The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not one question to Minister Albanese over this.
Attempts to make phone appointments are treated with abuse and contempt.
What, owen, have you done except sit on the sidelines and snipe at achievers? Whatever you do, don't walk through any screen doors, you may strain yourself of your full talent.
Storm in a tea cup.
You need to listen to Sunfish and Creampuff.
I do listen to him.
Sunfish is an irrelevance given his recent postings.
Frank...
Whew! Glad to see I'm not the only one that the idiot Minister ignores. 
Your shooting too low Frank - try OzLotto instead. It's $15M vs. a lousy $3M for Powerball. 
And I reckon ( as Creampuff will undoubtedly agree) that the odds of you winning are a hell of a lot better than Albanese taking any meaningful action OR Dolan and McCormick resigning in the immediate future.
I may be wrong...............but I don't think so.
I have asked on numerous occasions, but he just refuses to answer. Others concur.
I need to win powerball...
And I reckon ( as Creampuff will undoubtedly agree) that the odds of you winning are a hell of a lot better than Albanese taking any meaningful action OR Dolan and McCormick resigning in the immediate future.
I may be wrong...............but I don't think so.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bingo!!
Oh, I don't know, McComic performed very well during the expected, well rehearsed question on drones, the minister and his mates seemed to have that one off pat. There is hope for progress 'in the future' for robustly improved drone legislation. Aircraft noise is right up there as well, the complaints from those dear folk who buy homes near airports are being treated to some very special consideration. So, don't whine about the reform program, they're onto it. Right – anyway -
Thread Starter
Senator FAWCETT: Could you tell the committee about the regulatory side of the white paper and where that is up to? Who are the stakeholders you have engaged with?
Mr Wilson: There were roughly 138 actions arising out of the aviation white paper, a number of which were regulatory. I do not have in my folder here a matrix across 138.
Senator FAWCETT: In broad terms, dealing with the regulation that CASA oversights specifically, particularly in the context of a regulatory process that has now stretched over a decade, and with changes of CEOs or directors of aviation safety there has been quite a change in approach to that, not just the current but previous. I am looking to understand what strategic guidance, as in long-term vision, comes from the policy area of your department, Mr Mrdak, that guides the people who are involved in regulatory reform in how the government wishes that go forward? Which stakeholders are involved? Can you talk me through how you set the policy directions for that?
Mr Mrdak: The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.
The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.
The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.
You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.
Senator FAWCETT: One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?
Mr Mrdak: To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.
Mr Wilson: There were roughly 138 actions arising out of the aviation white paper, a number of which were regulatory. I do not have in my folder here a matrix across 138.
Senator FAWCETT: In broad terms, dealing with the regulation that CASA oversights specifically, particularly in the context of a regulatory process that has now stretched over a decade, and with changes of CEOs or directors of aviation safety there has been quite a change in approach to that, not just the current but previous. I am looking to understand what strategic guidance, as in long-term vision, comes from the policy area of your department, Mr Mrdak, that guides the people who are involved in regulatory reform in how the government wishes that go forward? Which stakeholders are involved? Can you talk me through how you set the policy directions for that?
Mr Mrdak: The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.
The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.
The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.
You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.
Senator FAWCETT: One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?
Mr Mrdak: To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.
The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. … I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. … Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.
It’s fascinating watching very intelligent people avoiding dealing with the patently obvious herd of stampeding elephants in the room.
Fortunately, none of this has any affect on safety: it’s merely an obscene waste of money.
Last edited by Creampuff; 31st May 2013 at 22:19.
RRP like a broken record!
Weasel words indeed Creamy, however there was more that followed that at least shows that the good Senator is on to it and getting advice from certain sectors of the industry:
As you say Creamy not sure what good it will do because neither side of politics holds much interest in aviation and Senator Fawcett will no doubt have to play the party line once (and if) the coalition gets into government…still it is refreshing to see a pollie that does take onboard what industry is telling him!
The byplay is also interesting. It’s almost like without the DAS there, creating white noise, the level of discourse steps up a notch and I kind of get the feeling Mrdak is putting a pitch to someone who may well be overseeing him very soon..fascinating when you sift the grains from the chaff!
