The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Thread Starter
Good news - Mr Byron has been consulting very widely on regulatory reform issues
From the Proof Committee Hansard of the 23 May 2006 hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, at pages 47-48 (copy here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9338.pdf)
And those new rules are still out there on the horizon - keep trudging lads (same link, page 28):
Meanwhile, back at HQ, meetings continue (see: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_...evUpdate.pdf):
Standby to be underwhelmed at the end of 2006. Only 136 drafting days 'til Christmas!
If you think this is anything other than an expensive journey in circles, the above link also states that:
Talk about groundhog day. Perhaps Leroy Keith will pop back in as well!
Senator O’BRIEN—I want to return to an issue we have examined in the past, which is your travel, Mr Byron. Thank you for your apology for failure to answer during the previous estimates the question regarding the May to June trip. After this you may want to review the Hansard a little more closely so we do not arrive at misunderstandings again. According to the answer I eventually received, the cost of the trip was $47,646.11, made up of airfares for you and your wife of $28,951, European travel of $8,443, accommodation of $7,533, and meals and other expenses valued at $2,418.79. I had to extrapolate the total cost of the airfares for you and your wife from the answer to question on notice 1417. I assume I have got that figure right?
Mr Byron—That sounds about right, yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—It was two first-class fares?
Mr Byron—Yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Did taxpayers get good value from this trip?
Mr Byron—I believe they did. Having been in the organisation at that time for over 18 months, in planning that trip I looked at the travel requirements that had been on the previous director and the board and I noted that a number of trips had been conducted in the period of a year, and I tried to consolidate everything into one trip. I have now been in the organisation for two and a half years, and that is the only overseas trip I have done. I did try to incorporate a number of issues, such as the annual requirement to talk to the insurers, the need to start to develop relationships with the directors of civil aviation in other regulatory regimes and particularly, in terms of the changes that I was likely to make in CASA, the need to look at how things were done in other regulatory regimes and how operators operated in those parts. So it was a very broad requirement, I suppose, that I have put on myself that I wanted to do.
Since meeting some of those directors-general, I have established quite regular correspondence
with them, the Americans in particular, on a range of issues such as the changes to the regulatory reform program, the targeted way in which we are conducting our surveillance, the considerations of self-administration that we are looking at talking to industry about and developing those links. I correspond on a regular basis in terms of the future of surveillance activities and regulatory reform. So, in my view, the organisation received certainly benefit from my experience.
Senator O’BRIEN—How long did you stay at the Champs Elysees Plaza in Paris? It just seems a large account for that accommodation.
Mr Byron—I would need to double-check that. I believe it was three nights, but I would need to check.
Mr Byron—That sounds about right, yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—It was two first-class fares?
Mr Byron—Yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Did taxpayers get good value from this trip?
Mr Byron—I believe they did. Having been in the organisation at that time for over 18 months, in planning that trip I looked at the travel requirements that had been on the previous director and the board and I noted that a number of trips had been conducted in the period of a year, and I tried to consolidate everything into one trip. I have now been in the organisation for two and a half years, and that is the only overseas trip I have done. I did try to incorporate a number of issues, such as the annual requirement to talk to the insurers, the need to start to develop relationships with the directors of civil aviation in other regulatory regimes and particularly, in terms of the changes that I was likely to make in CASA, the need to look at how things were done in other regulatory regimes and how operators operated in those parts. So it was a very broad requirement, I suppose, that I have put on myself that I wanted to do.
Since meeting some of those directors-general, I have established quite regular correspondence
with them, the Americans in particular, on a range of issues such as the changes to the regulatory reform program, the targeted way in which we are conducting our surveillance, the considerations of self-administration that we are looking at talking to industry about and developing those links. I correspond on a regular basis in terms of the future of surveillance activities and regulatory reform. So, in my view, the organisation received certainly benefit from my experience.
Senator O’BRIEN—How long did you stay at the Champs Elysees Plaza in Paris? It just seems a large account for that accommodation.
Mr Byron—I would need to double-check that. I believe it was three nights, but I would need to check.
Senator O’BRIEN—Has the principle of ‘acceptable means of compliance’ resulted in any change to CASA’s procedures?
Mr Byron—Not at this stage, no. The acceptable means of compliance concept, as I briefed the committee, will become effective once we are successful in introducing new aviation safety regulations, which will be based on safety outcomes. It is something that I am personally particularly keen on. As an industry operator for many years, I felt that we needed that sort of clarity in the regulations and to give the flexibility to the industry so that things can be done differently but with the understanding that there has to be a bottom-line safety issue.
The acceptable means of compliance is a procedure that is applied in other regulatory regimes in aviation safety overseas. I would expect to see us start to roll those out in a proposed form for the maintenance regulations by the end of this calendar year.
Mr Byron—Not at this stage, no. The acceptable means of compliance concept, as I briefed the committee, will become effective once we are successful in introducing new aviation safety regulations, which will be based on safety outcomes. It is something that I am personally particularly keen on. As an industry operator for many years, I felt that we needed that sort of clarity in the regulations and to give the flexibility to the industry so that things can be done differently but with the understanding that there has to be a bottom-line safety issue.
