PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

Sunfish
9th Sep 2014, 23:01
Perhaps we need an 'Aviation enthusiasts political party" (AEPP) and do some deals to support independents, particularly in Senate contests.

thorn bird
10th Sep 2014, 09:49
Cheap shot Sunny!!..Are you deliberately trying to put the fear of god into those poor misunderstood members of the CAsA iron ring?

Bloody good idea but!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More soon.

:D:D:D

thorn bird
10th Sep 2014, 13:16
I really wonder why Minister "Wuss" is being so tardy in releasing the Canadian report. Is there something rather damning contained in that report? or something more sinister?

halfmanhalfbiscuit
10th Sep 2014, 17:50
sarcs
It is impossible to visualise how an incoming CEO from overseas, entrusted with the task of sorting out an organisation that is already shown to be dysfunctional, can be expected to determine with certainty who is competently addressing the problem and who is part of it.

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

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

Kharon
10th Sep 2014, 21:23
HMHB "I reckon we should all write to the new DAS to address those issues that were ignored or brushed under the carpet. That way certain peoples names will be known very quickly.

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

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

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

Toot-toot...;)

Sunfish
10th Sep 2014, 21:43
The Canadian Report? I don't see how it can ever be released for one seriously major reason of national security - the MH17 investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Arouet
10th Sep 2014, 22:50
Then The Labor Party should get off their collective arse's and put at ease the public and industry concern for national air safety and bring the matter up in The House of representatives and be prepared to loose a motion of no confidence in The Deputy PM and Minister for things that should be flying and are now grounded. That shouldn't impinge on the "national security" bi-partisan excuse. The Press Gallery, should be prepared to report to the public the simple fact that their lives may be at risk because of a dysfunctional and incompetent CAsA and ATSB. Oh, and "dipsy-dozy" Minister.

Kharon
10th Sep 2014, 22:54
Sunny –"The release of any report criticising the probity of the ATSB in the slightest will be pounced on by Russia."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fly ...and I vote.

And if that doesnt do any good the revolution must come. :ok:

Jinglie
11th Sep 2014, 13:48
Without stating the obvious, how can Truss be in possession of the AAI, ASRR and TSB reports, which each alone ring alarm bells yet all together? Then publicly state that he'll reply by the end of the year!!!! Aviation safety CAN'T be a priority. But I'm sure we'll hear more of that spin in reply. Pathetic!
Sleep on wazza, watch your portfolio die under YOUR control:{

actus reus
11th Sep 2014, 14:20
The reason Minister Truss has not responded to this report is because the report is indefensible.
It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.
Because the 'industry' said 'it'; 'it' must be correct.
In all my years in this industry (40+) that I will admit has been spent in most places in the world other than the first 15 years or so in Australia, I am still amazed by the the ridiculous attitude of the couple of people who post on here with such conviction.
Grow up. All the predictions of the 'end of GA'; 'Part 166 will result in more aviation accidents at non controlled airfields'; 'Part 66 will end LAMEs'; Part 61 will kill GA (supposed to be 01Sep14 but now extended to the end of 'the year' by those who know on PPRune)
Really?

Jinglie
11th Sep 2014, 14:35
Actus,

So I assume your happy with the state of play from the minuscule? I'm no doom-sayer, but it's pretty clear that all is not well. Do you disagree with the AAI and ASRR? if so, name the parts. Tea and bicci's with the Sec tomorrow arvo?

Jinglie
11th Sep 2014, 14:55
Andre,

So who exactly is the author of your comment regarding:It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.

The Senate, including David Fawcett, ex Empire Test Pilot School, or the ASRR with 3 gents with about 100 years combined in the industry at senior levels?

The IOS respect individuals who can better that, with solid opinion. Up to you?

Hooroo

actus reus
11th Sep 2014, 15:26
Jinglie,
This is not a personal issue. The review was supposed to look at all agencies involved in aviation. What about the ATSB report that came out in October 2013 about breakdown in separation events in Australia between 2008 and 2012; what about the inappropriate use on In flight broadcast areas (a third world procedure) that resulted in an 'unknown' Indonesian aircraft 'appearing' in OZ airspace without AsA having any knowledge of it (I seem to recall that was opposite direction, same level as a QF flight), what about Defence totally rejecting the findings re Darwin and other places, what about the countless 'loss of separation assurance' events that AsA has had?
Now, AsA controllers are some of the best in the world; it has not been only their issues. They work in the system that they work in.
But; none of this got into the the 'Forsyth' review.
I guess it is just incidental that Forsyth was the chairman of the AsA board during most of the time when these things were happening?
BTW, who has not been a test pilot?

Jinglie
11th Sep 2014, 15:57
Andre,

Violin out already? Don't believe any crap the ATSB produce, they've been found inept. As for ASA, great people doing their jobs. I'm aware of numerous issues where the Indonesian's (Angkasa Pura II) have had to correct ASA clearances.
The Indonesian aircraft was probably because all Australia (ASA) could provide was TIBA for international aircraft. That in itself is so sad it's not funny. I spoke to multitudes or foreign carriers pilots who operated into Australia at the time and the common theme was "like being in a GA training area with all sorts of traffic whilst commanding a 400 seat pax A/C, see-and-avoid basically"
Shall we even bother about WLM? A bigger risk!

Jinglie
11th Sep 2014, 16:20
Andre,

The reason Forsyth didn't cover ASA is it was an Aviation Safety REGULATORY Review. ASA is a service provider, not a regulator.
I hear a review of ASA is imminent. There are some prominent people in this country who have strong ties with the FAA and EuroControl.

Get the music and violin going. Lots of smiles:p

Soteria
11th Sep 2014, 20:04
Interesting posts Andre, and such strange timing. The heat must really be building in the kitchen? Enjoy the next CASA symphony as I believe "duelling banjo's" is next on the playlist.

Kharon
11th Sep 2014, 20:58
It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.

Sounds more like criticism of the Pooh-Shambollic CVD diatribe than of the ASR.

Because the 'industry' said 'it'; 'it' must be correct.

Valid point - Before team Truss dreamed up the ASRR (Wet Lettuce Review) to deflect and distract; there was a serious call for a 'judicial' review; to establish the facts. As arscis says, it's all hearsay and has not been tested. All seems passing strange until you realise that once any sort 'real' independent assessment of 'evidence' was made, there would be a very large, very public outcry. The wasted money alone, not to mention the carnage, the corruption and the incompetence; all proven beyond reasonable doubt would have the FAA and probably every other NAA in Australia doing audits. But, Truss won't accept that challenge, he dare not; he'll hide behind the smoke, mirrors and Machiavellian whispers, which are his preferred tools of trade.

Anyway – no matter; once the cabinet is shuffled; he can simply revert to being irrelevant window dressing, anchoring the Qld votes before shuffling off to the nearest five star nursing home to enjoy his dotage. There to indulge in porridge dribbling, laxatives and boring witless anyone he can corner, with tales of political 'derring do'. Can't come soon enough.

= = = = = = = = = == = =
BRB report:-

Good turn out last night, great ipad video of our 'John and Libby' holding hands and cooing in the front seats of a DHC8 – some people really are very naughty. The happy couple may not be front page of the Telegraph news, but they are a feature of many a ribald comment, two limericks and generally a source of great amusement to the BRB. The –U-bend Tube option was considered but voted down; the 'vision' being enjoyed far too much to share.

Once that ribald episode settled down and the last chuckles dissipated, the first main topic for discussion was what options were available to David Fawcett? Although David Fawcett is enmeshed and constrained by 'party', the consensus was that his patience must just about be exhausted. There is it seems (as we understand it) a mountain of complaint 'paperwork' against CASA, McComic and his happy little band. Too much for one man to deal with, too serious to dismiss and with no clear offer of assistance from the minuscule; a problem.

The unanimous vote went to his calling for a full dress inquiry into the mountain of complaints lodged against CASA, by a frustrated industry with nowhere else to go, but to his front door. As it's not 'his' problem, a call for an inquiry would garner solid bi-partisan support from the committee and could force an inquiry. More to follow we thought...

Item last – REPCON. The BRB were (strangely) once again unanimous. The proposal to send a REPCON to every NAA which has passengers travelling to Australia and using domestic air services was fully supported. The elements of the submission defining that there are some 60 odd, independently identified, deficiencies within the Australian system, which despite industries best efforts, the government have failed or are unwilling to address. The submission recommends that all external NAA initiate an audit process to ensure the safety of their nationals within Australian airspace. Particularly regarding insurance issues.

As it's a 'big' move; the BRB suggested that before PAIN was turned loose and the REPCON generated, a straw pole of opinion from Pprune readers should be called for.

So – what say you Ppruners?.. Repcon or repercussions??

Toot toot

Sunfish
11th Sep 2014, 22:54
Actus Reus your suggestion that criticism of CASA and the regulations is merely froth and bubble is simply wrong. CASA is a monster that is costing Australia jobs, growth and investment in the entire Aviation sector.

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not an "industry insider". My career has been mostly in other fields but with a smattering of Aviation. I perhaps unwisely decided to learn to fly before studying the regulatory landscape, for if I had, I probably would have invested in learning Golf. However despite coming from other fields, including a short stint working for Government and time as a CEO and in various general management positions. I failed to do my due diligence on the regulatory environment because by and large Australian regulations are well written and conscientiously and honestly administered(outside NSW). What I found in aviation simply stank.

When I first started reading the regulations, they didn't pass the smell test. Simple I thought, I'm not holding my mouth right, there must be a magic key to interpreting this minefield that I don't yet have. Well Reus, I still don't have it, and nobody else does either. The regulations are deliberately confusing, imprecise and far more complex than required.

What I then discovered, from a variety of sources, is that the regulations are capriciously applied, as evidenced in the continuing stream of AAT cases, including the case of a man who was stripped of his job and licence on the flimsy basis of a Youtube video.

What I then noticed was the deliberate cruelty and regulatory bastardry as evidenced by the predilection of the regulator to take action on the late afternoon of a Friday or the day before a public holiday, which is the legal equivalent of shoving a turd in someone’s mailbox. CASA is supposed to behave as a model litigant. It doesn't.

To put that another way Reus; what sort of complete arsehole grounds an airline on Christmas Eve?

I will not bore you with further tales of the casual, and perhaps even deliberate cruelty and mismanagement of CASA and its ongoing self serving parasitic destruction of aviation. You are simply wrong.

Frank Arouet
11th Sep 2014, 22:54
Interesting handle. May have relevance in precedent to our own regulators who appear to have left the gate open;




Pittwood R v Wright J:
[Murder – the actus reus of - omissions- duty under a contract]
D was a level crossing keeper who negligently left open the crossing gate. This led to the death of a carter whose cart was struck by a train.

Held: D had a duty (arising from his contract of employment) to shut the gate, and although this duty was owed to his employers rather than to the public at large, it was enough that his negligent failure to act could lead to conviction.

Guilty of manslaughter

Sarcs
11th Sep 2014, 23:02
Kharon - Anyway – no matter; once the cabinet is shuffled; he can simply revert to being irrelevant window dressing, anchoring the Qld votes before shuffling off to the nearest five star nursing home to enjoy his dotage. There to indulge in porridge dribbling, laxatives and boring witless anyone he can corner, with tales of political 'derring do'. Can't come soon enough.
Apparently there is a rumour floating around in the Cantberra MSM press scrum of a cabinet reshuffle...:D Caught this on the tail end of a 7:30 Leigh interview of the man with perhaps the worst job on the Govt front bench..:ugh:: Scott Morrison talks to Leigh Sales about terrorism and national security (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4085221.htm)

SCOTT MORRISON: I think it's simply the transition of events. And as I said, David Irvine, as the Director-General, makes these assessments independently. These aren't decisions made by politicians. He is there to set those threat levels and that's what he has been commenting on. Now the Government has been receiving advice from our agencies about the emerging threat and we've been responding to that and we've been, I think, very upfront with the Australian people about that.

LEIGH SALES: Briefly before you go, there are rumours of a potential reshuffle in the Abbott frontbench. Are you ready to move on from Immigration?

SCOTT MORRISON: I'm totally committed to the job that I have in front of me. We have not yet fully stopped the boats, but the boats are stopping and there are the many threats across the border that I've referred to today in my speech. These matters are always for the Prime Minister to determine, but he has a very strong team and we've had a very strong year.

LEIGH SALES: Do you consider that you deserve a reward for the progress you've made in stopping the boats?

SCOTT MORRISON: To be able to be able to do what we said we'd do and get the results that we said we would get, that is the satisfaction I take from the job.

LEIGH SALES: Scott Morrison, thank you.

SCOTT MORRISON: Thanks, Leigh. Hmm...S&M assigned to sort out the aviation imbroglio, that I would like to see as there is no denying that the man is a definite doer..:ooh: Then again he could simply decide to deport all the IOS & GWM to Manus to sort it out or be stuck there indefinitely...:ouch:As it's a 'big' move; the BRB suggested that before PAIN was turned loose and the REPCON generated, a straw pole of opinion from Pprune readers should be called for.
Got my vote..;) Although it would be helpful if we could get a leaked version of the TSBC report before exposing to the world...:confused:

Perhaps Julian (https://wikileaks.org/) can help us out??:rolleyes:

Hmm..anyone fluent in Mandarin...:E: CHINA - Sino Confidential Aviation Safety reporting System (SCASS) [2004] (http://scass.air-safety.com/)

MTF...:ok:

dubbleyew eight
12th Sep 2014, 00:39
the inca hierarchy were convinced that the sun wouldn't come up again unless a beating heart was offered in sacrifice each sunset.

I notice that despite the demise of the incas the sun still rises every morning.

CAsA should be the subject of a Royal Commission.

the royal commission needs to sort out what level of oversight of safety is actually needed.
the royal commission needs to investigate the history of regulatory bastardry and correct it.


If CAsA was abolished tomorrow THERE WOULD BE NO SAFETY DETRIMENT.
most, if not all, the experienced people in aviation pay no real heed to their nonsense at all anyway. lip service is not obedience. never was.

aroa
12th Sep 2014, 06:08
DUBYA...AT THIS POINT... ITS THE ONLY WAY TO GO....:ok::ok::ok:

SO WHAT IF IT COSTS 2O MIL..CHICKEN FEED COMPARED TO THE 100S OF MILLIONS WASTED AND 6 MIL WAS IT FOR THE SKULL YEARS. :mad:
VERY POOR VALUE FOR MONEY THERE, IMO...BUT WHATS NEW.

HEARD THAT THE AG RECKONS CAsA is out on its own and nothing can be done by the Government.!! Hullo? Do we have a Soviet state separate from the Commonwealth. I dont think so...but thats what it smells like.
AND WHAT A STENCH IT IS.:mad:

ONLY A ROYAL COMMISSION CAN LIFT THE LID AND CLEAR THE AIR.

BRING IT ON.!:ok::ok:

thorn bird
12th Sep 2014, 10:17
Heard the same rumour mentioned by Jinglie that VA were a tad pissed as I am told is Qantas. I have also heard the airline submissions to the "wet lettuce" review were even more scathing than GA.

It occurs to me that in the past our RPT brethren didn't much bother about CAsA imposts on their bottom line, they could just up the ticket price a few bucks to cover it. Perhaps the costs are starting to bite.

Kharon's idea of "Repcons" to the world has merit, but maybe its time for the industry associations as a whole to join together to fight this nonsense.

A joint press release from GA and the RPT industry would surely make main stream media sit up and take notice.

GA on its own, thanks to the carefully crafted spin from CAsA, the general public believes we are a bunch of homicidal maniacs, so ours is a voice in the wilderness. Qantas on the other hand is the safest airline in the world in the publics mind, they have credibility.

One thing is for sure, it would seem the bureaucrats are working hard to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and with such a weak minister are likely to win the battle, but if the industry as a whole made their views known,could the Pollies ignore it? After all it is in the Airlines interest that GA remains viable.

Jinglie
12th Sep 2014, 10:56
Thorny,

Agree with all your comments. I'm talking with the ABC about getting a Q&A on the subject. It may need to be broader transport to have public appeal, but Truss will have to be front and centre. I'll happily represent the IOS. Any other taker's?

Soteria
12th Sep 2014, 12:44
Sarcs, heard the same rumour about a cabinet reshuffle. Bring it on. It doesn't matter if it is Truss, Morrison, Vladamir Putin or the anti-Christ himself in charge if infrastructure (which supposedly includes aviation), if whoever is Minister of the day continues to sit on his/her thumbs and sweep everything under the carpet then the IOS will quite simply adjust their crosshairs and take aim at the new shyster, not a problem. They are fools if they think the momentum of Australian aviations contempt and disgust in the government for what it has allowed its agencies to do, for many decades in some cases, will go unnoticed or lose steam just because a new trough dweller is shuffled into the portfolio, they ought to think long and hard.....your old bureaucratic handbook needs updating boys, the old tricks don't work anymore, you are dealing with a different era of IOS.

