The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Gaunty. I don’t see my task as rationalising or theorising why CASA has dragged the regulatory reform out for eighteen years with no end in sight. Indeed, I’m really not interested in the excuses.
As an Australian tax payer, I have an investment in the process and a vested interest in a cost effective and timely outcome. That has not been achieved and appears increasingly unlikely to be achieved in the foreseeable future.
The Minister and Director are responsible. The buck stops with them.
I suspect that is what Creampuff is also saying.
As an Australian tax payer, I have an investment in the process and a vested interest in a cost effective and timely outcome. That has not been achieved and appears increasingly unlikely to be achieved in the foreseeable future.
The Minister and Director are responsible. The buck stops with them.
I suspect that is what Creampuff is also saying.
Thread Starter
I find myself concurring entirely with Barry Jones (thanks Bob), entirely with Torres (thanks Bob), and in part with Gaunty (thanks Gary).
The 'reform' process may have stalled, or been diverted or put into an orbit by any number of incompetent dabblers in the past, but the current head dabbler has been in charge for around 3 years. All he appears to have done with respect to regulatory ‘reform’ is to sack a few people, move a few people a few degrees North, spout a few motherhood statements, take a few expensive trips, re-establish a process that’s little more than a talkfest, and produce nothing.
It is patently obvious that CASA no longer has the corporate competence to fix the regulatory trainwreck this side of the end of the decade, if ever, and no longer has the corporate integrity to be honest about it.
The 'reform' process may have stalled, or been diverted or put into an orbit by any number of incompetent dabblers in the past, but the current head dabbler has been in charge for around 3 years. All he appears to have done with respect to regulatory ‘reform’ is to sack a few people, move a few people a few degrees North, spout a few motherhood statements, take a few expensive trips, re-establish a process that’s little more than a talkfest, and produce nothing.
It is patently obvious that CASA no longer has the corporate competence to fix the regulatory trainwreck this side of the end of the decade, if ever, and no longer has the corporate integrity to be honest about it.
A landmark agreement Creampuff, I'm sure!! 
And I find myself in total agreement with your last post. The Australian public has just cause to be outraged that CASA management has consistently set low personal objectives, which they fail to achieve.
I disagree with Gaunty. I have no interest in the excuses why it has taken eighteen years to achieve very little. I would caution against adopting the FAA regulations, verbatum. "Harmonisation" and some commonality - where appropriate - perhaps.
I seem to recall some months ago, that the Director moved the regulatory reform process to the Office of Director, thus surely taking personal responsibility for the reform process outcome?
Silence has reined ever since.
And I find myself in total agreement with your last post. The Australian public has just cause to be outraged that CASA management has consistently set low personal objectives, which they fail to achieve.
I disagree with Gaunty. I have no interest in the excuses why it has taken eighteen years to achieve very little. I would caution against adopting the FAA regulations, verbatum. "Harmonisation" and some commonality - where appropriate - perhaps.
I seem to recall some months ago, that the Director moved the regulatory reform process to the Office of Director, thus surely taking personal responsibility for the reform process outcome?
Silence has reined ever since.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
Amen Creampuff
Amen Torres
Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue.
Sallust, The War with Catiline
Roman historian & politician (86 BC - 34 BC)
Amen Torres
the current head dabbler has been in charge for around 3 years. All he appears to have done with respect to regulatory ‘reform’ is to sack a few people, move a few people a few degrees North, spout a few motherhood statements, take a few expensive trips, re-establish a process that’s little more than a talkfest, and produce nothing.
Sallust, The War with Catiline
Roman historian & politician (86 BC - 34 BC)
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
The document to which you refer has been sitting right on top of my desk since the day it was released and;
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_...ClassofOps.pdf
is IMHO one of the single most important and fundamental rationales to come out of the system in decades.
It finally sets the foundation for the alignment of our regs with those of the rest of the world and unravels the safety agenda appropriate to the different types of operations.
No longer will private aviation have to carry nor can a rational rationale be sustained that demands the same regulatory burden as for public transport.
It opens the pathway for self more regulation by private owners where it is appropriate and concentrating of the safety resources where the public place their trust and trust the Government = Regulator to look after their interests.
The root of it is in the concept of informed consent and who is responsible for it.
In more or less one fell swoop, if that is possible, it cuts through the mish mash of the regs on regs that have over the decades of meddling, like topsy, just growed. I keep talking about Gordian Knots and if there is a sword or thing that has cut it then this is it.
If you stand right back and look at it you'll see what I mean.
The Minister and the Director? Well, you only have to look at the moumental task involved in the sorting out of wheat from chaff. You can't send everybody in the tumbrels to the guillotine because they came from the old guard without almost totally losing the plot.
I've said before slowly but surely, the timetable is set by the available resources and governance process, not by when we expect it should be.