The acceptable means of compliance is a procedure that is applied in other regulatory regimes in aviation safety overseas. I would expect to see us start to roll those out in a proposed form for the maintenance regulations by the end of this calendar year.
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT EVENTS/ACTIVITIES SINCE PREPARATION OF THE SCC MEETING 3 MAY 06 AGENDA PACKAGE
FYI- from last update report.
CASR Part development priorities set by CASA CEO
The CASA CEO announced that the continuation of the RRP was a high priority and would be based on the EASA rules project concept of dedicated project teams/working groups consisting of industry specialists and CASA staff working on the development until completed. The project teams would be centrally managed through Project specialists attached to the Regulatory Development Management Branch (RDMB). The CEO stressed priority would be applied in particular to CASR Parts relating to sport and recreation aviation operations, 103, 105, 115 and 149; the maintenance suite alignment to the EASA rule set, Parts 43, 145, 66, 147, 144, 183 and Subparts M to 91, 121, 135, 133, 132; and CASR Part 137 (Aerial application operations) for completion in 2006.
FYI- from last update report.
CASR Part development priorities set by CASA CEO
The CASA CEO announced that the continuation of the RRP was a high priority and would be based on the EASA rules project concept of dedicated project teams/working groups consisting of industry specialists and CASA staff working on the development until completed. The project teams would be centrally managed through Project specialists attached to the Regulatory Development Management Branch (RDMB). The CEO stressed priority would be applied in particular to CASR Parts relating to sport and recreation aviation operations, 103, 105, 115 and 149; the maintenance suite alignment to the EASA rule set, Parts 43, 145, 66, 147, 144, 183 and Subparts M to 91, 121, 135, 133, 132; and CASR Part 137 (Aerial application operations) for completion in 2006.
If you think this is anything other than an expensive journey in circles, the above link also states that:
It is anticipated that Grant Mazowita will commence mid May with CASA, as Branch Head, Regulatory Development Management Branch.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff.
Right glad am I to see that you continue to apply the blowtorch to the belly of CASA.
However, you would be well versed in the manner in which questions are asked to provide sought after politically expedient "answers", without allowing the respondent the facility of exanding or the qualifying of it.
Should Senator O'Brien have asked the question of Mr Byron as to who paid for Mrs Byron's air fares and accomodation what do you suppose the answer may have been?
Right glad am I to see that you continue to apply the blowtorch to the belly of CASA.
However, you would be well versed in the manner in which questions are asked to provide sought after politically expedient "answers", without allowing the respondent the facility of exanding or the qualifying of it.
Should Senator O'Brien have asked the question of Mr Byron as to who paid for Mrs Byron's air fares and accomodation what do you suppose the answer may have been?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Gaunty!
The question has already been answered.
But I am sure he had an action item to develop a plan for a plan to answer.
The question has already been answered.
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Chief Executive Officer
(Question No. 1474)
Question
Senator O’Brien (Tasmania) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 17 January 2006:
(1) Since the 2000-01 financial year, on how many occasions have family members accompanied the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on official trips.
(2)In each case:
(a)who travelled with the CEO;
(b)was the travel intrastate, interstate or international;
(c)if international:
(i)when did the travel commence
(ii)what countries were visited, and
(iii)when did the travel conclude;
(d)if interstate:
(i)when did the travel commence,
(ii)what was the state of origin,
(iii)what states were visited, and
(iv)when did the travel conclude;
(e)did CASA meet the:
(i)cost of travel,
(ii)cost of accommodation, and
(iii)related costs, for family members; if so: what costs were met, who approved the funding, and was the Minister or his office informed prior to the travel.
Answer
Senator Ian Campbell (Western Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage)—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(1)Twice.
(2)
(a)Mrs Jennifer Byron.
(b)One interstate and one international.
(c)
(i)16 May 2005.
(ii)UK, France and Germany.
(iii)13 June 2005.
(d)if interstate:
(i)19 September 2005.
(ii)Victoria.
(iii)Queensland.
(iv)30 September 2005.
(e)
(i)In relation to the overseas visit, CASA incurred the following fFor Mrs Byron:
- International airfares (Melbourne-London return), $14,475.73
- Airfare (London-Cologne return), $239.09
(ii)No additional costs were incurred by CASA for Mrs Byron’s accommodation on each occasion.
(iii)Whilst overseas CASA incurred no further costs for Mrs Byron.
CASA incurred $379.85 in meals whilst in Queensland, and travel costs of $1755.55.
Funding was from the budget of the Office of the CEO.
Approval from the Minister was received prior to both trips.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Chief Executive Officer
(Question No. 1474)
Question
Senator O’Brien (Tasmania) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 17 January 2006:
(1) Since the 2000-01 financial year, on how many occasions have family members accompanied the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on official trips.
(2)In each case:
(a)who travelled with the CEO;
(b)was the travel intrastate, interstate or international;
(c)if international:
(i)when did the travel commence
(ii)what countries were visited, and
(iii)when did the travel conclude;
(d)if interstate:
(i)when did the travel commence,
(ii)what was the state of origin,
(iii)what states were visited, and
(iv)when did the travel conclude;
(e)did CASA meet the:
(i)cost of travel,
(ii)cost of accommodation, and
(iii)related costs, for family members; if so: what costs were met, who approved the funding, and was the Minister or his office informed prior to the travel.