HEARD THAT THE AG RECKONS CAsA is out on its own and nothing can be done by the Government.!! Hullo? Do we have a Soviet state separate from the Commonwealth. I dont think so...but thats what it smells like. If this is the case then the tail is certainly wagging the dog. An Ag who has his balls held in a vice like grip by government agencies is a spineless batty boy, if the rumour is true. And forget a soviet state, you should call CASA 'Vatican state', an untouchable, corrupt, protected, financially fat Kingdom answerable to nobody.

Jinglie
12th Sep 2014, 13:48
Minuscule Wuss has had a year now to clean up the obvious mess. Now he's after a few months to comment! I'm surprised he didn't strike in opposition after Albo was outed by the Senate. It was a gift, yet left alone......? Maybe Sleepy has forgotten about the Albo years and slipped straight back his former useless minuscule role?
I met with John Anderson back in those days and his "off the record" comments about Wuss weren't flattering. Anderson basically described nothing would change. He used the word "stable". Did Anderson have a crystal ball??? seems like it.:{

Sunfish
12th Sep 2014, 14:21
It is now quite clear that CASA has made a devils bargain with Truss. The regulations are impenetrable. That is CASA's advantage. The only hope we have is that CASA agrees to retire in its own good time.

The alternative painted by CASA is Armageddon.

Kharon
12th Sep 2014, 21:41
Arscis "It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.

It appears I must correct my initial notion of the true origin of the fatuous statement above. It seems there is some dispute as to when the comment was made for the first time. There is a claim that it was made in 2008 after a Wodger attempt to justify a 'slightly modified', although unqualified version of a FRMS argument to those who understood the game; but then, another crowd claim it was made, as an aside after the Senate committee session which dealt with the "Chambers Report". Either way, it seems Pooh-Shambollic only cribbed the style from his mate; the accolade being recycled by a CVD wit. These may, or may not be the facts....:D..:D

TB "It occurs to me that in the past our RPT brethren didn't much bother about CAsA imposts on their bottom line, they could just up the ticket price a few bucks to cover it. Perhaps the costs are starting to bite."

Good idea, but can't quite see Big Q or VA making any sort of public statement. A worried public will be reflected in ticket sales, unless they spin it around to be another government generated 'impost' passed along to the punters issue. Again it's unlikely – given the current climate. I wonder if any of the 'bigger' small operators have weighed in?. There are some pretty impressive companies with big investments in aviation who's opinion would signify and could; with a push, influence the minuscule particularly combined with the 'alphabet' organisations hard work and well won credibility. One of the problems (IMO) with that would be the 'habit'. It is always easier to 'accommodate' a new rule set; shuffle the COM and adapt the operation quietly, rather than challenging CASA. Anyway in response to any challenge now; the Sleepy Hollow boys will simply say "you had a chance to comment during the consultation period, too late now, it's the law". "You blew it"...

The kicker is, they'll be right. The time honoured tradition of rule by exemption and instrument is deeply entrenched and valued by industry – they see an advantage over the 'competition' if they have a special 'exemption' someone else has not.

It's a little academic, but I should add here that one of the mainstays supporting a 'three tier' rule set is the valid argument that it will eliminate the 'instrument and exemption' system. The system can be perceived as 'capturing' an operation and potentially be exposed to allegations of corruption. This system can be eliminated through a two tier system, but it needs a mature regulator with 'honest' intentions. Fat chance.

Aye – 'tis a funny old game; - when played rough and down in the weeds.

Toot toot..:ok:

PS - My Google translated a 10 page document to French in about 30 seconds; why must we wait until the whimsical, non specific estimate of 'hopefully late Autumn' for the TSBC to translate and publish 'the report'?. Now is that Canadian or Australian late 'Autumn'? And when in all the seven hells is 'late Autumn' anyway? Ye gods: and we just put up with it.. :ugh:

Words fail at this point, we hope to resume normal service after second coffee....:mad:

Sarcs
15th Sep 2014, 06:39
Err KC this..
6. Support Regional Aviation
The Coalition will introduce a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme
for regional commercial airline carriers to support low volume and new routes to
small and remote communities.
Score: 4/10 Some changes introduced
...may need a remark, it would appear the miniscule woke up sometime today...:E: Media Release - WT171/2014 - 15 September 2014 (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/September/wt171_2014.aspx)

Oz Aviation wins the prize for catching a glimpse of the miniscule before his afternoon nap...:D:D:Government revives enroute scheme (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/government-revives-enroute-scheme/)

The federal government will spend $1 million a year to bring back a scheme that subsidises the cost of navigation charges for flights to smaller regional centres. Called the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme, airlines will be able to recoup 60 per cent of air navigation charges levied by Airservices on existing routes and 100 per cent of the charge for new routes for up to three years.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss says the scheme, which was cut under the previous government, would support vulnerable air routes to regional and remote communities.

“The Coalition in government is focused on encouraging the growth of regional aviation services across Australia and expanding the current network by giving impetus for operators to test whether a new route can be commercially viable,” Truss said in a statement on Monday.

“It can take years for new regional routes to establish sufficient support to become viable, which is why we are providing this additional support for up to three years. If we want to better connect regional Australia we must better target government support to where it is needed for those start-up and marginal routes. A relatively modest amount of government assistance can make a big difference.”

Truss, who is the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, said airlines would be able to apply for assistance on routes carrying up to 15,000 passengers a year using aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 15 tonnes. Priority would be given to routes that linked a regional or remote community with a capital city or major regional centre.

“This ensures people have the best possible access to health and other professional services, as well as providing essential links for doing business in regional areas,” Truss said.

The scheme, which would cost $1 million a year for four years, came on top of the $1 million each year allocated to supporting vital aeromedical services such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Truss said.

Applications, which can be made at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/regional), were now open for all eligible services flown since July 1 2014. Maybe REX pending doom statement from it's Chair had some effect in disturbing the miniscule's slumber...:=:=: Rex says aviation sector in “deep crisis” (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/08/rex-says-aviation-sector-in-deep-crisis/)

Meanwhile over at Sleepy Hollow the other geriatrics are busy working out how best to continue to white ant the government's Red Tape Reduction policy, while pineappling other smaller players in the industry to keep with their policy of 'safe skies are empty skies'....:yuk: :yuk: :Angel Flight services not in danger (http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/2558029/angel-flight-services-not-in-danger/?cs=112)
Sept. 15, 2014, 4 a.m.

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.


It comes after Angel Flight, an organisation that uses volunteer pilots to provide air transport for rural and regional people to access medical care in larger centres, raised concerns it could be grounded by unworkable and expensive red tape imposed by the aviation watchdog.

"CASA is looking at imposing an additional regulatory layer of bureaucracy on Angel Flight, with the charity required to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance," the charity said in a statement.

Angel Flight founder and CEO Bill Bristow said CASA in 2003 gave the charity it's "blessing" in written approval to start operations but was now seeking to impose new rules to "regulate" Angel Flight in the future. He said flights co-ordinated by Angel Flight were no different to private general aviation flights in Australia.

"All of our 2700 volunteer pilots who generously give their time to assist struggling families must adhere to the rules and regulations already imposed and rigorously controlled by CASA," Mr Bristow said.

"When we first heard about CASA proposing regulatory changes, I presented our grave concerns to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's chief of staff David Whitrow in March this year. However, it seems that those concerns have fallen on deaf ears."

He said he was worried the cost of complying with "onerous federal regulations" would financially cripple Angel Flight.

CASA rejected suggestions it was planning to impose crippling red tape, saying all it had done was start a discussion about aviation safety issues relating to community service flights.

A discussion paper on options for safety standards had been released for public comment so the public could understand them and consider whether there might be ways of managing safety more effectively, CASA said.

It said at the moment community service flights were considered to be private flights and pilots had varying levels of qualifications and experience and the aircraft involved differed in size, power and sophistication.

"If any changes to the safety standards covering community service flights are proposed in the future there would be further and comprehensive consultation before any action was taken," a CASA spokesperson said. Funny how the PG statement has a familiar undertone to that given for the CVD & Cooper Pedy embuggerances...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
15th Sep 2014, 08:01
Sarcsy,

Interesting stuff from minister "Wuss" but a few bucks thrown at air nav charges unfortunately wont cut the mustard.

The millions of dollars and years of delay to gain regulatory approval make any form of regional RPT unviable.

The new Part 61 adds further unsustainable $$$ to operating costs on top of Australia's asinine maintenance regulations.

The current Regionals are operating profitably for now on grandfather infrastructure in place before MComic turned up.

As they have to ramp up their ticket price to comply with new regulations and the regulatory cost of introducing new equipment more and more of their customers will decide to hit the road rather than their wallets.

Effectively we are going back to the two airline days where punters would drive to Bn or Mel from syd to attend a weekend wedding because they couldn't afford or justify the ticket price.

That price was dictated by monopoly, but also by union intransience.

Today the price is driven by regulatory compliance.

Often wonder how many of the punters became casualties of that folly, and I wonder how many in the future from the current CAsA folly. Will CAsA be culpable for those casualties??...should be!!! but of course CAsA are never responsible for anything.

Unfortunately minister "Wuss" aint awake, he's blind

The answer is so simple, instead of doing a Europe and killing our industry, do a Kiwi and watch our industry take off.

How much is it going to cost the "Guv mint" subsidizing essential services when aviation in Australia does a Europe??

Angel flight?...same parameters...a real charity, not a pseudo charity like the RFDS or Care flight.

Commercial entities masquerading as charities, bidding for commercial contracts with a definitive advantage over their competitors.

Angel Flight fills a gap where no $$$ are currently available for a commercial operator, and does it very well.

CAsA hates an anomaly that they cant control or manipulate, so they will kill angel flight.

The punters left with little choice but to hit the road Jack!!

Frank Arouet
15th Sep 2014, 10:28
Reducing en route nav charges means they won't tax you as much. (A bit like being shot with a .22 instead of a .308), However it would be well intentioned if the local airport operators don't adjust their charges by the logarithmic amount. Does anybody remember Compass? They were mainly sent broke by a government policy Not to waive some government charges that may have helped save the company and save the jobs. I think it was Labor wasn't it?

Sunfish
15th Sep 2014, 19:13
Thornbird, the existing regulations plus CASA enforcement, a few accidents in experimental and RAA aircraft, coupled with an increase in security requirements beyond the ASIC, coupled with privatisation of regional airports and perhaps some more medical requirements (sleep apnoea + Colour vision issues) will kill all forms of domestic aviation apart from major RPT, stone dead.

One can already see that if the RAA and SAAA accept the mantle of becoming "designated authorities" or whatever its called, CASA will just pile requirement after requirement onto them until they sink like the commercial GA sector.

Kharon
16th Sep 2014, 03:36
Between the pass and fell incensèd points Of mighty opposites.

Is the Canadian TSBC now compromised? tainted by association with Australian obfuscation and deceit. It's sure is starting to look that way – but whodathunkit?

Is the Pel Air cover-up going to drag on forever? Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/09/16/is-the-pel-air-cover-up-going-to-drag-on-forever/)– Plane Talking -

Bloody good question Ben, and an inkling of what the minuscule and his department may expect when the now valueless report is finally allowed to be seen, after editing and translation and modification and embuggerance.

" It is difficult to imagine an experienced minister leaving advice on such an important matter to the same department responsible for both CASA and the ATSB, which according to evidence before the Senate committee, conspired to hide information that the regulator had failed to carry out its duties in relation to oversight of the flawed Pel-Air Westwind operation."

Only in Australia we thought; but it now seems to be a Canadian habit; delay and render the report nugatory – "Oh that report – Naw, it's old hat now, we fixed it all up a year ago; see all better now."

Shame on the whole rotten lot, even more shame on industry and the people paid to represent the travelling public for tolerating a single word of it.

It's immoral, despicable and disgusting to see the work follow the money, time and effort down the sewer. Too little too late was a bad option – but sweet bugger all, sometime never is no option at all. BOHICA...in spades.

Iago: "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

Frank Arouet
16th Sep 2014, 05:34
Avweb now have this Sandilands article.

Sarcs
16th Sep 2014, 10:17
PG the consummate bull-sh*t artist - "Trust me I work for CAsA!" :ugh:

Angel Flight not threatened by red tape - CASA

16/09/2014 , 10:00 AM by stuart stansfield


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has moved to reassure rural communities that charities such as Angel Flight are not under threat.
But a discussion paper on safety standards for community service flights is being circulated.

Interview with CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.
(Image: Angel Flight)

PETER GIBSON AUDIO (http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/peter-gibson-audio.mp3)

robsrich
16th Sep 2014, 11:21
An update on AHIA's continuing concern - CASR 61 - Week 2.

From AHIA's Official Journal - Airwaves October 2014.

As this is the first edition after the launch of CASR Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing); I have asked our President, Peter Crook to start this column with a brief overview of things happening at his end of the line. Peter is in Sydney and your editor (AHIA Secretary) resides in Brisbane.

Peter’s comments:

We are almost through the second week the implementation of the new CASR Part 61 and associated MoS and I and other members of the AHIA have been fielding a considerable number of questions from the industry. Some of the more pertinent issues are:

From fixed and rotary wing flying schools, "I cannot understand the new Regulation, the wording is unclear and in some cases ambiguous. Can you please help in the interpretation; we do not want to operate illegally".

One fixed wing flying school has made some calculations which indicate the cost of an endorsement on a basic light twin will increase by around $1,000.00. This is due to the instructor, who is not an ATO, now being unable to sign off the endorsement as before. They will have to hire in an ATO to carry out the competency check flight. "Some young students just don't have the additional funds available".

The Chief Pilot of a helicopter operation has held approvals to train and endorse pilots on a medium helicopter for many years. As he is not an ATO they will have to hire these services, as per the previous case. The additional cost of the ATO and the competency check flight could add around $7,000.00 to each endorsement.

As well as the additional cost there is also a degree of risk as the Chief Pilot has the knowledge and experience to conduct the training and check flight in a safe manner. The ATO who most likely would have minimum time on these machines could unwittingly compromise the safety of the check flight by not having the same level of experience and currency.

It was disappointing CASA did not listen to the number of individual aviation professionals, the major aviation associations via the TAAAF (The Australian Aviation Associations Forum) to further delay the introduction of CASR Part 61 until more of the problems were rectified.

Subsequent to my letter to The Hon. Warren Truss requesting a delay, a reply from his office states the delay in implementation from December 2013 to September 2014 was to allow changes in the regulation sought by industry be made in December 2013 and for recent amendments to related provisions under CASR Part 141 to also be approved which will reduce compliance costs for the industry.

Unfortunately from May 2014 to September 2014 there were several changes made to the legislation and associated MoS which were not made available for comment from the industry.

The reply from The Hon Warren Truss also suggests the understanding and implementation of the regulations will be further improved by a range of information available and being enhanced on the CASA website and Aviation Safety Seminars being held by CASA with industry around the country. One would have thought the Seminars should have been held prior to the implementation so as to avoid the obvious misunderstanding that currently exists.

The AHIA is working though Part 61 to prepare a report with constructive criticism and suggestions to amend what we have for the benefit of all. CASA has suggested this review should be completed in late March 2015. The AHIA will run several seminars to gather feedback from our members prior to March 2015.

Secretary AHIA

thorn bird
16th Sep 2014, 20:26
Weasle words indeed Sarc's.

Angel flight may as well pack it in now.

They will allegedly consult, then implement the rules they have already descided on.

Country people should all get their cars serviced in preparation of lenghthy usafe drives...all in the name of safe skies are empty skies.

Dick Smith
16th Sep 2014, 21:21
Rob. What is the position in the USA? Would all these extra costs happen there as well? That's an important point to communicate.

Very good chance of getting changed if the new rules result in greater costs than in one of our major trading partners.

Sunfish
16th Sep 2014, 21:44
I refer to a post I made some time ago: "Jobs, investment and growth". Keep reciting that mantra at every opportunity.

Any letter to the Minister needs to make the following point in the First and last paragraph. "This action (or inaction) by CASA has the potential to adversely impact the number of jobs, new investment and growth in the industry".

Then explain why.

Then explain exactly what you want the Minister to ask CASA to do. The format should be "that you direct/require etc." ie: the act you want him to take - it must be an act or the letter is a pointless begging whining complaining letter which goes straight in the bin.

To put that another way; if you request that a Minister DO something, and they don't without seeking advice that contradicts your request and communicating that to you , and then something goes wrong, the Minister wears it if you go screaming to the press yelling "look at this! I told him what was wrong and he did nothing!".

Then repeat the jobs mantra in the final paragraph.

In my opinion the peak body of associations needs to send an ultimatum to Truss spelling out exactly what they think is going to happen if the Thirty Seven recommendations of the report are ignored. The letter has to state that the health and viability of the entire industry sector as well as the safety of the travelling public is at risk if CASA is allowed to continue on its current course.

