More Than One Year Since Release of “Forsyth Review” – And Nothing’s Changed!

[LeadSled]

More Than One Year Since Release of “Forsyth Review” – And Nothing’s Changed!

It was on 4 June 2014 that Warren Truss announced that the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report had been presented to him. The Review had been commissioned by Warren Truss some seven months earlier (November 2013).

The Report made 37 recommendations.

Can anyone advise if there has been one change that has made any material difference in relation to reducing costs for the aviation industry in this country?

If not, what a complete and absolute waste of money and time – then again, it’s managed to delay any reform for another couple of years. Mr Truss must be very pleased.

Tootle pip!!

[sunnySA]

Recommendation 1
The Australian Government develops the State Safety Program into a strategic plan for Australia’s aviation safety system, under the leadership of the Aviation Policy Group, and uses it as the foundation for rationalising and improving coordination mechanisms.
Recommendation 2
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development plays a stronger policy role in the State Safety Program.
Recommendation 3
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigates as many fatal accidents in the sport and recreational aviation sector as its resources will allow.
Recommendation 4
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority utilise the provision in their bilateral Memorandum of Understanding to accredit CASA observers to ATSB investigations.
Recommendation 5
The Australian Government appoints an additional Australian Transport Safety Bureau Commissioner with aviation operation and safety management experience.
Recommendation 6
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Board exercises full governance control. The non-executive directors should possess a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds in aviation, safety, management, risk regulation, governance and government.
Recommendation 7
The next Director of Aviation Safety has leadership and management experience and capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. Aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable.
Recommendation 8
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority:
1. reinstates publication of Key Performance Indicators for service delivery functions;
2. conducts a stakeholder survey every two years to measure the health of its relationship with industry;
3. accepts regulatory authority applications online unless there is a valid technical reason against it; and
4. adopts the same Code of Conduct and Values that apply to the Australian Public Service under the Public Service Act 1999.
Recommendation 9
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority develops a staff exchange program with industry.
Recommendation 10
Airservices Australia, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, reconsiders the policy on ‘Assessment of Priorities’ that stipulates that air traffic controllers sequence arriving aircraft based on category of operation, rather than on the accepted international practice of ‘first come, first served’.
Recommendation 11
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority amend the wording of their existing Memorandum of Understanding to make it more definitive about interaction, coordination, and cooperation.
Recommendation 12
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority delegates responsibility for the day-to-day operational management of airspace to Airservices Australia, including the designation of air routes, short-term designations of temporary Restricted Areas, and temporary changes to the classification of airspace for operational reasons.
Recommendation 13
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Department of Defence (and appropriate agencies) establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint user and military airports.
Recommendation 14
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.
Recommendation 15
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority continues to provide appropriate indemnity to all industry personnel with delegations of authority.
Recommendation 16
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority finalises its Capability Framework and overhauls its training program to ensure identified areas of need are addressed, including:
a. communication in a regulatory context;
b. decision making and good regulatory practice; and c. auditing.
Recommendation 17
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority publishes and demonstrates the philosophy of ‘just culture’ whereby individuals involved in a reportable event are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training. However, actions of gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts should not be tolerated.
Recommendation 18
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reintroduces a ‘use of discretion’ procedure that gives operators or individuals the opportunity to discuss and, if necessary, remedy a perceived breach prior to CASA taking any formal action. This procedure is to be followed in all cases, except where CASA identifies a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
Recommendation 19
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, without redaction or de-identification.
Recommendation 20
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers its safety education function to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Recommendation 21
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its organisational structure to a client-oriented output model.
Recommendation 22
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes small offices at specific industry centres to improve monitoring, service quality, communications and collaborative relationships.
Recommendation 23
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority shares the risk assessment outputs of Sky Sentinel, its computerised risk assessment system, with the applicable authorisation holder.
Recommendation 24
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority provides full disclosure of audit findings at audit exit briefings in accordance with international best practice.
Recommendation 25
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority introduces grading of Non-Compliance Notices on a scale of seriousness.
Recommendation 26
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority assures consistency of audits across all regions, and delivers audit reports within an agreed timeframe.
Recommendation 27
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority implements a system of using third-party commercial audits as a supplementary tool to its surveillance system.
Recommendation 28
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes a safety oversight risk management hierarchy based on a categorisation of operations. Rule making and surveillance priorities should be proportionate to the safety
Recommendation 29
Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations, in coordination with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop mechanisms to ensure all aircraft to be regulated under CASR Part 149 are registered.
Recommendation 30
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two-tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three-tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
a. regulations drafted in a high-level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences
b. the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language.
Recommendation 31
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority structures all regulations not yet made with the three-tier approach, and subsequently reviews all other Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts (in consultation with industry) to determine if they should be remade using the three-tier structure.
Recommendation 32
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reassesses the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
Recommendation 33
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority applies a project management approach to the completion of all Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts not yet in force, with drafting to be completed within one year and consultation completed one year later, with:
a. a Steering Committee and a Project Team with both CASA and industry representatives; and
b. implementation dates established through formal industry consultation.
Recommendation 34
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee.
Recommendation 35
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.
Recommendation 36
The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.
Recommendation 37
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority amends the current Terms of Reference of the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) so that:
1. The ICC reports directly to the CASA Board
2. No CASA staff are excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction
3. The ICC will receive complaints that relate to both the merits and the process of matters.
4. On merits matters, including aviation medical matters, the ICC is empowered to convene an appropriately constituted review panel, chaired by a CASA non-executive director, to review the decision.
While all ICC findings are non-binding recommendations, the original decision- maker is required to give reasons to the CASA Board if a recommendation is not followed.