Answer
Senator Ian Campbell (Western Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage)—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(1)Twice.
(2)
(a)Mrs Jennifer Byron.
(b)One interstate and one international.
(c)
(i)16 May 2005.
(ii)UK, France and Germany.
(iii)13 June 2005.
(d)if interstate:
(i)19 September 2005.
(ii)Victoria.
(iii)Queensland.
(iv)30 September 2005.
(e)
(i)In relation to the overseas visit, CASA incurred the following fFor Mrs Byron:
- International airfares (Melbourne-London return), $14,475.73
- Airfare (London-Cologne return), $239.09
(ii)No additional costs were incurred by CASA for Mrs Byron’s accommodation on each occasion.
(iii)Whilst overseas CASA incurred no further costs for Mrs Byron.
CASA incurred $379.85 in meals whilst in Queensland, and travel costs of $1755.55.
Funding was from the budget of the Office of the CEO.
Approval from the Minister was received prior to both trips.
But I am sure he had an action item to develop a plan for a plan to answer.
Thread Starter
Precisely, captain cranky.
But let me make a more fundamental point, Gaunty. Let’s assume Mr Byron paid for entire trip himself. So what?
Why on earth does Mr Bryon have to learn now, something that he should have learned years ago? Why on earth didn’t they employ someone who already knew the things, and had the networks, that are, apparently, novel to Mr Byron, more than 2 years after starting in the job?
What has Mr Byron actually produced?
We know that the usual suspects will point breathlessly to a few media releases, sackings and restructures that are certain – this time - to bring about aviation utopia. But we already knew that there is, indeed, no fool like an old fool.
What has Mr Byron actually produced? I can recall Lockhart River, Mount Hotham and Benalla having occurred on his watch.
But let me make a more fundamental point, Gaunty. Let’s assume Mr Byron paid for entire trip himself. So what?
Why on earth does Mr Bryon have to learn now, something that he should have learned years ago? Why on earth didn’t they employ someone who already knew the things, and had the networks, that are, apparently, novel to Mr Byron, more than 2 years after starting in the job?
What has Mr Byron actually produced?
We know that the usual suspects will point breathlessly to a few media releases, sackings and restructures that are certain – this time - to bring about aviation utopia. But we already knew that there is, indeed, no fool like an old fool.
What has Mr Byron actually produced? I can recall Lockhart River, Mount Hotham and Benalla having occurred on his watch.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In relation to the overseas visit, CASA incurred the following for Mrs Byron:
- International airfares (Melbourne-London return), $14,475.73
- International airfares (Melbourne-London return), $14,475.73
Wonder who got the Frequent Flyer points and whether they will be cashed in on the next tax payer funded overseas junket?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The frequent flyer points will be evenly distributed amoungst the Australian taxpayers who in effect paid for the ticket(s)
If thats the cost paid for said tickets I have a bridge that is going at cost price
If thats the cost paid for said tickets I have a bridge that is going at cost price
Thread Starter
Classification of Operations - Major Breakthrough!
CASA has collated a very neat chronology of all the failed attempts to achieve any outcomes on classification of operations 'reform' over the last 20 years, here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_...ClassofOps.pdf
I'm not sure how collating the list actually helps to progress classification of operations 'reform', but at least somebody has been kept busy for a while. Indeed, if CASA tries really hard to avoid producing any new classification of operations rules, someone could be kept busy keeping the list up to date for another 20 years.
I'm not sure how collating the list actually helps to progress classification of operations 'reform', but at least somebody has been kept busy for a while. Indeed, if CASA tries really hard to avoid producing any new classification of operations rules, someone could be kept busy keeping the list up to date for another 20 years.
15 October 1986: Discussion Paper titled Review of ANR 191 — Classification of Air Service Operations.
July 1988: Aviation Regulatory Proposal 88/9 titled Amendments to Civil Aviation Regulations following review of system of classifying operations and matters related thereto.
June 1989: Aviation Regulatory Proposal 89/8 titled Amendments to Civil Aviation Regulations — Classification of Flying Operations.
1990: Aviation community guide titled Classification of Operations, Licensing, Maintenance and You.
27 February 1997: Classification of operations paper presented by CASA’s Regulatory Framework Program.
15 April 1997: Classification of operations policy published by CASA’s
Review Programs Office.
12 May 1998: Discussion Paper prepared by the Program Advisory Panel titled Regulation of Air Taxis.
18 May 1999: Rulechange project OS 99/13 initiated titled Interim
reclassification of operations for small volume cargo-only flights and parachuting operations.
June 2001: Legal advice received from Attorney-General’s Department that AOCs of different classes can be established appropriate to the operations.
July 2001: Rulechange project OS 01/10 initiated titled Review of existing rules for classification of operations.
15 August 2001: Notice of Proposed Rule Making 0102OS published titled Interim classification of operations for small volume cargo-only flights and parachuting operations.