If you write individual letters with vague complaints, all you are doing is building up a mountain of evidence that things aren’t as bad as they seem, that industry is divided, that the industry isn't unanimous, that CASA is simply doing its best to try to satisfy a vast amount of competing agendas (as evidenced by your lack of unanimity) the best way it can in a difficult budget situation, etc. etc,.

Get it down to a single unanimous letter with no let outs and nail the Minister right now. And if it was me, I'd go out on a limb and say words to the effect that we suspect you are going to do nothing and release your response after Christmas. although I'd couch it in polite terms that don't look like a direct accusation. eg: "could we be forgiven for thinking.....?

To put that another way, when the Governments response is released between Christmas and New Year, and whoever is first back to the office after the holdiays writes a whining non specific letter of complaint, it's too late!!!

Ziggychick
16th Sep 2014, 22:13
Safety first. Absolutely.

My questions are:

Last year CASA was a "Gold Sponsor" at the Aviation Law Conference, mainly for lawyers, brokers and insurers. Quite an expensive amount I would assume.
Rubbing shoulders with the insurers and creating throat cutting plans to protect themselves, well, from themselves.
This money would be better spent on providing pure non-profit organisations such as Angel Flight with ALL resources and staff to allow not only enhance safety, but give the company an applaud, assistance rather than throw them away like "oh well, so sad, too bad". Sound familiar.
With the Senate findings, ASRR and huge industry movement, all logic falls on the institutionalised minds of those that care only to protect the Gov'mutts posteriors.
How could the Gov'mutts be wrong.

We all know they are.
After reading the excellent article that Ben wrote regarding the "Pel-Air" cover-up, I pondered....

I spoke to a Gov'Mutt and asked two questions.
Were we protected by law from you prior to the ditching?
Is there protection/law in which I now fall in to?
Both answers were no.
I asked for that in writing.
A few days later, of course, nothing.
I call, complete attitude change telling me I can no longer help you.
This is the truth. Batty.

Same for the DP. Ridiculous responses.
Canadians. Well, well well.

What on Earth is happening Minister?

I would be so very pleased to organise a protest for transparent, fair aviation in Australia. No more mute voices. Kills, hurts and put great companies out of business.

CASA-I do not believe you should have anything to do with the insurers/lawyers conference. Spend your budget correctly. Angel flight needs your assistance. The industry wants to be heard.
Insurance companies that slowly try to shove you off if unfortunate to be a survivor, family member of loved one that have had their life cut short through the incompetences of our own Gov'Mutts. Botched investigations and more. Enter the Insurers. Dear oh dear.

So, who is running the country again?
Large co-ops, especially in the aviation loop?

I thought we voted to have our voices heard.
When that fails, which it has, united people can make change.
On the steps of Parliament.
PM if interested. This can happen, only if voiced. Not typed.
A date will be pending, soon.


I have to go for a bit. Still seeing the other sides medical team. Half a decade.
No resolve, just words and broken promises from my own Gov'Mutt.

Now Angel Flight turmoil.

Disgraceful behaviour and disloyalty to our own citizens.

Who's in? Loud and clear.

Never give up. Not done yet! Momentum, momentum, momentum!

How do they sleep at night? Shame.

Ziggy.

Frank Arouet
17th Sep 2014, 01:57
Ziggy.


Everyone is a wakeup to the AAT and various Ombudsmen. CAsA won't take matters to real Courts. Aviation Lawyers will soon go broke. When people stop flying there will be no need for aircraft insurance except ground risks. Aviation Insurance company's and brokers will go broke. When there are no more aircraft flying CAsA will have no reason to exist and the bureaurats will have to find other jobs to infect.


When all this happens we can start afresh.

robsrich
17th Sep 2014, 04:02
Dick,

We are doing our best to pin costs and handle hiccups. Some hiccups in the aeroplane world overflow into the rotorcraft operations. Heard a developing story today - problem with getting a Cessna Caravan endorsement - will be a problem for parachutist operators; according to our sources.

Colin (Chairperson -Part 61 Review Team) is running a check to see if we are heading into this problem. Will advise when more known - and of course how much will it cost to resolve the issue.

AHIA queries CASA’s lack of cost benefit analysis for CASR Part 61 after receipt of US data.

A recent NTSB report shows a US civilian accident rate of only 3.94 accidents per 100,000 hours. (A very good result). By comparison, the ATSB Transport Safety Report of October 2013 states our rate is 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours. Put simply, the FAA operators have an accident rate that is 2.74 times less than our CASA rotorcraft industry.

The AHIA is vigorously pursuing a study of extra expenses appearing as the CASR Part 61 Suite is being rolled out; our work is being slowed due to the number of exemptions, concessions and extra transition time needed to facilitate introduction of the new rules. The AHIA estimates on aircrew testing, ATO and FTE study (and looming shortages) will be a shock to many; especially when heavy multi-engine helicopters segment is looked at more closely.

AHIA members are constantly asking their executive why the cost of regulation is increasing at such an uncomfortable rate due to our nation’s alignment with the EASA system; a past political decision now so unpopular with Australian aviation community. Maybe the solution has always been on our doorstep? Industry comments state a need for a less complicated, less verbose and plain English regulatory system; which has been jointly developed by a regulator sensitive to industry needs.

Despite CASA’s media reports to the contrary; there has been little consultation with the helicopter industry. This unfortunate fact was confirmed when another version of both the CASR Part 61 Instrument and Manual of Standards was released only several days prior to the implementation date on 1 September 2014.


Rob Rich
AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator for
E: [email protected]

Jinglie
17th Sep 2014, 14:15
Ziggy,

Happy to protest if that what it takes! At the end of the day it all comes down to Truss. Act of Grace payments can be approved by a Minister.
It's interesting that Truss was the only person ,in opposition, to the Senate AAI! Why on earth would he do that in opposition? Well, when the Chairman of PEL-AIR is an old mate, do favours come around? Also let's go back to Albo dumping money on REX!
So how much influence has Sharp had on things? How do PEL-AIR get away with such blindingly obvious facts presented here, and in the Senate AAI and ASRR get off free? Actually, "the Board has taken steps to prevent it happening again". DJ was never trained in FRMS, nor the use of emergency exists. The ATSB and Minuscule ignore this!
My verdict: Corruption!
So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
17th Sep 2014, 18:34
Jinglie: So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.

I know what you mean. I'm in Europe now and when people moan about their experience with EASA I just tell them to have a read of some of these threads. No big R regulation problems in Europe. I do believe EASA is well aware of CASA issues. The HF community is using Pel Air as a case study and BC isn't the IOS.

Sunfish
17th Sep 2014, 20:01
The reason we aligned with EASA is to maximise the number of European business trips for our regulators.

Aligning with the NZ/FAA regulations merely gets you to Auckland or Wellington, not Paris or Brussels.

Same reason the Army, Navy and Air force always buys foreign kit.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
17th Sep 2014, 20:55
Sunfish, good point. Who wants a trip to Oklahoma. Problem is they started aligning with the FAA then switched to EASA half way through.

I like you thought adopting NZ rules was a practical way of integrating with FAA and EASA rules. But big egos and big trips !

PAIN_NET
17th Sep 2014, 21:02
As requested – HF 2009 (http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/73300961/file.html) – OCR version. The link is to Zippyshare; only click the red DOWNLOAD NOW (top right corner) button to avoid spam and unwanted links.


http://www48.zippyshare.com/images/download.png


P18. a.k.a. Blind Freddy...:ok:

Kharon
17th Sep 2014, 21:31
Jinglie (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-65.html#post8660369) –"The ATSB and Minuscule ignore this! My verdict: Corruption!"

Good shot Greedy;
I suppose the truth is that this behaviour has always gone on but the hypocrisy by the wegulator and its wabbits galls.

It's only when you really start peeling back the layers of filth you see the true nature of the beast hidden beneath. But; we must keep faith with the Creampuff Razor doggerel – when faced with the choice of Cock-up or Conspiracy; start with the former and if that fails the smell test; only then may you reach for the conspiracy jigsaw.

The BC analysis of the Pel-Air FRMS was scathing, but he is an expert. The problem began with the introduction of FRMS and the lack of training given to the FOI and managers, combined with a natural tendency to not RTFT (read the fracking thing). Operators just grabbed the opportunity to keep crew on deck longer, also without RTFT; the manual is long and academic. The notion of 'selecting' a nominal score and running the FAID system seemed simple and helpful – if you ignore the awkward bits. Same, same CASA. The parts like an approved roster, published one month in advance were inconvenient, the ramifications not understood and thus, cheerfully ignored.

The lack of FOI education to properly understand the system prevented them guiding operators through and realising the very real limitations FRMS can impose. Done properly, FRMS is in some instances at least as limiting as 48 and in some iterations more onerous. You can see this clearly in the Cook audit. Cook wasn't looking for scalps or scapegoats, he wanted to see the system understood and used correctly, by both sides.

Now W1 is, first and foremost a GWM ladder climbing man and at that time had his sights firmly set on achieving his absolute, definitive level of incompetence. He fancied he could teach ATO how to do their job 'proper' (and that is a hilarious tale from the Bankstown chronicles, reserved for a wet Sunday ramble). To be fair, he did manage the 'Basin' office quite well and being actually qualified as a pilot was approachable, reasonable and fair minded, within his intellectual limitations; he probably had more faith in his minions than was wise; but – I ramble, that story later. Anyway he shuffled onwards and upwards to be replaced by W2. Then as Sarcs mentions, the utterly fatigued James unfortunately makes a series of errors which resulted in the Norfolk ditching.

Well and truly was the scene set and the transition from 'understandable' cock-up' to blatant, high speed cover-up began. At this point, there still remained hope for a honest, transparent solution. Ben Cook rightly pointed out that chronic, lousy fatigue management issues had contributed, as had other damning elements. It's all there in the transcripts and reports. So what happened?

Whether it was done as a favour for 'old mates', or as a sop to a corporate ego; or simply out of spite and malice is unclear. But the combination of ego, arrogance and the opportunity to wield untrammelled power was irresistible. Just blame it all on the pilot – easy fix. The funny thing is, had they played the thing straight, the entire thing would have slipped through to the keeper and not much said. Honestly admitting some error on both the CASA and company part, followed by self correction would have seen the whole thing out of the woods, very neatly.

But, W2 was fired up and determined to impress the top floor, unfortunate bumps in the road to fame and fortune, such as the Cook audit and unsigned RCA were swept, disrespectfully aside. Under orders the inconvenient truth and unflattering pictures were dismissed and with a twirl of the golden pen – all was put to rights in record time. Was the boss pleased – Oh yes. Wodger had the added bonus of crucifying his own men, getting the job done in record time and he got to completely destroy the career of a pilot: a habit to which he became increasingly addicted.

For the IOS all the proof required is there in Hansard and the audit reports from the FOIA requests. Damn me, but the Senate committee went so close to having a wabbit pie, shame Truss put the kybosh on that – and you have to wonder why; seeing as now it leaves him vulnerable to attack, by the opposition. The old saw of 'not embarrassing' the minuscule won't cut the mustard; on the red face index, Pel Air just don't signify. Hells bells, he could have had Albo on toast over this episode, but he chose not to bring it to the attention of the Hoi Polloi. Passing strange I'd say, for a professional Polly to waive away a points scoring free kick before an election.. Strange are the ways of gummint.

But, FWIW, IMO a promotion to the 'international' managers desk and being feted at the RAeS smacks of rewards from the GWM, for a job well done.

As the day is my own and the dogs always enjoy a ramble, I believe I shall seek some quiet place for a while; far away from the awful stench emanating from the posterior office of matters aeronautical. Fresh air and sunshine; balm for the soul.

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!


Selah.

Ziggychick
17th Sep 2014, 22:37
..:in the name of Aviation Safety and Regulation.

For your interest.

I met JS in PH elevator lobby when I met with Truss last year.
He told me he saw Truss the day before. Stacks of boxes with brochures/books for Regional Expansion.
I saw Truss that day, JS from P/A saw him the day before and there again the day I was to speak with Truss.

Just thought worth mentioning.

Sarcs
18th Sep 2014, 01:21
Why am I not surprised Ziggy...:ugh:

There was also this bit of trivia mentioned in a February 2014 SMH article - Rex hyperbole aside, Australia's airlines are genuinely hurting (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/rex-hyperbole-aside-australias-airlines-are-genuinely-hurting-20140210-32cxp.html#ixzz3DckrJb7Q):With John Sharp, a former transport minister in the Howard government, as its deputy chairman, Rex knows what it takes to apply the blowtorch in order to serve its own interests. The airline was a large donor to both sides of politics last financial year. While it was a vocal critic of Gillard government policies, it was also one of Labor's biggest benefactors, injecting $250,000 into the party's coffers.
And sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words...:E

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_091814_034431_PM.jpg

On another related matter I was doing some research on the FF runway width edict about to be inflicted on some..:{ operators. Many of these AOC holders have been operating safely and incident free, in some cases for more than 2 decades, with exemptions to ICAO minimum runway width requirements..:D However from 13 November 2014 FF (BASR) will suddenly deem these operators as unsafe...:ugh:

Going through the non-legislative instruments (exemptions) I was able to find 22 min runway width exemptions that are yet to expire:
Runway width exemptions current as of 18 September 2014:
1. CASA EX83/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14083.pdf)– Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)
2. CASA EX62/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14062.pdf) - Expires end of July 2017.(not<30m)
3. CASA EX47/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14047.pdf) - Expires end of May 2017.(not<23m)
4. CASA EX45/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14045.pdf) - Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)
5. CASA EX40/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14040.pdf) - Expires end of April 2017.(not<30m)
6. CASA EX18/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casa14018.pdf) – Expires (earlier of) 28 February 2017.(not<18m)
7. CASA EX107/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex107.pdf) –Expires 31 August 2016.(not<30m)
8. CASA EX94/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex94.pdf)– Expires 31 July 2016.(not<30m)
9. CASA EX92/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex13092.pdf) – Expires end of July 2016. (Aerodrome Operator)
10. CASA EX79/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex79.pdf) – Expires end of June 2016. (Aerodrome Operator)
11. CASA EX39/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100195/casaex39.pdf) – Expires end of October 2014.(not<18m)
12. CASA EX187/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex187.pdf) – Expires 30 November 2014.(not<30m)
13. CASA EX96/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex96.pdf) – Expires 30 June 2015.(not<30m)
14. CASA EX75/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex75.pdf) – Expires end of April 2015.(not<30m)
15. CASA EX37/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex37.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(REX)
16. CASA EX36/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex36.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(Pel-Air)
17. CASA EX28/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex28.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
18. CASA EX27/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex27.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
19. CASA EX25/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex25.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
20. CASA EX24/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex24.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)
21. CASA EX23/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex23.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
22. CASA EX22/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex22.pdf) - Expires end of February 2015.(not<30m)
Going through one by one it becomes very obvious (No. 1 is a classic) that FF have absolutely no intention of stopping their rule 101 'divide & conquer' embuggerance of smaller operators...:= Safety case be buggered it is simply 'pay the piper' or else suffer the consequences..i.e. BOHICA.

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
19th Sep 2014, 02:22
Great pic Sarcs – indeed, in today's light it's quite informative. How to cut the aeronautical cake, the minuscule hand being guided by industry, lest he cut his brain off (fly undone).

I hear that stern words have been uttered regarding the complete bollocks and deception created by whoever decided that runways should now be a broad as they are long. I thought that was the Irish approach; "Jazus and begorah – it's not very long Paddy, but it's really, really wide, now".. How anyone could believe that with a stroke of a pen, the operators would give up their exemptions in November without a brawl; or, that manufacturers of the older aircraft (those still in business) could or would be even remotely interested in developing exclusive performance data, for unique conditions, for a handful of aging aircraft beggars all belief; except of course that of the only man dopey enough to swallow it, whole, and smile.

The dear old 'exemption' game, as rightly pointed out is beloved of the regulator and operators alike. It's a sick system which ingratiates CASA, while enslaving and controlling the operator; but, reform will come – perhaps in time for the next ice age and then we won't need exemption upon exemption from the ever increasing pile of evermore complex, prescriptive regulation.

Perhaps someone could awaken the minuscule and inform him that the Senate have 27 urgent recommendations tabled to improve the safety of the travelling public and while they have his attention waft the 37 recommendations from his own independent panel (nudge him if he starts drifting off again) which independently call for massive, serious changes to aviation administration, essential to the fiscal and legal well being of a multi million dollar industry. If they were really quick, they could add that he has not, as yet, introduced the new whizz-bang board to industry and we have had rather a long wait for a new CEO of CASA, to guide us out of the valley of death, don't mention Part 61 or 48 (overload warning); but the Canucks do need a well aimed boot, just in case they have dozed off, anticipating the eternal Canadian Autumn.

No matter, take it easy – just so long as he enjoys sharing his cake with his mates; all is well.

