CASA Part 91 - I despair - there is no mention of reducing costs

[Dick Smith]

One of my sins back in the days of the CAA was to start the regulatory reform program under Ron Cooper. Many will know the plan was to, “simply remove every unnecessary cost so we can have a viable aviation system”.

Just recently the Executive Manager, Standards Division of CASA, Mr Peter Boyd, sent out an email in relation to Part 91. There is no mention anywhere in the email of reducing cost – in fact, here is the relevant wording:

"Part 91 has been developed as part of CASA’s regulation reform program, which aims to enhance aviation safety, address known risks and maintain the reputation of Australia’s aviation industry as one of the safest in the world. Specifically, Part 91 aims to address feedback from the aviation community that the current general operating and flight rules are considered difficult to interpret and comply with”.

Can anyone explain why Mr Boyd makes no mention of reducing unnecessary costs? Is there a chance he has been told by the Minister that he is not allowed to mention this? Or possibly by Mr Mrdak, the Head of the Department?

From what I can make out, Part 91 is similar to Part 61 – it is going to result in quite staggering cost increases to the industry.

[LeadSled]

Dick,
Could you post the whole letter from you and the CASA reply, I am certain many will be most interested.

I have been trying to work out, with any accuracy, how many new strict liability offenses, or offenses with reverse onus of proof, Part 91 creates.

The not very accurate answer, so far, is "lots".

"The industry" certainly did not request a whole raft of new offenses of any kind, and it is far from clear just what safety issues Part 91 addresses, or could have addressed in a far more simple way, and, dare I say, in a way that complies with Government rule making policy, where "regulations" are the last resort, not the first, and minimizing cost is "mandatory".

CASA really hates the idea of cost/benefit justified rule making, with it, large slabs of regulation would never see the light of day.

Tootle pip!!

[thunderbird five]

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/webform/feedback-casa
"CASA is Australia's aviation safety regulator and is not responsible for the commercial performance of the aviation industry."
We don't want them responsible! but we don't want them to hinder and actively seek to destroy either.


And this is very interesting:
DAS DIRECTIVE - 01/2015
Development and application of risk-based and cost-effective aviation safety regulations.
https://www.casa.gov.au/search/das%20directive
Link doesn't work for you either? Hmmmmm.
Has the Iron Ring intercepted the DAS directive! Probably because of para 2 on page 3, talking about cost and other burdens on industry.


Lucky the RAAA (the other one) grabbed it first:
http://www.raaa.com.au/industry/_pdf/DAS-Directive-01-2015.pdf


or just google
das directive - 01/2015

[Lead Balloon]

Can anyone explain why Mr Boyd makes no mention of reducing unnecessary costs? ...You already know the answer.

Mr Boyd gets paid the same, decade after decade, whether or not the regulations reduce unnecessary costs.

Mr Boyd's pocket is very happy for the the regulatory reform program to drag on forever. Ideally for him, we'll soon reach a point at which the whingers in the aviation community are driven out or silenced by insolvency or frustration, and thereafter the program can continue without the unnecessary distraction of consultation with and complaints from the aviation community.

Imagine how many pages of regulations and offences can be created in the next 20 years! Imagine how much safer everyone will feel!

[thorn bird]

"I have been trying to work out, with any accuracy, how many new strict liability offenses, or offenses with reverse onus of proof, Part 91 creates."

There you go Leadie, I hear Wodger Wabbit from the Sydney region is positively salivating at how many businesses he can shut down, how many jobs he can destroy, how many lives and livelihoods he holds in his hands.

They say people get drunk on power, he must be completely Non-compos Mentos!!

He's one person who really does get their rocks off destroying lives, dreams and ambitions and completely unaccountable, thanks to the Murky Macavellian.

[Horatio Leafblower]

From what I am seeing and hearing, from every corner of the industry in almost every corner of the nation, GA is on its knees.

I am predicting that 50% of GA operators active at 01 July 2014 will be gone before the end of calendar 2016.

I cannot see a single glint of light on the horizon, no upturn in economic activity, no substantive change in policy direction that provides an ounce of hope.

Part 141 will do for the small flying schools, Part 135 will kill off the Charter operators, and CAO 48.1 will knock off most of the wounded.

IT'S NOT JUST AVIATION.

It is every sector of Australian business and Australian life - regulated to death.

:(

[ruddegar]

Dick - you are obviously very passionate about the subject of costs in GA and the need for regulatory reform. Would you ever consider attempting to fill a senior role at CASA again or even a parliamentary one?

If you could break it down as simply as possible what do you see as the most important steps that CASA should take to increase the viability of GA across Australia?

