View Full Version : How does your regulator rate?

25th Sep 2016, 23:34
Information from the ICAO website, based on their audits. Nice to see a third party assessment. Apparently CASA was audited this year, that was kept quiet!!


tail wheel
26th Sep 2016, 02:50

How does Australia get 81.82% for legislation when the Act is out-dated and the CARs are a never ending story? :confused:

26th Sep 2016, 03:07
Plug in USA and you will see that they score the same as Australia for legislation. :hmm:

I can only guess that this is scored on intent rather than what actually is law. CASA have told them what they intend to do and that is then scored.

UAE seem to be doing quite well overall several 100% and lowest score being 97.4%

Frank Arouet
26th Sep 2016, 03:13
Like all Socialist Organizations, United Nations Agency's make sure every State has a satisfactory rating to justify it's existence. After all, the cash donations from Member Nations are the insurance policy payment that guarantees a pass. In all, it makes CAsA an average entity. By anyone in the Australian Industry's standard, very average indeed.

Band a Lot
26th Sep 2016, 04:25
Tail Wheel,

"How does Australia get 81.82% for legislation"

Must be %'S for $'s spent as part of determination of total %age. That and total number of pages.

26th Sep 2016, 04:39
Try a state with really poor , badly written or inappropriate legislation.Australian legislation looks angelic.

Lead Balloon
26th Sep 2016, 07:07
I think you'll find that the assessment against the legislation criterion is merely an exercise that maps the ICAO Annexes and SARPS to domestic legislation that implements them. If there's a piece of domestic legislation that implements the ICAO provision, there's tick in that box. And so on against each provision.

There is no evaluation of whether the domestic legislation implementing the ICAO provision is understood or complied with by the people subject to them. There is also no evaluation of the extent to which piecemeal exemptions undermine the basic rule. An evaluation on these and other bases would, I suspect, result in a big fat FAIL for Australia.

Band a Lot
26th Sep 2016, 11:30
"I think you'll find that the assessment against the legislation criterion is merely an exercise that maps the ICAO Annexes and SARPS to domestic legislation that implements them. "

Perfect we have 2, 1988 and 1998!

Just like woollies double points on fruit n veg is my guess

Duck Pilot
26th Sep 2016, 19:26
Take a look at PNG, I'm supprised they haven't haven't had international restrictions imposed on them with some of the low compliance scores that come out of their 2014 ICAO audit.

tail wheel
26th Sep 2016, 19:54
And 100% for CASA's dysfunctional, dyslexic Organisation from which the DAS recently departed???

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Lead Balloon
29th Sep 2016, 22:09
Australia gets 100% because it has "organisations" with nominal functions that map to the list of functions that ICAO considers should be performed in an effective system of aviation safety regulation. There is no assessment of whether those functions are actually being performed effectively.

30th Sep 2016, 00:07
So the report is really a waste of time. It doesn't provide any useful information?

30th Sep 2016, 02:25
compare Australia to PNG (which has a contemporary aviation regulatory regime) and the results for Australia are not that flash

chimbu warrior
30th Sep 2016, 08:23
Take a look at PNG

I tried, but it does not open the link. Most other countries seem to work okay.

Be wary using the National Airports Corporation data; their website shows the elevation of Goroka as 1646 feet! Goroka Airport (http://www.nac.com.pg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106)

A few heavy landings must have lowered it a bit.

30th Sep 2016, 08:46

chimbu warrior
30th Sep 2016, 09:46
Thanks TWT, must be an issue with my computer.

One correction I'd make to that is the accident investigation graph. The Accident Investigation Commission in PNG is light years ahead of the ATSB. David and his team produce thorough, accurate reports within a reasonable time frame. Sid O'Toole taught them well.

ATSB is nowhere near as good.

Band a Lot
1st Oct 2016, 01:36
So can we say from that graph, The "better" the Legislation the worse the performance in all other areas?

Dash Balus
1st Oct 2016, 02:30
Can't understand how PNG rates relatively high in Air Nav Services and Aerodromes.

The Majority of the Navaids throughout the country have not worked in years, (and in all likelihood will never again).

As for Aerodromes, that is one unbelievably high result for bits of ashphalt that I would be concerned with driving my car on.

Fairness over truth maybe?

Lead Balloon
1st Oct 2016, 03:33
Fairness over truth maybe?It's more facade over substance.

Remember: It's bureaucrats assessing other bureaucrats.

That Australia scores 100% for "Organization" and around 96% for "Accident Investigation" proves that there's no assessment of the substance of what those function names would imply. Ditto PNG and ANS and Aerodromes.

1st Oct 2016, 06:22
Please don't knock the ICAO audit. It's independent and has achieved wonders since it was instituted; previously NAAs simply declared compliance.
Remember that averages include many scores way worse than PNG so are not challenging benchmarks.
The results seem valid as far as comparisons go (one NAA against another) and as a trend over time.
E.G the only change with latest CASA audit is a tiny improvement in airworthiness. Thailand used to be above average on all measures except "Organisation" but has plummeted. Indonesia is improving and now well ahead of Thailand.
I only have the previous audit scores from old teaching material and cannot see any easy way to extract them on the ICAO site.