Now I do know Rome was not built in a day – be they did, eventually manage to get it finished; I guess the trick was, they actually started.

Have I mentioned this before?, have I got time warp syndrome??

Toot, Squeak, Toot, Squeak......

Soteria
19th Sep 2014, 06:38
Kharon, the Romans also pioneered the art of piping shit. Obviously CASA are descendants of Ancient Rome! (not to mention Hoody's infamous toga parties!)

It's funny how the Canucks aren't saying too much at the moment. Oh well, they are obviously quite content to have their residents flown to, in and around Australia? Let's hope nothing adverse occurs hey, otherwise any reports, audits or assessments the Canucks have taken into Australian aviation, even if buried, could surface, and that could be financially and legally embarrassing to their government. It's drawing a long bow, but stranger things have happenned. And yes Miniscule Truss, if you continue to sit on your sleepy ass and something awful was to occur, you would also be thrust into the spotlight as you too have remained stagnant and refused to act over safety issues after they have been brought to your personal attention by numerous sources over a long period of time. That, in my book makes you accountable!!!

Jinglie
19th Sep 2014, 10:19
Great photo SARCS!
Let's not forget the history of the Honourable Minister Sharp.

From Wikipedia:
"Sharp resigned from the ministry on 24 September 1997 after becoming involved in a scandal over misuse of parliamentary travel allowances. The "Travel Rorts Affair"....":=:= Rather (dis)Honourable Minister!

And straight after the PEL-AIR ditching he describes the actions of DJ as, "This is the equivalent to a gold medal for aviation." I think he has now given the gold medal to Wuss (literally)!

Not so Sharp when you think about it. And this is Truss's cake mate!! Words fail me!:{

Sunfish
19th Sep 2014, 21:16
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mrdak has effectively refused to allow the Minister to act, and Truss can't and won't act on his own. To put that another way, the Ministers hands are tied.

I also suspect that the candidates on the short list, having done their due diligence on the current state of affairs, have declined the offer of the position.

Anyone with substantial business experience can read between the lines of the review, it's published submissions and the Senate Estimates minutes and reach a conclusion about what must be done. Then of course the existence of unpublished submissions, the unpublished report into the ATSB and the Senates threats regarding parliamentary privilege and retribution by the regulator would not have gone unnoticed and are enough for anyone who has ever held a senior executive position to conclude that there are Augean stables to be cleaned.

When cleaning Augean stables, the first rule is that you require:

(1) The tools for the job.

(2) An unfettered ability to act as you see fit.

(3) Sufficient resources.

(4) And finally, the unbending support of your superiors.

Otherwise, don't even begin to try - speaking from personal and bitter experience.

I don't believe items (1) through (4) are available. I don't believe the Government or Department will even admit that there is an Augean stable, or if they do, that it contains more than a few broom strokes of possum poo in it.

I believe that the iron ring is entrenched in very well defended positions within CASA and that they will fight to the death. I believe that the same group have sufficiently threatened, and scared the Department, the Minister and the Government to the point where they will avoid bureaucratic bloodshed ( as opposed to passenger blood) at all costs.

The result is that the terms of reference for the appointment of the new Director are highly constrained and support for drastic action by her is not available from either the Department or the Government.

As an aside, if I were the iron ring, I would be pushing for one of the recommendations to be implemented immediately - the conversion of CASA staff to public servant status which would give them the full protections of the Public Service Act and the associated plethora of natural justice and procedural fairness provisions surrounding their removal from office.

My thoughts are therefore that the next Director Of Air Safety is going to be another narcissistic bully or some dumb idiot whose ambition exceeds their talents. No sane adult is going to try to clean up this mess.

To put that another way, don't hold your breath waiting for another night of the long knives when justice is meted out to evildoers, said evildoers will retire very nicely to the South Coast when they feel like it.

Kharon
19th Sep 2014, 21:31
Oh, bad Soteria and wicked Jinglie – to cast Nasturtiums on the grave of industry. Dont'cha know we have a dynamic, highly motivated minuscule at the helm. It's great puzzle to him why his mate has not collected and driven through the changes, even if just in self interest, a mighty conundrum that is. One of the great beneficiaries of any reform or easement, purely in financial terms must the likes of Rex; you'd think their boss would be publicly panting for it, soap boxes and rhetoric, in spades redoubled. But no, silence and a very un-rocked boat seems to be the go – wonder why?

It's all passing strange. Speaking of strange things passing – I was looking for some data on Canadian time frames for report and I stumbled, quite by accident onto a couple of interesting reports, done by an external agency for the Kiwi brethren. Good work this, mused I, wonder who did such a professional job, so quickly and well. You'll never guess, twas our very own, much maligned ATSB.

The subjects may be found –HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ae-2013-223.aspx) - and – HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-018.aspx) - . The thing that drew my attention and earned some admiration was the quality of work which the ATSB is capable of producing – when playing away from home. Some cynics would say – far away from malign influences; I reckon it's pure frustration from our well qualified, competent troops at the coal face. Released and given a chance to shine – they do. Bravo..:D

Perhaps the minuscule, some time 'in the late Autumn' can manage to realise that the boys and girls at the ATSB are a very good team, being stifled and nobbled by the bookies with a vested interest in the match result, not how the game is played. Match fixing, last time I checked was illegal.

Aye, it's a funny old world..

Toot toot..
Technical assistance to the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, involving the analysis of an audio recording of communications between air traffic control and the pilot of Beechcraft Baron G58, registered N254F on 30 March 2013
Assistance to the TAIC - Flight control maintenance event involving Boeing 737-800, ZK-ZQG, Auckland, New Zealand on 7 June 2013

Sarcs
21st Sep 2014, 01:55
On the road to GA industry extinction - The week just passed...:{

Dougy is away so instead from AB's stablemate...;): The Last Minute Hitch: 19 September 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-19-september-2014)
CASA's GA Task Force is in a state of flux at the moment after the retirement of Peter John. Nominally the new head of the GATF (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ga-task-force-gets-new-boss)is Southern Region safety advisor Michael White, but he has been described as "holding the fort" whilst CASA decides what to do with the GATF. This is not good news for us. Although Michael's appointment is a bonus, the fact that CASA is deciding what to do means they aren't sure if they want a GATF at all! That's the bad news. OK, the GATF didn't revolutionise general aviation, but it was at least recognition that GA is different from the airlines and has very different requirements. That hasn't changed, so a GATF is still needed.
Hopefully, who ever gets the job as the new Director of Aviation Safety will come armed with a similar point of view.

The Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) has been hammering CASA over Part 61 again (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/easa-alignment-expensive-ahia). They were given some exemptions to the rules that came in on 1 September, but is still chipping away at the new regulations and their perceived lack of consultation. Like most aviation associations, the AHIA will be resource-poor and seems to be shouting at a devil that is wearing complaint-canceling headphones. The rotary industry has been in growth over the past few years, so hopefully their issues with the new regs don't put the brakes on.

Regional Express (Rex) has never shied away from telling it how it is, and there's a hidden message for all of us in their concerns for regional aviation (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/rebates-return-but-rex-not-impressed). The government's parsimonious rebate scheme will not do much to save regional air routes, and comes with the frightening rider that the Truss department is not the great friend of aviation that is has portrayed itself to be. That is evident in their response when questioned why the rebate scheme is only 15% of the previous subsidies: we're in a budget crisis and it's all Labor's fault. Doesn't that sort of hint that they have no ideas and so revert to blaming the other mob?

Someone needs to tell them that party-political rhetoric never does anything to fix problems.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch
A much more disturbing segment from a Courier Mail Opinion piece...:bored::


http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/09/19/1227064/489051-9bd87d76-3e1e-11e4-939f-5fe929c75865.jpg
Angel Flight, set up by Bill Bristow, is under threat of being shut down. Picture: Jono Searle Source: News Limited





DEPUTY PM TURNS BACK ON THE BUSH
WHEN his cancer made an unwelcome return to his brain, Augathella shearer Gary Zohl called Angel Flight.

Like thousands of other Australians whose homes are too far away from specialist medical care, the Angel Flight charity flew into action and organised everything.

A volunteer pilot in his own plane picked Gary up in the western Queensland town and whisked him to Brisbane 748km east. A volunteer driver was waiting at Archerfield aerodrome to take him to hospital or his motel.

In his brave, five-year battle Gary has made the journey to Brisbane 20 times for doctors’ appointments, chemotherapy, surgeries, MRIs, and stereotactic radiation therapy. And it hasn’t cost him a cent.
“We’d be lost without it,” he told me.

Gary was too ill to make the 12-hour road trip to Brisbane, his wife Jan said.

Angel Flight, which was set up in 2003 by Brisbane advertising guru Bill Bristow has notched up 16,800 missions of mercy transporting 2600 patients and their families. There have been children with leukaemia from the Gulf, drovers with broken spines and an endless list of other ailments.
Volunteer pilots around the country crisscross the skies almost daily in a free service helping mostly outback families. Sometimes they ferry lifesaving drugs or blood products. Angel Flight has not received any government funding and the pilots aren’t paid.

Now the charity is under threat with the busybodies from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority proposing “regulatory changes”. That’s Canberra-speak for red tape.

“They want us to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance,’’ said Bristow, 70, himself a pilot.
“We are a charity, not an aviation company.’’ He’s scratching his head because the pilots have already undergone exacting safety training.

He said CASA had shown a lack of understanding for the plight of sick people.

Bristow has been shunned. For 11 months he has tried, but failed to get an audience with the minister responsible for CASA, Warren Truss.

Insultingly, Truss is the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the Nationals and member for Wide Bay who is supposed to look after the interests of regional Australia. He could solve this problem with a phone call.
Now Truss may be left with blood on his hands.

“There has been no consultation with us whatsoever,’’ Bristow said. “I’m just about ready to close the door and walk away.” RED TAPE REDUCTION...easy just regulate them out of existence and you automatically get rid of the problem...:ugh:

Hmm...how hard is it to migrate to NZed?? :E

Prince Niccolo M
21st Sep 2014, 08:01
Well, everyone said that the CVD issue was small and irrelevant to the majority of Australian aviators. Fortunately, those who were self-interested, short-sighted and mentally constrained were totally submerged in a sea of bigger people guarding bigger agendas and the Miniscule, the Skull and the Prince of Post-nominal found themselves facing an unexpected and unprecedented push back from some key players. There was nowhere to hide and many eyes will be on the AAT proceedings and how CASA conducts itself. There will be very close eyes on the costs involved when the next Estimates roll around. :cool:

So, if the Miniscule for regional everything is allowing his favourite red tape agency to bugger up an arrangement that services only regional Australia and costs the Government nothing, how does he expect it not to get as much light as CVD? What possible excuse could he have for not finding time for Bill Bristow? :eek: :ugh:

I wonder where Angel Flight sits in the hearts and minds of National Party members? :O :mad: :=

I wonder where the imbuggerance of Angel Flight sits within the Liberal Party's anti-red tape agenda? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

I sense another Coliseum moment approaching the Senate... :E

Creampuff
21st Sep 2014, 08:51
Understand that Mr Truss isn't supposed to be there and, in any event, he's from Queensland, so he doesn't have any power in the party room.

Barnaby Joyce was supposed to replace Mr Truss as leader of the parliamentary Nationals and Fiona Nash was supposed to become the deputy. However, the controversies that led to Arthur Sinodinos and Fiona Nash stepping back from Ministerial duties resulted in a set-back to those plans.

That's why Mr Truss is doing a very good impression of someone who's not in control of anything.

Frank Arouet
21st Sep 2014, 09:52
Yes, as been said before, he knows what he thinks he's doing. I hear from our ABC this morning a reshuffle is to take place shortly. They wouldn't tell fibs would they?


The following should get the tin carrot, anally inserted, with a DCM and bar.


Johnston.
Hunt.
Truss.
Andrews.
McFarlane.


Turnbull should be moved.


Joyce and Fawcett should be given higher rank.


Morrison will get Homeland Security.

Sunfish
21st Sep 2014, 20:39
I'm afraid Creampuff is right. It is now abundantly clear that Truss, Mrdak and CASA will fight any efforts to reform anything at all. This ultimately leads to the demise of GA and the realisation of the CASA dream: no aviation unless associated with the needs of the major airlines and the military. That is why the GA task force appears to be facing "difficulties", it's not needed if there is no General Aviation.

I also wish to remind youof the old Army maxim: "Nothing is more permanent than the temporary". Mr. Farqueson is "Acting" Director of Air Safety. He will remain so until he decides to retire. The normal procedure for such appointments is to wait a few months and then make his appointment permanent for "administrative convenience".

So there you go folks: your Christmas present is going to be the Governments outright rejection of the recommendations of the Aviation review coupled with the promotion of an opponent of reform to the top job.

Such is life.

Creampuff
21st Sep 2014, 21:32
The sooner people come to grips with the fact that, so far as governments are concerned, CASA is doing a great job, the sooner people will be more likely to focus their attention on the source of the problem.

The power bases of the Laborials don't care if GA dies. The death of GA affects the important people equally, so GA doesn't matter. Just 'leave it to the experts' to work on keeping Seat 1A on the jet comfy and safe. Job done! :ok:

Sunfish
21st Sep 2014, 21:39
An " Aviation lovers party" is needed in every state to focus on Senate elections. That is the only way forward, If someone formed such a beast, I bet everyone here would donate.

thorn bird
21st Sep 2014, 23:06
Very much inclined to agree with Creamie and Sunny,
It would seem it is impossible to break the "iron Ring".

I wonder now how long it will be before the corruption becomes overt instead of covert.

Those on the bottom of the food chain at CAsA are largely excluded from the "Trough", very little dribbles down to the rank and file.

The victory of their upper management over the IOS must lead even the bottom of the pile to conclude they are invincible and invulnerable.

We may soon have to stock up on brown paper bags.

Given the ever increasing number of separate approvals required for various functions perhaps someone there could publish a clandestine price list to add to the CAsA fee, or even a percentage on top to cover the signature in the box.

Probably not a bad idea really, extra few bucks and get your medical on time, or that $5 million dollar investment off the ground and earning money instead of stuck in the back of the hanger waiting a couple of years for an inclusion on the AOC. What was the old term?? "Grease the wheels?"

Frank Arouet
21st Sep 2014, 23:28
Time for pragmatism.


If the government is the problem, the opposition is the solution.


Albanese could well be the new leader of The Labor Party given Shorten has lost the plot and probably the support with Caucus. (Albanese did have the overwhelming rank and file vote). Maybe he should be persuaded to attack the cause of this whole aviation mess. It would give him political advantage with a head worth kicking, (like Truss). If one puts aside any prejudices this man has baggage to hide and can easily do what Truss should have done. Blame the other bloke.

Sunfish
22nd Sep 2014, 03:54
Albanese and the Labor party the solution??? Based on past performance you are dreaming.

I say again, an "aviation lovers Party" that is able to get candidates on the Senate ticket in each State is the only way forward now.

The purpose of such a party is to get preferences at Senate elections.

The party then uses these preferences to prevent the election of candidates we regard as unhelpful to aviation, generally sitting members.

The sooner you start that movement, the sooner things will change. GA has to become an electoral threat to both Labor and Liberal members to have a hope of effecting reform.

aroa
22nd Sep 2014, 05:56
Letter from mini non- miniscule truss..todays Courier Mail says it all.
"Truss cannot direct CAsA"

Which proves the point that CAsA the Soviet State is free to run its own fiefdom as it sees fit, doing what it does best, buggerizing an industry.:mad:

So with NO oversight, no directives, no power to instill change, ...and NO interest,,I think we might be fcuked.:mad::mad::mad:

Still the CAsA Anti Corruption Caravan to Canberra will get rolling shortly so we'll see if we can raise an eyebrow or three.:ok::ok:
Some PR on this issue desperately needed...so no harm in trying.:ok::ok:

Chocks away.!!

shadowoneau
22nd Sep 2014, 06:25
If the government is the problem, the opposition is the solutionIt is that kind of thinking that got us the current government. And come to think of it, the government before that.

What will happen once CASA destroys GA? What will the airlines demand the government do about the lack of skilled pilots? Can anyone say 457 Visa?

thorn bird
22nd Sep 2014, 07:36
Shadow,

the whole CAsA "Iron Ring" philosophy was that no aviation accept the RAAF and airlines would occur.

CAsA was first stacked with ex RAAF failures, they then over time manipulated things until CAsA became unaccountable.

Now they are regulating GA out of existence. The theory is, if you want to be a pilot join the RAAF, serve your commission, then move on to an airline,in other words a closed RAAF shop.

Frank Arouet
22nd Sep 2014, 10:41
Sometimes when quoting someone, you should run the whole line to get a grasp on what was intended in the thinking.


QUOTE "Time for pragmatism. If the government is the problem, the opposition is the solution" QUOTE.


Am I being too pragmatic by suggesting the use of an opposition to oppose something.

