PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

triadic
1st Nov 2014, 02:59
A ‘root and branch’ review of how the UK’s Air Navigation Order (ANO) impacts on general aviation (GA) has begun, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed today. The wide-ranging review will look at how a more proportionate and lighter touch regulation for general aviation can be achieved.

It is a pity that the industry in this country is not collective and has so many parts pulling in their own direction and not for the greater good.

All attempts to have a real industry consultative forum in Oz have failed since the first was established in the mid 90's. It failed then because the then leader of one org wanted to go alone. It just didn't work, and wont until everyone, but everyone gets together and speaks with one united voice. In doing so, not everyone will achieve their aims, but the industry as a whole is more likely to have a win.

Maybe we can lobby the new DAS to consider something similar to what the UK CAA are doing... heaven help us, we certainly need it!

Soteria
1st Nov 2014, 03:26
Maybe we can lobby the new DAS to consider something similar to what the UK CAA are doing... heaven help us, we certainly need it!
Waste of time. You need to lobby MrDak, Credlin, the Miniscule and the GWM for permission to do such a thing. The DAS doesn't Captain the S.S CASA. Herr Skull found that out pretty quick :=

Nkosi
1st Nov 2014, 03:31
Thorn bird,

In the past I have had the good fortune of working for two regulatory authorities, D of A (which morphed into the CAA and then CASA) and the UK CAA, in that order. Things were simpler in those days I think, but the professionalism of the CAA was excellent. Things may have changed from my time with them but by the projected review as discussed previously shows that they have the will to get the job done. If it would be possible for CASA to use the CAA review model and experience then why not? We, as an industry are not that far apart surely?

Nkosi

thorn bird
1st Nov 2014, 03:42
Nkosi,

Mate with due respect,

CAsA never uses anyone else's "Model"!!! a look at our 25 years in the making half a billion Dollar regulations would convince anyone of that.

All the rest of the world is totally wrong, Australia and our regulator are the only ones who know everything there is to know about aviation, a read of CAsA's press releases would convince most people of that.

Nkosi
1st Nov 2014, 04:02
Thorn bird

You may well be right, but notwithstanding the obstacles and negativity that will be placed in the path of the incoming DAS I hope that he succeeds where others have not.

Nkosi

thorn bird
1st Nov 2014, 05:13
Nkosi,

on my bended knees every night I pray, because after 48 years, I saw the best, and the dramatic slide into oblivion that has occurred since.

I don't know how many inquiries we've had, and reviews. Creamie would be the one to tell you that, and that they achieved absolutely ZILCH, at great taxpayer expense.

There is a cadre in CAsA who pull the strings, with top cover provided by a public servant Mandarins mandarin. Any DAS with reformist stars in their eye's are fairly smartly brought into line, and if that doesn't work, stabbed in the back.

From all indications CAsA is not a very pleasant place to work.

So please excuse us if we seem a tad skeptical, most of us have seen it all before.

For me it perhaps doesn't matter much, but I was one of those star struck kids once, hanging off the aerodrome fence.

Its their future I weep for.

Sandy Reith
1st Nov 2014, 06:04
In regard to Mark Skidmore being appointed as CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority there will be many in General Aviation (GA) who were hoping for a person with a wide background, especially in GA.

Steve Creedy's article in the Aus tells us that Mr. Skidmore has experience in civil aviation, quoting Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board Chairman Allan Hawke: “Mark has worked in civilian aviation as a test pilot, business development manager and company director,’’
From the article it seems that Mr Skidmore has very little commercial experience, he has been a career military man nearly all of his working life. No doubt Dr. Hawke, the Board and the Minister will try to deflect the criticism that will surely come about in General Aviation by this appointment.

I'm sure all of us in General Aviation (GA) will wish Mark Skidmore well, but, until there are positive signs to the contrary, we will be left thinking that Canberra has decided that a Canberra man will do what is best for Canberra.

Civil aviation is very different to the military scene, General Aviation is seriously in need of reform, it has stagnated or been declining for many years owing to a lack of airports policy and a regulator bent on hammering GA into oblivion. The recent Regulatory Review Panel has seen fit to suggest a number of reforms that might go some way to redressing the ills that have bedeviled GA for many years. We hope Mr. Skidmore will control CASA and help put General Aviation back on the map where it should be.

Maybe Canberra will once again have a flying school, airline pilots might be taken off the 457 visa list, and CASA might finalise the 25 year process of regulatory reform, reform that New Zealand did in five years. Maybe the taxpayer will get value for money and maybe GA will once again prosper, what is sure is that many skeptics will be watching.

Nkosi
1st Nov 2014, 06:17
Thorn bird

Your sentiments are understood.

My son sits in a cockpit of an RPT operated aircraft flying within Australia. My daughter trundles a trolley up and down the aisle of an international airline. I have now retired, but am drawn to the discussions on this medium in the hope of gaining an insight on the why's and wherefore's of the regulatory system that I was a part of for so many years and which appears to have gone 'wonky'!

At times I am at a loss to explain to my kids the reasons why situations have developed to the point of stupidity. So I say again, I hope the incoming DAS can get a grip and manage the situation to enable us all to slip away from the criticism that tends to colour our thoughts.

Nkosi

SIUYA
1st Nov 2014, 07:32
Creampuff...

In your last post you responded to the quote:

I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle.

Because they confidently predicted that they would get away with it, scott free.

Their prediction has proved correct.

I have to agree with you Creampuff, but the $64K questions are:

1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?

2. Why did they do what they did?

I have to say, I'm buggered if I can work it out.

All I can conclude is that the stakes must have been mighty high for both to have done what they did.

Suggestions/answers anyone? :confused:

tipsy2
1st Nov 2014, 07:51
Suggestions/answers anyone?


Maybe ask John Sharpe

Tipsy

Jinglie
1st Nov 2014, 10:06
Yep, Sharpe is written all over this. Also, a bully regulator and an incompetent investigator. I can't see Beaker trying to take on the Skull.
What's more bizarre is how there can be SO much damning public evidence and yet the government does SFA! So much for democracy. The whole case is a sad indictment on our country. Mrdak, you should be ashamed.

Prince Niccolo M
1st Nov 2014, 13:02
SIUYA,

In the world to which Creamie refers, I think the answers are clear:

1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?

2. Why did they do what they did?

simply because there was no identified risk because both agencies thought that the event would be ignored - it was not RPT and no one was considered to be a passenger.

I think John Sharpe has a lot of friends and I think there were a lot of people who considered that their career trajectories meant that it would be wise not to make him (and therefore his political connections in both major parties) enemies...

I think that the three main agency players thought that they would sweep away the problematic issues while no one was paying attention, as so often had been the case before. However, as has thankfully been the case before, a number of players considered previously to be of no import chose not to read or accept the script and played with a straight bat, thus allowing the light to be shone where others wanted the dark to remain.

After that, it just became a test of damage control, reticence and political inertia.

Simple really...

yr right
1st Nov 2014, 19:32
This is how you pass your mistake back onto the industry

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/050.pdf


What engineer is going to do this after what has happened and then place them selfs and the lions door if they miss some thing.

Kharon
1st Nov 2014, 20:15
Regrettably, probably since the cave, the use of 'influence' has been an accepted norm; one way or another we all do it and by and large society accepts that this happens. So, no one is too surprised, shocked or even offended when Sharpe uses his 'influence' to shape an outcome; particularly if it is in defence of a company which employs a lot of folks, has sensitive contracts to protect and a public image to maintain. It would be quite natural to speak softly in receptive ears – to ensure that the accident was given a 'minimum fuss', low key treatment. I find it hard to believe a man like Sharpe would deliberately set out to conspire with 'the powers that be' to bury the incident or to crucify the pilot. It would be counterproductive, whereas a little judicious 'hosing down' of the situation would be expected and of benefit. Sharpe is probably clever enough to know that.

With a little imagination, one can see Sharpe 'having a word' – asking for a softly-softly approach, as little fuss as possible along with an iron clad guarantee to 'sort out' whatever problems or discrepancies were discovered; to keep the books balanced. McComic was away and Farq-u-hardson was on deck, he threw the juicy bone to his favourite dog and game on. The rest as they say – is history.

The 'risk' was subliminal; I doubt anyone factored in the overly enthusiastic, opportunistic, reactive, self serving, vicious response from the ambitious lower management levels. A careful study of the pertinent 'management' ploys reveals much, the pathway clearly defined through the paper-trail, where clearly defined breeches of policy, protocol and manipulation of 'the law' have been cobbled together, crudely and in some haste, not to promote safety; but to satisfy personal, twisted ambition, a symptom of a very deep psychosis.

No, the part that puzzles me is why so many gold stars were flushed down the pan. CASA could have said that 'they', through diligent audit had discovered some elevated systematic risk areas within Pel Air and their own system and was moving swiftly, in cooperation with the company to plug up the holes. Gold star and no more said you'd think.

Nope, quality audit and expert opinion was rejected or diminished, those that wrote the summaries were denigrated and the serious, systematic flaws in the CASA/Pel-Air cheese not only went unplugged, but were treated in a very cavalier manner. The fix to both systems being applied and accepted in a breathtakingly short period. The 'experts' rightly miffed, outraged and offended wanted no further part. And so, without really fixing up the identified problem in both areas, a magic wand (or golden pen) was twirled and all was, once again, rosy in the garden. Two bonuses were extracted, a pilot was crucified with the option to devastate a career and, a not so carefully plagiarised 'report' could be winnowed out, to help further career advancement.

I reckon Sharpe and even McComic were shocked at the depth of depravity; but, they were stuck with it, being the 'executive' and all. Whether it was dogged determination to defend his troops or old fashioned arrogance and bile that gave us the Pel-Air inquiry is not known (for certain): what is known is that with sane, calm management the Nick Xenophon quest could have been headed off at the pass. The real risks were taken not during the soft handling of the Norfolk ditching event, which could have been quietly (as requested) managed to insignificance; but in allowing the whole shambles to become public and subjected to Senate scrutiny. Once there, it was too late for anything else but honesty; even then, that was denied.

I doubt I'd have risked it all, not at those odds. I'd have sacrificed the management team so fast it would make your head spin. "Senator, we are revisiting the Pel Air incident, we find that the audit was badly handled by the management team, who have since been dismissed." "We have appointed an acknowledged, qualified expert to complete the task and look forward to implementing the across the board improvements to air safety, we at CASA are dedicated to providing". "Pel Air has been allowed, in the interests of procedural fairness to continue it's operations under a regime of monthly audit and increased surveillance". Gold star.

It turned out that they couldn't do the snow job properly: hadn't got the brains to spin their way out of bother; or even the nouse enough to get off the track when the train was coming, then it became a high risk, high stakes game. The world is watching the MH 370 effort, the PM has his nuts in a vice with Chemilnecal Trails looking to score off any loose words; and we put up an ATSB highly compromised by cooperation with a safety authority that can't manage a simple, low key fix of what was a fairly straightforward event.

Perhaps CASA never, ever, for a moment considered that answers would be sought. Had it been managed properly, from the off, those questions would never have been asked. Had 'they' allowed normal process under policy to take place, the Senate would not be anything other than vaguely aware that there had been an incident and CASA was in control.

So, Creamy and Nick – I can agree that there was no consideration of 'being caught' in the matrix – but I doubt the cognitive or intellectual horsepower was available to 'predict' the eventual outcome. I could believe arrogant assumption, in fact, I'd bet on it. Apart from McComic (and the honourable resigned), do you know everyone involved with Pel Air is still drawing wages, expenses and super. Some have even been promoted.

The sad part is that the Pel Air disgrace was but a 'minor' embuggerance compared to some of the better covered, non examined cases CASA have 'managed'. Instead of gold stars and choc frogs for 'clever' management they have deeply annoyed a Senate, almost endangered two minuscules, embarrassed an industry and now, though association the ATSB is set to compromise the government; as any shadow passing over the MH 370 situation will be closely examined by the world.

Absolutely stellar: the stuff of legend; and, quite a legacy for the new chum to live down. Get in first mate – demand a judicial (or Senate) inquiry, even if only for top cover – lest the tar brush be applied to some nether regions when all is revealed. Guilty by association is not a great way to start.

Ends Sunday ramble, saddles up the Gobbledock's mighty beast, whistles up dogs and heads off along the river bank anticipating fresh coffee and blueberry muffins (gods willing – weather permitting) on return.

Selah.

yr right
1st Nov 2014, 21:36
Now also please remember that the AAAA are trying for self regulation. Casa went against the manufacture in allowing the we'll over weight limitation. Plus we lost life's over this.

The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.

1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.

yr right
1st Nov 2014, 22:04
Now also please remember that the AAAA are trying for self regulation. Casa went against the manufacture in allowing the we'll over weight limitation. Plus we lost life's over this.

The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.

1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.

Creampuff
1st Nov 2014, 23:25
It made as much sense the second time as the first. :ok:

Creampuff
2nd Nov 2014, 00:44
I note that I didn't say they confidently predicted they would not get caught.

What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free.

Eddie O'Beid got caught. His response is to yawn. There's a reason for that.

yr right
2nd Nov 2014, 01:05
Yeh creamie you been in the 1% group haven't you

Prince Niccolo M
2nd Nov 2014, 12:00
I kept seeing "yr right" as "you're right", but now I see that it is actually "yeah, right!"...


And, reluctantly, I disagree with Creamie in that repetition made it even worse!


But I am in heated agreement with Creamie that a little bit of embarrassment is quite bearable when there is no real consequence. The days of men of integrity falling on their swords for a failure to maintain the public's (or shareholders') expectations of fiduciary excellence are long gone.

Sunfish
2nd Nov 2014, 18:48
I had Two long talks with people about CASA this weekend. Neither of them were reassuring.

One was with an Optometrist acquaintance who had completed the CASA course but on reading the CASA legal agreement to be appointed a CASA testing officer, declined to sign it.

The reasons were:

(A) The ocular standards required for pilots were far too strict in his opinion. One misread letter is a fail. He felt that the standards were ridiculously tight to the point where he could just about fail anybody if he had a mind to.

(B) CASA required him to report to CASA even the suspicion of a developing condition of any sort. For example, Glaucoma, which, according to him, may take Thirty years before it has a detectable effect on vision. Then of course eye photography now provides indications of potential cholesterol, diabetes and blood pressure conditions, he said. Needless to say, once reported to CASA Aviation Medicine, the medical certificate is only going to get issued by CASA after thousands of dollars of further tests each year. The Optometrist felt he was being asked to be a CASA spy, since even consultations not related to a medical certificate still required him to dob in any pilot he thought might have an issue.

(C) CASA waved the big "Conflict of interest" stick! If he tested a pilot and discovered his vision needed correction via prescribing glasses, then these had to be prescribed by a second separate Optometrist because he had a conflict of interest!!!!!!!

Can you believe that??? Here is CASA, the most conflicted entity in the entire country - regulator, policeman, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, and they are primly telling a professional Optometrist to beware of conflict of interest???? This just beggars belief!

As he explained it. If you go to a CASA approved Optometrist for an eye test, not even not connected with your medical certificate, you risk getting reported to CASA!

Furthermore, here is a freedom of information request for someone: How many "renew by CASA only" pilot medical certificates exist and what are the numbers issued by year for the last Ten years or so? I have a sneaking suspicion that a little empire is being built in the medical section by inflating the numbers of medical certificates that require CASA consideration to renew them.


Second conversation was with an ex public servant senior enough to hob nob socially with Ministers and even the PM. When I explained my perplexity at CASAs alleged behaviour, he explained that it was consistent with neither major political party wanting anything to do with aviation at all.

The only workable solution according to him was political. Industry talking sweet reason to the regulator is a waste of time, even internal CASA staff talking sweet reason to their bosses is a waste of time. The bosses have been told to just ensure that aviation does not impinge on the body politic. The pilots have about the same political pull as prisoners rights groups - nobody cares.

The solution needs to be political action including the possibility of strike action that gets positive (not negative) media attention, and given pilot disunity that isn't going to happen.

Kharon
2nd Nov 2014, 18:53
CP –"What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free."

QED, and same-same furious agreement. No consideration was given to being caught. Why? well even if caught 'in flagranti delicto' the regulators are secure in the knowledge that 'they' are not only above the law, but very well protected from prosecution under the law, by those offended or by those charged with upholding the law.

Yet if some poor mutt dares to contravene a small part of some arcane law, the full weight of the authority, using public money; in the name of safety is used to enforce that law, policy or whim – as, when and if it suits.

It leaves us living in a well padded state of reversed anarchy – under the rule of the of the regulator, where daring to question is a heinous crime, let alone protest. Challenge is treated as open rebellion, the challenger destroyed, at any price.

Australia – love it or leave it.

Sunfish
3rd Nov 2014, 20:08
Melbourne Cup Day - One of the traditional times for Government to release bad news. I wonder if we get the Governments response to the review today or do we get it as a belated after Christmas present?

Sandy Reith
3rd Nov 2014, 22:20
It is unlikely that the government's response to the review will make much difference unless some Coalition MP's bring pressure to bear on Truss through cabinet. In other words I hope no one is self asphyxiated waiting for nearly nothing. The Skidmore appointment is not a portent for change. Your ordinary MP might take note that airline pilots are on the 457 visa list. I've asked my MP to consider that it is better to home grow pilots for economical and safety reasons.
Another suggestion to an MP; there could be bad publicity in the offing if there is no reform.

What is needed is political action of any and all sorts.

It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.

Sunfish
3rd Nov 2014, 22:41
Wren460:

It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.

Because CASA do not have the competence, capability or experience to regulate Qantas and Virgin, they are left to their own devices, although the formalities are preserved. This was even the case when I worked at Ansett in the 1970's.

Cowardly CASA therefore sticks to terrorising the GA sector.

Soteria
3rd Nov 2014, 22:54
Wren460, the reason why most pilots are reasonably quiet is because they have spent decades and a lot of money in pursuit of the career they love and they know that just one outspoken public criticism of CASA could see their career, future and retirement plans flushed down the shitter in the blink of an eye. Now those who live with the fairies won't believe that for a second, but those who know and play within the system know this only too well - Butsons, Quadrio's et al.
The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government.
CASA won't change because it doesn't have to. The Government, ICAO, the UN, our laws, our politicians and all the demons in heaven don't want change, don't care about change, don't want to mandate change, couldn't give a shit about change. Change will only come about if there is an Australian revolution or an A380 pancakes itself on top of the Australian war memorial (will likely be blamed on a Captain with alleged CVD anyway) . In the meantime boys, remember the film The Castle and keep dreaming.

thorn bird
4th Nov 2014, 02:30
Err Soty old mate,

"The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government".

Tad harsh old boy!!...

been trying to think what you left out?

Ah, you forgot corrupt!!

Anybody have anything else?

Kharon
4th Nov 2014, 18:46
Wren - Many of the 'senior' airline pilots have spoken out, but as a cohesive group, in compliance with company policy and dignity, when and where it mattered, through the 'union' system.

'They' have spoken eloquently and effectively at every one of the Senate inquiries, i.e. Pilot training (derailed by the Tiger smoke and mirrors show), the Pel Air inquiry and responded very well to the Forsyth review; the 'pilot bodies' and I suspect the companies provided massive support to John O'Brien and the Colour Vision debacle. The GA associations have also contributed, in a similar fashion. I fail to understand what more you believe could have been done, short of camping on the Truss lawn and setting off fireworks to wake the lazy, useless blighter from his self induced trance.

'Industry' has responded magnificently, (considering the risk) whether the investment of time, skill, trouble and effort, all voluntary, (blood sweat and tears) has been in vain or not only time will tell.

I'd just say thank you, to all: well done; and never, ever quit. Bravo.

Toot toot. MkII.

Sarcs
5th Nov 2014, 04:09
Mid-week around the traps...:cool:

Borghetti keen to ease regulation to improve productivity (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/borghetti-keen-to-ease-regulation-to-improve-productivity/)
Virgin Australia chief executive John Borghetti says government should ensure regulation does not stifle the growth and productivity of Australia’s airlines.

Speaking in Canberra to the Transport and Tourism Forum leadership summit’s audience of political and industry figures, Borghetti noted airline productivity had been a key driver of the growth in Australia’s aviation industry over the past decade, and said government had a key role to play to ensure regulatory burdens did not throttle that growth.

“Ensuring that the regulatory and compliance burden is not impeding the growth and competitiveness of the industry is an area where government can very clearly play a role,” Borghetti said on October 29.

“Undertaking the usual business approach of robust cost-benefit analyses before introducing new regulations and considering opportunities to streamline current regulations, or for that matter looking at new approaches rather than simply adding layers and layers of regulation over time, and keeping on putting bandaids in place, are cases in point.” But your pitching your message to the wrong bloke JB...:ugh: Our miniscule is currently either fluffing in the bath with his beloved boats or playing with his full replica Thomas the Tank Engine set...:E

Meanwhile over at Fort Fumble it is good to see someone in the airspace office is awake and did not miss Dick's broadside at the big "R" regulator - Dick Smith warns pilots to be wary of new rules at uncharted airports (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/dick-smith-warns-pilots-to-be-wary-of-new-rules-at-uncharted-airports/story-e6frg95x-1227107623063) - here is the response as relayed by the Hitch crew:CASA responds to ALA Frequency Question (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-responds-to-ala-frequency-question)
05 Nov 2014



CASA has responded to criticisms over their advice to broadcast on the area VHF frequency when operating from a airfield not marked on charts.
Former CASA boss Dick Smith highlighted the issue on Friday (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/dick-smith-labels-casa-frequency-advice-dangerous) with a scathing response to advice provided in a Civil Aviation Advisory publication (CAAP).

A CASA spokesperson reiterated the regulator's position in an e-mail sent to Australian Flying.

"The multicom frequency (126.7) is not appropriate here because pilots who are unaware of the unmarked aerodrome will be using the Area frequency, and will not hear multicom broadcasts," the e-mail stated. "Pilots transiting at low levels over uncharted aerodromes will not be monitoring multicom—they could be flying on the same track not knowing traffic is coming up.

"Multicom was never a national frequency—it was the frequency to be used at, or in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes without a discrete frequency.

"The area frequency also has an advantage in an emergency, for receiving ATC alerts, and to receive a surveillance information service (SIS) if required.

"Uncharted aerodromes can be very busy. If you are concerned about frequency congestion, and wish to have an aerodrome charted, the best approach is for the aerodrome owner to work through the local Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) to seek a change.
"It is not possible to develop guidance addressing every possible circumstance. This is because radio alerted see-and-avoid in Class G airspace is subject to many variables, not least of which is that not all aircraft will be VHF-radio equipped. So pilots must exercise judgement and airmanship to determine what broadcasts should be made and on what frequency.

"Pilots must check all applicable charts—WAC, VTC, VNC etc. This is important because chart limitations mean that an aerodrome may be marked on one chart but not another."
Smith's objection to the advice is based on the possibility that broadcasts on the area frequency may block out important instructions given to passenger jets.

Your Say
We're keen to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment below and tell us if you think 126.7 or the area VHF frequency should be used for airfields not marked on ANY chart. Could someone send Hitch a link for the relevant thread on this subject - plenty of comments in there...:E

While on Fort Fumble it would appear that there has been some spring-cleaning going on pending the arrival of the new DAS...:rolleyes: Trouble is they couldn't rouse Tezza from his arvo slumber to pen his moniker to this missive to the Heff...;):

1.) Correspondence received on 31 October 2014 from Mr Terry Farquharson, Acting Director of Aviation Safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 684 KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/CASA_31102014.pdf))
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY

Trim Ref: SE1415

28October 2014

Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Heffernan


Clarification of an issue raised at Estimates


I write regarding an issue raised at the October 2014 Estimates hearing regarding credit card transactions.

During the hearing, Senator Sterle asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to advise the Committee' ... how many employees have had to pay back money for private expenses that were claimed on cash or credit card' (Hansard (proof) at p. 153).

In responding to Senator Sterle's questions on this matter, Ms Gillian Savage and Mr Craig Jordan inadvertently overstated the number of employees who have had to repay money for private expenses made on CASA credit cards during the financial year 2014-15, and understated somewhat the estimated amounts of typical charges of this kind. The correct information is provided below.

Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.

As Mr Jordan advised during the hearing, all monies related to inadvertent purchases have been repaid. CASA also advises that no instances of fraud were identified.

I trust this advice clarifies matters on this issue.


Yours sincerely


Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
MTF...:E

Kharon
5th Nov 2014, 18:41
Deadly boring warning, just couldn't let it slide by. I expect there are those who would call me a cynic, or at least not a troo bloo believer in CASA speak, but even the most gooey eyed Casaphile deconstructing the statement below, even using CASA applied 'logic' would have pause.

Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.

"Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse": that's July, August and September this year (three months or a quater for the purist) which is 4.333' incidents per month, so a reasonable forecast of 51.96 incidents a year, :: one a week.

"with 11 instances being self-reported". You notice that the 'terms of use' are not specified and there is no yardstick to measure the 'legitimate' uses of the card against the 'illegitimate' which is passing strange enough, but who were the 'volunteers' who so selflessly owned up? and why did they feel they could use 'the card' illegitimately in the first instance?, perhaps it's those naughty suffer-market scanners, or McDonalds don't take Mastercard.

"and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes". Is it for this useful purpose, (like the DAMP), we pay a 441 strong 'corporate services' outfit to hunt down these perpetrators of credit card misuse. It seems highly possible, going on CASA numbers that it costs more to 'audit' the loss than the small transactions acknowledged cost.

"The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43". Tricky numbers there, one $150 misuse a week for the year = $7920.26. The $622 'misuse' is probably a genuine 'Whoops'; it's the little ones that are a worry; who uses a credit card to buy a $2.00 bus ticket?, it costs more to use the card. But a multitude of between $20 and $50 touches soon add up and pay the golf club membership, so essential to Can'tberra living.

I don't care about the money so much as I care that the CASA actually believe that the Senators or even Joe Public are naive enough to actually believe this rubbish or dopey enough to accept it. What is needed? – well the Auditor General through CASA, ASA and perhaps even ATSB would be a start – a goodwill gesture if you like; now that would be of interest in the 'self reporting' stakes.

No wonder Terry didn't sign the missive; I'm sure I wouldn't have either...;)

Creampuff
5th Nov 2014, 19:27
And I reiterate that:

- they apparently issue corporate credit cards with the PayWave function enabled; and

- the holders of these cards apparently wave their wallets at the PayWave terminal with the expectation that it will magically 'pick' and charge the personal credit card.

Comedy gold. :D

halfmanhalfbiscuit
5th Nov 2014, 20:50
The pay wave instructions are that card is removed from wallet and waved in front of reader. Approx 4cm.

Sarcs
7th Nov 2014, 03:24
From - The Last Minute Hitch: 7 November 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-7-november-2014) :D:D:
When John McCormick announced his departure as CASA Director of Aviation Safety, I was very quick to point out that we were naive if we thought that changing leaders was enough to fix culture at CASA. Similarly, just because the head of the aviation medical division Pooshan Navathe will leave next year (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/avmed-boss-to-leave-casa-next-year), we are foolish to think the culture within AVMED will automatically change. Of all the divisions within CASA, it is AVMED that is drawing the greatest amount of derision from the industry. Hardly a week goes by when we don't hear of another story of a pilot treated harshly by a seeming lack of logic and fairness from AVMED. There is a long way to go, and hopefully Mark Skidmore is the man to step out on the journey.

CASA has hit back on the matter of radio frequencies for airfields not marked on charts (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-responds-to-ala-frequency-question). They are reiterating their position on the need to use the area VHF not 126.7. This is a classic example of the old saying: in aviation, if you ask five people what they think you'll get six opinions. Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.
Ps Confusing isn't it Creamy...:confused:

Perhaps this helps or not...:E
.AR201400065 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2014/ar201400065.aspx)Date reported- 07 August 2014
Concern title - The processes used by CASA and Airservices Australia to make changes to Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
Concern summary - The concern related to the procedures used by both CASA and Airservices to make changes to the AIP.
Industry / Operation affected - Aviation: General aviation
Concern subject type - Aviation: Airspace

Reporter's concern

The reporter expressed a safety concern regarding the procedures CASA and Airservices Australia have in place when changes are made to the AIP.
The reporter pointed out that changes were made to the AIP on the 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency which was to be used at aerodromes which did not have a specific CTAF [Common Traffic Advisory Frequency]. These changes contradicted other areas of the AIP (such as the definition of 'Multicom') and resulted in the likelihood of two aircraft operating to an aerodrome on different frequencies, diminishing the collision avoidance benefits of radio-alerted see and avoid, and creating additional radio broadcasts and over transmissions on frequencies used regularly by airlines. These changes were followed by a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) released in December 2013 again contradicting statements within the AIP. The CASA safety advisors do not seem to have been consulted or made aware of the changes, leaving them giving again contradictory messages as to which frequency should be used.
The Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) was not consulted about these changes. The frequency confusion caused by non-aligned documentation and lack of industry education has existed for more than 12 months.

Operator's response (Operator 1)

Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding the changes made to the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) on 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency to be used at aerodromes which do not have a specific Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF).
Airservices clarifies that there is a formal process agreed by CASA and Airservices for amending the AIP, and in accordance with this process, the agency (CASA or Airservices) initiating the change is responsible for assessing the impact of the change and taking relevant actions such as industry consultation and education to manage any associated risks.
Where AIP changes are initiated by Airservices they are managed in accordance with Airservices Safety Management System (SMS). By applying our SMS, Airservices ensures that the impact of the change is clearly understood and any associated risks to air traffic management are identified and managed appropriately. Once approved by Airservices and CASA, changes are sent to Airservices Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) group who are responsible for publishing updates to the AIP.
As the change referred to by the reporter was initiated by CASA, Airservices suggests that CASA would be best placed to respond to the specific concerns raised in this REPCON.
Airservices notes that as a result of a CASA Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the implemented AIP change and associated Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) additional amendments were made to the AIP. These changes are to be published on 21 August 2014 (AIP issue AL80) and address the reporter's concern.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)


There is a documented process in place to affect changes to the AIP as well as agreed procedures between CASA and Airservices to progress change requests to the AIP which is:
The procedures for approving changes to the AIP are included in a manual which is stored in CASA's corporate records management system;
There is a Letter of Agreement between CASA and Airservices on how both organisations progress approval of changes to the AIP;
A standard template has been developed to facilitate AIP changes;
AIP changes within CASA are approved by a selected group of senior managers who consult within their teams;
Approvals for AIP changes are recorded in CASA's corporate records management system; and
Only changes approved by CASA can be published in the AIP.
In relation to this specific change, the original change to the AIP regarding CTAF, Broadcast Areas (BAs) and Area VHF frequency was initiated on the request of CASA's Aviation Safety Advisors to clarify to pilots which frequency they should be on in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome and away from aerodromes. It did not seek to introduce a change in procedures or frequency.
Generally, changes to AIP are not consulted with RAPACs. RAPACs are used as a vehicle to review frequencies in use at an aerodrome or by a group of aerodromes and may recommend establishing a discrete CTAF at an aerodrome, allocating a discrete CTAF used by neighbouring aerodromes or establishing BAs.
MTF...:ok:

Creampuff
7th Nov 2014, 06:11
I wasn't aware that AIP was a CAAP. :confused:

Kharon
8th Nov 2014, 19:10
Hitch – "Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.

CAAP and compliance with. This is one of the many 'issues' which will 'test' the resolve, probity, integrity and probably the patience of the Skidmore regime. And, it will have to be a 'true' consult with industry, the greatest good for the greatest number, in the 'true' sense of accepting the umpires decision at the end of it all.

The great debate of whether a two tier or a three tier system needs to be employed. There is serious support for both propositions, valid argument for and against, there is even a school of thought which would like to see a 'spilt system', three layers for 'engineering' two layers for 'operations'. If Skidmore allows a 'fair dinkum' debate it will be as fierce as it will be entertaining.

OMO – but one of the 'elements' missing is a phrase something like "a method of compliance, but not the only method" which implies that the 'Advisory' as provided by the 'third' tier is 'preferred' but an alternative method may be approved; bit like a MEL, equivalent safety standard if you like. Where in theory you believe you can disregard a CAAP, you can; but do so at your own peril. Say you run out of noise and you have been operating a system which does not comply with the CAAP; if there is no approval for the 'difference' then the CAAP will be viewed as 'the law' by a judge and CASA. Even if there is a two tier system and you propose an alternative means of compliance, it must be a formally accepted and approved 'difference'.

The above is a potted version and not legally nice, but it's one of the 'big' decisions industry will have to form an opinion on; if industry wants to have a say that is. I have provided (with permission) below part of one of the many opinions on the matter for discussion. It's a worthy, important topic, even if as dry as dust. It is one of the many reasons why Truss must publish the industry response to the WLR and is failing industry by not doing so; the issue needs to be addressed, in full, consultation between industry and CASA essential.

It is not the only argument, nor is it the necessarily a right one, but it is food for thought; and, if we are to regain some semblance of 'say' in how industry is managed, your point of view must be considered. FWIW:-

Items 30 and 31.

Officially, Australia has, since 1998 operated in a two tier legislative structure. The two tier structure has worked well for over 15 years, the recently introduced third tier has not. Participants involved with a CASR Part 42/145 organisation for example will confirm and define exactly what the problems are, even to a simple, routine matter such as negotiating a 'variation'.

To have a third tier of legislation (by whatever name, Manuals of Standards, Aviation Standards, CAO etc.) which require no less than full parliamentary process for each operational change is a significant impost; but, it is the built in rigidity, the 'inflexibility', which raises objections from an industry already enraged, disadvantaged by and burdened with the cost of regulation, combined with an aggressive, obsessive culture of micro management.

The premeditated, deliberate CASA manipulation of the “Manuals of Standards” (MOS) has been designed in such a way that Australia has, to all intents and purpose, been returned to a third tier structure; this without the benefit of industry consultation, consideration or acceptance.

The “manual of standard” terminology was originally used to describe certificates issued under CASR Part 21 such as aircraft TC, STC, APMA, ATSO. etc. It was never intended to meet 'aviation safety standards' specified in 9(1)(c).

Simply put, there is no risk reduction (safety benefit) in the current interpretation of 'third tier' of legislation. Arguably the reverse is true, due to regulator inability to act or respond 'quickly' to rapidly changing aviation circumstance. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the inflexibility of three tier regulation increases operational and accidental breech risk levels.

Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth), the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth); and, due process to create/enact/change a legislative instrument, change can take years, while an AC/AMC (1) advisory) can be changed within days of a requirement becoming known.

(1) An incorrect, although commonly made statement is "Advisory Circulars (AC) are not enforceable". This is a complete misrepresentation of the legal position. The preamble to every AC states: “A way but not the only way to comply with Regulation ABC; (the regulation which raises the AC). However "not the only way” clearly releases the operator to 'negotiate' an alternative Acceptable Means of Compliance (ACM) with CASA.

Three tier legislation, modelled on the Canadian system would be acceptable, provided changes the current two-tier regulatory framework evolved to where the third-tier standards are drafted in plain, easy to understand language and Regulations are drafted in a clear succinct style, defining provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences.

Third tier ‘standards’; provided as either 'legislation' or Advisory (Acceptable Means of Compliance) - must comply with CASA function under Sec 9 (1)( c) of the Act to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. Amending ‘standards’ specified in the regulations to “aviation safety standards” specified in regulations, to be provided in either Operational Specification or as an Instrument.

Section 98 5AB of the Act states that a legislative instrument can be issued. An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.

Thanks P7 a.k.a. TOM....:ok:

Sunfish
8th Nov 2014, 20:36
Kharon, basically CASA is capricious and it likes to that way because it affords more power to its staff without adding any responsibility for outcomes.

Hence its use of "Accepted" rather than "Approved", "a method of compliance, but not the only method", "Appropriate" , "Fit and Proper" "safety" and half a dozen other nominatives that can mean anything you like with the aid of a complaisant Administrative Appeals Tribunal and an expensive lawyer.

If CASA were a genuine aviation regulator instead of a sham, the wording of regulations would remove all reference to nominatives; they would exclusively use "Approved", "required", and "Recommended". "Fit and proper" would be gone.

"Safety" would be replaced by the words "risk analysis has demonstrated".

If you follow "Approved" or "recommended" procedures and satisfy "requirements" then you are immune from prosecution. Conversely, deviate from "recommended" and the onus is now on you to make the safety case.

To put that another way; I challenge CASA to produce a simple one sided A4 page checklist, written in plain English, set in Twelve point type, that specifies the requirements a Cessna 172 Pilot and aircraft must meet in order to automatically pass a ramp check (roadworthy to non pilots) without a single weasel word nominative in it, or reference to any other publications or regulation. I know at least one pilot who asked for this and was told it was "too hard".

The above is the essence of Weberian bureaucracy, designed at least a century ago to stamp out corruption - rigid requirements, rigid authorities and rigid procedures and rigid decision criteria, all of which are transparent, logically arranged and subject to public scrutiny . If CASA cannot do this, and I don't think it can, for a generic training aircraft like a C172 then their entire regulatory construct is a complete and utter sham.

As an aside,, when I first visited Germany I ran straight into a Webers handiwork: I was surprised and frustrated to be told by customs officials that they were prohibited by law from helping me with filling out some paperwork. I was to learn much later in my MBA that "helping someone fill out the forms", presumably with a small gift at the end, was one of the earliest types of corruption targeted by Weber and similar Prussian reformers.

Kharon
8th Nov 2014, 20:59
Phelan had a crack at it - Start here (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/01/11/whos-getting-it-right/):-

Reproduced by kind permission of – Pro Aviation

Author's note.

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, devotes the first 91 words to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelf-ware"; a pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight.

Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire.

Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than the pilot.

The Australian version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring to shelf-ware as listed.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 does in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event if requested.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and dopers.

Literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to the pilot in command, and they are spelled out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

Paul Phelan.

Yet they persist, despite free expert advice, peer examples and some very good models to work with..:ugh:

Ziggychick
8th Nov 2014, 22:49
If CASA, (perhaps rename Civil Aviation Solicitors Authority). More experts in that field than aviation involved...?safety?

The angles of interception hindering the Ghost of NGA and many others to Rest In Justice (RIJ), have been most disturbing.

I question:

Have the Regulatory and/or Investigative authorities Perverted the Course of Justice?
Have they trespassed in the course of any investigation? Which there is still no answers.

As this is a Commonwealth offence and CASA have their own Fort, the only one who can ask the questions is the Minister. Well.

Who can guard the guards?

A change of the guards is needed.

But how? Every avenue meets with a block.

:oh:

dubbleyew eight
9th Nov 2014, 05:26
the problem you people all have is that you want a reassuring religion.
you want to feel safe when you fly.
you need reassurance.
you crave the waft of holy smoke.
the anointing of blessings that will make you all safe.

you are a sad, sad bunch of the clueless.

there is a technology to aviation.
aviation is an engineering of structures to meet the physical forces experienced during flight.
you need to work to understand the engineering.
yr right posted a link to the most amazing admission of incompetence ever posted by CAsA.
paraphrasing "we have abused our position of privilege and issued approvals to do things that have no sound engineering basis. in fact many of these approvals have led to situations so dangerous that people have suffered and been killed by mid air breakups cause by our incompetence. but tough shit we are here to stay. please report to us the extent of our stuffups."

the only way forward is to totally ignore CAsA.
turn your backs on them, and the ATSB, and go flying.
neuter them by having nothing whatsoever to do with them.
it is the only way to deal with this totally incompetent organisation.
let them huff and puff to a wall of backs.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
9th Nov 2014, 12:04
Kharon brought up acceptable means of compliance.

For a maintenance org it could work well. An acceptable or alternative means of compliance could be EASA'so AMC. Which could then make it easier to get EASA approval and also maintain compliance to casa and EASA requirements.

Sarcs
9th Nov 2014, 21:12
While we are still waiting - along with our new DAS Skates apparently - :zzz:..for the miniscule and his motley crew of discredited crats to respond to the Forsyth report HMHB brings up yet another fundamental pillar of a sound State aviation safety system i.e. AME/LAME & MROs. Perfect timing as AMROBA have recently released their November edition newsletter which gives an interesting review of the current snail's pace state of play...:E

First and somewhat related to Biccy's post
GA LAME NPRM
By now everyone should have read the NPRM and hopefully drawn the same conclusions. This proposal is unworkable and therefore must be rejected unless some major changes are adopted.
CASA has not addressed the fundamental problem facing the aviation industry — a clear delineation between AME training and the LAME’s responsibility.
AMROBA was involved in consultation with CASA on removing the ridiculous “exclusion” system and create a licence plus ratings just like CAR 31/CAO 100.90 series. What was not discussed is the broad based training needed to underpin this aviation industry.
What is missing in aviation today is the previous broad based AME training system that provided AQF transportable qualifications. CASA has not consulted on how this proposed AME licence and ratings will be integrated into the confusing CASR system.
Though the proposed licence and ratings, with some adjustments, will be better received by non-airline maintenance organisations, there is real concerns with what CASA has highlighted in their “Key Proposal”.
The first paragraph would mean that Schedule 6 ICAO responsibilities would be replaced by CASR 42 LAME privileges & responsibilities. Part 42 is about signing for maintenance tasks and signing the maintenance release. It is not about signing “COMPLETION” of maintenance that can be carried out by AMEs. Nor does it require “stage” inspections and completion of mods, repairs, etc. i.e. coordination.
ICAO states - “the privileges of the holder of an aircraft maintenance licence shall be to certify the aircraft or parts of the aircraft as airworthy after an authorized repair, modification or installation of an engine, accessory, instrument, and/or item of equipment, and to sign a maintenance release following inspection, maintenance
operations and/or routine servicing.”

The removal of Schedule 6 responsibilities that are based on ICAO privileges and to overcome safety related issues with maintenance records in the past is not supported.
It works and enables AMEs to perform and certify maintenance tasks and the LAME to coordinate the maintenance.

Our safety record did not come about by accident. In the non-airline sector, the LAME is the quality control of maintenance. CASA’s proposal under the CASR’s is to remove that privilege like they have done in the airline sectors.

Both EASA & FAA use the LAME (B1/2 or A&P/IA) as quality control.
And next AMROBA's take on the new DAS appointment...:rolleyes::
CASA’s New DAS’s Challenges Volume 11, Issue 11 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%2011.pdf)

AVM Mark Skidmore has been appointed by the CASA Board for a period of 5 years. As many of our members have commented—obviously nobody in civil aviation are seen as appropriate or maybe nobody in civil aviation is willing to apply for the job. The job is not seen as attractive to overseas based ex-regulators either.

