40% CASA staff increase whilst GA goes down

[Dick Smith]

I notice in the Aviation section of today’s Australian newspaper an advertisement for a “Safety Specialist” for the Office of Airspace Regulation – the salary including superannuation is up to $150,000 a year.

It’s interesting that they ask for the successful candidate to “have knowledge of the Australian airspace system”. Not a mention of any knowledge of airspace in other leading aviation countries. Yes, no doubt that’s a great way of keeping the status quo and never putting in some extra E controlled airspace at places like Ballina so that safety could actually be improved.

But what’s more to the point is the staggering increase in CASA staff numbers in the period 2007 to 2014 …

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o570/margot23/casa%20staff%20numbers_zpsrbrlndyp.jpg (http://s1148.photobucket.com/user/margot23/media/casa%20staff%20numbers_zpsrbrlndyp.jpg.html)

This, of course, is a 40% increase!

And whilst these staff numbers have increased I have noticed that all of GA – that’s private, business and training – has dropped in flying hours.

My suggestion is that everyone closes down their GA business and goes and works for CASA. That will result in a great improvement in safety and there can’t be many people in GA earning $150,000 a year.

[no_one]

Isn't that about 1 for every 14 aircraft?

[peterc005]

871 staff - that's enough for a small army! Maybe they could do something useful like invade NZ?

What do all of these people do?

[Sunfish]

What do they do? They make work for each other.


Example:


CD 0712MS - Display of nationality marks, registration marks and aircraft registration identification plates



CASA wishes to advise that CD 0712MS - Display of nationality marks, registration marks and aircraft registration identification plates is now available for comment.

As a result of inadequacies and inconsistencies of the current Part 45 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is currently undertaking a post-implementation review (PIR) to examine how the requirements could be revised to be more suitable to industry and modern aircraft operations. A working group of industry and CASA representatives was established to undertake this PIR and review proposed amendments.

The working group’s recommendations were incorporated in Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 0712MS, which was published for consultation in December 2010. Comments closed for this NPRM on 26 February 2011. Following a review of the responses to the NPRM, CASA instructed the proposed amendments to Part 45 of CASR.

A general exemption against compliance with certain requirements of Part 45 of CASR was issued to initially resolve some of the immediate problems and to avoid the need to issue exemptions for individual aircraft. The initial general exemption was issued on 31 January 2008 and then reissued on 27 January 2015 as CASA Instrument EX16/15. The exemption aligns with marking requirements already adopted by some other leading International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) contracting States, such as the United States of America (USA). These requirements apply only in respect of operations in Australia.

Following the release of the Report of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review and the Government response, CASA has identified several areas of Part 45 of CASR that could be improved via a three-tier structure. CASA therefore proposes to amend Part 45 of CASR to provide for the issue of a Part 45 Manual of Standards (MOS). A consultation draft of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 45) Regulation 2015, incorporating the issue of the MOS and the PIR's proposed amendments as well as a consultation draft of the MOS are now available.

All comments should be submitted via the Project Leader, Jurgen Schob by close of business 3 August 2015.

View this Consultation Draft on the CASA website: http://www.casa.gov.au/consultationopen



If I couldn't write the rules for markings in one A4 page in one day, I'd think I was a failure. Then of course I could adopt some other country's rules in toto. These CASA guys have strung the process out to Seven years so far.

[advo-cate]

I found this recently and does not seem to add up to the other published figures:

[tipsy2]

Sunny said "These CASA guys have strung the process out to Seven years so far."

Actually it's more like 27 years, that's not a mistype, 27 years to rewrite the Reg's. Talk about a job for life.

Successive Ministers, Departmental Secretaries, CASA Boards and CEO's or whatever they deem to call themselves have b*ggerised around this rewrite and nobody is responsible. What a criminal shambles.

Tipsy.:=

[triadic]

It would be good if they advised specifically what the changes are...!
I should not have to search for same.

Is there a safety case and/or cost/benefit analysis?

[LeadSled]

Is there a safety case and/or cost/benefit analysis? Of course not, CASA are merely responding to the Minister's desire to see the ASRR implemented, and quite by coincidence, have picked a topic that requires more regulation, or disallowable instruments --- or regulation/quasi regulation.

