“CASA” Regulations?

[Lead Balloon]

My attention has been drawn to a recent aviation magazine article that says, among other things:Aviation safety regulation is different in that the power to make regulations is the privilege of the CASA Director of Aviation Safety, screened by legislation from political influence.

Errrrrrmmmm, you only have to read the first page of regulations to discover that that statement is not correct.

Let’s take one example of hundreds of CASRs: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01051 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01051)

I, General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd), Governor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, make the following regulations.

Dated 20 August 2020David Hurley

Governor‑General

By His Excellency’s Command

Michael McCormack

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional DevelopmentNo mention of CASA or the DAS. The Governor-General makes CASRs, on recommendation from (in this case) the DPM.

The fact that CASA may beaver away generating ever-more voluminous and complex DRAFT regulations does not mean the DPM has no choice but to recommend they be made by the GG. That would be a complete abdication of the DPM’s responsibilities. The Parliament has not delegated its regulation-making power to CASA.

And if you look at the current Administrative Arrangements Order (https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/aao-5-December-2019-effect-1-February-2020.pdf (https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/aao-5-December-2019-effect-1-February-2020.pdf)) that allocates responsibility for all Commonwealth legislation to various Ministers and agencies, you will see that the Civil Aviation Act is allocated to the Department for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and the DPM. CASA does not rate a mention.

CASA can make CAOs and MOSs and directions and a lot of the other regulatory confetti that rains down on the industry. But not regulations. In any event, much of the confetti produced by CASA and the regulations made by the GG on recommendation by the DPM can be disallowed by the Parliament.

It may well be that the author of the article believes what he wrote. But it’s plain wrong.

Don’t be fooled folks. The ever-increasing quagmire of regulations is the responsibility of the people who either make them or don’t disallow them. That ain’t CASA or the DAS.

The ‘screen’ from ‘political influence’ is about regulatory decisions. e.g: the Minister has no statutory power to direct CASA to add a jet authorisation to an AOC that only authorises the operation of turboprops, as a ‘favour’ to someone connected with the Minister. (Of course, a Minister would never try to influence CASA in those kinds of circumstances.)

[Stickshift3000]

It’s possible that the author was making reference to introducing regulatory change (through CAOs, MOS etc), and not CASRs specifically.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s possible that was the author’s intent, but that’s not the meaning of the words used. In any event, you’ll find that much ‘regulatory change’ is ‘introduced’ by CASRs. You may have heard of e.g. Part 61 of CASRs and what a wonderful safety-enhancing change that has been?

[Sandy Reith]

The essential element that needs to be propounded over again and again is that Parliament is responsible for the extraordinary crushing of what should be a thriving Australian General Aviation (GA) industry via it’s creation the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and by Parliament’s total acquiescence to that body.

The independent corporate body model of governance, being practically divorced from Ministerial oversight and is not tied to the Public Service pay scales, and, as a corporate entity, may be sued has proven to be a resounding failure. It was also touted, originally, when shoved out of Departmental auspices, as a Government Business Enterprise (GBE). Never was there such a contradiction of terms, Government is not a commercial entity and has demonstrated time and again it has not the expertise nor the incentives to make profitable business. The idea that these ‘GBEs’, or other such Commonwealth corporate bodies, which are monopolistic regimes (illegal if true businesses) can ever be anything like a business is total pie in the sky, has no rationale, let alone commonsense. Is it any wonder that CASA devises ever more unnecessary and complex rules for which permits are required and thus we have fee gouging on an industrial scale never seen before in any area of the ‘Public Sector.’ This was once known as the Public Service, but now being a ‘Sector’ it has become a rival, with state sanctioned monopoly power, with private enterprise. The GA industry is virtually on it’s knees, the CASA make work program continues unabated in spite of COVID 19, and now it cries poor for money to support it’s $190,000,000 pa appetite because the fuel levy monies are not flowing to it. It’s CEO is paid c. $650,000 and several senior managers also are paid more than the Minister who is supposed to have responsibility. There’s been not one Minister with sufficient sense of duty or the internal fortitude to rein in this beast.

if anyone is aggrieved or simply feels duty bound to exert influence to see changes for the betterment of GA then the first port of call is your local federal Member of Parliament. The only way that our democracy can work properly is for individuals to engage with their MPs who are paid to represent each of their constituents. As we have seen time and again since 1988 trying to reason with the CASA has largely been a waste of time, with perhaps some steps in the right direction in the late 90s due to some exceptional and tenacious effort by certain individuals, and one in particular.

