria, all of which are transparent, logically arranged and subject to public scrutiny . If CASA cannot do this, and I don't think it can, for a generic training aircraft like a C172 then their entire regulatory construct is a complete and utter sham.

As an aside,, when I first visited Germany I ran straight into a Webers handiwork: I was surprised and frustrated to be told by customs officials that they were prohibited by law from helping me with filling out some paperwork. I was to learn much later in my MBA that "helping someone fill out the forms", presumably with a small gift at the end, was one of the earliest types of corruption targeted by Weber and similar Prussian reformers.

8th Nov 2014, 20:59
Phelan had a crack at it - Start here (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/01/11/whos-getting-it-right/):-

Reproduced by kind permission of – Pro Aviation

Author's note.

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, devotes the first 91 words to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelf-ware"; a pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight.

Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire.

Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than the pilot.

The Australian version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring to shelf-ware as listed.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 does in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event if requested.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and dopers.

Literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to the pilot in command, and they are spelled out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

Paul Phelan.

Yet they persist, despite free expert advice, peer examples and some very good models to work with..:ugh:

8th Nov 2014, 22:49
If CASA, (perhaps rename Civil Aviation Solicitors Authority). More experts in that field than aviation involved...?safety?

The angles of interception hindering the Ghost of NGA and many others to Rest In Justice (RIJ), have been most disturbing.

I question:

Have the Regulatory and/or Investigative authorities Perverted the Course of Justice?
Have they trespassed in the course of any investigation? Which there is still no answers.

As this is a Commonwealth offence and CASA have their own Fort, the only one who can ask the questions is the Minister. Well.

Who can guard the guards?

A change of the guards is needed.

But how? Every avenue meets with a block.


dubbleyew eight
9th Nov 2014, 05:26
the problem you people all have is that you want a reassuring religion.
you want to feel safe when you fly.
you need reassurance.
you crave the waft of holy smoke.
the anointing of blessings that will make you all safe.

you are a sad, sad bunch of the clueless.

there is a technology to aviation.
aviation is an engineering of structures to meet the physical forces experienced during flight.
you need to work to understand the engineering.
yr right posted a link to the most amazing admission of incompetence ever posted by CAsA.
paraphrasing "we have abused our position of privilege and issued approvals to do things that have no sound engineering basis. in fact many of these approvals have led to situations so dangerous that people have suffered and been killed by mid air breakups cause by our incompetence. but tough shit we are here to stay. please report to us the extent of our stuffups."

the only way forward is to totally ignore CAsA.
turn your backs on them, and the ATSB, and go flying.
neuter them by having nothing whatsoever to do with them.
it is the only way to deal with this totally incompetent organisation.
let them huff and puff to a wall of backs.

9th Nov 2014, 12:04
Kharon brought up acceptable means of compliance.

For a maintenance org it could work well. An acceptable or alternative means of compliance could be EASA'so AMC. Which could then make it easier to get EASA approval and also maintain compliance to casa and EASA requirements.

9th Nov 2014, 21:12
While we are still waiting - along with our new DAS Skates apparently - :zzz:..for the miniscule and his motley crew of discredited crats to respond to the Forsyth report HMHB brings up yet another fundamental pillar of a sound State aviation safety system i.e. AME/LAME & MROs. Perfect timing as AMROBA have recently released their November edition newsletter which gives an interesting review of the current snail's pace state of play...:E

First and somewhat related to Biccy's post
By now everyone should have read the NPRM and hopefully drawn the same conclusions. This proposal is unworkable and therefore must be rejected unless some major changes are adopted.
CASA has not addressed the fundamental problem facing the aviation industry — a clear delineation between AME training and the LAME’s responsibility.
AMROBA was involved in consultation with CASA on removing the ridiculous “exclusion” system and create a licence plus ratings just like CAR 31/CAO 100.90 series. What was not discussed is the broad based training needed to underpin this aviation industry.
What is missing in aviation today is the previous broad based AME training system that provided AQF transportable qualifications. CASA has not consulted on how this proposed AME licence and ratings will be integrated into the confusing CASR system.
Though the proposed licence and ratings, with some adjustments, will be better received by non-airline maintenance organisations, there is real concerns with what CASA has highlighted in their “Key Proposal”.
The first paragraph would mean that Schedule 6 ICAO responsibilities would be replaced by CASR 42 LAME privileges & responsibilities. Part 42 is about signing for maintenance tasks and signing the maintenance release. It is not about signing “COMPLETION” of maintenance that can be carried out by AMEs. Nor does it require “stage” inspections and completion of mods, repairs, etc. i.e. coordination.
ICAO states - “the privileges of the holder of an aircraft maintenance licence shall be to certify the aircraft or parts of the aircraft as airworthy after an authorized repair, modification or installation of an engine, accessory, instrument, and/or item of equipment, and to sign a maintenance release following inspection, maintenance
operations and/or routine servicing.”

The removal of Schedule 6 responsibilities that are based on ICAO privileges and to overcome safety related issues with maintenance records in the past is not supported.
It works and enables AMEs to perform and certify maintenance tasks and the LAME to coordinate the maintenance.

Our safety record did not come about by accident. In the non-airline sector, the LAME is the quality control of maintenance. CASA’s proposal under the CASR’s is to remove that privilege like they have done in the airline sectors.

Both EASA & FAA use the LAME (B1/2 or A&P/IA) as quality control.
And next AMROBA's take on the new DAS appointment...:rolleyes::
CASA’s New DAS’s Challenges Volume 11, Issue 11 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%2011.pdf)

AVM Mark Skidmore has been appointed by the CASA Board for a period of 5 years. As many of our members have commented—obviously nobody in civil aviation are seen as appropriate or maybe nobody in civil aviation is willing to apply for the job. The job is not seen as attractive to overseas based ex-regulators either.

This makes 4 successive DAS that have had their base training in the RAAF with various levels of civil aviation experience. Mark Skidmore has the least amount of civil aviation experience than his predecessors. This means that he will be totally influenced by his staff in how to provide regulatory oversight, how to develop and apply the regulations and how they are applied.

Is this not the issue raised by many submissions to the ASRR?
Though hopes for the industry were positive with the election of the LNP, they actually had an aviation policy that sounded positive and the Minister introduced a regulatory review that also made positive recommendations and had industry support, many have lost the trust they put in government. Of course, the new DAS may completely surprise us.

At this stage, we do not know whether the Minister will endorse the recommendations from the ASRR Report, nor do we know when the vacancies on the CASA Board will be announced.

Neither will make much difference UNLESS the government amends the Civil Aviation Act to provide the “head of power” and direction to implement the ASRR Report recommendations.

The 3 tier system recommended in the ASRR Report, if done correctly, can return to a “rule of law” system that Australia is supposed to have.

· Civil Aviation Act—enables aviation to happen.
· CA[S]R—specifies how the legislation is applied.
· Standards—The Government gives force of law to standards, by including or referring to them in the Act or Regulations.

The question is, can the new DAS get back to a system where what the industry comply with is specified in the Act, regulations and legislative standards?

Compliance must be with the Act, Regulations and Standards NOT requirements contained elsewhere.

Most employers in our association find the regulatory system a mess, complicated and confusing that is really dependent on the interpretation of the next CASA audit team or any other CASA officer.

Can DAS Skidmore overcome the issues identified in the ASRR Report so industry can prosper?

One of the first challenges, if the government endorses the ASRR recommendations, is restructuring CASA so it aligns with industry clients. The ASRR provided guidance for a client based organisation but the “maintenance & production” sector was ignored.

The Australian aviation industry is fundamentally five major operational departments as follows:
1. Product Certification & Design
2. Maintenance & Production including training
3. Airspace & Aerodromes
4. General Aviation, Aerialwork & flight training
5. Air Transport operations
6. [Temporary] Regulatory Reform (3 years)

If the new DAS follows the intent of the ASRR, then the regulatory reform will be completed within 3 years and the individual departments would be responsible for:
A. Standard Setting including Corrective/ Enforcement Programs.
B. System Assessment including International Standards and Regulatory & Safety Promotion.
C. Entry Control including Regulatory Services.
D. Regulatory Oversight including monitoring of industry participants.

This approach is included in the ASRR Report and is intended to make the Head of each Department responsible for all aspects of their aviation sector reporting directly to the DAS.

What AMROBA would like to see is the Civil Aviation Act to be amended so that CASA would forever be client based in its structure. If the Civil Aviation Act is not amended then the next DAS in 5 years time will restructure once again.

Any civil organisation that has been restructured as many times as CAA/CASA has since its inception in 1988, would have the same difficulties as they face internally today.

By far the largest challenge facing the new DAS is the finalising of the regulatory development into a 3 tier system SUITABLE for Australia. It must place safety responsibility on the industry and remove the current micro management approach contained in recent regulations and proposals. Aviation does not need to be so highly regulated to obtain safety.

Implementing the ASRR Report Recommendations, if & when the Minister adopts, is a real challenge.
Worth a read for all aviation Small Business owners & IOS members alike is the segment under the heading - Small Business Growth - enjoy ;).


10th Nov 2014, 04:05
Future of Angel Flight hangs in the balance
By Bill Bristow AM
Nov. 10, 2014, midnight

WHILE the future of our Angel Flight charity still hangs in the balance, I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of country Australia and local councils for publicly supporting our organisation.

The many thousands of our volunteers, who generously give their time to help Australians in need, appreciate the immense community support Angel Flight has received in our struggle for survival.

We have strongly argued our case in a detailed submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we now must nervously wait to hear the outcome of their deliberations.

Angel Flight has flown 17,000 flights over the past 11 years, providing no-cost transport for isolated people of all ages seeking vital medical treatment in major cities.

Our charity wants to continue that work.

Angel Flight believes that where you live shouldn't deny you safe and swift access to medical expertise and treatment.

We are about eliminating distance and distress for those in need.

The kind and supportive messages we have received from concerned local councils and rural communities all over Australia have lifted our spirits and made us more determined to fight to keep flying.

Too many people in many remote towns rely on Angel Flight for assistance, and we can only hope that commonsense and compassion overrides red tape when CASA finally makes its decision on our future.

Staying silent is not an option, and with your encouragement and support we will keep fighting and flying.

That last line in bold IMO should be the common creed for all IOS members...:D:D For to do otherwise and just accept that the bureaucrats will in goodwill act on the Forsyth report in full etc..etc..will be allowing them to obfuscate on fixing the morass that is aviation safety in this country until the next change in government and the next..:{

That is time that this essential industry simply does not have...:ugh:


10th Nov 2014, 09:14
EASA Prompts Controversy with Single-engine Helo Rule

AIN 7 Nov '14

Since October 28, the EASA has been strictly enforcing a rule that prohibits single-engine helicopter flights above densely populated and other “hostile” areas, thus igniting a controversy in the European helicopter operator industry. Most vocal has been French lobbying association UFH, which was hoping that existing exemptions would be maintained. Instead, the UFH said the bulk of the operations at Paris heliport are now seriously threatened. UFH president Dominique Orbec also pointed out that some recent high-profile helicopter accidents in urban areas involved a twin-engine helicopter, including the November 2013 crash of an EC135T2i in Glasgow.

Meanwhile, Swiss authorities rejected the EASA rule. “We have kept local rules for mountain rescue, thus allowing singles,” a spokeswoman for Swiss civil aviation agency OFAC told AIN.

The EASA insists the industry had years to prepare and a transition period is ongoing for non-commercial operations, circular flights and aerial work. “Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained.


thorn bird
10th Nov 2014, 12:09
“Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained".

Neither do single engine aircraft, looks like the property sharks will achieve their dream.

CAsA subscribes to EASA rules, therefore no more single engine operations at the secondaries?

Might as well carve them up and flog them off, there won't be much in the way of an industry left anyway.

11th Nov 2014, 21:00
BRB last evening; the really good part was the last item, a low key but very enthusiastic celebration for CHC and their associates; glasses were raised, toasts (and sacrificial peanuts) were offered to the pagan gods who occasionally break wind and make something really good happen. It's not our tale to tell, I'll leave that to those with first hand knowledge; but well done – you know who you are. We wondered if the inestimable Xenophon will have a word or two to say?????_?...:D

The more routine parts focussed on the vexed issue of whether Australia needs EASA, NZ or FAA style rules. The new DAS, like most of us, is rumoured to be more familiar with the FAA/NZ style, format and philosophy, so that was a factor in the discussion. Anyway – FWIW the vote went slightly toward the NZ system, but it was a close run thing; the FAA supporters were just short a couple of their stalwarts; EASA finished a long way behind. We decided to call it a draw and schedule a serious discussion at the next big indaba. Why?, well the answer really lays in industry hands; it was decided to 'reach out' as the Americans say and see what 'other' folk thought. It's a serious question, because if the regulatory reform program (remember that) is to be 'open' and consultative, industry needs to know what it wants.

One bright spark opined that industry don't give a hoot, have little interest and simply want the 'grown ups' to make a ducking decision, get on with it and let them get on with doing business.

Another 'clever lad' piped up that industry is indeed very interested and quoted numbers, ranging from submissions to inquiry, the WLR and from our very own Pprune to qualify the argument. They are impressive – for example the two Senate threads (don't mention the unforgivable closure of the first one, dust up every time) combined have generated some 1, 200, 000 reads; that's one million, two hundred thousand 'views' and counting. The Truss WLR thread has generated a further 167, 400 'views' and counting. Just looking at Pprune now there are 719,032 views of the two threads. Now, I'd call that interest. There must be some out there with an opinion on which direction the rules set should take and how many 'tiers' we really want or need.

Perhaps it's a good idea, to have an idea of the answer, before the question is asked.

Right then; back to my knitting....:ok:

13th Nov 2014, 05:17
From Dougy's insight - Editor's Insights 13 November 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-13-november-2014):
Apparently a lot of the delays recently, such as naming the CASA board new members, action on the Forsyth Report and perhaps even the announcement of Mark Skidmore as DAS, have been at least partly because there’s micromanagement going on in the Prime Minister’s office. Warren Truss’ department in turn has been doing a lot of waiting for things to come back their way. This is not good for Aviation. Truss is a capable minister who in general retains the trust of the industry despite the frustration over the many delays. Let him get on with the job.

Business entrepreneur (how else do you describe him?) Dick Smith remains vocal in Canberra. Let’s hope his views are considered in the correct proportion to his experience and expertise and not on the amount of noise he makes. Dick has strong and well-articulated views but they are still the perspective of a single individual; albeit one whose views have been sometimes been disruptive in the past.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum was briefing the media today on its views on the delays to action on the Forsyth Report. I was unable to make it as I was facilitating a NSW Trade & Industry sponsored seminar on autonomous systems, under the auspices of SADIG That turned out to be a fascinating insight into the issues that help and hinder total cooperation amongst government, industry and research units in our universities. There’s so much world-leading R&D happening in the academic institutions that is not getting the funding and other support it needs to become commercially viable that it all amounts to a failure on someone’s part. Probably government since that’s the sector that has the ability and resources to facilitate the success of such projects. Let’s hope there’s more to come in this vein. Well done to the organisers.

I’m hoping to get a delayed briefing from AAAF chairman Chris Manning on the press conference they were holding today. I’ll share it with you when I do... :D:D Hmm..not sure about the miniscule comment though...:rolleyes:


13th Nov 2014, 13:40
EASA finished a long way behind.