Triadic,
You should know what a safety threat rego. letters 1 cm or so too small represents -- all because of "metrication" and the fact that almost the only masks come from USA, and are in Imperial. ie: 150MM and 6" are slightly different.

Seriously, last time I looked, there were about 17 pages of paper to register an aircraft in Australia, including instructions.

In US, half a page, NZ same same.

Are Australian aviators really as dumb as that?? CASA must think so.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

The principality now has 871 Prince's.

[thorn bird]

Well aviation must be booming in Australia to require a 40% increase in Staff.

Perhaps they should employ a few hundred more, given the time it takes them to process anything.

Two years to issue an AOC seems just a little long, compared to New Zealand's eight weeks. Perhaps the New Zealand CAA employ half the total population to get things done that quick.

Then again they probably have sensible regulations.

[Jabawocky]

Talk about LMAO so much it hurts. This thread is so funny.


ohhh…..hang on, thats reality :ooh: :sad:

[Kanga767]

Although I agree with the sentiment of the thread, it's
persons like Raptor090 who think aviation is just about pilots that make me shake my head in disbelief.

[jas24zzk]

Dick,
could you provide the link to the advert?

I think I might like to apply....I can't get that sort of money with 25 years experience in my own trade getting things right....might as well have a go at doubling my money getting things wrong.


jest aside, my first line was serious.

cheers
Jas

[HIALS]

Slightly deeper research shows that CASA employs 78 flying operations inspectors. (From the CASA annual report.) Assuming there are 40,000 pilots in Australia - that's 1 to 512. Which is less than the police to public ratio previously mentioned.

The total staff level of CASA is 871. The FAA employs 45,000 (of which are 36,000 are ATC). Transport Canada employs 5,500 people.

To put it into perspective - CASA has national oversight, not just NSW. There are 23m people in Australia - so there is 1 CASA employee for every 26,406 Australian citizens. Hardly an outrageous ratio, as has been previously misrepresented.

[dubbleyew eight]

To put it into perspective - CASA has national oversight, not just NSW. There are 23m people in Australia - so there is 1 CASA employee for every 26,406 Australian citizens. Hardly an outrageous ratio, as has been previously misrepresented.

you must be a CAsA stooge to think that.
most of those 26,406 australian citizens have absolutely no involvement in aviation so why quote that number.
bullsh*t statistical justification at its sorry best.
hang your heads in shame CAsA at the never ending injustice of it all.

[Dangly Bits]

Only recent RAAF personnel with no GA experience will be considered!

I'm not joking!

[HIALS]

It's just a comparison. Most of the 7.4m people who live in NSW don't break the law. So, is a police v population ratio any more relevant as a benchmark?

[dubbleyew eight]

I'm told that CAsA field staff never work alone.
they always appear in pairs.

so expect the staff numbers to double over time. :mad:

[Sunfish]

HIALS is either a troll or a malicious CASA employee. One of businesses discoveries is "benchmarking" which is a process of comparing non dimensional measurements "metrics" between organisations, locally or internationally.

This is a well understood process. I did some of it in the telecommunications industry before Telstra was privatised.

I wouLd suggest CASA couldn't possibly compete internationally and is a glaring example of excessive red tape and inefficiency.

[Arm out the window]

HIALS is either a troll or a malicious CASA employee.

Go easy there Sunfish, that doesn't follow at all. Why is it that if anyone disagrees with an anti-CASA point they get slagged?

[Sunfish]

It's not about "agreeing" it's about misrepresenting matters of fact with respect to the technique of benchmarking which is settled science.

You might be interested to know that there is an international association for air traffic control that regularly benchmarks all its members performance. Australia is not a member, funny that.

I benchmarked Telecom Australia against ITU benchmarks in a confidential review before they became Telstra and before they were privatised. The results were simply awful on all the metrics. Their response? " Australia is different". It wasn't.

To put that another way, I know special pleading when I hear it.