Creampuff
22nd Sep 2014, 11:22
You are not paying attention.

Both 'sides' are the problem. Both 'sides' win when only one or the other gets to take turns sucking the body politic dry.

If you didn't keep electing one or the other, or if at least you scared them both into thinking neither of them might not win, things might actually change in aviation.

Get it?

Soteria
22nd Sep 2014, 12:55
Folks, Creampuff has really really laid it out very plain and simple in his last post. Now creamy is a bit of a diplomat, somewhat intelligent in his commentary, one could say 'even gentleman like'. Creampuffs comments probably resonate well with the more intellectual end of the aviation scale.
My approach is different, a more grass roots working class style, so here it is for the rest of the viewers - both Liberal and Labor do not give a handful of monkey crap whether aviation in this country lives, survives, is profitable, is safe, or is nuked out of existence by some kind of rogue country that is hell bent on world dominance! Get my drift? The industry is fukced because nobody else gives a toss about it. Why would it bother them if GA fails? They are politicians - they are crooks, multi millionaires and part of the privileged 1%. Chairmans lounge and 1A is all that they will ever use, and it's all they care about. They won't be travelling on Shitbox Airways in an 8 seat scud runner, indeed not! They do not care because they don't have to.

Now, there is always a glimmer of hope, and here it is - Creampuffs independents. Why? Well they are the minority. Many have an axe to grind. They need votes, and lots of them, so they are always looking for an edge, an angle, a way to gain support in an effort to work their way up to the golden trough - Parliament House. Don't get me wrong, some are genuine, but most are interested in what every other politician is interested in - becoming extremely rich and eternally fed from the taxpayer trough. But that's fine with me, we all have an agenda don't we folks? So let's all use each other I say. Let's support the Independents. We will help them attain that golden trough by giving them the votes and support they need, but in return they need to give us back our aviation trainset and comply with numerous other demands, and trust me the IOS list is long and non-negotiable. It's a partnership made in heaven. Thoughts?

halfmanhalfbiscuit
22nd Sep 2014, 13:20
If you didn't keep electing one or the other, or if at least you scared them both into thinking neither of them might not win, things might actually change in aviation.

Get it
A good illustration was the panic in London last week caused by the Scots indendence vote resulting in all 3 leaders racing to Scotland. They all had a lot to lose and suddenly Scotland was important to them.

Kharon
22nd Sep 2014, 21:23
Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/09/22/pel-air-is-2nd-rate-crash-report-good-enough-for-australia/) - on Plane Talking dares to say what the rest of the pathetic media will not, or dare not say. What we have is a 'cluster of ducks' a big one, there's the airport ducks, the Senate ducks, the Rev. Forsyth's ducks, the Canadian ducks, the industry ducks, the bored ducks and the DAS ducks. All huddled together awaiting minuscule action; but alas, they wait in the wrong yard – the minuscule admits – he cannot control air transport in the country he is sworn to serve.
It’s reasonable to persist with these questions, and to sharpen the focus.

Why does Minister Truss think it acceptable that a second rate and deeply flawed and compromised accident investigation by the ATSB be allowed to stand?

Why does the Minister embrace second rate as good enough for Australia?

Does the Minister give a damn that one person was seriously injured in this crash and has not been compensated for her injuries and loss of income, while the operator goes unpunished?

If the Minister does give a damn, what is he going to do about it?

Does the Minister accept that the parliament of Australia ought to be as concerned with the welfare of air accident victims as it appears to be with a culture of protection and cover up among public bodies charged with protecting the safety of users of air services conducted under the laws of this country?

First, the questions, gently phrased, but lethal. Then the summary.

The crash of a small corporate jet may not seem material to the interests of the travelling public, however if neither CASA nor the ATSB can be trusted to honestly and professionally deal with their obligations in relation to the Pel-Air accident, what peril or risk does this pose to the users of the larger Australian airlines for which those bodies have legislated obligations?

Then conclusion;
The Minister has a second rate administrative scandal on his hands. It needs a first rate response.

Hope the minuscule is going to get the good ducking he richly deserves, perhaps the Murky Machiavellian crew can assist to make the slaughter as painless as possible; what a shambles, what a mockery, what the hell are they thinking.

Heigh ho – Toot toot.

Frank Arouet
22nd Sep 2014, 23:28
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/Truss.jpg

Sarcs
22nd Sep 2014, 23:35
Sunny on Augean stables IMO hit the nail on the head..:ugh:I also suspect that the candidates on the short list, having done their due diligence on the current state of affairs, have declined the offer of the position.

Anyone with substantial business experience can read between the lines of the review, it's published submissions and the Senate Estimates minutes and reach a conclusion about what must be done. Then of course the existence of unpublished submissions, the unpublished report into the ATSB and the Senates threats regarding parliamentary privilege and retribution by the regulator would not have gone unnoticed and are enough for anyone who has ever held a senior executive position to conclude that there are Augean stables to be cleaned.
Hmm...I know of at least one individual, who was on the short-list, that was willing & extremely able plus immediately available, so just another piss poor excuse (PPE) me-thinks...:ugh:

Just like the one the miniscule used in his defence for not stepping in to stop the embuggerance of Angel Flight: Truss (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-114.html#post8667753) - “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”
The Ferryman's blast to that statement is priceless...:E:BOLLOCKS !! - Then who can, you painted, decrepit clown? What a deceitful, despicable, back sliding road to take; and this to further disadvantage the disadvantaged, who can't fight back. Further empowering an organisation the minister freely admits, he can't control. Porridge for brains and the backbone of an amoeba. What's next then, hit squads in bush to exterminate those who inconveniently get sick and cannot travel to hospital? or will the minuscule now pay for 'free' RFDS services; or, subsidised air fares? Yeah, right. You may still drink the water here, but don't get sick or be poor; not in Warren's version of the bush anyway.
Indeed absolute BOLLOCKS!! :yuk::yuk:

This PPE for a miniscule, plus some on here, will say that the Board system and the CAC Act (1997) is to be blamed for the creation of the uncontrollable law unto itself behemoth that is our disgraceful NAA...:=

However you don't have to look too far to see where another Federal agency operates quite satisfactorily and without much vocal criticism under that very same system...:D

A media release from the same PPE miniscule that can't get off his backside & help Angel Flight (or indeed CVD pilots): MUA all at sea over shipping facts and the need for reform (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/September/wt178_2014.aspx)
Media Release
WT178/2014
19 September 2014

Predictable but erroneous claims by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) that changes to coastal shipping regulation will cost Australian jobs or maritime skills are not only wrong, but expose a desperate bid to stifle debate on vital industry reforms.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss confirmed the Australian Government is actively considering a raft of reforms to turnaround the stark decline in coastal shipping to rescue and, ultimately, rebuild Australia's domestic maritime sector.

“Recent hikes in Australian shipping freight rates have seen shipping sink as a transport mode, with customers reporting increases of up to 63% in coastal freight charges in just the first year of Labor's botched Coastal Trading Act,” Mr Truss said.

“Between 2000 and 2012 shipping's share of national freight fell from a paltry 27% to less than 17% at a time when Australian freight actually grew by 57%. That means more congestion on roads and rail, which drives up their costs too.

“The Australian Government makes no apologies for working to remove the red tape that is unnecessarily burdening our coastal shipping industry, so we can reduce freight costs for shippers and their customers and bring shipping back on an even keel with road and rail.

“My address to the some 300-strong audience at yesterday's Shipping Australia Luncheon drew a sigh of relief from an industry under the pump and heralded a wave of support from the Minerals Council of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Logistics Council, the Australian Mines and Metals Association and the Port of Brisbane.

“Current protectionist regulations are burdensome and ineffective. Even when an Australian shipper prevents a foreign ship getting a licence, the cargo often may not be awarded to an Australian carrier. The sale goes offshore. How can that be good for Australian business?

“Yesterday, the MUA claimed reform would cost jobs. On the contrary, the Government's agenda of removing red tape is expected to boost activity in the sector and grow the economy, which means more jobs in this country.
“Claims of 2,000 direct job s and 8,000 indirect jobs on the ‘chopping block’ are ridiculous.

“The 2013 industry census identified some 10,000 seafarers employed in Australia. Of that number, the largest single group are, in fact, Navy personnel (4,158), and many of the remaining seafarers (2,893) work in industries unaffected by our proposed reforms, such as the offshore sector, pilotage, dredging or in ports.

“Shore-based jobs in associated industries can only benefit by increasing shipping activity in Australia and reforms to the Act are the only way to have more ships operating around the Australian coast.

“The claim that 500 jobs in towage could be lost is simply not true, as towage workers are engaged regardless of whether a ship is Australian or foreign flagged.

“The Union's claims of an increase in the number of ships licensed as proof of the system working are a fantasy. There are 47 Australian-flagged general licence vessels under the Coastal Trading Act 2012, of which only 18 are major coastal trading ships, 28 are small coastal vessels and one is a scientific vessel.

“The five additional major vessels mentioned by the MUA have capacities of between 2,000 and 3,400 deadweight tonnes, which service the Torres Strait Islands. While this is an important local task it does not significantly add to our coastal trading capacity.

“More telling is that over the two years of Labor's Coastal Trading Act, Australia's coastal shipping capacity fell by a massive 64%.
“There is no basis for the MUA's speculation that is ‘highly likely’ we have seen increases in activity following changes in 2012.

“The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics confirms that Australian ports loaded 49 million tonnes of coastal freight in 2012–13, but that five years earlier (2007–08) it was over 59 million tonnes—a 2.4% average annual decline. This is the proof that the system does not work and the slide has continued.

“Finally, the MUA's claim that ‘no such regulation exists’ in reference to the industry example of ships remaining idle in port for a day before loading can begin exposes an appalling lack of knowledge of the sector in which the MUA operates.

“The system implemented by the previous Labor government includes a mandatory minimum 24-hour period to approve a variation, which means vessels can wait in port for a day for a variation to be approved before cargo loading can commence.

“The system is broken and we must act to fix it.

“Without action, coastal shipping will continue to lose market share to road and rail, adding to congestion in our cities, spiralling costs and causing extra wear and tear on land infrastructure. Only rapid reform will help to rescue coastal trading as a viable freight option.” The hypocrisy of this PPE miniscule knows no bounds...:yuk::yuk:

MTF...:E

{Comment: Ironically the only reason that the miniscule has replied to the CM opinion piece on Angel Flight is that he knows that this is one aviation issue that could potentially effect the Nationals voter base in upcoming State elections...:=}

Frank Arouet
22nd Sep 2014, 23:38
Creampuff, I know you're not "fick" but please pay attention when I say using an opposition to oppose is not advocating anybody elect any, either or both poltical party's. It's simply being pragmatic enough to use the limited tools that are available to you. CAsA do this all the time, called divide and conquer or something, so why not set Albanese to kicking Truss' head which is eminently kickable right now. This will come to the attention of the press gallery, who have a limited attention span I know, but this will get the matter to the general fare paying passenger, who out numbers pilots by hundreds to one, and, importantly garner more votes than us, and doesn't impinge on any anti terrorism laws that may disturb somebody if pilots were to hand out leaflets at airport terminals.


How bloody hard is that?

Sarcs
23rd Sep 2014, 00:07
Ms McGOWAN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F123674%22;quer ytype=;rec=0)(Indi) (16:10): Charity organisation Angel Flight flies rural and regional patients and their families to vital medical appointments. For more than 10 years Angel Flight has carried out $50 million worth of mercy missions in isolated areas throughout Australia.

However, the Civil Aviation and Safety Administration is proposing changes that will increase regulation and have a serious impact on this volunteer service. These changes include setting up an organisation to be responsible for assessing and authorising Angel Flight pilots and requiring pilot proficiency tests and assessment. This will be costly and time-consuming.

The regulation is a duplication of what is already being completed by pilots volunteering within this organisation and the proposed changes would add red tape and compliance costs. These changes pose a real threat of forcing the closure of this valuable organisation to rural Australia.

Angel Flight plays an important role in my electorate of Indi. As an example, a gentleman from Mount Beauty regularly needs chemotherapy in Melbourne. Angel Flight ensures his travel time is minimised and he is able to spend as many of his last days as possible at home in Mount Beauty.

The financial impact of implementing more bureaucratic measures would be catastrophic for this volunteer based organisation. Angel Flight is totally dependent on private donations and receives no government funding. I call on the CASA to reconsider this proposed change and find a way to ensure that Angel Flight can continue its important work.

:D:D:D

Trough update - A word from the 'Don is good'...:ugh:

Warning BYO Bucket..:yuk:
Business as usual at CASA as search for new DAS continues (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/business-as-usual-at-casa-as-search-for-new-das-continues/)

{Double speak for the flogging of all current & suspected IOS members will continue..:E}

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) acting director of aviation safety says it is business as usual at the regulator while the industry waits for a successor to John McCormick to be named.

Terry Farquarson says the process for appointment of a permanent director of aviation safety is well and truly underway, with a rigorous process in place to find the best candidate involving the CASA board, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss “and beyond”.

“The completion of this process takes time – time that is well spent making sure the best possible person is selected to lead CASA,” Farquarson wrote in September’s CASA Briefing published on Tuesday.

“I have told CASA that during this period we must, as always, work hard and continue to execute our plans in accordance with our set priorities. No aspect of CASA’s work is being put on the backburner or ignored during this transition time.”

McCormick stepped down as director of aviation safety on August 31 at the end of his contract term after five and a half years in the job.
Farquarson, the deputy director of aviation safety, was named acting director.

CASA was also due to receive three additional board members shortly.
Memories??? Remember this one..:rolleyes:..in one of those rare moments that McComic allowed the Don to speak...:zzz::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00G9Wfzv5cg

Hmm...do you believe this man??:=

shadowoneau
23rd Sep 2014, 00:19
Now they are regulating GA out of existence. The theory is, if you want to be a pilot join the RAAF, serve your commission, then move on to an airline,in other words a closed RAAF shop. Which will probably work until the replacement to the F-35 arrives, as it most likely be a unmanned fighter.

thorn bird
23rd Sep 2014, 01:27
Shadow,
I agree, but that would release a lot of RAAF pilots for airlines,
Problem then would be the next generation of pilots.
Probably have pilotless airlines by then and there's always 457.

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 02:55
As evidence in todays CAsA "blurb" Terry Farquarshon came to work sober today.

Jinglie
23rd Sep 2014, 04:06
If Truss admits he can't direct CASA, surely this gives credence to the Senator X submission to the AAI, aptly entitled, "WHO GUARDS THE GUARDS THEMSELVES"? Not Truss obviously! Senator X called for an Inspector General of Aviation Safety, with the powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA and the ATSB. This position to be completely independent of the Minister and Dept.

In the current void of control, maybe this is the solution to sort out the current disgrace.

Creampuff
23rd Sep 2014, 05:01
[ S]o why not set Albanese to kicking Truss' head which is eminently kickable right now.*sigh*

Because Mr Albanese knows that Mr Truss knows that Mr Albanese created as much of the mess as Mr Truss did, and therefore it’s in neither of their interests to point the finger at the other or suggest the government should intervene.

Both ‘sides’ long ago abdicated, to CASA, responsibility for the setting of standards for and regulating aviation safety. Neither 'side' has any political interest or need to get the resulting Frankenstein under control.

The people being damaged by the Frankenstein don’t matter to the power base of either ‘side’. The people who matter to the power bases of both sides are RPT-flying city-dwellers in NSW and Victoria, because they determine what ‘side’ gets its snout in the trough from time to time. The rest are paid lip service. And that includes their representatives in the Parliament (with the exception, of course, of the non-major party aligned Senators if they have the balance of power…)

The probabilities of a major hull loss are infinitesimally small, it could just as easily happen one ‘side’s’ watch as the other, and in any case the scapegoat has already been tied: CASA.

Why would any government be silly enough to take control of aviation safety regulation?

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 06:23
Now having positively and irrefutably identified the problem my guess is we consult Emily's List for a solution. Or the non-major party aligned Senators if they have the balance of power. Someone like Palmer perhaps, he's very non aligned and could do with a balance as well. Should we dismiss Fawcett because he's aligned.


Probably the best short term thing could be a Transport Minister. We appear to be lacking one of them. In the meantime, because we have a government who can't control CAsA, may one ask "Who's watching the watchdog"? (g'day Paul). *sigh*

Sunfish
23rd Sep 2014, 08:13
Creampuff is right; the purpose of CASA is to insulate the Government from responsibility from anything to do with aviation safety.

Liberal or Labor, it makes no difference, neither side will upset the apple cart.

Let us consider the worst case scenario; a fully loaded Qantas A 380 crashes in Collins street Melbourne or Martin place Sydney in peak hour.

The Government of the day is completely protected because "CASA is an independent statutory body".

The price for CASA assuming that risk is a free hand to embuggerise anyone and everyone it wants to.