Just to remind you all, what we have been getting here as "EASA like" rules are absolutely nothing like EASA rules.

They are an Australian bastardization of a complete misunderstanding of EASA.

Indeed, the bulk of the EASA rules for things like maintenance are outcome based, not prescriptive, let alone ultra-prescriptive as are all the "new" rules here.

Tootle pip!!

PS: We do not want the NZ medical standards, remember where Navathe did his training, and who his mentor was!!

13th Nov 2014, 18:58
Leadie; Agreed, medicals and other matters were of concern to the BRB with regard to the NZ 'suite'. But the real head scratcher was our lack of 'working' familiarity with EASA, FAA and the NZ rule set, in practical, day to day use, for comparison sense. I'm certain there are folks operating under those rule sets who daily curse the daemon who drafted a rule, just as there must be those who revel in the better rules. What beats me (and others) is why Australia seems hell bent on adopting the worst bits of everyone's rules instead of the 'good' bits, then adding more.

Part 61 for example has to be the most ridiculous aviation rule ever written; bar none, add that to the farcical CAAP 215 and the need for regulatory reform immediately becomes apparent. The completely amateur approach to both defines those within the rule making 'team' -:yuk: - as the quintessence of NFI – at all; whatsoever. That's in both legal and operational terms. Want reg reform?, sack the egotistical fools who believe that they, and only they have the answer to a maidens prayer....:ugh:

Waste of time and money reforming the regulations until you reform the mind set of the administrator; or, at very least try and hire those with a basic working knowledge of industry. The clown driving part 61 is simply a wannabe wordsmith, wallowing in an egocentric puddle, confused, lost in the wonder of grandiose point scoring dribble, which will impress those with even less idea of what's needed and what's not. Part 61 – where the sun don't shine and CAAP 215 is too ridiculous to contemplate; I'm certain we could find a suitable receptacle for that as well.

Strewth and stone the bloody crows. etc. etc. etc....:mad:

13th Nov 2014, 22:27
Heard this week that a rather large international helicopter company had a win with CASA. Apparently CASA elected to settle out of court rather than face the music in court and most likely a larger payout to the company.

The new DAS needs to head to the USA ASAP and spend time with the FAA and operators over there to see how a proper regulator works.. He will find a thriving industry (from GA to Airlines) that's not held back with over regulation and FOI's who work with industry rather than against them.

14th Nov 2014, 06:37
I hear the CHC case was so bad, CASA had no option but to run for the hills. Apparently the legal costs are huge on both sides. Huge waste of taxpayer money. A few people must get the flick, in PER and the LSD in CBR.
CHC always have been a solid operator, still are! I wonder whether Tezza went into bat for his PER buddies blindly, only to realise what he was dealing with was a lot of very big porkies made by an AWI causing havoc with a Flight Ops issue he knows SFA about! "Big" maybe in big trouble.
Pathetic! Well done CASA! What a joke. The individuals need to be held to account for this bias. Don't you preach of being a model litigant? Certainly not on display in this case. Bravo to CHC to have the balls to stand up to what amounts to corruption.

14th Nov 2014, 10:39
Jinglie.....surely not. CAsA is the epitome of honesty, integrity, fairness and a serious believer in justice, truth and the rule of law, is it not?.

Sorry ...the operative word is NOT :mad::mad:

Just ask John Quadrio and a host of other CAsA client-victims who have been pineappled by CAsA crims.

Any names of the CAsA valiant fighters for just-arse and "safety" in the Golden West..would love to know if there are some that have finally received their comeuppance. Or karmauppance, whatever.:ok:

Trouble is the financial punishment does fall on these xxxxxx people...once again the taxpayer pays the bill. :mad:

Who will be the victim of the next CAsA deviant, I wonder.

14th Nov 2014, 11:46
The kull should be the "Big" Deal followed by his helicopter mate and finally Mr A Nazty! All a disgrace to our so called democracy!
Unless heads role in this case, give up hope. It's so bad it's a joke. And what is Warren Truss doing? Having another nap!

14th Nov 2014, 19:57
Jinglie they must be keeping that one tightly under wraps...CIC perhaps??

From Last Minute Hitch...I will be in Canberra on Monday week for a sit-down meeting with new CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore. What I am battling with at the moment is that I won't have him for too long, and with so many issues for both Mark and general aviation to face, what do I ask him. What do you all think? If you could only ask one question of the new DAS right now, what would it be?

May your gauges always be in the green,


Anyone want to help the man out? ...Ideas ?, anyone???.;)..:rolleyes:

And from the regurgitator...:E:AVIATION industry organisations met yesterday to discuss the federal government’s track record in fulfilling its pre-election commitments. Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss recently announced the appointment of Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and moved quickly last year to announce an aviation safety review headed by David Forsyth. But there is concern about the lethargic response to the Forsyth review and the failure to set up an industry advisory committee. Questions have also been raised about why outstanding members of the CASA board have yet to be announced and who those members might be. The concerns come amid continuing anger among many sections of the community about reforms introduced under the tenure at CASA of previous head John McCormick. The government has promised a response to the Forsyth review by year’s end. the TAAAF equally are playing Mum...:ooh: ..but not old Dick who is still at it...:rolleyes::FORMER CASA chairman Dick Smith has renewed his campaign of several years ago against the removal of VHF Flightwatch transmitters. He has accused the air navigation provider of failing to comply with its own legislative requirements that safety should be the most important consideration in the service of its powers and decision-making. Airservices chairman Angus Houston said the changes were introduced after a comprehensive safety analysis and an external review. He said the operational circumstances and a lack of occurrence reports since the decision supported the decision. But Mr Smith has accused Airservices of putting profits before safety and has asked for a copy of its review.MTF...:ok:

14th Nov 2014, 20:36
"Now Sir, will you have Bias stew or the Corruption meatloaf; both on special this week, only half a million each and seeing as the bottomless pit of public money is paying, why not have both?"

The story from the Perth fuel tanker is that this was to be a 'big deal' payback. Seems the big deal team were on a mission to 'square up' the accounts on behalf of a very disgruntled ex employee and when it got 'nasty' they started dealing to the legal eagles, from the bottom of the deck.

Like most bullies, they enjoyed the threatening, posturing and swaggering about the playground looking tough, until someone called their bluff that is. Not only did they run away but they left their 'street cred' and lunch money behind.

Three things trouble me, the first being that once again the 'system' has been perverted and used for payback in an almost carbon copy of the Airtex and Barrier fit up, rather than the Pel-Air soft ride. Agree with Jingles – heads really must roll if Australia is to retain even a semblance of credibility. Despite the smoke and mirrors 'accounting' system used to define exactly how much money CASA get through 'prosecuting'; this little party has chewed up AUD$ 800,000 in costs alone; add air fares, accommodation, meals and the odd therapeutic 'massage'; for both teams and a cool AUD $1,000,000 has gone down the gurgler, for no safety or regulatory benefit: not to anyone who ultimately, one way or t'uther, pays for all this legal fro-licking.

I note with interest that Adam Anastasi was in thick of it, defending his corner. I always wonder how much reliance the LSD place on 'allegations' made by the ground troops, apparently, quite a lot. After all, can we reasonably expect the man or his team to examine and test, in detail every NCN or Chinese whisper that comes over their desks? But for a million dollar outing you could reasonably expect that all the 'homework' had been done. Another last minute walk away, after ruffling his lordships feathers with delay after delay on 'the day' begs some interesting questions. Like how a non starter ever got to court in the first place. That's question for estimates, or the AG; no one just launches a multi million dollar law suite just for practice or on a whim.

But the real headache comes from knowing that this disreputable behaviour from FOI and AWI is the accepted normalised devience we have inherited from the McComic era. It's why the industry is afraid of it's own shadow and demoralised. Cowed into silence by bullies and cowards who will, just for sport or payback attempt to decimate a company on what have been, clearly, very flimsy grounds supported by untenable argument. Disgusting...

Hitch - my question for the DAS: is this really good enough Mr. Skidmore, is it?

Toot toot.

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 20:59
What do you intend to do about the wanton, cavalier and purposeful destruction of the CAsA brand and how will such action restore a semblance of co-operation with the industry suffering at the hands of such vandalism?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:01
Will you restore the burden of proof to the accuser and remove all strict liability offences?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:03
Will you address faulty convictions by way of compensation and admit liability when it is proved against you?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:04
Will you use the civil court system to prosecute offences?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:06
Will you allow a branch of the Federal Police to frame charges against accused after consultation with DPP?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:07
Will you set precedents that will give credibility to the claim of model litigant?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:11
Will you take criminal action against CAsA functionaries that have perverted the course of justice?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:13
Will you amend current and future waivers of actionable, discrimination and human rights claims?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:15
Will you address industry concerns?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:17
Will you petition The Minister to adopt all the Forsyth recommendations?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:24
Will you act to have a moratorium placed on all recent regulations and exemptions, pending a complete overhaul of the Regulatory Review Process or adoption of a more workable suite?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:55
The position of ICC is an ingenuous means of creating more hurdles to discourage complaints to The Commonwealth Ombudsman who is reluctant to take on matters in the aviation jurisdiction conjunctly.

Will you abolish the position, or address the situation that has arisen since Mr Hart resigned to give the position credibility?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:55
What will you do to address cronyism within CAsA?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:58
Will you remove the word "safety" from the regulators title and maintain the title of Civil Aviation Authority, (CAA)?

15th Nov 2014, 00:01
C'mon Frank, CASA are a government department not a business. Different set of rules for them. Why would the new DAS address all those questions?

15th Nov 2014, 02:20
If you could only ask one question of the new DAS right now, what would it be?A very simple question that will sort out, very quickly, whether Mr Skidmore has the necessary mix of integrity and understanding of the mess he's inherited.

Mr Skidmore: When will the regulatory reform program be completed?

I can tell you two out of many wrong answers and the one correct answer.

The first wrong answer I will quote is that of Mr Byron, from February 2005:We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.Only 3 months until that weasel-worded nonsense is 10 years old.

The second wrong answer I will quote is that of Mr McCormick, from that glossy work of fiction called the "Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013":[O]ur current schedule will see the remaing rules completed by the end of next year.Only 28 drafting days until Christmas! And what did the Forsyth Report say about how much longer it would really take to complete the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose?

The correct answer is:The fudamental flaw in the regulatory reform program is that the regulator is running it. The government should make, and take responsibility for making, the rules, and the regulator should be responsible for, and only for, administering them.

I have therefore handed over all open Projects to the Department, but with a recommendation that the current package of rules be repealed in its entirety, following the development of a new package with a fixed deadline of 1 January 2016.

A number of CASA staff have been made redundant, but the long term savings from this approach will be in order of hundreds of millions. And that's just in direct cost savings to CASA.

The benefit to the aviation industry of implementing a set of rules that works, and ending decades of confusion and empty rhetoric, will be incalculable.(And Frank: Could you get a dictionary and look up some of those big words you use? I'm not sure they mean what I anticipate you hope they mean.)

15th Nov 2014, 07:25
CAsA is a government "agency" not a federal department...and its employees do not come under the APSC/Aust Public Service Commission code of conduct ..which has provisions in it for dealing with criminal behaviour.
CAsA has a fluffy "joke 'code' with no such provisions.
Its a get out of jail free card... and CAsA employees know it.
The Dept of Transport and the 'minister' let CAsA have free rein so no wonder the place operates like a mini Soviet State. :mad:
WE are the law.. we will do as we please. :mad:

If Skidmore does NOT deal with the questions as posed by Frank then we will have another 5 years lost, the only difference maybe, no screaming, cigars or Hawaiian shirts.

The one I will pose as well as listing a few of the "not fit and proper" clowns to be in the place because of their illegal behaviour (with evidence) is....

....Will you recommend to the minister /and or Government that the only way you have a snowflake's hope in hell to clean up CAsA is to call a Royal Commission.?
Thus we the industry can tell it like it is ...and then some.:ok:

dubbleyew eight
15th Nov 2014, 07:40
frank, you poor bastard, you still hold out hope after all these years that truth, honour and the american way will prevail.

air vice marshall (retired) skidmore will achieve nought but window dressing.
he isn't clark kent in disguise.

you poor old jaded optimist.

criminal arses screwing aviation was never a truer decode of the acronym. :mad:

15th Nov 2014, 09:12
WhY You 8,

A gentle reminder, no offence intended.

Firstly, "truth, honesty..." - We are in Australia.
Have you forgotten your location or are you lost space. Perhaps maybe time too.

I firmly believe that the agony from the WORKERS that pay TAX and some, Australia's pilots are on the frothy edge of a revolution.

With good intent.

So maybe have a little belief in your own country (if you're here or lost still), particularly Aviation Industries reasonable requests.

One good reason why not?

No harm. Intent is safety, accountability, learning. fairness and freedom of speech without fear of ramifications.

Too much evidence now and the regulations do not correlate with the current year we live.

Please try and remember why so many have gathered, submitted intelligent requests.

Facts can only be smothered by words of clouded truths for so long. The cloud *#?!'s off and the sun shines through.

Lean which ever side. Support or don't.

I thought a man of your maturity could see the logic of why. Not why not.

History always reveals itself. I think now history voice is quite loud.

Truth, Justice and the Bloody Australian way thanks mate. Crikey ya tool.


dubbleyew eight
15th Nov 2014, 09:29
ziggy my little petal you misunderstand me.

I am totally for abolishing CAsA.
I am totally for accepting that the massive regulatory rewrite is a crock that should be thrown out totally.
it is all misguided crap. all of it.
I believe that the perpetrators of injustice within CAsA should all be imprisoned.

the current time....
my son and son in law have just purchased a SIDS compliant 172 between them.
my son flew the aircraft back across australia in atrocious weather.
he can't log any of the time for the flight because he has a gfpt thanks to the fcukwits in CAsA who thought it would be such a great idea to get rid of the restricted.
my son in law is an ATPL who flies jets.
son in law can't fly the 172, the blandest, safest aircraft ever put into the skies, until he has a BFR in it. so to fly the 172 he has to take GFPT son with him as the "pilot". however if he has said bfr it screws up his jet checks.
I tell you the regulations as they are being implemented were written by card carrying fcukwits.

the govt has decided that all the regs will be in place by the 16th January, faults, fcukups and all. skidmore is the tool to tidy up all this crap.
which of course he won't be able to do because it is all poorly drafted, voluminous crap. all of it.

we have a rocky time ahead. the last thrashings of the certified world trying to maintain its grip on a world that has long since moved on.
it won't be pretty.

15th Nov 2014, 11:57

Yourself, son and son-in-law.

Re-direct your energy, which is strong, and join a force that will create change for the Australian Aviation Industry.

You and I and every one pushing for a fair change have rights.

We are citizens of this country and ultimately the people that are clowning around with serious issues, work for us.
Their income is from us.

We deserve the truth and justice and for the bollocks to cease and serious, rigorous work to commence in many areas.

I have only observed the past five years regarding the underground flight path of political aviation. Laws. Insurance. Report (lack of). Justice (lack of). Yet the force of belief in change has erupted to a level I understand is pinnacle.

It would be unsafe and unethical to let this opportunity to pass by.