This engaging with MPs, and our state Senators, will not greatly impress if its just one email every year or two. Some constancy is required and the more numbers the better. Joining a political party is better again, you will have more access and may gain more attention and influence in pursuit of sensible policies for GA and all of our aviation industry.

[RatsoreA]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6977103/workplace-problems-plaguing-casa-create-serious-risk-for-air-disaster/

[compressor stall]

You've said it in your piece - the author made an incorrect statement, but the point that is being made is valid.

Sure the Administrator of the GG signs off on the regulations. But what a vacuous set of regulations they are. Look at the new regs -they are littered are gems like this:

(3) The operator and the pilot in command of an aeroplane for a flight each contravene this subregulation if:

(a) a requirement prescribed by the Part 121 Manual of Standards in relation to conducting flights [insert subject here] applies to the aeroplane for the flight; and

(b) the requirement is not met for the flight.



It's very clear the intent of this. The regulations give CASA the power to write anything in the MOS it likes without any political checks or balances. No the MOS is not technically regulation, but for an operator it's the only way to comply. Not what you'd call "confetti".

[Lead Balloon]

A MOS is disallowable. By the Parliament.

My use of the word “confetti” was intended to connote how much of it there is. Anyone who runs a venue at which confetti is used will tell you how irritating and damaging it is to the venue. For the people who throw it? Not so much.

[compressor stall]

A MOS is disallowable. By the Parliament.

Has that ever happened? How long would it take? 3 months until the next sitting?

And as for confetti, yes I agree with the "profusion" definition not the "superfluous and pretty" definition.

What has caused us to endure a set of regulations (after waiting my entire aviation career) that say effectively - everything is an offence unless you abide by the MOS?

[Lead Balloon]

Many reasons, but primary among them is:

the general ignorance of what’s disallowable and how to lobby for disallowance
the disunity of the ‘industry’
the despairing resignation of most to expend even more of their time and energy, for free, to resist the endless dross produced by people paid six figures to produce it, and
the belief of those who produce the dross that it’s a masterpiece that contributes to safety.

[Lead Balloon]

From CASR here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020C00935 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020C00935)with underlining added by me:Subpart 11.J—Manuals of Standards—procedures

11.265 Purpose of Subpart

This Subpart sets out the procedures for consultation before CASA issues a Manual of Standards.

Note: Manuals of Standards are documents which support these Regulations by providing detailed technical material, such as technical specifications or standards. Manuals of Standards are legislative instruments and are subject to registration and disallowance under the Legislation Act 2003.The Parliament can disallow MOSs (along with regulations and most of the other regulatory confetti produced by CASA).

[Shipwreck00]

You've said it in your piece - the author made an incorrect statement, but the point that is being made is valid.

Sure the Administrator of the GG signs off on the regulations. But what a vacuous set of regulations they are. Look at the new regs -they are littered are gems like this:




It's very clear the intent of this. The regulations give CASA the power to write anything in the MOS it likes without any political checks or balances. No the MOS is not technically regulation, but for an operator it's the only way to comply. Not what you'd call "confetti".
The mos is totally regation

[Shipwreck00]

Has that ever happened? How long would it take? 3 months until the next sitting?

And as for confetti, yes I agree with the "profusion" definition not the "superfluous and pretty" definition.

What has caused us to endure a set of regulations (after waiting my entire aviation career) that say effectively - everything is an offence unless you abide by the MOS?
It has yes, some time ago the maintenance regulations 145 MOS was disallowed, but i believe that was largely driven by union involvement

[Lead Balloon]

Perhaps lighten up on the libation, then post, S00?

[Shipwreck00]

It has yes, some time ago the maintenance regulations 145 MOS was disallowed, but i believe that was largely driven by union involvement
No it wasn't about union pressure, CASA stuffed up. They don't listen, they put work groups together then do what they want, the 145 was way wrong and luckily the errors were raised and the changes didn't get through. Not much has changed since either.

[Seabreeze]

Sandy is right!

I cannot think of any Ministers of Transport who were ever interested in what CASA does. The foxes are therefore free to roam in the chicken shed, and to create a bureaucracy which is self serving rather than industry serving.

In this regard, the present and previous ministers of transport are/were totally incompetent, and their parliamentary colleagues more interested in themselves.

Seabreeze.