May 2002: Aerial Work Classifications Review (to simplify the task of determining whether a particular activity falls under Aerial Work or General Aviation).
26 February 2003: Aviation community guide published titled Coming soon! A new NPRM reviewing the classification of operations.
12 March 2003: Notice of Proposed Rule Making 0304OS titled Air Service Operations: Part A — Amendments to CARs 1998; Part B — CASA Classification of Operations Policy.
November 2004: CASA Policy Notice issued titled CASA’s Industry Sector Priorities.
July 1988: Aviation Regulatory Proposal 88/9 titled Amendments to Civil Aviation Regulations following review of system of classifying operations and matters related thereto.
June 1989: Aviation Regulatory Proposal 89/8 titled Amendments to Civil Aviation Regulations — Classification of Flying Operations.
1990: Aviation community guide titled Classification of Operations, Licensing, Maintenance and You.
27 February 1997: Classification of operations paper presented by CASA’s Regulatory Framework Program.
15 April 1997: Classification of operations policy published by CASA’s
Review Programs Office.
12 May 1998: Discussion Paper prepared by the Program Advisory Panel titled Regulation of Air Taxis.
18 May 1999: Rulechange project OS 99/13 initiated titled Interim
reclassification of operations for small volume cargo-only flights and parachuting operations.
June 2001: Legal advice received from Attorney-General’s Department that AOCs of different classes can be established appropriate to the operations.
July 2001: Rulechange project OS 01/10 initiated titled Review of existing rules for classification of operations.
15 August 2001: Notice of Proposed Rule Making 0102OS published titled Interim classification of operations for small volume cargo-only flights and parachuting operations.
May 2002: Aerial Work Classifications Review (to simplify the task of determining whether a particular activity falls under Aerial Work or General Aviation).
26 February 2003: Aviation community guide published titled Coming soon! A new NPRM reviewing the classification of operations.
12 March 2003: Notice of Proposed Rule Making 0304OS titled Air Service Operations: Part A — Amendments to CARs 1998; Part B — CASA Classification of Operations Policy.
November 2004: CASA Policy Notice issued titled CASA’s Industry Sector Priorities.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frequent flyer points
one can safely assume that mr.byron is a chairman lounge member (on invitation from QF ). thats the highest level in the frequent flyer setup. regardless of the number of times you fly, it has more to do with influence.
he would accumulate points like any other senior government ceo and can use them for himself or any other immidiate family.
he would accumulate points like any other senior government ceo and can use them for himself or any other immidiate family.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major breakthrough for aviation regulatory reform aka the Lazarus effect
From Creampuff,
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_...ClassofOps.pdf
Reeling from a giddyspin of dejavu I reached for my old Technical Committee (TC) files from pre April 1997 to find a policy virtually verbatim authored by none other than the new (old) Grant Mazowita!
A quick search on the CASA RRP site also found this;
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/newsletter/ne9703rp.pdf
Remarkable!
Groundhog day indeed.
It is also interesting to note that the Chairman of the Policy Advisory Panel (PAP) at the time of this old (new) policy was James Kimpton who is also back now on the ASF with Lazarus-like aplomb.
So now we proceed on the 15 steps of cooperative consultative process, gnashing over the gnashed.
Is this the best we can expect, Mr Byron? Or is this all new to you
These Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) people travel, stay and dine at OUR expense to regurgitate and discuss past policies, throw in a new buzzword here and there and some grammatical amendments ie for 'Passenger' read 'Public'.
It is also interesting to note that the expenses for these Committee meetings dont appear anywhere in the CASA annual report with the exception of a consultants fee to chair them. Last year REPORTEDLY $43,905.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE ACTUAL COST FOR THIS JOURNEY IN CIRCLES AND HOW LONG WILL THE GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY LET THIS FARCE CONTINUE?
I'm not sure how collating the list actually helps to progress classification of operations 'reform', but at least somebody has been kept busy for a while. Indeed, if CASA tries really hard to avoid producing any new classification of operations rules, someone could be kept busy keeping the list up to date for another 20 years.
Reeling from a giddyspin of dejavu I reached for my old Technical Committee (TC) files from pre April 1997 to find a policy virtually verbatim authored by none other than the new (old) Grant Mazowita!
A quick search on the CASA RRP site also found this;
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/newsletter/ne9703rp.pdf
Remarkable!
Groundhog day indeed.It is also interesting to note that the Chairman of the Policy Advisory Panel (PAP) at the time of this old (new) policy was James Kimpton who is also back now on the ASF with Lazarus-like aplomb.
So now we proceed on the 15 steps of cooperative consultative process, gnashing over the gnashed.
Is this the best we can expect, Mr Byron? Or is this all new to you
These Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) people travel, stay and dine at OUR expense to regurgitate and discuss past policies, throw in a new buzzword here and there and some grammatical amendments ie for 'Passenger' read 'Public'.
It is also interesting to note that the expenses for these Committee meetings dont appear anywhere in the CASA annual report with the exception of a consultants fee to chair them. Last year REPORTEDLY $43,905.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE ACTUAL COST FOR THIS JOURNEY IN CIRCLES AND HOW LONG WILL THE GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY LET THIS FARCE CONTINUE?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But wait! Theres more!