This makes 4 successive DAS that have had their base training in the RAAF with various levels of civil aviation experience. Mark Skidmore has the least amount of civil aviation experience than his predecessors. This means that he will be totally influenced by his staff in how to provide regulatory oversight, how to develop and apply the regulations and how they are applied.

Is this not the issue raised by many submissions to the ASRR?
Though hopes for the industry were positive with the election of the LNP, they actually had an aviation policy that sounded positive and the Minister introduced a regulatory review that also made positive recommendations and had industry support, many have lost the trust they put in government. Of course, the new DAS may completely surprise us.

At this stage, we do not know whether the Minister will endorse the recommendations from the ASRR Report, nor do we know when the vacancies on the CASA Board will be announced.

Neither will make much difference UNLESS the government amends the Civil Aviation Act to provide the “head of power” and direction to implement the ASRR Report recommendations.

The 3 tier system recommended in the ASRR Report, if done correctly, can return to a “rule of law” system that Australia is supposed to have.

· Civil Aviation Act—enables aviation to happen.
· CA[S]R—specifies how the legislation is applied.
· Standards—The Government gives force of law to standards, by including or referring to them in the Act or Regulations.

The question is, can the new DAS get back to a system where what the industry comply with is specified in the Act, regulations and legislative standards?

Compliance must be with the Act, Regulations and Standards NOT requirements contained elsewhere.

Most employers in our association find the regulatory system a mess, complicated and confusing that is really dependent on the interpretation of the next CASA audit team or any other CASA officer.

Can DAS Skidmore overcome the issues identified in the ASRR Report so industry can prosper?

One of the first challenges, if the government endorses the ASRR recommendations, is restructuring CASA so it aligns with industry clients. The ASRR provided guidance for a client based organisation but the “maintenance & production” sector was ignored.

The Australian aviation industry is fundamentally five major operational departments as follows:
1. Product Certification & Design
2. Maintenance & Production including training
3. Airspace & Aerodromes
4. General Aviation, Aerialwork & flight training
5. Air Transport operations
6. [Temporary] Regulatory Reform (3 years)

If the new DAS follows the intent of the ASRR, then the regulatory reform will be completed within 3 years and the individual departments would be responsible for:
A. Standard Setting including Corrective/ Enforcement Programs.
B. System Assessment including International Standards and Regulatory & Safety Promotion.
C. Entry Control including Regulatory Services.
D. Regulatory Oversight including monitoring of industry participants.

This approach is included in the ASRR Report and is intended to make the Head of each Department responsible for all aspects of their aviation sector reporting directly to the DAS.

What AMROBA would like to see is the Civil Aviation Act to be amended so that CASA would forever be client based in its structure. If the Civil Aviation Act is not amended then the next DAS in 5 years time will restructure once again.

Any civil organisation that has been restructured as many times as CAA/CASA has since its inception in 1988, would have the same difficulties as they face internally today.

By far the largest challenge facing the new DAS is the finalising of the regulatory development into a 3 tier system SUITABLE for Australia. It must place safety responsibility on the industry and remove the current micro management approach contained in recent regulations and proposals. Aviation does not need to be so highly regulated to obtain safety.

Implementing the ASRR Report Recommendations, if & when the Minister adopts, is a real challenge.
Worth a read for all aviation Small Business owners & IOS members alike is the segment under the heading - Small Business Growth - enjoy ;).

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
10th Nov 2014, 04:05
Future of Angel Flight hangs in the balance
By Bill Bristow AM
Nov. 10, 2014, midnight

WHILE the future of our Angel Flight charity still hangs in the balance, I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of country Australia and local councils for publicly supporting our organisation.

The many thousands of our volunteers, who generously give their time to help Australians in need, appreciate the immense community support Angel Flight has received in our struggle for survival.

We have strongly argued our case in a detailed submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we now must nervously wait to hear the outcome of their deliberations.

Angel Flight has flown 17,000 flights over the past 11 years, providing no-cost transport for isolated people of all ages seeking vital medical treatment in major cities.

Our charity wants to continue that work.

Angel Flight believes that where you live shouldn't deny you safe and swift access to medical expertise and treatment.

We are about eliminating distance and distress for those in need.

The kind and supportive messages we have received from concerned local councils and rural communities all over Australia have lifted our spirits and made us more determined to fight to keep flying.

Too many people in many remote towns rely on Angel Flight for assistance, and we can only hope that commonsense and compassion overrides red tape when CASA finally makes its decision on our future.

Staying silent is not an option, and with your encouragement and support we will keep fighting and flying.


That last line in bold IMO should be the common creed for all IOS members...:D:D For to do otherwise and just accept that the bureaucrats will in goodwill act on the Forsyth report in full etc..etc..will be allowing them to obfuscate on fixing the morass that is aviation safety in this country until the next change in government and the next..:{

That is time that this essential industry simply does not have...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

robsrich
10th Nov 2014, 09:14
EASA Prompts Controversy with Single-engine Helo Rule

AIN 7 Nov '14

Since October 28, the EASA has been strictly enforcing a rule that prohibits single-engine helicopter flights above densely populated and other “hostile” areas, thus igniting a controversy in the European helicopter operator industry. Most vocal has been French lobbying association UFH, which was hoping that existing exemptions would be maintained. Instead, the UFH said the bulk of the operations at Paris heliport are now seriously threatened. UFH president Dominique Orbec also pointed out that some recent high-profile helicopter accidents in urban areas involved a twin-engine helicopter, including the November 2013 crash of an EC135T2i in Glasgow.

Meanwhile, Swiss authorities rejected the EASA rule. “We have kept local rules for mountain rescue, thus allowing singles,” a spokeswoman for Swiss civil aviation agency OFAC told AIN.

The EASA insists the industry had years to prepare and a transition period is ongoing for non-commercial operations, circular flights and aerial work. “Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained.

AHIA

thorn bird
10th Nov 2014, 12:09
“Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained".

Neither do single engine aircraft, looks like the property sharks will achieve their dream.

CAsA subscribes to EASA rules, therefore no more single engine operations at the secondaries?

Might as well carve them up and flog them off, there won't be much in the way of an industry left anyway.

Kharon
11th Nov 2014, 21:00
BRB last evening; the really good part was the last item, a low key but very enthusiastic celebration for CHC and their associates; glasses were raised, toasts (and sacrificial peanuts) were offered to the pagan gods who occasionally break wind and make something really good happen. It's not our tale to tell, I'll leave that to those with first hand knowledge; but well done – you know who you are. We wondered if the inestimable Xenophon will have a word or two to say?????_?...:D

The more routine parts focussed on the vexed issue of whether Australia needs EASA, NZ or FAA style rules. The new DAS, like most of us, is rumoured to be more familiar with the FAA/NZ style, format and philosophy, so that was a factor in the discussion. Anyway – FWIW the vote went slightly toward the NZ system, but it was a close run thing; the FAA supporters were just short a couple of their stalwarts; EASA finished a long way behind. We decided to call it a draw and schedule a serious discussion at the next big indaba. Why?, well the answer really lays in industry hands; it was decided to 'reach out' as the Americans say and see what 'other' folk thought. It's a serious question, because if the regulatory reform program (remember that) is to be 'open' and consultative, industry needs to know what it wants.

One bright spark opined that industry don't give a hoot, have little interest and simply want the 'grown ups' to make a ducking decision, get on with it and let them get on with doing business.

Another 'clever lad' piped up that industry is indeed very interested and quoted numbers, ranging from submissions to inquiry, the WLR and from our very own Pprune to qualify the argument. They are impressive – for example the two Senate threads (don't mention the unforgivable closure of the first one, dust up every time) combined have generated some 1, 200, 000 reads; that's one million, two hundred thousand 'views' and counting. The Truss WLR thread has generated a further 167, 400 'views' and counting. Just looking at Pprune now there are 719,032 views of the two threads. Now, I'd call that interest. There must be some out there with an opinion on which direction the rules set should take and how many 'tiers' we really want or need.

Perhaps it's a good idea, to have an idea of the answer, before the question is asked.

Right then; back to my knitting....:ok:

Sarcs
13th Nov 2014, 05:17
From Dougy's insight - Editor's Insights 13 November 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-13-november-2014):
Apparently a lot of the delays recently, such as naming the CASA board new members, action on the Forsyth Report and perhaps even the announcement of Mark Skidmore as DAS, have been at least partly because there’s micromanagement going on in the Prime Minister’s office. Warren Truss’ department in turn has been doing a lot of waiting for things to come back their way. This is not good for Aviation. Truss is a capable minister who in general retains the trust of the industry despite the frustration over the many delays. Let him get on with the job.

Business entrepreneur (how else do you describe him?) Dick Smith remains vocal in Canberra. Let’s hope his views are considered in the correct proportion to his experience and expertise and not on the amount of noise he makes. Dick has strong and well-articulated views but they are still the perspective of a single individual; albeit one whose views have been sometimes been disruptive in the past.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum was briefing the media today on its views on the delays to action on the Forsyth Report. I was unable to make it as I was facilitating a NSW Trade & Industry sponsored seminar on autonomous systems, under the auspices of SADIG That turned out to be a fascinating insight into the issues that help and hinder total cooperation amongst government, industry and research units in our universities. There’s so much world-leading R&D happening in the academic institutions that is not getting the funding and other support it needs to become commercially viable that it all amounts to a failure on someone’s part. Probably government since that’s the sector that has the ability and resources to facilitate the success of such projects. Let’s hope there’s more to come in this vein. Well done to the organisers.

I’m hoping to get a delayed briefing from AAAF chairman Chris Manning on the press conference they were holding today. I’ll share it with you when I do... :D:D Hmm..not sure about the miniscule comment though...:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

LeadSled
13th Nov 2014, 13:40
EASA finished a long way behind.

Folks,
Just to remind you all, what we have been getting here as "EASA like" rules are absolutely nothing like EASA rules.

They are an Australian bastardization of a complete misunderstanding of EASA.

Indeed, the bulk of the EASA rules for things like maintenance are outcome based, not prescriptive, let alone ultra-prescriptive as are all the "new" rules here.

Tootle pip!!

PS: We do not want the NZ medical standards, remember where Navathe did his training, and who his mentor was!!

Kharon
13th Nov 2014, 18:58
Leadie; Agreed, medicals and other matters were of concern to the BRB with regard to the NZ 'suite'. But the real head scratcher was our lack of 'working' familiarity with EASA, FAA and the NZ rule set, in practical, day to day use, for comparison sense. I'm certain there are folks operating under those rule sets who daily curse the daemon who drafted a rule, just as there must be those who revel in the better rules. What beats me (and others) is why Australia seems hell bent on adopting the worst bits of everyone's rules instead of the 'good' bits, then adding more.

Part 61 for example has to be the most ridiculous aviation rule ever written; bar none, add that to the farcical CAAP 215 and the need for regulatory reform immediately becomes apparent. The completely amateur approach to both defines those within the rule making 'team' -:yuk: - as the quintessence of NFI – at all; whatsoever. That's in both legal and operational terms. Want reg reform?, sack the egotistical fools who believe that they, and only they have the answer to a maidens prayer....:ugh:

Waste of time and money reforming the regulations until you reform the mind set of the administrator; or, at very least try and hire those with a basic working knowledge of industry. The clown driving part 61 is simply a wannabe wordsmith, wallowing in an egocentric puddle, confused, lost in the wonder of grandiose point scoring dribble, which will impress those with even less idea of what's needed and what's not. Part 61 – where the sun don't shine and CAAP 215 is too ridiculous to contemplate; I'm certain we could find a suitable receptacle for that as well.

Strewth and stone the bloody crows. etc. etc. etc....:mad:

BPA
13th Nov 2014, 22:27
Heard this week that a rather large international helicopter company had a win with CASA. Apparently CASA elected to settle out of court rather than face the music in court and most likely a larger payout to the company.

The new DAS needs to head to the USA ASAP and spend time with the FAA and operators over there to see how a proper regulator works.. He will find a thriving industry (from GA to Airlines) that's not held back with over regulation and FOI's who work with industry rather than against them.

Jinglie
14th Nov 2014, 06:37
BPA,
I hear the CHC case was so bad, CASA had no option but to run for the hills. Apparently the legal costs are huge on both sides. Huge waste of taxpayer money. A few people must get the flick, in PER and the LSD in CBR.
CHC always have been a solid operator, still are! I wonder whether Tezza went into bat for his PER buddies blindly, only to realise what he was dealing with was a lot of very big porkies made by an AWI causing havoc with a Flight Ops issue he knows SFA about! "Big" maybe in big trouble.
Pathetic! Well done CASA! What a joke. The individuals need to be held to account for this bias. Don't you preach of being a model litigant? Certainly not on display in this case. Bravo to CHC to have the balls to stand up to what amounts to corruption.

aroa
14th Nov 2014, 10:39
Jinglie.....surely not. CAsA is the epitome of honesty, integrity, fairness and a serious believer in justice, truth and the rule of law, is it not?.

Sorry ...the operative word is NOT :mad::mad:

Just ask John Quadrio and a host of other CAsA client-victims who have been pineappled by CAsA crims.

Any names of the CAsA valiant fighters for just-arse and "safety" in the Golden West..would love to know if there are some that have finally received their comeuppance. Or karmauppance, whatever.:ok:

Trouble is the financial punishment does fall on these xxxxxx people...once again the taxpayer pays the bill. :mad:

Who will be the victim of the next CAsA deviant, I wonder.

Jinglie
14th Nov 2014, 11:46
aroa!
The kull should be the "Big" Deal followed by his helicopter mate and finally Mr A Nazty! All a disgrace to our so called democracy!
Unless heads role in this case, give up hope. It's so bad it's a joke. And what is Warren Truss doing? Having another nap!

Sarcs
14th Nov 2014, 19:57
Jinglie they must be keeping that one tightly under wraps...CIC perhaps??

From Last Minute Hitch...I will be in Canberra on Monday week for a sit-down meeting with new CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore. What I am battling with at the moment is that I won't have him for too long, and with so many issues for both Mark and general aviation to face, what do I ask him. What do you all think? If you could only ask one question of the new DAS right now, what would it be?

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Anyone want to help the man out? ...Ideas ?, anyone???.;)..:rolleyes:

And from the regurgitator...:E:AVIATION industry organisations met yesterday to discuss the federal government’s track record in fulfilling its pre-election commitments. Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss recently announced the appointment of Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and moved quickly last year to announce an aviation safety review headed by David Forsyth. But there is concern about the lethargic response to the Forsyth review and the failure to set up an industry advisory committee. Questions have also been raised about why outstanding members of the CASA board have yet to be announced and who those members might be. The concerns come amid continuing anger among many sections of the community about reforms introduced under the tenure at CASA of previous head John McCormick. The government has promised a response to the Forsyth review by year’s end. the TAAAF equally are playing Mum...:ooh: ..but not old Dick who is still at it...:rolleyes::FORMER CASA chairman Dick Smith has renewed his campaign of several years ago against the removal of VHF Flightwatch transmitters. He has accused the air navigation provider of failing to comply with its own legislative requirements that safety should be the most important consideration in the service of its powers and decision-making. Airservices chairman Angus Houston said the changes were introduced after a comprehensive safety analysis and an external review. He said the operational circumstances and a lack of occurrence reports since the decision supported the decision. But Mr Smith has accused Airservices of putting profits before safety and has asked for a copy of its review.MTF...:ok:

Kharon
14th Nov 2014, 20:36
"Now Sir, will you have Bias stew or the Corruption meatloaf; both on special this week, only half a million each and seeing as the bottomless pit of public money is paying, why not have both?"

The story from the Perth fuel tanker is that this was to be a 'big deal' payback. Seems the big deal team were on a mission to 'square up' the accounts on behalf of a very disgruntled ex employee and when it got 'nasty' they started dealing to the legal eagles, from the bottom of the deck.

Like most bullies, they enjoyed the threatening, posturing and swaggering about the playground looking tough, until someone called their bluff that is. Not only did they run away but they left their 'street cred' and lunch money behind.

Three things trouble me, the first being that once again the 'system' has been perverted and used for payback in an almost carbon copy of the Airtex and Barrier fit up, rather than the Pel-Air soft ride. Agree with Jingles – heads really must roll if Australia is to retain even a semblance of credibility. Despite the smoke and mirrors 'accounting' system used to define exactly how much money CASA get through 'prosecuting'; this little party has chewed up AUD$ 800,000 in costs alone; add air fares, accommodation, meals and the odd therapeutic 'massage'; for both teams and a cool AUD $1,000,000 has gone down the gurgler, for no safety or regulatory benefit: not to anyone who ultimately, one way or t'uther, pays for all this legal fro-licking.

I note with interest that Adam Anastasi was in thick of it, defending his corner. I always wonder how much reliance the LSD place on 'allegations' made by the ground troops, apparently, quite a lot. After all, can we reasonably expect the man or his team to examine and test, in detail every NCN or Chinese whisper that comes over their desks? But for a million dollar outing you could reasonably expect that all the 'homework' had been done. Another last minute walk away, after ruffling his lordships feathers with delay after delay on 'the day' begs some interesting questions. Like how a non starter ever got to court in the first place. That's question for estimates, or the AG; no one just launches a multi million dollar law suite just for practice or on a whim.

But the real headache comes from knowing that this disreputable behaviour from FOI and AWI is the accepted normalised devience we have inherited from the McComic era. It's why the industry is afraid of it's own shadow and demoralised. Cowed into silence by bullies and cowards who will, just for sport or payback attempt to decimate a company on what have been, clearly, very flimsy grounds supported by untenable argument. Disgusting...

Hitch - my question for the DAS: is this really good enough Mr. Skidmore, is it?

Toot toot.

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 20:59
What do you intend to do about the wanton, cavalier and purposeful destruction of the CAsA brand and how will such action restore a semblance of co-operation with the industry suffering at the hands of such vandalism?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:01
Will you restore the burden of proof to the accuser and remove all strict liability offences?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:03
Will you address faulty convictions by way of compensation and admit liability when it is proved against you?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:04
Will you use the civil court system to prosecute offences?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:06
Will you allow a branch of the Federal Police to frame charges against accused after consultation with DPP?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:07
Will you set precedents that will give credibility to the claim of model litigant?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:11
Will you take criminal action against CAsA functionaries that have perverted the course of justice?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:13
Will you amend current and future waivers of actionable, discrimination and human rights claims?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:15
Will you address industry concerns?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:17
Will you petition The Minister to adopt all the Forsyth recommendations?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:24
Will you act to have a moratorium placed on all recent regulations and exemptions, pending a complete overhaul of the Regulatory Review Process or adoption of a more workable suite?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:55
The position of ICC is an ingenuous means of creating more hurdles to discourage complaints to The Commonwealth Ombudsman who is reluctant to take on matters in the aviation jurisdiction conjunctly.


Will you abolish the position, or address the situation that has arisen since Mr Hart resigned to give the position credibility?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:55
What will you do to address cronyism within CAsA?

Frank Arouet
14th Nov 2014, 21:58
Will you remove the word "safety" from the regulators title and maintain the title of Civil Aviation Authority, (CAA)?

Soteria
15th Nov 2014, 00:01
C'mon Frank, CASA are a government department not a business. Different set of rules for them. Why would the new DAS address all those questions?

Creampuff
15th Nov 2014, 02:20
If you could only ask one question of the new DAS right now, what would it be?A very simple question that will sort out, very quickly, whether Mr Skidmore has the necessary mix of integrity and understanding of the mess he's inherited.

Mr Skidmore: When will the regulatory reform program be completed?

I can tell you two out of many wrong answers and the one correct answer.

The first wrong answer I will quote is that of Mr Byron, from February 2005:We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.Only 3 months until that weasel-worded nonsense is 10 years old.

The second wrong answer I will quote is that of Mr McCormick, from that glossy work of fiction called the "Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013":[O]ur current schedule will see the remaing rules completed by the end of next year.Only 28 drafting days until Christmas! And what did the Forsyth Report say about how much longer it would really take to complete the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose?

The correct answer is:The fudamental flaw in the regulatory reform program is that the regulator is running it. The government should make, and take responsibility for making, the rules, and the regulator should be responsible for, and only for, administering them.

I have therefore handed over all open Projects to the Department, but with a recommendation that the current package of rules be repealed in its entirety, following the development of a new package with a fixed deadline of 1 January 2016.

A number of CASA staff have been made redundant, but the long term savings from this approach will be in order of hundreds of millions. And that's just in direct cost savings to CASA.

The benefit to the aviation industry of implementing a set of rules that works, and ending decades of confusion and empty rhetoric, will be incalculable.(And Frank: Could you get a dictionary and look up some of those big words you use? I'm not sure they mean what I anticipate you hope they mean.)

aroa
15th Nov 2014, 07:25
CAsA is a government "agency" not a federal department...and its employees do not come under the APSC/Aust Public Service Commission code of conduct ..which has provisions in it for dealing with criminal behaviour.
CAsA has a fluffy "joke 'code' with no such provisions.
Its a get out of jail free card... and CAsA employees know it.
The Dept of Transport and the 'minister' let CAsA have free rein so no wonder the place operates like a mini Soviet State. :mad:
WE are the law.. we will do as we please. :mad:

If Skidmore does NOT deal with the questions as posed by Frank then we will have another 5 years lost, the only difference maybe, no screaming, cigars or Hawaiian shirts.

The one I will pose as well as listing a few of the "not fit and proper" clowns to be in the place because of their illegal behaviour (with evidence) is....

....Will you recommend to the minister /and or Government that the only way you have a snowflake's hope in hell to clean up CAsA is to call a Royal Commission.?
Thus we the industry can tell it like it is ...and then some.:ok:

dubbleyew eight
15th Nov 2014, 07:40
frank, you poor bastard, you still hold out hope after all these years that truth, honour and the american way will prevail.

air vice marshall (retired) skidmore will achieve nought but window dressing.
he isn't clark kent in disguise.

you poor old jaded optimist.

criminal arses screwing aviation was never a truer decode of the acronym. :mad:

Ziggychick
15th Nov 2014, 09:12
WhY You 8,

A gentle reminder, no offence intended.

Firstly, "truth, honesty..." - We are in Australia.
Have you forgotten your location or are you lost space. Perhaps maybe time too.

I firmly believe that the agony from the WORKERS that pay TAX and some, Australia's pilots are on the frothy edge of a revolution.

With good intent.

So maybe have a little belief in your own country (if you're here or lost still), particularly Aviation Industries reasonable requests.

One good reason why not?

No harm. Intent is safety, accountability, learning. fairness and freedom of speech without fear of ramifications.

Too much evidence now and the regulations do not correlate with the current year we live.

Please try and remember why so many have gathered, submitted intelligent requests.

Facts can only be smothered by words of clouded truths for so long. The cloud *#?!'s off and the sun shines through.

Lean which ever side. Support or don't.

I thought a man of your maturity could see the logic of why. Not why not.

History always reveals itself. I think now history voice is quite loud.

Truth, Justice and the Bloody Australian way thanks mate. Crikey ya tool.

Hooroo.

dubbleyew eight
15th Nov 2014, 09:29
ziggy my little petal you misunderstand me.

I am totally for abolishing CAsA.
I am totally for accepting that the massive regulatory rewrite is a crock that should be thrown out totally.
it is all misguided crap. all of it.
I believe that the perpetrators of injustice within CAsA should all be imprisoned.

the current time....
my son and son in law have just purchased a SIDS compliant 172 between them.
my son flew the aircraft back across australia in atrocious weather.
he can't log any of the time for the flight because he has a gfpt thanks to the fcukwits in CAsA who thought it would be such a great idea to get rid of the restricted.
my son in law is an ATPL who flies jets.
son in law can't fly the 172, the blandest, safest aircraft ever put into the skies, until he has a BFR in it. so to fly the 172 he has to take GFPT son with him as the "pilot". however if he has said bfr it screws up his jet checks.
I tell you the regulations as they are being implemented were written by card carrying fcukwits.

the govt has decided that all the regs will be in place by the 16th January, faults, fcukups and all. skidmore is the tool to tidy up all this crap.
which of course he won't be able to do because it is all poorly drafted, voluminous crap. all of it.

we have a rocky time ahead. the last thrashings of the certified world trying to maintain its grip on a world that has long since moved on.
it won't be pretty.

Ziggychick
15th Nov 2014, 11:57
Yyu8,

Yourself, son and son-in-law.

Re-direct your energy, which is strong, and join a force that will create change for the Australian Aviation Industry.

You and I and every one pushing for a fair change have rights.

We are citizens of this country and ultimately the people that are clowning around with serious issues, work for us.
Their income is from us.

We deserve the truth and justice and for the bollocks to cease and serious, rigorous work to commence in many areas.

I have only observed the past five years regarding the underground flight path of political aviation. Laws. Insurance. Report (lack of). Justice (lack of). Yet the force of belief in change has erupted to a level I understand is pinnacle.

It would be unsafe and unethical to let this opportunity to pass by.

I hope three men can see through the anger and steer their knowledge towards advocating the desperate change needed.

Great change will only arrive through passion, dedication.

Indeed we travel...
Through the Never.
(Top Shelf Metallica Movie)

Be cool.

Jinglie
15th Nov 2014, 15:09
Ziggy, all power to you. What comes around goes around. These low life's will have their day.
With CHC it's a matter of no Deal, big Deal, or NO Deal. Whatever the Deal is it's going to be flawed. I'm suggesting it would be a good Deal to pack your bags before the fat lady (Skidmore) sings!

Frank Arouet
15th Nov 2014, 18:50
Creampuff;


Thank you for your critique on my use of words.


I'll waste no time in addressing your concerns.

Kharon
15th Nov 2014, 19:55
Hitch - my question for the DAS: is this really good enough Mr. Skidmore, is it?

It's remarkable, Frank dives down the wabbit hole ferreting out the solutions to existing abominations; all defined within the- CHC (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-75.html#post8742831)- scandal, and it is a scandal for many reasons. This gives us the first part of a complex equation for the Skidmore intellect to wrestle with. Then Creamy chimes in, clearly defining the other side of the equation. Both, IMO, valid arguments in a 'chicken and egg' debate.

Did bad law support bad actions : or were the bad actions supported by law written in more honourable times, when reasonable people were held accountable for their own actions? It's quite a puzzle, the key to the solution hidden deep within a dark labyrinth guarded by harpies, trolls and misfits, all hell bent on preventing Skates from finding the key. If it were a movie; our protagonist would be under time pressure, with the princess doomed should the key not be found before midnight (why is it always midnight?).

Lets just pretend Skidmore is his own man, supported by a Senate committee, who dispenses with whispered advice from 'traditional' sources; what is he going to see? Well, there's the Pel Air imbroglio and now the abandoned CHC prosecution, both of which very clearly define 'how' power and law is manipulated and abused to suit a predetermined outcome, it also identifies those that were complicit in the deliberate, deceitful, abuse of both power and 'law'.

CHC will become a classic, the meek acceptance of allegations of both bias and corruption without contest, the payment of costs (and perhaps damages) combined with what was exposed, is a bench mark case. (Bravo Ben et al). CHC combined with Pel-Air gives Skidmore a recent, real life, coast to coast, legally definitive place to start weeding; and weed he must. Creamy is spot on regarding the reformation of regulation, it's a matter of importance; but (BUT) unless the application of 'law', and the rule of law, is administered by 'men of good will' then all is lost. Lots of reading, many cases to contemplate; all of which lead to the inevitable conclusion, something fundamental is rotten.

With the McComic departure some of the driving force which sanctioned the 'biased and protected the 'corrupt' actions has been removed; but the habit lingers on, as do those who willingly indulged in unspeakable acts. To break that habit, some senior managers and those who willingly served them have to made examples of. Which gives Skidmore , in the short term at least, a mini manpower problem. Assuming this is done, the real test will be in the calibre of crew he replaces the 'old guard' with. A clever 'manager' would seek out people with the right stuff, delegate the heavy lifting then sit back and watch the job take shape. If a start was made in the new year, a first class team could be up and running by Easter, breathing confidence back into a jaded, battered, disillusioned industry. This would provide the patience required to wait for a sensible rule set; e.g. we managed quite well with the 'old' licensing system: which caused no accidents I am aware of. Shirley, Part 61 can be put on ice for a six month, until it's redrafted by 'sensible', qualified folk and is truly, really ready for industry use.

The conundrum – which to reform first, the regulator or the regulations? No brainer for my two bob; none of the present aberrations have had the 'law' as a radical. In every case, barring none, it has been those who applied the law to suit their own purpose, with little or no gain to the national interest (or purse) who have created the flawed, deviant system we call an aviation safety authority.

Mark you, there are enough 'white hats' to cover the bases for a half year; trick is identifying them. Plenty of independent, non biased assistance to help sort out the quagmire of medical, the farce of engineering, the pantomime of 'training' and the drama of those abused by 'the system'. But, I suspect Skidmore knows this; just as surely as the MaM do...

So, Mr. Skidmore, do you want to the lob properly or just look pretty, being led about by the foreskin? I know, that's two questions, but essentially, one and the same.

Selah.

Soteria
17th Nov 2014, 12:24
DAS Skidmore has taken his first scalp and disposed of an EM who has been shown the door. Poor old Terry wasn't happy that she got punted either!
I wonder just how robust the new DAS's broom is? Will he just be sweeping the doorstep or will he be undertaking a full spring clean? I guess it all depends on Mr MrDak, the Sargent in Arms for the sleepy Truss.

Kharon
19th Nov 2014, 01:58
Ben 'Jiminy cricket' Sandilands -(Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/19/pel-air-and-seaview-anniversaries-highlight-safety-failures/))- and Adrian 'Bright spark' Park -(Flight Safety (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/))- spell it all out, in bite sized pieces for the absent minuscule in two articles. Now it took me six minutes to read them and I got the message; then I asked a couple of folk at the coffee shop to look them over. They took a little longer to read the articles, asked a couple of questions which were answered as briefly and succinctly as possible; without bias. Total time 15 minutes : comment; "But we thought Australia' was a world leader, this is disgraceful". "Yes" said I, "it is rather".

Happily, girl dog decided to 'busk' for her muffin leftovers (Blueberry); and, as she was in good voice today the conversation turned to more pleasant topics. But these folks looked askance, 'he' would have continued deeper into details, however, a combined weight of 90 Kg of Schäferhund, singing for muffins tends to restrict the flow..:D...:D...:D..It really was a very good song.

Some days – pure gold, others puerile.....:D

Toot toot (Mk II).

Dangly Bits
19th Nov 2014, 03:33
Soteria,

Who got the chop?

DB

Soteria
19th Nov 2014, 05:59
Dangling parts, it was the EM Corporate Services. Interesting because she was given the 2 minute walk of shame.....strange as nobody ever, and I mean ever, gets sacked from CASA! Perhaps it had something to do with those pesky Paywave credit card issues??

Sarcs
19th Nov 2014, 07:36
From AA online:
Gov’t yet to meet half of its aviation commitments, Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum says (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/australian-aviation-associations-forum-says-government-yet-to-meet-half-of-its-aviation-commitments/)

The federal government is yet to deliver on more than half of its aviation commitments and has shown a lack of commitment to the sector, the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF) says.

In a statement released on Thursday, TAAAF expressed its concern that the government is yet to release its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) and that three vacancies on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board are yet to be filled.

“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said.

“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.”

The TAAAF brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner.

TAAAF called on Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Industry and Regional Development Warren Truss to “respond urgently” to the ASRR, given the report written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth was “seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator”.

The ASRR, released in June (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/), called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.

It found the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

TAAAF said the government should immediately establish a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until newly appointed director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore starts in his new role, the CASA board was appointed and there was a “clear response” to the Forsyth review.

“In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development,” TAAAF said.

Part 61 was a set of new regulatory measures for pilots, operators and flightcrew licensing that has been strongly criticised from some sectors in the aviation industry.

“CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,” TAAAF said.

“It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.

“Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.”

The federal government has promised a response to the ASRR before the end of 2014 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/truss-says-govt-to-respond-to-forsyth-report-by-end-of-2014/).
From Oz Flying online:Aviation Forum calls for Government Action (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aviation-forum-calls-for-government-action)
19 Nov 2014



The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called on the Federal Government for more action to reform aviation.

In a statement released today, TAAAF said the government had under-performed when it came to keeping election promises.

"In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments," the statement said.

"A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review [Forsyth Report]. The Review was seen as a blueprint for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.

TAAAF called on Minister Warren Truss to respond to the Forsyth Report urgently, and to officially announce the three new CASA board members.

"The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA," TAAAF said. "It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report."

Among other issues in the statement, the TAAAF also:

Supported a return to three-tier regulation
Rejected CASA's move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policies and manuals
Called for a moratorium on all CASA regulation work until the new Director Mark Skidmore is in effective control
Called for CASR Part 61 to be suspended and a joint industry/CASA task force created to establish sound regulations
Supported a ban on un-manned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being used over fire ground by members of the public.
TAAAF is a forum made up of peak aviation bodies the represent most aspects of aviation in Australia. More information on TAAAF can be found on the Regional Aviation Association website (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/taaaf-policy-document.html).That will bring a huge sigh of relief to some of the IOS members as there were suspicions that certain factions of the TAAAF had sold out to the dark side...:(