Senator FAWCETT: The concern, though, is what I am hearing from certain sections of the industry—and EMS is one, on the rotary side. I did not get time to confirm this with Mr McCormick today, but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that. So my question comes back: why has there been this change to basically have CASA dictating what is going to occur as opposed to constructively engaging with industry? Is that a policy that has come from government or is it something that has just evolved with changes of personality?
Mr Mrdak: I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, I am sorry.
Senator FAWCETT: What role do you see for the board of CASA between yourself and the policy level of the department and the actions of CASA? Do you see that they should be setting strategic direction and guidance for the CEO?
Mr Mrdak: Very much, and that is their role. The board is there to provide advice to the director of aviation safety to complement his skill set and to provide strategic direction for the organisation. That is the role of the chair and the board members.
Senator FAWCETT: Have they had an active role in this issue of the emphasis and direction of regulatory reform?
Mr Mrdak: I could not comment. I certainly believe that they have been a very active board, but I do not have a level of detail in relation to specific regulatory measures to give you a comprehensive answer on that.
Senator FAWCETT: What level of oversight do you then exercise over the board of CASA in terms of the appointment and the performance of that group of people as a board?
Mr Mrdak: We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the key documents the minister deals with: corporate plan, statement of expectation, statement of intent—we provide advice to the minister in those matters. We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the composition of the skills of the board, and the minister will make decisions on appointments. We certainly do provide advice to the minister on how we think the organisation is travelling in terms of meeting its performance indicators. But, at the end of the day, it is a independent statutory body that reports directly to the minister through the board in relation to the discharge of their responsibilities. We provide advice to the minister on what we believe are some of the directions that are being followed by the organisation.
Senator FAWCETT: When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?
Mr Mrdak: We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.
Mr Mrdak: We would be happy to do that for you.
Mr Mrdak: I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, I am sorry.
Senator FAWCETT: What role do you see for the board of CASA between yourself and the policy level of the department and the actions of CASA? Do you see that they should be setting strategic direction and guidance for the CEO?
Mr Mrdak: Very much, and that is their role. The board is there to provide advice to the director of aviation safety to complement his skill set and to provide strategic direction for the organisation. That is the role of the chair and the board members.
Senator FAWCETT: Have they had an active role in this issue of the emphasis and direction of regulatory reform?
Mr Mrdak: I could not comment. I certainly believe that they have been a very active board, but I do not have a level of detail in relation to specific regulatory measures to give you a comprehensive answer on that.
Senator FAWCETT: What level of oversight do you then exercise over the board of CASA in terms of the appointment and the performance of that group of people as a board?
Mr Mrdak: We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the key documents the minister deals with: corporate plan, statement of expectation, statement of intent—we provide advice to the minister in those matters. We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the composition of the skills of the board, and the minister will make decisions on appointments. We certainly do provide advice to the minister on how we think the organisation is travelling in terms of meeting its performance indicators. But, at the end of the day, it is a independent statutory body that reports directly to the minister through the board in relation to the discharge of their responsibilities. We provide advice to the minister on what we believe are some of the directions that are being followed by the organisation.
Senator FAWCETT: When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?
Mr Mrdak: We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.
Mr Mrdak: We would be happy to do that for you.
The byplay is also interesting. It’s almost like without the DAS there, creating white noise, the level of discourse steps up a notch and I kind of get the feeling Mrdak is putting a pitch to someone who may well be overseeing him very soon..fascinating when you sift the grains from the chaff!
Last edited by Sarcs; 1st Jun 2013 at 00:35.
Thread Starter
And those answers neatly summarise the fundamental failure of structure and process that results in a regulatory reform program that will drift along forever in Australia.
Other than repeating vacuous motherhood statements that have been made ad nauseam over the last couple of decades, what could the CASA Board meaningfully contribute to the “emphasis and direction of regulatory reform”?
But forget the Board - we already know, as a consequence of an expensive experiment, that having a Board and not having a Board has made not one iota of difference to the regulatory reform program.
The fundamental problem is that CASA should not be ‘responsible’ for the regulatory reform program. (I use the term ‘responsible’ in the government sense, not in the sense that normal people use that term.)
It’s all well and good for successive Ministers and Departments to ‘outsource’ the program to CASA, but the fundamental flaw in that idea is that regulatory reform requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, lots and lots of decisions of policy.
CASA isn’t qualified or appropriate to make decisions of policy.
That’s why the pus-filled detritus at the centre of this running sore – classification of operations reform – is where it’s at. i.e. nowhere.