From http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_sccop.asp#meet13
The Ops Sub Committee deemed it necessary to express to the SCC that it
has some serious concerns about the current organisational restructure being
undertaken within CASA. The committee noted that many of the Regulatory
Reform Processes appear to have stalled or have been placed on the shelf
with no apparent action being currently undertaken. It was also noted that a
considerable number of CASA staff that have skills in the preparation drafting
legislation have been or are about to be lost. Additionally it was noted that
other technical areas of expertise (eg aircraft performance and fatigue risk
management) within CASA are also losing quality staff and it would seem that
these people are not being replaced. The Ops Standard therefore seeks an
assurance from CASA that senior management is aware of these concerns and that processes are in place to effectively manage these areas of
deficiency
has some serious concerns about the current organisational restructure being
undertaken within CASA. The committee noted that many of the Regulatory
Reform Processes appear to have stalled or have been placed on the shelf
with no apparent action being currently undertaken. It was also noted that a
considerable number of CASA staff that have skills in the preparation drafting
legislation have been or are about to be lost. Additionally it was noted that
other technical areas of expertise (eg aircraft performance and fatigue risk
management) within CASA are also losing quality staff and it would seem that
these people are not being replaced. The Ops Standard therefore seeks an
assurance from CASA that senior management is aware of these concerns and that processes are in place to effectively manage these areas of
deficiency
Thread Starter
Welcome to 4th quarter 2006 and the inevitable failure to deliver
As predicted, the schedule has been delayed – sorry, ‘re-established’ - again. In one fell swoop the ‘target date’ for some of the rules to be made has blown out by a further year.
What I find particularly sleazy is the fact that the regulatory ‘development’ Status Reports for June, July and August 2006, in which the inevitable truth is revealed, were not published at the end of those months. If you go here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/06_status.asp you will notice that the June, July, and August 2006 Reports have, at least as at 1 October 2006, a flashing cursor denoting ‘latest information’. They were all published together with the September 2006 Report!
When the flashing cursors disappear, it will look like the Reports were published consecutively rather than together. The evidence of the unpalatable truth having been known but withheld by CASA for months will be conveniently airbrushed out of history.
Meanwhile, the Minutes of the 16 August SCC meeting are not yet available, 6 weeks later.
The money spent on the regulatory ‘reform’ hoax is an obscenity.
What I find particularly sleazy is the fact that the regulatory ‘development’ Status Reports for June, July and August 2006, in which the inevitable truth is revealed, were not published at the end of those months. If you go here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/06_status.asp you will notice that the June, July, and August 2006 Reports have, at least as at 1 October 2006, a flashing cursor denoting ‘latest information’. They were all published together with the September 2006 Report!
When the flashing cursors disappear, it will look like the Reports were published consecutively rather than together. The evidence of the unpalatable truth having been known but withheld by CASA for months will be conveniently airbrushed out of history.
Meanwhile, the Minutes of the 16 August SCC meeting are not yet available, 6 weeks later.
The money spent on the regulatory ‘reform’ hoax is an obscenity.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tax payers money
This is just another case of the poor old taxpayer being kicked up the rear and fleeced from the pockets by the beaurocratic process of unproductive non income producing waste of human organs abusing the system.
It will never change.
It will never change.
Thread Starter
I for one take no enjoyment in this. I highlight these issues in an attempt to bring pressure to bear to clean up what I consider to be a scandalous mess and obscene waste of money.
The circumstances to which you point are a symptom, not a cause. The cause is that the people who are actually responsible for regulatory ‘reform’ get paid buckets of money whether they produce nothing or produce lots, and are not held accountable when they produce little but motherhood statements and broken promises.
The circumstances to which you point are a symptom, not a cause. The cause is that the people who are actually responsible for regulatory ‘reform’ get paid buckets of money whether they produce nothing or produce lots, and are not held accountable when they produce little but motherhood statements and broken promises.
Roturb. I have no idea who you are referring to. You may or may not be correct.
The “regulatory reform process” began eighteen years ago, has cost millions, has achieved very little and is far from complete. During that period there has been a number of Ministers (of varying incompetence), a few Board Chairmen until the Board was abolished and at least three Directors to my knowledge.
It would not be unreasonable to expect that if intentional impediments to the regulatory reform process existed, at least one of those well remunerated executive would have taken positive and immediate steps to remove those impediments and complete the reform process.
The Minister and Director are solely responsibility for completion of the regulatory reform. That it has failed must surely be a reflection solely on their unacceptable performance.
Other countries (including Canada and New Zealand) completed the process in reasonable time with acceptable results. Australia must surely be the laughing stock of the world aviation community.
The “regulatory reform process” began eighteen years ago, has cost millions, has achieved very little and is far from complete. During that period there has been a number of Ministers (of varying incompetence), a few Board Chairmen until the Board was abolished and at least three Directors to my knowledge.
It would not be unreasonable to expect that if intentional impediments to the regulatory reform process existed, at least one of those well remunerated executive would have taken positive and immediate steps to remove those impediments and complete the reform process.