I hope three men can see through the anger and steer their knowledge towards advocating the desperate change needed.

Great change will only arrive through passion, dedication.

Indeed we travel...
Through the Never.
(Top Shelf Metallica Movie)

Be cool.

15th Nov 2014, 15:09
Ziggy, all power to you. What comes around goes around. These low life's will have their day.
With CHC it's a matter of no Deal, big Deal, or NO Deal. Whatever the Deal is it's going to be flawed. I'm suggesting it would be a good Deal to pack your bags before the fat lady (Skidmore) sings!

Frank Arouet
15th Nov 2014, 18:50

Thank you for your critique on my use of words.

I'll waste no time in addressing your concerns.

15th Nov 2014, 19:55
Hitch - my question for the DAS: is this really good enough Mr. Skidmore, is it?

It's remarkable, Frank dives down the wabbit hole ferreting out the solutions to existing abominations; all defined within the- CHC (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-75.html#post8742831)- scandal, and it is a scandal for many reasons. This gives us the first part of a complex equation for the Skidmore intellect to wrestle with. Then Creamy chimes in, clearly defining the other side of the equation. Both, IMO, valid arguments in a 'chicken and egg' debate.

Did bad law support bad actions : or were the bad actions supported by law written in more honourable times, when reasonable people were held accountable for their own actions? It's quite a puzzle, the key to the solution hidden deep within a dark labyrinth guarded by harpies, trolls and misfits, all hell bent on preventing Skates from finding the key. If it were a movie; our protagonist would be under time pressure, with the princess doomed should the key not be found before midnight (why is it always midnight?).

Lets just pretend Skidmore is his own man, supported by a Senate committee, who dispenses with whispered advice from 'traditional' sources; what is he going to see? Well, there's the Pel Air imbroglio and now the abandoned CHC prosecution, both of which very clearly define 'how' power and law is manipulated and abused to suit a predetermined outcome, it also identifies those that were complicit in the deliberate, deceitful, abuse of both power and 'law'.

CHC will become a classic, the meek acceptance of allegations of both bias and corruption without contest, the payment of costs (and perhaps damages) combined with what was exposed, is a bench mark case. (Bravo Ben et al). CHC combined with Pel-Air gives Skidmore a recent, real life, coast to coast, legally definitive place to start weeding; and weed he must. Creamy is spot on regarding the reformation of regulation, it's a matter of importance; but (BUT) unless the application of 'law', and the rule of law, is administered by 'men of good will' then all is lost. Lots of reading, many cases to contemplate; all of which lead to the inevitable conclusion, something fundamental is rotten.

With the McComic departure some of the driving force which sanctioned the 'biased and protected the 'corrupt' actions has been removed; but the habit lingers on, as do those who willingly indulged in unspeakable acts. To break that habit, some senior managers and those who willingly served them have to made examples of. Which gives Skidmore , in the short term at least, a mini manpower problem. Assuming this is done, the real test will be in the calibre of crew he replaces the 'old guard' with. A clever 'manager' would seek out people with the right stuff, delegate the heavy lifting then sit back and watch the job take shape. If a start was made in the new year, a first class team could be up and running by Easter, breathing confidence back into a jaded, battered, disillusioned industry. This would provide the patience required to wait for a sensible rule set; e.g. we managed quite well with the 'old' licensing system: which caused no accidents I am aware of. Shirley, Part 61 can be put on ice for a six month, until it's redrafted by 'sensible', qualified folk and is truly, really ready for industry use.

The conundrum – which to reform first, the regulator or the regulations? No brainer for my two bob; none of the present aberrations have had the 'law' as a radical. In every case, barring none, it has been those who applied the law to suit their own purpose, with little or no gain to the national interest (or purse) who have created the flawed, deviant system we call an aviation safety authority.

Mark you, there are enough 'white hats' to cover the bases for a half year; trick is identifying them. Plenty of independent, non biased assistance to help sort out the quagmire of medical, the farce of engineering, the pantomime of 'training' and the drama of those abused by 'the system'. But, I suspect Skidmore knows this; just as surely as the MaM do...

So, Mr. Skidmore, do you want to the lob properly or just look pretty, being led about by the foreskin? I know, that's two questions, but essentially, one and the same.


17th Nov 2014, 12:24
DAS Skidmore has taken his first scalp and disposed of an EM who has been shown the door. Poor old Terry wasn't happy that she got punted either!
I wonder just how robust the new DAS's broom is? Will he just be sweeping the doorstep or will he be undertaking a full spring clean? I guess it all depends on Mr MrDak, the Sargent in Arms for the sleepy Truss.

19th Nov 2014, 01:58
Ben 'Jiminy cricket' Sandilands -(Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/19/pel-air-and-seaview-anniversaries-highlight-safety-failures/))- and Adrian 'Bright spark' Park -(Flight Safety (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/))- spell it all out, in bite sized pieces for the absent minuscule in two articles. Now it took me six minutes to read them and I got the message; then I asked a couple of folk at the coffee shop to look them over. They took a little longer to read the articles, asked a couple of questions which were answered as briefly and succinctly as possible; without bias. Total time 15 minutes : comment; "But we thought Australia' was a world leader, this is disgraceful". "Yes" said I, "it is rather".

Happily, girl dog decided to 'busk' for her muffin leftovers (Blueberry); and, as she was in good voice today the conversation turned to more pleasant topics. But these folks looked askance, 'he' would have continued deeper into details, however, a combined weight of 90 Kg of Schäferhund, singing for muffins tends to restrict the flow..:D...:D...:D..It really was a very good song.

Some days – pure gold, others puerile.....:D

Toot toot (Mk II).

Dangly Bits
19th Nov 2014, 03:33

Who got the chop?


19th Nov 2014, 05:59
Dangling parts, it was the EM Corporate Services. Interesting because she was given the 2 minute walk of shame.....strange as nobody ever, and I mean ever, gets sacked from CASA! Perhaps it had something to do with those pesky Paywave credit card issues??

19th Nov 2014, 07:36
From AA online:
Gov’t yet to meet half of its aviation commitments, Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum says (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/australian-aviation-associations-forum-says-government-yet-to-meet-half-of-its-aviation-commitments/)

The federal government is yet to deliver on more than half of its aviation commitments and has shown a lack of commitment to the sector, the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF) says.

In a statement released on Thursday, TAAAF expressed its concern that the government is yet to release its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) and that three vacancies on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board are yet to be filled.

“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said.

“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.”

The TAAAF brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner.

TAAAF called on Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Industry and Regional Development Warren Truss to “respond urgently” to the ASRR, given the report written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth was “seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator”.

The ASRR, released in June (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/), called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.

It found the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

TAAAF said the government should immediately establish a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until newly appointed director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore starts in his new role, the CASA board was appointed and there was a “clear response” to the Forsyth review.

“In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development,” TAAAF said.

Part 61 was a set of new regulatory measures for pilots, operators and flightcrew licensing that has been strongly criticised from some sectors in the aviation industry.

“CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,” TAAAF said.

“It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.

“Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.”

The federal government has promised a response to the ASRR before the end of 2014 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/truss-says-govt-to-respond-to-forsyth-report-by-end-of-2014/).
From Oz Flying online:Aviation Forum calls for Government Action (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aviation-forum-calls-for-government-action)
19 Nov 2014

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called on the Federal Government for more action to reform aviation.

In a statement released today, TAAAF said the government had under-performed when it came to keeping election promises.

"In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments," the statement said.

"A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review [Forsyth Report]. The Review was seen as a blueprint for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.

TAAAF called on Minister Warren Truss to respond to the Forsyth Report urgently, and to officially announce the three new CASA board members.

"The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA," TAAAF said. "It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report."

Among other issues in the statement, the TAAAF also:

Supported a return to three-tier regulation
Rejected CASA's move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policies and manuals
Called for a moratorium on all CASA regulation work until the new Director Mark Skidmore is in effective control
Called for CASR Part 61 to be suspended and a joint industry/CASA task force created to establish sound regulations
Supported a ban on un-manned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being used over fire ground by members of the public.
TAAAF is a forum made up of peak aviation bodies the represent most aspects of aviation in Australia. More information on TAAAF can be found on the Regional Aviation Association website (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/taaaf-policy-document.html).That will bring a huge sigh of relief to some of the IOS members as there were suspicions that certain factions of the TAAAF had sold out to the dark side...:(