The only way out of this mess is for aviation enthusiasts to start their own political party and target marginal senate seats with a view to directing preferences as a way of keeping people OUT of power.

To put it another way, the only law any government respects is the law of the ballot box.

Look for marginal liberal and labor senators and MP's and act!

Frank Arouet
23rd Sep 2014, 09:08
I'll be at the Pub.

Jinglie
23rd Sep 2014, 10:48
In the result of a large smoking hole in this country there will be a Royal Commission, or two, no doubt. The "independent statutory authority" rubbish goes out the window in this scenario. Particularly with what is on the government record at present regarding the Senate AAI and ASRR by David Forsyth.

Truss may thinks he's protected by CASA, however that's a bit like saying that the DAS is protected by having a Board. If I was the new DAS I'd be removing myself from the Board to add another layer of personal risk exposure protection. The smart Senators, have unanimously, put a very strong expert view on public record which is not only responsible action and what taxpayers and the travelling punter expect, it demonstrates their own concerns and diligence.:D Albo, Truss and Mrdak are simply rolling the dice. Gamble responsibly boys!:=

Soteria
23rd Sep 2014, 12:04
So Truss, as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia has no control of CASA, a government agency? So why then do we have CASA at all? Why have an overpaid public servant like MrDak who reports to Mr Truss on matters that Mr Truss has no control over? All seems like a bit of a waste of time don't you think? And what about other government agencies such as the armed forces, ASIO, and the ATO? Does the sleepy old farmer, aka Deputy Prime Minister have any control over those government departments? Somebody then please remind me why we pay Mr Truss a salary? Poor old Mr Truss, neutered by CASA, in fact admitting that he is CASA's bitch, how embarrassing! Tsk tsk. I will never be able to look at his weather beaten crusty bald head the same way again.

And from one bald buffoon to another;

Terry Farquarson says the process for appointment of a permanent director of aviation safety is well and truly underway, with a rigorous process in place to find the best candidate involving the CASA board, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss “and beyond”.Ummm earth to Terry, are you sure Truss is involved in the selection process? After all he doesn't have the authority or testicles to direct anything to do with CASA, so why get involved in choosing a new DAS?

And this little dig at the IOS from the A/g Director A380 Safety;

Despite some dire predictions, Monday 1 September 2014 came and went and the aviation world did not come to a halt. Good to see that Terry is continuing with the McComic style of ever so gently twisting the knife blade between the shoulders of the very industry he has agreed to work with! Good work Terry, top marks.

The full nauseating brief here;

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - September (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102169)

Oh well, ho hum and all that. Tis all just a game really isn't it? It helps widdle the time away while these mighty men of bureaucratic power count down the years, days and taxpayers dollars until the day they retire fat, dumb and happy.

Jinglie
23rd Sep 2014, 12:46
Well said Sot!
Tezza is up to neck in it with SkySentinel. He started the movement, guaranteeing it was going to cost about $40,000, and it was rock solid. What a joke! Plus the IP issues which the Richard Dreyfuss discounted!
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Herr Skull say "come hell or high water" the regulatory reform project will be complete under his tenure? Well I'm not hot or wet!
And whilst CASA maintains the spotlight, what the hell is going on with the ATSB? The Commission has failed. Beaker is seen as an idiot (cause he is), and yet life goes on! The ASASI are hosting the annual ISASI conference in ADL next month. I suspect Beaker might get thrown a few very awkward questions on the panel in front of an expert international audience. Actually, I don't suspect it, he will! Should be a great evening of comedy!:ok:

Anyway enough rant. Regarding you comment Soteria,

[QUOTE]So Truss, as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia has no control of CASA, a government agency?/QUOTE].

The minuscule can't "direct" safety regulation (as per the Act), but he can certainly influence decision making and set policy. Also, has the accountability to resolve corruption and collusion within his ranks (including MrDak). THAT'S HIS ROLE!
And where is the beloved Dr Hawke in this mess? Never gets a mention, yet he is Chairman of the Board! Bring on an Inspector General reporting to the AG. The only way to get rid of the current malfeasance. Someone outside the portfolio needs to "watching and reporting".

As for the new CASA Board members, I'd be very surprised if David Cox has accepted. He certainly has enemies, but one of the smartest guys I've ever met. Boeing used to seek his opinion! Enough said.
If the current philosophy stays (under Hawke) maybe they'll look at Ita Buttrose for the role. Good on TV at least. "Clip Clop" Hawke doesn't look good at all on TV - old fart with a beard who mumbles about himself a lot. Maybe get Cate Blanchett on the Board. At least a great look, and a better actor/ress than Wuss, Hawke and MrDak!

Kharon
23rd Sep 2014, 21:04
Hmm...I know of at least one individual, who was on the short-list, that was willing & extremely able plus immediately available, so just another piss poor excuse (PPE) me-thinks.

When those who write history seek answers, one of the most telling reasons for Australia becoming the poor man of world aviation will be the selection 'process' for the next DAS and board. That people, the calibre of Cox, Smith and Watson who should have been recruited, but have not, will be a tombstone. A fellah, like Mike Smith in tandem with a Watson would neatly, quietly and effectively clean Sunny's stables, relax the FAA and ICAO; and, with a good team in support regain industry and probably Senate faith; take them about nine months I reckon.

But one, standing alone, has no hope – Cox is smart enough to know that and Boyd bloody well should be. Isolated and outnumbered, the lone reformer will perish; even if the Mrdak seal of approval for change was granted – which it won't be. The only changes young Mike wants to see are clever ones, akin to the fine print on airport paper work, deftly redefining 'air transport' to allow access to those who prefer housing estates on land initially gifted to the Commonwealth, making profits and not paying their stamp duty to the State which was granted the gifted land when the war was over. Shameless and bad economics – look at the contribution aviation makes to NZ economy, the difference is stark and self evident.

Sarcs - in one of those rare moments that McComic allowed the Don to speak.

@# 1331 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-67.html#post8667971) the clip is solid gold, for students of human nature – watch the first 60 seconds. The look on the Farqu-hard-sons visage (@25 seconds) is a perfect study of a rabbit caught in the headlights. A WTF moment defined and captured.

The minuscule can't "direct" safety regulation (as per the Act), but he can certainly influence decision making and set policy.

A little further along @ about 30 seconds; there is a salutary lesson for our miniscule. Watch carefully to see just how a CASA heavy can easily be intimidated by a politician. The part where Bill Heffernan shuts McComic down with a wave of his finger. McComic backed up so fast he would have fallen over his own feet; had they not been planted firmly in his mouth. You see minuscule, despite your puling, piddling excuses you do have the juice to shut the fools down. Which leaves us the vexed question, why don't you? Even the fearless Wodger the reforming Wabbit nearly wet his pants when a minor State Polly barked at him one day; so Shirley a deputy prime minuscule and a leader of a party and a minuscule of the crown could persuade a bunch of public servants play nice or bliss off.

Just remember – it's not up to CASA to decide if change and reform will occur. The industry demands it, your own research proves it and it is, as the responsible Minister your duty to provide the tax payer with the very best system we can sensibly afford. Now, for pities sake – Crack on.

Watch again as Uncle Bill shows you exactly how it's done. Repeat as often necessary.

DYI vermin control.

Tot toot...Bravo Bill - Bravo..:ok:...:D
Roosevelt – "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

Sunfish
24th Sep 2014, 07:55
The Minister has no control over CASA? Balls, Bullshit, crap.

The Government of the day, advised by The Minister, makes budgetary provisions for CASA. They hold the purse strings. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER CASA. Sorry for shouting.

Soteria
24th Sep 2014, 08:56
So, this question must be asked - Why would the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia say he has no control over CASA, if in fact he does have control over CASA? Why would he lie? What is his motivation? What is his 'intent'? Seems like some shenanigans going on with this obsfucating Minister. Why why why?

Creampuff
24th Sep 2014, 09:39
The government can also introduce into the Parliament and pass stuff called "legislation". Governments don't seem to have too much trouble in producing lots of it.

CASA exists because of one section in one piece of legislation: The Civil Aviation Act.

That Act can be changed. CASA can be given different powers and functions.

That Act can be repealed. CASA would cease to exist if it were repealed.

That is the ultimate and absolute control.

(Soteria: Because Mr Truss and all his predecessors in recent decades don't want to be seen to have any means of control.)

Sarcs
24th Sep 2014, 11:06
All good questions Soty and Creamy's answer is fairly close to the mark but there is another element and that is the crazy swings & roundabouts of QLD politics, in particular the internal boiling pot of the LNP. After all why do you think DPM Wuss was drawn out in the first place to reply to an article on what can only be described as a minor voter issue i.e. Angel Flight. Why would he bother?? Well probably because at least half of QLD (North of Wide Bay) absolutely hate the guy and it would appear that they're none to fond of Barnaby...:=: Push for Lawrence Springborg to replace Warren Truss as deputy PM (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/push-for-lawrence-springborg-to-replace-warren-truss-as-deputy-pm/story-fnihsrf2-1227042465256#social-comments)

SENIOR Newman Government minister Lawrence Springborg is being touted as a possible replacement for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.

The Sunday Mail understands a push is on for Mr Springborg to leave George Street for Canberra and replace Nationals stalwart Bruce Scott as the federal Member for Maranoa so he can be considered for the Nationals leadership - and deputy prime minister role.

TRUSS: Slow and steady wins the race (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/slow-and-steady-wins-the-political-race-for-the-nations-deputy-leader-warren-truss/story-fnihsrf2-1226804553206)

Federal Liberal and National MPs unhappy with the performance of Nationals deputy leader Barnaby Joyce are behind the push.
Mr Joyce is considered the next in line to replace Mr Truss .

Mr Springborg admitted yesterday LNP figures had approached him previously about switching to Maranoa, but said the speculation about him replacing Mr Truss as deputy prime minister was “intriguing”.

“I’ve never heard about that. I don’t know where it’s come from,” he said.“If I said I was flattered by it, it would probably be an over-exaggeration. I’m more bemused by it than anything else.” {Weasel words for..."my bags are packed just give me the nod"..:E}

Mr Springborg said he was committed to remaining in the Queensland Parliament. It would also appear that the Courier Mail has also got the knives out for the Wuss?? Let me explain, here is the CM version of the Wuss reply letter (as supplied by Frank..;)):


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

However it would appear that the Courier Mail has taken selective editing to a whole new level...:ugh:

Apparently this was the true version of the Wuss reply letter (edited parts are in bold which includes the title)..:rolleyes::Angel Flight well respected: Truss

20th September, 2014

Had anyone from the Courier-Mail bothered to contact my office before publishing ‘Deputy PM turns back on the bush’ (20 September 2014), a few salient facts may have helped your readers.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of civil aircraft and that objective will not be compromised. Australia has an enviable reputation for safe flying.

CASA is statutory body and, as Minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.

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

This Australian Government is all about removing red tape and cutting regulations that place unreasonable burdens on businesses and community organisations. We are not in favour of creating onerous obstacles where none are needed.

Angel Flight is a well respected and admired community organisation. Its volunteers (including the pilots) give freely of their time and resources so that country people with health issues, who are under financial hardship, can obtain the treatment they need.

Angel Flight does outstanding work across Australia, which is greatly appreciated by country communities. The government is anxious to ensure that this work can continue without interruption.

Angel Flight already complies with all CASA regulations. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau report into an August 2011 fatal accident near Horsham Airport involving an Angel Flight arranged aircraft attributed no fault to the charity.

The report also noted that Angel Flight passenger transport operations were classified as private flights with operational responsibility resting with the pilot in command.

In those circumstances CASA would need to mount a strong argument to justify taking a more heavy-handed regulatory approach to volunteer community organisations.


It is also worth noting that the Government has recently completed a major review of CASA and will shortly respond to its major recommendations. The Government is in the process of appointing new Board members and a new CEO.
Puts a slightly different spin on it I guess but we all know that the Wuss is well known for speaking with forked tongue himself...:ugh:

Example from last year...:E:Air crash investigation needs full throttle response

27th May, 2013“MINISTER Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Nationals leader and Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss said today.

“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.

“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.

“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.

“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

“Specifically, the report states:

‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.

“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.

“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.

“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.

“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”
Meanwhile the plight of Angel Flight is starting to come onto some more MSM radars (i.e. other than QLD):

Air angels under threat, warns founder (http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/air-angels-under-threat-warns-founder-20140923-10krk9.html)

Angels fearing clipped wings (http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/angels-fearing-clipped-wings/2396912/)

Angel Flight anger over proposed CASA changes (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/angel-flight-anger-over-proposed-casa-changes/)

Somehow I don't think this will be the last that the Wuss will hear about Angel Flight..:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

Jinglie
24th Sep 2014, 11:11
Truss has to approve the new DAS! Seems like "total control" to me. The Truss logic makes no sense - he approves a person who has serious powers, yet has no control over them! ABSOLUTE CRAP!:yuk:

Jinglie
24th Sep 2014, 14:48
If you watch the video posted by Sarcs closely, you'll see the Skull bail to Dr Voodoo (aka R Dreyfuss) and he talks about transparency and the ability to improve reports through open communication. He didn't know the Senate Committee were full throttle on the Chambers report at the time. Fool!
Watch again! Its in the last 20 seconds of the video. Gold!


Senator Heffernan Person at the back of the room 150213 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=00G9Wfzv5cg)

So how did all this honesty result in keeping critical documents and information kept secret? Mmmmm.:=

Falling Leaf
24th Sep 2014, 20:21
Australia has an enviable reputation for safe flying.

This always cracks me up, and is the first thing CASA and the ATSB wheel out in their glossy brochures - as if they were responsible for it!

I think the truth is that Australia is essentially a flat country with benign weather. Transplant our regulator over to NZ with Mountainous terrain and shit weather and they would be parking aircraft into the hills every week…

I've also been told that the US has more aircraft movements in a day then we have in a year. So our statistics are vulnerable to one accident which would completely blow our rate through the roof to 'African' levels of safety...

I wish someone would smash this little piece of mis-advertising...

thorn bird
24th Sep 2014, 21:58
Leaf,
a comparison between Australia and the USA statistics reveals just how big a lie regarding Australia's so called enviable "safety" standard is.

Bureaucrats are experts at massaging statistics to suit their agenda.

Compare the NTSB reported accidents per 100 thousand flying hours in the US against the ATSB reported accidents per 100 thousand hours.

Might give you a shock.

Using those statistics our billion Dollar rewrite of aviation reg's (it'll end up being a billion if they ever finish them) has been a complete and utter failure in achieving a single benchmark of what the government directed CAsA to do, nor has it had the slightest affect on safety, if anything the exact opposite.

In fact the industry is more likely to be completely gone long before the rewrite is completed.

Which sort of makes you wonder, why not just stop where they are?

The current reg's are very effectively grinding the GA industry into oblivion, why waste even more money?

The RPT guys are bleeding, maybe foreign operators will be given unfettered access to our domestic market, either way it won't make much difference, under Australian reg's our airfares will go back to the old unaffordable two airline days.

Minuscule and his mates better start saving now, widening highways is a costly business. We could end up with the pacific highway as wide as its long...Oh yeah someone else already thought of that!

Regardless of CAsA's failure and the corrupt waste of taxpayer's money, minuscule Wuss states he has no control over them and by inference neither does the government.

One thing seems very evident, CAsA can happily go on squandering public money, completely embuggering an industry and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Was someone right to call for civil disobedience?

Australia is an example of how inane very poor legislation can hobble an industry.

New Zealand is an example of how good legislation can let an industry reach it's potential, contributing significantly to the national wealth and wellbeing.

Kharon
24th Sep 2014, 22:15
BRB last evening – there being no darts challenge to meet, was a fairly routine affair; the big topic of course – the extraordinary statement made by the hush power minuscule who, even at the best of times, operates on minimum thrust, which well and truly buggers up the OTP figures.

Most of the BRB are 'practical' folk, not naturally inclined to spend sunny days pawing through legal tomes, getting all dusty. But the existing high level of outrage relating directly to the manner in which matters aeronautical, of some importance are being brushed aside created a fairly hostile atmosphere. It would not, not initially at least, have been a good idea for Truss to 'pop in' for quick one on his way home. However, good sense and sage advice managed to sooth the beast. It seems 'technically' one of the very few parts of the letter to the BCM was quite factual. Enter the legal eagles: herewith, the potted version, you will I hope forgive any inaccuracy due to my translation and reporting; so E&OE:-

The 'Angel Flight' conundrum for CASA is the 1988 Reg 2 (7) and 7A. It seems that by effectively having to turn a blind eye, CASA are exposed, in the event of death or injury. The 'problem' is make sure that the 'operations' are clearly outside the direct responsibility of CASA. This by either a change to regulation; or, some form of self administration system established and probably some minimum qualification regime. Note: there was a modicum of sympathy for the CASA position expressed and that says something, coming from the BRB..