The Minister and Director are solely responsibility for completion of the regulatory reform. That it has failed must surely be a reflection solely on their unacceptable performance.
Other countries (including Canada and New Zealand) completed the process in reasonable time with acceptable results. Australia must surely be the laughing stock of the world aviation community.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roturb
Those self funded retirees as to who you refer, cost the taxpayer next to nothing to support and have been successful in their business life through sheer guts and determination, risk takers. Which is a stark contrast to those "public servants" and i use the term loosely, who have lived most of their working lives in sheltered workshops, are non income producing, are ignorant to the real world and hide behind beaurocratic legislation. They put their greasy little paw out each fortnight to receive an undeserved paypacket signifying their paltry contribution to society. Those self funded retirees who you refer to, are of the opinion that the world certainly doesn't owe them a living, never has done and never will, which is in stark contrast to most if not all beaurocrats. One day when your a big boy, and if you ever try and make out in the real world, you'll underrstand. But you'd never cut it......you talk the talk but certainly can't walk the walk.
Those self funded retirees as to who you refer, cost the taxpayer next to nothing to support and have been successful in their business life through sheer guts and determination, risk takers. Which is a stark contrast to those "public servants" and i use the term loosely, who have lived most of their working lives in sheltered workshops, are non income producing, are ignorant to the real world and hide behind beaurocratic legislation. They put their greasy little paw out each fortnight to receive an undeserved paypacket signifying their paltry contribution to society. Those self funded retirees who you refer to, are of the opinion that the world certainly doesn't owe them a living, never has done and never will, which is in stark contrast to most if not all beaurocrats. One day when your a big boy, and if you ever try and make out in the real world, you'll underrstand. But you'd never cut it......you talk the talk but certainly can't walk the walk.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roturb
I think it was you that observed that whilst there is much on which we might agree you were the pessimist and I the optimist. I suspect that is still the case. Lets keep walking the walk and talking the talk eh.
Cranky fairly accurately invokes Groundhog Day, which in the context of the last 10 or 15 years is IMHO not a bad thing.
It may have been un unfortunate waste of resorces and a huge waste of money, and we cant change that, but if we are coming back towards something that was known to work that is not a bad thing. Mr Leroy Keith was going in exactly the right direction at the time and had around him some very experienced pros, most of whom would perhaps by now be retired or simply gave up.
At least now there is a chance that the real professionals will be allowed to do their thing unmolested.
I'm with Creampuff most of the way except we may diverge on the "unaccountability" and "cause"
I would take the softer view that their equally significant contribution to the process has been derailed in the past.
How demoralising is it when having been sent off in one direction to apply your not insignificant skills and nearly getting there are stopped, lets say for base political reasons, and sent off in an entirely different direction. You might not like it but as a public servant you have no choice.
And how can you then be held accountable.
Torres what are you smoking, you know precisely the answer to your question. You also know why the well remunerated PS executive and often times the Minister is powerless. Given the pressure and atmosphere in which they have been working in the past, whatever they have been paid is IMHO not nearly enough.
It's all been done before, the Gordian Knot can be cut very simply.
"find 'FAA' and replace with 'CASA'" on the FAA regs would be good start.
There are good men there now the industry needs to show the same goodwill and their good men, it's not hard.
I think it was you that observed that whilst there is much on which we might agree you were the pessimist and I the optimist. I suspect that is still the case. Lets keep walking the walk and talking the talk eh.
Cranky fairly accurately invokes Groundhog Day, which in the context of the last 10 or 15 years is IMHO not a bad thing.
It may have been un unfortunate waste of resorces and a huge waste of money, and we cant change that, but if we are coming back towards something that was known to work that is not a bad thing. Mr Leroy Keith was going in exactly the right direction at the time and had around him some very experienced pros, most of whom would perhaps by now be retired or simply gave up.
At least now there is a chance that the real professionals will be allowed to do their thing unmolested.
I'm with Creampuff most of the way except we may diverge on the "unaccountability" and "cause"
I would take the softer view that their equally significant contribution to the process has been derailed in the past.
How demoralising is it when having been sent off in one direction to apply your not insignificant skills and nearly getting there are stopped, lets say for base political reasons, and sent off in an entirely different direction. You might not like it but as a public servant you have no choice.
And how can you then be held accountable.
Torres what are you smoking, you know precisely the answer to your question. You also know why the well remunerated PS executive and often times the Minister is powerless. Given the pressure and atmosphere in which they have been working in the past, whatever they have been paid is IMHO not nearly enough.
It's all been done before, the Gordian Knot can be cut very simply.
"find 'FAA' and replace with 'CASA'" on the FAA regs would be good start.
There are good men there now the industry needs to show the same goodwill and their good men, it's not hard.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the new normal"?
Barry Jones speech, at the Sydney Bioethics Seminar 23November, 2005, could have been talking in parallel about the aviation Regulatory Review process.
Dr Jones said Australia faces many serious issues which need urgent public debate but there was an unhealthy silence. (from Australia’s academics). “Are they afraid they might offend people or make enemies which might affect their careers if they speak out?” he asked.