[dubbleyew eight]

if you look at the sheer audacious incompetence that is CAsA the only similar precedent would be the rum corps of the initial settlement.

people I know see my posts here and ask why I hate the ex-raaf so much.
I dont.
in fact my brother spent his entire working life in the RAAF.
what I hate with a passion is government incompetence.

if you look objectively at the incredible misfit between reality and australian aviation legislation the cause of it all is that incompetent government ministers have hung their trust on the only flying heros the knew. the RAAF.
so CAsA and its precedents have almost entirely been staffed by the retired RAAF.

what would the RAAF know about civilian aviation? next to nothing is the answer.
they have never flown aircraft in a civilian environment.
they have never flown civilian aircraft.
they have never owned aircraft.
they have never maintained an aircraft they owned.
they have always flown in an environment of infinite money.

just as a barometer I asked my brother what he thought of Air Vice Marshall (retired) Skidmore now that he has become head of CAsA.
I thought the reply sounded like something something a fckuing muppet.

so 'arm out the window' why do you stridently support this corruption we know as CAsA?
it wouldn't be that you work for them out of the cairns office would it?

what I can never understand is that CAsA can't see how badly they have stuffed up.

[Arm out the window]

so 'arm out the window' why do you stridently support this corruption we know as CAsA?
it wouldn't be that you work for them out of the cairns office would it?


No, it wouldn't. I've never worked for them, and the only dealings I have with them is to pay licensing fees and to see them on the odd occasion they come around to the GA outfit I work in.

I'm ex-RAAF but have also worked a good while in GA, and have seen both the good and bad on both sides of the fence, so to speak. There are plenty of ex-military types who have had a lot to do with civil aviation, so when I see prejudiced and quite frankly rude comments about how we're all bloody hopeless, I see red.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Dick, there is more than just number increase. The ratio of IT, HR, IR and managers.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Anybody want to try a comparison with people to registered aircraft.
Or, in Australia, just active aircraft, which is about half those registered.
The comparisons ain't good!
Very roughly, FAA (not ATC) 24 aircraft per body, Australia about 8.5, based on BITRE estimate of active aircraft for 2015, and the FAA figure since the fleet wide rego/re-rego check, which eliminated most "hangar queens".
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Raptor,
Come to think of it, those FAA numbers cover a lot of bodies engaged in technical research and development, basic aircraft certification and many other tasks that CASA does not do, so the comparison makes us look even more inefficient.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

"Dick, there is more than just number increase. The ratio of IT, HR, IR and managers."

Half man half Tim Tam, CAsA have a tried and true principle they apply.
Its based on the principle of "Who checks the checkers" which basically means the industry has to employ twice as many people as needed to do any one job.

CAsA extends that principle to "Who manages the managers".
Unfortunately this would expand the employment of managers into infinity, obviously unsustainable, they'd run out of people to employ as managers.

They get around this by employing people as managers then after a suitable period of time they leave the organisation and become "Consultants" on vastly inflated remuneration, a win win situation for everybody.

They can keep their employment numbers down to politically reasonable numbers, and everyone gets a place at the trough.

[kaz3g]

It's just a comparison. Most of the 7.4m people who live in NSW don't break the law. So, is a police v population ratio any more relevant as a benchmark?


Most pilots fly safely and don't break the law, either.

Kaz

[Sandy Reith]

As one who started flying commercially with an ops manual of around twelve pages, no chief pilot interview, I can attest that bureaucratic topsy grew exponentially. If anyone doubts that CASA is over manned and gouging then consider the following:-

My attempt to transfer my training AOC to a couple that operated my flying school. He was CFI, they used their own aircraft, same airport, same students, same training area. Would CASA just allow a transfer? Oh no, they were made to go through all the hoops, the whole nine yards. Thousands of dollars and months of total rubbish. Bureaucratic make work and fee gouging for not one iota of benefit. I am still disgusted at the treatment of this enthusiastic and conscientious couple, as they struggled to make a living out of GA.

Why not instructors free to instruct as in the USA, no unnecessary, super expensive and massive time wasting Air Operators Certificate paperwar requirements? Flying training is the bedrock of Australian aviation. Couple this much needed reform with the brand new relaxed medical requirements just enacted by the US Congress and hey presto GA can fly, jobs, aviation business and enough Aussie pilots so 457 pilot work visas will not be necessary. Growing the job sufficiently will mean more GA friendly voices and voters.

[advo-cate]

I agree with your sentiments.

When I started to fly some 20-years ago, I came from a business background, which followed 20-odd years in the public service. On meeting casa, I had never seen such a poor attempt to "work-with" people as was demonstrated.