While it’s great for successive Ministers and Departments that most of industry wastes its energy arguing with and blaming CASA for the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program, sooner or later the monster will have to be destroyed. It’s never going to produce a complete, coherent and credible set of rules.
Other than repeating vacuous motherhood statements that have been made ad nauseam over the last couple of decades, what could the CASA Board meaningfully contribute to the “emphasis and direction of regulatory reform”?
But forget the Board - we already know, as a consequence of an expensive experiment, that having a Board and not having a Board has made not one iota of difference to the regulatory reform program.
The fundamental problem is that CASA should not be ‘responsible’ for the regulatory reform program. (I use the term ‘responsible’ in the government sense, not in the sense that normal people use that term.)
It’s all well and good for successive Ministers and Departments to ‘outsource’ the program to CASA, but the fundamental flaw in that idea is that regulatory reform requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, lots and lots of decisions of policy.
CASA isn’t qualified or appropriate to make decisions of policy.
That’s why the pus-filled detritus at the centre of this running sore – classification of operations reform – is where it’s at. i.e. nowhere.
While it’s great for successive Ministers and Departments that most of industry wastes its energy arguing with and blaming CASA for the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program, sooner or later the monster will have to be destroyed. It’s never going to produce a complete, coherent and credible set of rules.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Jun 2013 at 05:42.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classification of Operations
Creampuff,
I constantly hear about it and I know what it says now, but I have no idea what it should say in the future.
It's pretty clear that you have heaps of no-how in this shell-game, so I have to ask you for your view:
What should be the endpoint of classification of operations reform?
I constantly hear about it and I know what it says now, but I have no idea what it should say in the future.
It's pretty clear that you have heaps of no-how in this shell-game, so I have to ask you for your view:
What should be the endpoint of classification of operations reform?
Last edited by scrubba; 1st Jun 2013 at 08:38.
Thread Starter
A good question.
But, just like CASA, I’m neither qualified nor the appropriate person to make that decision.
However, if I were the appropriate person to make that decision, I’d adopt the equivalent classifications used in the US FARs.
Even though the equivalent of the FARs may be imperfect, there’s no such thing as a perfect law.
Even though the equivalent of the FARs may be imperfect, at least it’s an outcome and this expensive farce would end.
Even though the FARs are made in the context of a society whose citizens accept individual responsibility and grudgingly tolerate government regulation, they could still work pretty well in a society whose citizens are in a symbiosis with government and crave to be told, in minute detail, what they are allowed to do and not do.
Finally, and most importantly, piles of regulations make little difference to the behaviour of the people who know what they are doing, and make little difference to the behaviour of the people who don’t care whether they know what they are doing. Therefore, the safety of air navigation in Australia will be largely unaffected by whether 2,000 + pages of regulations replicate the effect of the FARs, are in Swahili, or are the output of 1,000 monkeys typing for 1,000 years.
But, just like CASA, I’m neither qualified nor the appropriate person to make that decision.
However, if I were the appropriate person to make that decision, I’d adopt the equivalent classifications used in the US FARs.
Even though the equivalent of the FARs may be imperfect, there’s no such thing as a perfect law.
Even though the equivalent of the FARs may be imperfect, at least it’s an outcome and this expensive farce would end.
Even though the FARs are made in the context of a society whose citizens accept individual responsibility and grudgingly tolerate government regulation, they could still work pretty well in a society whose citizens are in a symbiosis with government and crave to be told, in minute detail, what they are allowed to do and not do.
Finally, and most importantly, piles of regulations make little difference to the behaviour of the people who know what they are doing, and make little difference to the behaviour of the people who don’t care whether they know what they are doing. Therefore, the safety of air navigation in Australia will be largely unaffected by whether 2,000 + pages of regulations replicate the effect of the FARs, are in Swahili, or are the output of 1,000 monkeys typing for 1,000 years.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Jun 2013 at 09:25.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though the equivalent of the FARs may be imperfect, there’s no such thing as a perfect law.
I understand the subsequent switch to EASA based regs has complicated things. An ex senior EASA guy warned about trying to mix from EASA and FAA. The advice given was one or the other.
Cream puff, (edited as mis quoted) I feel there can't be many that could re write the regs. Now casa getting rid of the standards group under Byron when this group had released regs and got the basa would suggest they did know something about the task. But if i was asked I'd start by keeping them as simple and common to either FAA or EASA.