On other matters it should not be forgotten that the AACCI AAT hearing is currently in progress, the outcome of which will be significant to all IOS members:
http://www.pprune.org/ AAACA/giLAQAAAMJiAAAAgLAYAAAAmAiLAQAAgImwGAAAAJgIiwEAAICJsBgAAACYC IsBAACAibAYAAAAmAiLAQAAgImwGAAAAJgIi3Fs//vf//4GAOzEP//803vcwB+NsBhH9vfff//111+9+3kAQJzprnuPG/ijERbjyExX2zsXAIA4emx0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4TFODI6WQDYC3psdEdYjC OjkwWAvaDHRneExTgyOlkA2At6bHRHWIwjo5MFgL2gx0Z3hMU4MjpZANgLem x0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4TFODI6WQDYC3psdEdYjCOjkwWAvaDHRneExTgyOl kA2At6bHRHWIwjo5MFgL2gx0Z3hMU4MjpZANgLemx0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4 TFODI6WQDYC3psdEdYjCOjkwWAvaDHRneExTgyOlkA2At6bHRHWIwjo5MFgL 2gx0Z3hMU4MjpZANgLemx0R1iMI6OTBYC9oMdGd4TFODI6WSidz+fH49E7F9 i3Rq3o8/nc7/fL5XL61zAM1+v1+Xx+v197y9/vdzrteFinx0Z3Oz5/gKi6nexJ7X6/Z+zfDGlKqVlKlV12mxm8zfj9+Xwa1baQbaX3+21ym/dzvbxCGefz2VTm4/F4v9+/3691irIqCa1ch9UzY2vRisZxPJ/PcrbP5/Pr9TLt4X6/+wXZbI35CIvRHWExjqxFJ/v7/Z7PZ4sB4/F4yPt8Pp/BYEiZpSQlZRdcLpf3+123tpeqRW++D/d6vUr2o/T9fqscr8vlorzY2E4LGYYhqQF0L5Fe9VZkdwjX69U+1t/v9/1+X69XfUE2WGM+wmJ0R1iMI2vXyb5eL3nAyBgah2EYhiF7h0KWln7y/X7HcXw8Hv4dqcKEzJ6fz6f95Hd2Pp+Tbh4LKZaHIOM42hkr3Jue/niN4/h6vZZioNvtVj3FWfUWUiUmXr9EUdVbkbnvG6204O1kYbfbqbEgwmJ0R1iMI2 vayS6NLnlDo3kCa4+FDs0N0dQBz+bcSaqY0OfzCYb7+nhOSLHwPvE0Tbfbzd 5h6mSPbMKcmaWfLNXk5XJRJpqaoq1dCymxWolkdVvR5/OZd6WZrOz0G/LGG6mxIMJidEdYjCNbISx2hkPbOI76vZk7MRmhkp+lvN9O/4bmLUbW3+8XnCK5Tjwn8Cv8er0W7lMvo1D2XUmb8hqjsBrbtZBsq5VIUL0V2 Rc/ygs/OzKWt9xCjS0hLEZ3hMU4shXC4qUw5ZRyN9TsxAylJYNW4YA3WXeDqif0/X5L7nSWFy0oeHveebu/nbxCLT1S0FyGlVdjuxaSZ7USCeq2IjvuTMrVPGFJ3mwLNbaEsBjdERbjyFYI i6d/b/QGJd3pMQ9eSwat8gFv+vdOVYuEluY1am6tVSmacrd5C4nUSj1aKPsJe2q2q1 RjuxaSYbUSpeYhuxU5D6D004TmS/SM3K5cY0sIi9EdYTGObJ2w2Lm7Y3s+n9H9mCew81zkkkGryoAXXOOpVkJLlx DRN+eqFM0hvJhfslu9vNSXZtpoprNXKW/TFpJqtRItqd6KnIcqSQshm/cy5W2615iAsBjdERbjyNYJiydvJJtpIhUzrM4BdMmglfrb4L9MlF83IWfnvu hqryXVskRY90NzPVMuu1Cr/TD4r6YtJNVqJVpSvRX5+9Ev39Hi0FSvMQFhMbojLMaRrRYWC0sOR99JNzdQn d3qBy0/S8rfmkeu/t81H8pqkUk5hihJMUi4x39a5dMe0+bD4l4tJMlqJQpq0YqCu1LeM65+aKrXm IywGN0RFuPIVguLhRUk5Imz87pszm6Vg1YwS8rfmpm+6uLmJ+RYWn9XvrNek mKQuRoRwpq6K+wGZRcqowIzUuzVQtolVFKioBataGmi0fl8rtIm+9aYjLAY3 REW48hWC4un5WjvJL40Y35lryGQNGgFs6T8rWYaYpWEHMJcTOHl/ZIUfeatNbNUSPCDI6dVPu2RV6jVXrnr1ULaJVRSIl+jViQsXn6qERx3rLEow mJ0R1iMI1szLF4KVk7LD0DNPWZnhbKkQSuYJc1v59vbKSWuk0mhooR5FCUp+ uyrEeFWX9LK0xnyCrXOAm0dW0ijhApL5GvUioQTZDYMQ/b09441FkVYjO4Ii3Fka4bF0/LTz6Uphia+ce796AetpSxpfjvf21YXNzMhX95KzyUpOr7f7+m/k1uWDlzSd/gyZBRqqfaUc0/1KXZsIY0SKiyRo2krWrr37Lvf76kfeuxVYxqExeiOsBhHtnJYvLQu72lhiuE wDH7ErB+0lrIU/a3+g1iFCaX+XPi0R2GKNv9qRJjXUf5xaUFqoZY+/qz/ppoyxe4tpHpC5SUK7rBRKzIxt17SIm69akyDsBjdERbjyFYOi6fl1Zr8wMXE 0P54phy0hCwt/fb3+73fb+eeVlbRW4XFwh4KU5w5q0RH99/00x6aQv1+v3EcX6/X0h3EpIfpcorbaSG1EqpYItsKrUhe48I3DEN00Rs5k3PRWtSYEmExuiMsxpG tHxYLr8s475OZgce/jSQPWposJSkpe/beMvJTK/9mKT3/6yFLB67pSm3qoxRwPp8fj0etB+iCukXL21tGQtVLZFunFaVGxqey1y6b1pgS YTG6IyzGka0fFgsrtdkjlpkhGpx0WDIyrTbgFe4tIz+18h+cuDKJj62jX+DL pjxGvuxJzxlp1U0ob28ZCVUvkW21VjSOo/Bt+aBoZNylxpQIi9EdYTGObP2weFpeqc0eR2+322nhSx8lI5P8W/MsfguPyDMG4MIUjaWJK0begsolosdLqCjlE/PUFDfSQmolVLFEs/Vb0fP5FL6l5yv5Mk6LGtMjLEZ3hMU4si5hcXRt/6WJifZulwYtTZaiv+3+QtXSz1u/crc0ccUQFsZq9GmPaKGErydW/IKaX43dW0j1hCq+QNalFf1+P3k9Y5vcNtavMT3CYnRHWIwj6xIWT+J3qqZ/31hfeqiqHLQKfzu/v6UubrVMCg+ahRUVSlI0/A8K+pYOnH6phySaQglrdWXkSl+NHVtIo4QKS2R0b0XKO8dCCL5yjSUhLEZ3h MU4sl5hsbBU0ziOZlSTd6sZtEp+Oz+gVxa2YiaFuQFNP+dhxnj52wrCEnvCF/iyaQr1/X6FMCh1xqq+Gju2kEYJFZbI2Egr8uc5OKosAV6lxpIQFqM7wmIcWa+weFoee 8xgJtxt0g9ahb81A7xmt3UzmRc0lKQ4xebparRYqU1ZKKHGTomRljJFo1cLs ZkZR7USKinRtFYrOqnXOX69XkuXTMJU5jVrLBVhMbojLMaRdQyL5YmAjeK/pN+aYEvYW62R1bFUM/I7SSUpTv++41io+qc99IVaepHrJE7ILklx6tdCnDxUbBglJZrWakWnxFnIS7 kS9r9ajaUiLEZ3hMU4so5hsTCDVo5jkgatkt+aW19LuxrHsdFM36WHvyWvz8 vkdxyDG2fkMENSoYSpFPqPnCWl2KuF2C6Xizwld7USrdaKTukL8AUvNYX9r1 NjGQiL0R1hMY6sY1g8Lb8sJd8KShq0Cn8r/Ot+v1eZnuhYulqIrqtQUi3+d3plS7ffqn/aI6lQwhIHJ/V6banVKPyrUQuxmeCyYlg8FZRotVZkNkt9NOE/T5D3v0KNZSAsRneExTiyvmFxcKW2pvFfyW9t5hZRixfglmZQRF8dK6yWpIhW mEJad6W21EKVr9dWUo22di3EZlqLPB93zRKt04rMNqlz2Z2rphVu5EdrLANh MbojLMaR9Q2Lp9CD7+jz7pJBq9aAZ+5zV1njybb0ZFnzHDa7aGZVEP00A0Ne Yq+WjEIJ67Vp7ttlV2MwG9VbiG1uLe1m19jkEq3ZiubNUpetsJMQsrpaG8hA WIzuCItxZN3DYn+lNs0LN9mDVpUBb76hK6xClZdQ8LGy8o2x7KKZK5PUCEP4 Jou8OFeSjEIJc9ZPjW+6z9q1ENs8K2CFsDhaojVb0bxN0suU03+rQuhnVmsD GQiL0R1hMY6se1js3B9tfT+vfMCzI9e6CQUnAOgH/ryizZclylRsS6+4VXzHKK9QwnptwzDI1115KdratRCbPdmm3Vx8ZYlWbkX2Z vqpFPYkitbTTpRtIANhMbojLMaRtetk53g3evfXHuCjd1aEF9j1WfJp3sd6v 9/2EJ73/dil2ghOKda/rCMUTah/+8aqMiGbsBpXlQfHeYUyhPXaomspBNVtIUJCmpuLTmsRfrJCidZvRc5mykvH eXaNPENjzV4iA2ExuiMsxpG162Tn0S56O2d+80YzLVW4ERh9Pi789nK5BMe8 cRzf7/f9fvfvaQnRlZDQ7XazHzSP4/h4PPydn89n5coJJdViT8PN+LpY+fttspJjPYnrtS39fAst5HK5LB0L01r8+b hCWLxCidZvRcEt5SuxOZPDMMiZXK0N5CEsRneExTiyFp3s5/Nx7tXdbjc5yDMjvRzr/H4/4ZPRxvP5DN5HNL8V4qQMwXBfk0nBMAz3+z0pINYUza8W556WSfr1eunnQfp7 cKRG9rbv96s51nJ8I6/X5szHXbmF1E2oV5vv1YqEjZ3UTUOak7hcLsJzhtXaQAnCYnRHWIwjq9vJasa J4A/N6Fiy26WE8n6r4cRV2fsxn2N4Pp+pr+bkJaf5ofAKV0bQv06hgoQ7kfMP81L UqNVCoqrUoYZdoqSN67ai0+k0DIMJl3+/n/nOn/zzYRgyFssrV/0DN4TF6I6wGEdGJwtgX06heSPmxvD1erVv914ul/v9XneJtL7osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh 4b3REW48joZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjoxOFgD2gh4b3REW48j oZAFgL+ix0R1hMY6MThYA9oIeG90RFuPI6GQBYC/osdEdYTGOjE4WAPaCHhvdERbjyOhkAWAv6LHRHWExjuzvv//+66+//gYAbJ7prnuPG/ijERbjyP7555/e/TwAQOv//u//eo8b+KMRFgMAAACExQAAAABhMQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2Ex AAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEW AwAAABNhMQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNh MQAAADARFgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADAR FgMAAAATYTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADARFgMAAAAT YTEAAAAwERYDAAAAE2ExAAAAMBEWAwAAABNhMQAAADCVh8Xv9/t+v1+v15Plcrnc7/f3+21v+f1+Tyei8ASnBXVTMYev7j41Ho+HKc7j8Vg/9e3kIdVSq2jdTpIys0LSf6Dv9/t8Pq/X6zAMc1Vfr9fH4/H5fOwtf7/ffBT6HqNo6jShbOM43u/38/lsamwYhtvtZg+7djOAbMtjQaMxOmO3i4NNouplqSs/f8/n0+6dg4ZhuN/v3+93miYTOtfL+R/h+Xy2blJmn+YYrWbug4wuPdEW8pBtHMfL5eK3jcvl4kRIra3QRPH5fIKH2+l sH4+HOZHv97t9FF6vV8djFG0hNKFUv9/PuRVlO5/PJjg2x713Zndg42OByVX1MTpjt3IXpFe3INXl5O/z+TgB8fV6fb/fv9/PbPD7/d7vd/C8rZr5P0LTOpwHpPv9XnG3UWs2jPP53D0PLZjHL45xHNfPyfZrcqkNbF8wAL rf7/bFj7mLPN81DB6Fvscomvr2m9B2fL/fefy9Xq92SwgOu9EdbvbsWC1jW25+jcbovN3O9WMuveaQb4rV4fv9toPGasV oIzl/7/fbKfzr9VraeBxHp7Muy+2fqOkZax+diruNWq0bMid/3zy0s5EibCQbS4Q2sHF2AGRcLhfh7o5z08v+V99jFE19401oU+bnBrfbLbjB 6/XShyCbPTvWzNiWm1+jMTpvt3MvtPQvuQ7nppuf71Wk5S8pJp7Zj/9y8/nnanfGOkdTcyhrWeeh1Xw/tWMemtpIb76RbATJbWDLgjFx9Ff2SW3/ve8xiqa+5Sa0Kfbxte/VOezGI+xts2fHyhnb7FjQaIzO3q3ZPnhlrjmFx3HcZntzJOTv8/k4xdbP197LVcIGtRswnMdtKz9KW+EVh/mCuGMemmrXNvaYjaBoG9im3+/nxMTDMCh/O7dq+499j1E09S03oU2xO215y3lCubDNZs+O9TO2zbGg0RidvdvT8qQL5Sm8 i3fMEvLnv2Cnn8i42avS7Ws0YJiXlB0rv63VlH782K9GbWOn2fDttw34M0Sd hX1kJqqw/9L3GEVT32wT2pqkJmHuRi39d7Nnx2YztrJGY3TJboUtlaewuVGdn/tVaPPnvyyceuHivBwNpUYDhjkcji4rtbXglK53dlpp1DZ2mg3HftuAP1dNf6 vY8Odl9j1G0dS32YQ2yGkVcjQjhCCbPTs2m7H1NRqjS3YrHBHlKbyLRQO1+f NvFae+F8m6xXkaDRhLi+sJ89X2IuNd7J1q1DZ2mg3brtuAv6ZEamfrjz19j1 E09Q02oW0KDsRLnfZSCLLZs2OzGeui0RjdaLdHOoVVWffvXpwSH+opmfVl7N Vn/MngwSM6H4P3+3273ZbWr8lOVJP09/u93W7mL8F3hH+/3+v1ut1u9rB3uVwej4fQIlu0NjPt7H6/+4uhRmdWLVWCMc+rmSfXz57Pp/DzYFqpNfb9fqPLu2bk4fF42LtdaiHybjNaZlS0CNWz9Hw+56q4Xq/mcAvZiFZ1dIPZ5/OZR83z+Wyak38/TNkGokn7p7O8T5OfKfRgLWnVvOC6e+Wd7VIxTYbn8+t2u8m5bdSJRTeYrT9G +D2AIC/DenObdNzvd00z058ddvFTj7i85+BAmZoxZW8QJacl/7dFlz4rGaPX3+30B4bFwbvudVdItZdyM73GOI6mwZ3PZ+fNx+Dq9J/Px7/LIh/vpESFpKdQFOhExqYOb7eb6Up+v5/TLpdGvhatzZR6HMeMx7V+zo3ga/ImRBiGwW4tytX7M2os+n2ZOSFlHuzNTJc3t5BhGPzhrVbLVNIUoVaWvt+v/RNzQO/3e7Qmo9+S0HxsYn4hxtw3dVbztbfUtwEh6eDpvNTyz+ezEx/M2btcLqn3YJyX4o3yznapmMHqWuqL2nVi0Q2mTmOEvZ9hGL7f7+/3W9qJk+2M8SXKb5m2y+UiX0ElnR1TwRFPHSiTMqbvDTTkHmzlLn1WMkavv9v pDwyLg4NBxUzYR8ie4zK3V9Mf/SffifxxJSPRpaSnhbN6/slcgc4i/M72wWtNYbd5TMc0R7F+zqO3poI3tILPeU1afuVHC7VCjUU3swMUu3RLf1/arawk4skuaUaW7HZil1pu+cp8yhvYQ6n993kszK6ZpS2FQvnDYfCC0HQvGc8 lG30Fyd9n8BngzG8DTU/J6AZdxggnYJovg51QKdhhZo8vUcG7VLZhGOZnF0H+T4KblRzxpVTk7kKTsYz eIEpON1zLy8ovYsvH6DV3a2iO3V6osh489rVy4Fw+2gfG/pfzhl8wS8/n04xDfsfh3LvNS3QpafNIwk/XbG8/9nJGUGc/wWnv1Wve5Gcusn93SvMypV/DwWtN8wAxtVDr1Ji8mbMcod31O43HuWfs7/aU0jKTZJc0NUvONvb5ornvXriB3R7sIWd+pTq7ZoJbyqezv07laSGiyvsqle YyI4O/z5M1LdVvA07mW5+S8gZbGCNO4gwxpwGUjC8amhkdwzCUPIEsPOLBVOQzKyNj yt4gSk43WL2NunS7jIVj9Gq7NTTHbi/6h8XO3Rfn/or9L/sk9/Nj/9dfgsQ5sfMSXUp6jgjtK+l5XHE2tqMoTa1qttEzNWOHsMHlWqLXu8Ff+XU1T z9NKtQ6NSZv5rQQpxT2v5zrAblaoi0zSXZJk7LkbxAcjYRsFG5g/915+35pfRtlzQS3lE/nKXRD148MMqZPLOVHyHzJbu0S+QfRKZHz3+qnpLxBlzHCn8UrZNiJhErGF6X gZBtf8NrM3yy6TeoRD24WPbNSM6bsDaLkdP3/tuvSp3pj9Dq7nWmO3V50Dov9B3lC0knnj7BBdqJLe7anE5kh0/6V00XKHbdfRZpt9Exn6sx/8gcAzY0u/yrZudY0b1EEfysXap0aEzbzW4gwsKXmUJk9jfKSajbwZ9fV3X90A/+/8zPipfVtlDUT3FI+naeF+Z32cPL9frPXUfL3LGS+ZLdJG7Q+JYUNuowRU+i2 fesMpxrHMTjlxqEZwvydFx7x4GbRM0uzZ3+baG8QJacbzZWyQpQqjtEr7HZW txL6UmW90XO9KXZFPv23ru2oq6SlZie6tOfou9smxWEY7Eapuc2mKWkScyid IC/4XDh6ryt6w/h+v+c9xVunxoTNklrI6b/3iqKpK7OnUV5SzQbRVZPKiyxvEHy75XK5CFMzlTUT3FJzv8TPkh0HCy0/arVJFEkbtD4lhQ26jBEl/y0cX1KN4xidbSw87ArmcCo+4sFUomeWZs8ZvUGUnG40V8oKUao4Rq+w21ndS uhLlfXgJelSK/S3XDItNHH5J0upRLMx/ys7UWXSUaYjU45/5cnNzG2M4H0sv07klzYM+Wmy0OOnFqpFjQmb+bUh/9Z+MhVNPbXsgvKSajaQb5tVKbK8QXD68ql49mTqlrbg+2rzqF8S6wQ720YrU SRt4Kh7SgobdBkjpsS7xfYRLxxf8vx+v+fzubSeQ8ZNWV/SEc9LRfOTjN6gMN1orvLqM6j6GN10t7aKldCdKusZawa93+/g+WNekp1D6uyqLGmphcev5OfzYy8z9VCzq8Lc2syLGsEXh/0H5ZrlWoSnye/3W3gcoy9UuxoTNovuodFvU5WXVLNBeYnKNxDeMQqOhdEdZmzp8IcT89BAbvl Rwc626brFyg1mLU5JYYPsA1RYZP8WrPDb1Amy2U6xm3nBkTf6MqKcaMYRz0h F/5PU3qAw3WiuMkq6pPoY3XS3toqV0J0q68EFuaKXFMH7806r9TdQPgopaanZi SqTDjLTDc3284xbza7ykgtmwN+VTNPFLN0wlhfm1BSqdY0Jm0X30Oi3qcpLq tmgvERV6kQYCzNWAMzY0hG8YWyWUC15nqtf/TBJlUPQ7pQUNvD/tcIYMYWu+ed0nWM0DIMdqmZnWFkozddAkmJ6v2Zm2Uc8KZWMnyT1BoXpRnOV UdKgRmN0o906alXCFmiz7kc/mtctozWVfTwy9lyeqDJpn30HKGn2W15yQdH5Zz7Na0PBi5/n8yn/NlqoFWpM2Cx12sCxJ1GUl6hWnSy9fe+viKTcYdKWvuAM4/LZov6QX77P8kPQ9JQUNvD/tcIYYThXPnO6zt+dm3DZGVYWStkYnCnOcg6Deyg54vrNsn+i7w0K043mKqOk QY3G6Ea7ddSqhC3QZj34uDw6NTtaU360rWzT0T0LG2Qnqkza4TRKuw/V7Co1OTnbwgbBa0rNfY7gXDp5JJALtU6NCZulvnJndyLR1JXZ0ygvqWYDP0q T1+XIKLK+Tj6fT5UPiGRs6QveMC75tK8R7GyTvivrn7aFNdb6lBQ26DJGzOz vmZnPGf5+v7kFBt/0KhxfNIXSxNn2bIeMSRSFR1y/WclPlL1BYbrR/ZdnwN6PsEHeGN1ot8FUyithCxKy7l+cRR/tRWsqeMEXPB7mG+j6PQsbZCeqTNrmvx+Ququk5ORsRI+XHwBpnt5mfEZSKNR qNSZslrTE0ilxUU9l9jTKS6rZwL/ZkPpie+EGJ+/0LF8cI2PLIP+aMO89bod/Yaa/f/P9fv0TsOQQrHBKCht0GSMcTsc4DMPtdlu6UCkcX2RzBjTNbE499ZW78iOu3y z1J35lRnuDwnSjucooqa/RGN106LdVqYSNSMt6dIB09x6rqeD8fX96huno7bRKWmp2osqkbfKaBppdJSW 3xFxSRyddLU2XjO7fKWb0u/BCoRrVmJn0qd+VcxPC7oidm3nRz3noy55KuavCLPnzZKIf9nP27/e59n/9EPDkHXS/j7b7Is0qilOoDejrcIlzylS8L+hXmuYN8XEch2GoGxav0IkJG3QZI2ZmeYek EKFwfJEJO3TY3ZTm8Y59dpQfcf1mSRmbsnqDvHT1Bckoqa/RGN166J9VqYSNSM66ExnLq6Joaio48eVyuczX4ubVWifSKmypeYnqCyVsbE7 peVVIR8bTzyhz90L56Z2l9+tlztusJbNrymvMf6w2juPtdku6ZeKUyO5WnLD YCVbk3Wo20FPuqjxLTquw25Lm489L3xZeOqan0LAknBr+eapsA/o6FNhpJU11iEqNjM2xGIah7iQK/1/VOzF5gy5jxGTdhgxVtqRkfJHZO3S+8eaYG4/fZqJnh5/51CMe3Em0dJrTdinF+SeFtepnNVqQjJI6Go3RKwz9s/JK2FhcdnoAAAPZSURBVI6crL9eL6f5Xq/X9/ttB0PjOPrPkpbaa/QL7/5xLW+pGYkq92wT1rB8v99L/6243M98Fah8Whd8AqgZ7OcmoUlIKFR5jS29YZA6I9bej9107SrKCLOiGygFZ 6DmjU/RDfy0zMXw6/UKDpPOSBzM6iw6O3DezCnd/He/yMo2oCl71HxhkLewkcyv3vP5/Hq9nMcXj8fDnBpLZ1+0mMIGK3Ri0Q3WHyPs672M+eLZ44vM348z+P5+P3uAD t7njp4d5Uc8mNVo6TSnrflLUm8QJWc1WpCMktoajdGrDf1TymC0C/kRvf71RtOPy3sTPmLpX7L4K+2d/jsSBw+Sn4ekRI3gvTHhEVtwoYb5RY3o3qIlFZgF3p0akFvq7/cL9uaaldLntKInklyowhoz/EjLyb+yYu2ewpTLblr+9rVaZtTn8wkeKfuOVN0sBZ+ymaHd/7sR/fnpdDIL+ckZmP9ot0PT/wTvjBrRNjCln85LTFoZt6k0lN/4HYZhqSEF24C9sdwGWndiypNx5TFi6dMYtmEYrtfr4/EINsKM8SXq9O/iwdO/EzyEvAldsXx2lHfC2WdW9LS1C6jvDQRyU2napTcao1ce+vWD0V6U3ug2a9c7 57/pLO73e/Rg2MxHdOYrUfNag2Zqry26TV6i+qR9dqO53W5+fDb/93K5yJ+e1ySn+blfwKVPByUlOgxDdF6XZv/ZNWabP8jkn5xJZfz9fo/Hwz7tL5fL4/HQ3Hf0d5tdt8pUnB3WzdL3+51r9Xw+z2PD6XS6Xq/X6/X5fD6fz3Ecg2eQeR5q9my6iHnwiObw8/mY22BzV3M+n4NHwSa0AWXlKJnTp+ndEVP82+3mjECmpxWGnyptoF0nlnQU1h wj5J34ghdFSeOLxsnrvd/v9+12m6PJ8/nsH6Ag+ewo6YQ19Z+dsVNubxCUepT9gpSUVPhtyRjdaLcltZd6XPraWXYBYG u+32/eM3FsVsZqrxXXJwbQC2ExABR5PB6ERMejmbti49IIOADCYgAoQjx0VKmRce/8AijFaQwAKvOsx+v1Os8kNlOu+2YM1X2/XzMnWHhzaBxHZ2WGlTMJoDpOYwCIcyabzsse5b3rg42bg93owZ2/31HxYy4AeiEsBoC4pSfmBEOHlHQD2GxZssQEgI0gLAaAuOAXce/3+35XrYdgfjgQnSFjtmy0ajWAlREWA0Bc8IskLEBxYHNkfL1ezVq59n/HcXy9Xufz+Xw+7/SzBQB8hMUAoGJ/4+ByufDQ/PDmr6gEP1n1eDwIiIGDISwGAAAACIsBAAAAwmIAAABgmqb/BzBNGLc3HpoMAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
18th November 2014
The proceedings commenced by the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc. to set aside the Ministerial Decision of former Transport Minister Anthony Albanese in May 2012 approving the Archerfield Airport 2011-2031 master plan will commence its hearing trial in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane today Tuesday 18th November until 26th November.

Witnesses for the Chamber will include a former Federal Minister of Aviation Mr Peter Morris and other aviation experts, some of whom are former Federal Government employees.

The Chamber will assert that the Department of Transport and Infrastructure and CASA did not assess the approved Master Plan with the required detail and technical accuracy demanded. In short the approval was granted without having regard to current applicable legislation, the interests of the aviation industry, the general public and the use of erroneous technical assessments.

The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations to the responsible Minister being taken by uninformed bureaucrats who do not understand the industry or apply the law correctly.
Chief among these failings has been the extraordinary policy of the Department to absolutely refuse to apply the statutory requirements of the Airports Privatisation Act. They advise that all problems arising between the users of airports and the lease holders, where the leaseholders breach the Act, are commercial disputes and should be settled in the courts.
Instead of the Government applying its laws the onus is transferred to the general community to do so. The so called “Light Hands Policy” in relation to airports, a policy designed as a cover for bureaucratic executive action, has no legal backing at all and has never been raised in the Parliament.

The Department has been acting as an un-informed regulator and uniformed protector of the public interest. It has been acting only as a post office rather than doing its job to protect the airports and the users. The consequences are that general aviation industries are being destroyed and airports infrastructure including runways being downgraded or lost.

There is no or inadequate compensation to aviation businesses losing their assets through a system of refusals to renew aviation related leases of Commonwealth owned airport land upon which tenants paid for the buildings and improvements. Aviation land through the airport’s master plan will be converted to commercial and industrial sites without any control or supervision by State planning authorities.

The full resources of Governments of all political persuasions has been deployed to ensure the commercial profits of the airport lease holders are ensured, without regard as to the loss of vital national infrastructure or the interests of the community at large, and the viability of general aviation businesses that try to provide services in a competitive market environment.

The Act provides that airport lease holders must not alienate land that is required for present and future aviation needs. The Chamber’s application is to preserve our precious aviation infrastructure, stop new commercial and industrial development on land that is currently being used for runways and aviation businesses and to send a clear message to all Federal Airport Leasing Companies that only aviation related developments on taxpayer land in Australia will be permitted.


- END –
Proaviation - Albanese airport decision under AAT microscope (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/11/19/albanese-airport-decision-under-aat-microscope/)

Good luck AACCI...:D:D


MTF on this important case...:ok:

Soteria
19th Nov 2014, 08:13
The ASRR, released in June, called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.
Chairman Hawke will be busy calling on all of his 35+ years of bureaucratic spin to make sure the government response is as weak, non-committal and diluted as possible. The draft is then run by the lawyers, the PMC, Sleepy Truss and Pumpkin Head. Then Mr Hawke has to find some nice soft paper to print it on and then find a subtle calendar day when everyone is distracted (Sunny knows how this bit works) and quietly release their non-committal dribble.

Don't hold your breath boys...

Jinglie
19th Nov 2014, 08:33
SARCS,
"The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations....."
Let's hope the AACCI are not referring to Beaker:mad:I needed a good laugh today!!!

robsrich
19th Nov 2014, 10:03
Now is the time for Government to act – TAAAF concerns about regulator’s performance.

Note: The TAAAF is a forum of peak aviation bodies that includes the: Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA); Aerostructures and Aircraft Manufactures (AAM); Australian Association of Flight Instructors (AAoI); Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA); Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA); Australian Women Pilots’ Association (AWPA); Aviation Law Association (ALA); Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA); Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus); Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) and Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia (RFAC).

A TAAAF Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 states:

Now is the time for Government to act!

The combined peak bodies for aviation met in Sydney last Thursday to consider a range of urgent aviation issues. In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments.

A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The Review was seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.

It called on the Minister to respond urgently to the Forsyth Review, to finalise Board appointments to ensure the CASA CEO is supported by a strong Board reflective of the interests of the industry, and to issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction under the Civil Aviation Act.

The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA. It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report.

With regard to the Forsyth report the Forum strongly supported the return to a three tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules. The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy, manuals and forms as compliance requirements for operators and pilots. It also strongly supported the introduction of key quality assurance mechanisms within CASA, including a merit decision appeal process; again as identified in the Forsyth report.

The Forum called on the Government to establish immediately a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until such time as the new CEO is fully operational, the CASA Board is appointed and the Government has made a clear response to the Forsyth Report.

In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development.

CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form. It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators. Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.

Noting the start of the bushfire season, the Forum supported calls for the creation of an offence for any unmanned aerial system (UAS) to be deployed at a fire-ground by a member of the public not under the control of the relevant fire agency, with serious penalties of the order of AUD$50,000 for any instance.

Media Enquiries: Chris Manning, Chair, 0414 672 212

Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 ends.

AHIA: We are trying so hard to make changes - even the combined associations with direct access to responsible minister are ignored!.

Australian Helicopter Industry Association

What do you think?

dubbleyew eight
19th Nov 2014, 11:02
What do you think?

if you look back at history the department once employed 15 or 17 people per aircraft.
that was when the department ran publications, control towers, airport maintenance, rescue and fire fighting, accident investigation and guessed their way through aeronautical engineering issues.

ok the government split all that up and privatised out the stuff that a buyer could be found for.

we now have a situation where their dispersed, privatised best ideas aren't working.

STUPIDITY is what I think.
if you get inept idiots to manage something they don't have much of an understanding of they will make a right hash of it all won't they.
well they have.

Air Vice Marshal (retired) Skidmore would have had experience of useless units that had a function that was actually needed.
the services suffer these from time to time.
the solution used in the forces is a total staff change.
I was involved in one of these once and what a difference we made.
3 year delays were replaced by an ability to meet the need within 5 working days. even if the need was in the tons.

CAsA is on the skids. no denying that. odd that they should draft in a guy named Skidmore. is there some freudian humour at play there?

just in passing I would comment that you need to get the overarching philosophy right. in CAsA's case it clearly isn't.
CAsA only legislates in the interests of safety. well bollocks to that claim.
2 years in prison if your aircraft takes off without a maintenance release.
ha ha ....bullshit.
as a private owner who maintains his own aircraft and is the only pilot why would I need a maintenance release? I know the state of the aircraft intimately since I maintain it myself.
I haven't bothered with the paperwork bullshit it a decade come two months time.
you'd think I would have crashed by now if CAsA's great mantra was even half way correct. 42 years accident free and counting.
get stuffed CAsA. you are such plonkers.

Jinglie
19th Nov 2014, 11:31
On a more serious note, the AAT is not the place to fight. Lightweights in the legal world and frowned upon by QCs and serious counsel. A well known QC gave me this beauty last week! He said "it's like comparing Romper Room to the 7:30 Report. One is happy, forgiving and will adapt to the clients (kids) needs, the other is opinion based on cold hard fact"! The AAT is full of self opinionated wankers who never made the real deal. Someone once asked me "why do people buy Land Rover Discovery's?" the response was "cause they can't afford a Range Rover"! A lot like the AAT vs the Fed court! (Apologies to any Disco owners, no harm implied personally)!

LeadSled
19th Nov 2014, 13:22
The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory materialFolks,
This is an absolutely crazy statement.

We have had CAAPs for years, they are advisory material.

We have had Advisory Circulars since 1998, without problems.

Both have exactly the same legal status, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with the related regulation. Why is that such a problem?? You don't have to "comply" with the CAAP, but you do have to comply with the related regulation, so your alternative is to negotiate an alternative means of compliance.

Do you all really want the contents of all the CAAPs/AC to be legislative instruments, that have been worked over by the legal drafting mob at the Parliamentary Counsel's office.

We already have an absolutely ridiculous volume of aviation legislative instruments. It is crazy that, very time an airline wants to change something like a minima, it has to go through the whole Parliamentary process

The bulk of technical detail under the US system is in Advisory Circulars, likewise EASA (AMCs and TGLs). What's the problem there, the answer is none.

Both the US and EEC (EASA) have two tier legislation, we have had it since 1998, where's the problem that more (not less) aviation regulation is needed in Australia.

With all the whinging about the amount of aviation regulation in Australia, why is the industry demanding more regulation??

Tootle pip!!

PS: The idea of translating something like the technical specifications for a Level 7 ( or D, if you prefer) via the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (the intent of IACO Doc. 9625, Issue 3) into a Legislative Instrument is the thing of nightmares, and that is what is being advocated by "the industry".

How about the ACs for certifying a aircraft, or an engine, or avionics and instruments --- do you really want that translated into the language of a legislative instrument???

Kharon
19th Nov 2014, 20:32
Amazed by the machinations and convoluted argument; massaged definitions of 'air transport', intrigued by the misguided analysis of aircraft certification performance data and confounded by the naked greed, I thought it meat to have a look at this storm in the minuscule teas cup. The problem is one of remarkable simplicity – it is an aerodrome. Which implies that aircraft will use it for take off and landing (gods willing, weather permitting).

It is, amongst other things, a training aerodrome, which implies that folk would go there to take flying lessons, this inevitably leads to inexperienced pilots, grappling with their lessons often without an instructor inboard.

The safety case therefore must allow for the most reasonably probable 'worst case'; lets take a nervous neophyte sent out on second solo, the instruction for EFATO burned into the forebrain. Land straight ahead. But on what asks the newbee?, perplexed.

There's the rub – if an aircraft cannot safely GO – it must be able to safely STOP.

Expecting aircraft not certified or guaranteed to climb on one engine; or aircraft which must, by the laws of physics, land in the event of power failure to do so, within some mathematically manipulated, minimum 'take off' distance: a distance only required to achieve a speed slightly above the 'stall' is not only preposterous, but risky.

When our nervous neophyte lobs into McDonalds as a fireball; or a Chieftain full of big blokes on their way to work punches a bloody great big hole in Westfields; who then is going to responsible for that. Obviously, the pilot for operating from a runway too bloody short. As no one can operate from a field without the mandated distance safety margins; exit aircraft, enter developers and Whallop. Someone (or two) makes a bundle.

It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.

Archerfield, bringing crispy critters to a mall near you....:mad:

Sarcs
20th Nov 2014, 00:08
Top post "K" that perfectly highlights the bureaucratic disconnect between the theory and operational reality for many owners, private pilots and GA operators operating out of our essential secondary airports.

Kharon - It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.
Maybe just maybe that will be the only thing these bureaucrats will truly understand; i.e. the fear of litigation if something (God forbid) goes horribly wrong and an avoidable accident can be traced back to unimpeded urban development in the vicinity of a secondary (GA) airport...:=:=

The AACCI put out a media release (http://www.aacci.org.au/index.php/news-articles/94-media-release) back in May calling for urgent action from the miniscule and to endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal: ...The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”

The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”

The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”

The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.

The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.

The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.

Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.

Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.

http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1751284/lindsay_signature.jpg

Lindsay Snell
President
It is also well worth the time to read the AACCI ART proposal :D:D - Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1751286/Review%20Tribunal%20Proposal.pdf) (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/46993/1747926/pdf_logo.gif 137kb)

In Senate Estimates we all know that Senator Fawcett is a strong advocate for the issues faced by aircraft owners/operators from Secondary Airports.

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - Airports - YouTube

Trolling through previous Estimates Hansard/QONs etc. I came across a disturbing chain of two-way correspondence between the RRAT committee and the department aided & abetted by Beaker, which further highlights the issues as presented in the above Kharon post.

This chain first started with an exchange between Senator Fawcett & Beaker in the 2012 May Budget Estimates:Senator FAWCETT: I am very heartened to hear about the role that you said you play in following up on issues. I congratulate you on, for example, the report that you issued on single-engine failures and reduced power situations after take-off and exploring that whole issue. Going back to previous estimates, I asked about the number of examples of aircraft that had these sorts of failures. I noticed there was a figure of around 21 that had been highlighted in a short time frame. Your report goes to a much larger number. Can I confirm that they are only talking about GA aircraft and that if RAA aircraft were included that would be a larger number?

Mr Dolan : I need to confirm that with Mr Walsh but my understanding is that we were focused on VH registered aircraft. So the number of 242 partial power loss on take-off events over a 10-year period relates to single-engine aircraft with VH registration.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)In terms of your tracking of safety issues and monitoring developments, your report goes to the heart of the fact that, following a partial power loss or a complete engine failure, the pilot essentially has three options, which is to do a forced landing outside the airfield, on the airfield but not on the runway, or on the runway if they are very skilful or have the appropriate height et cetera.

Two of those situations require that clear space be available. Are you concerned by the encroachment of residential and non-aviation facilities, whether that be Bella Vista at Caloundra, the old folks home that has just been approved at Evans Head, or things like the Toll building at Bankstown in the undershoot of the approach to the helipad? Do you have concerns from a safety perspective, given that your excellent report highlights the need for survivability for the pilot to be able to conduct a forced landing in and around the vicinity of the aerodrome, that this encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure is actually elevating the risk, given the relatively high occurrence of those power loss situations?

Mr Dolan : The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)For GA. If you include RAA—

Mr Dolan : for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue. Beaker conflict of interest??

Since that exchange we have now discovered that Beaker in the early part of the century till 2004 was in a different role within the department i.e. Airports division; where his primary role was the architect of many of the airport lease agreements that were at the time being drawn up under the Airports Act 1996...:rolleyes:


Ok so back to the chain...

On 6 September 2012 as Chair of the RRAT Legislative Committee Senator Sterle sent the following missive to Beaker:
6 September 2012
Mr Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Dear Mr Dolan,

You will be aware that the committee has asked for details on risk assessments conducted by the ATSB on previous occasions at Senate Estimates. At Budget Estimates in May 2012, you were asked about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure, and whether or not that elevated any risk, in the occurrence of power-loss situations.
Your response was as follows:

Mr Dolan: The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—

Senator FAWCETT: For GA. If you include RAA—

Mr Dolan: for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue.

The committee would like the ATSB to provide the committee with the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis taken in these circumstances and the empirical basis of that approach including the decision theory on which it is based. It would be appreciated if you could provide a response by Thursday 20 September 2012.

If you require any further information, the contact officer is:

Cassimah Mackay
Research Officer

Ph. 6277 3514
cassimah.mackay @aph.gov.au


Yours sincerely,

Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair


The following is Beaker's response (note the date of the weasel worded reply..:ugh:)

21 September 2012

Senator Glenn Sterle

Chair

Legislation Committee

Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600


Dear Senator Sterle

Thank you for your letter of 6 September 2012 asking for information on the ATSB's approach to risk analysis. You wished to know the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis we use to determine the significance of a safety issue. You also wished to know the empirical basis of our approach, including the decision theory on which it is based.

As a starting point, it may be helpful to describe some of the key components of our overall approach to safety investigation and analysis. We take safety to be the state in which the probability of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at, a level which is as low as reasonably practicable. Both our investigations and our safety research work are directed to the identification of safety factors: events or conditions that increase safety risk (that is, if they occurred in the future, they would increase the likelihood of an occurrence, and/or the severity of the adverse consequences associated with an occurrence).


Some of the safety factors we identify are classified as safety issues: that is, they are assessed as having the potential to adversely affect the safety of future operations, and as being systemic and ongoing. When we identify a safety issue, we assess its risk level. The process of assessing risk level is in four parts:
determining scenario, assessing likelihood, assessing consequence and applying the results.



For scenario, we assess first what is the worst possible scenario that would result from an identified safety issue. Then, having assessed that in the light of existing risk controls, we determine the worst credible scenario. That scenario is then assessed for its consequence (minimal, moderate, major or catastrophic) and its likelihood (very rare, rare, occasional or frequent). For each of the classes of consequence and likelihood, we have indicative standards to guide the assessment. Application of the severity and consequence assessment results informs a decision about the level associated with risk of the safety issue as:

• Critical: associated with an intolerable level of risk, or
• Significant: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable, or

• Minor: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk.

Our approach to risk assessment of safety issues is based on the current international and Australian standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009- Risk management- Principles and guidelines and associated material. That standard, however, is principally directed at proactive risk management by organisations, while the business ofthe ATSB as a safety investigation organisation focuses on understanding the potential significance of safety issues and assessing whether others might need to take action. For that reason, we have focused particularly on the risk analysis and evaluation components of the standard. We have also drawn on approaches and techniques used by major transport organisations.





The ATSB's risk analysis approach is not intended or required to be a complete analysis such as may be required for the purposes of a developing a safety case or as part of a formal cost-benefit analysis. lt is intended to be a structured, objective and efficient approach to determining whether a safety issue has a risk level which appears to warrant corrective action or, in some cases, further ATSB investigation. Our analysis will often be qualitative rather than quantitative in nature and is based on the evidence available to us through investigation, reports of safety occurrences and our research and analysis.


To support our approach to determining risk level and the possible need for corrective action, we have documented our safety analysis methodology and process as part of our Safety Investigation Quality System (SIQS). SIQS is supported by structured safety analysis training for all our investigators and by elements of our supporting Safety Investigation Information Management System (SliMS- our inhouse information technology system).



At Budget Estimates in May 2012, I was asked for my views about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure in the vicinity or aerodromes, and whether or not it elevated the risk arising from the occurrence of power-loss situations. I answered that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake (which I have outlined in this letter), I did not see the associated safety issue as significant.
In terms of the methodology I have outlined, the most credible scenario arising from an interaction between partial engine failure and the development of non-aviation infrastructure would be a collision with a building resulting in injuries or fatalities to people on the ground.
In terms of our indicative standards, such a scenario would be assessed as having a moderate consequence.

Our best evidence for likelihood is our database of aviation safety occurrences. During the last ten years, we have records showing two occasions where there have been minor injuries on the ground as a result of accidents in the vicinity of an aerodrome. We have no records of fatality or serious injury. This is in a context where there are about 14 accidents in the vicinity of aerodromes for each million departures, with no significant variation in trend. Based on this and the longer-term information in our database, we would assess the likelihood of on-ground injury or fatality as rare. A safety issue that is assessed as of moderate consequence and rare likelihood generally given a risk rating of minor.


I trust that this provides sufficient context for understanding my remarks.

Yours sincerely

Martin Dolan

Even the man at the back of the room can see the disturbing disconnect that the Chief of our so called aviation safety watchdog has when placing the EFATO risk as minor in regards to small GA/RAA aircraft coming to grief at our secondary/training ground airports.

That is why IMO the AACCI AAT case is so crucial to the survival of GA and should be openly supported by all IOS members...:D:D

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
20th Nov 2014, 01:37
Bea-cur has style, all the waffle, weasel words and flummery of 'statistics' except the ones that really matter – abandoned take off and 'long' long landing numbers. You see a fair few of those about the place and 'tis true no real harm has been done. Could it be, perhaps, that the existing runways and stop or clearways are long enough to cope with a reject; or, a long series of bounces; or, even the odd EFATO.

Because if they are now 'too long' and may be safely shortened to minimum required, then his position makes a nonsense of 'widening' runways for safety sake. Clearly as they can be made as short as possible, then they should also be made as narrow as statistically possible, in direct proportion to their length. That'll build another nursing home and bus depot then. Although a golf course at DER would be handy, on occasion. The odd lightly lobbing onto the 14th fairway will only make a 20 second filler on the 1800 news; but a King-air, fully fuelled parked in a top floor window at a close by nursing home just may get a little more attention. Only need it to nearly happen; just once and all the wriggle room in the world won't save the minuscule; or his government. Won't bother 'the money', not one iota; that'll be safely tucked up in the Caymans, drinking Mochitos and eying the lovelies on the beach.

No, no, this is not a job for the bantam weight AAT. Hints of conflicted interests, whispers of manipulated definitions, safety authorities rumoured to be playing at silly buggers with 'the numbers', Pony pooh by the cartload delivered express by those shadowy figures purported to have 'vested interests' etc. etc. Perhaps the AG backed up by the AFP, even the ANO could sort it all out for the Commonwealth: ICAC for NSW Bankstown, Hoxton and Camden; now wouldn't that be fun.

What was it Nick Xenophon said, something like how he couldn't see how 'Dolan's position could be tenable'. Perhaps, now the answer to that question is emerging from shadow; maybe the murky Machiavellian department could be persuaded to fill in the gaps, as it were – in parliament – under oath. That also could be fun.

Aye well. It's a funny old world – "Now Bloggs, the accepted spell for becoming airborne is Wingardium Leviosa; works like a charm, just don't disturb the penthouse pets on climb out; got it?" – "Good". "All together now, Wingardium Leviosa, up up and away".

Training module – here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQBzjE-kvI)

LeadSled
20th Nov 2014, 01:49
Folks,
Just following on from my last post:

What "industry" is proposing is increased regulatory demands be placed on the "iron lung", instead of finding a cure for polio.

Unless there is a sea change in the CASA culture, the sad fact is that the form and style of legislation is immaterial, the Australian aviation sector is stuffed.

Tootle pip!!

thorn bird
20th Nov 2014, 05:54
Leadie,

never truer word, if I wasn't coming to the end I'd emigrate to New Zealand. Might still do, if the flying bug is still biting after I retire.
Imagine, just being able to soar up there without constantly fretting over which regulations of the thousands we have to comply with you've busted.

Always daunting after a flight here. Adding up the penalty points and realizing if they came after you, your going to have a very miserable old age.

I wouldn't be surprised if CAsA after confiscating your super, could legally dock your old age pension.

Wouldn't put it past MMrdak to have that in the fine print.

Kharon did you hear about the guys in the sim at flight safety commenting how real the visuals were, before they discovered their feet really were on fire.

Could happen at a secondary near you.

Sad but its always about the money, public interest or safety just aint in it these days.

Sarcs
21st Nov 2014, 00:10
Newsflash...the miniscule is crook..:{

Maybe he is suffering from a bad in-flight meal laced with ecoli or maybe he simply has bad indigestion from absorbing all the matters aviation currently coming at him. The trouble is while the cats away...:E: Warren Truss illness sparks speculation about Barnaby Joyce as Deputy PM (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/warren-truss-illness-sparks-speculation-about-barnaby-joyce-as-deputy-pm-20141120-11qmxe.html#ixzz3Jex4Ff7z)

Ok back to the weekly wrap and hot off the keyboard from Hitch..:DThe Last Minute Hitch: 21 November 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-21-november-2014)
21 Nov 2014


Quite naturally, the talk of the general aviation world this week is CASA's proposal to restrict Jabiru engine operations (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-moves-to-restrict-jabiru-engine-operations). Although this affects RA-Aus moreso than GA, there are many VH-registered aircraft that use Jabiru engines, and if these restrictions are applied, those owners and operators will be up the creek just as much as their RA-Aus counterparts. The feedback that has come my way is quite polarising. One Victorian engineer called for CASA to prove the Jab engine is unreliable with statistics, and one Queensland aircraft builder said he considers the Jab engine a "hand grenade". Either way, this issue is extremely damaging for Australia. All parties involved need to sort it out. They need to sort it out quickly, correctly and fairly.

From the TAAAF statement released this week (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aviation-forum-calls-for-government-action), it is clear the aviation industry is getting impatient for the reform process to begin. The Forsyth Report charged the industry with an optimism that had been waning over several years, but after more than five months, minister Warren Truss has yet to reply to the report. The result has been a draining of the optimism that has left the industry wondering why. Here's a tip: if you leave the aviation industry to ponder for long enough they will come up with the worst-case scenario. The worst case is that Truss (and no doubt Abbott) intend to ignore the report and instead do a "White Paper" job to make us feel good but effect no real change. We have been told to expect a response by the end of the year. Great, but why have we had to wait this long?

Under the column marked "Good News", CASA has confirmed that RA-Aus hours will still count as aeronautical experience for a GA PPL (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ra-aus-hours-still-count-under-part-61-casa). Some flying schools were concerned that CASR Part 61 excluded those hours, and when you consider the language of Part 61 is in some case ambiguous, you can't blame them for doing that. The problem lies in Australia's tenacious determination to write legislation that will require you to hire a lawyer to understand it. The recommendations of the Forsyth Report address the problem, but we won't know if the government is prepared to use plain English until they release their response to the report.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch And from the regurgitator SC a catch up to everyone else's coverage of the AAAF strongly worded media release (ps SC does however get a response from the ailing miniscule's office..:rolleyes:): Forum calls on Warren Truss to act urgently on Forsyth report (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/forum-calls-on-warren-truss-to-act-urgently-on-forsyth-report/story-e6frg95x-1227129930726) THE Abbott government has fulfilled fewer than half its aviation election commitments more than a year after taking office, according to the Australian Aviation ­Associations Forum.

A scorecard compiled by the aviation organisations umbrella group found the government had delivered about 40 per cent of its 12 key commitments and criticised its lack of urgency when it came to aviation issues.

An overriding theme to emerge from a meeting of the eight aviation organisations in AAAF last week was the need for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to give higher priority to aviation issues and act with more speed. It is understood a final communique issued by the forum was a milder version of a first draft.

Mr Truss has moved recently to set up an industry advisory council and its first meeting is expected next week.

It singled out the government’s failure to respond to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by David Forsyth and handed down in March as a major concern and was also critical of the government’s failure to appoint the remaining members of the Civil Aviation safety Authority’s board.

The AAAF called on Mr Truss to urgently respond to the Forsyth review and finalise the board to ensure new CASA head Mark Skidmore is “supported by a strong board reflective of he interest of the industry”.