If we do it any other way we'll be right back in the tumbrel so to speak.
I think we might be closer to the end than we think, as long as we take care in regenerating the system.
The document to which you refer has been sitting right on top of my desk since the day it was released and;
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_...ClassofOps.pdf
is IMHO one of the single most important and fundamental rationales to come out of the system in decades.
It finally sets the foundation for the alignment of our regs with those of the rest of the world and unravels the safety agenda appropriate to the different types of operations.
No longer will private aviation have to carry nor can a rational rationale be sustained that demands the same regulatory burden as for public transport.
It opens the pathway for self more regulation by private owners where it is appropriate and concentrating of the safety resources where the public place their trust and trust the Government = Regulator to look after their interests.
The root of it is in the concept of informed consent and who is responsible for it.
In more or less one fell swoop, if that is possible, it cuts through the mish mash of the regs on regs that have over the decades of meddling, like topsy, just growed. I keep talking about Gordian Knots and if there is a sword or thing that has cut it then this is it.
If you stand right back and look at it you'll see what I mean.
The Minister and the Director? Well, you only have to look at the moumental task involved in the sorting out of wheat from chaff. You can't send everybody in the tumbrels to the guillotine because they came from the old guard without almost totally losing the plot.
I've said before slowly but surely, the timetable is set by the available resources and governance process, not by when we expect it should be.
If we do it any other way we'll be right back in the tumbrel so to speak.
I think we might be closer to the end than we think, as long as we take care in regenerating the system.
Thread Starter
Well, it’s now more than 12 years since Seaview and 10 years since a $20 million commission of inquiry which recommended:
My bolding.
The document at the link is merely a tarted up version of a proposal that has been ‘on the table’ for about 8 years.
The problem is that someone has to make a decision whether to implement the proposal or not, and if not, what to implement instead.
Someone has to take responsibility for making that decision and implementing it.
Someone has to set and enforce a deadline for making and implementing the decision, and take responsibility if the deadline is not met.
In short, someone has to actually produce an outcome.
That in respect of Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (relating to various forms of commercial operations, including regular public transport operations) urgent consideration be given to amending or replacing the Regulation to overcome the problems identified in the course of the Commission.
The document at the link is merely a tarted up version of a proposal that has been ‘on the table’ for about 8 years.
The problem is that someone has to make a decision whether to implement the proposal or not, and if not, what to implement instead.
Someone has to take responsibility for making that decision and implementing it.
Someone has to set and enforce a deadline for making and implementing the decision, and take responsibility if the deadline is not met.
In short, someone has to actually produce an outcome.
And that "...12 years since Seaview and 10 years since a $20 million commission of inquiry" includes at least three Ministers and two Directors, none of whom have seen too much urgency in the task. And yet another Coronial will occur soon which is again likely to question CASA's regulation of RPT services.
Er, Gaunty, I don't think you should use the phrase "sorting out of wheat from chaff". I suspect the last three Ministers may find that very embarassing!
Er, Gaunty, I don't think you should use the phrase "sorting out of wheat from chaff". I suspect the last three Ministers may find that very embarassing!
Thread Starter
Draft Minutes of the 16 August 206 SCC meeting here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTm..._24minutes.pdf
Executive summary: much activity; little productivity.
Executive summary: much activity; little productivity.
Thread Starter
Well, the last working day of 4th quarter 2006 (at least for CASA) has sailed by.
Output?
Noise: lots.
Product: nil.
Good news though! Lot’s of things will be done “soon”. Quotes from the November SCC talkfest draft ‘meeting record' here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/archive/meeti...rd_061121.pdf:
How many years has ARFFS been under review?
How many years has the CAO 48 camel been under review? There are more exemptions from CAO 48 than compliances!
Of course it will. And then we’ll discuss it for a few years and decide nothing.
Who’d have thought – legal issues in regulations! Classification of operations has, of course, gone backwards and sideways. I won’t bore you with the blurb.
Those maintenance regulations projects are going gangbusters, though.
Such child-like naivety!
and was supposed to be finished years ago. But the camel that is the maintenance regulations now has 3 humps and two heads:
No it won’t. And I thought there weren’t going to be any CAOs under the new rules. Meanwhile, on Part 91:
That’s at least another year’s talkfest. Meanwhile, we’re progressing backwards on FCL:
But let’s not rush this; heaven’s no:
But we’re very close to nearly being a year from finishing!
Cert standards are going nowhere:
Rec aviation standards will be out ‘soon’:
That maintenance camel is coming soon!:
And as a final irony, the item ‘SCC efficiency’ action item was:
An action item to develop a plan on what the SCC should do to deal with its action items more efficiently.
Output?
Noise: lots.
Product: nil.