[aroa]

...and never will :mad::mad::mad:

Its the bureaucrapic merry go round and round and round, that spins decade after decade the old platitudes, upchucks yet more regs with heavier strict liability penalties, all under the guise of keeping the population absolutely safe from falling aeroplanes.

ASRR...WTF was that.?? Oh yeah that was last year, now dated and past its use by. Ignore all that . Next !!

Skidmark wants to know what the industry thinks...instead of us going thru it all again he could just read all the submissions and get a VERY good idea.

But wait there's more. A NEW Corporate Plan, nicely illustrated with a circular diagram where the Industry doesnt even get a mention. :eek:
Reminds me of a centrifuge where they can spin a "safety"brain fart into a strict liability regulatory turd.:yuk::D
But that's the CAsA Soviet for ya.! Worlds best and all that self congratulatory crap.:mad:
Pleased to see they're interested in 2030..but by then GA probably wont exist...
UNLESS there is REVOLUTION.:ok::ok:

[LeadSled]

But wait there's more. A NEW Corporate Plan, nicely illustrated with a circular diagram where the Industry doesn't even get a mention. :eek:Folks,
Doesn't said circular diagram perfectly illustrated the CASA situation, action and movement, round and round in circles, no beginning and no end.
Or the alternative diagrammatic specificity, CASA just chasing its tail, all sound and fury.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

I need to get out more. I'm going to Ausfly where I will try and get a feel for what some other pilots are thinking.

What seems to me to be happening to the entire Australian community, including the aviation sector, is succumbing to "learned helplessness" and it is deliberately fostered by a variety of self interested arseholes including parts of the public sector and includes CASA.

Learned helplessness is a behaviour in which an organism forced to endure aversive, painful or otherwise unpleasant stimuli, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are escapable. Presumably, the organism has learned that it cannot control the situation and therefore does not take action to avoid the negative stimulus.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

You see it when the politicians tell the public that they must have toll roads because "government must not go into debt" and "the private sector is more efficient". This is bull****.

You see it in the daily activities of the Occupational Health and Safety Oxygen thieves. Whole swathes of chemicals are now banned from public use because they are deemed "too dangerous" for the general public to use safely - an example being the wood preservative creosote.

You see it when politicians deem the free health system is deemed "not sustainable" which is code for reducing Gina Rhinehearts tax bill.


I see it at yacht clubs which have an ever expanding costly staff because: "the members can't/shouldn't be doing this themselves". I first used our Fifty ton slipway winch as a Fourteen year old, under instruction of course. Today such practices would probably result in criminal sanctions - the winch was deemed "too dangerous' despite there not being one accident in Fifty years.

We see it in Aviation where the avoidance of any risk to Government is made into an art form by CASA.

Well folks there is a solution: kick the bastards out of government - both parties and take back your life. Elect independents. Do not elect anyone who has not once held down a proper job - on the tools if inclined to Labor, in business if inclined to Liberal. Stop electing smarmy lawyers, political staffers like Abott and union apparachiks like Shorten.