It also wants to see Mr Truss issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction and called for a full moratorium on all CASA regulatory work until Mr Skidmore finds his feet, a full board is appointed and the letter is issued.

This applied particularly to controversial Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61, which “should be immediately suspended to ­prevent further damage to the ­industry”.

“CASR Part 61 is seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,’’ it said. “It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.
“Additionally, there is clear confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.’’

While the appointment of Brindabella Airlines founder Jeff Boyd to the board was “warmly welcomed’’, the three outstanding vacancies on the board were seen as holding back reform at the authority.

The forum welcomed Mr Skidmore’s appointment but noted the challenges in reforming CASA and “bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted by the independent Forysth report”, including the introduction of key quality support mechanisms and the return of a three-tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules.

“The forum rejected the current CASA move towards the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy manuals and forms of compliance requirements for operators and pilots,” it said.

The communique also called for laws preventing unmanned aerial vehicles being deployed by a member of the public not under the control of relevant fire agency. It suggested fines of about $50,000 for breaches.

But a spokesman for Mr Truss said the government had taken action on a number of major aviation initiatives that included the Forsyth review and the appointments of Mr Skidmore and Mr Boyd.

“As the Deputy Prime Minister has consistently indicated, the government is looking to finalise a comprehensive response to the review report before the end of the year,’’ he said, noting this would largely inform the government’s expectations of CASA. Finally from Dougy yesterday...;)Editor's Insights 20 November 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-20-november-2014)
20 Nov 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-20-november-2014)
Doug Nancarrow


Next week I’m at the Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast. This is always a well-supported event with an interesting program.

It comes right on the heels of the coming-of-age of Australia’s newest airport, Wellcamp Brisbane West, near Toowoomba on Queensland’s Darling Downs. QantasLink provided the inaugural flight with a Q400 appropriately renamed the Darling Downs.

To celebrate, the owners (and builders) the Wagner Family held a late lunch at the prestigious Otto restaurant at Sydney Harbourside suburb Wooloomooloo. QantasLink boss John Gissing was on that first flight and up for lunch.

Family leader John Wagner flew his own King Air down for the occasion with a plane load of family in tow.

It’s a remarkable achievement, well worthy of the celebration. Now for the rewards.

The TAAAF briefing that I couldn’t make late last week has resulted in a press release that thinly disguises the assorted associations’ extreme frustration with the lack of action in Canberra on aviation issues. And it’s impossible to disagree with anything they have said in the release. Yes, we now have a new head for CASA, though he doesn’t put his feet under the desk until 1 December; but where are the other three CASA board members? Held up no doubt in that same micro-management process that I spoke of last week.

Speaking of last week, I copped a blast from Dick Smith over my plea that his voice be accorded the same weight in Canberra circles as everybody else’s. Dick seemed to think I was putting him down, but that was not my intent and I stand by my view that he is just one voice in any debate and that his high profile and ability to cut through should not overwhelm other informed perspective on aviation issues. We finished the conversation on a warmer note.

At least DAS PA Sandra Mavin is staying on to support AVM Skidmore in the new job. That’s not only valuable continuity, it’s also a recognition that Sandra is one very capable person. Good to see.

More next week from the Gold Coast, where I don’t think I’ve been since a Virgin Blue intro flight back in 2002.MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
21st Nov 2014, 07:54
There's a nasty rumour around that the miniscule has the shits??

About what nobody seems to know.

Anyone have any info?

Sunfish
21st Nov 2014, 09:10
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.

CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.

If CASA had as part of its charter the requirement to foster the good health of the industry then the use of the term "advisory" would be no problem because by definition they could not then "advise" us to do anything deleterious to industry.

However, as we are constantly told, CASA is a safety regulator and nothing else, that by its own statements knows exactly what is required to be safe, then I believe we are entitled to be told exactly what is required of all of us to comply exacty with CASAs exacting requirements and therefore avoid even the slightest possibility of Administrative punishment, let alone prosecution.

To put that another way, CASAs total insistence on adherence to black letter law is totally, logically and morally inconsistent with "advising" us to do anything. Us compliant serfs are entitled to be told exactly what is required and we should demand nothing less!

dubbleyew eight
21st Nov 2014, 09:22
On a more serious note

Jinglie mine was a serious post.

the great problem in australian aviation is that the overarching philosophy of it all has never been decided by common agreement.
McComic has structured a law framework based on mandating the "certified" way of doing things.
It has been apparent now for over a decade now that CAsA totally ignored requests to implement Canadian owner maintenance.
The result is the we continue to do it illegally supposedly.

as a private owner I have an inalienable right to the use, enjoyment and maintenance of my private property. something blithely ignored by CAsA.

article 20a of the universal declaration of human rights is pretty specific.
"no person shall be forced to join an association". it was ratified by australia in 1952 I believe. sorta screws a fair chunk of aviation law I would have thought.

they can write what they like into law. it will only survive until overturned in the high court. in the meantime we just ignore it.

Dick Smith
21st Nov 2014, 11:48
Tell me more about Canadian owner maintenance. Is this for a normally certified aircraft?

halfmanhalfbiscuit
21st Nov 2014, 12:21
Dick, I understand it is applicable to normally certified aircraft but the aircraft gets a special certificate of airworthiness.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm

LeadSled
22nd Nov 2014, 06:05
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.

Sunfish,
I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.

The real problem is CASA misbehavior, trying to use some CAAPS/ACs/AMCs to micromanage the whole industry, but the problem is not just "compliance", it is the fact that CASA gets itself involved in said micro management to a degree unknown elsewhere in aviation, even China.

As I said in a previous post, the answer to over regulation is not more regulation, a schizophrenic concept, if ever there was one, but a complete cultural shift in CASA.

Without that cultural shift, it doesn't matter what form "the regulations" take, Australian aviation is stuffed.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled
22nd Nov 2014, 06:14
Dick,
The Canadian system has been in place since the mid-1990s, and has been very successful. There have been no "safety" issues.

There are limits as to what aircraft are included, a different "owner maintained" C.of A is issued, which limits the use of the aircraft to strictly private operations, and from memory, there is no reverse path back to a normal C.of A.

The bottom line is: It has been very successful.

There were some discussions here in Australia, but it was comprehensively knocked back by CAR 30 Maintenance Org. proprietors and the ALAEA, including the ALAEA members who comprise most of the AWIs. All on safety grounds, you understand, not self interest.

Cast you mind back to when you first started flying, in Australia, a private owner could do far more than the present Schedule 8 maintenance allows, and when a LAME could do an annual inspection/100 hourly under the iron gumtree --- no CAR 30 (now Part 145) approval required.

Tootle pip!!

Dick Smith
22nd Nov 2014, 07:17
We must copy this.

Any further details much appreciated?

Have they had lots more accidents? Bet not.

Sunfish
22nd Nov 2014, 07:53
Leadslead?:

Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
Sunfish,
I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.


Leady, I am not suggesting that the current "advisories" be turned into regulation. i am suggesting that the current advisories be turned into recommendations!

The difference being that CASA is required to be responsible for what it recommends, and that compliance with CASA recommendations is an automatic and ironclad defence against punitive action in any form from any authority.

To put that another way, have an accident and kill someone while following CASA recommendations and the law? Sorry Mr. Coroner, talk to CASA, not me.

LeadSled
22nd Nov 2014, 13:21
Sunfish,
Advisory material, whether it be ACs, CAAPs or AMCs are acceptable means of compliance --- a lot more than "recommendations".
The current very serious problem is some of the newer home grown material, all added to the horrendously voluminous MOS, on to of world leading ( by words or page count) ultra prescriptive regulations.
The intent of too many in CASA is to use advisory material to get around Parliamentary scrutiny and possible dissallowance --- a completely dishonest and unethical way of doing business.
Indeed, the situation, due to peculiarities of Australian legislation, means that AWIs, as delegates under Commonwealth legislation, are not bound by the CAAPs etc., but can impose and enforce their own "standards". Sadly, there is aviation legal precedence for this, but there is not time to go into detail now.

Dick,
The aircraft that have "owner maintenance" C.of As that I have seen in Canada, are like most Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, an extraordinary level of workmanship, because it is "no expense spared" in terms of hours devoted to the maintenance and general upkeep.

I have never seen any suggestion that the accident rate for these aircraft, particularly maintenance related incidents or accidents, is any different to any other production aircraft.

The chances of getting such a system in place in Australia now is as good as nil, because of the opposition, even more adamant about "safety" than in the mid- 1990s. I doubt that even the present AOPA would support it!

Like NAS, it may work "overseas", but it will never work in Australia is the mantra, just like independent instructor pilot training, the now neutered PIFR and so on. The net result here is a great deal of "owner maintenance" done behind closed doors. You would be amazed how extensive an "oil change" can be on some older aircraft, and how reliable these aircraft are, going from annual to annual without a single defect.

Tootle pip!!

Sarcs
23rd Nov 2014, 22:24
A good debate but may I suggest it is a debate that will remain purely academic until there is a strong undertaking for the miniscule & government to take up all the recommendations of the Forsyth report or to put it bluntly just...Get on with it! (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/11/23/get-on-with-it/)(courtesy of Pro Aviation:D:D)

Long read so here is just the first part of it..:hmm:The national aviation authority’s new director won’t have to look very far for examples of systemic breakdowns that urgently need fixing. The regulator’s most recent assault on the aviation industry’s trust and respect displays most of the hallmarks of similar actions over the past 20 years, and could easily be interpreted as the adoption of a “scorched earth policy” by elements whose departure may be imminent.

The events surrounding CASA’s publication of Consultation Draft CD 1425SS – Operating limitations for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines, reprinted below, and the response of RA – AUS President Michael Monck, appear to be typical of dozens of CASA actions we have reviewed in the past, in which a “financial first strike” is adopted in preference to measured and professional compliance with the regulator’s common law duty of care, statutory obligations, and its own compliance & enforcement guidelines.

Assuming Mr Monck’s narrative doesn’t contain any major errors or omissions, CASA’s management of the events as he records them appears to have been seeking the same outcomes, and we’ll leave readers to draw their own conclusions. They also appear to support Mr Monck’s labelling of the event as “the misconduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.”

The Jabiru issue isn’t the only aberration that has cropped up since David Forsyth’s ASRR report was released, but so far it’s the most drastic, and has further elevated industry concerns at the government’s tardiness in responding to the ASRR, and also finalising the composition of CASA’s board. Of even more concern is the growing industry belief that Minister Truss is simply stalling the government’s detailed response to the review it commissioned. What industry cannot understand is what is holding the Minister back, who is responsible for developing the government response, and when it will be delivered.

Another puzzle is a meeting in Sydney that is planned for next Friday (November 27) of the all-but-defunct AICC (Aviation Industry Consultative Committee or Council) – nobody remembers.) All former members have been invited to attend, along with a few people from the industry forums who are not former members, but also not CEOs of their organisations. The inaugural meeting is at the Commonwealth Parliament offices in Sydney, costs of attending meetings will not be met by the Council, and at this stage there are to be two meetings per annum. No agenda for the meeting is at hand.

What nobody understands is why on earth the Minister needs yet another advisory body at this point. How many more people need to tell him that CASA is broken and urgently needs fixing? That some of its crazier initiatives need to be frozen in time or in some cases reversed until they have been properly scrutinised? What will be achieved through a biannual meeting of the AICC that the Minister’s ASRR and on-going implementation of the Forsyth report cannot achieve?

And if there are any information gaps why not consult the Australian Aviation Associations Forum, which presents a concise, industry-wide, mutually agreed, collective position, intelligent recommendations, and access to more aviation savvy than exists within the entire national aviation authority? Is the Sydney meeting just another piece of placatory window-dressing, while obfuscation continues and decisions are avoided? Is there something missing from the Forsyth report that the Minister needs to know? It seems to most that the needs of the industry are precisely known, to everyone, except apparently to the Minister and the bureaucrats and advisors who surround him.

The Forsyth report recorded concerns about “the internal management and governance of CASA.” The message from within the industry has been pretty clear. It is that if those responsible for reform are not looking closely at the top three levels of CASA management there will be no culture change, no reform, and no implement ion of the Forsyth panel’s recommendations.

What is the government waiting for?
Plenty areas of interest and promising debate in that PP offering but for mine the best bit is the title...:E

Just a reminder for the ailing miniscule, his minions, the PMC & the Government - it is today 376 days since the miniscule first implemented the Forsyth review & 145 days since the report was handed down...TICK TOCK goes the Play School clock...:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
23rd Nov 2014, 22:52
It's time for the gloves to come off folks, CASA wants to shut down non airline and non RAAF aviation. How are you going to respond? More milksop stuff? The beast has thrown down the gauntlet.

Kharon
24th Nov 2014, 19:00
Sarcs - "[it] is today 376 days since the miniscule first implemented the Forsyth review & 145 days since the report was handed down."
Perhaps, like Baldric he has a 'cunning plan'. After all, the wages roll in, the super piles up, the tea is warm, chocolate biscuits free, the office is air-conditioned and the seat very comfy. He can wait, till anger turns to frustration, frustration to despair and the industry disunites, to become isolated, easy pickings for the hyena packs, roaming the dark places.

No, there's no rush, it'll soon be Christmas (which comes late in the Canadian Autumn) which take us into January (month of the dead), followed by the traditional land of the long weekend lazy weeks. By Easter it will all be just as close to reality as the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.

Never mind, the water remains, for the time being, potable. What a great, lucky country we are fortunate to live in; if you don't want to do anything, that is. What a holiday destination..:ok:..:mad:.

Frank Arouet
25th Nov 2014, 01:15
It’s said the law is for everyone and justice is there for those that can afford it. This unfortunate truism manifests itself here regularly and the frustrations are obvious. It won’t be long until these frustrations boil over and somebody gets badly scalded.
When people are denied a redress of wrongs, or when people are subjected to vexatious attack, humiliation, they are lied to, had their time and effort wasted, lost employment and forced to become impecunious, have lost family and friends, become marginalised, treated in such a way that they end up with depressive and psychological issues, and society rejects them. If that leads them to attempt to seek redress and justice in alternative ways. It should be then asked, if that person resorts to alternative and illegal or violent means, can it be as a result of the actions of the antagonist?
Understanding depends on one’s ability to accept there is a problem in the first place. It’s a pity any normal theatre for redress is often denied defendants to the extent that many aviation problems can be due to a regulatory opinion outside a Court of law and involving a corruption in the prosecution, a simple peculiarity of an FOI or the breaking of chains of evidence, the loss of evidence, the obfuscations because of "safety" or "commercial in confidence" in discovery of documents or interrogatories that the matter ends up in the AAT as the final avenue of redress.
Assuming, as one example, someone has been prosecuted for not having a dust cap on one tyre, be it because it was not replaced after regular maintenance, stolen, or fell off in flight due to lack of tension applied in the replacement, and that prosecutor is CasA and the charge relates to safety breaches.
1) The offender has lost the opportunity to escape from further attention. Therefore the offender now has the problem and he’s unemployed.
2) Coping mechanisms fail due to any of the aforementioned problems in para 1.
3) There is escalation.
4) There is disobedience because of the pettiness of the prosecution.
5) There is a trigger.
6) There is violence/ explosion.
7) There is a lowering of tension.
8) A denial of a problem. (still unsure what problem).
9) Remorse.
10) Guilt.
(but the guilt is for the explosion and the violence, not the dust cap).
People who read this and can associate themselves with the experience will instantly see we are collectively at about para 3). Unless some means of redress is made available to those wronged, the public can expect to see the remainder of this table enacted simply because that’s how the human mind works. That’s why domestic violence continues, that’s why much disharmony exists in Australian society today. The Strict Liability tool left in the hands of Bureaucrats will continue to exacerbate this problem.
There is only a political solution to the problem and that Politician will carry the burden of whatever escalates if he doesn’t act soon.


He is the problem!

CASAweary
25th Nov 2014, 03:43
So nothing changes. New DAS, so what? Farkwitson still reigns supreme, dodgy A380 endorsements, Sky Sentinel farce - corruption, malfeasance, tax payer funded abuse. No accountability, no change to the system. Nothing new. The Skull (although a complete gimp) did what he did because he was authorised to do so. MrDak is a shonk, PMC are crooks, the Minister and Prime Minister are snivelling trough extractors loading their pockets and super funds. While Rome burns these parasites become wealthier and have no accountability. Only a revolution will change things. Time to pick up the firey torches and for 22 million people to make a stand in Australia. Until that happens you are all waisting your time.
I live on a very rural property. Do as I want when I want. I maintain my own aircraft and make my own rules. Nobody comes near me, and the day an FOI or AWI turns up, well they shall wish they didnt. And forget 'droning' me boys. A loaded shotgun is always on hand to deal with that situation. Aviation is stuffed and so is Australia. Dont get even, just get smart. I did.

Catch me if you can...................................................

Sarcs
25th Nov 2014, 05:55
Here he is the Mandarin without a neck...:E:Mrdak says government’s ASRR response on track for release by end of 2014 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/mrdak-says-governments-asrr-response-on-track-for-release-by-end-of-2014/)

November 25, 2014 by Jordan Chong (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/jordan-chong/) Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/mrdak-says-governments-asrr-response-on-track-for-release-by-end-of-2014/#respond)

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MikeMrdak_25_NOV_2014_AAAConference.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MikeMrdak_25_NOV_2014_AAAConference.jpg)


The federal government is on track to deliver its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) by the end of the year, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Secretary Mike Mrdak says.

The department was working through the government’s response, Mrdak told delegates at the Australian Airports Association national conference on the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

“The department has received over 60 industry submissions on the report and we are currently in the process of completing the government’s response which I anticipate will be tabled in the Parliament before the end of this year,” Mrdak said.

The ASRR was commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss.

Written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, the ASRR made 37 recommendations (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/) and found the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF), an industry group that brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner, recently criticised the government for its delayed response to the report (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/australian-aviation-associations-forum-says-government-yet-to-meet-half-of-its-aviation-commitments/).

“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said last week.
“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.” Where's a spare shoe when you need one?? :yuk:

Oh and on Airports & uncontrolled development, well apparently M&M is mounting a rear guard action...:rolleyes::Federal government clamps down on high-rise near airports (http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-government-clamps-down-on-highrise-near-airports-20141125-11tco1.html)

The federal government is keeping a close eye on high-rise and other developments near Australia's major airports and will not allow any buildings to be constructed if they interfere with current or future flight paths, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development secretary Mike Mrdak says.

Under the Airports Act, the government and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority can object to developments in protected airspace near the large federally regulated airports.

"If we don't protect that airspace now, we will in the long-term rue our failure to do so," Mr Mrdak told the Australian Airports Association national conference on the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

"I think it is one of the most important tasks government and industry must work together on. More and more, the potential for high-rise residential development is threatening to encroach on flight paths and protected airspace around our airports."

But such regulations do not apply to smaller airports outside capital cities that are not federally regulated.

Mr Mrdak said he would encourage states to look at a statutory regime like the Airports Act that would allow airport operators to have a say in how much airspace would be required for future growth.

"It is important that planning by state and local governments take into account airports," he said. "Developments near airports and under flight paths can constrain operations. I recognise this is a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use in their jurisdictions. But as we know, if we aren't protecting our long-term assets we aren't going to be meeting our growth challenge."

Mr Mrdak said he was optimistic about the potential for growth in the Australian aviation industry, even though Australians took an average of four flights a year, which is 30 per cent higher than Europeans and North Americans.

"This love of aviation services will continue," he said. "We have to plan and invest for this growth."

Mr Mrdak said consultations with Sydney Airport about its first right of refusal over the development of a new airport in Sydney's west at Badgerys Creek were proceeding "very well" and would continue in the new year.

He said the plan was for an initial one-runway development with a terminal capable of handling up to 3 million passengers a year – on a par with Canberra Airport – which would not have a curfew and would open in the mid 2020s.

"[The airport] will provide an avenue for economic growth for western Sydney, which is already the third-largest economy in Australia," he said.
However too little too late; much like FF M&M suffers from a severe case of Bullshititis and the WIOS has recognised this and from here after will never believe a word that emanates from his pumpkin head...:E {Bullshititis (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bullshititis&defid=3776532): A condition which causes the sufferer to habitually lie without cause or reason. May derive from a nervous compulsion to ocassionally impress certain social groups but can soon evolve into daily habit.}

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
25th Nov 2014, 07:38
Who screws the screwer? ...CASAWEARY!!! mate!!... where you been??..
Hang on a sec....Where's your note??
Good to see your still in there with an interest in matters aeronautical, and glad to see you've "got smart".
At the same time cant help but feel sad that Australians have to descend to civil disobedience, to do what we used to do when aviation was fun and administered by competent people. Hard to imagine that in todays world Sir Kingsford Smith would be slung in Jail for what he did.

With any luck the Pumpkin head will end up there when the corruption associated with our secondary airports finally gets out in the open. Eddie thought he could thumb his nose at the people of NSW, maybe Pumpkin head has the same delusion he can do it to the people of Australia.

aroa
25th Nov 2014, 10:43
CAsAweary..good to hear from you.:ok:

You havent been reading any text off that "Painted Wagon" aka Cairns to Cantberra Anti Corruption Carvan have you.?

No ?...thats ok MANY people along the road had like thoughts about FF incompetence, corruption, bureaucratic buggery and all the other things they get up too, so the vanners tell me.

Heat up is it ?...so MM plays the "reed in the wind" trick...very convenient 'bend', now that there's some flak incoming ??

Now why is the word corruption bandied about so much?

Spare shoes ?...i'd willing sacrifice me favourite old thongs for good cause. :ok:

Kharon
25th Nov 2014, 19:41
well apparently M&M is mounting a rear guard action

He's certainly 'mounting' a rear something – again. Seems to me if the fire had not been lit in the first place, he wouldn't be out there now, pee-ing on it. Airports will be of great interest over the coming months; considering. I wonder who arranged matters so that 'airport owners' were led to believe that almost anything goes, and, once the nasty, noisy aircraft were forced out, with a little departmental help; the bulldozers could set to work.

"I think it is one of the most important tasks government and industry must work together on. More and more, the potential for high-rise residential development is threatening to encroach on flight paths and protected airspace around our airports."

Which is why Archerfield has just spent a serious amount of money in the AAT demonstrating just how closely the government and industry 'work' together. Bollocks..

But such regulations do not apply to smaller airports outside capital cities that are not federally regulated.

Not since someone changed the words, to make it all so much more 'buyer' friendly.

"It is important that planning by state and local governments take into account airports," he said. "Developments near airports and under flight paths can constrain operations. I recognise this is a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use in their jurisdictions. But as we know, if we aren't protecting our long-term assets we aren't going to be meeting our growth challenge."

Suddenly – it becomes the States problem; I wonder how that came about? More trips to court I expect, to untangle it. Be too late by then of course, CASA will have the industry dead and buried long before the developers move in, to utilise the now unused land.

"This love of aviation services will continue," he said. "We have to plan and invest for this growth...:yuk:.."

Sure we do, here's a good plan. Lets ground half of the training fleet, then make the airports they use too short for legal operations, increase all the fees, turn the rabid safety watchdog loose to savage the survivors, use the AAT to decimate operators with any sort of financial ability to fight back. Then finally, we can create an atmosphere so toxic, with rules so complex and expensive to comply with, that only the protected 'airlines' will be able to survive; we must have a chairman's lounge.

Top plan, minuscule supported, well funded and in action at an airport near you. They're not bad at it, you have to admit.

Wish he'd just sit down and shut up though – makes my old wooden head hurt.....:ugh:

Toot toot.

Australopithecus
25th Nov 2014, 22:57
As far as discretionary, recreational flying goes, I find it so much easier to keep my aeroplane thousands of miles away from CASA. Many Australians find delight in owning and using for a month/year an RV based in North America. I can likewise satisfy all my GA urges in a few weeks of flying over fresh water, canoe strapped to the float struts, in a blissful CASA-free zone. There are bugs though, and that pesky midnight sun.;)

Sarcs
26th Nov 2014, 04:36
Call me a confirmed sceptic but I do wonder about Fort Fumble's timing for the release of the monthly missive - some of which is covered by the AA & AF online publications.

AA first on the handover period for DAS Skates:
New CASA DAS to start January 1 2015 after one-month handover

November 25, 2014 by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/gerard/) Leave a Comment (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/new-casa-das-to-start-january-1-2015-after-one-month-handover/#respond)

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mark-skidmore-223x300.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mark-skidmore.jpg)Incoming DAS Mark Skidmore. (CASA)

Incoming Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety (DAS) retired Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore will have a one-month handover period starting December 1 before formally taking up his new role.

The current CASA acting DAS Terry Farquharson said in his November briefing note published on November 25 that Skidmore would officially become the regulator’s DAS on January 1 2015.

Skidmore’s first month at CASA would be spent receiving briefings, meeting representatives from government, the aviation community and within the air safety regulator, Farquharson wrote.

“The transition will give Mark the smoothest possible start to his term as director, which will officially begin on 1 January 2015,” Farquharson said.
Skidmore was named as the permanent replacement to former DAS John McCormick (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/ex-raaf-air-commander-new-casa-boss/) on October 30 for a five-year term.

Farquharson has filled in as temporary DAS after McCormick finished up at CASA at the end of August.

The former F-111 pilot, who retired from the RAAF in 2012 and flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said on the day he was appointed (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/skidmore-to-make-listening-a-priority/) he would make listening to industry a priority.

“One of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

Skidmore’s arrival at CASA on December 1 meant he will be on deck when the federal government handed down its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, which was due before the end of the year (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/11/mrdak-says-governments-asrr-response-on-track-for-release-by-end-of-2014/).

Farquharson said “everyone in aviation will welcome Mark to his new role”.

“Mark places high importance on consultation and communication so you can expect to hear from him in one way or another in the not too distant future,” Farquharson said. Not much that we didn't already know although I do wish Skates would drop the pretence that he needs to listen to industry to find out what the concerns are..:mad:..FFS read the bloody Forsyth report & the couple of hundred publicly available industry submissions and get on with it...:ugh:

The other article from Oz Flying is more interesting given the fact that a reasonably high profile AAT hearing has just concluded (& waiting now on the President's deliberations) and a AAA conference is currently being held on the Gold Coast...:rolleyes:: CASA to probe Aerodrome Regulations

26 Nov 2014

CASA will conduct a review of aerodrome regulations with the aim of reducing the burden on the aviation industry.

The objectives for the review include a gap analysis against ICAO standards to align rules with international best practice and collaborating with the aviation industry to improve the regulations without compromising safety.

In announcing the review in his CASA Briefing for November, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Terry Farquharson said: "One key aim of the review will be removing any unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs resulting from the current aerodrome regulations. A project has been established to review Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Regulations and the associated manual of standards.

"These rules were implemented in 2003, meaning there have since been changes in international practices and standards, developments in the aviation industry and many evolutions in technology."


According to CASA, the aviation industry is loaded with unnecessary cost and operating impacts resulting from:

the ongoing transition from legacy standards which existed prior to the CASR Part 139 implementation
requirements in Part 139 MOS which exceed equivalent ICAO Annex 14 requirements without clear justification
disconnects between Part 139 and other CASA regulatory parts, standards and advisory information
inflexible standards which necessitate compliance with legacy technology when superior infrastructure and equipment has since become available
standards which don't reflect the operating requirements for current-generation aircraft
complexities with understanding the three types of aerodrome categorisation under Part 139 as well as Aeroplane Landing Areas and Helicopter Landing Sites which are unregulated.
The review will result in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) being developed for industry comment.

More information on the review is available on the CASA website (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_102259). If this is truly the first step by FF to repair the damages inflicted by the previous DAS Skull - & not another attempt to wedge individual sectors of the industry - then we should also shortly see similar initiatives/retractions for Part 61, CVD pilots, proposed Charity Flight regulation..etc...etc. To do otherwise will be to show further contempt for the GA industry.

Just a reminder to Caroline Wilkie who according to the following is the Co-Chair of the AUG...Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group
Sub-committee

The Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group (formerly known as the Airspace Users Group) is a joint CASA/aviation community forum for the development of regulations and standards pertaining to airspace, air traffic control, communications/ navigation/ surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes.

Co-Chairs


Caroline Wilkie - Industry
Roy Tuomela - CASA
Members

View the members (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91124).

Meetings


Sub-committee last met: 30 April 2013 - Canberra
Next meeting: TBA
All meeting details (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91125)
Working groups/project teams

Part 175 Project Team
Offshore Helicopter Working Groups
Current activity

This sub-committee has been involved with the pre-issue clearance of consultative documents for Notice of Proposed Change 139/03 – Proposed amendments to MOS Part 139-Aerodromes, as well as Amendments to Part 65 Air Traffic Services Licensing.

Terms of reference


The Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group is responsible for:

Reviewing and analysing all information relating to tasks involving the development of regulations and standards pertaining to airspace, air traffic control, communications/navigation/surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes;
Evaluating and developing options on the proposals;
Identifying, documenting and raising issues that need attention/resolution and report to the SCC as required;
Reviewing the impact of proposals using the Legislative Change Proposals procedure;
Discussing and clarifying the role and expectations of the sub-committee's members early in the process to avoid misunderstandings;
Fostering balanced and complete discussion on proposals, and working through all technical, legal and policy issues dealing with the development of regulations and standards related to airspace, air traffic control, communications/navigation/surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes;
Reviewing and analysing information relating to Regulatory Development implementation.
...the AAA may have had a win here but do not forget that you also need to protect the interests of your fellow TAAAF members who only last week lambasted the miniscule & department for being tardy in responding to the Forsyth report and announcing the other FF board members. They (which includes you) were also demanding a moratorium be placed on any further regulatory actions till Skates is in full control...over to you CW!:ooh:

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
26th Nov 2014, 06:45
Oh God here we go.....sorry if I'm a tad skeptical.

"Skidmore’s first month at CASA would be spent receiving briefings, meeting representatives from government, the aviation community and within the air safety regulator, Farquharson wrote."

All part of the frontal lobotomy every CAsA employee receives as part of the induction process.

“One of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation.

Sorry mate, doesn't wash, we heard that from the previous lunatic.

What did that get us but grief.

Wherever you go now, the Murky Macavellian mandarin will ensure there is a minder on hand from the iron ring to ensure you only hear what they want you to hear.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

What reputation???

The real one where the industry thinks CAsA is totally corrupt, incompetent and out of control???

Or the CAsA spin doctors version where CAsA is a world renown leader in all things aviation (Not a laughing stock).

Or where CAsA has the complete respect and trust of the Australian Industry.

(trust them about as far as letting Eddie O'Bied manage your super fund.)

(Oh and he's coming to a secondary airport near you...oops sorry he's already been, so I'm told, courtesy of the Macavellian Mandarin)

Respect must be earned....

When has CAsA had the slightest respect for the industry.

They have never had anything but utter contempt for the industry.

No doubt after your frontal lobotomy the iron ring will have convinced you to believe in the latter.

Sarc'sie, all of a sudden, out of the blue, all this touchy feely pony poo being vomited out of bull..sh..t castle.

My thought immediately were,

Oh pur lease, give us a break, the Murky Macavellian is deluding himself if he thinks this will work with industry again.


"Farquharson said “everyone in aviation will welcome Mark to his new role”."

Then I suddenly realized, the Poo aint for industry, its for the punters, and all part of the brainwashing of Skidmark...sorry Skidmore.

Kharon
26th Nov 2014, 18:29
There is so far no indication that Skidmore intends to change anything; in fact, the first public words from the man casually stated that "he" was aware of 'some' murmuring and muttering' out there: and thus, from the Ills of Society (IOS) and tendentious 'Bloggers' the MaM was born. Clearly from the first ball of the day, the die is cast. So be it.

There are only really a couple of options; and, if the MaM is to be so casually dismissed, brushed aside in the first press release, I see no reason change anything, in fact I only find a need to continue and escalate the exposure of CASA, it's bastardry and those who smugly continue the tradition. Skidmore is starting down a well trodden path, mouthing the same vomitus platitudes, taking the same fatuous advice, from the same crew that brought us the McComic half decade of disaster and leading the same motley crew out to 'deal' with industry.

Industry can wag it's tail, caper about, slobbering and being all welcoming like. Willing to talk. But it must remember Mum's advice and ask for a new frock, flowers, dinner and dancing before selling it's virtue, cheaply, once again. Not me! There is no point in rolling out a welcome mat; it's been crapped on, too many times. More talk and more listening have not, as history demonstrates, made the slightest difference. Perhaps his 'new-old' advisors can warn him; this is a war zone, a hostile environment where no quarter is given or asked; for indeed it is a fight to the death. The other side have simply changed their mortally and morally wounded leader, dragged the carcass off the field and dumped it in a paupers grave: good riddance. But nothing, absolutely sod all else has changed; la partie continue.

No, rather than rolling about, having my tummy scratched I, like all good watchdogs, intend to treat the intruder as hostile until I know better, that way no one is disappointed. Treat the newcomer exactly as though he were McComic's lobotomised clone, go hard from minute one. This bugger doesn't need time to 'study' and talk and listen, he needs to get off his arse, from the get-go and do something, tout de bloody suite; the tooter the sweeter.

Get on with it FFS; supposed to be a leader of men, well then lead; or follow, as pleases, but do not get under anyone's feet. Change is not a polite suggestion, it's a Senate made, industry supported demand.

Warm up time is over and; there's the whistle. Game on.

Selah.

Do not ask for credit, refusal often offends. Cash and no bull-pooh always works best.

Toot toot. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGGtSkyasNA)

On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

Pythagoras' Theorem: ........................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: .........................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ........................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: .........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ......................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ............7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: .........26,911 words
Part 61 REFORM............................................Have a guess.....you know you want to.

Frank Arouet
26th Nov 2014, 21:10
Industry has spoken via various Senate hearings, reviews, mass exposure by Ills of Society, and media comment. Further "consultations with industry" should be seen for what they are and should be boycotted by industry.


What more can be said?


Those that wish to follow the "consultative path" will have to accept the inevitable branding and carry a white flag.

Sunfish
26th Nov 2014, 22:32
Boycott CASA, period. The Governments response to the review will be published between Christmas and New Year. Skidmore conveniently starts 1 Jan 2015. That means he gets to field the industry response.

Skidmore will then say "it's nothing to do with me, you must make the best of it, I believe your concerns are unfounded and that you are exaggerating".

Sure as eggs. Now back on deck and head out of Ton Sai bay for little ko phi phi island.

Sarcs
26th Nov 2014, 22:56
Editor's Insights 27 November 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-27-november-2014)...It’s common knowledge within the industry that Mark Skidmore will be on the CASA payroll from 1 December, but know we learn that he won’t effectively be DAS until 1 January. Instead he will spend the first month (coincidentally the first weeks of the ‘silly season’) meeting people from industry and from inside CASA.

That’s certainly sounds like a worthy task but we’ve waited too long already for a new DAS and I think we’d all feel more comfortable if we knew the new man was on the job immediately. After all, if he wants a thorough briefing on CASA and the industry there’s a pretty good one out there already, called the Forsyth Report.

And there would be some advantages in getting to grips with the issues without first having laid oneself open to the persuasions of individuals and sector interests. A bit of space for a while between him and those vocal interests could assist in some dispassionate assessment.

But it’s not going to be, so we’ll have to hope the man can maintain some useful perspective in the face of a likely onslaught of ‘advice’ from every direction. If I was him (not that I’d ever want to be) I’d be sticking pretty close to David Forsyth for a while.

The Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast this week was undoubtedly a success, although all those late registrations had Caroline Wilkie and her team on edge for a time. As did the fact that it was the first week of ‘Schoolies’. But all went extremely well for what is now Australia’s second biggest aviation event (after the Avalon Airshow).
And like all such events, large and small, the really useful thing is the networking, despite the attractions on the speaker and panel program. I caught up with a lot of people that I may only see once a year, but who are movers and shakers in our industry with a lot of background to provide about what’s happening behind the scenes. I need that sort of confidential information and perspective, not to share with others of course, but to inform the opinion that I can share.

I thought too that this was an occasion when it would have been good to see new DAS Mark Skidmore around the edges of the conference, even for a day. Not in an official capacity of course as he doesn’t take up the job for another week. But it would have been a valuable piece of PR. And in a non-threatening environment, because it hasn’t been the airport sector that has been baying for CASA blood... Verdict FFS:mad: get on with it Skates or suffer the consequences of facing a hostile but well informed Senate Committee (see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/QoN_Index.pdf) from page 92 onwards) armed with an angry Senator X - who now potentially holds the balance of power...:D:D:
254/CASA/XENOPHON/Aviation Safety Regulation Review:
1. Has CASA formulated a response to the Government's Aviation Safety Regulation Review? Will this be made public?
2. The findings of the review were very critical of CASA and its relationship with industry, describing it as 'adversarial'. Does CASA agree with this description, and how will it go about regaining trust from the industry?
3. Recommendation 11 relates to redrafting the MoU between CASA and the ATSB. As CASA would recall, this issue was raised as part of the committee inquiry into the Pel-Air ditching. How will CASA respond to this recommendation?
4. Recommendation 19 states that the ATSB should transfer information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to CASA, without redaction or de-identification. As CASA would be aware, this has caused significant concerns that this information could be used to target individuals making or involved in the reports. In turn, there are concerns that this will reduce the rate of reporting, because individuals will be concerned about possible impacts on themselves – including identification to their employer or repercussions from CASA. How will CASA address these concerns? MTF...:ok:

Soteria
26th Nov 2014, 23:39
Skates has commenced his tenure at Fort Fumble at a very interesting period of time. The Australian aviation community is a bit like the now no longer sleepy town of Ferguson, Missouri. It isn't going to take much more to see the whole community erupt into a vicious fight back. Our community has had a gutful of the ineptitude, arrogance, bullying and victimisation. It is only going to take one little spark to ignite the flame and cause an insurrection. The IOS and MaM have had enough of the Governments deceptive stalling tactics and obtuse nose thumbing that it directs at its people.
Enough of the bullshit please. Skates - no talking, no mingling, no industry forums, no cucumber sandwiches at various committees and no turd polishing.
We know more about your newly inherited chickenshit outfit than you do. Just get on with it. No more BS, we want action, NOW!

Australopithecus
26th Nov 2014, 23:44
If Skidmore actually referred to industry concerns using the words "mutterings and mumblings" then I think we can dismiss him as a contender. If someone dismissed my input so condescendingly I'd give him a knuckle sandwich. Mutter that, pal.

LeadSled
27th Nov 2014, 02:32
"mutterings and mumblings"

Folks,
On that basis, one must assume that the ASRR/Forsyth report (including major input from the big end of town) and various Senate inquiries is no more than low level bitching, in the eyes of the new CASA DAS/CEO.
Hardly confidence inspiring, is it.
Tootle pip!!

Stasi Hunter
27th Nov 2014, 02:37
On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

Pythagoras' Theorem: ........................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: .........................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ........................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: .........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ......................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ............7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: .........26,911 words
Part 61 REFORM............................................Have a guess.....you know you want to.

I'll have a guess at 75,000 just for Part 61, we then have to consider the MOS with a similar word count.
What should be kept in mind is that these are fluid documents and their size and content are subject to expansion and contraction depending on which Court or Tribunal you select.

I doubt that the likes of Anus Stasi would be familiar with any of the above with exception on the "EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: .........26,911" The higher the word count the greater the scope (safety)

My question to MaM would be the actual dollar value per word, or is it the more words the greater the productivity, There's a good one for the Productivity Commission. CAsA's own RIS (Regulatory Impact Statement) passes part 61 with flying colours!

Frank Arouet
27th Nov 2014, 05:36
If the DAS wants to engage with industry, he must do so in their backyard, and without the accompanying circus performers. He may well get away from the meeting unscathed. Everything that needs be said, has been said, and sufficiently enough to give him all the briefing he needs. He should also ask himself if he is up to the job that others rejected.


He has inherited a poison chalice tainted with the blood and impecunious suffering of hundreds of victims.


Please, Director, another marriage failed today. A further consequence of your inheritance, and although an unforeseen event for you, it has the potential to further escalate for the poor bugger involved.


Shame-shame-shame! You cannot be absolved of things like this.


Do something. Now.

Kharon
27th Nov 2014, 18:39
Friday retrospective for Austral – Stasi:...:D..:ok:..

The first mention of the IOS becoming the MaM was bruited by Brother Sarcs at post # 2390 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-120.html#post8720928), last month – 'The Australian' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/former-air-vice-marshal-mark-skidmore-named-director-of-air-safety/story-e6frg95x-1227107623428) ever faithful CASA handmaiden, published a touchy, feely, happy-clappy, semi religious, 'puff' piece of spin and waffle, probably drafted by some PR catamite working for the unspeakable master of spin, dribble and fractured fairy tales. Be in no doubt children; despite contrary rumours, manufactured to soothe, the AVM (Ret) is quite willing to be enmeshed in the toils of the status quo.

“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.

It's clear from the above statement that it will the governments call on how CASA will be reformed and the DAS intends to 'toe the line', he even says how much he's looking forward to it. Now any fool in the market knows what the governments 'preference' for CASA is likely to be; and, that which the department 'allows', will become policy, fully supported by the DAS. Therefore, in the elegant words of the oracle – "You're rooted mate, good and proper".

Then, just to be sure the message is clearly understood, the IOS, Sandilands, Phelan, the Senate committee, the Rev. Forsyth, 64 polite recommendations, 10, 000 not so polite suggestions are neatly swept up and dumped into the great shredder of life, with the first half line:-

“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there.

The rest of the line being used to state an irrelevant, self aggrandising fact, suggesting that as 'the pilot', he keeps "running into things".

Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.

Not an auspicious beginning; the likes of the Boyd and the mysterious 'Phantom Board', like the crew of the Marie Celeste, seem to be mysteriously missing. One hears rumour of course; like:- "there is a board" and ""Skidmore's a doer" and "Mrdak is smiling, big time" and etc. The real proof is in fact, not fiction.

We have no wabbit proof fence, the 'executive and managerial levels are planning home extensions and taking up new loans in the certainty of continued employment during the upcoming financial downturn. New cars, plans for overseas trips, new type rating courses being booked at Flight Safety etc. In fact, it's high spirits and handshakes all around at Sleepy Hollow, seems things are looking up and the grim reaper turns out to be Mother Goose fooling around.

Not certain the Senators agree; but, no worries, the Murky Machiavellian and his clammy handed crew are at full throttle, in 'fix' mode. AOC and license cancellations may be despatched at 16:59 on Christmas eve; but the DCM's are even as we speak, on their way to the shredder. All that's missing is the fat lady, perhaps she has been delayed at the seriously underestimated Senate committee tea party. Let's hope so..