Oh, and as someone said 'regulations don't make us safe'.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 2nd Jun 2013 at 11:43. Reason: Misquote of creampuff
Thread Starter
Cream puff, you admit you don't have the experience or knowledge to rewrite the regs.
What I stated was:
I’m neither qualified nor the appropriate person to make that decision [of policy about classification of operations].
That’s my point. Regulators should not make policy, for a very simple reason: they are not qualified or appropriate to do so.
Regulators should administer legislation that has been made by someone else to give effect to policy made by the government. When successive governments abrogate that responsibility, Australia’s regulatory reform Frankenstein is the kind of monster that results.
what policy.....?
The Classification of Operations Policy adopted by the Minister and the CAsA Board in 1998 (?) was stymied by the "Iron Ring", others and/or just plain idleness and bureaucratic buggery...and all fell by the wayside, to the detriment of GA. Nothing new in that regard.
Same subjects as then up again in the "Task Force" agenda ..the administratium element life cycle being 15 years+/-
Anyone heard anything from the "Force"...now some months past its stated 2 year life to produce "something".???
Or has it all been re-digested into the guts of FF to be upchucked as something else....bold new initiatives, world first changes etc ..the usual motherhood cr*p.
Same subjects as then up again in the "Task Force" agenda ..the administratium element life cycle being 15 years+/-
Anyone heard anything from the "Force"...now some months past its stated 2 year life to produce "something".???
Or has it all been re-digested into the guts of FF to be upchucked as something else....bold new initiatives, world first changes etc ..the usual motherhood cr*p.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulators should administer legislation that has been made by someone else
I think you have it. And here I was thinking you were "fick".
CAsA could, (possibly) administer FAR's.
Not so many pot plants to hide behind there.
(did I just have an out of body experience then). Sorry disregard above.
Hasn't Joe Hockey suggested that the Tax Office be split into an enforcement agency and a separate legislative branch? Similar to CASA the ATO is capable of being judge jury and executioner.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I think Joe was thinking about the exact opposite.
The ATO and CAsA are joined at the hip.
Did anyone mention Family Services, Bureau of Statistics, Climate Change Bureaucracy, etc etc ad nauseum.
The ATO and CAsA are joined at the hip.
Did anyone mention Family Services, Bureau of Statistics, Climate Change Bureaucracy, etc etc ad nauseum.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 3rd Jun 2013 at 10:50. Reason: Fogot to mention other oxygen depleating entities.
And here I was thinking you were "fick".
To go one step further, I would like to see the Dept of Transport (or whatever they call themselves these days) issue the Licences, AOCs, etc.
CASA should just act as the "policeman".
Last edited by 601; 3rd Jun 2013 at 13:03.
Folks,
For a Classification of Operations Policy, I will go with the one completed by Bruce Byron.
Of course, there were many within the CASA "Iron Ring" who didn't like it ---- probably because it was genuinely logical and risk based --- and the final outcome was consistent with, the 1998 draft policy, produced by the PAP --- all based on the Australian Standard for Risk Management.
It was dropped like a hot brick by McCormick, who made it plain to the Chairman of the PAP past ( and a former Deputy Chairman of CASA) that he, McCormick, was not interested in all that "historic stuff" (or rather blunt words to that effect).
This made the CASA "absolute prescription" brigade very happy.
After all, we can't have this "shades of gray" risk management stuff, based on the real world can we, we have to have "black and white" ---- because CASA "knows what's important", and whatever that might be, it is certainly not anything to do with air safety, and McCormick has made it abundantly clear that a viable industry is nothing to do with him.
You will have noticed, once again, The Australian last Friday, that he says word to the effect that those who talk about US/Canadian/NZ etc rules only take that position, because they have no experience of those rule.
On the contrary, ALL the people I know that fall into McCormick's category on this have extensive experience of other than Australian aviation regulations.
In fact, many of them, including myself, have businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, that's why we know what works. Many of them are having to get various EASA/FAA approvals, because Australia paperwork is NO LONGER RECOGNIZED by so many other NAAs.
The Canadian and NZ rules work well, and when the Canadians finish putting their present rules into the FAA/NZ/What was intended for Australia in 1997 format, I will lay a small bet that the Canadian rules will be almost indistinguishable from the NZ rules.