In coming to aviation with a technical teaching background, good mathematics skills, management expertise and a proper interest in aviation [not just flying], I hit a brick wall of casa staff who had no idea as to how to achieve reasonable outcomes, correct exams, supportive attitudes etc.

It has just got worse and worse, despite trying to interface and achieve improvements.

We must immediately, Mr. Jeff Boyd, as you have been given a very big baton to carry - give air to the ASRR [David Forsyth] report and quickly move on.

FAA/ NZ rules for all.

[thorn bird]

Advo-cate,

Hear hear! if not there will not be an industry for CAsA to regulate.

[Sunfish]

I'm in sunny Italy at the moment, but if someone can assemble some numbers from reliable sources we can start our benchmarking when I get back or sooner if you do it yourself.

Numbers: hours flown, movements cycles or flights, number of GA aircraft, regulator employees and contractors, pages of regulation, non conformances with ICAO. Accident rates, fatality rates, number of pilots, medicals, renewals, costs of regulator. For Europe, USA,,uk, nz and anyone else we can find. From that we can derive some benchmarks

Someone should look up international air traffic regulators website, confirm their benchmarking program exists, I think I found it did, get a hold of their benchmarks if available and apply them to AsA, then QON to Xenophon about why AsA isn't a member and doesn't benchmark and doesn't share those results with industry.

Hard data can then be perhaps rammed up the proverbial since benchmarks don't lie.

Enough ipad scratching, off to Perugia Tommorrow for a cooking course.

[Tinstaafl]

Wren, A key difference between USA & Oz instructor systems is that the FAA tracks pass/fail rates for each instructor who recommends a student for a test under Part 61. Part 141 instructing is more akin to the Oz system where the *school's* pass rate is monitored and the school is expected to monitor each instructor. Many schools are not 141 schools though, or offer both 141 & 61 training, so each instructor within the school is somewhat his or her own standalone Part 61 operation.

If an instructor operating under Part 61 has too high a fail rate then his or her instructor privileges can be removed. Similar situation for a school providing instruction under Part 141.

[Bell_Flyer]

Dick said:

My suggestion is that everyone closes down their GA business and goes and works for CASA. That will result in a great improvement in safety and there can’t be many people in GA earning $150,000 a year.

Dick, it's called a WGMTMTWKWTDW. (We Got More Taxpayer's Money Than We Know What To Do With).

Frankly, I don't feel we can be truly safe until CASA officers are paid $500,000 pa with $100,000 bonuses like that nice lady at ASA. :)

[Nibbles2310]

If only they were paid bonuses based on the size of the GA fleet and hours flown?

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Now that's the best idea I have read for a long time!

[thorn bird]

Not really such a good idea Dick, The number of check flights required to keep crews and training personnel up to the requirements of Part 61 is already unsustainable for any company with a mixed fleet, with cross endorsed pilots.

All CAsA would do to ensure their bonuses would be to increase the number of checks per year. You'd have GA aircraft flying a thousand hours a year doing checks and 100 hours per year doing revenue flights. That's if your crew have had at least the past week off before the check, and get the week after the check off as well to meet the new CAO48 rules.

[Old Akro]

Very roughly, FAA (not ATC) 24 aircraft per body, Australia about 8.5, based on BITRE estimate of active aircraft for 2015, and the FAA figure since the fleet wide rego/re-rego check, which eliminated most "hangar queens".

This isn't an easy comparison. While (based on the FAA Annual Report) you can identify the number of controllers, its not so easy to identify the equivalent roles to AsA in management, Navaid maintenance, etc. Also, The FAA employee numbers include many job functions that we have in the ATSB. It also has a certification function which is largely absent here. And in Australia, AMSA provides some of the services provided by the FAA in the US).

The 2014 report http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/2014-FAA-PAR.pdf lists: (CASA numbers from 2014 Annual report after /)

Total Employees: 45,543 / 871 + 4475 + 30 (ATSB) = 5376
No; of pilots: 600,000 / 36,158
No. of Airports: 540 / 191
No. of aircraft: 202,000 / 15,529

In aggregate the ratio comparisons are (USA / Aus)

aircraft per employee: 4.43 / 2.9
pilots per employee 13.2 / 6.7

So, we don't look so good.