Toot toot.

Creampuff
27th Nov 2014, 19:53
So Mr Skidmore isn't the Messiah? Whoda thunk it.

But you should get some consolation from the fact that he is, by all accounts, a "pilot" and a "good bloke".seriously underestimated Senate committeeIt's not possible to underestimate the Senate committee. It doesn't do anything.

Remember: Half of the Committee are members of the government. You know: the government that decided there would be no safety purpose to be served in reopening the Pel Air inquiry.

Repeatedly posting videos of their rhetorical fist-waving at Committee hearings merely reminds us that their strong personal opinions rarely get in the way of base political interests.

Kharon
27th Nov 2014, 20:44
CP "[merely] reminds us that their strong personal opinions rarely get in the way of base political interests.

Agree, but Pollies can (so it's rumoured) be influenced and influence: it's a game they play, selling and buying the stuff. #1 "Your new road, will need some help to get the money" (statement of fact). - "Well, my project, supporting land rights for gay whales, is stalled and could do with a push from your department". #2, "Look, lets have a chat, over there where it's quiet; what'll you have, wine?". And so it goes – 'numbers' also seem to matter, in the desperate search for 'popularity' and the need to retain a 'seat' (rather than get a real job), numbers are constantly worked, reworked and massaged.

I doubt the minuscule and his sore 'tummy' worry too much about Pprune numbers as they are not 'Qld mug voters'; but they do represent both domestic and, thanks to some assistance, international interest in matters aeronautical. For example:-

The closed Senate thread has attracted some 7000 reads this month: the current thread sits at 624, 053 (on my screen). That is (combined) about 1,220,000 'views', the current thread has peaked a little this month with some 74,250 'reads'. The Truss thread has also had some interest shown, with nearly 26,300 'reads' this month. (rough numbers from Pprune counter). I believe the Senate could, at a pinch call that continuing, albeit tacit, support for their united efforts. They way I'd read that is CASA 0 – IOS 1,430,000.

But, as you say, they don't vote so it's a bust; but in the small world of aviation; influence and opinion, they matter. Who knows what will matter in the end? Not I, and that's for certain sure.

Right then, best crack on with my knitting and find some patience and fortitude to watch and listen (double whammy) to Ms Staib as she once again, dazzles the impotent Senators with sparkling wit, stunning rhetoric, unassailable logic and; Umm, impeccable argument.....:ok:

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

On edit: Just had a PM from Sarcs, who defines the readers as follows:-

IOS – Ills of Society.
WOIS – Women's Ills of Society.
WWIOS – World Wide Ills of Society.
SSIOS – Sound Senators Ills of Society.

MTF....:D

Sarcs
27th Nov 2014, 20:50
Kharon - Not certain the Senators agree; but, no worries, the Murky Machiavellian and his clammy handed crew are at full throttle, in 'fix' mode. AOC and license cancellations may be despatched at 16:59 on Christmas eve... The signs are ominous; depite the Olive Branches on offer, (OB's) but they are there...:ugh:

OB1: First let us take a look at another part of the FF vomitus..:yuk:..missive - No need to rush to get new pilot licence:
...Pilots are being reminded there is no need to rush to get a new licence. While new licences under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations are now available, pilots are being asked to wait until they update their qualifications. This is to allow an orderly transition of all licences to the new regulations. Right now CASA is receiving more applications for licences conversions than can be managed immediately.

Applications are being prioritised so those pilots who have a need to convert their licence to Part 61 are not disadvantaged. Those applications that are not given priority may face delays. Never-the-less CASA is doing everything possible to keep up with the demand for new licences. Pilots do not need to submit an application for a Part 61 licence until they complete a flight review, gain a rating or endorsement or apply for an additional licence...
Then if you go down the page to this header - Act now if you need services over Christmas-New Year - we get yet another strange dichotomy..

"...Leaving it until mid-December may mean you will not be able to use your licence during the holiday period. Talk to or email the CASA Licensing and Registration Centre as soon as possible if you need their services as a backlog of requests may develop in December..."

OB2: But the real proof of the pudding is in the M&M speech to the AAA conference attendees as highlighted in today's..

"...'The Australian' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/former-air-vice-marshal-mark-skidmore-named-director-of-air-safety/story-e6frg95x-1227107623428) ever faithful CASA handmaiden, published a touchy, feely, happy-clappy, semi religious, 'puff' piece of spin and waffle, probably drafted by some PR catamite working for the unspeakable master of spin, dribble and fractured fairy tales...":D:D

Mrdak stresses need to protect airspace from residential projects (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mrdak-stresses-need-to-protect-airspace-from-residential-projects/story-e6frg95x-1227137381906)

Some weasel words from M&M:"Safeguarding our airports from inappropriate development around them which will have the potential to constrain the growth of our airports, I think, is a key fundamental planning area for reform in Australia.

“And this will become a more intense and difficult challenge as our major cities grow.’’“It is very vital that airport planning take into account the *development around airports but also that airport planning be rigorously transparent,” he said.

“But just as important is that … planning by state and local *governments take account of airports, their role and value to the community.

“Developments around airports and under flight paths can constrain operations, either directly, where they conflict with the safety or airport operations, or indirectly where they lead to public pressure to change flight paths or impose on increasing restrictions on operations.’’ But the really carefully crafted cynical weasel words are laced in this passage of bollocks:
Mr Mrdak said proscribed airspace was defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and any building penetrating it *required commonwealth regulatory approval informed by advice from CASA, Airservices and the industry.

“If our advice is that if the construction activity will reduce safety or efficiency for an airport, we cannot and will not approve it,’’ he said.
“I’m afraid it’s going to be that simple and we have to be much more determined on our position on these matters.

“And I know this is becoming a much more resource-intensive task for our major airport operators and it can be an unwelcome distraction, but if we don’t protect that airspace now, we will in the long term come to rue our failure to do so... Notice he conveniently steps around the words secondary or General Aviation...:ugh:

Ms Wilkie do not be fooled by this false OB; which is contrary to the AAA concerns highlighted in your study report - Airports Association Publishes Metro Study (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/airports-association-publishes-metro-study)

The olive branches have been baited; the horse is on its way to the front gate...:ooh: The only question is will the WIOS/MaM let it in? "Nah...let's bloody well burn it down!" :E

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
28th Nov 2014, 22:18
The Last Minute Hitch: 28 November 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-28-november-2014)..;):
...This week took me to Canberra for a sit-down chat with the new Director of Aviation, Mark Skidmore. Now there's a bloke that has jumped enthusiatically into the hottest aviation seat in Australia. Fortunately, Mark seems to have the determination and thick hide needed to beat the regulator into a more reasonable shape. We talked about some of general aviation's woes including CASA's culture, AVMED, the problems with recruiting good staff, whether or not we should adopt US or NZ regulations and, of course, his brilliant little Globe Swift. There was one thing he managed to impress me with: the willingness to say "I don't know" rather than try to sound authoritative with an answer constructed to sound like he does know. That makes you tend to take him at his word when he says he wants above all to display honesty and integrity.

The news seems to be all about airports this week. Firstly, it's good to see CASA is going to review its airport regulations (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-to-probe-aerodrome-regulations)to try to ease a bit of the burden on operators. The only weak point in all this is that Acting DAS Terry Farquharson has said the aim is to remove "unnecessary regulatory burden". My question is: who gets to decide what is and isn't unnecessary? And if there is unecessary regulation, how did it ever get in there? Airfield operators are under significant regulatory burden, of that there is probably no question, so any news of a review will likely be greeted with applause. A more enthusiatic welcome will greet a review that brings about real change and real cost relief.

Real change also seems to be the theme of the metro GA aerodrome study released by the Australian Airports Association this week (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/airports-association-publishes-metro-study). By "metro" they mean the big seven, the six former GAAP airports and Essendon. The common thing that ties all these airports together is that they are all former federal airports now leased to private companies. They come under a lot of artillery fire from pilots and other airport users regularly, so I can imagine some of their woes will fall on deaf ears from tenants who will likely do what they can to oppose some of these airports' desires. It's another one of those Catch-22s of which aviation in Australia seems to have plenty: we need healthy airports so we can use them, but to do that, some of the government controls needed to constrain them may have to be relaxed. Damned if you do ...

The clock now ticks for Jabiru. With the deadline for public consultation on the proposed restrictions now expired, they are in the position where they have to await their fate. In the meantime, the company has released a heart-felt response (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/jabiru-responds-to-casa-limitations) calling for the proposal to be scrapped. No doubt founder Rod Stiff will be doing everything possible to stave off what will be a disaster for his company...MTF...:ok:

Kharon
29th Nov 2014, 21:50
Hitch, mate, for Pete's sake the news was bad enough before you start telling us 'the pilot' has NFI. How then, did he get the job in that case? Most of us have, in varying quantities a thick hide, are determined, honest and have some form integrity and we can fly; some even own 'pretty' aircraft, so what? I find the phrase "he wants above all to display honesty and integrity"- very disturbing.

Merely "wanting to display" is a bloody long march from stating, categorically that he intends to restore 'honesty' and 'integrity' and 'honour' and common sense as a priority. Particularly as that is a simple, grass roots place to start. An easy fix that will send a message to those who have acted at the borderlines of illegality, perverting CASA powers, using unlimited government money and 'flexible' interpretations at the extreme limits of the law. I shall, as a professional courtesy, assist - start at the bottom, have a look at some of the decisions, administratively enforced which affect some individuals and companies, then simply set them to rights. Fire those took the law into their own hands, disgraced CASA and have a taste for the McComic dance macabre style of 'embuggerance for fun' and integrity is immediately restored.

Shortly, there will be two separate cases landing on the Skidmore desk, both cases are based in actions of the purest bastardry, McComic generated Wabbit executed. A team of four people who do know what the law is and can manage 'operational' decisions will monitor every step taken along the road to resolution. If Skidmore has any sense, whatsoever he'll grab Jonathan Aleck and the Ethics committee, resolve these and other similar matters and take action against those who have perverted the system. This sending a clear, unequivocal message to the organisation; this stops, right here, right now. Anything less – well the public may just be asked to become the jury if Skidmore decides to be seen as continuing in the McComic traditions, guilty by association, complicit through knowledge and identified as a willing accomplice.

There are many small acts of bastardry, perversion, malice aforethought and embuggerance which can be addressed, without recourse to a court or tribunal by a man of honour, honesty and integrity. Start there Mark and you will achieve, for the investment of a week of your time and half a dozen strokes of the pen, more to restore industry faith than any number of Royal Commissions and Senate inquires could achieve this decade. Shake the burrs off the saddle blanket, initiate ALL the Senate and Forsyth recommendations, put your feet up and sit back to watch the industry blossom.

Mighty oak trees grow from the small, humble acorn.

Selah.

Sunfish
30th Nov 2014, 13:41
Folks, lets get real. Most of you fall into the same trap that the Qantas LAMES used to fall into: endless exhortations to " be professional", "businesslike". "fit and proper persons" in CASA lingo.

Unfortunately what you forget is that there is no requirement on CASA, AIrservices or the ATSB to only employ "fit and proper persons" and that is where you are screwed every time.

You are constrained to act as a "fit and proper person" the regulator and his staff not so.That is the crux of your problems.

To put that another way, in the current stoush between CASA and Jabiru, Jabiru is required to employ Marquis of Queensberry rules, CASA not so.

Same with Quadrio, Polar, Lockhart, Pel AIr, etc. etc....you are enjoined to be professional, gentlemanly, fair and act like a "fit and proper person" to the extent that even your use of the litigation privilege (ie in a fight you are entitled to defend yourself) is held against you.

So let me tell you what will happen to Jabiru. CASA's mind is made up. Jabiru engines are now deemed unsafe by the regulator, I explained previously that because CASA has made that statement, it is impossible for it to retract it without accepting liability for future engine failures, no matter how much positive safety evidence Jabiru presents. It's a one way ratchet. CASAs lawyers know this and will set an impossibly high standard for Jabiru to jump over - nothing less than Jabiru demonstrating that its engines meet the American certification standard will satisfy the lawyers, and there is no way in hell for Jabiru to do that, it doesn't have the money.

Extensions to consultations are mere play acting. Christmas is coming. Jabiru is going to find that thanks to Christmas holidays it has Two quarters of zero new engine sales at the very least, and that is even if the regulator retracts everything it has already said. A problem that will sink the company. Not only that, it cements a precedent that CASA can do what it likes to whom it likes, when it likes, for whatever reason, and it is going to rub Skidmores nose in it to train him.

Come to think of it; my first appreciation of Skidmore was that of a Lloyds "nodding Donkey" and nothing I have heard changes that view. He is undoubtedly a man of honesty and integrity. He is not experienced in dealing with grey areas, deliberate untruths and special pleading. The result is predictable; Skidmore will be dragged by the nose through the CASA strategy and the death of Jabiru is to educate Skidmore and to warn what’s left to shut up.

The demise of Jabiru is CASAs Christmas present to the Aviation industry, last year wasn't it Barrier aviation that was shut down on Christmas Eve?

Kharon
1st Dec 2014, 00:26
A short interlude, in the interest of attempting to care a damn.

Midday, Monday December 01, 2014 AEST, (Canberra) which makes it 2000 o'clock (Sunday) in Montreal, home of the picturesque Canadian 'late Autumn' and the much delayed motherhood review of our very own ATSB - the Mudpack report. So; that's what, another 12 hours to make it 0800 (Autumn time), and + 9 makes it 1700 (Autumn time); so between 12 and 21 hours to wait; for the optimist. Any takers?

Bets are on from 2000 (Canberra ) tonight up to and including 1730 (Canberra) tomorrow.

There's a Tim Tam in it. Closest to the mark wins (Time and time zone required). So place your bets here, for the great hot air release, from the land of Smokey mists, mirrored lakes and mellowed out waiting time.

While we wait: from John Keats ode, To Autumn.

Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness,
Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun;
Conspiring with him how to load and bless
With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run;
To bend with apples the moss'd cottage-trees,
And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core;
To swell the gourd, and plump the hazel shells
With a sweet kernel; to set budding more,
And still more, later flowers for the bees,
Until they think warm days will never cease,
For Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells. -

Can you smoke that Maple leaf ?, must be goooood stuuurrff.

Toot a toot toot....:D..:D

Frank Arouet
1st Dec 2014, 01:29
Will Truss be released from the sanatorium to read it?


Will it be the original or edited version?


Is it written French or English?


Does it first need to be translated it into "bureauspeak"?


Will anybody understand any of it?

Sunfish
1st Dec 2014, 01:45
One am. Canberra time. Too late for the evening news cycle and a few hours later, too old to make the next morning news. Possibly a press release will be issued that will go into the waste basket unread like most of them. The document will be so obfuscatory and deliberately technically impenetrable to ensure as far as possible that the average lazy journalist won't bother to read past the first sentence.

A nice way to do this is to use as much industry jargon as possible in that first (very long) sentence.

Australopithecus
1st Dec 2014, 02:10
No takers here. I am sticking to my guns that it'll be the morning of the 22nd here. Or, the Canadians will announce a short delay which will takes us into the new year.

What was the original timing agreement, and with whom was it made? Was that a core promise made by them? :rolleyes:Did it involve any new taxes?

Jinglie
1st Dec 2014, 04:48
Austra,

May 2014. Beaker extended it till late June at the May Estimates. Only 7 months overdue now! Considering the Pel-Air accident is now over 5 years ago; it took 3 years to come up with a flawed report, and now 18 months to come up with a review of that report, betting on hours and dates is somewhat optimistic. I'm taking the Canadian strategy of mid-winter (Canadian season of course)! When the Canadians say late autumn, they didn't actually clarify in what hemisphere. So there is a chance it could be May 2015!
Mrdak did say at the last Estimates that the full repsonse to the ASRR would be prior to the end of the year, but he didn't say what year. He's definitely learnt a thing or two from the Canadians:{

Australopithecus
1st Dec 2014, 05:22
Well, May, 2015 isn't autumn anywhere. That's why I figured 21 Dec, which is when Autumn ends in Canada. They'll be a day or two late, so maybe the 23rd there, 24th here.

Talk about a snow job...

dubbleyew eight
1st Dec 2014, 10:27
while everyone details the watching of the farce that is australian aviation misregulation, there is the need for a rest from the gladiatorial tripe upon us.

I would sincerely recommend hunting out a copy of a John Steinbeck novel.
"The Moon is down"

read it. you'll never fear CAsA again.

my recommendation is probably nothing but Winston Churchill was also an appreciative reader of the novel.

it is not that big as novels go but it is brilliant.

welcome to your future CAsA :ok: you so richly deserve it.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
1st Dec 2014, 11:40
Can't copy the link in on my phone. Flight global has an article title 'CASA accused of "misconduct" by Australia's light aircraft association'.

Soteria
1st Dec 2014, 11:56
Here you go Herr Biscuit;

CASA accused of 'misconduct' by Australia's light aircraft association - 12/1/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/casa-accused-of-39misconduct39-by-australia39s-light-aircraft-406591/)

I guess that means Flightglobal, by default, are now part of the IOS and MaM as well?
Unfortunately for Jabiru they are done for. They have received a mark on the forehead from CASA and will pay the highest price. CASA have chosen now, the lead up into Xmas as the time to inflict the most pain and damage. It's an old trick, often resurrected and tweaked and then applied to an operation that CASA deem to be 'unfit' and a significant safety risk - overnight judge, jury and executioner. Another one bites the dust.....

halfmanhalfbiscuit
1st Dec 2014, 14:18
Soteria, what area of casa is driving this? Is it lsa, engineering and manufacturing or maintenance area?

Nice start for mr Skidmore.

Yes, flight global should get an ncn! Although it could be just as damaging to Jabiru as it is to casa.

Sunfish
1st Dec 2014, 19:06
Who is driving the RAA and Jabiru destruction? Can it only be the former General Manager of the RAA who was hired by CASA?

Anyone with half a brain who has studied the tactics of CASA can see that CASA is attempting to close Jabiru down. The assertion CASA is making is that Jabiru engines are terminally unsafe.

If the assertion is allowed to stand, no one will buy Jabiru engines at any price. Furthermore, anyone who already owns an aircraft powered by one has their investment rendered worthless. The outcome is most likely the death of the Jabiru engine company and perhaps the airframe builder as well.

In turn this destroys the RAA financially and perhaps the SAAA as well since a precedent has now been set that CASA can act with impunity on the basis of a mere assertion.

This action by CASA must be seen for what it is : an attack on recreational aviation in all its forms.

Personally I suspect this is an attempt by the senior managers of CASA to take revenge on recreational aviation groups for having the temerity to contribute to the recent Senate Review of CASA.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
1st Dec 2014, 19:34
Personally I suspect this is an attempt by the senior managers of CASA to take revenge on recreational aviation groups for having the temerity to contribute to the recent Senate Review of CASA.

If that is the case let the good Senators know the concerns. They seem to be getting grumpy with ASA presently.

Eddie Dean
1st Dec 2014, 20:43
Sunfish-- This action by CASA must be seen for what it is : an attack on recreational aviation in all its forms.
This maybe so, but old mate here where I am camped at the moment has been trying to get Jabiru to attend to the issues for over two years.

Sunfish
1st Dec 2014, 21:41
Eddie:

This maybe so, but old mate here where I am camped at the moment has been trying to get Jabiru to attend to the issues for over two years.

I agree that from what I have heard Jabiru has been, to put it mildly, less than stellar in its customer support.

However CASA has now used the equivalent of a shotgun to remove the proverbial splinter in the finger and it threatens the entire recreational aviation sector in the process.

The action against Jabiru is a perfect example, as if any more were needed, of the clearly deficient CASA culture. Even If we assume that CASA is genuinely interested in the safety of Jabiru operators, which I doubt, I would have thought that a rational strategy from a regulator who cared about the impact of its activities on its clients would be:

(1) Form a working group of CASA, RAA and Jabiru staff.

(2) Assemble available reliability data.

(3) Analyse the data to determine if there are systematic failure modes, compare the failure rates in each mode and in total against those for comparable engines, Rotax, Lycoming, Continental and others both certified and uncertified.

(4) As part of (3); Use statistical hypothesis testing to determine at a suitable degree of significance (say 95 and 99 percent) to quantify the risks of engine failure of Jabiru engines compared to the other makes.

(5) Now that we have rigourous data analysis, we can state the following: "We can say with 95% accuracy that the failure rate of Jabiru engines of this mod status is x/100,000 hours, compared to Rotax 912 engines with Y/100,000 hrs and lycoming with z/100,000 hrs".

(6) We can now look at options for improvement : " replacement of through bolts in X Jabiru engines will change failure rates from A/100,000 hrs to B/100,000 hrs at an estimated total cost of C dollars".

(7) We can then group the options to determine exactly what strategy results in the most bang per buck.

(8) CASA can then pull out its ******* great cannon and point it at Jabirus head and tell them to implement the recommendations as a set of service bulletins or CASA will issue them as airworthiness directives.

Yet what CASA seems to me to have done is adopt the opposite strategy; Ready, Fire, Aim.

And on a final, bizarre note, it would appear that the sensible strategy for an RAA Jabiru operator would be to replace the Jabiru engine with a completely untested car engine conversion. After all, if there is no data on its reliability, CASA have no grounds on which to restrict its use.

Sarcs
2nd Dec 2014, 21:41
Government responds to Aviation Safety Review

Media Release
WT249/2014
03 December 2014




Honouring a key aviation election commitment, the Australian Government today released its response to the 37 recommendations and related issues raised in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said the Report backs-up Australia's advanced aviation regulatory system as one of the safest public transport systems in the world.

“Australia has a well-earned reputation for aviation safety and is respected the world over,” Mr Truss said.

“However, given the speed with which the global aviation industry is changing, we must look for and embrace continuous improvement in our aviation safety regulatory system to capture the growing diversity of aviation in Australia industry.

“Today the Australian Government has responded to each of the recommendations and related issues raised in the Report, taking into consideration feedback received from key aviation agencies, the public and industry.

“The Australian Government has agreed to 32 of the Report's 37 recommendations and has agreed to undertake a more detailed examination of a further four.

“Aviation safety systems need everyone in the system to work closely and cooperatively to identify safety risks and to ensure that the most appropriate practices and technologies are adopted to address and reduce risks.

“Active engagement between industry and aviation agencies will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders.

“Successful implementation of the Australian Government's response to the Report will require our civil and military aviation agencies to work closely together, as well as the active and constructive participation of both the aviation industry and aviation agencies.

“Information sharing between industry and safety agencies must be based on a strong ‘just culture’ approach to assist in preventing future safety events and reflect international best practice. We look forward to working with industry to implement improvements.”

The Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report is available at www.infrastructure.gov.au (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au).

ASRR Government Response (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR-Government-Response.pdf)

CASA Board appointments

Media Release
WT250/2014
03 December 2014




Today the Australian Government announced three new appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board.

As part of the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has appointed Ms Anita Taylor, Mr Ian Smith AM and Captain Murray Warfield to the CASA Board for the next three years.

“These appointments bring pertinent technical, operational and managerial experience to help the Board play a more active leadership and review role in setting and steering CASA's strategic direction,” Mr Truss said.
“Anita Taylor is a well-known sports aviator who has been gliding since she was 16. She is President of the Gliding Federation of Australia and a member of the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation. Ms Taylor is a chartered accountant and an experienced company director, with involvement in banking, finance, community and sport sectors.

“Ian Smith AM has 24 years' experience in the aviation insurance industry. Early in his year he was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for the promotion and development of aviation. Mr Smith has been a private pilot since 1976 and has held both twin-engine and command instrument ratings.

“From 1979 to 1985, Mr Smith was actively involved with the staging of the Schofields Air Shows and has more recently contributed to the development of the highly successful Australian International Air Show held biennially at Avalon Airport in Victoria.

“Captain Murray Warfield is an aviation consultant who has held both piloting and senior executive roles with Qantas, after a successful career in the Royal Australian Air Force.

“These new appointments are consistent with Recommendation 6 of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report, namely that the Board possess a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds, and will strengthen CASA's vital role as the independent aviation safety regulator to the high standards expected by Australians.

“I look forward to working with the new Board, other Government agencies and the aviation industry on the implementation of the Government's response to the Report which I have released today.”

Today's announcement completes the expanded CASA Board following the recent appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Rtd) Mark Skidmore AM as Director of Aviation Safety and Mr Jeff Boyd as Deputy Chair earlier this year.


MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
2nd Dec 2014, 22:54
Read it once.

Proof, pudding, eating.

It is now a case of a contest of wills between the Board, DAS and senior CASA managers in my opinion.

Sarcs
3rd Dec 2014, 02:58
Ministerial Statement: The Australian Government's Response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report

Speech
WTS031/2014
03 December 2014

House of Representatives
Parliament House, Canberra

Madam Speaker, in November last year the Government established an independent review of Australia's aviation safety regulatory system to ensure that it is well positioned to meet Australia's future aviation demands.

The review was conducted by an independent panel headed by Mr David Forsyth AM, a respected figure in Australian aviation through his previous senior managerial roles in Qantas and as Chair of Airservices Australia.
Mr Forsyth was joined on the panel by two eminent overseas aviation safety experts—Mr Don Spruston from Canada and Mr Roger Whitefield from the United Kingdom.

On 3 June 2014, I tabled the panel's Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report in Parliament.

Since tabling the report the Government has given careful consideration to the 37 recommendations and other matters raised in the Report.

This consideration has been informed by close consultation with our aviation agencies and by 69 industry and public comments on the Report.
I am pleased today to be able to table the Government's response to the Report.

The Report confirms that Australia has an advanced aviation regulatory system in place and one of the safest regular public transport systems in the world.

Australia also has sound safety governance arrangements which ensure that the regulatory, investigative and service provision roles of our key aviation agencies are properly separated.

However given the speed with which the global and domestic aviation industry is changing, we need to look for continuous improvement in our aviation safety regulatory system.

We need to update our system to reflect the growing diversity of our aviation industry.

The Report has identified areas where our present arrangements, structures and relationships can be improved to ensure Australia remains a leading aviation State.

The Report made 37 recommendations, many relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), but others have implications for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Airservices Australia (Airservices), my Department and the Department of Defence.

The Government has fully agreed to, or agreed to undertake a more detailed examination of, 36 of the 37 recommendations.

Key Aviation Safety Principles



In responding to the Report the Government has endorsed a number of key principles that should continue to underpin our future aviation safety system:

safety should be the primary consideration of CASA, Airservices, the ATSB and the industry in the performance of their functions;
the highest safety priority should be afforded to passenger transport operations;
Australia's regulatory approach and responses should be based on a sound assessment of the level of risk associated with particular aviation operations;
aviation agencies and industry should work closely together to identify aviation safety risks and ensure that the most appropriate methods, practices and technologies are adopted to address and reduce these risks;
a strong “just culture” approach must underpin better information sharing between industry and safety agencies as information sharing assists in preventing future safety events and reflects international best practice;
recognition that Australia's safety regulatory system plays an important role in ensuring that Australia has a safe, efficient and competitive aviation industry;
Australia's aviation regulatory procedures, processes and approach to regulation should be fair, transparent and promote nationally consistent operations; and
active and ongoing engagement by industry and CASA will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders.
These principles and the actions which flow from them will be contained in an enhanced State Safety Program (SSP). The SSP will outline short, medium and long term objectives for our aviation system including planned major regulatory, infrastructure and service changes.

In addition, the respective policy, regulatory, investigative and service provision roles and coordination between Government aviation agencies will continue to be clearly set out in the SSP and how they should work cooperatively on major initiatives.

The Government recognises that our agencies and industry are already operating to some extent in accordance with these principles but believes it is important that they be set out to help guide the future direction of our aviation safety system.


The Role of the Aviation Safety Regulator

CASA is a critical element in our aviation safety system.

CASA is first and foremost the regulator for civil aviation with the increasingly challenging task of implementing and oversighting a range of aviation regulatory arrangements.

Additionally CASA plays a key role in developing new regulations and amending existing regulations to take account of industry changes, emerging safety issues and meeting international standards and practices.

In establishing this review the Government was conscious of complaints it had received from industry about CASA's regulatory approach and the perceived insufficient regard to the impacts of regulatory actions or proposed new or amended regulations on industry operations. Problems with the implementation of new egulatory standards have also been raised by industry as an issue. The review panel has clearly received submissions that have raised similar concerns.

The role of the regulator is a difficult one. CASA serves not only the industry but the public more broadly.

CASA is part of a system which is charged with protecting all passengers, their crew and the community. Members of the travelling public are not usually able to make their own individual assessments of safety issues and rely on the regulatory system for assurance.

Aviation services can be complex and expensive operations. The business environment in which aviation operates is a challenging and often highly competitive one with fluctuating market conditions. Even well-established and well intentioned aviation operators can encounter problems.
In such a complex environment the Government expects the regulator to be firm but fair in how it conducts its role.

The regulator also needs to be well-informed about the industry context, conscious of the impacts that its actions have on operators and open to approaches which achieve safety outcomes without unnecessary impacts on industry.

This approach calls for effective and ongoing engagement and communication with the industry, both at a strategic and working level. As the Aviation Safety Regulation Review recommends, we need to create an “effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.”
[B]
CASA Governance

As a key part of our aviation safety system, the Government expects the CASA Board to take an active role in setting directions for CASA and overseeing its functions.

Critically the Government also expects the Board to maintain an effective dialogue with industry at a strategic level.

The Government has already moved to enhance the aviation skills and experience on the Board, with amendments passed earlier this year to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to expand the Board to seven members.

The Government has appointed Mr Jeff Boyd as Deputy Chairman of the Board, who brings valuable experience in working with different parts of the diverse Australian aviation industry.

Today I am pleased to announce the appointment of three more members to the CASA Board to fill the current vacancies.

The new members are; Anita Taylor, a Chartered Accountant, experienced company director and long term member of the Sport Aviation industry who has been gliding since she was 16; Captain Murray Warfield, formerly Qantas General Manager of Regulatory and Industry Affairs; and finally Ian
Smith, who has had a long and distinguished career in the aviation insurance industry earlier this year he was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for the promotion and development of aviation.

The Government also welcomes the appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Mark Skidmore AM to the position of the Director of Aviation Safety. This appointment will bring a further wealth of aviation experience to the Board.

The Government will also be issuing a new Statement of Expectations (SOE) to the revamped CASA Board to give effect to the recommendations in the Report.

The Board will appropriately have the opportunity to set out in an implementation plan their response to the new SOE.

The Government looks forward to working with the new Board and Director in the delivery of all of these recommendations.

Consistent with the Government's broader agenda in deregulation, the Government also expects CASA to continue to look for ways to reduce regulatory costs on the industry without compromising safety.

ATSB Governance

The Government fully supports the vital role of the ATSB.
Independent investigation of accidents or incidents remains a critical element of the safety system, helping us understand the causes and hence the sources of risks to safety. This helps to avoid future accidents.

If the system is to work well, industry must cooperate in providing information during accident and incident investigations and in reporting incidents generally.



The Government will take a number of actions to give effect to this commitment including:

the appointment of an additional ATSB Commissioner with aviation experience; and
issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB once the Commission and the Government has had the opportunity to review the findings of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board review of the ATSB publicly released earlier this week.
Madam Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Transport Safety Bureau (TSB) released its independent report into the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

The ATSB tasked the Canadian TSB to undertake an independent review of their investigation methodologies and processes, how they were applied in specific cases and how this compared to international best-practice standards.

The TSB review looked in detail at three separate investigations, one of which was the Pel-Air inquiry which as Members may recall was the subject of a Report by the Senate Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found that in the case of the Pel-Air investigation, there were errors made.

I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air off Norfolk Island in 2009.

As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.

On a related point, as I have just announced I will shortly be appointing a new Commissioner to the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the Coalition prior to the election.
I have asked that the fresh review of the Pel-Air accident should take into account the findings of the TSB's report.

Policy and Coordination Role of the Department

The Government has carefully considered the policy and coordination role of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, in the future aviation safety system.

The Government expects the Department as the Chair of the Aviation Policy Group (APG) to lead work between agencies to ensure coordinated planning and action on the development of the aviation safety system.
While each agency has its own legislative charter and priorities, planning needs to be coordinated across agencies.

The Department and the other members of APG, CASA, Airservices and the Department of Defence, should use that forum to coordinate and steer improvements in our aviation safety system.

APG should also take the lead in guiding the development, monitoring and maintenance of the SSP.

The Government has also identified a number of important aviation safety policy issues which it believes the Department is well placed, in close consultation with other aviation agencies, to progress final policy advice for the Government's consideration.

These policy issues cover aviation rescue and firefighting services and airspace protection.

Other Agencies and Departments

Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence play significant roles in our aviation safety system.

The current OneSKY Australia programme is aimed at establishing a nationally harmonised air traffic management system. The programme represents an exciting opportunity for both civil and military aviation to receive a better, seamless national air traffic service in the future.

It should also be acknowledged that increased civil aviation demand at several locations around Australia continues to place pressures on military aviation facilities and services.

While not specifically highlighted in the Report, the Government also recognises the key role the Bureau of Meteorology plays in our aviation safety system and this role will be reinforced in our State Safety Program.

Aviation Industry Role

The Government expects all of our civil and military aviation agencies to work together, and in close consultation with industry, to implement the Government's response to the Report.

But it is just as important that industry works collaboratively with aviation safety agencies to produce the best safety outcomes. Successful implementation of these recommendations will need the active and constructive participation of our aviation industry, working openly and positively with our agencies.

We are aware that relationships have not been as good as they need to be and there are diverse views even within the industry on some issues.

We also understand that industry commitment to work constructively with Government agencies on aviation safety issues requires industry members to dedicate scarce time and resources.

The Government strongly urges industry representatives and aviation agencies to work together across the broad range of issues, including the development of future regulatory priorities.

It is time to reset the relationship between industry and agencies and move onwards, recognising our strong aviation safety record and the potential improvements that can be made in line with the Report's recommendations.

On the basis of the strong response to the Review and the release of the Review's Report, the Government is confident that industry and our regulatory agencies will positively take up these opportunities.

I look forward to holding the first Aviation Industry Consultative Council meeting before the end of the year. This will provide a great opportunity to discuss matters of broader concern to the aviation industry and ensure that industry has a forum for putting forward their views.

Conclusion

Australia has worked hard to become one of the most respected aviation safety systems in the world.

But like any system it should be subject to continuous improvement and works best when all of those engaged in the system are working closely together.

The Report has offered us recommendations which will help with Australia's continuous commitment to improve our safety system.

The Government's response has clearly set out our aviation safety policies, principles and priorities to our agencies, industry and the community to help with this process.

The Government looks forward to working with our aviation agencies and industry in the implementation of the recommendations of the Report.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report to the Parliament.

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
3rd Dec 2014, 06:23
AA online: Government backs bulk of ASRR recommendations (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/government-backs-bulk-of-asrr-recommendations/)

Oz Flying: Truss tables Government Response to Forsyth Report (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-tables-government-response-to-forsyth-report)

Aviation Business: Government finally responds to Forsyth Report (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/government-finally-responds-to-forsyth-report)

The Oz: Norfolk Island 2009 Pel-Air crash probe may be reopened (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/norfolk-island-2009-pel-air-crash-probe-may-be-reopened/story-e6frg95x-1227143094953)

I know..I know obscure headline but MMSM Steve does mention the Government response in there...err somewhere??

And finally...courtesy of AA online...;):Industry welcomes government response to ASRR (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/industry-welcomes-govt-response-to-asrr/)

Badly needed reforms to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have taken a “critical first step” with the appointment of three new directors to the board, an aviation industry group says.

Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) chief executive Phil Hirst says the addition of Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and Murray Warfield to what will be a seven-member CASA board, as well as the government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), represents “a very welcome turning of the page for aviation policy”.

Hirst says the government’s commitment to issue a new statement of expectations to CASA as part of its response to the ASRR written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, where it will accept 32 of the report’s 37 recommendations, is also a welcome move.

“The announcement today of three new board members – all with aviation experience – is another strong downpayment on improving CASA governance and creating a better relationship with industry,” Hirst said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The government’s detailed response to the Forsyth review is also a very positive statement of intent to both reset the CASA/industry relationship and to bring CASA up to speed as a regulator we can be proud of.
“Industry desperately wants meaningful change in its interactions with CASA – including improvements in response to issues such as regulatory reform, AOC issuing and amendment timeframes, licencing and reductions in costs.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss handed down the government’s response to the ASRR (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/government-backs-bulk-of-asrr-recommendations/) on Wednesday.

Truss told parliament it was time to “reset the relationship between industry and agencies and move onwards, recognising our strong aviation safety record and the potential improvements that can be made in line with the report’s recommendations”.

“Successful implementation of these recommendations will need the active and constructive participation of our aviation industry, working openly and positively with our agencies,” Truss said in a statement to parliament.
As part of its response, the government said it would accept recommendations that called on CASA to fully disclose all findings from audits at audit exit briefings.

The Australian Airports Association (AAA) said this was a positive reform, given it would ensure airports were immediately altered to any potential safety issues and were able to respond quickly, rather than having to wait weeks or months for the formal results of the audit.

Also, AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the association supported the government’s request that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development provide further policy advice on airspace protection arrangements for Australian airports.

“Airspace protection is a critical issue for Australian airports, both large and small, and vital for the future growth of Australian aviation,” Wilkie said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Implementation of the government’s response to the recommendations should assist in strengthening the relationship, communications and engagement between the regulator and industry, which will help to deliver even stronger outcomes for aviation safety in Australia.”
The government’s full response can be found here (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx). MTF...:ok:

Jinglie
3rd Dec 2014, 17:46
If they want to re-open the investigation, all they need to do is read the very detailed submissions to the AAI. A lot of detailed work done by experts, unlike Beaker and the incompetent crew. If they re-open it, who will do it? No-one involved at the ATSB or CASA can be trusted, and there were plenty involved. MD, IS, MW, JH, JW to name a few. At CASA, PB, RW, JG, TF, JM, RC, RW, JA, AA, JR etc. You know who you are. Shame on you for your part in this accident, but more so for being a major part in screwing the aviation safety system of Australia.

Sarcs
3rd Dec 2014, 19:29
Maybe Albo - along with his mate Bill(TR Zinger)Shorten - was on a high from kicking the living sh:mad:t out of TA and his govt over the last week; or maybe he thought he could get some cheap points - after all whoever listens to the opposition spokesman's reply to ministerial statements...:ooh:

Well I am afraid that I did and Jinglie - besides being a true affront to the senses of any genuine IOS member - I think you will find parts of the following self-flagellating, spin & bulldust quite revealing to why the initials you highlighted truly thought they could get away with it...:ugh::ugh:

To begin Albo went through the usual spiel of how aviation safety is not a political football and how essential it is to the economy..blah..blah..blah..:zzz:

But then the stropathon began:I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed. When Mr McCormick had advised me of the decision, I remember speaking to Prime Minister Gillard and informing her of what was about to occur—because, by definition, you cannot make a decision that an airline is unsafe and then say, 'we will ground them in a couple of days' time'. What it meant by definition was that people got stranded. There was a real-world impact on the travelling public, particularly given the nature of Tiger; and on many families who were able to travel by air for the first time, because it was a budget airline.
That was a courageous decision by John McCormick. The fact that Tiger has now been taken over by Virgin Australia and is now functioning in a way that satisfies all the safety concerns shows that that was not just a courageous decision but a correct decision. Err no comment but then it just got worse and IMO makes Albo close to public (IOS) enemy number one :=: In the report, the review panel expressed concern about relations between the industry and the regulator. It said this:
In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.
The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly. I think one of the worst parts of the job of being the aviation minister in this country is the fact that you get notified in real time. Except for the minister, people are probably unaware of that. I have had phone calls at all hours telling me that a plane with two or three people on board has gone missing. When the departmental head rang, or in the case of Mr McCormick there was often direct contact, you really did not want to receive that call.

If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder. And on the subject of the TSBC/bureau peer review - more weasel words laced with barely hidden malice & hypocrisy:I note the minister's comment that he is considering asking the ATSB to reopen the investigation into the Pel-Air incident of 2009. This follows the findings this week of the delayed report of the inquiry that I commissioned as the minister, which was conducted by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board. I note that the TSB found that the ATSB investigation methods were best practice, but I certainly welcome, as I previously said, the principle that, if there is any doubt at all, there is a need to take that precautionary principle into consideration.

I am concerned that the government has required aviation operators to cut about $12 million from their costs as part of its push to reduce so-called red tape. I also note that the government has made a similar demand of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. You cannot have organisations like CASA and AMSA, which perform such an extraordinarily important role in this country, and continue to put pressure on them to cut costs. AMSA has a critical role to play, as we have seen with the issue of the Malaysia Airlines search and rescue. AMSA looks after about one-third of the world's surface, so it is an absolutely critical agency. I do believe that there is a real case for quarantining it from cuts for aviation safety. This from the man who totally ignored the Senate AAI inquiry findings, while deviously & singlehandedly inflicting budgetary cuts to the bureau that has led to the loss of 200+ years of investigatory expertise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPU05SAYQ94

I think we can safely say that Albo was the No1. fan for the Beaker/McSkull instigated BASR, Big R regulator philosophy for embuggerance of the GA industry....steam still ON!:*

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
3rd Dec 2014, 20:34
The Ministers and Opposition speeches makes it perfectly clear that the the possibility that a revitalized aviation sector might generate investment, jobs and economic growth in Australia is ignored by both parties. It is now certain that the aviation industry, especially the GA and recreational sectors of it, will remain in terminal decline.

I had hoped that the Ministers speech would have contained words to the effect that a strong, growing and vibrant aviation sector was important for the Australian economy but no. The closest he got was the use of the word "competitive", competitive with what?


I think I see the overall theme here that I missed before; CASA is charged with keeping the Australian public safe from aviation.]

CASAs function is thus characterised by both parties as :

(1) Ensuring passengers on airlines don't die in a screaming death plunge and,

(2) Preventing crazy pilots in all other little aircraft from making their own screaming death plunge into the members of the general public below them.

If in the process their actions destroy businesses and the investment, jobs and potential economic growth they provide....stiff.

That is what I read out of the speech quoted below:

The role of the regulator is a difficult one. CASA serves not only the industry but the public more broadly.

CASA is part of a system which is charged with protecting all passengers, their crew and the community. Members of the travelling public are not usually able to make their own individual assessments of safety issues and rely on the regulatory system for assurance.