On other matters it should not be forgotten that the AACCI AAT hearing is currently in progress, the outcome of which will be significant to all IOS members:
http://www.pprune.org/ AAACA/giLAQAAAMJiAAAAgLAYAAAAmAiLAQAAgImwGAAAAJgIiwEAAICJsBgAAACYC IsBAACAibAYAAAAmAiLAQAAgImwGAAAAJgIi3Fs//vf//4GAOzEP//803vcwB+NsBhH9vfff//111+9+3kAQJzprnuPG/ijERbjyExX2zsXAIA4emx0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4TFODI6WQDYC3psdEdYjC OjkwWAvaDHRneExTgyOlkA2At6bHRHWIwjo5MFgL2gx0Z3hMU4MjpZANgLem x0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4TFODI6WQDYC3psdEdYjCOjkwWAvaDHRneExTgyOl kA2At6bHRHWIwjo5MFgL2gx0Z3hMU4MjpZANgLemx0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4 TFODI6WQDYC3psdEdYjCOjkwWAvaDHRneExTgyOlkA2At6bHRHWIwjo5MFgL 2gx0Z3hMU4MjpZANgLemx0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4TFODI6WSidz+fH49E7F9 i3Rq3o8/nc7/fL5XL61zAM1+v1+Xx+v197y9/vdzrteFinx0Z3Oz5/gKi6nexJ7X6/Z+zfDGlKqVlKlV12mxm8zfj9+Xwa1baQbaX3+21ym/dzvbxCGefz2VTm4/F4v9+/3691irIqCa1ch9UzY2vRisZxPJ/PcrbP5/Pr9TLt4X6/+wXZbI35CIvRHWExjqxFJ/v7/Z7PZ4sB4/F4yPt8Pp/BYEiZpSQlZRdcLpf3+123tpeqRW++D/d6vUr2o/T9fqscr8vlorzY2E4LGYYhqQF0L5Fe9VZkdwjX69U+1t/v9/1+X69XfUE2WGM+wmJ0R1iMI2vXyb5eL3nAyBgah2EYhiF7h0KWln7y/X7HcXw8Hv4dqcKEzJ6fz6f95Hd2Pp+Tbh4LKZaHIOM42hkr3Jue/niN4/h6vZZioNvtVj3FWfUWUiUmXr9EUdVbkbnvG6204O1kYbfbqbEgwmJ0R1iMI2 vayS6NLnlDo3kCa4+FDs0N0dQBz+bcSaqY0OfzCYb7+nhOSLHwPvE0Tbfbzd 5h6mSPbMKcmaWfLNXk5XJRJpqaoq1dCymxWolkdVvR5/OZd6WZrOz0G/LGG6mxIMJidEdYjCNbISx2hkPbOI76vZk7MRmhkp+lvN9O/4bmLUbW3+8XnCK5Tjwn8Cv8er0W7lMvo1D2XUmb8hqjsBrbtZBsq5VIUL0V2 Rc/ygs/OzKWt9xCjS0hLEZ3hMU4shXC4qUw5ZRyN9TsxAylJYNW4YA3WXeDqif0/X5L7nSWFy0oeHveebu/nbxCLT1S0FyGlVdjuxaSZ7USCeq2IjvuTMrVPGFJ3mwLNbaEsBjdERbjyFYI i6d/b/QGJd3pMQ9eSwat8gFv+vdOVYuEluY1am6tVSmacrd5C4nUSj1aKPsJe2q2q1 RjuxaSYbUSpeYhuxU5D6D004TmS/SM3K5cY0sIi9EdYTGObJ2w2Lm7Y3s+n9H9mCew81zkkkGryoAXXOOpVkJLlx DRN+eqFM0hvJhfslu9vNSXZtpoprNXKW/TFpJqtRItqd6KnIcqSQshm/cy5W2615iAsBjdERbjyNYJiydvJJtpIhUzrM4BdMmglfrb4L9MlF83IWfnvu hqryXVskRY90NzPVMuu1Cr/TD4r6YtJNVqJVpSvRX5+9Ev39Hi0FSvMQFhMbojLMaRrRYWC0sOR99JNzdQn d3qBy0/S8rfmkeu/t81H8pqkUk5hihJMUi4x39a5dMe0+bD4l4tJMlqJQpq0YqCu1LeM65+aKrXm IywGN0RFuPIVguLhRUk5Imz87pszm6Vg1YwS8rfmpm+6uLmJ+RYWn9XvrNek mKQuRoRwpq6K+wGZRcqowIzUuzVQtolVFKioBataGmi0fl8rtIm+9aYjLAY3 REW48hWC4un5WjvJL40Y35lryGQNGgFs6T8rWYaYpWEHMJcTOHl/ZIUfeatNbNUSPCDI6dVPu2RV6jVXrnr1ULaJVRSIl+jViQsXn6qERx3rLEow mJ0R1iMI1szLF4KVk7LD0DNPWZnhbKkQSuYJc1v59vbKSWuk0mhooR5FCUp+ uyrEeFWX9LK0xnyCrXOAm0dW0ijhApL5GvUioQTZDYMQ/b09441FkVYjO4Ii3Fka4bF0/LTz6Uphia+ce796AetpSxpfjvf21YXNzMhX95KzyUpOr7f7+m/k1uWDlzSd/gyZBRqqfaUc0/1KXZsIY0SKiyRo2krWrr37Lvf76kfeuxVYxqExeiOsBhHtnJYvLQu72lhiuE wDH7ErB+0lrIU/a3+g1iFCaX+XPi0R2GKNv9qRJjXUf5xaUFqoZY+/qz/ppoyxe4tpHpC5SUK7rBRKzIxt17SIm69akyDsBjdERbjyFYOi6fl1Zr8wMXE 0P54phy0hCwt/fb3+73fb+eeVlbRW4XFwh4KU5w5q0RH99/00x6aQv1+v3EcX6/X0h3EpIfpcorbaSG1EqpYItsKrUhe48I3DEN00Rs5k3PRWtSYEmExuiMsxpG tHxYLr8s475OZgce/jSQPWposJSkpe/beMvJTK/9mKT3/6yFLB67pSm3qoxRwPp8fj0etB+iCukXL21tGQtVLZFunFaVGxqey1y6b1pgS YTG6IyzGka0fFgsrtdkjlpkhGpx0WDIyrTbgFe4tIz+18h+cuDKJj62jX+DL pjxGvuxJzxlp1U0ob28ZCVUvkW21VjSOo/Bt+aBoZNylxpQIi9EdYTGObP2weFpeqc0eR2+322nhSx8lI5P8W/MsfguPyDMG4MIUjaWJK0begsolosdLqCjlE/PUFDfSQmolVLFEs/Vb0fP5FL6l5yv5Mk6LGtMjLEZ3hMU4si5hcXRt/6WJifZulwYtTZaiv+3+QtXSz1u/crc0ccUQFsZq9GmPaKGErydW/IKaX43dW0j1hCq+QNalFf1+P3k9Y5vcNtavMT3CYnRHWIwj6xIWT+J3qqZ/31hfeqiqHLQKfzu/v6UubrVMCg+ahRUVSlI0/A8K+pYOnH6phySaQglrdWXkSl+NHVtIo4QKS2R0b0XKO8dCCL5yjSUhLEZ3h MU4sl5hsbBU0ziOZlSTd6sZtEp+Oz+gVxa2YiaFuQFNP+dhxnj52wrCEnvCF/iyaQr1/X6FMCh1xqq+Gju2kEYJFZbI2Egr8uc5OKosAV6lxpIQFqM7wmIcWa+weFoee 8xgJtxt0g9ahb81A7xmt3UzmRc0lKQ4xebparRYqU1ZKKHGTomRljJFo1cLs ZkZR7USKinRtFYrOqnXOX69XkuXTMJU5jVrLBVhMbojLMaRdQyL5YmAjeK/pN+aYEvYW62R1bFUM/I7SSUpTv++41io+qc99IVaepHrJE7ILklx6tdCnDxUbBglJZrWakWnxFnIS7 kS9r9ajaUiLEZ3hMU4so5hsTCDVo5jkgatkt+aW19LuxrHsdFM36WHvyWvz8 vkdxyDG2fkMENSoYSpFPqPnCWl2KuF2C6Xizwld7USrdaKTukL8AUvNYX9r1 NjGQiL0R1hMY6sY1g8Lb8sJd8KShq0Cn8r/Ot+v1eZnuhYulqIrqtQUi3+d3plS7ffqn/aI6lQwhIHJ/V6banVKPyrUQuxmeCyYlg8FZRotVZkNkt9NOE/T5D3v0KNZSAsRneExTiyvmFxcKW2pvFfyW9t5hZRixfglmZQRF8dK6yWpIhW mEJad6W21EKVr9dWUo22di3EZlqLPB93zRKt04rMNqlz2Z2rphVu5EdrLANh MbojLMaR9Q2Lp9CD7+jz7pJBq9aAZ+5zV1njybb0ZFnzHDa7aGZVEP00A0Ne Yq+WjEIJ67Vp7ttlV2MwG9VbiG1uLe1m19jkEq3ZiubNUpetsJMQsrpaG8hA WIzuCItxZN3DYn+lNs0LN9mDVpUBb76hK6xClZdQ8LGy8o2x7KKZK5PUCEP4 Jou8OFeSjEIJc9ZPjW+6z9q1ENs8K2CFsDhaojVb0bxN0suU03+rQuhnVmsD GQiL0R1hMY6se1js3B9tfT+vfMCzI9e6CQUnAOgH/ryizZclylRsS6+4VXzHKK9QwnptwzDI1115KdratRCbPdmm3Vx8ZYlWbkX2Z vqpFPYkitbTTpRtIANhMbojLMaRtetk53g3evfXHuCjd1aEF9j1WfJp3sd6v 9/2EJ73/dil2ghOKda/rCMUTah/+8aqMiGbsBpXlQfHeYUyhPXaomspBNVtIUJCmpuLTmsRfrJCidZvRc5mykvH eXaNPENjzV4iA2ExuiMsxpG162Tn0S56O2d+80YzLVW4ERh9Pi789nK5BMe8 cRzf7/f9fvfvaQnRlZDQ7XazHzSP4/h4PPydn89n5coJJdViT8PN+LpY+fttspJjPYnrtS39fAst5HK5LB0L01r8+b hCWLxCidZvRcEt5SuxOZPDMMiZXK0N5CEsRneExTiyFp3s5/Nx7tXdbjc5yDMjvRzr/H4/4ZPRxvP5DN5HNL8V4qQMwXBfk0nBMAz3+z0pINYUza8W556WSfr1eunnQfp7 cKRG9rbv96s51nJ8I6/X5szHXbmF1E2oV5vv1YqEjZ3UTUOak7hcLsJzhtXaQAnCYnRHWIwjq9vJasa J4A/N6Fiy26WE8n6r4cRV2fsxn2N4Pp+pr+bkJaf5ofAKV0bQv06hgoQ7kfMP81L UqNVCoqrUoYZdoqSN67ai0+k0DIMJl3+/n/nOn/zzYRgyFssrV/0DN4TF6I6wGEdGJwtgX06heSPmxvD1erVv914ul/v9XneJtL7osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh 4b3REW48joZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjuzvv//+66+//gYAbJ7prnuPG/ijERbjyP7555/e/TwAQOv//u//eo8b+KMRFgMAAACExQAAAABhMQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2Ex AAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEW AwAAABNhMQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNh MQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADAR FgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADARFgMAAAAT YTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADCVh8Xv9/t+v1+v15Plcrnc7/f3+21v+f1+Tyei8ASnBXVTMYev7j41Ho+HKc7j8Vg/9e3kIdVSq2jdTpIys0LSf6Dv9/t8Pq/X6zAMc1Vfr9fH4/H5fOwtf7/ffBT6HqNo6jShbOM43u/38/lsamwYhtvtZg+7djOAbMtjQaMxOmO3i4NNouplqSs/f8/n0+6dg4ZhuN/v3+93miYTOtfL+R/h+Xy2blJmn+YYrWbug4wuPdEW8pBtHMfL5eK3jcvl4kRIra3QRPH5fIKH2+l sH4+HOZHv97t9FF6vV8djFG0hNKFUv9/PuRVlO5/PJjg2x713Zndg42OByVX1MTpjt3IXpFe3INXl5O/z+TgB8fV6fb/fv9/PbPD7/d7vd/C8rZr5P0LTOpwHpPv9XnG3UWs2jPP53D0PLZjHL45xHNfPyfZrcqkNbF8wAL rf7/bFj7mLPN81DB6Fvscomvr2m9B2fL/fefy9Xq92SwgOu9EdbvbsWC1jW25+jcbovN3O9WMuveaQb4rV4fv9toPGasV oIzl/7/fbKfzr9VraeBxHp7Muy+2fqOkZax+diruNWq0bMid/3zy0s5EibCQbS4Q2sHF2AGRcLhfh7o5z08v+V99jFE19401oU+bnBrfbLbjB 6/XShyCbPTvWzNiWm1+jMTpvt3MvtPQvuQ7nppuf71Wk5S8pJp7Zj/9y8/nnanfGOkdTcyhrWeeh1Xw/tWMemtpIb76RbATJbWDLgjFx9Ff2SW3/ve8xiqa+5Sa0Kfbxte/VOezGI+xts2fHyhnb7FjQaIzO3q3ZPnhlrjmFx3HcZntzJOTv8/k4xdbP197LVcIGtRswnMdtKz9KW+EVh/mCuGMemmrXNvaYjaBoG9im3+/nxMTDMCh/O7dq+499j1E09S03oU2xO215y3lCubDNZs+O9TO2zbGg0RidvdvT8qQL5Sm8 i3fMEvLnv2Cnn8i42avS7Ws0YJiXlB0rv63VlH782K9GbWOn2fDttw34M0Sd hX1kJqqw/9L3GEVT32wT2pqkJmHuRi39d7Nnx2YztrJGY3TJboUtlaewuVGdn/tVaPPnvyyceuHivBwNpUYDhjkcji4rtbXglK53dlpp1DZ2mg3HftuAP1dNf6 vY8Odl9j1G0dS32YQ2yGkVcjQjhCCbPTs2m7H1NRqjS3YrHBHlKbyLRQO1+f NvFae+F8m6xXkaDRhLi+sJ89X2IuNd7J1q1DZ2mg3brtuAv6ZEamfrjz19j1 E09Q02oW0KDsRLnfZSCLLZs2OzGeui0RjdaLdHOoVVWffvXpwSH+opmfVl7N Vn/MngwSM6H4P3+3273ZbWr8lOVJP09/u93W7mL8F3hH+/3+v1ut1u9rB3uVwej4fQIlu0NjPt7H6/+4uhRmdWLVWCMc+rmSfXz57Pp/DzYFqpNfb9fqPLu2bk4fF42LtdaiHybjNaZlS0CNWz9Hw+56q4Xq/mcAvZiFZ1dIPZ5/OZR83z+Wyak38/TNkGokn7p7O8T5OfKfRgLWnVvOC6e+Wd7VIxTYbn8+t2u8m5bdSJRTeYrT9G +D2AIC/DenObdNzvd00z058ddvFTj7i85+BAmZoxZW8QJacl/7dFlz4rGaPX3+30B4bFwbvudVdItZdyM73GOI6mwZ3PZ+fNx+Dq9J/Px7/LIh/vpESFpKdQFOhExqYOb7eb6Up+v5/TLpdGvhatzZR6HMeMx7V+zo3ga/ImRBiGwW4tytX7M2os+n2ZOSFlHuzNTJc3t5BhGPzhrVbLVNIUoVaWvt+v/RNzQO/3e7Qmo9+S0HxsYn4hxtw3dVbztbfUtwEh6eDpvNTyz+ezEx/M2btcLqn3YJyX4o3yznapmMHqWuqL2nVi0Q2mTmOEvZ9hGL7f7+/3W9qJk+2M8SXKb5m2y+UiX0ElnR1TwRFPHSiTMqbvDTTkHmzlLn1WMkavv9v pDwyLg4NBxUzYR8ie4zK3V9Mf/SffifxxJSPRpaSnhbN6/slcgc4i/M72wWtNYbd5TMc0R7F+zqO3poI3tILPeU1afuVHC7VCjUU3swMUu3RLf1/arawk4skuaUaW7HZil1pu+cp8yhvYQ6n993kszK6ZpS2FQvnDYfCC0HQvGc8 lG30Fyd9n8BngzG8DTU/J6AZdxggnYJovg51QKdhhZo8vUcG7VLZhGOZnF0H+T4KblRzxpVTk7kKTsYz eIEpON1zLy8ovYsvH6DV3a2iO3V6osh489rVy4Fw+2gfG/pfzhl8wS8/n04xDfsfh3LvNS3QpafNIwk/XbG8/9nJGUGc/wWnv1Wve5Gcusn93SvMypV/DwWtN8wAxtVDr1Ji8mbMcod31O43HuWfs7/aU0jKTZJc0NUvONvb5ornvXriB3R7sIWd+pTq7ZoJbyqezv07laSGiyvsqle YyI4O/z5M1LdVvA07mW5+S8gZbGCNO4gwxpwGUjC8amhkdwzCUPIEsPOLBVOQzKyNj yt4gSk43WL2NunS7jIVj9Gq7NTTHbi/6h8XO3Rfn/or9L/sk9/Nj/9dfgsQ5sfMSXUp6jgjtK+l5XHE2tqMoTa1qttEzNWOHsMHlWqLXu8Ff+XU1T z9NKtQ6NSZv5rQQpxT2v5zrAblaoi0zSXZJk7LkbxAcjYRsFG5g/915+35pfRtlzQS3lE/nKXRD148MMqZPLOVHyHzJbu0S+QfRKZHz3+qnpLxBlzHCn8UrZNiJhErGF6X gZBtf8NrM3yy6TeoRD24WPbNSM6bsDaLkdP3/tuvSp3pj9Dq7nWmO3V50Dov9B3lC0knnj7BBdqJLe7anE5kh0/6V00XKHbdfRZpt9Exn6sx/8gcAzY0u/yrZudY0b1EEfysXap0aEzbzW4gwsKXmUJk9jfKSajbwZ9fV3X90A/+/8zPipfVtlDUT3FI+naeF+Z32cPL9frPXUfL3LGS+ZLdJG7Q+JYUNuowRU+i2 fesMpxrHMTjlxqEZwvydFx7x4GbRM0uzZ3+baG8QJacbzZWyQpQqjtEr7HZW txL6UmW90XO9KXZFPv23ru2oq6SlZie6tOfou9smxWEY7Eapuc2mKWkScyid IC/4XDh6ryt6w/h+v+c9xVunxoTNklrI6b/3iqKpK7OnUV5SzQbRVZPKiyxvEHy75XK5CFMzlTUT3FJzv8TPkh0HCy0/arVJFEkbtD4lhQ26jBEl/y0cX1KN4xidbSw87ArmcCo+4sFUomeWZs8ZvUGUnG40V8oKUao4Rq+w21ndS uhLlfXgJelSK/S3XDItNHH5J0upRLMx/ys7UWXSUaYjU45/5cnNzG2M4H0sv07klzYM+Wmy0OOnFqpFjQmb+bUh/9Z+MhVNPbXsgvKSajaQb5tVKbK8QXD68ql49mTqlrbg+2rzqF8S6wQ720YrU SRt4Kh7SgobdBkjpsS7xfYRLxxf8vx+v+fzubSeQ8ZNWV/SEc9LRfOTjN6gMN1orvLqM6j6GN10t7aKldCdKusZawa93+/g+WNekp1D6uyqLGmphcev5OfzYy8z9VCzq8Lc2syLGsEXh/0H5ZrlWoSnye/3W3gcoy9UuxoTNovuodFvU5WXVLNBeYnKNxDeMQqOhdEdZmzp8IcT89BAbvl Rwc626brFyg1mLU5JYYPsA1RYZP8WrPDb1Amy2U6xm3nBkTf6MqKcaMYRz0h F/5PU3qAw3WiuMkq6pPoY3XS3toqV0J0q68EFuaKXFMH7806r9TdQPgopaanZi SqTDjLTDc3284xbza7ykgtmwN+VTNPFLN0wlhfm1BSqdY0Jm0X30Oi3qcpLq tmgvERV6kQYCzNWAMzY0hG8YWyWUC15nqtf/TBJlUPQ7pQUNvD/tcIYMYWu+ed0nWM0DIMdqmZnWFkozddAkmJ6v2Zm2Uc8KZWMnyT1BoXpRnOV UdKgRmN0o906alXCFmiz7kc/mtctozWVfTwy9lyeqDJpn30HKGn2W15yQdH5Zz7Na0PBi5/n8yn/NlqoFWpM2Cx12sCxJ1GUl6hWnSy9fe+viKTcYdKWvuAM4/LZov6QX77P8kPQ9JQUNvD/tcIYYThXPnO6zt+dm3DZGVYWStkYnCnOcg6Deyg54vrNsn+i7w0K043mKqOk QY3G6Ea7ddSqhC3QZj34uDw6NTtaU360rWzT0T0LG2Qnqkza4TRKuw/V7Co1OTnbwgbBa0rNfY7gXDp5JJALtU6NCZulvnJndyLR1JXZ0ygvqWYDP0q T1+XIKLK+Tj6fT5UPiGRs6QveMC75tK8R7GyTvivrn7aFNdb6lBQ26DJGzOz vmZnPGf5+v7kFBt/0KhxfNIXSxNn2bIeMSRSFR1y/WclPlL1BYbrR/ZdnwN6PsEHeGN1ot8FUyithCxKy7l+cRR/tRWsqeMEXPB7mG+j6PQsbZCeqTNrmvx+Ququk5ORsRI+XHwBpnt5mfEZSKNR qNSZslrTE0ilxUU9l9jTKS6rZwL/ZkPpie+EGJ+/0LF8cI2PLIP+aMO89bod/Yaa/f/P9fv0TsOQQrHBKCht0GSMcTsc4DMPtdlu6UCkcX2RzBjTNbE499ZW78iOu3y z1J35lRnuDwnSjucooqa/RGN106LdVqYSNSMt6dIB09x6rqeD8fX96huno7bRKWmp2osqkbfKaBppdJSW 3xFxSRyddLU2XjO7fKWb0u/BCoRrVmJn0qd+VcxPC7oidm3nRz3noy55KuavCLPnzZKIf9nP27/e59n/9EPDkHXS/j7b7Is0qilOoDejrcIlzylS8L+hXmuYN8XEch2GoGxav0IkJG3QZI2ZmeYek EKFwfJEJO3TY3ZTm8Y59dpQfcf1mSRmbsnqDvHT1Bckoqa/RGN166J9VqYSNSM66ExnLq6Joaio48eVyuczX4ubVWifSKmypeYnqCyVsbE7 peVVIR8bTzyhz90L56Z2l9+tlztusJbNrymvMf6w2juPtdku6ZeKUyO5WnLD YCVbk3Wo20FPuqjxLTquw25Lm489L3xZeOqan0LAknBr+eapsA/o6FNhpJU11iEqNjM2xGIah7iQK/1/VOzF5gy5jxGTdhgxVtqRkfJHZO3S+8eaYG4/fZqJnh5/51CMe3Em0dJrTdinF+SeFtepnNVqQjJI6Go3RKwz9s/JK2FhcdnoAAAPZSURBVI6crL9eL6f5Xq/X9/ttB0PjOPrPkpbaa/QL7/5xLW+pGYkq92wT1rB8v99L/6243M98Fah8Whd8AqgZ7OcmoUlIKFR5jS29YZA6I9bej9107SrKCLOiGygFZ 6DmjU/RDfy0zMXw6/UKDpPOSBzM6iw6O3DezCnd/He/yMo2oCl71HxhkLewkcyv3vP5/Hq9nMcXj8fDnBpLZ1+0mMIGK3Ri0Q3WHyPs672M+eLZ44vM348z+P5+P3uAD t7njp4d5Uc8mNVo6TSnrflLUm8QJWc1WpCMktoajdGrDf1TymC0C/kRvf71RtOPy3sTPmLpX7L4K+2d/jsSBw+Sn4ekRI3gvTHhEVtwoYb5RY3o3qIlFZgF3p0akFvq7/cL9uaaldLntKInklyowhoz/EjLyb+yYu2ewpTLblr+9rVaZtTn8wkeKfuOVN0sBZ+ymaHd/7sR/fnpdDIL+ckZmP9ot0PT/wTvjBrRNjCln85LTFoZt6k0lN/4HYZhqSEF24C9sdwGWndiypNx5TFi6dMYtmEYrtfr4/EINsKM8SXq9O/iwdO/EzyEvAldsXx2lHfC2WdW9LS1C6jvDQRyU2napTcao1ce+vWD0V6U3ug2a9c7 57/pLO73e/Rg2MxHdOYrUfNag2Zqry26TV6i+qR9dqO53W5+fDb/93K5yJ+e1ySn+blfwKVPByUlOgxDdF6XZv/ZNWabP8jkn5xJZfz9fo/Hwz7tL5fL4/HQ3Hf0d5tdt8pUnB3WzdL3+51r9Xw+z2PD6XS6Xq/X6/X5fD6fz3Ecg2eQeR5q9my6iHnwiObw8/mY22BzV3M+n4NHwSa0AWXlKJnTp+ndEVP82+3mjECmpxWGnyptoF0nlnQU1h wj5J34ghdFSeOLxsnrvd/v9+12m6PJ8/nsH6Ag+ewo6YQ19Z+dsVNubxCUepT9gpSUVPhtyRjdaLcltZd6XPraWXYBYG u+32/eM3FsVsZqrxXXJwbQC2ExABR5PB6ERMejmbti49IIOADCYgAoQjx0VKmRce/8AijFaQwAKvOsx+v1Os8kNlOu+2YM1X2/XzMnWHhzaBxHZ2WGlTMJoDpOYwCIcyabzsse5b3rg42bg93owZ2/31HxYy4AeiEsBoC4pSfmBEOHlHQD2GxZssQEgI0gLAaAuOAXce/3+35XrYdgfjgQnSFjtmy0ajWAlREWA0Bc8IskLEBxYHNkfL1ezVq59n/HcXy9Xufz+Xw+7/SzBQB8hMUAoGJ/4+ByufDQ/PDmr6gEP1n1eDwIiIGDISwGAAAACIsBAAAAwmIAAABgmqb/BzBNGLc3HpoMAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
18th November 2014
The proceedings commenced by the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc. to set aside the Ministerial Decision of former Transport Minister Anthony Albanese in May 2012 approving the Archerfield Airport 2011-2031 master plan will commence its hearing trial in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane today Tuesday 18th November until 26th November.