[Aussie Bob]

One can only speculate as to what would happen if RAA, GA, SAAA, APF, AOPA and AFAP combined as a single united force to take on CASA and their regulations.

I will continue dreaming ...

Want a job Dick? Here is your next challenge.

[Section28- BE]

Giday Dick

Ahh- the Australian Royal 'I' syndrome........., and associated 'Empire' construction process.

May have it wrong- but it does look like it............, to me.

- Issue jurisdiction Capture/& Control, hence 'Meal Ticket' value not only to oneself, but family and associated others as well....... (may, also be used as 'leverage' down-line).

Rgds
S28- BE

[50 50]

From what I can see most GA pilots and operators have become so overwhelmed by the vast new tranches of regulations that they are adopting the attitude of "Catch me if you can". The priority has shifted from complying with regulations to seeming to comply while trying to run a viable business

I studied for a pilot license, not a law degree. While CASA scream safety, new regs do not alter my stick and rudder abilities. I am no more, or less, safe today than I was yesterday.

So how safe is it when you have over regulated to the point no one cares anymore?

[Aussie Bob]

I studied for a pilot license, not a law degree. While CASA scream safety, new regs do not alter my stick and rudder abilities. I am no more, or less, safe today than I was yesterday.

Good point 50 50 and ignoring the rule books and going flying is a current pastime. The big problem is that passing a chief pilot interview is suddenly a huge hurdle, getting an ops manual written for a new AOC a virtual impossibility and the pool of pilots with the interest, qualifications and sheer determination to meet CP requirements is fast dwindling. Getting a startup engineering business underway now costs more than the business would be worth and all of this for what?

The new rules are obviously to shrink the industry. Has anyone got any data on new AOC issues? Anyone know of any new engineering businesses getting approved? It would be interesting to compare these two items with info from say a decade ago. Anyone fancy getting another mortgage to fund a new flying school? You would be brave or stupid or both.

Sadly where I live even trying for a flight review is a high cost, big travel ordeal that is off putting to the average PPL. Sure, if you own your own uninsured aeroplane it is a rule that could be ignored for a time but at what risk?

[Sunfish]

Im thinking of writing to the media under my real name, suggesting, with only a little tongue in cheek, that since Australia no longer manufactures cars, we can dispense totally with the expense associated with Australian design rules.

Not only that, why do we have "Australian Standards" for things such as Motorcycle safety helmets? Surely Europe and America have done ten times the testing we have.

Aviation regulation is a case in point, why do we employ people to write "Australian Aviation Regulations" when there is at least One perfectly good set available for free at zero cost? ANd that set (FAA regs) has been developed and tested to a level we could never hope to attain ourselves. Is the air in Australia different? Almost all Australian aircraft are imported and they are designed to FAA standards, so why reinvent the wheel?

Surely it is time to put these regulatory Oxygen Thieves out of work?

Absent a major political campaign these bastards are going to kill general, sport and recreational aviation stone dead.

[Dick Smith]

Ruddy. Any success I have received in life has come from employing capable people and motivating them to perform.

When I again get a chance to do that again in Aviation - I will .

That award I was given on the Queens Birthday weekend for services to aviation reform really got me mad!

That's because it was so bloody dishonest. Most of the reforms I set out to do have been stopped and some even reversed.

So I can have a free conscience I am now committed to completing the reforms which will allow our GA industry to boom as it should do.

If that means getting into politics I will be forced to do that. But that will be a last resort as I am not a good enough actor .

[QDMQDMQDM]

You should have refused the award then, Dick.

The honours system is entirely designed to reinforce the establishment and keep everything under control.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Aviation regulation is a case in point, why do we employ people to write "Australian Aviation Regulations" when there is at least One perfectly good set available for free at zero cost? ANd that set (FAA regs) has been developed and tested to a level we could never hope to attain ourselves. Is the air in Australia different? Almost all Australian aircraft are imported and they are designed to FAA standards, so why reinvent the wheel?

Sunfish. I understand Dick achieved this? There are rules regarding design part 21 but no unique design standards anymore. You can select either FAA or EASA. Why not go further adopt all FAA orEASA? Switzerland did.

Take your point on ANCAP as are they testing the same cars already tested by NCAP Europe? Sure ANCAP has been criticized by auto industry. You can add things like cycle helmets in too as there is a unique standard and volume of potential sales means they don't get into Australia as costs of testing are prohibitive.

[Dick Smith]

QDM

If you have watched my actions in the media since the award you will see that if it was to keep me under control it hasn't worked. Just the opposite. It has motivated me more than ever to get some worthwhile cost cutting reforms in.