Aviation services can be complex and expensive operations. The business environment in which aviation operates is a challenging and often highly competitive one with fluctuating market conditions. Even well-established and well intentioned aviation operators can encounter problems.

In such a complex environment the Government expects the regulator to be firm but fair in how it conducts its role.

The embuggerance will now continue redoubled. Jabiru is the latest victim to be slaughtered along with the Recreational Aircraft Association. Good work CASA, all the jobs at Jabiru will go along with a thousand now useless recreational aircraft and the association that administered them. In fact there will probably be more casualties,, for without a self administering body like the RAA to give recreational aircraft a home, how can they be regulated and rendered flyable?

Kharon
3rd Dec 2014, 21:13
Gee whiz; crumbs Sunny dire predictions will only come true if, and it's a big IF industry allows it. So far the industry has shown no signs of scampering away, tail between legs, from the fight. In fact industry is ahead on points as we approach the last couple of rounds, the legs are still good, plenty of wind and lots of sting left in the jabs.

We are all very well aware of the problems and the ways in which thing may be twisted to suit a purpose. So far, this has been prevented; now is the time for solutions and the weeding out of those imbued with the McComic perversion and methodology.

Cheer up mate, the sky is firmly in place and hopefully about to become a much better place.

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

Turn that frown upside down.

Sunfish
3rd Dec 2014, 23:30
Kharon, the Minister went out of his way to deny that the regulator had any duty of care whatsoever to those regulated.

Until such time as the regulator is required to take into account the likely effect of its actions on the economic health of the industry it regulates, then the option remains open to it to fulfil its role by prohibiting aviation - the "safe skies are empty skies" option, as is currently being used on Jabiru.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the iron heel is going to be taken off our necks. My guess is that the full weight of the unmodified European Union over regulation is going to be used to crush the life out of us.

Creampuff
4th Dec 2014, 02:48
It’s interesting that even Phil Hurst has been sucked in by all the smoke and mirrors.

I have to hand it to governments: They’ll never go broke underestimating the credulity of punters. :D

dubbleyew eight
4th Dec 2014, 11:03
CASAs function is thus characterised by both parties as :

(1) Ensuring passengers on airlines don't die in a screaming death plunge and,

(2) Preventing crazy pilots in all other little aircraft from making their own screaming death plunge into the members of the general public below them.


not totally correct old son.
the islamic world has put the cat among the pigeons and the problem is preventing terrorism.
aviation provides a wonderful mechanism for unchallenged attack and that is what worries the numpties to their core.

my mate the prison psychologist told me a little while ago that criminals in australian society only exist at about a 3% of the population.
97% of us are honest upright trustworthy citizens.

the islamic terror worries have an entire army of security utterly foxed.
they don't know where the next threat will come from.
so instead of seeing us as honest people to deal with they sit there worried and slowly going insane in their efforts to prevent a calamity.

of course if you charge a paperwork generating abortion like CAsA with a task of actually doing something. ...well they're stuffed aren't they.

if you want a happy future just ignore the nutters totally and go flying.

Lookleft
4th Dec 2014, 20:24
Good on you Sarcs for posting Albos rationalisation of his do nothing time in Government! Now that Truss has responded and the TSBC have highlighted where the ATSB can improve lets hope they stop the procrastinating and just get on with it. Based on past performance though I dont recommend holding your breath. Maybe plant an oak tree and see what comes first; a mature oak tree or a mature Regulator.

Kharon
4th Dec 2014, 20:36
CP – "It’s interesting that even Phil Hurst has been sucked in by all the smoke and mirrors."

Has he though?, no one could call Hurst dopey and it would be incorrect to say that he does not fully understand the twisted by-ways of Pollywaffle and the Murky Machiavellian method of bending light. It's up to industry now to make certain that the fish does not wriggle off the hook. The first polite steps have been taken and even if Truss has offered a placebo, the words and music are there. Every pilot and operator needs to grab a copy of the Forsyth recommendations and the Truss response and turn them into lethal weapons.

Every time someone has their cage rattled; see what was promised and point out to the 'rattler' that the action they propose is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Truss acceptance of the Rev. Forsyths' little shopping list. None of the promised changes will happen if industry does not pull it's weight and make things happen. Jabiru can now dispense with the old method of simply copping it. Use the words to insist on an new deal, fresh eyes and proper homework being presented to Skidmore and his board. Make the buggers work.

'Jab' handled properly could do more to decimate the remnants of the McComic supported bastardry than Pel Air did. For starters, it's jobs and exports CASA intend to remove, that has legs. Prove the 'facts and circumstances' to be incorrect and take them directly to 'the man', argue the case and prove the vendetta was all about the CASA antagonist covering his arse, lest the duck-ups from his previous jobs reflect badly on his future well being. This is now contrary to the stated government policy of change. The tools are there, just pick 'em up and use them; without fear.

Change will not occur with industry sitting on it's rump, trying to keep warm wrapped in a the tissue thin comfort blanket offered by Truss. Light a fire, make it happen for it's as sure as eggs, the McComic remnants will have recruited the MM crew to find ways and means of reversing the good intent and finding alternate means of continuing their merry charade.

The history of the previous inquiries into 'CASA' shows exactly what will happen; if industry sits back and thinks it's won. See Morrison, 300 sitting days of inquiry and CASA ran around the back alleys and made sure nothing changed.

Seconds out, round two ; ding ding.

Soteria
4th Dec 2014, 23:55
Well it is that time of the year again. Usually CASA, at any given time, are under some sort of public scrutiny or accusation. In turn when that scrutiny is very public they like to shutdown an operator, somewhere, anywhere, to prove that they truly have 'safety' at the forefront of all decisions. Yes the big 'R' regulator likes to use Xmas as the perfect time to issue a safety alert causing business closure, awkward appeals, loss of December revenue, and making it hard for the operator to respond around the public holidays :=
So who will be the victim this December/January? My source tells me that Inspectors are paying 'extra attention' to several operators at the moment! Is the 'R'egulator poised to strike? Have you my friends been left off this years CASA Xmas card list? You better check behind the bushes, above the horizon and under the desk as you never know if Inspector Plod is lurking. Yes I hope you have been good boys and girls otherwise SantaCASA won't be bringing you anything nice :=

Sarcs
5th Dec 2014, 00:34
To begin I would first like to note that Dougy is MIA and his SARtime note has expired...:{ Oh well here is hoping that all is well...:rolleyes:

MMSM Steve has been busy here are two of his offerings, both published at 12am today: Norfolk Island probe ‘flawed’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/norfolk-island-ditching-probe-flawed-says-canadian-inquiry/story-e6frg95x-1227145159305) & Coalition backs safety review (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/government-backs-aviation-safety-regulation-review-report/story-e6frg95x-1227145174162)

I won't rehash either of those articles but needless to say SC has succeeded in regurgitating most of the information already put out by his peers. He does however manage to get a quote or two from the RAAA which is new:
Regional Aviation Association of Australia chairman Jim Davis said yesterday that his organisation had always supported the ASRR report.
“We’ve always seen it as the way forward. We’ve seen it as the blueprint that was needed to reform CASA and to bring regulatory reform in Australia back into balance,’’ Mr Davis said. “So we’re very pleased to see that the majority of recommendations in the report have been adopted.’’
Mr Davis said the RAAA had not agreed with the rejected recommendation.
“The only reservation we have at this point is that quite a lot of recommendations were agreed to but in principle only,’’ he said, adding the RAAA would like to see these issues followed through and not lost because of technical or legal difficulties.
“We’d like the see the spirit of the ASRR report carried through right to the end to achieve a satisfactory result with CASA and the regulatory reform program.’’
Mr Davis welcomed the appointment to the CASA board of Mr Warfield as “an excellent choice’’ because of his breadth of experience.
“In fact, we think all the board members are a good choice,’’ Mr Davis said. “We think they provide quite a cross-section of the industry and quite a breadth of experience and we believe most of them. or all of them, will be hands-on and get quite involved in this process of restructuring and bringing governance to CASA.’’ Given the comments from Creamy & Co on AerialAg Phil I thought it was apt to include Proaviation's article on just that subject..:D: Agricultural operators welcome government’s ASRR response (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/12/04/agricultural-operators-welcome-governments-asrr-response/)
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, one of the most energetic critics of the regulator’s recent performance, has warmly welcomed Government’s response to the Forsyth Aviation Regulation Review and the Deputy Prime Minister’s appointment of an additional three experienced aviation people to the CASA Board.

AAAA CEO, Phil Hurst, said that the appointments to the CASA Board were “a critical first step to reform of a dysfunctional CASA.”

http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Airtractor-06-1024x680.jpg (http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Airtractor-06.jpg)

“AAAA has previously welcomed the appointment of a new CEO of CASA, Mr Skidmore, and the announcement today of three new Board members – all with aviation experience – is another strong downpayment on improving CASA governance and creating a better relationship with industry,” said Mr Hurst.

“The Government’s detailed response to the Forsyth Review is also a very positive statement of intent to both reset the CASA/industry relationship and to bring CASA up to speed as a regulator we can be proud of.
“In particular, AAAA welcomes the Government’s commitment to issue a new statement of expectations to CASA that will give effect to the recommendations in the Forsyth Report.

“By committing to a risk management hierarchy based on a classification of operations (Recommendation 28 in the Government’s response), the Government will reinforce the value of identifying sectors of industry that are capable of delivering safety outcomes with CASA support, as witnessed by AAAA’s ongoing work with CASA on establishing a sector risk profile for aerial application.

“AAAA fully supports the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to not force the transfer of ATSB’s safety education role to CASA as ATSB’s education role is fundamentally different to CASAs.

“AAAA notes, however, that good policy intentions from the Government must be converted into coherent actions and improvements by CASA. Industry desperately wants meaningful change in its interactions with CASA – including improvements in response to issues such as regulatory reform, AOC issuing and amendment timeframes, licencing and reductions in costs.

“The government’s response today should represent a very welcome turning of the page for aviation policy. AAAA remains fully committed to working with the government, the new CASA Board and the new CASA CEO to deliver a better aviation industry for all Australians.” Finally Hitch gives a pretty good summary of the weeks events as they unfolded...;): The Last Minute Hitch: 5 December 2015 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-5-december-2015)
The week just past may be remembered in Australia as the turning point in the fortunes of aviation in this country. A series of good-news stories rolling out of Canberra displayed a willingness to change on behalf of government, and a recognition that a long barrage of complaints had to have some merit.

Oddly enough, Australian aviation's good-news week started in Canada when the Canadian TSB published their review of the ATSB (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/canadian-review-criticises-norfolk-island-investigation). Comparing ATSB methods over three investigations, it found that they failed miserably to apply good practice to the Pel-Air Norfolk Island ditching investigation. That they found little else wrong with the ATSB but that begs (and fails) to ask why that particular report and no other? Had they found regular, serious systemic issues you would write-off Pel-Air as just another instance of mismanagement, but as they didn't, we can't. My love of a good conspiracy theory drives me to smell political interference.

The applause from that had barely died down when Warren Truss rose in the lower house to deliver the government's response to the Forsyth Report (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-tables-government-response-to-forsyth-report). For aviation's movers, shakers, lobbyists and supporters, the response was effectively vindication that the struggle they have been through was right. The government response gives new Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore a mandate to return CASA to a position of respect and integrity within aviation. It demands a culture change, better engagement with industry, less Draconian measures, a system of regulation built on justice and a new era of accountability. In the shortest possible words: Warren Truss wants the second "A" in CASA to have meaning. So, now we the aviation industry have 80-90% of what we wanted, what are we going to do next? The time for agitating and non-co-operation appears to be over. It's OK for the government to embrace reform, but the industry has to get in on the group hug or next year we'll all still be complaining. The sun has shone ... let's make hay.

Certainly there is one man in Australia who is feeling the sun on his face this week: Dominic James. Since the ATSB squarely blamed him for ditching Westwind VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009, he has been working hard to get the ATSB to withdraw the report and straighten out some anomalies in the reasoning and look a lot closer at the systemic failures. This week, the government has agreed with James, and stated in parliament that it will ask the ATSB to consider re-opening the investigation. (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/canadian-review-criticises-norfolk-island-investigation) After the damning senate inquiry and the Canadian TSB review, this call should be enough to sway the commission to withdraw the report and this time do it properly.

And we finally have the last three members of the CASA board (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/final-three-members-of-casa-board-named). It has been a while coming, but the new look board now has a good mix of aviation people and governance experts that are capable of exerting full control over CASA. The previous board remained too anonymous to be able to gauge their performance, except to say that a good board is not anonymous. Mid next year, we can expect the board chair to pass to respected aviation identity Jeff Boyd. Not a lot of bad news there, either.

Where bad news did come from was the loss of Gordon Rich-Phillips as Victorian Minister Responsible for the Aviation Industry. With the change of government last weekend, Australia lost its one and only aviation minister. Whether or not you are Liberal or Labor, Gordon did some fantastic work for aviation, fueled by an enthusiasm for general aviation. His work improved the lot of the general public in regional Victoria with significant airport upgrades that would enable air ambulances to operate from airfields previously excluded. We all owe him a vote of thanks.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch MTF...:ok:

Ps If Dougy turns up will update...:E

robsrich
5th Dec 2014, 09:35
Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General.

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, at the conclusion of his presentation titled “Australia and CAEP”.

Media reports suggest there are four candidates for the position being from Australia, Brazil China, and India.

AHIA

Soteria
5th Dec 2014, 10:14
Media reports suggest there are four candidates for the position being from Australia, Brazil China, and India.Correct, 4 candidates, however only 2 are in the real running, one of them being Herr Skull......and i got that directly from the halls of Can'tberra :E
Only time will tell (by around March 2015) if the angry one succeeds in winning possibly the most coveted aviation position within the upper echelon of apple bobbers. I just hope that Montreal is ready for the cigar smoking anger management failure from Australia! I hope they have somewhere for him to park his precious Yak, somewhere for him to smoke his stoogies (out of the blizzards), somewhere for him to hang up his Hawaiian shirt and moose hat, and that they provide an object free work environment where all loose items are tied down and tethered in his office to prevent them being thrown at walls!!

Hang on to your maple leaves my dear Canucks, the Skull is on short finals......

dubbleyew eight
6th Dec 2014, 03:59
you are all a bunch of suckers.
The mountain of waffle legislation with all its included bullshit and draconian provisions is still there in its entirety.

....but now it will be implemented by a bunch of really nice guys. wowie. :mad::mad:

until all the bollocks legislation ( which btw is fully approved by the government ) is trashed and replaced by something trim and to the point....

YOU HAVENT ACHIEVED ANYTHING.

suckers all of you. :}

dubbleyew eight
6th Dec 2014, 04:43
W8 has a few litmus items that indicate change for the better is actually occurring.

The canadians had a problem with owners doing their own maintenance.
the bastards wouldn't stop doing it.
So transport Canada mounted a safety case. an honest look at the "problem".
What they found in the statistics was that private owner maintainers weren't crashing aircraft at any greater rate than "properly" maintained aircraft.
The statistics proved that there was no detriment.

So canada made private owner maintenance legal.
they also created an owner maintained category of registration.
this allows commercially built privately owned aircraft to be decertified and maintained by the owner on a stand alone basis.

all on the basis of a safety case done by honest enquiring minds.

compare the australian situation. 2 years in prison for not having a maintenance release. no option for owner maintenance at all.
a system that tries by draconian legislation to preserve a totally certified environment.

in reality among all the private owners I know there is only one not actively maintaining his own aircraft.

if you want further proof that the world has moved on from CAsA's draconian "certification" download the australian VH aircraft register from the CAsA website. stick it in a spreadsheet and count the number of amateur built aircraft.
then do some further churning. work out the percentage of new aircraft that weren't built in factories.

when we see the reality reflected in some sensible legislation, then and only then, will we have made progress.

until then private owners like me will ignore it all.

CAsA, the Clueless And Senile Administrator.

Sunfish
6th Dec 2014, 20:48
For the avoidance of doubt, the former and perhaps again future Minister For Aviation has by his own words branded himself as a hater of aviation in all its forms.

I refer to his speech as reported by Hansard, in response to Minister Truss's announcement of the Governments response to the Forsyth report.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed.

Factually incorrect. Ansett lost their AOC. CASA routinely kills charter operators all the time but these are beneath Albaneses notice.


In the report, the review panel expressed concern about relations between the industry and the regulator. It said this:
In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.


Why "particularly in Aviation?

The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly.

So we are "naughty children" who know nothing? Might the light aircraft accident rate have something to do with the fact that there are a lot of them?


If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

The public rate the probability of an accident event proportional to the ease with which it can be imagined, not the actual probability. Albanese is similarly ignorant. How many cars run into houses and pedestrians? Lots. AIrcraft? The last on ground fatality caused by an aircraft that I can remember was in 1978, this one:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24632/197802547.pdf


I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder.

So preventing aviation is Albaneses preferred method of regulation of the industry, not a word about the positive effects of aviation on jobs, investment and growth.

No wonder this country is in a mess.

Kharon
6th Dec 2014, 21:18
Just to add insult to injury; the current minuscule has let the opposition steal the high ground; politically exposing Abbott to more ridicule and censure. Truss had Albo by the 'ackers and then just stood there, letting him wriggle away. That gives the potential leader of the opposition a bag full of free kicks; particularly as Truss has done bugger all of consequence, and even that pittance, so begrudgingly doled out, so late as to make the industry despair. Mrdak has much to answer for; fat chance he'll ever be forced to carry the can. Not while the scapegoat paddock is brimming with fresh, juicy morsels; there's even some old weathers laying about to use up, before he needs to look to the new stock.

Albo hates aeroplane noise – he's bound by his voters to do so. And he's good at it.

SIUYA
6th Dec 2014, 22:41
Karon, to add more insult to the injury...

Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development...

The appointment seems to demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever the contempt held by the leadership of the Department of the Australian aviation industry in general if it's prepared to make that nomination, particularly after all that's transpired with regard to the disgraceful events surrounding the PEL AIR investigation 'debacle', and especially after the concerns expressed by the Senate Inquiry regarding the involvement of the former DAS.

The mind boggles. :mad:

Frank Arouet
6th Dec 2014, 23:56
Who is the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development?


This bloke perhaps?


https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/about/secretary.aspx

thorn bird
7th Dec 2014, 05:12
Jeez frank, can the Murky Macavellian, get any murkier??..no doubt about it the consummate "Sir Humphry".

No wonder the country is in the state its in.
Public servants?....servants of the public??...self serving...now we are getting closer to the truth.

Classic commentary in the weekend Australian about how big business collude with the unions to inflate costs of public projects by acquiescing to thuggish illegal union demands. Increased costs equals increased profits. Who pays? the poor old taxpayer, anything up the 35% more for given projects.

Where are the Pollies and their Sir Humphries in all this? I always imagined they were the ones supposedly sworn uphold the rule of law??
Silly naïve boy, they are Plotting and Manipulating to protect their campaign contributions and bonuses, bugger the taxpayer.

Sunny

The Macavellian Manipulator's previous Mindee...what a piece of work....then again aint they all.

I'm of the opinion, which seems to be shared by an awful lot of people that the number of "Honest" politicians in our current parliament you could probably count on the fingers of one hand, and you certainly don't rise to the position of a senior bureaucrat by being an honorable person.

What has happened to our democracy??, we'd be better off letting the Mafia run the country.

"When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed."

Bull..sh.t! what was courageous about shutting down a small overseas controlled airline in the big scheme of things?

Except costing Singapore Inc 35 Mil or so. Rumour had it they were on the way down here with a bunch of lawyers to have CAsA on.
Wiser heads prevailed because it was easier to get their their money back by screwing QANTAS and Sh.t Star.
Asians do not like being stiffed, especially Singaporeans, there will always be an accounting.

"I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry;"

Tell you what you supercilious buffoon, I'd be happy to respect CAsA when they respect the industry. Respect is EARNED!

"They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe."

And if you had the faintest idea on anything to do with aviation you'd know that whole statement is the reverse of reality.

"Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals."

If that upsets you, move. Airports are for the public good, not playthings for dirt bags.

"But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly."

Finally agreement on something.

Same goes for those bloody trucks cluttering up the highways.

Oh! and dont get me started on those pesky private drivers, crashing all over the place because its too expensive to fly, which is not safe anyway.

Trouble is, conclusively, CAsA have failed with their BIG R Philosophy, incompetence and maleficence to have the slightest affect on safety.

Safety in Australia has not improved one iota. Unlike the USA, who have an entirely different approach.

But I guess you would be heartened that CAsA's incompetence has brought the industry to its knees

Wont affect the number of aircraft flying over your house unfortunately, however most of them will be foreign.

What you should do is move to Bankstown or Archerfield or Moorrabin, wont be long before all you can complain about is the noise from the industrial estates.

Creampuff
7th Dec 2014, 06:40
Additionally CASA plays a key role in developing new regulations and amending existing regulations to take account of industry changes, emerging safety issues and meeting international standards and practices.This is the chronic structural problem in aviation regulation. I will try to explain the problem by analogy.

Imagine that the police are made responsible for the road toll and are given power to set the speed limit and the criteria to obtain a driver's licence, a car mechanic's licence and a roadworthy certificate. And the police get to charge money for the "service" of getting the necessary licences and certificates.

The police also have the power to revoke those licences and certificates.

However, the police do not have the expertise or the budget or the power to repair roads, build better roads or divided highways, install traffic lights or roundabouts etc.

(We could add to this (purely hypothetical) scenario some (purely hypothetical) trucking empires with influence in high places.)

In this scenario, what would we expect the police to do in response to road accidents? Simple really: Reduce the speed limit and make the criteria for obtaining a licence more stringent. Local councils not repairing the roads or the traffic lights, resulting in more accidents? Simple: Reduce the speed limit and make the criteria for obtaining a licence more stringent - lots more interactions with the regulator ($$ to the 'regulator') and lots more regulatory micro-management ($$ to the 'regulator'). Beef up the construction standards and inspection regimes of vehicles ($$ to the 'regulator'). All in the name of 'road safety'.

Note that the police don't do any analysis to find out the overall cost to society of all these responses, and whether the cost of, for example, repairing the pot holes and fixing the traffic lights, or building a dual, divided highway to replace the old road, is far outweighed by the benefit of having roads that can be used more efficiently by more people. That's not the job of the police.

This is precisely the place in which CASA has been put by successive governments. The current example, par exellance, is CASA's response to the Angel Flight accident, which is merely a subset of the classification of operations mess that has been dragging on for decades.

What would we expect CASA to do in response to Angel Flight accident? Simple really: Set increasingly higher standards for Angel Flights.

The fundamental structural problem is that CASA does not - because it cannot - weigh up all of the opportunity costs of setting standards. In the case of Angel Flights, for example, setting higher standards will reduce the number of pilots and aircraft that would otherwise have carried out thousands of Angel Flights without accident or incident. What is the cost of that to the community? CASA does not know and, more importantly, CASA doesn't care, because if some of those people die of their condition or in a road accident, that's not something for which CASA is responsible.

This is one of the many costs of the 'deal' done between governments and CASA. If CASA is going to be the patsy for anything that goes wrong in aviation, governments have to have plausible deniability of control over the 'independent' regulator. That's why Laborial Senators wave rhetorical fists rather than vote to make real changes to aviation-related legislation, and Ministers sing the praises of and reward whovever is prepared to be the chief patsy from time-to-time.

Sunfish
7th Dec 2014, 18:09
Brilliant analogy Creampuff!

thorn bird
7th Dec 2014, 19:14
Perfect Creamie, thank you:D:D

Kharon
7th Dec 2014, 20:13
First class – Creampuff, Bravo and thank you. The Tim Tams are in the big tin on the top shelf along side the very best of posts..:D..:ok:

Speaking of Patsy - have the unforgivable delays in report release and government response been induced by the 'department'. It's rumoured to be, all in an attempt to get the McComic boots under the ICAO table without the world realising just what they are having tea and biscuits with. At least one director of the FAA knows, but is he aware that the next McComic pantomime, starring Patsy is opening in Montreal...:suspect:

Sarcs
7th Dec 2014, 21:04
Yes indeed top post Creamy...:ok: Maybe should be FWD to the NXT party for consideration: Nick Xenophon to launch new party, hopes to press reset on politics (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nick-xenophon-to-launch-new-party-hopes-to-press-reset-on-politics-20141207-121zd8.html)

Perhaps between you and KC (& the AMROBA Band) you could draft up an Act amendment for an NX private members bill, as you appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet:
2015—Don’t Expect Changes in GA
The economic and political environment that we are in will prevent the reforms that are highlighted in the ASRR recommendations being properly implemented.
At last, the CASA Board has been announced thus meeting another point of the government’s aviation policy.
The government has also endorsed most of the ASRR recommendations.
However, the Federal government is being very conservative in making decisions, especially now elections and polls are working against them.
It is recognised by all participants in aviation that aviation is over-regulated even when compared to Europe.
GA is way over-regulated when compared to America, NZ and the ICAO SARPs.
Until regulatory imposed costs have been drastically reduced to enable young people to obtain pilot licences, then GA will languish. There are other costs associated with all training that needs to be contained.
Today, commercial jobs in GA for young pilots are few and far between. Private use of aircraft is too costly.
The private use of non-transport aircraft is declining but controlling ‘gophers’ are doing what their leaders direct which is not in the best interest of a safe and viable GA industry. Safe but no one is flying.
Since the beginning of the CAA/CASA era, post the Department moving from Melbourne, GA has become more regulated and increasingly hit with more and more costs.
Until government reviews the Civil Aviation Act, CASA will continue to have the same approach as now.
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA
must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important
consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers
and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as
far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of
aircraft.
And, the main object of the Act makes participants wonder whether their survival & jobs are ever considered.
3A Main object of this Act
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
With that anchor around your neck, the new CASA Board and DAS Skidmore are fairly restricted.
Change must come eventually but when? Next election?
Basically, the view of Parliament is that a regulatory framework that prevents aviation accidents, incidents and making no effect on the environment is the main reason for developing aviation regulations.
Until we have a Parliament that has a priority to develop Australian jobs and de-regulate GA to the same level as the ICAO SARPs, USA and even NZ, then sensible, workable regulatory reforms will not happen.
The ASRR Report, prepared by a Canadian, Englishman and an Australian, after consultation, gives some hope.
The foundations for job growth in general aviation and charter sectors is about enabling those that hold licences, delegations or authorisations issued by CASA to hold the same responsibilities as they hold in the USA FAR system.
To enable the creation of jobs, it is pressing that Australia’s future [aviation/aerospace] regulatory system must be completed within 2 years based on ASRR principles; using performance-based regulations (PBR), supported by all aviation safety compliance requirements documented in regulations/standards that receive Parliamentary scrutiny. That is, a return to “rule-of-law” principles.
Another reason that 2015 will not see any changes is that there is still no Ministerial Strategic Direction yet written to the CASA Board and CASA itself.
There are many jobs that can be created, especially in regional Australia, not only directly in aviation but in other associated activities, if the government’s strategic direction includes the ASRR & red tape reduction program.
The Minister’s strategic direction must require Australia & New Zealand to have common Australasian aviation standards, to enable better trade within a single aviation market. New Zealand aviation regulatory development is years ahead of Australia’s regulatory development.
Immediate adoption of the FAA system for GA, in a like manner as has been done in New Zealand, will see investment in GA because of long term certainty.
The longer government, government departments & its agencies procrastinates over aviation the longer it will be before positive action is taken to stabilise rural Australia.
A positive is the Department sets policy, Board will direct CASA, Government supports most of the ASRR Report.
However, a badly structured Civil Aviation Act is still fundamentally what is wrong with the current system.
{Reference: AMROBA Newsletter Vol11/issue12 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%2012.pub.pdf)}

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
7th Dec 2014, 22:40
:D:DAMROBA pretty much nail it again.

As things are, if the government withdrew VETS, foreign flying training would desert Australia as fast as a fart in a thunderstorm, and whats left?

A pitiful band of old farts, with decrepid old machinery, clinging by their finger nails waiting for the inevitable.

Going broke before they are picked off by CAsA.

Rumor has it that one of those old farts, a highly respected one, was recently picked off by the "Black widow", handmaiden of the infamous Wodger the Wabbit. Wonder what the old fart did to piss Wodger off? or was it payback.

dubbleyew eight
8th Dec 2014, 06:35
it always amazes me that the technology of aviation is so utterly reliable.
use the air at speeds faster than freeway driving and it performs admirably as a useable fluid.
the reactions are understood and can be accurately predicted.
machine can be built in a myriad of materials that manipulate the air reliably.

however it is a technology that isn't obvious.

what amazes me in Australia is that people who have no knowledge at all can set themselves up to control something that they have no understanding of.
they are even seen as competent airing policy that is nothing but unfounded fear.
it beggars belief that the entire system of aviation regulation is controlled by people who have no competent understanding of any of it.

the system of control we have in this country is one of the very reasons we have accidents.
if I can manage years of accident free flying over the 42 years since I started then any one can.
pity is that they have to do it illegally because the regulations don't work.
they have actually never worked but being unenforced no one noticed.

australia you take the cake for utter stupidity in government.

Soteria
8th Dec 2014, 12:18
Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development...
Ive been trying to tell everyone this for 2 months, but nobody would listen. Y'all thought I had been chewing beetlenut and smoking Kharon's bloody elephant pooh (dried out of course). So this is a tricky one, the wily old Skull actually has quite a high I.Q, smart bloke. The downside is his vile temper and inability to feel empathy for human beings. Although that complete **** Albo thinks Herr Skull is the best thing in aviation since the universe was created (or just appeared, whichever theory floats your boat), those of us who don't have our toenails hanging out of a Prime Ministers (or former Prime Ministers) anus know that the stoogie muncher set Australian aviation back a good 5 years. That's the reality. God help aviation worldwide if 'he who hates tautological rubbish' receives an anointing at the Montreal star chamber. Oh dear......

halfmanhalfbiscuit
8th Dec 2014, 16:47
So who will be next for an icao audit?

a) Canada

b) Australia.

thorn bird
8th Dec 2014, 19:36
Soteria,

"God help aviation worldwide if 'he who hates tautological rubbish' receives an anointing at the Montreal star chamber. Oh dear......"

Fortunately ICAO, much like the UN, is or has become a bit of a toothless tiger. Actually it might be a good place to put the screamer. He'd be in an environment where his ego would be continually stroked and his ability to damage aviation any further would be minimal.

The FAA, as I understand it, have already witnessed the Skull is full out of control screaming rage mode.

I'd love to have witnessed one of those.

A very senior FAA person did and described it as awesome.

I also understand the FAA provides a quite large slice of ICAO's funding.
The Skull may have to enroll in Anger Management classes because I doubt the USA will put up with his Jeckle and Hyde antics and they are well aware of the regulatory debacle he inflicted on Australia

"that the stoogie muncher set Australian aviation back a good 5 years".

A good bit father than that I fear.

General aviation in Australia is on its last gasp. Flying training is probably all that's left and only then with government subsidy which could be pulled at any time. I just cannot see foreign students coming here, unless they are looking for a passport rather than a pilots license.

Our costs are about to skyrocket thanks to part 61 and its associated gobbledygook, much like the death of our manufacturing industry, we are regulating ourselves out of business.

The airlines will fare little better. I suspect the limit has been reached where regulatory costs can just be added to the ticket price without affecting yield.

All the parasite industries that have sprung up that suck the life out of airlines are doing very well, but their host I'm afraid is starting to falter.

The airline industry I fear, is slowly morphing back to the two airline days, seat prices are rising and I think the punters are doing their sums and moving back to their cars.

Over regulation has become the biggest enemy of aviation in Australia and McComic presided over the implementation of the worst of it.

Sunnies post on Albo's speech illustrates just how ill informed the politicians are and how much they care.

Sarcs
8th Dec 2014, 23:54
First from Hitch...:D: Industry reacts to Forsyth Response (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/industry-reacts-to-forsyth-response) Some parts of which are repeats of industry identities commentary on the Govt response. However Hitch did get this from KC (& the AMROBA Band..;)):
Ken Cannane from the Aircraft Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) approached the response cautiously, offering a more tempered analysis.

"After closely studying the response, AMROBA supports what government proposes to do but are concerned that this political response is similar to past governments’ responses to the numerous aviation reviews and enquiries during the past 30 years.

"The government has placed ineffable trust in the CASA Board and CASA DAS Skidmore to take actions as directed by a new Minister’s 'Statement of Expectations'.

"Other recommendations have been left for CASA to consider. Our members are, were and will be looking for more permanent long term solutions that, in AMROBA’s opinion, can only be properly and permanently implemented if the Civil Aviation Act is amended to provide legislative support to many of the changes proposed in the ASRR Report.
"Without a commitment to permanent changes being included in the Civil Aviation Act, our members do not see the cycle of continual aviation reviews and enquiries stopping.

"Notwithstanding, AMROBA is fully committed, as we have done in the past, to working collaboratively with government and CASA to adopt and implement the endorsed recommendations of the ASRR report. In addition, we support the time table for regulatory change contained in the Report so jobs can be created, especially in general aviation." Next is Phelan with this headline...:D:D - Go easy on the euphoria (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/12/08/go-easy-on-the-euphoria/)


Input from general aviation identities isn’t exactly brimming with relief at the government’s response to the ASRR Panel’s detailed study and recommendations – and it’s easy to understand why. Here’s a comment from veteran airport, charter and training operator Sandy Reith, who no longer operates an aviation business and has no personal axe to grind.

Sandy is down to just one private aeroplane (although a remarkable one to be sure) but still cares about what is and what is not happening.

http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Wren-1.jpg (http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Wren-1.jpg)

The letter was originally from Sandy to former AOPA Chair Phillip Reiss in response to Phillip’s circular to AOPA members, and was also widely circulated to interested parties including the media. It reminds us that a great deal more needs to happen before all that mistrust can be expected to start dissolving.

Phillip,
I am sure that we are all gratified that at least, and at last, General Aviation industry ills have gained some recognition. Unfortunately the mooted remedies will fade away, whiteanted, delayed and ultimately lost from memory except for the few of us who have watched with dismay the destruction of what should be a vibrant and useful Australian industry. Younger GA participants could not imagine the dynamic growth of GA in the thirty years to, say, 1990.

The government’s response is full of ‘maybes’, ‘lots of work to assess’, ‘if resources can be found’, ‘may take some time’, ‘must check with ICAO’, ‘new board and CEO need to formulate strategies’ etc etc ad nauseam. Take as an example the agreement to consider the ASIC problem, the report finishes talking about just a possible change but in reality keeping this card. Thus the ‘agree in principle’ CASA modus operandi is writ large throughout the document. Soft soap from the experts.

Not a word about deleting the requirement for an AIr Operator Certificate for flying training, mentioned for further consideration by the Panel but not given as a recommendation. This would be probably the only measure that could quickly reinvigorate training. Flying training is the first and most urgent segment of GA that needs to be unshackled from the exceptionally onerous and expensive AOC system. In the USA some 70% of pilots are trained by individual instructors. VH (ie. mainstream GA aircraft) flying schools are now the rarest of animals, even the Nation’s capital lost its last school four years ago. This is a National disgrace. Nearly 400,000 Canberrans, of the wealthiest demographic and most influential have no flying school. Airline pilots are now on the 457 visa list.

The new CEO has a command pyramid type background, and no ‘coal face’ GA business experience. Minister Truss did nothing to assist GA when he was the Minister in the Howard government. I took a deputation to Mr Truss regarding reform during that time. Instead of listening to our suggested growth plans, he cut short our (concise) presentation and defended the decline in VH registered GA as being balanced with the growth in RAAus below 600 kg category. The low weight category in present form is extremely poor policy, encouraging thousands of flyers into, in many cases, unsuitable light weight aircraft hard up against the thoroughly unrealistic gross weight limit of 600 kg. That is often the combination of two people, engine, propellor and fuel and oil leaving not much for an airframe fit for purpose.

Unless the Minister makes fairly specific directions and imposes time limits, then the CASA juggernaut will roll on. Can anyone really believe that the authoritarian and make work CASA system and culture will now be turned into an enlightened and helpful regulator? I fully agree with your concerns in this regard. If real reforms were carried out half the CASA staff would be redundant, they know this better than anyone. Most of their work could be tendered out for a fraction of present cost, NZ CAA would be a prime contender.

What is it now? Twenty five years, hundreds of $ millions and still they have not finished the rule re-write. The system is broken and the Board, without Ministerial Direction and backup, will be impotent.

With respect, there is actually no firm result and little hope of timely meaningful reform. Platitudes and window dressing is about all we really have, until and unless Parliament finds the willpower and demands action. This will not happen unless we achieve the sympathetic attention of Federal MP’s. I have suggested that AOPA run a petition, one measure that might gain publicity. I would appreciate an answer or acknowledgment of that email.

Regards,

Sandy Reith

ProAviation invites readers to contribute similar summaries on this issue, which we would propose to publish as opinion at the foot of this article. They should be restrained, factual, ASRR-relevant and free from vituperation, and we offer the option of identifying writers or not, according to their preference. Please address them to [email protected]
And while Proaviation was filing the above, some very ASRR – relevant comment arrived in a media release from Ken Cannane at AMROBA:

GOVERNMENT AVIATION RESPONSE IS OPEN-ENDED
The Aviation Maintenance Repair & Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) welcomes the government making public its response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) Report and the announcement of the remaining members of CASA’s Board.

The government has agreed to 20 of the 37 recommendations; agreed in-principle to eleven more, noted five and rejected one.

However, there is a real urgency today to move from words to outcomes for industry than at any time during the past three decades. Many of the non-airline sectors are basically in recession awaiting job creation opportunities.

After closely studying the response, AMROBA supports what government proposes to do but are concerned that this political response is similar to past governments’ responses to the numerous aviation reviews & enquiries during the past 30 years.

The government has placed ineffable trust in the CASA Board & CASA DAS Skidmore to take actions as directed by a new Minister’s “Statement of Expectations”.

Other recommendations have been left for CASA to consider. Our members are, were and will be looking for more permanent long term solutions that, in AMROBA’s opinion, can only be properly and permanently implemented if the Civil Aviation Act is amended to provide legislative support to many of the changes proposed in the ASRR Report.

Without a commitment to permanent changes being included in the Civil Aviation Act, our members do not see the cycle of continual aviation reviews and enquiries stopping.

Notwithstanding, AMROBA is fully committed, as we have done in the past, to working collaboratively with government and CASA to adopt and implement the endorsed recommendations of the ASRR report. In addition, we support the time table for regulatory change contained in the Report so jobs can be created, especially in general aviation.

Contact Person Ken Cannane, AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715; Mobile: 0408029329; Website: AMROBA - Safety all around | Australia's aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul industry (http://www.amroba.org.au) Hmm...PP is kind of leaving himself open there...:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
9th Dec 2014, 07:13
Unfortunately possums, the Ministers "Statement Of Expectations" of CASA will be written by Mr. Mrdak and CASA itself, thus neatly negating any possibility of reform.

I have it in my mind to talk to one or Two MP's and Senators I know plus One ex-PM if I can sufficiently distract him into being candid. My suspicion now is that private and general Aviation is equated with terrorism. We are to be killed off as "too dangerous".

CASAs solution to this is to regulate every aviation institution as if it were an airline thus giving effect to the "only airlines and RAAF" limitation on flying.

I come back again to the need for an Aviation enthusiasts political party targeting marginal Senate seats nothing else will get the politicians attention.

A Petition to Parliament?? Are you kidding? What a waste of time!

A more useful idea would be to develop a questionnaire on aviation and send it to every member of parliament and the Senate and every candidate in future.

To put that another way, the time for "sweet reason" is over. It ended with the governments lukewarm non-response to the review and the appointment of a superannuated doddering complaisant RAAF officer to preside over the next phase of our destruction.

To put that another way, fight or you are going to go under. Take lessons from the CFMEU.

For a start, if there were an industry association with any guts, call for a complete GA and recreational aviation boycott of the Avalon Exhibition next year .

Man the lifejackets
9th Dec 2014, 11:01
i know nothing abut aviation but judging by the present state - there will be no future - you cannot have people who are condemned by their peers running a successful circus.

And the problem for them is - the evidence is in and even a layman knows it

where are the incorruptible, the honest?

Kharon
9th Dec 2014, 19:52
Sarcs – "Hmm...PP is kind of leaving himself open there.

I think Paul is like many of us; and simply cannot comprehend why the indefensible, irrefutable, independently provided evidence is being treated as something nothing. The jury has returned a guilty verdict yet the culprits are still at large, fancy free and continuing their good works – all in the name of safety, you understand

Perhaps it's the 'new' law; commit any crime you like and toddle off, Scot free with a gold plated watch at the end of your shift. Those dragged up in front of ICAC must be breathing a sigh of relief, for no matter what you do, you're safe. Oh, sorry, it appears that only applies to a very select few of those who must be protected, lest the unpleasant truth of carefully concealed 'bigger' secrets are revealed. Sad and shameful, but there sits the evidence in full public view and no one will lift a finger or even break wind to sort out the unholy mess. What an indictment...:mad:.

Toot toot...

Frank Arouet
9th Dec 2014, 20:45
Labor Constituents have the option of voting for a plethora of alternative Party's if the mob offered up fail to meet their expectations. The Greens for example. Few will ever vote for the conservatives while there is an alternative who will probably give preferences to them anyway and their protest vote is heard.

LNP Constituents do not have that luxury. Time after time Pauline Hanson/ Palmer types crop up and amount to nothing in The House of Representatives. The Senators are mainly viewed as an impediment to progress and I believe this may be sorted out before the next elections which WILL be a DD for sure.


The Nationals will be having meetings in telephone box's shortly and they know it. They are in trouble in the bush and if it weren't for a couple of performers, and a couple of independent ex Nationals, people in the rural areas would be voiceless. They have been let down badly. Truss is a poor leader and a worse Deputy Prime Minister. Abbott could do better and I believe he knows it. GA needs rural representation.

It's worth the time to advise every National MP that you, if you are a Constituent, do not intend to vote for them or anyone who preferences them. A "donkey vote" is the same as giving Labor the vote so the threat has to be prove to us you are up to the job or we vote Labor. What you actually do is your business as it should be, but the threat must be believable. The list follows.

The Nationals > Our Team > The Nationals Parliamentary Team (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/TheNationalsParliamentaryTeam.aspx)

Frank Arouet
9th Dec 2014, 20:55
The aviation industry has to lobby for a Minister for Aviation.


We don't have one now.