Witnesses for the Chamber will include a former Federal Minister of Aviation Mr Peter Morris and other aviation experts, some of whom are former Federal Government employees.

The Chamber will assert that the Department of Transport and Infrastructure and CASA did not assess the approved Master Plan with the required detail and technical accuracy demanded. In short the approval was granted without having regard to current applicable legislation, the interests of the aviation industry, the general public and the use of erroneous technical assessments.

The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations to the responsible Minister being taken by uninformed bureaucrats who do not understand the industry or apply the law correctly.
Chief among these failings has been the extraordinary policy of the Department to absolutely refuse to apply the statutory requirements of the Airports Privatisation Act. They advise that all problems arising between the users of airports and the lease holders, where the leaseholders breach the Act, are commercial disputes and should be settled in the courts.
Instead of the Government applying its laws the onus is transferred to the general community to do so. The so called “Light Hands Policy” in relation to airports, a policy designed as a cover for bureaucratic executive action, has no legal backing at all and has never been raised in the Parliament.

The Department has been acting as an un-informed regulator and uniformed protector of the public interest. It has been acting only as a post office rather than doing its job to protect the airports and the users. The consequences are that general aviation industries are being destroyed and airports infrastructure including runways being downgraded or lost.

There is no or inadequate compensation to aviation businesses losing their assets through a system of refusals to renew aviation related leases of Commonwealth owned airport land upon which tenants paid for the buildings and improvements. Aviation land through the airport’s master plan will be converted to commercial and industrial sites without any control or supervision by State planning authorities.

The full resources of Governments of all political persuasions has been deployed to ensure the commercial profits of the airport lease holders are ensured, without regard as to the loss of vital national infrastructure or the interests of the community at large, and the viability of general aviation businesses that try to provide services in a competitive market environment.

The Act provides that airport lease holders must not alienate land that is required for present and future aviation needs. The Chamber’s application is to preserve our precious aviation infrastructure, stop new commercial and industrial development on land that is currently being used for runways and aviation businesses and to send a clear message to all Federal Airport Leasing Companies that only aviation related developments on taxpayer land in Australia will be permitted.

- END –
Proaviation - Albanese airport decision under AAT microscope (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/11/19/albanese-airport-decision-under-aat-microscope/)

Good luck AACCI...:D:D

MTF on this important case...:ok:

19th Nov 2014, 08:13
The ASRR, released in June, called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.
Chairman Hawke will be busy calling on all of his 35+ years of bureaucratic spin to make sure the government response is as weak, non-committal and diluted as possible. The draft is then run by the lawyers, the PMC, Sleepy Truss and Pumpkin Head. Then Mr Hawke has to find some nice soft paper to print it on and then find a subtle calendar day when everyone is distracted (Sunny knows how this bit works) and quietly release their non-committal dribble.

Don't hold your breath boys...

19th Nov 2014, 08:33
"The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations....."
Let's hope the AACCI are not referring to Beaker:mad:I needed a good laugh today!!!

19th Nov 2014, 10:03
Now is the time for Government to act – TAAAF concerns about regulator’s performance.

Note: The TAAAF is a forum of peak aviation bodies that includes the: Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA); Aerostructures and Aircraft Manufactures (AAM); Australian Association of Flight Instructors (AAoI); Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA); Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA); Australian Women Pilots’ Association (AWPA); Aviation Law Association (ALA); Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA); Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus); Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) and Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia (RFAC).

A TAAAF Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 states:

Now is the time for Government to act!

The combined peak bodies for aviation met in Sydney last Thursday to consider a range of urgent aviation issues. In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments.

A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The Review was seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.

It called on the Minister to respond urgently to the Forsyth Review, to finalise Board appointments to ensure the CASA CEO is supported by a strong Board reflective of the interests of the industry, and to issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction under the Civil Aviation Act.

The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA. It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report.

With regard to the Forsyth report the Forum strongly supported the return to a three tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules. The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy, manuals and forms as compliance requirements for operators and pilots. It also strongly supported the introduction of key quality assurance mechanisms within CASA, including a merit decision appeal process; again as identified in the Forsyth report.

The Forum called on the Government to establish immediately a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until such time as the new CEO is fully operational, the CASA Board is appointed and the Government has made a clear response to the Forsyth Report.

In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development.

CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form. It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators. Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.

Noting the start of the bushfire season, the Forum supported calls for the creation of an offence for any unmanned aerial system (UAS) to be deployed at a fire-ground by a member of the public not under the control of the relevant fire agency, with serious penalties of the order of AUD$50,000 for any instance.

Media Enquiries: Chris Manning, Chair, 0414 672 212

Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 ends.

AHIA: We are trying so hard to make changes - even the combined associations with direct access to responsible minister are ignored!.

Australian Helicopter Industry Association

What do you think?

dubbleyew eight
19th Nov 2014, 11:02
What do you think?

if you look back at history the department once employed 15 or 17 people per aircraft.
that was when the department ran publications, control towers, airport maintenance, rescue and fire fighting, accident investigation and guessed their way through aeronautical engineering issues.

ok the government split all that up and privatised out the stuff that a buyer could be found for.

we now have a situation where their dispersed, privatised best ideas aren't working.

STUPIDITY is what I think.
if you get inept idiots to manage something they don't have much of an understanding of they will make a right hash of it all won't they.
well they have.

Air Vice Marshal (retired) Skidmore would have had experience of useless units that had a function that was actually needed.
the services suffer these from time to time.
the solution used in the forces is a total staff change.
I was involved in one of these once and what a difference we made.
3 year delays were replaced by an ability to meet the need within 5 working days. even if the need was in the tons.

CAsA is on the skids. no denying that. odd that they should draft in a guy named Skidmore. is there some freudian humour at play there?

just in passing I would comment that you need to get the overarching philosophy right. in CAsA's case it clearly isn't.
CAsA only legislates in the interests of safety. well bollocks to that claim.
2 years in prison if your aircraft takes off without a maintenance release.
ha ha ....bullshit.
as a private owner who maintains his own aircraft and is the only pilot why would I need a maintenance release? I know the state of the aircraft intimately since I maintain it myself.
I haven't bothered with the paperwork bullshit it a decade come two months time.
you'd think I would have crashed by now if CAsA's great mantra was even half way correct. 42 years accident free and counting.
get stuffed CAsA. you are such plonkers.

19th Nov 2014, 11:31
On a more serious note, the AAT is not the place to fight. Lightweights in the legal world and frowned upon by QCs and serious counsel. A well known QC gave me this beauty last week! He said "it's like comparing Romper Room to the 7:30 Report. One is happy, forgiving and will adapt to the clients (kids) needs, the other is opinion based on cold hard fact"! The AAT is full of self opinionated wankers who never made the real deal. Someone once asked me "why do people buy Land Rover Discovery's?" the response was "cause they can't afford a Range Rover"! A lot like the AAT vs the Fed court! (Apologies to any Disco owners, no harm implied personally)!

19th Nov 2014, 13:22
The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory materialFolks,
This is an absolutely crazy statement.

We have had CAAPs for years, they are advisory material.

We have had Advisory Circulars since 1998, without problems.

Both have exactly the same legal status, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with the related regulation. Why is that such a problem?? You don't have to "comply" with the CAAP, but you do have to comply with the related regulation, so your alternative is to negotiate an alternative means of compliance.

Do you all really want the contents of all the CAAPs/AC to be legislative instruments, that have been worked over by the legal drafting mob at the Parliamentary Counsel's office.

We already have an absolutely ridiculous volume of aviation legislative instruments. It is crazy that, very time an airline wants to change something like a minima, it has to go through the whole Parliamentary process

The bulk of technical detail under the US system is in Advisory Circulars, likewise EASA (AMCs and TGLs). What's the problem there, the answer is none.

Both the US and EEC (EASA) have two tier legislation, we have had it since 1998, where's the problem that more (not less) aviation regulation is needed in Australia.

With all the whinging about the amount of aviation regulation in Australia, why is the industry demanding more regulation??

Tootle pip!!

PS: The idea of translating something like the technical specifications for a Level 7 ( or D, if you prefer) via the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (the intent of IACO Doc. 9625, Issue 3) into a Legislative Instrument is the thing of nightmares, and that is what is being advocated by "the industry".

How about the ACs for certifying a aircraft, or an engine, or avionics and instruments --- do you really want that translated into the language of a legislative instrument???

19th Nov 2014, 20:32
Amazed by the machinations and convoluted argument; massaged definitions of 'air transport', intrigued by the misguided analysis of aircraft certification performance data and confounded by the naked greed, I thought it meat to have a look at this storm in the minuscule teas cup. The problem is one of remarkable simplicity – it is an aerodrome. Which implies that aircraft will use it for take off and landing (gods willing, weather permitting).

It is, amongst other things, a training aerodrome, which implies that folk would go there to take flying lessons, this inevitably leads to inexperienced pilots, grappling with their lessons often without an instructor inboard.

The safety case therefore must allow for the most reasonably probable 'worst case'; lets take a nervous neophyte sent out on second solo, the instruction for EFATO burned into the forebrain. Land straight ahead. But on what asks the newbee?, perplexed.

There's the rub – if an aircraft cannot safely GO – it must be able to safely STOP.

Expecting aircraft not certified or guaranteed to climb on one engine; or aircraft which must, by the laws of physics, land in the event of power failure to do so, within some mathematically manipulated, minimum 'take off' distance: a distance only required to achieve a speed slightly above the 'stall' is not only preposterous, but risky.

When our nervous neophyte lobs into McDonalds as a fireball; or a Chieftain full of big blokes on their way to work punches a bloody great big hole in Westfields; who then is going to responsible for that. Obviously, the pilot for operating from a runway too bloody short. As no one can operate from a field without the mandated distance safety margins; exit aircraft, enter developers and Whallop. Someone (or two) makes a bundle.

It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.

Archerfield, bringing crispy critters to a mall near you....:mad:

20th Nov 2014, 00:08
Top post "K" that perfectly highlights the bureaucratic disconnect between the theory and operational reality for many owners, private pilots and GA operators operating out of our essential secondary airports.

Kharon - It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.
Maybe just maybe that will be the only thing these bureaucrats will truly understand; i.e. the fear of litigation if something (God forbid) goes horribly wrong and an avoidable accident can be traced back to unimpeded urban development in the vicinity of a secondary (GA) airport...:=:=

The AACCI put out a media release (http://www.aacci.org.au/index.php/news-articles/94-media-release) back in May calling for urgent action from the miniscule and to endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal: ...The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.