Tootle pip!!
For a Classification of Operations Policy, I will go with the one completed by Bruce Byron.
Of course, there were many within the CASA "Iron Ring" who didn't like it ---- probably because it was genuinely logical and risk based --- and the final outcome was consistent with, the 1998 draft policy, produced by the PAP --- all based on the Australian Standard for Risk Management.
It was dropped like a hot brick by McCormick, who made it plain to the Chairman of the PAP past ( and a former Deputy Chairman of CASA) that he, McCormick, was not interested in all that "historic stuff" (or rather blunt words to that effect).
This made the CASA "absolute prescription" brigade very happy.
After all, we can't have this "shades of gray" risk management stuff, based on the real world can we, we have to have "black and white" ---- because CASA "knows what's important", and whatever that might be, it is certainly not anything to do with air safety, and McCormick has made it abundantly clear that a viable industry is nothing to do with him.
You will have noticed, once again, The Australian last Friday, that he says word to the effect that those who talk about US/Canadian/NZ etc rules only take that position, because they have no experience of those rule.
On the contrary, ALL the people I know that fall into McCormick's category on this have extensive experience of other than Australian aviation regulations.
In fact, many of them, including myself, have businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, that's why we know what works. Many of them are having to get various EASA/FAA approvals, because Australia paperwork is NO LONGER RECOGNIZED by so many other NAAs.
The Canadian and NZ rules work well, and when the Canadians finish putting their present rules into the FAA/NZ/What was intended for Australia in 1997 format, I will lay a small bet that the Canadian rules will be almost indistinguishable from the NZ rules.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 3rd Jun 2013 at 15:19.
Classification of Ops
Thread Starter
If you go back to captain cranky’s post #49 and gaunty’s post #64 in this thread of 7 years ago, you will find some links that are now dead.
If it was such a good “policy”, I wonder what was stopping Mr Byron producing some “actual regulations” to give effect to that “policy”.
(Actually, I don’t wonder. It’s because no matter what “policy” is produced, someone is going to be upset. And you know who’s supposed to make the decision balancing the cost of a policy versus the benefits of the policy versus the number of people who are happy with the policy versus the number of people who are unhappy with the policy? Not CASA. But the government doesn’t want to be responsible for any decision like that, so it’s outsourced that responsibility to CASA, which is why Australia now has a Frankenstein that will never produce a complete, coherent and credible set of rules.)
I agree with 601.
If it was such a good “policy”, I wonder what was stopping Mr Byron producing some “actual regulations” to give effect to that “policy”.
(Actually, I don’t wonder. It’s because no matter what “policy” is produced, someone is going to be upset. And you know who’s supposed to make the decision balancing the cost of a policy versus the benefits of the policy versus the number of people who are happy with the policy versus the number of people who are unhappy with the policy? Not CASA. But the government doesn’t want to be responsible for any decision like that, so it’s outsourced that responsibility to CASA, which is why Australia now has a Frankenstein that will never produce a complete, coherent and credible set of rules.)
I agree with 601.
Last edited by Creampuff; 4th Jun 2013 at 07:05.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Finally, and most importantly, piles of regulations make little difference to the behaviour of the people who know what they are doing, and make little difference to the behaviour of the people who don’t care whether they know what they are doing. Therefore, the safety of air navigation in Australia will be largely unaffected by whether 2,000 + pages of regulations replicate the effect of the FARs, are in Swahili, or are the output of 1,000 monkeys typing for 1,000 years. "
Creampuff - that is the most succinct summarisation of our problem that I have seen!
Education would seem to be the answer if we, as an industry, were generally self controlled by our peers as in most other professions.
Dump government licencing, adopt peer accreditation and accept the cost of professional indemnity. Limit the rules to that necessary for internationally accepted standards.
The medical profession does it. The Mariners do it. Engineers do it. Very few professionals need a government licence or a government authority to control their activities.
Creampuff - that is the most succinct summarisation of our problem that I have seen!
Education would seem to be the answer if we, as an industry, were generally self controlled by our peers as in most other professions.
Dump government licencing, adopt peer accreditation and accept the cost of professional indemnity. Limit the rules to that necessary for internationally accepted standards.
The medical profession does it. The Mariners do it. Engineers do it. Very few professionals need a government licence or a government authority to control their activities.