Up-into-the-air
9th Dec 2014, 22:58
Frank, here is the Nationals Federal management committee:

Federal Management Committee



Christine Ferguson - Federal President, The Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#president)
Scott Mitchell - Federal Director of The Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#director)
John Tanner - Immediate Past Federal President, The Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#JohnTanner)
Dexter Davies - Senior Vice-President of The Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#Vice-President)
Ann McKenzie - Federal Secretary of The Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#secretary)
Hon John Sharp ADFM FCIT - Federal Treasurer of The Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#treasurer)
Terry Anne Cranwell - President of the Women's Federal Council (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#womens)
Ruby Cameron - Federal President of The Young Nationals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#young)
Emma Watts - Chair, Policy Standing Committee (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#policy)
Hon Niall Blair MLC - President of The Nationals New South Wales (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#nsw)
Gary Spence - Vice-President of the Liberal National Party of Queensland (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#qld)
Peter Schwarz - President of The Nationals Victoria (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#vic)
Colin De Grussa - President of The Nationals Western Australia (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#WA)
Grantley Siviour- President of The Nationals South Australia (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#SA)
Ross Connolly - President of the Country Liberals (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/FederalManagementCommittee.aspx#nt)

bilbert
10th Dec 2014, 02:59
Err,, how about "Aviation Enthusiasts Party" for the senate?

Sarcs
10th Dec 2014, 04:37
Bilbie - "Err,, how about "Aviation Enthusiasts Party" for the senate?"

How about joining Nick's mob...;)
It's time for politics, done differently.
Good Morning.
I wanted to personally write to you today to let you know about my plan (http://nickxenophongroup.createsend1.com/t/d-l-ydjriry-khtjukc-s/) to try and take federal politics in a new direction.
The last two weeks in Federal Parliament have been further proof of how toxic and gridlocked politics has become in our nation.
That's why I'm sticking my neck out to form the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), a new national political movement that will run candidates in every state and territory at the next federal election.
NXT is all about politics, done differently.
The major parties have turned politics into an ideological arms race.
NXT is not about left or right, it is about right or wrong.
You have been of invaluable help to me in the past. I couldn't have gotten across the line without you.
Now I need your help to be part of a new, national, common-sense approach to solving the challenges our country faces.
I would encourage you to be a part of this by becoming a founding supporter member of NXT.
If you have friends or family that may be interested in being part of this, please also let them know.
If they live interstate that’s even better, because the plan is to take NXT national.
This is our chance to build a team that will bring some balance, civility and common-sense back to Australian politics.
With best wishes


http://i1.createsend1.com/ei/d/44/31E/67D/csimport/NXBlackSigemailNewsletter_083956.073526.png



Become a founding member of NXT
When you become a founding supporter member of NXT you will be a part of a new, centrist, common-sense voice in Australian politics.
Your membership fee will help fund the day-to-day operation of NXT and ensure we have the resources to make a real difference.
You will also receive regular updates on key issues and have the opportunity to provide feedback on our policies and direction at member forums.

Annual membership fees are $50 per person, or $75 per couple. Concession holder fees are $25 per person, or $37.50 per couple.

And to thank you for your past support, we'll also extend your membership period for an extra 12 months, with our compliments.

To become a Supporter Member, click here. (http://nickxenophongroup.createsend1.com/t/d-l-ydjriry-khtjukc-g/)


And Nick's current feelings on the gov't response to the ASRR etc. - Aviation safety failure (http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/aviation-safety-failure/) :D:D:

"...Senator Xenophon said the Government was yet to act on the findings of the Senate report, and criticised the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report, launched last November and completed in June, as “a missed opportunity for reform"...”

While on the rare subject of politics & aviation it would appear the Miniscule has briefly made an appearance back in Cantberra...:rolleyes::
New Aviation Industry Consultative Council takes flight

Media Release
WT257/2014
10 December 2014




Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has established the Aviation Industry Consultative Council—providing the aviation sector with a direct voice to the Minister and the Australian Government.

Chairing the first meeting in Canberra today, Mr Truss said the Council is dedicated to aviation matters and will be a valuable forum for discussion between the industry and Government.

“Aviation is central to the Australian economy—from domestic and international tourism, to business and work-related travel, family reunions and medical emergencies; so the Australian Government is committed to ensuring aviation's many voices are heard,” Mr Truss said.

“Our government has already initiated and responded to the landmark Aviation Safety Regulation Review, we have reformed the Qantas Sale Act, abolished the carbon tax on aviation fuel, revived the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme and ended half-a-century of dithering by locking-in Badgerys Creek as the site for a dedicated Western Sydney airport.

“But there is more to do in this ‘aero-space’ and we welcome ideas and insights from industry. The Council will act as an advisory body tackling high level strategic issues, but it is not a decision-making entity.

“The Council is made up of 18 members from across the aviation sector (see ‘Attachment A’ below), providing a broad range of perspectives, including representatives from airlines, airports, manufacturing, maintenance and flight training sectors.”

At today's inaugural Council meeting, members highlighted issues of concern to the industry, notably opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens, challenges in regional aviation, the need to revitalise the General Aviation Industry Action Agenda, aviation workforce skills and implementation of the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.

These will be considered further as part of the future work program for the Council.
Mr Truss also introduced the newly appointed Director of Aviation Safety, Air Vice-Marshal (Ret'd) Mark Skidmore AM, to the Council. The Council will meet twice a year, or as required, and will complement other industry forums, not compete with them.
“I am pleased to be Chairing this new Aviation Industry Consultative Council and working side-by-side with industry to build a better future for Australian aviation,” Mr Truss said.

Attachment A
Aviation Industry Consultative Council membership

Mr Stephen Goodwin* - National Chairman - Australian Airports Association
Mr Jim Davis - Chairman - Regional Aviation Association of Australia
Mr Martin Laverty - CEO - Royal Flying Doctor Service
Mr Alan Joyce* - CEO - Qantas
Mr Michael Monck - President - Recreational Aircraft Australia
Mr John Borghetti* - CEO - Virgin Australia
Mr David Boundy - Chairman - Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia
Mr Mike Close - President - Air Sport Australia Confederation
Mr Barry Abrams - Executive Director - Board of Airline Representatives of Australia
Mr Ken Cannane - Executive Director - Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
Mr Philip Reiss - Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
Mr Peter Pallot - CEO - Sunshine Coast Airport
Mr John Patterson - Executive Director - Australian Mayoral Aviation Council
Mr Tony Brand - Director - Horsham Aviation Services
Mr Pine Pienaar - CEO - Flight Training Adelaide
Mr Allan Brooks* - President - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
Ms Marj Davis OAM* - Immediate Past Pres. - Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia
Mr Darryl Taylor* - Managing Director - Tasmanian Helicopters

Not present at the first meeting. Mr Joyce, Mr Borghetti and Mr Goodwin nominated alternative representatives who took part in the meeting. While your there Miniscule how about putting Beaker out of his misery...:E

MTF...:ok:

Frank Arouet
10th Dec 2014, 05:49
UITA. It's probably gone over most heads the name of the Federal Treasurer of The nationals. Shouldn't say any more.


Sarcs. So we now have another acronym to memorize. (ICC). Groan! Maybe they'll recommend another inquiry or review, to review the review, before the recommendations of the last review gets implemented.


I wish Senator X well. unfortunately I'm too old and tired of it all now. I'm going sailing.

Sarcs
10th Dec 2014, 07:02
Sarcs. So we now have another acronym to memorize. (ICC). Groan! Actually it is AICC Frank but who cares about semantics...:E

Hitch has fired up this arvo 1st giving us a summary on the Miniscule missive - New Consultative Council meets in Canberra (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/new-consultative-council-meets-in-canberra) :D

But then Hitch dares to go - where other aviation journalists from the MSM dare not go - with an opinion piece on the Gov't response to the Forsyth Report:

A Perspective on the Forsyth Response (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/a-perspective-on-the-forsyth-report)

10 Dec 2014
by Steve Hitchen


Comment

When I first wrote the words "The Forsyth Report", it sounded scarily like the title to a Robert Ludlum novel. I imagined a Matt Damon-like hero running through the cobbled streets of an eastern European city whilst shadowy gunmen who look like Dolph Lundgren charge after him in black Mercedes saloons; their misson to stop him making the contents of the covert Forsyth Report known to benevolent power brokers high in the US government.

There might even be a late-night dash from Washington to Europe in a Legacy 500 or Citation X+ involved.

And for a while there, between June and December, it seemed like my little fantasy was not that far-fetched, provided you took away Damon and Lundgren. Although the Forsyth Report was made public in June, it was another six months or so before the government released their response. That was plenty of time for the aviation community's optimism to erode and fertilise the growth of conspiracy theories that had many filing the Forsyth Report away under the heading "Aviation White Paper".

Some people, such as me, were expecting a complete white-wash of the whole affair presented to parliament on the last sitting day of the year in a dump-and-run style, similar to a late Friday Show Cause Notice. In fact, although it was very late in the parliamentary year, the response was far from a white-wash, it was more like stripping off the paint to expose the true structure beneath.

The government's response recognises the truth in what aviation's town criers have been shouting for years: aviation regulation needs a overhaul badly to repair the damage of neglect and a corrosive attitude towards aviation. For the first time in many years, the government and the industry are at last on the same page, and work on the restoration can now begin in earnest.

So what is it in the Forsyth Response (a Ludlum sequel?) that gives us the confidence that CAVOK days lie ahead for aviation in Australia? It's not the full 37 recommendations, or that the government has agreed outright with 20 of them; for aviation to start healing, the government needed to agree to only seven. They are (in precis):

(6) CASA board to exercise full governance control
(14) CASA to change regulatory philosophy to build a relationship with industry
(17) CASA to publish and demonstrates a "just" culture
(18) CASA to reintroduce use of discretion
(24) CASA to provide full disclosure at audit exit briefings
(25) CASA to introduce graded Non-conformance Notices based on the level of seriousness of the offence
(26) CASA to ensure audit consistency.

It is the government's agreement to these seven recommendations (No.18 in-principle) that enables us to declare the entire review panel, report and response process and complete success for aviation. None of the others will have an impact on the aviation community as much as these seven will. Without agreement to these, the other 30 were a waste of printer's ink.
For it is these seven that together exhibit the basic concepts of fairness, transparency and respect that the aviation community longs for. All the other recommendations are will be nice if we can get them, but they are peripherals. Aviation needs these central seven in order for the Forsyth Report to have any meaning whatsoever. Think about it. If these recommendations were missing from the report when it was released in June, would we have hailed it heartily as we did?

But, I am perhaps putting aviation a bit further down the recovery road that it really is. The government has at this stage only agreed; it still has to implement. There are some industry commentators who are crying for changes to the Civil Aviation Act to force these reforms to be permanently enshrined so we don't have to keep reviewing, writing, rewriting and lobbying to ask for the same reforms year after year.

Of the "peripheral" recommendations, there are another eight that stand to make substantial improvements to aviation:

(8) CASA to adopt a code of values
(15) CASA to continue to indemnify delegates
(21) CASA to move to client-oriented outcomes
(28) CASA to establish risk-management hierarchy and base oversight on risk levels
(30) CASA to change to a three-tiered system of regulation, where the third tier is in plain English
(35) CASA to delegate DAMEs to issue medical certificates where the standard is met first time
(36) Government to change regulations so Aviation Security Identification cards are needed only for Security Restricted Areas.

In these recommendations we have day-to-day changes that stand to restore faith in CASA's ability to manage their own operations, and a recognition that they exist to service a community external to Aviation House. In sum, they tell us that CASA will recognise the impact of what they do on stakeholders.

Recommendation 30 got the loudest applause from me because it means regulations would be written so that we can all understand them, not just the CASA Office of Legal Services. The sting comes in the wording of the government's response, where it adds a little caveat that says "CASA ... will continue to ensure new regulations and instruments adhere to Commonwealth legal drafting practices ...". It is these very practices that the industry has trouble with! Scratch that recommendation.

Let's face it: 35 and 36 are really no-brainers, but despite persistant lobbying we've failed to get either. The DAME medical is particularly galling because two preceeding CASA bosses, Bruce Byron and John McCormick, both promised to make this happen, and yet in neither case did it happen. How was this possible that person at the top could not force change on their own organisation? Having the DAME medical as a Forsyth recommendation does not etch it on a tablet; there is clearly resistance from within.

The odd one out is recommendation 36. ASICs have nothing to do with safety or CASA. ASICs are demanded by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and are a security issue. However, the ASRR panel clearly had so many submissions during their inquiry that it became impossible for them to ignore it. Getting this up would be a huge win for aviation, but the chances are not good; it has to overcome the inherent resistance in goverment to relaxing security measures of any nature.

It is also true to say that all of the recommendations are going to meet resistance on sme level. The first challenge, that of getting official recognition that reform is needed, has been met, but the path to change goes through a gauntlet of hardened bureaucrats determined to alter the reform recipe into something that they believe the aviation community should just shut up and swallow.

For the ASRR to realise its raison d'etre in full, it needs the government, the new broom in CASA and the aviation community as a whole need to get just as hard-headed as the bureaucrats and insist, insist, insist.

The driving force behind this insistence may be the new Aviation Industry Consultative Council that met in Canberra for the first time this week. With representatives from all sectors of aviation, including GA, the AICC may be the last tumbler in the combination that is needed to crack open a new future for the aviation industry. Well done Hitch hats off for you...:D:D;)

MTF...:ok:

Creampuff
10th Dec 2014, 09:12
Mr Hitchen is probably a very nice person with very good intentions, but he has, like so many commentators on aviation regulation, no clue on the subject. He lost me here:(6) CASA board to exercise full governance controlI do take my hat off to successive governments at the masterful way in which they've scammed punters into believing that the CASA board makes a difference. However, I have difficulty in accepting that anyone who presumes to claim a modicum of knowledge or understanding of the recent (two decades or so) history of aviation regulation or the role of the CASA board can reasonably believe that the CASA board has made and will make a difference.

But I'm always prepared to stand corrected. Can anyone walk me through what s/he considers the CASA Board will do to change things?

An example: A CASA delegate has decided that pilots with CVD who can't pass either of the two prescribed colour vision tests, or the CAD test, are not allowed to have a particlar kind of medical certificate.

What do people think the CASA Board can do about that decision?

What, precisely?

I'm not interested in waffly Jeff-Boyd-and-Chuck-Yeager-on-the-Board-will-save-the-world-of-aviation crap (despite the fact that others, like me, may have enormous respect for both.)

Tell me what the Board does, in fact, step-by-step, to change the decision.

Soteria
10th Dec 2014, 11:13
Creamy = :D:D:D
Exactly as I expected, not one response to Creampuff's challenge!! The CASA Board to date, has and will always, do sweet FA. Their role is solely to add another layer of protection to the Miniscules protective garrison to ensure neither he, nor his boss of the day the PM, are tarnished by some rogue aviation zealot armed with an SMS manual and a pilots licence shouting out some ritualistic fundamentalist safety prayer! Heaven forbid!
No, the Board are always people who have earned a reward for some good deed they have done for a bureaucratic mate, somewhere. They are people who like to earn 6 figures for one months work per year, and usually they sit on around 3 or 4 different Boards. So you be the judge as to what their main concerns are. The trough dwelling cardboard statue like Board members that have traditionally graced CASA's hallways are about as useful as a bad case of thrush.

Creampuff, you are very naughty setting a challenge that simply can't be met. Something a little easier next time, please?

Sunfish
10th Dec 2014, 18:34
I note that the President of the SAAA is the only name missing from the consultative council. That means that Experimental is the next group to get the chop after CASA has finished digesting Jabiru and the RAA.

However the idea of "consulting" with CASA is like the Lamb "consulting" the wolf.

Kharon
10th Dec 2014, 18:49
'Twas a sombre start to BRB last evening: item first, Bill Whitworth (Whitworth Aviation) has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind with a CASA FOI and failed his MECIR with all the associated trimmings. The number of IFR pilots Bill has trained and tested over a 40 (ish) year career must be in the many, many hundreds and I'd expect he would have struggled through some 50 or 60 ME IR 'proficiency' checks an equal number of Instructor rating renewals and a fair few revalidation of ATO delegations, not to mention Chief Pilot approvals etc. Seems this is of no value – whatsoever; a technical, contentious fail is all that's needed. Seems we have seen this stunt pulled before at Bankstown, by the same crew. There are now some fairly hefty scalps on the managers belt, a couple escaped but not without bending the knee and kissing some ass. Another great contribution to aviation safety made by the leading lights. Seems there is no satisfying the rapacious appetite for decimating the ranks of senior, experienced C&T pilots. No doubt the CASA spawned FTE will be taking over as they leave CASA, to "return to industry". A little more to follow on this outrageous episode, as they say.

- - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ - - -- - - - - - - - -

Lighter topics followed, the evening kicked off with a 'guest' speaker who has, literally, a back room piled with full document boxes, all related to secondary airports and the associated 'development' thereof, Bankstown being the focus. Now, I walked home scratching my head, for it was quite a story. In fact, I'm still trying to take it all in, which is why I thought it was worth a twiddle on Pprune. One thing was clear enough though, it would take ICAC (or similar) quite a while to untangle the 'corporate' side, which is murky and salted with tales of unpaid stamp duty and large sums of money slipping through the cracks. Too much for my un-corporate wooden head, but the solid logic and first class research impressed.

The part that intrigued me was the 'joining of the dots'. The picture I got was not one of 'conspiracy': being a follower of the duck up creed, the sceptic was to the fore, ready to decry the smallest chink or fluffy assumption. I'll leave it up to you, here are the salient details offered as a series of potted questions:-

(i) Where in the Sydney basin would be an ideal place for a large property development? The rider being, which council is developing 'river bank' areas as desirable life style projects.

(ii) Where in the Sydney basin is there a large open area suitable for development at a knock down price?

Clearly a no-brainer – Bankstown airport. Next came a curly question to which extensive research provided an answer.

(iii) Where has the most odious of CASA action against industry occurred?, the rider being which part of the aerodrome has been most affected?

Again, no-brainer; Bankstown, under Chambers has become a kill zone, 3:1 the ratio compared to the least mauled secondary airport.

(iv) Where have the most contentious brawls related to lease and rent agreements emanated? Same answer once again.

(v) Which airport has actually felt the weight of large trucks bearing fill and 'dozers to level it off. Same answer once again.

(vi) Who was responsible for 'tweeking' the rules to accommodate the sale of our secondary airports, who was running the sell off show and who has extensive influence within the infrastructure governing 'airports'. Well, it seems the Murky Machiavellian ticks all boxes.

I just don't know – it all makes sense in a weird way. I can see why the man flogging off the assets would finesse the rules to suit those who purchased the land with a view to development. I can even just about swallow a line that 'assistance' to reduce the number of movements and operations at airports to support a case for closing the now useless aerodromes was on offer. I can even manage the logic that CASA has been used to target Bankstown operators making life as miserable and difficult as possible. A five year plan is routine for this scale of operation, but to take over an airport by stealth, 'discourage' operators ,render it useless and build on it, well it's possible. The tail end of the 'briefing' listed the statutes, rules, regulations and tenets of decency which have been treated with contempt and manipulated, it is extensive.

Just dunno what to make of it all; it's a working hypothesis and certainly food for thought, but, has it got legs?.

Anyway: FWIW - Handing over....:confused:.

Don't shoot the messenger, I just thought it was worth airing the topic. BRB 50/50 spilt, dead even and no discussion afterwards. That, stand alone is remarkable, no doubt it will keep till next time.

Toot toot...:ok:

Frank Arouet
10th Dec 2014, 22:18
Why do I get an illuminating and disturbing image of names with commonality of association flashing in my mind?

tipsy2
10th Dec 2014, 22:41
Kharon, The history of Hoxton Park fits as well.

Tipsy

Sarcs
10th Dec 2014, 23:57
'Twas a sombre start to BRB last evening: item first, Bill Whitworth (Whitworth Aviation) has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind with a CASA FOI and failed his MECIR with all the associated trimmings. Most disturbing indeed - I once had the upmost respect for that FOI in question,especially after completing and passing a MECIR renewal where I was hopelessly out of IFR currency and no extra funds to do a pre-test flight.

However now I have heard of at least two similar tales about this FOI & former ATO...:{ The first was probably one of the worst examples of FF pilot embuggerance that I have ever had cause to review - & that was before this FOI was coerced across to the dark side and into Wodger's warren...:=:= (i) Where in the Sydney basin would be an ideal place for a large property development? The rider being, which council is developing 'river bank' areas as desirable life style projects.

(ii) Where in the Sydney basin is there a large open area suitable for development at a knock down price?

Clearly a no-brainer – Bankstown airport. Next came a curly question to which extensive research provided an answer.

(iii) Where has the most odious of CASA action against industry occurred?, the rider being which part of the aerodrome has been most affected?

Again, no-brainer; Bankstown, under Chambers has become a kill zone, 3:1 the ratio compared to the least mauled secondary airport.

(iv) Where have the most contentious brawls related to lease and rent agreements emanated? Same answer once again.

(v) Which airport has actually felt the weight of large trucks bearing fill and 'dozers to level it off. Same answer once again.

(vi) Who was responsible for 'tweeking' the rules to accommodate the sale of our secondary airports, who was running the sell off show and who has extensive influence within the infrastructure governing 'airports'. Well, it seems the Murky Machiavellian ticks all boxes.
Hmm...wish I could have made it to the BRB I have vast volumes of information that could IMO have swung the consensus to at least 60/40 for M&M being the root of all evils for the woes of the IOS/MaM...:ugh:

Back at post #1550 (http://www.pprune.org/8756556-post1550.html) I highlighted a speech made by M&M at the recent AAA convention which was also belatedly reported on (regurgitated) by MMSM Steve - Mrdak stresses need to protect airspace from residential projects (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mrdak-stresses-need-to-protect-airspace-from-residential-projects/story-e6frg95x-1227137381906)
Infrastructure Department secretary Mike Mrdak was among those who emphasised the need to protect airspace around airports, describing it as one of the critical areas of future public policy.

“Having been through the experience of trying to get a new airport through, I think it’s very important that we as an industry talk a lot about why it’s so important to protect our existing assets,’’ he said.

“Safeguarding our airports from inappropriate development around them which will have the potential to constrain the growth of our airports, I
think, is a key fundamental planning area for reform in Australia.

“And this will become a more intense and difficult challenge as our major cities grow.’’

Mr Mrdak said that as aviation demand expanded and major cities doubled in size by the middle of the century, the issue of co-ordinated planning was assuming *increasing importance.

“It is very vital that airport planning take into account the *development around airports but also that airport planning be rigorously transparent,” he said.

“But just as important is that … planning by state and local *governments take account of airports, their role and value to the community.

“Developments around airports and under flight paths can constrain operations, either directly, where they conflict with the safety or airport operations, or indirectly where they lead to public pressure to change flight paths or impose on increasing restrictions on operations.’’

The infrastructure head said good planning was essential to protect the amenity of residents near airports,

He said every effort should be made to avoid placing residential developments in areas “which are or will be affected by significant noise’’, or at the very least making sure people understood clearly what they were dealing with when an airport introduced changes.

He recognised this was a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use their own jurisdictions.

“But as we know, if we don’t protect our long-term assets, then we aren’t going to meet our growth challenge.’’ However - as he has done many times in the past - that speech was carefully crafted so that there was never any mention of major city Secondary Airports; nor does he mention any consultation with the tenants or users of these airports...:ugh::
Mr Mrdak said proscribed airspace was defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and any building penetrating it *required commonwealth regulatory approval informed by advice from CASA, Airservices and the industry.

“If our advice is that if the construction activity will reduce safety or efficiency for an airport, we cannot and will not approve it,’’ he said.
“I’m afraid it’s going to be that simple and we have to be much more determined on our position on these matters.

“And I know this is becoming a much more resource-intensive task for our major airport operators and it can be an unwelcome distraction, but if we don’t protect that airspace now, we will in the long term come to rue our failure to do so.

“I think it’s one of the most important tasks government and the industry must work on together.’’

The closest thing so far is a National Airports Safeguarding Framework set up in 2012 to protect airspace near airports.

The infrastructure secretary said there had been some progress with the framework, which now included guidelines for planners on particular issues such as aircraft noise, hazards, wildlife strikes, lighting distractions and windshear.

“There are further guidelines under development but implementation, unfortunately, remains patchy across jurisdictions,’’ Fascinating that certain parts of the M&M pretty much parroted statements he made back in 2011 (yes over three years ago..:rolleyes:) at the Sup Estimates:
Mr Mrdak: This is an area of growing concern for us, as the department acknowledged before the dinner break. Mr Russell, Mr McCormick and I, as the aviation policy group, which is the CEOs of the aviation agencies, have discussed this issue at length. We have recognised the need to improve the processes involved in judging and advising. Also in relation to the point you raised, to some degree the aviation industry has worked hard to accommodate in the past some of these breaches of services. I think we have reached the point where we believe we can no longer do that. Hence there is some work happening at the moment where we have established a group of officers from our respective departments and agencies which is now working on a much more robust approach to, firstly, identifying potential breaches. As you know there are regulations under the Airports Act which provide for protection of prescribed airspace. How do we better identify those, how do we ensure that local and state governments are aware of it and how do we as the agencies get together much more effectively to make sure that those breaches of the services are no longer accommodated in the way that they have been?
This was in response to a Senator Fawcett line of inquiry, this was also the 1st appearance by DF and officially announced the new Senator's keen interest in all things aeronautical - starting with Aviation & Airports:
Senator FAWCETT: I want to confirm whether the department still acts on behalf of the Commonwealth in leases of airports?

Mr Mrdak: Yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Section 9.2 of the lease talks about maintenance of runways and pavements:

The lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for safe access by air transport to a standard no less than the standard at the commencement of the lease.

Why then at Bankstown Airport has the airport operator ripped up the cross-runway, which is the only north-south runway available to light operators in the area, closed taxiways, reduced the number of runways by nearly three-quarters and moved the purpose-built compass wing area to a part of the tarmac that has ferrous material in it, which makes it not suitable, and also reduced significantly the area available for rotary wing training operations by moving it from the south to the north side of the runways?

Mr Doherty: The decommissioning of the cross-runway at Bankstown occurred in March 2005. It was identified in the master plan as a change of the layout of the aeronautics and that is provided for in the Airports Act. The new master plan was approved in 2005, so that was the basis for the action that then followed.

Senator FAWCETT: The changes were also opposed by operators at the airfield and MOPS 139 requires operators be consulted. Also with the cross-runway, particularly where there is ab initio training involved which there is—in fact the minister just in the last 12 months has reported the number of training operations at Bankstown is increasing—means the useability factor for a runway and cross-wing operations in particular should be 99.5 per cent. Was it actually established prior to that plan being approved and were the opinions of the users taken into account? The users certainly still believe that whilst they put forward contrary positions they were not considered nor in fact available publicly to see who opposed it.

Mr Doherty: I can only speak broadly. I understand that there were submissions from two of the tenants at the time which were taken into account and, I think before the decision was made, advice was sought from both CASA and Airservices. The essential advice was that the cross-runway was used very rarely, that it was inappropriate to use it while the main parallel runway system was in operation and the requirement to use the cross-runway occurred on maybe a couple of days a year for part of a day, so it was used to a very small extent, and there was no objection raised from CASA on safety grounds.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, how often do you use the airbags or seatbelts in your car?

Mr Doherty: I use the seatbelts all the time.

Senator FAWCETT: To prevent injuries in an accident. How often are they required?

Senator Carr: It is a bit unfair to put it to these officers. A decision
was made and signed off, as I understand, by Minister Anderson at the time of the previous government. It really is a bit difficult to pursue the matter with officers some years later.

Senator FAWCETT: Minister, my point is that the process in terms of transparency around the relationship between the department, regardless of the flavour of government, and the aviation operators is not effective in terms of actually preserving the utility of airports for their primary purpose which is aviation. To quote the current minister: 'Nothing, I repeat, nothing is as important in aviation as safety.' I have no further questions.
Oh there is so much more in the Sup Estimates Hansard (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/commttee/s379.ashx) of 2011 - that supports the BRB hypothesis - but in the interests of not drifting I think this subject would be better discussed on the Senate thread...:E

MTF...:ok:

Ps The worst thing in regards to the Whitworth Aviation embuggerance is that it is further proof that Wodger and his cronies are still at it - & obviously feel that the M&M campaign of GA decimation is alive & well...:{

Pps Feedback on yesterday's festivities in Cantberra reveals a disturbing suspicion that there are signs that GB is being wooed across to the dark side and the Miniscule (with GB support) is advising that the AICC members should knock off for Xmas i.e. standby and wait...well I say bollocks to that...:E

thorn bird
11th Dec 2014, 06:36
Sarcs old mate, "that" particular FOI has the nickname "The black widow" since she departed the "Industry" and was swallowed up by the dark lord.

She is now a handmaiden of the Bankstown ex RAAF baggage handler, AKA Wodger Wabbit, the dark Lord, acolyte of the Screaming Skull.

One thing is immediately apparent.

Older folk, especially those with ATO privileges, or involved in check and training are being targeted by Wodger Wabbit, and should protect themselves.

They would be well advised to have their lawyer present during any encounter with the black widow, or at least have a reliable witness present, she cannot be trusted, like a black widow spider she will eat you alive.

Perhaps the best thing would be to record the whole process so it can be peer reviewed. Always keep in your mind, CAsA cannot be trusted, there is no probity involved with CAsA, the system is corrupt.

Kharon's suggestion of a conspiracy to clean out the Southern, South Western side of Bankstown by shutting down the operators there certainly has a ring of truth given the stats. The Wodger Wabbit wrecking ball continues its rampage unabated.

Who's next??

Sarcs
11th Dec 2014, 06:42
Aviation shake-up to 'reverse toxic relationship' (http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/aviation-shake-up-to-reverse-toxic-relationship/2480740/)
THE Commonwealth Government's planned shake-up of aviation safety regulations has been welcomed by the chief of regional airline Rex as an opportunity to "reverse the toxic relationship" between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the industry.

Neville Howell said airlines would hold the Federal Government to its word on implementing the changes without undue delay and hoped it would "move much faster than it has done in selecting the new CASA board members and CEO".

"Rex is pleased to see that the government has accepted 32 recommendations and has committed to further reviewing another four. Industry has suffered for far too long and we are happy to see the Abbott government taking firm action on this critical issue," he said.

"We note that the government has only agreed in principle with some key recommendations and we urge them to fulfil the full intent of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report recommendations and not just pay lip service."

Among the recommendations was the reformation of CASA amid widespread concerns its current approach has resulted in the aviation industry actively avoiding engaging in contact with the body, commercial law firm Ashurst has stated in an industry alert.

The review also found CASA should delegate responsibility for day-to-day operational management to Airservices Australia, and change its regulatory philosophy to build a better relationship with airline operators.

"The government has been in office now for more than a year during which time the industry has been waiting for decisive action from the Minister," Mr Howell said.

"We do not have any more time to waste before the next election comes around again."

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said the implementation of the recommendations would help build a more vibrant and co-operative industry.

"Active engagement between industry and aviation agencies will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders," he said.
Pity Nifty Howell wasn't present at yesterday's inaugural AICC love-in, reckon he would have livened up the conversation. And I don't
reckon he would have been talking about knocking off for Xmas...:ugh:

Hopefully RAAA's Jim Davis relayed Nifty's message to the apparently mute and dozy man at the back of the room Skidmore...:E

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
11th Dec 2014, 18:54
Watch what happens to jabiru, they will be forced to close permanently at Christmas,

robsrich
11th Dec 2014, 18:55
AICC members - AHIA Missing in Action?

At present the Australian Helicopter Industry Association consists of more than 90 company members (one third of helicopter AOCs) and over one hundred individual members, plus links to HAI and other international associations; including NZ.

For more than a year or so the AHIA has had a CASA LO (Dale South) appointed from Standards to assists our various volunteer working groups; and AHIA has invited CASA to AHIA trade shows to form face to face panels to accelerate the reviews of legalisation. At the next Avalon Airshow AHIA is sponsoring conference hall space on 26 Feb '15 to host CASA (and also Air Service) teams to continue efforts in getting feedback running between the regulators and guys trying to make a buck!

AHIA volunteers are working with the TAAAF; SCC and other government committees. In particular the National Skills Councils tasked with rewriting engineering and aircrew training legislation - which CASA has to follow; but has not at this time; subject to interdepartmental tensions. That is why an RTO has to have two sets of operational documents - one for CASA and one for skills councils. (We are talking thousands of pages here).

Why bother? No RTO approval - no foreign students; or advanced training courses if required under various contracts.

The RW fleet makes up 14% of the register and 30% of the AOC list. And 25% of all GA accidents - a fact they are not proud of).

And AHIA has been advised by HAI members Australia is now second in numbers of registered helicopters in the Western World!

But the questions is - now they have such a large membership, a CASA LO and such good attendance at CASA talk fests and working groups doing excellent work; and ongoing work with the future Air Transport changes – why ignore the AHIA?

And a final gripe. The CASA Annual Report ending 30 June 2014 confirmed over the past decades CASA RW registrations grew at an average annual rate of 6 to 8%. Always at least twice the GDP growth, It was really good news for investors and industry workers.

But with the current uncertainties associated with the paralysis of the Government - CASA - industry interface the helicopter fleet has made an increase of only .06% over the past six months. . Almost zero and dangerously close to slipping into recession.. Why have the training schools gone almost into reverse and why are potential engineers not applying for courses?

So the AHIA, with their rapidly growing association and a good knowledge of the pot holes in the road ahead is not considered to be part of the AICC? Why?

More in the next AHIA e-newsletter 'Helicopters Australasia" a freebie - no advertising - do you want one for an update - just ask!

Sunfish
11th Dec 2014, 20:08
Why not? Because you might represent your members views instead of being a complaisant lap dog. These consultative bodies are merely a fig leaf - window dressing for CASA. A lot of people get their egos stroked by being invited to join. Christmas drinks in Parliament House and an annual cocktail party with the Minister is all you need.

To put that another way, watch as each member of the group does nothing to criticise CASA and justifies each and every CASA action to its members.

By way of example, how can the President of the RAA possibly sit on such a council while his jabiru owning members are being slowly crucified???. And spare be the "inside the tent p1ssing out" BS.

Kharon
11th Dec 2014, 20:21
Don'tcha just love the way the lobotomy machinery swings into action at the time of year when sugar plums, Reindeer and school holidays are atop the agenda, after a long hard year.

Rucking freemarkable, the way it works out, ain't it..:ugh:

Frank Arouet
11th Dec 2014, 20:27
It would have been nice to see Arthur Pape involved, but as Sunfish says....

greylocks
12th Dec 2014, 22:56
I reckon CASA personnel could easily fit this description of politicians!

While stitching a cut on the injured hand of a 75 year old farmer, the doctor struck up a conversation. Eventually the topic got around to politicians and their role as our leaders.

The old farmer said, "Well as I see it, most politicians are Post Turtles."

The doctor asked what a Post Turtle was.

The farmer said, "when you drive down a country road and come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a Post Turtle."

The farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face and continued.

"You know he didn't get up there by himself;

he doesn't belong up there;

he doesn't know what to do while he's up there;

he's elevated beyond his ability to function and

you wonder what kind of dumb arse put him up there to begin with!"

thorn bird
13th Dec 2014, 08:19
Greylocks, :D:D
I'll petition the boatman for a chokkie frog for you, I believe your post deserves a Tim Tam, but he is a meany handing them out. I think Minnie keeps pinching them so he loses track of what's in stock.

Kharon
13th Dec 2014, 18:55
Master Aloysius Thornbird.
C/- Matrons Nest School of Beating Down Social Misfits.(BDSM).
Little Whopping.
Gentle Beating in the bushes.
U2CAN_D0.

Dear Master TB. (a.k.a. Lampshade boy).

In primus; as you are very well aware, the issuing of Choc Frogs (CF) is not the responsibility of the Styx river transport department. Under section 666 (i) (c) of the CF Act only the minuscule may issue a suggestive directive, which, after approval by the select committee may be sent to the Word Weasel department for amendment, before being forwarded to a department, (any department will do), where after a minimum period of due and careful consideration and an environmental impact study and a departmental safety (CYA) case generated, the draft will be returned to the minuscule. Once the minuscule is satisfied, the first draft is ratified and passed along to the transport executive (legal section) to develop a robust safety training regime before being slightly scrambled and filled with loop holes. Once the accompanying non disclosure document is signed and fees paid, then; and only then, may said CF be issued to the selected minion.

Secundus; We are well aware of the illegal, irresponsible actions of certain members of the IOS who have taken it upon themselves to issue Choc frogs without due process. This completely unsanctioned action is under review by our crack investigative team who, after much diligent searching of U-Bend video evidence have traced a clandestine supply operation to a Canadian source, buried deep within the infrastructure of the international CF oversight organisation (CFOO). Multiple layers of deep protection has, thus far prevented the 'team', despite numerous, tiring journeys to Canada from identifying the recalcitrant rebels, led by the infamous Gobbledock.

We shall continue our robust efforts to eradicate the source of the illegal CF and it's distribution network; and, although penetrating the defences of the Styx river houseboat park has proved difficult (the investigators keep disappearing) we are determined to stop the practice.

Yours In Eptitude.

A Minusculian Minion.

- - - - - - - - -Houseboat response.- - - - - - -

GL has been granted a big smile;..:D... however, as the article has been featured before (with a picture), the committee feel that a CF award would lower the benchmark. The CF award is only issued for true originality, wit and talent. The high standards set for the coveted Tim Tam award for excellence must not be debased. The IOS do have some rules and position in society to consider. Although it is accurate to say that any true IOS member may bestow the CF or TT award as and when pleases them best.

Toot toot....:D,,:D,,:D

greylocks
13th Dec 2014, 20:40
I thankyou for wishing to bestow on me such prestigious awards, however, I must confess it is not my work; I merely adopted it. I don't know where it originated, but it was an opportunity too good to miss.

greylocks
14th Dec 2014, 05:47
Apologies for mis-spelling your name! It was a computer error! It seems to have a mind of its own. I tried to correct it but wasn't able after I sent it.

aroa
14th Dec 2014, 07:20
must be the male equivalent of hornbag then.:ok:
But that's the English lanuage for ya...and spell checker:{

Ziggychick
14th Dec 2014, 10:01
So,

Some dot connecting.

John Sharp- CEO Pel-Air, REX
Ex Tpt Mini
Currently:
Federal Treasurer for NATS, whose leader is Truss

Political donations:

From REX:

250k to Labor when they were "in", a month before release of ATSB report.

@75k to Libs
@75k to NATS - before further Senate inquiry Nov 2012

No political donation to Gov from them since 2004. Questionable.

Question:

Can the CEO of the company under investigation donate to the same party that he is Federal Treasurer for?
Does that mean the donations to the NATS from REX fall into his portfolio?
If so, what did he do with it, and is it legal to donate to, well, yourself from the company you are a CEO at which is under the microscope?

Crazy. They take care of each other. Wolf packs!

thorn bird
14th Dec 2014, 18:53
Greylocks,
I have the same problem. These computer thingies are developing a mind of their own, they'll be writing the posts for us soon. Thanks for your analogy, cracked me up, very apt.

Sarcs
14th Dec 2014, 21:12
On REX..:oh::Crazy. They take care of each other. Wolf packs! Unfortunately Ziggy it seems that is the way of the world the spin offs are huge...:ugh:

Here is a classic recent example of how it works..:(

Less than a week ago we get this article - Aviation shake-up to 'reverse toxic relationship' (http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/aviation-shake-up-to-reverse-toxic-relationship/2480740/) - where basically Nifty Howell bangs the table and tells the Miniscule & CAsA to get on with implementing the Forsyth report.

Then today we get this announcement: REX - Regional Express (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airline/ZL) (ZL, Wagga Wagga (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/326)) says it has secured an Area Air Operator’s Certificate (AAOC) from the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) which will allow it to expand its vast Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) network without the need for CASA to approve each new destination.

“The AAOC authorises Rex to conduct an internal approval process for RPT services to the 16 new Queensland ports on the regulated routes that have recently been awarded to REX by the Queensland State Government," REX Chief Operating Officer Neville Howell said.

Following a tendering process, REX was awarded three additional regulated regional air routes from the Queensland government in October. The AAOC will now allow the carrier to open up flights connecting Cairns (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/CNS), Normanton (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/NTN), Mornington (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/ONG), Burketown (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BUC), Doomadgee (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/DMD), Mount Isa (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/ISA), Brisbane Int'l (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BNE), Brisbane West Wellcamp (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/WTB), Saint George, QL (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/SGO), Cunnamulla (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/CMA), Thargomindah (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/XTG), Charleville (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/CTL), Quilpie (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/ULP), Windorah (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/WNR), Birdsville (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BVI), Bedourie (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BEU), Boulia (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BQL), Townsville (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/TSV), Winton (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/WIN), Longreach (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/LRE), Hughenden (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/HGD), Richmond, QL (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/RCM), and Julia Creek (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/JCK).

"We are very proud that we are now in a position to start operations on January 1, 2015, a mere 8 weeks after being awarded the contract,” Howell added. No comment...:oh:

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
15th Dec 2014, 18:21
All of which simply removes one large dissenting voice; having got that which was asked for, the price will be silence. Rex has deep roots and powerful connections who may now return to golf and morning tea, knowing 'their' part of the aviation world is safe. It would be churlish to continue protesting when so much has been given.

Divide and conquer, the only way to help your mates run a democracy.

Up-into-the-air
16th Dec 2014, 00:23
In a recent address [National Conference of the Australian Airports Association (http://www.casa.gov.au/SCRIPTS/NC.DLL?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102327) 23 to 27 November 2014 - Gold Coast (http://www.casa.gov.au/SCRIPTS/NC.DLL?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102327)]

Jonathon aleck of FF said:

Concluding remarks

In closing, I want to allude to the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’-and even in a room of this size, an elephant would probably not go unnoticed. I refer here to the report and recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

Like you, I eagerly await the Government’s response to the report. Unlike you, I am not in a position to comment or speculate on what that response may or should be. What I can say, however, is that, while the Review identified a number of areas in which CASA’s performance can and should be improved, much of the constructive criticism reflected in the Review focused on problems of which CASA is and was aware, and in an effort to develop meaningful and enduring solutions to which we are already actively engaged.

Whatever else may flow on from the Government’s response to the Review, I am confident it will impel a redoubling of our efforts to improve our approach to regulation, and to enhance CASA’s role as Australia’s aviation safety regulator and our relations with all of our stakeholders.