Lindsay Snell
It is also well worth the time to read the AACCI ART proposal :D:D - Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1751286/Review%20Tribunal%20Proposal.pdf) (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747926/pdf_logo.gif 137kb)

In Senate Estimates we all know that Senator Fawcett is a strong advocate for the issues faced by aircraft owners/operators from Secondary Airports.

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - Airports - YouTube

Trolling through previous Estimates Hansard/QONs etc. I came across a disturbing chain of two-way correspondence between the RRAT committee and the department aided & abetted by Beaker, which further highlights the issues as presented in the above Kharon post.

This chain first started with an exchange between Senator Fawcett & Beaker in the 2012 May Budget Estimates:Senator FAWCETT: I am very heartened to hear about the role that you said you play in following up on issues. I congratulate you on, for example, the report that you issued on single-engine failures and reduced power situations after take-off and exploring that whole issue. Going back to previous estimates, I asked about the number of examples of aircraft that had these sorts of failures. I noticed there was a figure of around 21 that had been highlighted in a short time frame. Your report goes to a much larger number. Can I confirm that they are only talking about GA aircraft and that if RAA aircraft were included that would be a larger number?

Mr Dolan : I need to confirm that with Mr Walsh but my understanding is that we were focused on VH registered aircraft. So the number of 242 partial power loss on take-off events over a 10-year period relates to single-engine aircraft with VH registration.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)In terms of your tracking of safety issues and monitoring developments, your report goes to the heart of the fact that, following a partial power loss or a complete engine failure, the pilot essentially has three options, which is to do a forced landing outside the airfield, on the airfield but not on the runway, or on the runway if they are very skilful or have the appropriate height et cetera.

Two of those situations require that clear space be available. Are you concerned by the encroachment of residential and non-aviation facilities, whether that be Bella Vista at Caloundra, the old folks home that has just been approved at Evans Head, or things like the Toll building at Bankstown in the undershoot of the approach to the helipad? Do you have concerns from a safety perspective, given that your excellent report highlights the need for survivability for the pilot to be able to conduct a forced landing in and around the vicinity of the aerodrome, that this encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure is actually elevating the risk, given the relatively high occurrence of those power loss situations?

Mr Dolan : The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)For GA. If you include RAA—

Mr Dolan : for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue. Beaker conflict of interest??

Since that exchange we have now discovered that Beaker in the early part of the century till 2004 was in a different role within the department i.e. Airports division; where his primary role was the architect of many of the airport lease agreements that were at the time being drawn up under the Airports Act 1996...:rolleyes:

Ok so back to the chain...

On 6 September 2012 as Chair of the RRAT Legislative Committee Senator Sterle sent the following missive to Beaker:
6 September 2012
Mr Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Dear Mr Dolan,

You will be aware that the committee has asked for details on risk assessments conducted by the ATSB on previous occasions at Senate Estimates. At Budget Estimates in May 2012, you were asked about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure, and whether or not that elevated any risk, in the occurrence of power-loss situations.
Your response was as follows:

Mr Dolan: The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—

Senator FAWCETT: For GA. If you include RAA—

Mr Dolan: for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue.

The committee would like the ATSB to provide the committee with the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis taken in these circumstances and the empirical basis of that approach including the decision theory on which it is based. It would be appreciated if you could provide a response by Thursday 20 September 2012.

If you require any further information, the contact officer is:

Cassimah Mackay
Research Officer

Ph. 6277 3514
cassimah.mackay @aph.gov.au

Yours sincerely,

Senator Glenn Sterle

The following is Beaker's response (note the date of the weasel worded reply..:ugh:)

21 September 2012

Senator Glenn Sterle


Legislation Committee

Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House

Dear Senator Sterle

Thank you for your letter of 6 September 2012 asking for information on the ATSB's approach to risk analysis. You wished to know the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis we use to determine the significance of a safety issue. You also wished to know the empirical basis of our approach, including the decision theory on which it is based.

As a starting point, it may be helpful to describe some of the key components of our overall approach to safety investigation and analysis. We take safety to be the state in which the probability of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at, a level which is as low as reasonably practicable. Both our investigations and our safety research work are directed to the identification of safety factors: events or conditions that increase safety risk (that is, if they occurred in the future, they would increase the likelihood of an occurrence, and/or the severity of the adverse consequences associated with an occurrence).

Some of the safety factors we identify are classified as safety issues: that is, they are assessed as having the potential to adversely affect the safety of future operations, and as being systemic and ongoing. When we identify a safety issue, we assess its risk level. The process of assessing risk level is in four parts:
determining scenario, assessing likelihood, assessing consequence and applying the results.

For scenario, we assess first what is the worst possible scenario that would result from an identified safety issue. Then, having assessed that in the light of existing risk controls, we determine the worst credible scenario. That scenario is then assessed for its consequence (minimal, moderate, major or catastrophic) and its likelihood (very rare, rare, occasional or frequent). For each of the classes of consequence and likelihood, we have indicative standards to guide the assessment. Application of the severity and consequence assessment results informs a decision about the level associated with risk of the safety issue as:

• Critical: associated with an intolerable level of risk, or
• Significant: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable, or

• Minor: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk.

Our approach to risk assessment of safety issues is based on the current international and Australian standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009- Risk management- Principles and guidelines and associated material. That standard, however, is principally directed at proactive risk management by organisations, while the business ofthe ATSB as a safety investigation organisation focuses on understanding the potential significance of safety issues and assessing whether others might need to take action. For that reason, we have focused particularly on the risk analysis and evaluation components of the standard. We have also drawn on approaches and techniques used by major transport organisations.

The ATSB's risk analysis approach is not intended or required to be a complete analysis such as may be required for the purposes of a developing a safety case or as part of a formal cost-benefit analysis. lt is intended to be a structured, objective and efficient approach to determining whether a safety issue has a risk level which appears to warrant corrective action or, in some cases, further ATSB investigation. Our analysis will often be qualitative rather than quantitative in nature and is based on the evidence available to us through investigation, reports of safety occurrences and our research and analysis.

To support our approach to determining risk level and the possible need for corrective action, we have documented our safety analysis methodology and process as part of our Safety Investigation Quality System (SIQS). SIQS is supported by structured safety analysis training for all our investigators and by elements of our supporting Safety Investigation Information Management System (SliMS- our inhouse information technology system).

At Budget Estimates in May 2012, I was asked for my views about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure in the vicinity or aerodromes, and whether or not it elevated the risk arising from the occurrence of power-loss situations. I answered that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake (which I have outlined in this letter), I did not see the associated safety issue as significant.
In terms of the methodology I have outlined, the most credible scenario arising from an interaction between partial engine failure and the development of non-aviation infrastructure would be a collision with a building resulting in injuries or fatalities to people on the ground.
In terms of our indicative standards, such a scenario would be assessed as having a moderate consequence.

Our best evidence for likelihood is our database of aviation safety occurrences. During the last ten years, we have records showing two occasions where there have been minor injuries on the ground as a result of accidents in the vicinity of an aerodrome. We have no records of fatality or serious injury. This is in a context where there are about 14 accidents in the vicinity of aerodromes for each million departures, with no significant variation in trend. Based on this and the longer-term information in our database, we would assess the likelihood of on-ground injury or fatality as rare. A safety issue that is assessed as of moderate consequence and rare likelihood generally given a risk rating of minor.

I trust that this provides sufficient context for understanding my remarks.

Yours sincerely

Martin Dolan

Even the man at the back of the room can see the disturbing disconnect that the Chief of our so called aviation safety watchdog has when placing the EFATO risk as minor in regards to small GA/RAA aircraft coming to grief at our secondary/training ground airports.

That is why IMO the AACCI AAT case is so crucial to the survival of GA and should be openly supported by all IOS members...:D:D


20th Nov 2014, 01:37
Bea-cur has style, all the waffle, weasel words and flummery of 'statistics' except the ones that really matter – abandoned take off and 'long' long landing numbers. You see a fair few of those about the place and 'tis true no real harm has been done. Could it be, perhaps, that the existing runways and stop or clearways are long enough to cope with a reject; or, a long series of bounces; or, even the odd EFATO.

Because if they are now 'too long' and may be safely shortened to minimum required, then his position makes a nonsense of 'widening' runways for safety sake. Clearly as they can be made as short as possible, then they should also be made as narrow as statistically possible, in direct proportion to their length. That'll build another nursing home and bus depot then. Although a golf course at DER would be handy, on occasion. The odd lightly lobbing onto the 14th fairway will only make a 20 second filler on the 1800 news; but a King-air, fully fuelled parked in a top floor window at a close by nursing home just may get a little more attention. Only need it to nearly happen; just once and all the wriggle room in the world won't save the minuscule; or his government. Won't bother 'the money', not one iota; that'll be safely tucked up in the Caymans, drinking Mochitos and eying the lovelies on the beach.

No, no, this is not a job for the bantam weight AAT. Hints of conflicted interests, whispers of manipulated definitions, safety authorities rumoured to be playing at silly buggers with 'the numbers', Pony pooh by the cartload delivered express by those shadowy figures purported to have 'vested interests' etc. etc. Perhaps the AG backed up by the AFP, even the ANO could sort it all out for the Commonwealth: ICAC for NSW Bankstown, Hoxton and Camden; now wouldn't that be fun.

What was it Nick Xenophon said, something like how he couldn't see how 'Dolan's position could be tenable'. Perhaps, now the answer to that question is emerging from shadow; maybe the murky Machiavellian department could be persuaded to fill in the gaps, as it were – in parliament – under oath. That also could be fun.

Aye well. It's a funny old world – "Now Bloggs, the accepted spell for becoming airborne is Wingardium Leviosa; works like a charm, just don't disturb the penthouse pets on climb out; got it?" – "Good". "All together now, Wingardium Leviosa, up up and away".

Training module – here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQBzjE-kvI)

20th Nov 2014, 01:49
Just following on from my last post:

What "industry" is proposing is increased regulatory demands be placed on the "iron lung", instead of finding a cure for polio.

Unless there is a sea change in the CASA culture, the sad fact is that the form and style of legislation is immaterial, the Australian aviation sector is stuffed.

Tootle pip!!

thorn bird
20th Nov 2014, 05:54

never truer word, if I wasn't coming to the end I'd emigrate to New Zealand. Might still do, if the flying bug is still biting after I retire.
Imagine, just being able to soar up there without constantly fretting over which regulations of the thousands we have to comply with you've busted.

Always daunting after a flight here. Adding up the penalty points and realizing if they came after you, your going to have a very miserable old age.

I wouldn't be surprised if CAsA after confiscating your super, could legally dock your old age pension.

Wouldn't put it past MMrdak to have that in the fine print.

Kharon did you hear about the guys in the sim at flight safety commenting how real the visuals were, before they discovered their feet really were on fire.

Could happen at a secondary near you.

Sad but its always about the money, public interest or safety just aint in it these days.

21st Nov 2014, 00:10
Newsflash...the miniscule is crook..:{

Maybe he is suffering from a bad in-flight meal laced with ecoli or maybe he simply has bad indigestion from absorbing all the matters aviation currently coming at him. The trouble is while the cats away...:E: Warren Truss illness sparks speculation about Barnaby Joyce as Deputy PM (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/warren-truss-illness-sparks-speculation-about-barnaby-joyce-as-deputy-pm-20141120-11qmxe.html#ixzz3Jex4Ff7z)

Ok back to the weekly wrap and hot off the keyboard from Hitch..:DThe Last Minute Hitch: 21 November 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-21-november-2014)
21 Nov 2014

Quite naturally, the talk of the general aviation world this week is CASA's proposal to restrict Jabiru engine operations (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-moves-to-restrict-jabiru-engine-operations). Although this affects RA-Aus moreso than GA, there are many VH-registered aircraft that use Jabiru engines, and if these restrictions are applied, those owners and operators will be up the creek just as much as their RA-Aus counterparts. The feedback that has come my way is quite polarising. One Victorian engineer called for CASA to prove the Jab engine is unreliable with statistics, and one Queensland aircraft builder said he considers the Jab engine a "hand grenade". Either way, this issue is extremely damaging for Australia. All parties involved need to sort it out. They need to sort it out quickly, correctly and fairly.

From the TAAAF statement released this week (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aviation-forum-calls-for-government-action), it is clear the aviation industry is getting impatient for the reform process to begin. The Forsyth Report charged the industry with an optimism that had been waning over several years, but after more than five months, minister Warren Truss has yet to reply to the report. The result has been a draining of the optimism that has left the industry wondering why. Here's a tip: if you leave the aviation industry to ponder for long enough they will come up with the worst-case scenario. The worst case is that Truss (and no doubt Abbott) intend to ignore the report and instead do a "White Paper" job to make us feel good but effect no real change. We have been told to expect a response by the end of the year. Great, but why have we had to wait this long?

Under the column marked "Good News", CASA has confirmed that RA-Aus hours will still count as aeronautical experience for a GA PPL (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ra-aus-hours-still-count-under-part-61-casa). Some flying schools were concerned that CASR Part 61 excluded those hours, and when you consider the language of Part 61 is in some case ambiguous, you can't blame them for doing that. The problem lies in Australia's tenacious determination to write legislation that will require you to hire a lawyer to understand it. The recommendations of the Forsyth Report address the problem, but we won't know if the government is prepared to use plain English until they release their response to the report.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch And from the regurgitator SC a catch up to everyone else's coverage of the AAAF strongly worded media release (ps SC does however get a response from the ailing miniscule's office..:rolleyes:): Forum calls on Warren Truss to act urgently on Forsyth report (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/forum-calls-on-warren-truss-to-act-urgently-on-forsyth-report/story-e6frg95x-1227129930726) THE Abbott government has fulfilled fewer than half its aviation election commitments more than a year after taking office, according to the Australian Aviation ­Associations Forum.

A scorecard compiled by the aviation organisations umbrella group found the government had delivered about 40 per cent of its 12 key commitments and criticised its lack of urgency when it came to aviation issues.

An overriding theme to emerge from a meeting of the eight aviation organisations in AAAF last week was the need for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to give higher priority to aviation issues and act with more speed. It is understood a final communique issued by the forum was a milder version of a first draft.

Mr Truss has moved recently to set up an industry advisory council and its first meeting is expected next week.

It singled out the government’s failure to respond to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by David Forsyth and handed down in March as a major concern and was also critical of the government’s failure to appoint the remaining members of the Civil Aviation safety Authority’s board.

The AAAF called on Mr Truss to urgently respond to the Forsyth review and finalise the board to ensure new CASA head Mark Skidmore is “supported by a strong board reflective of he interest of the industry”.

It also wants to see Mr Truss issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction and called for a full moratorium on all CASA regulatory work until Mr Skidmore finds his feet, a full board is appointed and the letter is issued.

This applied particularly to controversial Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61, which “should be immediately suspended to ­prevent further damage to the ­industry”.

“CASR Part 61 is seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,’’ it said. “It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.
“Additionally, there is clear confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.’’

While the appointment of Brindabella Airlines founder Jeff Boyd to the board was “warmly welcomed’’, the three outstanding vacancies on the board were seen as holding back reform at the authority.

The forum welcomed Mr Skidmore’s appointment but noted the challenges in reforming CASA and “bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted by the independent Forysth report”, including the introduction of key quality support mechanisms and the return of a three-tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules.