The former Labor politician and Member for Lalor in Victoria (1977-98) was just as scathing in his criticism of Australian politics which he said has been transformed and manipulated by advertising and public relations. “Parliament has lost much of its moral authority and parliamentary speeches make no difference to the outcome of policy decisions,” Dr Jones said.
“Wedge politics is used to divide and rule by finding fault lines in society - us versus them. It employs democratic forms in an oppressive way.”
The distortion of language whereby the suicide of immigration detainees becomes ‘attention-seeking incidents’ is particularly insidious and reinforced by the media’s preoccupation with infotainment and trivia.
“In the United States, in the age of the ‘new normal’, policies and appointments are now ‘faith-based’ not evidence-based. The moral basis for action has been replaced by opportunism and adventurism. Lying is now standard operating procedure.
"Although formal levels of education are far higher than ever before and access to information has increased expotentially in the past thirty years, the political process has been deformed by appeals to emotion, especially fear, and to immediate economic self interest. The public service has been increasingly politicised, universities have adopted the cult of managerialism, the media is preoccupied with 'infotainment', and public debate is dominated by the black art of 'spin', in which the truth of a complex proposition (going to war in Iraq, stem cells, Industrial Relations reform, climate change, evolution, Knowledge Nation) is less significant than how simple arguements for and against can be 'sold'.
Barry Jones speech, at the Sydney Bioethics Seminar 23November, 2005, could have been talking in parallel about the aviation Regulatory Review process.
Dr Jones said Australia faces many serious issues which need urgent public debate but there was an unhealthy silence. (from Australia’s academics). “Are they afraid they might offend people or make enemies which might affect their careers if they speak out?” he asked.
The former Labor politician and Member for Lalor in Victoria (1977-98) was just as scathing in his criticism of Australian politics which he said has been transformed and manipulated by advertising and public relations. “Parliament has lost much of its moral authority and parliamentary speeches make no difference to the outcome of policy decisions,” Dr Jones said.
“Wedge politics is used to divide and rule by finding fault lines in society - us versus them. It employs democratic forms in an oppressive way.”
The distortion of language whereby the suicide of immigration detainees becomes ‘attention-seeking incidents’ is particularly insidious and reinforced by the media’s preoccupation with infotainment and trivia.
“In the United States, in the age of the ‘new normal’, policies and appointments are now ‘faith-based’ not evidence-based. The moral basis for action has been replaced by opportunism and adventurism. Lying is now standard operating procedure.
"Although formal levels of education are far higher than ever before and access to information has increased expotentially in the past thirty years, the political process has been deformed by appeals to emotion, especially fear, and to immediate economic self interest. The public service has been increasingly politicised, universities have adopted the cult of managerialism, the media is preoccupied with 'infotainment', and public debate is dominated by the black art of 'spin', in which the truth of a complex proposition (going to war in Iraq, stem cells, Industrial Relations reform, climate change, evolution, Knowledge Nation) is less significant than how simple arguements for and against can be 'sold'.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freedom of expression
"The freedom of the press still furnishes that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to do".-Chicago Tribune.
The freedom of expression that democracy is supposed to protect does not exist in military organisations, or aviation. It's plain to see in the military, but is disguised in aviation. However, almost everyone in aviation is required to front up for regular tests which can destroy their whole career. Hardly any will speak out, or take any action.
This juggernaut, this battleship, this elephant in the lounge room that we call CASA is a very expensive monster which has difficulty changing direction. It iappears to be either disfunctional, or manipulative-probably both.. And it is controlled (if it can be controlled) by politicians, lawyers and beaurocrats in Canberra. Its' main purpose is to protect the government from legal challenges relating to aviation.
Don't get me wrong. We must have rules, and we must have a regulator, and we may not like some of the things they do. There are some good people in CASA. In recent times they have recruted some experienced GA pilots for the GA sector, which is a big improvement. But these people cannot actually affect anything. They just tick boxes and send things to Canberra.
The systems are innefficient and cumbersome. And very expensive.
Let's look at the Public liability insurance the operators have to have. I don't complain about the need for it, but the process. We have to get the insurance from an insurance company, then get a certificate of compliance from the insurance company, but that is not good enough. We then have to send the certificate of compliance to CASA, and they then send us a certificate of compliance. They have their own insurance section, which talks to the insurance companies. Surely there is a better way. A simpler, less cumbersome one.
And the medical certificates that pilots have to have. The dame ticks the boxes. It's all spelled out in great detail, and submitted on line. The computer can check whether the right boxes are ticked. If they are, why can't the dame issue a medical certificate. The computer can print one.
Are CASA going to deny the certificate for reasons other than medical ones? Are the dames not competent? Surely they are.
Medical certificates are necessary, but surely it can be done better.
And AOC's. Issued for three years???? My "compliant" charter company had 18 AOC's in 13 years and we only ever did charter in piston aircraft below 5700 kg's. Is all this costly waffle necessary?. Surely there is a more efficient way. Every time you have a visit from an FOI you get told to rewrite part of your ops manual.
The CASA critics are not just "self funded retiress". Most people who have been in GA for more than a few years are very critical of CASA. Many vote with their feet.