The minuscule playing his 'get out jail card' works in this instance, the weasel words in the rest of the published missive just dump the whole shooting match back on the CASA doorstep (more sympathy). But in fairness, there is little he can do – upfront for Angel Flight, however it does indicate a general shout of like it or lump it as he slithers out the back door. The 'kicker', CASA must be satisfied, does not bode well for AF, but so far no blood on the minuscule's hands.

Next, as CASA is a statutory body, CA Act sections 8, 12, 12A and 12 B, seem to define the ministers role in CASA affairs. It's a top flight legal job to decode as there are more by-ways and back alleys leading to the wriggle room and although it all borders on the old 'constitutional' wrangle; (State v Commonwealth) it would take a brave, young, very wealthy individual or group to tackle it.

It was agreed that it all comes down to willpower; or in the minuscule case – won't power. He can issue broad directions (interpreted to suit) and in matters regulatory directions of a 'general' nature; CASA are obliged to obey those; but, and once again, the 'interpreted to suit' trump card is played and it's back to court. Much to the general satisfaction and future well being of the legal teams.

A stronger, more determined man could shake this all loose, some of the past ministerial types have had an impact and cracked the whip. Is Truss such man? – BRB verdict a resounding, unanimous NO..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

The MoP remains a 'hot topic' and served well to restore the usual bonhomie; theories abound. One of the crew suggested a new 'wrinkle' and a couple of questions which generated some discussion. (Q) Was Mike Watson interviewed by the Canucks ?, if not why not? (Q) Are the ATSB are playing footsy with the Canucks, swapping 'fact' checks and doing all that collective executive team and investigator in charge input crap. As this is a family show, the speculative comments and agreements may not be published, being as how we've gone all PC and coy. But the notion that Beaker and his merry band of word benders are going to get off, Scot free is a whimsical dream. If the lid is ever blown off this little lot, even the media may get beyond just publishing well crafted media releases, edited to suit.

And that's about it, for on topic subjects that is; unless you want the on going saga of TB's beloved lampshade?? Recherché?, of course it is.

Toot toot....:D

Creampuff
24th Sep 2014, 23:25
Back in the good ‘ol days, when Dick had their attention because he threatened to campaign in support of Tony Windsor in John Anderson’s seat, and Dick got to play with airspace:Mr ANDERSON —The person who asked the question now asks me for my professional advice on air safety. It needs to be recognised that the model set up by the member for Kingsford-Smith, when he was the minister for aviation, clearly set up CASA as the body responsible for air safety in this country.

Ms Kernot —So you're in charge now?

Mr ANDERSON —I suggest that the member for Dickson should go and have a look at how the model was set up. It makes CASA responsible for air safety.

Frank Arouet
24th Sep 2014, 23:30
Falling Leaf;


Any "enviable" safety record, we may have, is in spite of CAsA, not because of CAsA. If there were no regulatory bodies as we now know them, there would be no impact upon safety, only financial industry security. EDIT to note Ceampuffs contribution that spells out clearly who is in charge of the asylum.


The BRB verdict on "Noddy Trust" was too kind in the reporting I would say. Having failed to gain admittance to Leftlegs group therapy class, the waste of my time was exaggerated by the lack of darts comp called off at the last minute. The absence of logic on the Trist question defied all attempts to reach any sane objective agreement except maybe the wheels had fallen off his mobile meth lab and the resulting vapors had him in a perpetual comatose state. He is dwelling in an induced intellectual comfort zone, (see Kharon post), and although having no control over CAsA, believes their invidious pious and sanctimonious policy's will see him through to his retirement at the Pete Slippery sanatorium where there is a work program to keep him busy. The Ills Of Society, (IOS), put forth a motion of name change to "aviation organized crime" (AOC), but was narrowly defeated under the anti terrorism clause in the constitution. The irony of risk of continued use of that acronym was not lost however.


Meritorious mention was made of the senior public service robot who has been added to the "I told you so" list of responsible identities.


Kicking a cat on the way home I mused at the mention of the minuscule living in the outback. In fact he was born at Kingaroy, the home of the nationals I guess, and lives and works near Hervey bay. There is more chance he has salt on the brain than cranial exposure to the outback sun. He did get a centurion gong I think, being one hundred years old or of Roman descent and drives a chariot. Something about being a centurion. (tank perhaps).


Anyway, the pub opens in half an hour.

Sarcs
24th Sep 2014, 23:39
This always cracks me up, and is the first thing CASA and the ATSB wheel out in their glossy brochures - as if they were responsible for it! Good point you make Falling Leaf, it is called the MOAS (mystique of aviation safety) and is the said agencies first line of defence when potentially threatened with any bad press. Just take a look at the PG missive trotted out two days ago when the MSM began asking for responses to the Angel Flight embuggerance...:ugh::No move to shutdown community service flights - CASA

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority rejects claims it is moving to shutdown community service flights.

CASA recognises the importance of community service flights such as Angel Flight to rural and regional Australia.

However, CASA makes no apologies for canvassing issues that relate to the safety of community service flights.

It is CASA’s role to continually look for ways to manage aviation safety in the most effective manner. It is this commitment that has helped to ensure Australia’s proud aviation safety record is maintained and improved.

In the case of community service flights CASA has issued a discussion paper which looks at safety issues relating to these flights and puts forward options for consideration.

Options include taking no action at all, special passenger briefings on community service flights, additional pilot training, a volunteer registration system, an approved self-administering organisation model and operations under an air operator’s certificate.

No decisions have been taken on any of these options and they have been released in order to promote informed discussion.

CASA will carefully consider all submissions in response to the discussion paper before deciding what-if any-further action may be appropriate.
If any changes to the current safety management of community service flights are to be proposed these will be subject to full consultation with all stakeholders.

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

CASA is well aware rural and regional communities benefit from the generous donation of time, expertise and money by all the volunteers and
donors to the community service flight charities.

However, CASA has a duty to ensure all Australians are provided with the most appropriate levels of aviation safety.
Read the community service flight discussion paper (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102133).

Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected]
Ref: MR10614
Still don't know why they even bother?? The IOS seem to be the only ones that know that such missives are just weasel words for the fact that Angel Flight's days are now numbered. What are they trying to protect their integrity, their reputation, they simply don't have any..:=

These days the industry don't believe any missive coming out of Sleepy Hollow, still I guess PG probably feels the need to protect his corner of the trough..:E

Here you go Jinglie Hansard for you..;):

Mr McCormick : I will just ask Dr Aleck to add a little bit to that.

Dr Aleck : The thrust of much of the discussion this morning has been, fairly enough, on the importance of ensuring an open and frank exchange of information between two agencies. The purpose of that has to be to bring to the attention of one agency or the other the view that maybe you have got something wrong or maybe you need to think about this or maybe this needs to be different. I would be concerned if the product of those exchanges did not from time to time lead to agencies changing their—

CHAIR: I accept that, but I would be concerned if it lead to a jointly agreeable neutral position.

Dr Aleck : I would share that concern, but I do not think that is the case. And it is at 04:10 ;):

Senator Heffernan Person at the back of the room 150213 - YouTube

And the email passages to which the Heff refers are all linked in my post from the Senate thread: Part three – Late entrants to the MoP Stakes (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html#post8614876)

{Comment: Interesting part in the Hansard prior to the Heff person at the back of the room vid...:confused:...which I think needs further investigation...:cool: Perhaps (for the sake of not drifting) not here but on the Senate thread....:oh:

Might help explain why the original Norfolk ditching IIC was apparently not referred to by the TSBC (bottom of last Kharon post), nor involved in the ATSB fact check review of the TSBC DRAFT report. Might also help firm up the odds for the MoP stakes..;)}

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
26th Sep 2014, 00:03
MMSM Steve has strangely descended from the Flight Levels this week...;)...maybe it has something to do with being trumped by a fellow MMSM stablemate a week before and then by the MSM opposition only three days ago, who knows?? Also surprising is that SC has not simply regurgitated the CM opinion piece but put another spin on the POTA {IOS selectively edited...:E}...:D:Charity group Angel Flight battles CASA regulation bid (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/charity-group-angel-flight-battles-casa-regulation-bid/story-e6frg95x-1227070713825)ANGEL Flight is appealing to local governments to lobby state and federal MPs as it moves to head off potential plans by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to boost regulation of its operations.

Founder and chief executive Bill Bristow said the community organisation had written to rural councils last week in all states except Tasmania and the Northern Territory asking them to explain to parliamentarians the importance of the service and the difficulties that shutting it down would cause.

Angel Flight co-ordinates non-emergency flights provided free to transport needy patients, relatives and carers, and medical supplies. It has about 2600 pilots on its register and has helped more than 2500 people across the country.

The charity depends on donations and, to help offset pilot operating costs, it negotiates the waiver of landing fees and air navigation charges.

“The local councils really are where the rubber hits the road,’’ Mr Bristow said.

“These are ­people dealing with the sick ­people in their community. They know them, they meet them down the street, so I’m hoping they will be an impassioned pressure group and they’ll talk to the federal politicians, ideally, and make them aware this is significant.’’

Angel Flight has also written to health professionals alerting them to a CASA discussion paper suggesting organisations under which it could be brought.

CASA says its preferred option would be to set up an organisation responsible for functions such as assessing and authorising pilots, requiring pilot proficiency checks and assessment, and approval of aircraft types.

The authority argues it could monitor safety standards under this system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.

But Mr Bristow argued there were no problems with his organisation that needed addressing.

He said he had yet to hear from CASA, although he had seen “unsatisfactory’’ responses from the authority’s spokesman to media articles.

“Disappointingly, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister whose department it is was just recently quoted as saying he doesn’t have any control over CASA,’’ Mr Bristow said.

“So he can’t help us.’’ More bad press for 'the WUSS!':=

Part 61 - 'Cold War' rhetoric

While SC was strangely down in the weeds (must be a poor news week for the Sky Gods) he must of bumped into IOS lifetime members Aerialag Phil, Rotor Head Crook & some 40 year CFI/owner boffin...:D:D:Pilot licensing rules put aviation sector in a tailspin (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilot-licensing-rules-put-aviation-sector-in-a-tailspin/story-e6frg95x-1227070695141)

Again I have used editorial privilege but this time there is a different reason, I'll call it the 20:4 ratio..:E

First the complainant 20:SMALLER aviation operators say they have been plunged into confusion by new pilot licensing rules that are hard to comprehend, not backed by education and contradictory in places.

Sections of the industry representing segments such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to have Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 delayed because neither side was adequately ­prepared.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum described Part 61 as “an overcomplicated and overweight document’’, while the Australian Helicopter Industry Association has raised safety ­issues and called for a “safe, cost- effective and operationally sound” version of the new rules.

Appeals to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to intervene were unsuccessful, and less than a month after the rules were introduced, industry members say their worst fears have been ­realised.

Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the lack of education was a big problem.

“It’s just appalling as in CASA has been caught with their pants down not having any educational material that’s easy to understand,’’ Mr Hurst said, noting the association had raised this issue in submissions in 2012 and 2013.

Mr Hurst said there was some advisory material but people were unable to find information unless they already knew the regulations and exactly what they were looking for. “I’ve been sitting on working groups since 1999 on this issue and I’m struggling to find stuff,’’ he said. “Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’

A veteran flying training operator with almost four decades in the industry said there was a lack of background, forms that didn’t yet exist and information that was still in draft form.

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

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

“There are government guidelines saying there should be the removal of red tape, that there should be stuff done in simple ­language,’’ he said.
“Everything’s been done in legal speak again that we can’t understand. There are actually things in different parts of the regs that contravene each other.’’

AHIA president Peter Crook said rotary- and fixed-wing flying schools had told the association they could not understand the new regulations because of ­unclear and ambiguous wording.

Mr Crook said fixed-wing schools had calculated the cost of an endorsement on basic light twin-engine aircraft would rise by about $1000 and a helicopter training organisation said they could add $7000 to each of its ­endorsements because of the need to hire an approved testing officer.

The AHIA has questioned the move towards a European-influenced regulatory system given the US accident rate of 3.94 crashes per 100,000 hours compared to 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours in Australia.
Another problem raised by both rotary- and fixed-wing operators is the amount of untested material in the new regulations that relates to the competencies pilots are required to demonstrate.

The AAAA’s Mr Hurst said the association wrote many of the competencies in the new regulations for the aerial application ­rating and fire fighting endorsement. “But then they weren’t ­actually tested,’’ he said. “We ­expected there would be some quality assurance to say we’ve been out and we’ve tried to teach someone this sequence and we’ve found this problem or that ­problem.’’

Mr Hurst questioned whether the new rules were better than those they had replaced.

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

“I’d challenge anyone to get their head around the 800 pages of regulations and clearly enunciate how all of those rules work ­together.’’
Love Phil's plain language...:E

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

Now for the respondent 4, first a pic to lighten the mood and IMO best describes the R4..;)

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/ostrich20ignorance-resized-600.png


A CASA spokesman referred the operators to the authority’s website and said it was doing ­dozens of face-to-face presentations on the changes.

In the latest CASA briefing, acting chief Terry Farquharson said the introduction of the new rules, which heralded a four-year transition period, had happened without the world coming to a halt. “In fact, rather than a welter of problems caused by the new regulations our main challenge has been keeping up with the number of people keen to move their licence over to the new regime as soon as possible,’’ he said.

“CASA’s licensing team are doing their best to keep up with the influx of applications but I do ask for your forbearance during this initial busy period and remind everyone that it is not essential to have a new Part 61 licence ­immediately.’’

Mr Farquharson said CASA had engaged research company Colmar Brunton to conduct an online survey during next month about its safety promotion activities and called on the industry to provide feedback. {Observation: Passing strange is that less than a month ago it would have been totally unheard of for their to be a 20:4 ratio from SC for the complainant??}

Finally, as noted on the Senate thread, the AQONs are out:Addendum - AQON links

By the way for those interested the AQONs for the last Budget Estimates have finally been released...:D

Here are the relevant links of most interest:

229 - 240 Aviation and Airports (AAA)(PDF 180KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/AAA.pdf))QoN230A-B (PDF 106KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/attachments/QoN230A_B.pdf))

241 - 257 Airservices Australia (AA)(PDF 256KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/Airservices.pdf))

258 - 262 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)(PDF 92KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/ATSB.pdf))

263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf))
One AQON that I found interesting (that may give credence to Frank's Albo idea) was an answer to a QON from that loud mouth clown Senator Conroy:
Answer:
Question as clarified by SE Committee:

What areas within CASA and AMSA have been identified to assist the Portfolio with making savings in order to meet the red tape or regulatory cost reduction target of $60 million per annum?

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is progressing initiatives to change a number of regulatory and service delivery processes to minimise the regulatory compliance and/or administrative burden and costs on aviation industry participants.

These initiatives include:
- amendments to Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) to reduce the complexity of flight training organisation approvals;
- amendments to CASR Part 61 to remove the requirement for a student pilot licence and reduce requirements for pilot proficiency checks in certain cases;
- limiting the need for aerial work operators to apply for and operate under an Air Operator’s Certificate and/or other authorisations for certain low risk and non-complex operations;
- developing proposals to provide administrative relief for small aircraft operators conducting local scenic flights as well as domestic freight operations;
- amending CASR Part 21 to expand the list of recognised countries for the purpose of mutual recognition in relation to airworthiness engineering and airworthiness approvals;
- permitting CASR Part 42 and Part 145 organisations to manage and maintain non-regular public transport aircraft, in addition to regular public transport aircraft, which avoids the need for organisations to hold both approvals (CASR Part 145 and CAR 30) and maintain two sets of manuals and other documentation;
- improvements to Advisory Circulars for aviation-related manufacturing industry participants to provide better guidance on application processes and the required supporting documentation; and

- streamlining medical administrative processes including enabling Class 2 medical certificates to be issued at the time of the medical examination by a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner.
There is plenty more AQONs of interest so fill your boots...:ok:

Two_dogs
26th Sep 2014, 02:52
263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf))

In relation to a particular aircraft’s suitability to operate to a particular runway at an aerodrome, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.4 is applicable to aeroplanes, not above 5700 kg, conducting regular public transport operations (single -engine aeroplanes only), private operations, aerial work operations (excluding agricultural operations ) and charter operations. The take-off distance required can be determined for a level, short, dry, grass surface with factors of between 1.15 and 1.25 applied to the distance in the Aircraft Flight Manual for certain maximum take-off weights.

However, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. CAO 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.

Determining whether the take-off distance available is adequate to ensure safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of the pilot in command.
Weasel words. :yuk: Try operating this way in the real world. Any (if not all) of the CAsA FOI's I know would be all over this. I know its legal to operate on foreign AFM's but have had the conversation before.


.

Kharon
28th Sep 2014, 20:41
Back in the old days, when folks worshipped the 'old gods', stone idols, bits of old bones or a pile of pony-pooh – if it pleased them, they looked for 'a sign' – always a sign. They were too realistic to expect actual words to be uttered by a stone idol. Chicken innards, fish guts, a couple of birds or the crops growing were all seen as auguries that the gods had listened, were happy and had bestowed that good will on the happy peasants and their masters alike.