Next time and OH & S nazi tells you something is "Unsafe" ask him then show me what the &*^% would you do instead? Watch him jibber and run away.

Next time some prick tells you "we have to sell the Port to have money to fix railway crossings" ask him why the $%^# can't the government borrow at historically low interest rates and do the job itself? Don't they understand that privatisation is just theft?

FFS take charge of your destiny! Stop with the "learned helplessness"! If you are a charter operator stop flying politicians around who won't support your industry. If you meet a politician tell him what is ailing you.

Probably the best thing to do would be to start political action aimed at personally doing your best to ensure Warren Truss and similar enemies of aviation and safety won't get elected ever again. I know this is a negative tactic, but it has worked for at least Twenty years for a certain lobby group in America. We start a fighting fund and use it to contribute to the campaign costs of people standing against those we deem "enemies of safe cheap aviation". We ask candidates to agree to pledge to a safe cheap aviation charter. Please note this is not about "parties" it is about the perfectly legal threat of campaigning to keep someone out of office. That way we make ourselves a bigger headache for Governments of both persuasions to the point where it may be a smaller headache to take on and euthanise CASA.

To put that another way; how hard would it be to:

(1) Discover which seats are marginal.

(2) Work out the value of the seat to the sitting government.

(3) Promise to fund a campaign against the sitting governments candidate for that seat at the next election unless the Government acts in our interests, starting with implementing the ForsythReview recommendations?

To put that yet another way; guess how long Mrdak and CASA would last if pilots and engineers were judged by the politicians as having the potential to effect a change of government at the next election?

What do we want? An end to the endless regulatory reform and the rotten regulations it produces. NZ style simple, plain english, FAA regulations. Separation of rule writing from enforcement. An end to "strict liability" and the associated constant threat of inadvertently becoming a felon. We want real safety, not just the pretence of it. We want a regulator that fosters aviation. We want the destruction of the public sector gravy train that is sucking the life blood out of aviation.

End of rant.

[Jabawocky]

Sunny :D:D:D

I need to get out more. I'm going to Ausfly where I will try and get a feel for what some other pilots are thinking.

And there will be CASA and the DAS there to chat to. He actually wants to get among the folk on the ground.

Everyone who reads this, pack your swag and go. Last chances to book dinner tickets I am told, they have a dozen seats left last I asked. DAS will be there. ;)

[Lookleft]

The Forsyth Review is just the last in a long line of reviews and reports into the Australian Aviation industry. Why would you expect its impact to be any different just because it was commissioned by the Minister for lots of things but not specifically aviation. We are on an endless hamster wheel of promises, inquiries and reviews. The only agent for change is when the wheel comes off its bearings and runs the hamster over.

[Jabawocky]

that made me laugh……….so true, and it is not just aviation where we are getting screwed over by reviews that achieve worse outcomes.

POTY material in that post :D:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

The Forsyth Review was set up by Truss to gazump the damning Senate Estimates inquiries into CAsA. It was a scam to delay having to act upon anything before the minister retires at the end of this Parliament.


It's worked exactly like the head "bureau-rat" designed it to work.

[LeadSled]

Frank,
Sadly, Truss has indicated that he intends to run again, he probably believes that the Nats. will not survive without his crash through or crash reform minded activist, forward looking and dynamic approach to the dominance and mastery of his portfolio and his "department".
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

IS Truss running again? Then find out who the opposition candidate is going to be and start funding a "Dump your Truss" campaign! And at the next election fund a negative campaign against the governments candidate in every marginal seat!

[Frank Arouet]

I thought he had a crook gut. He gave me one.


Worst news I've had today and it's only early. We won't survive another term with Truss in office. The social agrarians will do anything to stop Barnaby by the look of it.

[LeadSled]

And at the next election fund a negative campaign against the governments candidate in every marginal seat!

Cripes, Sunny, I wouldn't have taken you for an Albo supporter, in favor of getting rid of "rich boys toys", ie; GA.

Frank, does Truss's apparent recovery count as a miracle cure or a natural disaster??

Tootle pip!!

[Left 270]

Anyone thought of giving Alan Jones a call? He gave Dick a bit of airtime the other day regarding other topics, maybe we should start there? Getting public attention (the right attention) and exposing what is happening surely would be a good start??