I often seriously wonder about the motivation of some of the CASA people.
People in the industry do not speak out. They always have further approvals to get.
But the "self funded retirees" can speak without fear, and usually with wisdom. I believe they have a responsibility to speak out. The others are reluctant to expose themselves.
"The freedom of the press still furnishes that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide."
The freedom of expression that democracy is supposed to protect does not exist in military organisations, or aviation. It's plain to see in the military, but is disguised in aviation. However, almost everyone in aviation is required to front up for regular tests which can destroy their whole career. Hardly any will speak out, or take any action.
This juggernaut, this battleship, this elephant in the lounge room that we call CASA is a very expensive monster which has difficulty changing direction. It iappears to be either disfunctional, or manipulative-probably both.. And it is controlled (if it can be controlled) by politicians, lawyers and beaurocrats in Canberra. Its' main purpose is to protect the government from legal challenges relating to aviation.
Don't get me wrong. We must have rules, and we must have a regulator, and we may not like some of the things they do. There are some good people in CASA. In recent times they have recruted some experienced GA pilots for the GA sector, which is a big improvement. But these people cannot actually affect anything. They just tick boxes and send things to Canberra.
The systems are innefficient and cumbersome. And very expensive.
Let's look at the Public liability insurance the operators have to have. I don't complain about the need for it, but the process. We have to get the insurance from an insurance company, then get a certificate of compliance from the insurance company, but that is not good enough. We then have to send the certificate of compliance to CASA, and they then send us a certificate of compliance. They have their own insurance section, which talks to the insurance companies. Surely there is a better way. A simpler, less cumbersome one.
And the medical certificates that pilots have to have. The dame ticks the boxes. It's all spelled out in great detail, and submitted on line. The computer can check whether the right boxes are ticked. If they are, why can't the dame issue a medical certificate. The computer can print one.
Are CASA going to deny the certificate for reasons other than medical ones? Are the dames not competent? Surely they are.
Medical certificates are necessary, but surely it can be done better.
And AOC's. Issued for three years???? My "compliant" charter company had 18 AOC's in 13 years and we only ever did charter in piston aircraft below 5700 kg's. Is all this costly waffle necessary?. Surely there is a more efficient way. Every time you have a visit from an FOI you get told to rewrite part of your ops manual.
The CASA critics are not just "self funded retiress". Most people who have been in GA for more than a few years are very critical of CASA. Many vote with their feet.
I often seriously wonder about the motivation of some of the CASA people.
People in the industry do not speak out. They always have further approvals to get.
But the "self funded retirees" can speak without fear, and usually with wisdom. I believe they have a responsibility to speak out. The others are reluctant to expose themselves.
"The freedom of the press still furnishes that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide."
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
I too have read that speech and whilst I am not of his political persuasion I have an abiding regard for his intelectual rigour and humanity. It is a great pity that his colleagues and those from the other side of the house were themselves so well equipped.
Parliament USED to be stimulating listening, for the oratory as well as education, it is oftentimes now a poor french farce with not even passable rhetoric and the predictably he said she said routines.
It used to be that the Public Service WAS led from the top down and there was a mutual respect between them and Government.
Having said that I find it difficult to now see any "politicisation" of CASA or Airservices. The evidence suggests that they are very much their own man, so to speak.
bushy
I agree with almost eveything you say about the process. That must be changed.
But I am also cognisant of the HUGE cultural changes that have taken place to AND from in the organisation which might have left some marks of confusion and seriously clogged up with change upon change.
When I get to be President of the Republic
,my first decree will be that Governement cannot enact ANYMORE legislation or regulation without first repealing an existing one. The second would be to pay em what they were earning before election but not more, gaurantee reemployment and limit a politicians term in office to a total of 2 Parliaments. 
And yes it would be good if we did have "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech".
The defamation laws we inherited from our "betters" gaurantee the truth will never be told about matters that are pivotal to our health and safety.
I too have read that speech and whilst I am not of his political persuasion I have an abiding regard for his intelectual rigour and humanity. It is a great pity that his colleagues and those from the other side of the house were themselves so well equipped.
Parliament USED to be stimulating listening, for the oratory as well as education, it is oftentimes now a poor french farce with not even passable rhetoric and the predictably he said she said routines.
It used to be that the Public Service WAS led from the top down and there was a mutual respect between them and Government.
Having said that I find it difficult to now see any "politicisation" of CASA or Airservices. The evidence suggests that they are very much their own man, so to speak.
bushy
I agree with almost eveything you say about the process. That must be changed.
But I am also cognisant of the HUGE cultural changes that have taken place to AND from in the organisation which might have left some marks of confusion and seriously clogged up with change upon change.
When I get to be President of the Republic
,my first decree will be that Governement cannot enact ANYMORE legislation or regulation without first repealing an existing one. The second would be to pay em what they were earning before election but not more, gaurantee reemployment and limit a politicians term in office to a total of 2 Parliaments. And yes it would be good if we did have "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech".
The defamation laws we inherited from our "betters" gaurantee the truth will never be told about matters that are pivotal to our health and safety.