I have determined to try some of the old time 'reading of the signs', just in case we expect too much from 'the gods', in the general way of communication. It is, I confess a slightly modified. 'modern' idea; inspired by 'the life of Brian', the gourd or the sandal type of decision. My first inkling that we should 'look to the past' for answers came when the sky didn't fall in when 61 went live. One of the problems of the old system of divination, by sign was that the gods could be ambiguous. For example, demigod Farq-u-hardson sent us a sign that all was well; for indeed, the sky did not fall in – however, this failed to explian why an earthquake stuck a flying school, a charter operator went mad, or why the chooks stopped laying. Tricky business this readin' of augury.

We probably do expect too much and really should hone our arcane skills. Was that rumble of thunder the gods decision to publish the industry responses to the WLR?, was that dead spider some god speak defining the reform or not question?; perhaps if I count the grains of sugar which missed my coffee cup the answers to old questions can be numerically deduced.

Don't know; but another month has rolled by and we can comfortably assume the rest of this one will follow suite, without response. So for the benefit and mental well being of our happy (IOS) peasants I shall Google some voodoo rituals, a tea leaf reading course and perhaps, chook guts reading: just to see what, if any answers may be gleaned from the gods, determined by a more scientific approach to finding out WTF is going on (or not, as the case may be).

No!, by Golly – I'm off to the dark cave, to visit the three Aunts: now that's a sure fire winner.

First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Toot toot...:D...:bored:

Sarcs
29th Sep 2014, 09:32
Update on Cooper Pedy runway width issue, from Aunty today...:D:Coober Pedy flights fix sparks hope of 'better relations' between airlines and CASA (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-29/coober-pedy-flights-resolution-sparks-hopes-of/5776184)

Australia's Regional Aviation Association is hoping a resolution over commercial flights to Coober Pedy is part of ongoing improvements in relations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Last Thursday, Regional Express (Rex) reversed a decision stopping future flights to Coober Pedy after resolving issues with CASA over the width of the town's runway.

Flights will continue as normal while the runway is widened.

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA, which is undergoing changes including a new board.
"I think the previous decision that was restricting Rex airlines so much that they really were finding it difficult to fly in - that was a bad decision - now there's some sense come into this," he said.

"Rex and the council, everybody has been given some time to make the surface appropriate and not stop any services.

"It couldn't have got much worse over the last five or six years and I'm not laying blame on either side, I'm just saying the relationship had broken down rather fundamentally.

"There is a new board being appointed, a new head of CASA being organised, so we're hoping for much better relations in the future." So a new hope?? Or a vain hope?? :rolleyes:

Also noticed that this back-down by FF was stated as being a 2 year extension to the previous exemption, does this mean all strips that REX operates to that need the exemption are included??

MTF...:ok:

Frank Arouet
29th Sep 2014, 10:36
So the dangerously narrow strip is, for the time being, now OK and not dangerous. The flights can continue as normal, but only while while the runway is being widened because normal is abnormal but will soon be normal again.


Fair enough.

Kharon
29th Sep 2014, 20:18
Well done All. Common sense prevails, choccy frog to CASA...:ok:

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA, which is undergoing changes including a new board.

"I think the previous decision that was restricting Rex airlines so much that they really were finding it difficult to fly in - that was a bad decision - now there's some sense come into this," he said.

Colour me happy....:D:D

Soteria
30th Sep 2014, 05:50
Bravo bravo and well done on Coober Pedy. Could this be a 'baby step' towards sensibilty? Have CASA and industry just enjoyed their first act of foreplay? Maybe, maybe not. Either way Paul Tyrrell has proven one thing - Industry is more than happy to co-exist with the Regulator, and only asks to be listened to and treated with fairness. This small olive leaf could be turned into the start a new regime, an equitable working relationship. The ball is, and always has been in CASA's court.

Sarcs
30th Sep 2014, 07:06
From Aunty last week on this back-down by FF:Flights between Adelaide and Coober Pedy to continue after agreement to widen runway
Posted Fri at 10:33amFri 26 Sep 2014, 10:33am
Related Story: MP questions need for Coober Pedy runway widening (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/mp-questions-need-for-coober-pedy-runway-widening/5727380)
Related Story: Council told to widen Coober Pedy runway (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/council-told-to-widen-coober-pedy-runway/5678102)
Related Story: Flights to Coober Pedy to continue (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-07-25/flights-to-coober-pedy-to-continue/2014788)

Map: SA (http://maps.google.com/?q=-35.2333,138.7500(SA)&z=5)

Flights between Adelaide and Coober Pedy in South Australia's north are to continue after an agreement was reached for the town to widen its runway.
The Regional Express airline had planned to stop operating the route from November 13 due to new runway width requirements imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

But the firm's director Jim Davis said the local council had now agreed to widen the runway.

He said the route would continue running as the CASA had relaxed the rules since an agreement was now in place.

"There'll be no more disruption to services as long as the runway widening is carried out within a reasonable time," Mr Davis said.

"That time's not specified, so CASA has been fairly reasonable in allowing the work to take place.

"The work will have to take place within a reasonable timeframe once the funding's obtained."

District Council of Coober Pedy Mayor Steve Baines said it would be business as usual as long as the council could obtain funding and carry out the work.

Mr Baines said last month that widening the runway could cost up to $500,000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/council-told-to-widen-coober-pedy-runway/5678102).

Yes Soty sounds more like a classic FF 'stick and carrot' play...:ugh: I do wonder though if this opens the door for other operators with runway width exemptions expiring 13 November 2014??

After all (from what I can find), in the case of REX & PelAir, they were given a general exemption due to expire February 2015 and not just a one off exemption for Cooper Pedy: 15. CASA EX37/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex37.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(REX)
16. CASA EX36/12 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100144/casaex36.pdf) – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(Pel-Air)


[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety
6 March 2012
Exemption — from minimum runway width instructions
1 Duration
This instrument:
(a) commences on 8 March 2012; and
(b) stops having effect at the end of February 2015.
2 Application
This instrument only applies to the SAAB Model A and B aircraft operated by Regional Express Pty Limited, Aviation Reference Number 752788.
3 Exemption
The aircraft are exempt from compliance with the instructions in instrument CASA 61/12.
4 Conditions
The exemption is subject to the conditions mentioned in Schedule 1.
Schedule 1 Conditions
1 The aircraft must not land on, or take off from, a runway that is less than 18 metres wide.
2 Operations on a runway that is not less than 18 metres wide must be conducted in accordance with the Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement #20 for the SAAB SF340A and Supplement #16 for the SAAB 340B.
Examples would be Hardy Aviation - CASA EX83/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14083.pdf)– Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m) - or Pearl Aviation - CASA EX45/14 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100235/casaex14045.pdf) - Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)...:rolleyes:

From RAAA ASRR submission:
CAR 235A – minimum runway width

CAR235A describes a process to develop standards of operations
on narrow runways. It also introduces additional requirements that
may restrict or prohibit operations to remote regional communities.
Additionally, the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) contains
contradictions in regard to crew training and does not provide an
alternative means of achieving equivalent safety outcomes. One of
our Members indicated that CAR 235A has put regular public transport
services to at least one remote regional location in jeopardy.

Another of our members had a local inspector do all the checks at
Clermont Qld for reduced runway width and submitted the Standard
Form of Recommendation (SFR) to CASA where it was signed off by
the applicable section. After this it went to the General Manager within
CASA for final approval who refused to sign it without reason. The
CASA General Manager revisited the SFR twice ultimately waiting till
the maximum time period (3 months) specified in the regulations was
just about expired and then approved the SFR. Due to the excessive
period taken by CASA the client of our Member had decided not to
proceed with the project (mining) at that time.
Hmm...maybe the RAAA could put forward an application for a general (blanket) exemption for all it's effected members, with the proviso that the various effected airports acquire funding and start construction, for widening their runways, within an acceptable time-frame. Certainly test the veracity of this supposed goodwill gesture from FF...:E

While on Cooper Pedy I noticed that a certain PC-12/47 had a run in with a fence while landing just the other day.
The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a runway undershoot involving a Pilatus Aircraft, PC-12/47, VH-HIG at Coober Pedy Airport, South Australia on 23 September 2014.

During an approach to runway 32 in gusty conditions, the pilot encountered reducing visibility due to dust, and a high sink rate. The aircraft touched down short of the runway and collided with a fence.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and seek information from the operator.

A report will be released within several months.Maybe FF will now require operators to apply for runway length exemptions??? ;)

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
30th Sep 2014, 11:12
Simple fix for the problem Sarc's is to require all runways in Australia to be as wide as they are long...in the old days they called them "all over fields" Bankstown used to be an all over field, now its an industrial estate.

How many pages of differences with ICAO reside in our AIP???

How simple to include one dealing with runway width because the ICAO requirements are specifically to deal with contaminated runways...ever heard of snow/slush at sunshine coast???

Kharon
30th Sep 2014, 20:18
Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA,

Had this statement been made a year ago; I'd have been shaking my head. But Paul Tyrrell and the rest of the RAA board are no where near silly, nor are they gullible. The RAA submission to the WLR was powerful and defined, very clearly that the RAA understood 'the system', were unafraid of the CASA stick and would not be fobbed off with a carrot. It's not a perfect solution, but if Tyrrell and his crew are able to negotiate a 'sensible' outcome, it's a good start along a very long path.

Heh, heh; ...the PC 12 story is beautifully ironic; "no problem with the existing width, officer on the centreline all the way in, just a bit too short for landing in contrary winds that's all".

Murphy Rules – OK....:ok:

Toot toot.

scrubba
1st Oct 2014, 04:22
I'm a bit confused...

Operations on a runway that is not less than 18 metres wide must be conducted in accordance with the Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement #20 for the SAAB SF340A and Supplement #16 for the SAAB 340B.

I thought the whole idea of the "Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement" was that the operations to narrow runways was now part of the accepted certification of the 'airplane' and thus a permanent exemption from CAR 235A - am I missing something?

Sarcs
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
MASCOT NSW 1460

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
characteristics.

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
including:
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

MTF...:ok:

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.

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


http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/prod/dataSheets/340Brochure.pdf

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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...:{


MTF...:ok:

Creampuff
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.

scrubba
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

Sunfish
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.

Soteria
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.

Kharon
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"....;)

Sarcs
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).

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/untitled.png

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

MTF...:ok:

robsrich
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
BULLsh...T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

triadic
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:

Kharon
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.

Kharon
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.

Kharon
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.

BOLLOCKS;

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.

Sunfish
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.

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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
efficient.

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).

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_100614_083941_AM.jpg

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!:{

Kharon
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:

robsrich
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%.

WHY?

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]

Kharon
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

Sarcs
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?

Answer:

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

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781812/Eventually-accident-Aviator-Dick-Smith-says-pilots-flying-blind-regional-airports-safety-recommendations-ignored.html#comments)
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.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412569514292_wps_52_airport_story.jpg

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

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412569355724_wps_49_airport_story.jpg
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'.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412569208672_wps_47_airport_story.jpg
Alice Springs is one of the regional airports that was advised to install radar technology in 2004

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412569279194_wps_48_airport_story.jpg
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.


HOW MANY PLANES ARE 'FLYING BLIND'?


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.'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412569441198_wps_50_airport_story.jpg

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:

Soteria
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.

AACCI
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.








http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747923/logo_aacci.jpg


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

We Need YOU!

Dear fellow Aviator,

http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1817383/WeNeedYou.jpg

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
President
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc


http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747924/AirportPlan.gif
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc
GPO Box 2511
Brisbane Qld 4001
Australia
Website (http://www.vision6.com.au/ch/46993/1728g/1772506/ce39d14p8b-1.html):- www.aacci.org.au (http://www.aacci.org.au/)

Sarcs
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.

[ENDS]

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
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....;)

Sarcs
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)
Conclusion

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...:{:{

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
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 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00G9Wfzv5cg


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


MTF...:ok:

Jinglie
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.

Soteria
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?

Jinglie
9th Oct 2014, 12:35
Soteria,

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;)

Jinglie
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!!!!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/

Soteria
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.

Sunfish
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.

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/boat-beacon-ais-marine-navigation/id494877039?mt=8

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.

Sarcs
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:

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
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.

MTF...:ok:

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

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

Soteria
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.

Sunfish
10th Oct 2014, 21:01
Soteria:

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.

Creampuff
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.

Sunfish
12th Oct 2014, 20:22
Creampuff:

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.

Creampuff
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.

Sunfish
13th Oct 2014, 20:50
Creampuff:

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?

Sarcs
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:

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
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.”
MTF...:ok:

Soteria
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
Soteria,

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.

Jinglie
15th Oct 2014, 11:55
DB,

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?

Sarcs
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...:=

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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:

MTF...:ok:

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..."

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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
Sunny,

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.

Sarcs
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
insurmountable.
&
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::
Conclusion
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..:(

MTF...:ok:

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?

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

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

Jinglie
18th Oct 2014, 11:04
Biccy,

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.

Kharon
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)

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/pics/glass21-small.gif

Toot toot.

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

Kharon
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

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/1385475421/bollocks_35_button_100_pack.jpg?height=225&width=225

Calochilus
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.

SIUYA
20th Oct 2014, 04:25
Calochilus,

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

:mad:

Kharon
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.

Sarcs
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
AND
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.


MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
23rd Oct 2014, 04:53
"MURKY"!!!

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

Kharon
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.

Soteria
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

Sunfish
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?

Sarcs
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..:{

Examples:

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




preserved.


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...

MTF..:ok:

Soteria
24th Oct 2014, 02:24
Sunny,
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!

Up-into-the-air
24th Oct 2014, 05:46
I watched with interest, while sitting at the back of the Senate hearing room, Mrdack, Farquartson, Dolan being grilled by the Senator's.

The amount of time used earlier in the day by Senator Conroy certainly reduced the amount of time for Senator Fawcett. Will be interesting sarcs to see the QON's.

The caravanners were there and this report gives some views of the happenings in the estimates room (http://vocasupport.com/the-anti-corruption-caravan-meets-the-senators-with-a-manifest-of-problems/).

and the report by the NSW Parliament directs attention as well at poor regulation and excessive changes by casa (http://vocasupport.com/report-by-state-development-regional-aviation-services-in-nsw-slams-excessive-regulation-and-impact-on-aviation/).

gerry111
24th Oct 2014, 15:06
UITA,

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.)

Kharon
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.

Soteria
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!

Kharon
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:

Sunfish
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.

Soteria
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!

Jinglie
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!

Kharon
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.

Selah.

Sunfish
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.

Soteria
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.

Soteria
28th Oct 2014, 00:25
Sunny
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.

Frank
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.

Sarcs
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

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_102814_043723_PM.jpg

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

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_102814_050249_PM.jpg

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.

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_102814_055026_PM.jpg

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

MTF..:ok:

Sunfish
28th Oct 2014, 18:20
Sarcs:

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).

Up-into-the-air
29th Oct 2014, 00:35
Trouble is Sunny, for a lot of people Fort Fumble is quite descriptive.

A Fort - Yes and the ramparts are well and truly up against the industry

AND:

Fumble - Yes, that is the method that is used to confuse and stop people getting the answers

OR:

Just demonstrates the incompetence of the organisation.

CASA - No part of regulator in making this "safety" at all!!, thus people saying: CAsA, or CA$A or casa!!

Sarcs
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)
MTF...:ok:

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.

Soteria
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.

Jinglie
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!

Kharon
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).

Sunfish
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.

Sarcs
30th Oct 2014, 00:31
New CASA Director of Aviation Safety appointed

Media Release
WT220/2014
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/)

MTF..:ok:

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.....

Jinglie
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.

tipsy2
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

Sarcs
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/)

MTF...:ok:

Frank Arouet
30th Oct 2014, 08:27
The man owns a Globe Swift.


He has class and taste. First points his way from Frank.

Jinglie
30th Oct 2014, 09:29
Frank,
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!

halfmanhalfbiscuit
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.

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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.

Sunfish
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?

http://thearchdruidreport.********.com.au/

Toruk Macto
30th Oct 2014, 22:02
Affordable safety ?

Sarcs
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,

Hitch

Jinglie
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!

Sarcs
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.

:D:D:D:D

thorn bird
31st Oct 2014, 10:35
Thank you Ben,


Hear Hear.:D:D:D:D

Jinglie
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!

Kharon
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.

Sunfish
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.

http://bountydivers.********.com.au/2010/03/norfolk-island-bounty-divers-crashed.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DkLXuyzoA

Kharon
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:

Sarcs
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...;)

MTF...:ok:

Nkosi
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".


Nkosi,

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.

Creampuff
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.

triadic
1st Nov 2014, 02:52
Their prediction has proved correct.

...to date!