[Lookleft]

He gave Dick a bit of airtime the other day regarding other topics

But would he give him the same airtime regarding aviation reform? I doubt it as it wouldn't be good for the ratings.

[Left 270]

Maybe, if it was sold as over regulation smothering an industry, government waste and ignoring the recommendation of the review, the $ figure spent on the "reform" and time frame compared to other comparable States wouldn't hurt. If it could be blamed on a lobour government too would probably grab his interest :O

[Lookleft]

The problem is both sides of politics are equally to blame. Just as there are no votes in aviation neither are there ratings.

[Sunfish]

Leadsled and lookleft, the political campaign I speak of is not about "right", "Left", Labor, Liberal or anything else it is about making sitting candidates of any and every party fearful of getting re-elected because an aviation group is funding advertising for an opposing candidate!

It is perfectly possible for such a group to fund a liberal candidate in one seat (against Albanese perhaps?), a Labor candidate in another and an independent somewhere else.

The idea being that over time, we end up with a significant group in Parliament, in both Government and Opposition, that take notice of aviation issues.

Since we are not millionaires, it would mean concentrating on marginal seats where we could get most bang for our buck if you know what I mean.

Perhaps we could ask ourselves the question: "do we want to pay $100 to CASA or spend that same $100 on stopping their misguided "safety" crusade?".

[Jabawocky]

Perhaps put that theory to David L from the LDP. He talks a lot of sense on most things. I think that would work.

I have nobody left to vote for and all my aviation friends and shooting friends are all saying the same things, even if they were ALP voters before. We are all fed up.

[Sunfish]

Jaba, trying to get pilots to vote a particular way is not worth the effort.

What works is running a negative campaign against a candidate or sitting member.

You don't run one with the theme: "Joe Blow is a friend of Aviation, vote for himm if you like aircraft".

What you run in a marginal seat is: "Joe Blow hates poor people" or some such negative message.

The key is that it is much easier to give people a reason for voting against someone then it is to get them to vote for someone.

That negative reason is probably not even about aviation, you pick the candidates biggest vulnerability and put your money into trumpeting it to anyone who listens to the TV or radio.

What we say is that unless you are a friend of aviation, and prepared to work in its interests in Parliament then we are going to put campaign money into defeating you at the next election. "We don't care who wins just that it won't be you."

My gut feel is that if pilots and aviation businesses as a group were perceived by politicians as able to make a credible electoral threat to the sitting Government, then CASA would be torn apart in seconds.

[Lookleft]

What we say is that unless you are a friend of aviation, and prepared to work in its interests in Parliament then we are going to put campaign money into defeating you at the next election. "We don't care who wins just that it won't be you."

To put that another way pilots will engage in the same crass politics that are turning people off the political process in the first place! If you want aviation minded people in Parliament then get them there on the merit of their argument not by denigrating or threatening the incumbent.

You seem to have done well in your working life Sunny and you state that you have all sorts of connections in high places, why don't you run? The seat of McEwen is one of the most marginal in the country and you live either in it or near it.

To put that another way, if you are that passionate about reform, invest in yourself and do something good for the country.

[Sunfish]

Lookleft, I happen to agree with the major political parties: there is nothing more useless than an independent in the House of representatives.

What is a far more successful strategy, and considerably cheaper and easier is to make it electoral suicide not to support aviation regulation reform.

Sad but true, negative campaigns work at the grass roots level.

To put that another way; pilots have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Government to dismember CASA by a "Look how great and good aviation is for Australia!" campaign. People are naturally cynical. They don't like airports, they regard aircraft owners as rich silvertails, they hate aircraft noise and they don't want little aircraft flying overhead and crashing into their houses. Those are the negatives and you have no chance of overcoming them with the average voter.

The beauty of the negative campaign is that we do NOT have to make our case, we merely have to add some petrol to the fire someone else always starts in marginal seats.

[Frank Arouet]

Engendering fear in the average air passenger of risk assessment and lack of safety management and oversight would be easy if only the evidence was not so unbelievable.

Even if it was believable to the average law abiding citizen the message would probably run the risk breaking some security law.

In the absence of a smoking hole a negative campaign on the back of a "whistleblower" exposing the rapidly deteriorating situation and mass public waste of taxpayer money seems the only likely fighting option.

The "Neville Chamberlain option" is simply dumb and I'm sure Lookleft knows that after seeing the results 25 years of "reforms".