I love our aviation industry. But it's fast getting where I will be one of the few who can afford it.

This is not acceptable .

[dubbleyew eight]

I wonder how many pilots have experienced enough biennial flight reviews to know absolutely that they are a load of crap.
a very expensive load of crap.

I'll bet the number of pilots not doing them is a hell of a lot more than you would think.

I overheard a conversation a flying instructor was having with a pilot.
'c'mon you do the takeoff and landing and I'll take you for a biennial'
...
'no I'm not doing the takeoff or landing, I can't fly those things'
later I asked the pilot how he got on for biennials if the instructor couldn't fly the aeroplane.
dunno, I've never had one he whispered.

the sooner that self licking ice-cream that is CAsA join the same unemployment queue that EASA sent their idiots to the better.

[gerry111]

Dick wrote:

"That award I was given on the Queens Birthday weekend for services to aviation reform really got me mad!"

I'll bet that it didn't.

"If that means getting into politics I will be forced to do that."

Please save us from ourselves. :yuk:

[skyship007]

Are you CAA/FAA chapies talking about an RPV or UAV ??

Bian's are not required if you do a 6158 or CAA equivalent annual (6 monthly sim rides for hairline drivers).

88 extract:
I wonder how many pilots have experienced enough biennial flight reviews to know absolutely that they are a load of crap?

All the older ones and if you walk away it's a pass, "Tomato Andy" thought he was a real ace and the Germans have still not fired the Luffty chaps responsible for him not being able to jump ship without declaring for bankputcy.

[Arm out the window]

I wonder how many pilots have experienced enough biennial flight reviews to know absolutely that they are a load of crap.

I think it very much depends on who you do them with and your own attitude towards your own flying skills and knowledge.

A check ride of any kind is worthwhile even if you think you're fully up to speed on everything - having someone else putting you on the spot to deal with situations and emergencies is beneficial, you have to revisit your regs and handbooks to ensure you know them well enough, and it's a chance to get out and just get someone to critically look at your habit patterns and procedures with a view to improving them where needed.

Particularly for someone who spends almost all their flying time without supervision, I reckon they're essential.

If you're flying with instructors who can't do what they're asking you to do, go somewhere else!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Getting back to the subject of Part 91, a well known lawyer, well experienced in the aviation field, believes that significant sections of Part 91 (and much else in the regulations) is unconstitutional.

Certainly, at least one amendment to the Act during the reign of Herr McCormick was unconstitutional, based on court precedents, but without a High Court challenge (paid for by who?) it stands.

Slightly more narrow please, if you have not looked at any other section of Part 91 and you are a pilot, look at the responsibilities of the pilot in command, then look at the US and NZ (or our current rule) rules, or if you happen to have a copy, the first draft Part 91 from 1999, and have a look at the legal minefield CASA has created in the current Part 91.

Remember, this is all CASA's own work, not any other agency, not any "Government policy", just CASA's preferred approach to the criminal act of committing aviation.

Tootle pip!!

[Rosebrook]

Going back to dicks point. Cost. I had a long term plan to get into scenics, start small, build the business etc.

Started out 2009. Learn to fly as you earn for me. So.eventually attained the cpl. Bought the aircraft. Built some hours. Think years to do this. And as I am working away to realise the plan and go into a General Aviation business the rules are getting changed. The scenics approval process changes looking good fir me to get into business.

So now I am where ?.. Scenics approval project knocked on the head internally by CASA. Risk assessment done and CASA project officer made a good case for simplified approval process..and still it got knocked on the head.

So just like a new RPT I will need a ****load of paperwork to start up. Well..Cant find or afford a chief pilot. Plus An estimated $20,ooh CASA fees to get an AOC set up. Forget it. The aircraft can sit in the hangar. Think of who is not getting work or money from my fledgling business...fuel provider, the lame, the young new cpl needing hours, insurance co, govt coffers. The list goes on.

Extra annoying as I know RAA are doing TIFs left right and centre .. A disguised joy flight.

There is still a flutter of interest out there in investing in GA but the rules HAVE to change to get rid of all the red tape AND bring down compliance costs in aviation. GA is dying because of over regulation ..fact. The evidence is overwhelming.

[Sunfish]

CASA wears its immunity from having to take the health of the aviation sector into account like a medal on its chest.

Until the Act is changed to require the sector to be fostered and thus specifically prevent CASA from achieving its safety objectives by stopping aviation at all, nothing can change.

To put it another way, they don't have to care if your business cannot get off the ground. Until they are made to care, there is no chance of change.