“The forum rejected the current CASA move towards the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy manuals and forms of compliance requirements for operators and pilots,” it said.

The communique also called for laws preventing unmanned aerial vehicles being deployed by a member of the public not under the control of relevant fire agency. It suggested fines of about $50,000 for breaches.

But a spokesman for Mr Truss said the government had taken action on a number of major aviation initiatives that included the Forsyth review and the appointments of Mr Skidmore and Mr Boyd.

“As the Deputy Prime Minister has consistently indicated, the government is looking to finalise a comprehensive response to the review report before the end of the year,’’ he said, noting this would largely inform the government’s expectations of CASA. Finally from Dougy yesterday...;)Editor's Insights 20 November 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-20-november-2014)
20 Nov 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-20-november-2014)
Doug Nancarrow

Next week I’m at the Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast. This is always a well-supported event with an interesting program.

It comes right on the heels of the coming-of-age of Australia’s newest airport, Wellcamp Brisbane West, near Toowoomba on Queensland’s Darling Downs. QantasLink provided the inaugural flight with a Q400 appropriately renamed the Darling Downs.

To celebrate, the owners (and builders) the Wagner Family held a late lunch at the prestigious Otto restaurant at Sydney Harbourside suburb Wooloomooloo. QantasLink boss John Gissing was on that first flight and up for lunch.

Family leader John Wagner flew his own King Air down for the occasion with a plane load of family in tow.

It’s a remarkable achievement, well worthy of the celebration. Now for the rewards.

The TAAAF briefing that I couldn’t make late last week has resulted in a press release that thinly disguises the assorted associations’ extreme frustration with the lack of action in Canberra on aviation issues. And it’s impossible to disagree with anything they have said in the release. Yes, we now have a new head for CASA, though he doesn’t put his feet under the desk until 1 December; but where are the other three CASA board members? Held up no doubt in that same micro-management process that I spoke of last week.

Speaking of last week, I copped a blast from Dick Smith over my plea that his voice be accorded the same weight in Canberra circles as everybody else’s. Dick seemed to think I was putting him down, but that was not my intent and I stand by my view that he is just one voice in any debate and that his high profile and ability to cut through should not overwhelm other informed perspective on aviation issues. We finished the conversation on a warmer note.

At least DAS PA Sandra Mavin is staying on to support AVM Skidmore in the new job. That’s not only valuable continuity, it’s also a recognition that Sandra is one very capable person. Good to see.

More next week from the Gold Coast, where I don’t think I’ve been since a Virgin Blue intro flight back in 2002.MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
21st Nov 2014, 07:54
There's a nasty rumour around that the miniscule has the shits??

About what nobody seems to know.

Anyone have any info?

21st Nov 2014, 09:10
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.

CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.

If CASA had as part of its charter the requirement to foster the good health of the industry then the use of the term "advisory" would be no problem because by definition they could not then "advise" us to do anything deleterious to industry.

However, as we are constantly told, CASA is a safety regulator and nothing else, that by its own statements knows exactly what is required to be safe, then I believe we are entitled to be told exactly what is required of all of us to comply exacty with CASAs exacting requirements and therefore avoid even the slightest possibility of Administrative punishment, let alone prosecution.

To put that another way, CASAs total insistence on adherence to black letter law is totally, logically and morally inconsistent with "advising" us to do anything. Us compliant serfs are entitled to be told exactly what is required and we should demand nothing less!

dubbleyew eight
21st Nov 2014, 09:22
On a more serious note

Jinglie mine was a serious post.

the great problem in australian aviation is that the overarching philosophy of it all has never been decided by common agreement.
McComic has structured a law framework based on mandating the "certified" way of doing things.
It has been apparent now for over a decade now that CAsA totally ignored requests to implement Canadian owner maintenance.
The result is the we continue to do it illegally supposedly.

as a private owner I have an inalienable right to the use, enjoyment and maintenance of my private property. something blithely ignored by CAsA.

article 20a of the universal declaration of human rights is pretty specific.
"no person shall be forced to join an association". it was ratified by australia in 1952 I believe. sorta screws a fair chunk of aviation law I would have thought.

they can write what they like into law. it will only survive until overturned in the high court. in the meantime we just ignore it.

Dick Smith
21st Nov 2014, 11:48
Tell me more about Canadian owner maintenance. Is this for a normally certified aircraft?

21st Nov 2014, 12:21
Dick, I understand it is applicable to normally certified aircraft but the aircraft gets a special certificate of airworthiness.


22nd Nov 2014, 06:05
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.

I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.

The real problem is CASA misbehavior, trying to use some CAAPS/ACs/AMCs to micromanage the whole industry, but the problem is not just "compliance", it is the fact that CASA gets itself involved in said micro management to a degree unknown elsewhere in aviation, even China.

As I said in a previous post, the answer to over regulation is not more regulation, a schizophrenic concept, if ever there was one, but a complete cultural shift in CASA.

Without that cultural shift, it doesn't matter what form "the regulations" take, Australian aviation is stuffed.

Tootle pip!!

22nd Nov 2014, 06:14
The Canadian system has been in place since the mid-1990s, and has been very successful. There have been no "safety" issues.

There are limits as to what aircraft are included, a different "owner maintained" C.of A is issued, which limits the use of the aircraft to strictly private operations, and from memory, there is no reverse path back to a normal C.of A.

The bottom line is: It has been very successful.

There were some discussions here in Australia, but it was comprehensively knocked back by CAR 30 Maintenance Org. proprietors and the ALAEA, including the ALAEA members who comprise most of the AWIs. All on safety grounds, you understand, not self interest.

Cast you mind back to when you first started flying, in Australia, a private owner could do far more than the present Schedule 8 maintenance allows, and when a LAME could do an annual inspection/100 hourly under the iron gumtree --- no CAR 30 (now Part 145) approval required.

Tootle pip!!

Dick Smith
22nd Nov 2014, 07:17
We must copy this.

Any further details much appreciated?

Have they had lots more accidents? Bet not.

22nd Nov 2014, 07:53

Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.

Leady, I am not suggesting that the current "advisories" be turned into regulation. i am suggesting that the current advisories be turned into recommendations!

The difference being that CASA is required to be responsible for what it recommends, and that compliance with CASA recommendations is an automatic and ironclad defence against punitive action in any form from any authority.

To put that another way, have an accident and kill someone while following CASA recommendations and the law? Sorry Mr. Coroner, talk to CASA, not me.

22nd Nov 2014, 13:21
Advisory material, whether it be ACs, CAAPs or AMCs are acceptable means of compliance --- a lot more than "recommendations".
The current very serious problem is some of the newer home grown material, all added to the horrendously voluminous MOS, on to of world leading ( by words or page count) ultra prescriptive regulations.
The intent of too many in CASA is to use advisory material to get around Parliamentary scrutiny and possible dissallowance --- a completely dishonest and unethical way of doing business.
Indeed, the situation, due to peculiarities of Australian legislation, means that AWIs, as delegates under Commonwealth legislation, are not bound by the CAAPs etc., but can impose and enforce their own "standards". Sadly, there is aviation legal precedence for this, but there is not time to go into detail now.

The aircraft that have "owner maintenance" C.of As that I have seen in Canada, are like most Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, an extraordinary level of workmanship, because it is "no expense spared" in terms of hours devoted to the maintenance and general upkeep.

I have never seen any suggestion that the accident rate for these aircraft, particularly maintenance related incidents or accidents, is any different to any other production aircraft.

The chances of getting such a system in place in Australia now is as good as nil, because of the opposition, even more adamant about "safety" than in the mid- 1990s. I doubt that even the present AOPA would support it!

Like NAS, it may work "overseas", but it will never work in Australia is the mantra, just like independent instructor pilot training, the now neutered PIFR and so on. The net result here is a great deal of "owner maintenance" done behind closed doors. You would be amazed how extensive an "oil change" can be on some older aircraft, and how reliable these aircraft are, going from annual to annual without a single defect.

Tootle pip!!

23rd Nov 2014, 22:24
A good debate but may I suggest it is a debate that will remain purely academic until there is a strong undertaking for the miniscule & government to take up all the recommendations of the Forsyth report or to put it bluntly just...Get on with it! (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/11/23/get-on-with-it/)(courtesy of Pro Aviation:D:D)

Long read so here is just the first part of it..:hmm:The national aviation authority’s new director won’t have to look very far for examples of systemic breakdowns that urgently need fixing. The regulator’s most recent assault on the aviation industry’s trust and respect displays most of the hallmarks of similar actions over the past 20 years, and could easily be interpreted as the adoption of a “scorched earth policy” by elements whose departure may be imminent.

The events surrounding CASA’s publication of Consultation Draft CD 1425SS – Operating limitations for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines, reprinted below, and the response of RA – AUS President Michael Monck, appear to be typical of dozens of CASA actions we have reviewed in the past, in which a “financial first strike” is adopted in preference to measured and professional compliance with the regulator’s common law duty of care, statutory obligations, and its own compliance & enforcement guidelines.

Assuming Mr Monck’s narrative doesn’t contain any major errors or omissions, CASA’s management of the events as he records them appears to have been seeking the same outcomes, and we’ll leave readers to draw their own conclusions. They also appear to support Mr Monck’s labelling of the event as “the misconduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.”

The Jabiru issue isn’t the only aberration that has cropped up since David Forsyth’s ASRR report was released, but so far it’s the most drastic, and has further elevated industry concerns at the government’s tardiness in responding to the ASRR, and also finalising the composition of CASA’s board. Of even more concern is the growing industry belief that Minister Truss is simply stalling the government’s detailed response to the review it commissioned. What industry cannot understand is what is holding the Minister back, who is responsible for developing the government response, and when it will be delivered.

Another puzzle is a meeting in Sydney that is planned for next Friday (November 27) of the all-but-defunct AICC (Aviation Industry Consultative Committee or Council) – nobody remembers.) All former members have been invited to attend, along with a few people from the industry forums who are not former members, but also not CEOs of their organisations. The inaugural meeting is at the Commonwealth Parliament offices in Sydney, costs of attending meetings will not be met by the Council, and at this stage there are to be two meetings per annum. No agenda for the meeting is at hand.

What nobody understands is why on earth the Minister needs yet another advisory body at this point. How many more people need to tell him that CASA is broken and urgently needs fixing? That some of its crazier initiatives need to be frozen in time or in some cases reversed until they have been properly scrutinised? What will be achieved through a biannual meeting of the AICC that the Minister’s ASRR and on-going implementation of the Forsyth report cannot achieve?

And if there are any information gaps why not consult the Australian Aviation Associations Forum, which presents a concise, industry-wide, mutually agreed, collective position, intelligent recommendations, and access to more aviation savvy than exists within the entire national aviation authority? Is the Sydney meeting just another piece of placatory window-dressing, while obfuscation continues and decisions are avoided? Is there something missing from the Forsyth report that the Minister needs to know? It seems to most that the needs of the industry are precisely known, to everyone, except apparently to the Minister and the bureaucrats and advisors who surround him.

The Forsyth report recorded concerns about “the internal management and governance of CASA.” The message from within the industry has been pretty clear. It is that if those responsible for reform are not looking closely at the top three levels of CASA management there will be no culture change, no reform, and no implement ion of the Forsyth panel’s recommendations.

What is the government waiting for?
Plenty areas of interest and promising debate in that PP offering but for mine the best bit is the title...:E

Just a reminder for the ailing miniscule, his minions, the PMC & the Government - it is today 376 days since the miniscule first implemented the Forsyth review & 145 days since the report was handed down...TICK TOCK goes the Play School clock...:rolleyes:


23rd Nov 2014, 22:52
It's time for the gloves to come off folks, CASA wants to shut down non airline and non RAAF aviation. How are you going to respond? More milksop stuff? The beast has thrown down the gauntlet.

24th Nov 2014, 19:00
Sarcs - "[it] is today 376 days since the miniscule first implemented the Forsyth review & 145 days since the report was handed down."
Perhaps, like Baldric he has a 'cunning plan'. After all, the wages roll in, the super piles up, the tea is warm, chocolate biscuits free, the office is air-conditioned and the seat very comfy. He can wait, till anger turns to frustration, frustration to despair and the industry disunites, to become isolated, easy pickings for the hyena packs, roaming the dark places.

No, there's no rush, it'll soon be Christmas (which comes late in the Canadian Autumn) which take us into January (month of the dead), followed by the traditional land of the long weekend lazy weeks. By Easter it will all be just as close to reality as the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.

Never mind, the water remains, for the time being, potable. What a great, lucky country we are fortunate to live in; if you don't want to do anything, that is. What a holiday destination..:ok:..:mad:.

Frank Arouet
25th Nov 2014, 01:15
It’s said the law is for everyone and justice is there for those that can afford it. This unfortunate truism manifests itself here regularly and the frustrations are obvious. It won’t be long until these frustrations boil over and somebody gets badly scalded.
When people are denied a redress of wrongs, or when people are subjected to vexatious attack, humiliation, they are lied to, had their time and effort wasted, lost employment and forced to become impecunious, have lost family and friends, become marginalised, treated in such a way that they end up with depressive and psychological issues, and society rejects them. If that leads them to attempt to seek redress and justice in alternative ways. It should be then asked, if that person resorts to alternative and illegal or violent means, can it be as a result of the actions of the antagonist?
Understanding depends on one’s ability to accept there is a problem in the first place. It’s a pity any normal theatre for redress is often denied defendants to the extent that many aviation problems can be due to a regulatory opinion outside a Court of law and involving a corruption in the prosecution, a simple peculiarity of an FOI or the breaking of chains of evidence, the loss of evidence, the obfuscations because of "safety" or "commercial in confidence" in discovery of documents or interrogatories that the matter ends up in the AAT as the final avenue of redress.
Assuming, as one example, someone has been prosecuted for not having a dust cap on one tyre, be it because it was not replaced after regular maintenance, stolen, or fell off in flight due to lack of tension applied in the replacement, and that prosecutor is CasA and the charge relates to safety breaches.
1) The offender has lost the opportunity to escape from further attention. Therefore the offender now has the problem and he’s unemployed.
2) Coping mechanisms fail due to any of the aforementioned problems in para 1.
3) There is escalation.
4) There is disobedience because of the pettiness of the prosecution.
5) There is a trigger.
6) There is violence/ explosion.
7) There is a lowering of tension.
8) A denial of a problem. (still unsure what problem).
9) Remorse.
10) Guilt.
(but the guilt is for the explosion and the violence, not the dust cap).
People who read this and can associate themselves with the experience will instantly see we are collectively at about para 3). Unless some means of redress is made available to those wronged, the public can expect to see the remainder of this table enacted simply because that’s how the human mind works. That’s why domestic violence continues, that’s why much disharmony exists in Australian society today. The Strict Liability tool left in the hands of Bureaucrats will continue to exacerbate this problem.
There is only a political solution to the problem and that Politician will carry the burden of whatever escalates if he doesn’t act soon.

He is the problem!