Good news though! Lot’s of things will be done “soon”. Quotes from the November SCC talkfest draft ‘meeting record' here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/archive/meeti...rd_061121.pdf:
Airservices Australia have recently conducted a review of ARFFS. As part of this review Airservices have used the Directive 16 risk assessment model. A discussion paper has been published by DOTARS recently which seeks to address deficiencies in the current regulations. CASA is preparing a submission to this paper and that CASA will be registering a new Legislative Change Project shortly [really?] through the Airspace Users Group Sub-committee.
Graham Edkins advised that the CASA appointed Project Manager, Stephen Phillips is currently working on other projects. When available the Project Officer will review CAO 48, and further develop the partially completed guidance material as well as establish an industry working group.
Grant Mazowita advised that a Draft paper will be posted to the Discussion forum very shortly [really?].
Grant advised that CASA is still awaiting a final settled legal draft of CASR Part 137; there have been some outstanding legal issues.
Those maintenance regulations projects are going gangbusters, though.
Hondo advised that incomplete drafting instructions for Part 42 have been sent to the Office of Legal Drafting and Publication (OLDP), in the hope these will assist OLDP with the drafting of Parts 66 and 147.
Hondo advised that policy work on Part 145 was well underway.
Hondo advised that the Draft CAO 100.66 was almost finished [really?], and will be provided to the Maintenance sub-committee for comment very shortly [really?]. He advised that it is equivalent to an EASA style licence system and uses a Maintenance authority to fill the gap between a normal and EASA licence. This system will be available voluntarily to industry early in 2007.
Ron advised that the sub-committee established the Part 91 Control Board, which was to consist of Gavin Turner, Paul Middleton and Bill Hamilton, with Dick Thompson on standby, if required. The Control Board will be announced to the SCC on the discussion forum and plan to meet in March 2007 to review the AIP material as well as any proposed changes.
Roger advised that the sub-committee revisited the status of Parts 61 and 141. Members were advised that during March–May 2005 Directive 16 Working groups convened on both parts. The recommendations from the Part 61 working group have not been incorporated into the Part. Members identified issues on Part 61 which still require resolution …
There was great discussion on the minimum regulated number of solo hours which was included in the CAR 5 amendment. A discussion took place on whether CASA should regulate or provide a flexible arrangement in the regulation. Members were reminded that CASA is aiming to regulate for the future. The meeting discussed competency issues which were included in the CAAP and how they would be measured. Concern was raised regarding undue haste, and the need for a controlled trial by CASA and the panel.
Members were advised that there are quite a few number of CASR parts which are very close to being fully drafted [sure there are – there have been for years, or so we were told] and also a number which have high priority already placed on them [wow!]. Bruce advised that by placing a higher priority on this Part it would effectively have to take priority off another Part [oh no!]. Members were advised that unless additional drafting resources are provided it may take up to twelve months for legal drafting of Part 61, after drafting instructions were submitted to OLDP.
Jim Coyne, acting Manager, MCANTO and CASA Co-Chair, advised that there has been very little activity with the sub-committee in the last quarter. Jim advised that Part 146 is still with OLDP and is being given low drafting priority.
Joe advised that Parts 149 and 115B continue to develop. It is anticipated that Part 149 will be ready for NPRM early 2007 [really?], with 115B to follow.
Hondo advised that the next MSC meeting will be held mid-December [did that meeting happen?] to discuss the comments received back on the NPRM, consultations on which close 27/11/2006. In the meantime Hondo advised that the CAO 100.66 is nearly complete [of course it is!] and will be pre-released to the sub-committee, prior to its release. Hondo advised that the consultation is going very well [of course it is!].
a) To make this an Agenda item at the next meeting. SCC members to consider prior to the SCC meeting, whether changes to the SCC are required to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. b) Pass ‘Future role of the SCC’ paper to Chair.
Thread Starter
Good news! The camel just sprouted another hump!
My apologies for doubting CASA's capacity to produce rushed, stop-gap solutions.
The new ‘interim’ maintenance personnel licensing and training org CAO is out. From the Explanatory Statement (copy here: http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/C...0066Explan.pdf) for new CAO 100.66 (102 pages, copy here: http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/CAO100/10066.pdf);
So we can’t do it properly at a snail’s pace, but we can come up with a rushed, stop-gap solution.
Now there’s a recipe for success!
Let’s see if I’ve got the structure of the rules correct.
1. An Act; plus
2. 1988 regulations; plus
3. part-complete 1998 regulations to replace the 1988 regulations – will be 10 years old soon; plus
4. CAOs made under the 1988 regulations before the 1998 regulations were made, and which were to be rendered redundant by the oh-so-simple outcomes-based 1998 regulations; plus
5. a brand new concept – CAOs under the 1988 regulations, that try to achieve, on an interim basis, what has yet to be achieved in the 1998 regulations.
Masterpiece!