A thematic thread running through the fabric of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review involved the idea of trust, as a feature necessary to any effective working relationship between a regulator and the regulated. In any relationship, trust must be earned; and if it is to be maintained, the basis on which it rests must be respected and protected. Once betrayed-or once it is even believed to have been betrayed-trust can quickly be lost, and regaining lost trust can be enormously difficult.

Building, or rebuilding, trust needs to be based on a foundation of reliance, which itself will be constructed, stone by stone, if you will, with repeated demonstrations of predictable, fair and reasonable behaviour.
With this in mind, I am half inclined to say: ‘Don’t trust us’, but what I really mean to say is ‘Don’t just trust us’. Instead, look at what we do and put us to our proof when we say we will do, or have done, something. I am eager for you to see that CASA is a reliable regulator, and on that basis, that we are indeed trustworthy.

Trust, of course, is a two-way street. Relations of trust need to be mutual and reciprocal to flourish. And if reliability forms the basis on which trust is built, it is reasonable and proper that verification should be readily forthcoming from both sides of the relationship.

I, for one, am excited and optimistic about the future, and I look forward to working with the Australian Airports Association and its members-constructively, cooperatively, collaboratively-in the coming months and years, with a view to a safe and vibrant future.


I say :ugh: Oh yeah :mad:

Greedy
16th Dec 2014, 00:38
More empty rhetoric from an individual who was personally responsible for a serious breach of privacy from CASA. What a hypocrite.
Greedy

aroa
16th Dec 2014, 01:12
Bizarre for JA to be talking about trust :mad:
Tok pekpek tru.

Soteria
16th Dec 2014, 03:02
Of bollocks;
Trust, of course, is a two-way street. Relations of trust need to be mutual and reciprocal to flourish. And if reliability forms the basis on which trust is built, it is reasonable and proper that verification should be readily forthcoming from both sides of the relationship.
More wordsmith sculpted folly from the master of wank words! That guy must seriously get a chubby from sprouting endless speeches and writing endless papers that are peppered with educated words and PHD methodology? I didn't hear the words 'bullshit', 'crock of shit' or 'complete shit' used?

There will never, and I repeat in a deep IOS monotone, never be trust between CASA and the aviation 'community' as long as thieves, bullies, liars, incompetents, Nupty's, halfwits, dimwits, dipshits, gronks, shonks and other peddlers of bollocks are allowed to apply their trade free of accountability without repercussion.

Frank Arouet
16th Dec 2014, 04:44
Is the conclusion the premise or is the premise the conclusion?

Kharon
16th Dec 2014, 08:21
To make one's bones – Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_one's_bones)– explains the whole thing, very nicely.

Well, now we have two of them; both with much to prove. Lets start with the 'easier' target.

Doc. Jonathon Aleck: and, his 'Gold Coast' speech to a fairly hostile audience of the "Australian Airports Association", which, by any measure are a fairly 'unsettled' outfit; given the Murky Machiavellian manipulation of 'system', was a masterpiece. In what?, well may you ask. There are those who will have it that Doc Aleck is, essentially, a frustrated man with both a moral compass and a first rate brain. Let us, just for the moment, accept that as a given.

There are tools at his disposal which could, in fairly short order, generate a lot of the much wanted trust. For example: he runs a thing called the ethics committee. I can without referring to any notes cite at least a half dozen 'cases' which demand his immediate attention; and, should he decide to act honourably (remember that word) he could, in a very short space of time restore most of the credibility which he and 'his' committee have resoundingly lost during the preceding five, long, weary years of the McComic era. Want trust, want to earn it: Jonathon you know the cases, as well as we do. You also know who perpetrated the aberrations, who told Porkies, who fiddled with evidence, who delayed, who lied under oath, who manipulated the ATSB and also, who benefited.

Start there, do a good job and perhaps you will be accepted into the fraternity of "aviators". Never; not even for one moment, forget, 'we' all know and have examined those cases in detail and have formed 'considered', provable opinions. Stand up FCS and be what many believe you are, an honourable, honest man (and a lover of the Bard).

Skidmore?, he has the easy task; look, listen, learn and FCO bloody L, do something: to get the dogs under management. The safety watchdogs are slinking back into the safety of kennels: muzzles bloodied after a sheep killing rampage. 'They' have done an incredible amount of damage to the reputation, credibility and integrity of CASA and the associated agencies – all easy to fix. Acknowledge and rectify – just duck the politics and trust will be gifted. It would, IMHO, be a grave error to allow the travelling public to become 'aware', shall we say, of just how pathetic, unreliable and morally bankrupt the 'safety watchdogs' have become, protected under the McComic regime.

Call the Ethics committee – use the Board – examine the cases we all know and ACT. For pities sake, ACT before the world does. Hells bells, you may even enjoy being "your own men", for just a while a least.

Do not ask for credit – refusal oft offends.

Handing over: your call – but remember 150, 000 readers this month have failed, dismally, to defend CASA, their Board, the cast or crew. Think on that.

Aye well: Selah children; and back to my knitting, I guess.

Up-into-the-air
16th Dec 2014, 08:26
To give the committe it's full title. However, if the committee has matters referred to it for "mis-conduct", how can this by premise, be "Ethical"???

Surely a tautology??

The name must surely be by definition [for matters referred to it]:

"Un-ethical and Mis-conduct Committeee"

aroa
16th Dec 2014, 22:02
Its a side step shuffle mob for a dance move if the ICC comes up with a result not to CAsA's liking. A bastard child of McComic.:mad::mad:

And you have to laugh when they have "ethics" in the moniker when those in the committee dont have any.:eek:

Up-into-the-air
17th Dec 2014, 03:26
Saw the following posted today:

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DSCN1365-Small.jpg

Could do with some thoughtful captions.

aroa
17th Dec 2014, 04:38
The standing man is a senior airworthiness inspector who has just caught a private individual ( now deceased) checking a split pin on the elevator of his pvt aircraft that does not have a current MR.

Since this heinous event is a crime of strict liability that may result in a hefty fine, jail time or death and serious injury the SAWI from the agency that acts as judge, jury and executioner has just carried out the execution to save time, and taxpayer dollars in having to deal with the CDPP, courts or the AAT.
The court may not produce the result that CAsA required... so much easier to do an 'in-house' job. Or in the field, so to speak
Another notch on the butt, another unsafe aviator removed from the skies...permanently. RIP GA.


Or have I got that completely wrong... the guy on the ground is the tosser from AusCheck that just told the pilot he could NOT fly or even taxi his a/c because he has no asic.!! Dont laugh, true.

Yep, that's it
Time to fight back.:ok:

Creampuff
17th Dec 2014, 06:18
Only an extraordinarily clever person could have survived as a senior manager and executive in CASA for nearly two decades and yet have had no involvement in, no influence over and no responsibility for any of the kinds of systemic or specific problems of substantial concern to the AAI committee or ASRR panel. Thank heavens people of that calibre are on hand to help “develop meaningful and enduring solutions” to all the problems that, weirdly enough, look exactly like the enduring problems to which, in an amazing coincidence, meaningful solutions have been promised but never delivered by CASA over the last decade or so.

Only an extraordinarily clever person, with extraordinary chutzpah.

I remain in genuine, absolute awe, Jonathan Aleck. :D:D:D:D

aroa
17th Dec 2014, 06:45
re JA the long term time server welded..cleverly but firmly to the trough.....

A recent example of his 'chutzpah' which shows how his word-smithing has been a great survival tool and diverted any attentions that may have come his way....smother it in BS and/ or verbal vomit.

False sworn statements to be used in a court of law to bring about the conviction of an individual that would result in a hefty fine or jail time....according to Herr Doktor are not false or lies..."they are only discrepancies in the wording used, or containing the odd discrepant word"...thus rendering them ( the false statements) not untrue and therefore not lies..!! Yes folks..white IS black
Astounding brilliance in perception. Bravo Jono!!:D
Wasnt any "discrepancy" that caused the CDPP to chuck out the case.!!
IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS ALL BULLSH*T

It's an enduring problem alright..:mad::mad::mad:

Time to stick another BIG pin in the voodoo doll.:ok:

Soteria
17th Dec 2014, 10:31
I think the picture is of the Screamer taking out a pesky IOS member who tendentiously blogged about him. Then again it could be a picture of an ICC member dealing with an industry complaint! Naughty UITA, one photo yet it has endless possibilities.

Sarcs
17th Dec 2014, 22:46
Slight drift but another area currently under the Senate blowtorch which also involves a politically (M&M) selected AVM (active) and a new Hoodoo Doc (although not quite in the calibre of JA), which most definitely falls into the M&M remit...:E

Remember this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p73nOD0ZGoc

Which AVM 'Stabbed in the Dark' eventually responded with this wet lettuce, weasel, worded correction to the Hansard record:
3.) Correspondence received 25 November 2014 from Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer of Airservies Australia, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 116KB) (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/AA_25112014.pdf)
Then three days later we had this - An inquiry into the performance of Airservices Australia. (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Airservices_Australia/Public_Hearings)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-6j5g0xuw

Well from that session there was a number of QONs (37 in total) generated and surprise...surprise the AQONs are already released, all 184 pages of them...:ooh::1 http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Images/pdf.png (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=07a76e2d-6ff0-442e-9c8e-8f2df25acc75) Answers to questions taken on notice on 28 November 2014 in Canberra, ACT. Most of the answers are obviously designed to put the most avid readers to sleep...:zzz:

However there is some of particular interest for the average nerd...:8

1st example and on the subject of ethics was this AQON from Dr (Duck'n'weave) Ethics:

...Dr Weaver: I have chaired that committee since March this year.


Senator STERLE: So there are three of you on that who know about that.

Dr Weaver: There are also representatives from the rest of the organisation—so the chief auditor; the manager, security and resilience is often in attendance; and other representatives from people and culture.

Senator STERLE: You can provide names. That is fine. How many are there all up?

Dr Weaver: The key members of the committee are the executive—

Senator STERLE: Who would have known—Mr Weaver, very clear, very precise—when I asked the question of Ms Staib at Senate estimates two weeks ago, that there was credit card fraud?

Dr Weaver: The people that know of credit card fraud are the members of that committee and the representatives of that committee.

Senator STERLE: You have said all that. Tell me how many people—five, 10, half the organisation, 2,000, what?

Dr Weaver: To be clear, there will be other people that would know about individual cases of credit card fraud.

Senator STERLE: So a lot of people would know?

Dr Weaver: About individual cases, it would be quite a small number that would know about each individual case.


Senator STERLE: Mr Weaver, do you know how many people?


Dr Weaver: I do not know the exact number, no.

Senator STERLE: Can you find out for me, please?

Dr Weaver: Yes.

Answer:

Instances of serious credit card misuse are reported to the Fraud and Ethics Committee which has five permanent members:


Executive General Manager, Safety, Environment and Assurance

Chief Finance Officer

Executive General Manager, People and Culture

Executive General Manager, Projects and Engineering

Chief Auditor.



The number of people who may know of an individual case will vary depending on the circumstances and may involve staff from security and resilience, human resources, employee relations, legal counsel, in-line managers or senior executive outside of the committee. Matters are always dealt with cognisant of the privacy of the individual and balanced against organisational responsibilities to effectively manage the issue.

The details of the specific case that was raised at the 20 October 2014 Estimates hearing involving a staff member that was dismissed were explained during the in-camera hearing.


Next example perked my interest in light of the recent Miniscule v Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce AAT hearings:
CHAIR: I think I will take this to public works from here. We have not had a bad day, have we? Tell me about the runway at Archerfield. Is it true that it does not comply—whatever one they are arguing about that has been shortened?

Mr Hood: I will have to take that on notice. I am not aware of any complaints in relation to any—

CHAIR: As you would know, and as Mr Murdoch is very conscious of, there is a contest of interests at airfields like Bankstown, where the developers—and they have ways and means of convincing people. It appears to me that there is a bit of pressure on in various airfields, including Archerfield and, of course, Bankstown. It appears to me that all of a sudden they have woken up to the fact that whichever runway it is is no longer compliant, even though they are using it. I am wondering, if something goes wrong, who is going to be liable for that.

Mr Hood: It is the first time it has been raised with me, but I am certainly happy to take it on notice.

It could cut across CASA as well. I am happy to take that.

Answer:
In 2008, it was identified that a building infringed one of the restrictive surfaces (the PANSOPS surface) for the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) for one of the runways at Archerfield (28 Right).

At the time, Airservices initial action was to issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) which moved the PANS-OPS surface to a position whereby the building was no longer penetrating it.

Subsequently, specific cloud and visibility requirements were put in place for use of the procedure to ensure that it could only be used in circumstances when the building could be sighted by pilots. The NOTAM was then rescinded, making the full length of the runway available again.

An ATSB report (AI-2008-038) published in April 2010 assessed the actions of Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to be adequate to address the safety issues raised.

Airservices procedures are fully compliant.
Again another example - by ASA this time - of all care and no responsibility when it comes to Secondary Airports...:(

Ok back to the current topic on JA & ethics...

Creamy - "...Only an extraordinarily clever person, with extraordinary chutzpah.

I remain in genuine, absolute awe, Jonathan Aleck." :D:D:D:D

Choccy frog for Creamy I reckon...:E

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
19th Dec 2014, 21:06
As it's Christmas, I reckon CP merits a Tim Tam. Not so sure that the Word Weasel work shop deserves any such consideration for the AQON; what – 180 odd pages, most of it more work-shopped drivel, to clearly outline where the wriggle room for spending 'airline' monies is located. A clever, determined, only slightly larcenous lad (or ladette) could drive a horse and cart through the clever construction the 'Slicks' have provided. When you skim past the obvious, stultifying, mind numbing, soporific, tedious stating of the bleeding obvious; you get to some answers – one liners – maybe two sentences. Which complete the 'loop'; now having gained time, the game is to wait for the obvious questions the estimates crew must pitch at you.

When the approved Word Weasel work-shop answer is not available, roll off the top, take it an notice and Bingo, you have just earned another three months of salary. It's like the shell game; invented by charlatans, perpetuated by the shills in the Souq, to take advantage of those naive or gullible enough to risk their dinars. It must drive the likes of Heffernan and Sterle nuts; I expect 'Elphy Bey' Truss barely notices the time or the money slipping away down the well trodden back alley into the coffers of those who profit most from 'the great game'.

The answer to your question Senator is under one of these three shells; you can pick only one though; so pick one, any one you like, but ante up first; there's a good chap.

Toot-toot..:D..

Sunfish
20th Dec 2014, 17:09
Jabiru has been shafted, Truss review worthless,

Kharon
20th Dec 2014, 21:05
Sunny – "[Truss] review worthless"

Don't know as I can agree Sunny. Before the whole cartload of change (AAI recommendations, Forsyth recommendations, TSBC recommendations, ATSB Pel-Air review) can be delivered at the current glacial pace, there has to be a hiatus. Christmas break, new DAS, new bored members; and, probably a new Minuscule (gods willing, weather permitting). It's been a tiring year, the Senate committees have moved a mountain even if it was perforce at a suitably dignified 'parliamentary pace'.

Before the proposed changes and policy kick in, any licks CASA wanted to get in must be taken now. If Jabiru can hold on and generate a sustainable rebuttal; then, perhaps in the new year there will be an opportunity for 'sensible' discussion leading to a solution. There is, at face value, 'a case' for both parties to argue which, 'in the heat of battle', precludes a balanced approach; it will be down to the 'judge' to make a 'safe' ruling.

CASA believes that 'top cover' will be enough to prevent any serious ordinance impacting on their bunker. It is an incorrect, flawed assumption. The top cover will melt away to protect it's own rice bowl, when the going gets tough. How tough?, well that remains to be seen, but what with airports becoming a hot topic, Pel Air trailing along behind, ASA in the gun, ATSB due for a roasting and a very cranky Senate committee driving the bus; I'd say once Heff and his crew have had enough Christmas pudding and a surfeit of Damson gin; things just may become a little warmer over at Sleepy Hollow. They are after all the most vulnerable target, located in an almost indefensible position, with the most to hide, from a determined, well supplied opposition.

Could all turn to worms, as it has in the past, but by the pricking of my thumbs and the smell on the breeze, I'd say it will be an 'interesting' next twelve month.

It may seem as though little has been achieved since last Christmas; but I believe the goal posts have been firmly relocated in the right place; up to the teams now to play up, run hard and do strong.

Toot toot...:D...

Frank Arouet
20th Dec 2014, 22:13
I wonder if we can expect anything positive for aviation in the reshuffle this afternoon. Like a Minister for transport for example. The Nats usually suffer this portfolio and Truss is seen by everyone to be doing a poor job. Perhaps a Lib may be given the job.


Truss should piss, or get off the pot!

dubbleyew eight
21st Dec 2014, 02:39
question for Mr Kharon and others.

a rat is smelled. what is at the core and what is the basis of the peculiar smell?

where does the statute of limitations feature in all of this?
could the obfuscation and behaviour be nothing more than a delaying tactic to let the matters age beyond a limitations of action statute?

serious question.
W8

Kharon
21st Dec 2014, 20:57
Don't know as I can tell you the answer W8. Certainly delay, diversion and dilution are a part of the external defence system for Sleepy Hollow; but that is not unusual, they've been at it for years. The more intriguing aspect is why the minuscule has allowed this to continue on his watch; there are some 60 serious, far-reaching, recommendations knocking on his door, demanding attention, that's before the tacit and published recommendations of the Canadian safety authority are considered. The list of what I believe are serious' matters is extensive and growing by the day, so the reason for delay at government level could be explained by the sheer volume of and implications drawn from those reports. What Truss should, quite rightly, be able to do is rely on is the integrity and competence of 'his' aviation safety authorities. It must be a shock, considering the amount of money it costs and the wider implication of discovering that the Emperor and minions have no clothes.

The problems are of ministerial proportion and serious. The airports debacle is about to land firmly and squarely on his desk. Consider the ministers position; he most certainly cannot admit to the world that his much vaunted aviation safety system has degenerated into an expensive sham; that the great Australian airports rip-off is about to become public; that his ATSB told fairy stories or that the monster lurking under the bed is CASA. He cannot allow that to be discovered; therefore he must act as the repercussion to his government would be disastrous, particularly as the MH 370 incident is developing a life of it's own, outside of 'his' control. Another accident or incident will place the government at risk, should they not act.

So time, for Truss is of the essence, for he's damned if do and equally damned if he don't. Tough spot his trusty watchdogs have placed him in. Then, being isolated from the IOS, he must rely on those paid to give him advice, the Sir Humphries of this world, to turn down the noise and ensure that his arse in not in the next sling leaving Dodge.

When you add it all up ASA, ATSB, CASA all suffer the same blight, it needs to be eradicated, but it must be done so the public never see it done. That takes time, I doubt the 'statute of limitations' will ever come into play; as it will be difficult for the AFP to define a brief, let alone get it to the stage where the DPP can frame a case; too many locked doors to batter down and little or no political interest in doing it will see off those unpleasant 'legal' aspects. On the bright side though, all roads lead to Rome and the seat of 'real' power is readily identified. Once the Gordian knots on the apron strings of power are undone, things will rapidly improve. One small step, will Truss take it ? who'd know, certainly not I.

Well, FWIW, that's my two bob spent.

Creampuff
28th Dec 2014, 20:37
Prepare for a masterclass in using the infinite flexibility of language to choose any approach you like from time-to-time to justify anything you like from time-to-time time:Whether specifying, interpreting, applying or, where necessary, enforcing regulatory requirements, CASA is bound to regard safety as the most important consideration. This is what our Act has provided since CASA’s predecessor, the Civil Aviation Authority, was established in 1988, and there is no indication of which I am aware that this will be changing any time soon. At the same time, however, it is crucial to recognise that, whilst safety must be our most important consideration, it is not, and may not properly be, our only consideration. In exercising our powers and performing our functions, CASA is neither discouraged nor prevented from taking a wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account. In fact, we are required by law to do so.

This critical recognition, which I fear is sometimes lost in the otherwise appropriately privileging ‘rhetoric of safety’, resonates well with the Government’s policies on regulation, and it is entirely consistent with the first Key Performance Indicator in the Government’s recently released Regulator Performance Framework, which directs that regulators must ‘not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of regulated entities’ -a formulation that departs in a deliberate way from the original draft KPI, which called for regulators to ‘facilitate the efficient operation of regulated entities’.

I’ll return to this subtle but important point in a moment. ...

A recent and important example of the kind of regulatory relief CASA is providing for operators and airports alike involves regulations relating to narrow-runway operations. No longer will aerodromes be required to widen runways to allow for the operation of aircraft which have been assessed as capable of operating safely on narrower runways. The expectation is that such aircraft will be issued with an approved narrow-runway flight manual supplement, giving operators the freedom and the responsibility to address what is essentially an operational issue, without the need for aerodrome operators to seek an exemption from previously applicable requirements.

The new rules commended less than two weeks ago, on 13 November 2014.But wait a moment ...

Who made the runway width rules, from which CASA is providing relief, in the first place? :confused:

And when those rules were made in the first place, weren't the obligations imposed on CASA precisely the same as they are now: "Whilst safety must be [CASA's] most important consideration, it is not, and may not properly be, [CASA's] only consideration. In exercising [CASA's] powers and performing our functions, CASA is neither discouraged nor prevented from taking a wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account. In fact, [CASA is] required by law to do so. :confused:

What we have is precisely the same decision making obligation applied to precisely the same objective risks and benefits, but with different decisions made at different points in time.

Having taken safety into consideration as the most consideration, and having taken the wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account, as CASA is "required by law" to do, CASA made the decision to make the runway width rules.

Having taken safety into consideration as the most consideration, and having taken the wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account, as CASA is "required by law" to do, CASA made the decision to "provide relief" from the runway width rules.

All that really changed was that enforcement of the runway width rules became politically 'inconvenient'. At that point it became politically expedient for CASA to 'remember' the obligation to take account of "a wide range of relevant and important considerations" other than safety, and to quietly 're-assess' the relative importance and relative weightings to be attributed to those considerations.

As I've said many times, aviation regulation in Australia is mostly politics dressed up in the language of safety. And to get away with it, you need extraordinarily clever people. People who are willing and able expertly to advocate for and justify a decision one day, then expertly advocate for and justify a decision to the opposite effect the next.

I remain in genuine awe, Jonathan Aleck. :D:D

Sunfish
28th Dec 2014, 23:15
To put it another way Creampuff, CASA is absolutely and totally dishonest and corrupt. The very essence of bureaucracy in the Weberian sense, is for strict rules and authorities to be applied without fear or favour and transparently and equally.

By Dr. Alecks own admission, CASA does not adhere to those rules but claims the right to make "appropriate considerations" this is nonsense and any judge or tribunal that accepts it is corrupt as well.

Up-into-the-air
29th Dec 2014, 00:18
It does it matter.

I agree with you Sunny, CASA is absolutely and totally dishonest and corrupt
That is Mr. Skidmore's prime task.

I am prepared to give him a hand and can give him at least 100 names now, to be removed and to start the process for "...root and branch..." reform, by getting rid of those people who are in this "up-to-their-eyes".

Start with the removal of Farquartson and Aleck.

The reason for this - just look at the Jabiru and RAus mess for a start, the John Quadrio affair, PelAir.

The lies to the Senate committee.

Soteria
29th Dec 2014, 03:18
Start with the removal of Farquartson and Aleck.
The reason for this - just look at the Jabiru and RAus mess for a start, the John Quadrio affair, PelAir. The lies to the Senate committee.
To date - all of this has been an acceptable means of compliance to CASA. The fact that some of these individuals have held key organisational roles for many decades proves that CASA's master - the Australian government, is more than happy with CASA's modus operandi. And for CASA it is a dream come true, being allowed to shift the goal posts if, as and when it chooses. The CASA beast is never accountable and is never liable. It is judge, jury and executioner. What a fantastic framework for those employeed within its ranks! Operate with impunity and full immunity. Sweet!!

"Massaged skies for all"

tipsy2
31st Dec 2014, 22:52
OK Mr Skidmore. Today you formally/officially take up the position of Director of Aviation Safety.

Now that your feet are under the table I look forward to your actions, particularly those as the result of the ASRR.

Get your "skates" on and get doing.

Happy New Year (and hopefully a decent CASA culture)

Tipsy

Kharon
31st Dec 2014, 23:24
Another new year, but for the minuscule, the same old 'challenges' remain, steadfast as ever. A now forearmed Iron Ring with advance knowledge of what the 'industry' would like to have had for Christmas can, at their leisure forward plan to make sure that nothing changes.

The stalwart 'political' suicide argument will be polished to a mirror shine.

The trusty 'personal liability' option v an 'alternative' solution on the Hobson's choice machinery will be fuelled and oiled, to generate the smoke of self protection.

The infallible 'fear' factor will be sharpened to surgical precision and placed discretely on the bored room table; to provide 'pause for thought' to reinforce the notion that any, even a mild disagreement with the will of the Iron Ring will paid for, in blood.

Then, the GWM will be fed, watered and unleashed to keep the populace in it's rightful place.

Indeed, the IR may contentedly sit back knowing that not even the lightest zephyr or hint of breeze will disturb the calm surface of their self satisfaction. Good work if you can get it; dead man's boots job of course and the queue is long.

So what tools do we have available to unlock the doorway to the serene mill pond of Zen like contemplation. Well:-there's the holy hand grenade of the Rev. Forsyth and his happy band of miscreants. The notion of a revisit and audit, to measure tangible change, evaluate the fiction and assess the reality of the "changes" fairy story would be a good place to start. Say in a six month, bring them back to have a good sniff about. Of course, there is the bored to step around, then the Iron Ring, then the GWM to plough through, but if industry supports the effort, perhaps some small concession would be granted; if only for a little peace and quiet.

Unravelling the Pel-Air debacle at Senate committee level would open some windows a crack and let some fresh air and light in. Taken to it's natural conclusion it may even heal some of the dreadful wounds inflicted by Albo's hand picked, one man hit squad and his catamites. But that needs the independent, bi-partisan efforts of a dedicated, informed committee, fully supported by the Minuscule. Political will, executive horsepower, and some old fashioned courage will be needed to stare down the iron Ring.

Well, here we are in the ring waiting for the bell to start Round 1. It's never too early to start loosing, so don't let the opposition get the first hit; standing still and waiting for the other fellah to thump you, has never been a good way to start a street fight.

Game on, shake off the hangover and lets try to keep the pressure on, before Abbott drops the ball and Albo emerges, once again and re-hires the McComic. Up to you ALL, at the end of the day, all 275,000 of you who read Pprune this past month. You know you want to..:ok:....

Selah.

Sunfish
31st Dec 2014, 23:46
...and welcome to the New Director Of Air Safety whose term begins today. Good luck.

Soteria
1st Jan 2015, 08:08
Willypedia definition of 'CASA Croquembouche'
ˌkrɒkɒmˈbuːʃ/
noun
a decorative Government organisation consisting of a choux DAS and crystallized executive management team arranged in a cone-like arrangement and held together by a mixture of sticky regulations, policies and procedures force-fed to a multi disciplined group of aviation ills of society.

"Happy Tautological Year". 2015 with the theme of 'same shit different year'!

Kharon
1st Jan 2015, 20:14
Now, I freely acknowledge that as a political 'advisor' or even a commentator, it would be better all round, if I stuck with the day time job. I struggle to understand even the simplest of manoeuvres and, left to my own devices will happily remain in a state of disinterest until disturbed. However, even I can see that the Abbott crew are in deep do-do and need to get some runs on the board. As aviation safety is a hot topic at any BBQ you care to attend, could Truss not strike while the iron is hot and use the enhanced public awareness of matters aeronautical to score a few runs for the Abbott team?

The current, truly dreadful state Australian aviation has descended into could all be tracked back to the last minuscule. It is an open secret that Albo was 'instrumental' in hiring McComic and ordering the pogrom on aviation. Albo would not even have allowed the Rev. Forsyth (bless) to conduct his review, but, happily Forsyth did, and did it proud. It's no secret or rumour that Albo would never, not in a million, have countenanced the recommendations being effected. That would never happen on his watch, which IMO was a risky strategy – politically, considering the way thing have developed.

It seems to me that spending half an hour briefing Skidmore to undo the McComic legacy and enabling the changes recommended by intelligent, competent, qualified, trustworthy people, old mate Wazza could score some much needed political points by simply highlighting that Australia was clawing it's way back to international credibility from the unholy mess Albo left in his wake. Give Be-a-Cur and his mates their marching orders, sign a couple of DCM's and just like that, the strong man of transport is seen by a fairly concerned public as actually caring whether or not they arrive at their destination. Or even if they don't, then the system will swiftly, competently and honestly be able to inform their families why not.

I just can't see why there is a hold up, not with so much to play for. The choice is simple, upset a couple or three discredited public servants and ruffle a few feathers; or run the risk of the public knowing that he, Truss had the tools in his hand to fix the wheel on his aviation wagon and failed to use them.

But then, as stated, politics is a strange, alien world to me; it's this accursed curiosity bump which generates the "I wonder" enunciator. I know: Truss doesn't worry about how I do my work and I probably shouldn't be wondering about how he does his; but I do.

'Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost, which is so deemed
Not by our feeling, but by others' seeing.
For why should others' false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?

Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own;
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel.
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown,
Unless this general evil they maintain:  
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.  

S 121

Selah..

Frank Arouet
1st Jan 2015, 21:43
Hacker: Are you saying that winking at corruption is government policy?Sir Humphrey: No, no, Minister! It could never be government policy. That is unthinkable! Only government practice.

Sarcs
2nd Jan 2015, 00:02
Choccy frog for Frank...:D As for the Ferryman puzzle well perhaps the answer lies within this SMH article (good catch Stan..;)) - Democracy in crisis (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/democracy-in-crisis-20141228-126quk.html):
...Parties in government, regardless of their ideological preferences or election promises, are expected to conform to these strictures. They are assisted in this by elements of the bureaucracy well schooled in the new orthodoxy. They in turn regularly consult with and are monitored by international organisations, be it the OECD or the International Monetary Fund, credit-rating agencies and audit firms. Addressing stark inequalities of wealth and income or enhancing human security find little place in this discourse.
As a consequence, governing parties, having to operate within a highly restricted political space, find solace in the perks of office, occasionally breaching the boundaries of ethical or even legal conduct. Electorates displeased with the outcome feel they can do no more than punish the party in office and elect their opponents, and so the cycle continues with little prospect of significant change in either policy direction or political culture......or perhaps not...:{

IMO there is another disturbing element with the governance of the aviation agencies tasked with the (mal-)administration of aviation safety in this country. Which the former slime-ball miniscule Albo never fails to highlight in any of the very few speeches that he has made on the subject of aviation in the Parliament: ..I have always said that aviation safety is an issue that is well above politics. I am pleased to say that for the many years that I have been first a shadow minister, then a minister, then back again as a shadow minister, the current minister for transport has had the same view. I respect that. That is as it should be.
If there is any area that is above politics it has to be this one, because the whole of the parliament has an interest in working towards ensuring that aviation safety remains an issue of which Australia can be rightly proud...

...I will conclude by indicating publicly, as I have privately to the minister, that the opposition is firmly committed to working in a constructive and bipartisan way on these issues. I note that the minister has been exemplary in ensuring appropriate briefings and in ensuring that this issue continues to be where it was when I was the minister and, previously, under the Howard government...

...I indicate that that should not be seen in any way as a suggestion that we will operate politically on this issue, because we will not. We will deal with these things on their merits. I thank the minister for his response and conclude where I began: it is good to see him back in the House. And so ends the chance of there being any meaningful debate on the alarming issues highlighted in both the Forsyth report & the Senate AAI report...:ugh:

For those into pictures here is part of the Albo speech but be warned a (BYO) bucket may be required..:bored:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzH89IjhMM

However in that speech (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fb1d2e0ad-97f9-41e8-b5ac-42a061730951%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fb1d2e 0ad-97f9-41e8-b5ac-42a061730951%2F0000%22) - which was in reply to the Truss speech introducing the Government response to the ASRR report - Albo couldn't hide his complete contempt for all things aviation and his continual love affair for his appointed former DAS McComic...:yuk::yuk:

On McComic:...I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time...

...That was a courageous decision by John McCormick. The fact that Tiger has now been taken over by Virgin Australia and is now functioning in a way that satisfies all the safety concerns shows that that was not just a courageous decision but a correct decision. On non-aviation attitude:...It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.

The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly. I think one of the worst parts of the job of being the aviation minister in this country is the fact that you get notified in real time. Except for the minister, people are probably unaware of that. I have had phone calls at all hours telling me that a plane with two or three people on board has gone missing. When the departmental head rang, or in the case of Mr McCormick there was often direct contact, you really did not want to receive that call.

If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder. It should also not be forgotten that this disgusting former miniscule for non-aviation was not only responsible for obfuscating the Senate Pilot training inquiry recommendations but for obfuscating/delaying the former Govt response to the Senate AAI report...:ugh: And this was despite strong non-partisan pressure for him to urgently respond. This was a fact that Planetalking at the time did not fail to remind this consummate (slime-ball) politician.

Here - Pel-Air update: Minister wants to respond with urgency (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/29/pel-air-update-minister-wants-to-respond-with-urgency/) - and then here - Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister’s false statement (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/28/pel-air-on-prime-time-tv-snares-ministers-false-statement/) :
The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese was caught out on 7 News tonight in a report by Chris Reason on the festering sore that is the proven hush up by CASA and the ATSB of all of the circumstances that were relevant to the crash of a Pel-Air operated air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode.

Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

On 29 May after consultation with your department Plane Talking published this story as to the urgency with which you and your departmental head Mike Mrdak (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/29/pel-air-update-minister-wants-to-respond-with-urgency/) were claimed to be responding to the unanimous report of the Senate Committee inquiry into aviation safety investigations with particular reference to the performance of the ATSB (the safety investigator) and CASA (the safety regulator).

At that inquiry the Director of Safety at CASA, John McCormick, admitted to withholding an internal audit by CASA that found that the accident was preventable if CASA had actually carried out its duties and obligations in law in relation to the oversight of Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick also apologised for his actions, which the committee has referred to the Australian Federal Police to resolve whether or not it was action that constituted an offence under the Transport Safety Investigations Act of 2003. (If the words in the act mean what they say, McCormick broke the law.)

The committee went on to devote an entire chapter of its report into its lack of confidence in the testimony given by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan. The committee’s findings, made by a panel drawn from Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, was unanimous in its findings.
It also recommended, among other things, that the ATSB reconsider its final accident report and in the process retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage of the jet, which lies at a recoverable depth on the sea floor near Norfolk Island where it came to rest after being ditched immediately before it ran out of fuel. (All six persons on board were subsequently rescued by a fishing boat in the middle of the night).

The ATSB has deliberately chosen not to recover the data, which carries the distinct possibility of proving that the pilot did not receive correct meteorological information before flying the jet to a position where it could no longer divert to an alternative airport in Noumea or Fiji should it be unable to land at Norfolk Island for a refueling stop.

The ASTSB failed to honor its international obligations to make safety recommendations in relation to the failure on board the ditched jet of all of the safety equipment to perform as intended. It regarded the eventual discovery that CASA had found Pel-Air to be in breach of dozens of safety requirements at the time of the crash as ‘immaterial’, and it framed its final report to visit the entire blame for the accident on the captain Dominic James, who was central to the 7 News report, which should be readily found by a search query on the internet later tonight.

As Mick Quinn, the former deputy chief executive officer of CASA told Chris Reason on 7 News tonight, this corrupted and untruthful circus performance by the safety bodies in relation to the Pel-Air investigation has destroyed Australia’s reputation as a first class nation when it comes to the administration of air safety.

Minister, you are personally responsible for this. You allowed commitments to be made on your behalf, which were not honoured, and you have demonstrated contempt for the Senate of Australia by not responding to the committee’s recommendations within 90 days.

This means you have not acted in a timely manner to correct or restore the integrity of the aviation safety authorities, and that means the safety of Australian air travellers, and those of foreign airlines and their passengers using our air space and airports, is no longer a given.

On 30 May Plane Talking reported on the intention of the department of Infrastructure and Transport to ‘ride out’ the controversy (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/30/atsb-casa-to-ride-this-one-out-over-pel-air-scandal/) over the disgraceful report issed by the ATSB into this accident.

Minister, surely you are not a party to ‘riding out’ critically important air safety issues? The world is unlikely to let Australia get away with such a poor attitude, as explained in this more recent report (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/24/rudd-governments-air-safety-failure-a-risk-to-all/).

If the Minister can say so during caretaker mode, what was he thinking when he gave his misleading answer about his inability to repond to these matters in the Chris Reason interview?

Was it amnesia? Or did he think no one would notice that what was broadcast night night was in conflict with his position at the end of May? As Kharon alludes in his top of the page post...

"...Game on, shake off the hangover and lets try to keep the pressure on, before Abbott drops the ball and Albo emerges, once again and re-hires the McComic. Up to you ALL, at the end of the day, all 275,000 of you who read Pprune this past month. You know you want to.."

...now is not the time to relax, if M&M & the Iron Ring with the support of the likes of Albo get their way it is simply all over...:{

Kharon
2nd Jan 2015, 05:18
Well, I got hooked and read the whole thing; despite there being some lightweight assumptions drawn by [email protected] (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sd7gtn) which could, for the purist at least, detract a little kudos from what is a very sane, solid piece of research and dot joining. For instance:-

Julie 1. As far as I can tell, there have been no updates (or corrections) to this article — meaning that no one, from Boeing or elsewhere, appears to have come forward and stated that it was impossible for MH370 to have flown at FL45 — beyond it's certified maximum.

Just because an aircraft is "certified" to a flight level, does not mean it cannot, quite safely operate above that level. It is an easy enough task to 'google' the type certification data and perhaps even ask Boeing what was the maximum demonstrated height used to derive the certification data matrix; it will not be a 'national secret'. Also, F 430 or 450 there's little difference in 'survivability' time if the cabin was dumped.

But apart from niggles like that and a couple of other 'minor' technically fluffy bits, the piece makes interesting thought food. I have cherry picked some parts which relate directly to the Australian government's involvement. If you can spare the time, the links provided by Julie are worth following, if only for the sake seeing through what seems to be rapidly developing into a smoke and mirrors show.

Julie 2. The paragraph that begins the altitude discussion starts with "According to military radar". Again, I initially thought this was very sloppy, both in the writing and the editorial, because WHOSE radar was not specified. Of course, most people would just naturally assume that given the context, the writer meant MALAYSIA'S military and keep moving. But was Malaysia's military the ONLY military that *saw* MH370 right AFTER its turn over the South China Sea?

There's every chance that JORN did. JORN is a joint American/Australia piece of hi-tech radar gear and it is directly connected with the five powers MoU – see Sarcs #-HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-130.html#post8784948) for details.. Which is passing strange, considering the smoke generated when any line of discussion related to radar data is opened. For example:-

Bradsher –"The main evidence for the conclusion lies in a re-examination of Malaysian military radar data and in a more detailed analysis of electronic 'handshakes,' or pings"...and;

Bradsher –...a comprehensive international review has found that the Malaysian radar equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision to draw any conclusions about the aircraft’s true altitude.

Now that is a troubling statement, how in the seven hells can anyone responsibly assign altitude and guarantee separation (or contact) using a 'not calibrated enough' radar system. Even though it is a very expensive and reputedly highly sophisticated equipment system. So they just bought a brand new Rolls Royce, with all the whistles and bells, and then just parked in the ghetto. Nah, don't believe a word of it.

Bradsher –"'The primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable" said Angus Houston...Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, agreed with Mr. Houston. 'There’s nothing reliable about height'..

Mr. Houston and Mr. Dolan declined to discuss any details about the Malaysian radar readings."..

Huston perhaps with the national interest at heart and being naturally sensible may well have declined to speculate, leaving the 'Dolan' camp and his associated departments bereft of one mirror, to assist with the 'departmental' smoke and mirrors strategy for a 'clean' exit. It's a notion which may explain, in part, the developing rift between two camps and the bizzare, one line interviews Dolan is gracing the international media with. There's nary a skerrick in the local rags; unless you consider his IOS celebrated 'lunch' with the SMH as investigative journalism.

Julie – "SO THE DISMISSAL OF THE RADAR ALTITUDE DATA PROMPTED A CHANGE IN THE FOCUS OF THE SEARCH." (CAPS mine)".

Julie –Without a peep (in that article) from any Malaysian officials, and from the pulpit in Australia — sans any details as to who conducted the "comprehensive international review" of Malaysia's military radar system — or an explanation of the technical basis for determining that Malaysia's system was not "calibrated with enough precision" — it was announced that Malaysia's military altitude data was so imprecise that it was being dismissed. Which then allowed the authorities to CHANGE the SEARCH focus.

Julie –Other than Keith Bradsher, is there an aviation journalist anywhere on earth who caught this - or questioned it (or the authorities in AUS) in any meaningful way?

Yes, our very own Ben Sandilands was onto this and other 'interesting' elements of the incident and is also worth 'reading' in the manner prescribed by Julie in her 'longer twitter'.

Australia has more skin in the #MH 370 game than many realise and with a yawning chasm developing between the 'Mrdak/Dolan' front of house clean exit team and the Huston – 'Just do it right' crew, perhaps those who are going to be closest to the incoming flack had better pay a little attention to the Dolan domestic woes, before it becomes another Pel-Air, writ large and spread all over the pages of both domestic and international newspapers. If it was my shout, I'd drag the inestimable Julia Bishop into the front line and clean up the Australian aviation safety system 'image', before the unmentionable hits that which is rotating at an increasing speed. (Bit of diplomatic double speak there, but you get the drift).

I just wonder which of the major oil exploration companies is going to 'buy' the sea floor maps from the whoever owns them and what the final price will be; I mean the maps have to be worth something, to someone don't they?

Aye; it's all interesting enough, but will it get the Forsyth and Senate reports over the wire? Who would know just who will have a seat, when the music stops, as it must.

Nice work Julie – Cyber Choc frog delivery through cyber space – Send..:D..

Soteria
2nd Jan 2015, 06:46
Nice work Julie – Cyber Choc frog delivery through cyber space – Send.... Perhaps the chocy frogs can be delivered by Drone?

Jetsbest
2nd Jan 2015, 09:20
The "military radar" being referred to here is not an ATC radar but rather the type of radar designed to detect uncooperative aircraft such as an enemy which is not squawking any kind of transponder. One part of such a radar is that which tries to verify an aircraft's altitude by triangulation of the direct range and the antenna elevation angle: there are potentially large deductive errors if such a radar has not been "calibrated".
It's no surprise to me that such a conclusion might be reached.:O