25th Nov 2014, 03:43
So nothing changes. New DAS, so what? Farkwitson still reigns supreme, dodgy A380 endorsements, Sky Sentinel farce - corruption, malfeasance, tax payer funded abuse. No accountability, no change to the system. Nothing new. The Skull (although a complete gimp) did what he did because he was authorised to do so. MrDak is a shonk, PMC are crooks, the Minister and Prime Minister are snivelling trough extractors loading their pockets and super funds. While Rome burns these parasites become wealthier and have no accountability. Only a revolution will change things. Time to pick up the firey torches and for 22 million people to make a stand in Australia. Until that happens you are all waisting your time.
I live on a very rural property. Do as I want when I want. I maintain my own aircraft and make my own rules. Nobody comes near me, and the day an FOI or AWI turns up, well they shall wish they didnt. And forget 'droning' me boys. A loaded shotgun is always on hand to deal with that situation. Aviation is stuffed and so is Australia. Dont get even, just get smart. I did.

Catch me if you can...................................................

25th Nov 2014, 05:55
Here he is the Mandarin without a neck...:E:Mrdak says government’s ASRR response on track for release by end of 2014 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/mrdak-says-governments-asrr-response-on-track-for-release-by-end-of-2014/)

November 25, 2014 by Jordan Chong (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/jordan-chong/) Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/mrdak-says-governments-asrr-response-on-track-for-release-by-end-of-2014/#respond)

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MikeMrdak_25_NOV_2014_AAAConference.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MikeMrdak_25_NOV_2014_AAAConference.jpg)

The federal government is on track to deliver its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) by the end of the year, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Secretary Mike Mrdak says.

The department was working through the government’s response, Mrdak told delegates at the Australian Airports Association national conference on the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

“The department has received over 60 industry submissions on the report and we are currently in the process of completing the government’s response which I anticipate will be tabled in the Parliament before the end of this year,” Mrdak said.

The ASRR was commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss.

Written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, the ASRR made 37 recommendations (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/) and found the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF), an industry group that brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner, recently criticised the government for its delayed response to the report (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/australian-aviation-associations-forum-says-government-yet-to-meet-half-of-its-aviation-commitments/).

“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said last week.
“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.” Where's a spare shoe when you need one?? :yuk:

Oh and on Airports & uncontrolled development, well apparently M&M is mounting a rear guard action...:rolleyes::Federal government clamps down on high-rise near airports (http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-government-clamps-down-on-highrise-near-airports-20141125-11tco1.html)

The federal government is keeping a close eye on high-rise and other developments near Australia's major airports and will not allow any buildings to be constructed if they interfere with current or future flight paths, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development secretary Mike Mrdak says.

Under the Airports Act, the government and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority can object to developments in protected airspace near the large federally regulated airports.

"If we don't protect that airspace now, we will in the long-term rue our failure to do so," Mr Mrdak told the Australian Airports Association national conference on the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

"I think it is one of the most important tasks government and industry must work together on. More and more, the potential for high-rise residential development is threatening to encroach on flight paths and protected airspace around our airports."

But such regulations do not apply to smaller airports outside capital cities that are not federally regulated.

Mr Mrdak said he would encourage states to look at a statutory regime like the Airports Act that would allow airport operators to have a say in how much airspace would be required for future growth.

"It is important that planning by state and local governments take into account airports," he said. "Developments near airports and under flight paths can constrain operations. I recognise this is a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use in their jurisdictions. But as we know, if we aren't protecting our long-term assets we aren't going to be meeting our growth challenge."

Mr Mrdak said he was optimistic about the potential for growth in the Australian aviation industry, even though Australians took an average of four flights a year, which is 30 per cent higher than Europeans and North Americans.

"This love of aviation services will continue," he said. "We have to plan and invest for this growth."

Mr Mrdak said consultations with Sydney Airport about its first right of refusal over the development of a new airport in Sydney's west at Badgerys Creek were proceeding "very well" and would continue in the new year.

He said the plan was for an initial one-runway development with a terminal capable of handling up to 3 million passengers a year – on a par with Canberra Airport – which would not have a curfew and would open in the mid 2020s.

"[The airport] will provide an avenue for economic growth for western Sydney, which is already the third-largest economy in Australia," he said.
However too little too late; much like FF M&M suffers from a severe case of Bullshititis and the WIOS has recognised this and from here after will never believe a word that emanates from his pumpkin head...:E {Bullshititis (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bullshititis&defid=3776532): A condition which causes the sufferer to habitually lie without cause or reason. May derive from a nervous compulsion to ocassionally impress certain social groups but can soon evolve into daily habit.}


thorn bird
25th Nov 2014, 07:38
Who screws the screwer? ...CASAWEARY!!! mate!!... where you been??..
Hang on a sec....Where's your note??
Good to see your still in there with an interest in matters aeronautical, and glad to see you've "got smart".
At the same time cant help but feel sad that Australians have to descend to civil disobedience, to do what we used to do when aviation was fun and administered by competent people. Hard to imagine that in todays world Sir Kingsford Smith would be slung in Jail for what he did.

With any luck the Pumpkin head will end up there when the corruption associated with our secondary airports finally gets out in the open. Eddie thought he could thumb his nose at the people of NSW, maybe Pumpkin head has the same delusion he can do it to the people of Australia.

25th Nov 2014, 10:43
CAsAweary..good to hear from you.:ok:

You havent been reading any text off that "Painted Wagon" aka Cairns to Cantberra Anti Corruption Carvan have you.?

No ?...thats ok MANY people along the road had like thoughts about FF incompetence, corruption, bureaucratic buggery and all the other things they get up too, so the vanners tell me.

Heat up is it ?...so MM plays the "reed in the wind" trick...very convenient 'bend', now that there's some flak incoming ??

Now why is the word corruption bandied about so much?

Spare shoes ?...i'd willing sacrifice me favourite old thongs for good cause. :ok:

25th Nov 2014, 19:41
well apparently M&M is mounting a rear guard action

He's certainly 'mounting' a rear something – again. Seems to me if the fire had not been lit in the first place, he wouldn't be out there now, pee-ing on it. Airports will be of great interest over the coming months; considering. I wonder who arranged matters so that 'airport owners' were led to believe that almost anything goes, and, once the nasty, noisy aircraft were forced out, with a little departmental help; the bulldozers could set to work.

"I think it is one of the most important tasks government and industry must work together on. More and more, the potential for high-rise residential development is threatening to encroach on flight paths and protected airspace around our airports."

Which is why Archerfield has just spent a serious amount of money in the AAT demonstrating just how closely the government and industry 'work' together. Bollocks..

But such regulations do not apply to smaller airports outside capital cities that are not federally regulated.

Not since someone changed the words, to make it all so much more 'buyer' friendly.

"It is important that planning by state and local governments take into account airports," he said. "Developments near airports and under flight paths can constrain operations. I recognise this is a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use in their jurisdictions. But as we know, if we aren't protecting our long-term assets we aren't going to be meeting our growth challenge."

Suddenly – it becomes the States problem; I wonder how that came about? More trips to court I expect, to untangle it. Be too late by then of course, CASA will have the industry dead and buried long before the developers move in, to utilise the now unused land.

"This love of aviation services will continue," he said. "We have to plan and invest for this growth...:yuk:.."

Sure we do, here's a good plan. Lets ground half of the training fleet, then make the airports they use too short for legal operations, increase all the fees, turn the rabid safety watchdog loose to savage the survivors, use the AAT to decimate operators with any sort of financial ability to fight back. Then finally, we can create an atmosphere so toxic, with rules so complex and expensive to comply with, that only the protected 'airlines' will be able to survive; we must have a chairman's lounge.

Top plan, minuscule supported, well funded and in action at an airport near you. They're not bad at it, you have to admit.

Wish he'd just sit down and shut up though – makes my old wooden head hurt.....:ugh:

Toot toot.

25th Nov 2014, 22:57
As far as discretionary, recreational flying goes, I find it so much easier to keep my aeroplane thousands of miles away from CASA. Many Australians find delight in owning and using for a month/year an RV based in North America. I can likewise satisfy all my GA urges in a few weeks of flying over fresh water, canoe strapped to the float struts, in a blissful CASA-free zone. There are bugs though, and that pesky midnight sun.;)

26th Nov 2014, 04:36
Call me a confirmed sceptic but I do wonder about Fort Fumble's timing for the release of the monthly missive - some of which is covered by the AA & AF online publications.

AA first on the handover period for DAS Skates:
New CASA DAS to start January 1 2015 after one-month handover

November 25, 2014 by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/new-casa-das-to-start-january-1-2015-after-one-month-handover/#respond)

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mark-skidmore-223x300.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mark-skidmore.jpg)Incoming DAS Mark Skidmore. (CASA)

Incoming Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety (DAS) retired Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore will have a one-month handover period starting December 1 before formally taking up his new role.

The current CASA acting DAS Terry Farquharson said in his November briefing note published on November 25 that Skidmore would officially become the regulator’s DAS on January 1 2015.

Skidmore’s first month at CASA would be spent receiving briefings, meeting representatives from government, the aviation community and within the air safety regulator, Farquharson wrote.

“The transition will give Mark the smoothest possible start to his term as director, which will officially begin on 1 January 2015,” Farquharson said.
Skidmore was named as the permanent replacement to former DAS John McCormick (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/ex-raaf-air-commander-new-casa-boss/) on October 30 for a five-year term.

Farquharson has filled in as temporary DAS after McCormick finished up at CASA at the end of August.

The former F-111 pilot, who retired from the RAAF in 2012 and flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said on the day he was appointed (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/skidmore-to-make-listening-a-priority/) he would make listening to industry a priority.

“One of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

Skidmore’s arrival at CASA on December 1 meant he will be on deck when the federal government handed down its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, which was due before the end of the year (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/mrdak-says-governments-asrr-response-on-track-for-release-by-end-of-2014/).

Farquharson said “everyone in aviation will welcome Mark to his new role”.

“Mark places high importance on consultation and communication so you can expect to hear from him in one way or another in the not too distant future,” Farquharson said. Not much that we didn't already know although I do wish Skates would drop the pretence that he needs to listen to industry to find out what the concerns are..:mad:..FFS read the bloody Forsyth report & the couple of hundred publicly available industry submissions and get on with it...:ugh:

The other article from Oz Flying is more interesting given the fact that a reasonably high profile AAT hearing has just concluded (& waiting now on the President's deliberations) and a AAA conference is currently being held on the Gold Coast...:rolleyes:: CASA to probe Aerodrome Regulations

26 Nov 2014

CASA will conduct a review of aerodrome regulations with the aim of reducing the burden on the aviation industry.

The objectives for the review include a gap analysis against ICAO standards to align rules with international best practice and collaborating with the aviation industry to improve the regulations without compromising safety.

In announcing the review in his CASA Briefing for November, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Terry Farquharson said: "One key aim of the review will be removing any unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs resulting from the current aerodrome regulations. A project has been established to review Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Regulations and the associated manual of standards.

"These rules were implemented in 2003, meaning there have since been changes in international practices and standards, developments in the aviation industry and many evolutions in technology."

According to CASA, the aviation industry is loaded with unnecessary cost and operating impacts resulting from:

the ongoing transition from legacy standards which existed prior to the CASR Part 139 implementation
requirements in Part 139 MOS which exceed equivalent ICAO Annex 14 requirements without clear justification
disconnects between Part 139 and other CASA regulatory parts, standards and advisory information
inflexible standards which necessitate compliance with legacy technology when superior infrastructure and equipment has since become available
standards which don't reflect the operating requirements for current-generation aircraft
complexities with understanding the three types of aerodrome categorisation under Part 139 as well as Aeroplane Landing Areas and Helicopter Landing Sites which are unregulated.
The review will result in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) being developed for industry comment.

More information on the review is available on the CASA website (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_102259). If this is truly the first step by FF to repair the damages inflicted by the previous DAS Skull - & not another attempt to wedge individual sectors of the industry - then we should also shortly see similar initiatives/retractions for Part 61, CVD pilots, proposed Charity Flight regulation..etc...etc. To do otherwise will be to show further contempt for the GA industry.

Just a reminder to Caroline Wilkie who according to the following is the Co-Chair of the AUG...Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group

The Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group (formerly known as the Airspace Users Group) is a joint CASA/aviation community forum for the development of regulations and standards pertaining to airspace, air traffic control, communications/ navigation/ surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes.


Caroline Wilkie - Industry
Roy Tuomela - CASA

View the members (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91124).


Sub-committee last met: 30 April 2013 - Canberra
Next meeting: TBA
All meeting details (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91125)
Working groups/project teams

Part 175 Project Team
Offshore Helicopter Working Groups
Current activity

This sub-committee has been involved with the pre-issue clearance of consultative documents for Notice of Proposed Change 139/03 – Proposed amendments to MOS Part 139-Aerodromes, as well as Amendments to Part 65 Air Traffic Services Licensing.

Terms of reference

The Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group is responsible for:

Reviewing and analysing all information relating to tasks involving the development of regulations and standards pertaining to airspace, air traffic control, communications/navigation/surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes;
Evaluating and developing options on the proposals;
Identifying, documenting and raising issues that need attention/resolution and report to the SCC as required;
Reviewing the impact of proposals using the Legislative Change Proposals procedure;
Discussing and clarifying the role and expectations of the sub-committee's members early in the process to avoid misunderstandings;
Fostering balanced and complete discussion on proposals, and working through all technical, legal and policy issues dealing with the development of regulations and standards related to airspace, air traffic control, communications/navigation/surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes;
Reviewing and analysing information relating to Regulatory Development implementation.
...the AAA may have had a win here but do not forget that you also need to protect the interests of your fellow TAAAF members who only last week lambasted the miniscule & department for being tardy in responding to the Forsyth report and announcing the other FF board members. They (which includes you) were also demanding a moratorium be placed on any further regulatory actions till Skates is in full control...over to you CW!:ooh:


thorn bird
26th Nov 2014, 06:45
Oh God here we go.....sorry if I'm a tad skeptical.

"Skidmore’s first month at CASA would be spent receiving briefings, meeting representatives from government, the aviation community and within the air safety regulator, Farquharson wrote."

All part of the frontal lobotomy every CAsA employee receives as part of the induction process.

“One of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation.

Sorry mate, doesn't wash, we heard that from the previous lunatic.

What did that get us but grief.

Wherever you go now, the Murky Macavellian mandarin will ensure there is a minder on hand from the iron ring to ensure you only hear what they want you to hear.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

What reputation???

The real one where the industry thinks CAsA is totally corrupt, incompetent and out of control???

Or the CAsA spin doctors version where CAsA is a world renown leader in all things aviation (Not a laughing stock).

Or where CAsA has the complete respect and trust of the Australian Industry.

(trust them about as far as letting Eddie O'Bied manage your super fund.)

(Oh and he's coming to a secondary airport near you...oops sorry he's already been, so I'm told, courtesy of the Macavellian Mandarin)

Respect must be earned....

When has CAsA had the slightest respect for the industry.

They have never had anything but utter contempt for the industry.

No doubt after your frontal lobotomy the iron ring will have convinced you to believe in the latter.

Sarc'sie, all of a sudden, out of the blue, all this touchy feely pony poo being vomited out of bull..sh..t castle.

My thought immediately were,

Oh pur lease, give us a break, the Murky Macavellian is deluding himself if he thinks this will work with industry again.

"Farquharson said “everyone in aviation will welcome Mark to his new role”."

Then I suddenly realized, the Poo aint for industry, its for the punters, and all part of the brainwashing of Skidmark...sorry Skidmore.