The new ‘interim’ maintenance personnel licensing and training org CAO is out. From the Explanatory Statement (copy here: http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/C...0066Explan.pdf) for new CAO 100.66 (102 pages, copy here: http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/CAO100/10066.pdf);
New CASR Parts and new CAO
This new regulatory framework for licensing will [eventually – keep trudging lads - ] fall within proposed Part 66 of CASR 1998, and the framework for maintenance training organisations will [eventually – keep trudging lads - ] fall within proposed Part 147 of CASR 1998.
These regulatory proposals are in various states of preparation, some under development and many already at the legislative drafting stage. [But hang on a sec’. CASA put out a press release a year ago that said the ‘maintenance suite of regulations will be finished during 2006’ – see Icarus’ post above.] However, because of the time frames involved in finalising all elements of the package [keep trudging lads], CASA has decided to make a CAO that would immediately implement proposed changes in 2 areas, namely maintenance personnel licensing and maintenance training organisations. This would make new rules in these specific areas available for the aviation industry to take up voluntarily, if they so desired, by way of preparation for the forthcoming changes [they’re just around the corner – keep trudging lads] or to gain the benefits of the new system as soon as possible.
To achieve these outcomes, it was necessary for CASA to devise a legislative means of accelerated implementation of the EASA training and licensing arrangements, one that would fall within the existing legislative scheme in CAR 1988 and CASR 1998 and lend itself to expedited preparation of an interim solution. …
CAO 100.23 and 100.24 for existing MAs are in no sense revoked and continue to apply to persons who apply for, or already hold, MAs specifically under them.
This new regulatory framework for licensing will [eventually – keep trudging lads - ] fall within proposed Part 66 of CASR 1998, and the framework for maintenance training organisations will [eventually – keep trudging lads - ] fall within proposed Part 147 of CASR 1998.
These regulatory proposals are in various states of preparation, some under development and many already at the legislative drafting stage. [But hang on a sec’. CASA put out a press release a year ago that said the ‘maintenance suite of regulations will be finished during 2006’ – see Icarus’ post above.] However, because of the time frames involved in finalising all elements of the package [keep trudging lads], CASA has decided to make a CAO that would immediately implement proposed changes in 2 areas, namely maintenance personnel licensing and maintenance training organisations. This would make new rules in these specific areas available for the aviation industry to take up voluntarily, if they so desired, by way of preparation for the forthcoming changes [they’re just around the corner – keep trudging lads] or to gain the benefits of the new system as soon as possible.
To achieve these outcomes, it was necessary for CASA to devise a legislative means of accelerated implementation of the EASA training and licensing arrangements, one that would fall within the existing legislative scheme in CAR 1988 and CASR 1998 and lend itself to expedited preparation of an interim solution. …
CAO 100.23 and 100.24 for existing MAs are in no sense revoked and continue to apply to persons who apply for, or already hold, MAs specifically under them.
Now there’s a recipe for success!
Let’s see if I’ve got the structure of the rules correct.
1. An Act; plus
2. 1988 regulations; plus
3. part-complete 1998 regulations to replace the 1988 regulations – will be 10 years old soon; plus
4. CAOs made under the 1988 regulations before the 1998 regulations were made, and which were to be rendered redundant by the oh-so-simple outcomes-based 1998 regulations; plus
5. a brand new concept – CAOs under the 1988 regulations, that try to achieve, on an interim basis, what has yet to be achieved in the 1998 regulations.
Masterpiece!
Thread Starter
I2
If you’re actually happy with CAO 100.66, my only gentle hint is that you shouldn’t assume that a good concept in theory has been implemented properly in practice.
However, if this way of doing things really works, we might as well tear up the 1998 regulations and do it all by CAO!
If you’re actually happy with CAO 100.66, my only gentle hint is that you shouldn’t assume that a good concept in theory has been implemented properly in practice.
However, if this way of doing things really works, we might as well tear up the 1998 regulations and do it all by CAO!
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
No need for regulations, acts, CAOs, etc,
there's a bit of regulating going on that simply interprets the various POLICY Manuals as defacto legislation instead.
Why complicate things?
No need for regulations, acts, CAOs, etc,
there's a bit of regulating going on that simply interprets the various POLICY Manuals as defacto legislation instead.
Why complicate things?
If you’re actually happy with CAO 100.66
Unfortunately tone does not transmit very well in text. I was merely alluding to Yes Minister, that wonderful training video for new public servants, or was it a documentary about the operation of the public service?
Thread Starter
Thank heaven’s for that! For a moment I thought you’d taken leave of your (very wise) senses.
Good point – we could get rid of everything I listed, and replace it with ‘policy’ manuals that contain whatever CASA chooses to publish from time to time, and mean whatever CASA chooses to interpret them to mean from time to time.
Good point – we could get rid of everything I listed, and replace it with ‘policy’ manuals that contain whatever CASA chooses to publish from time to time, and mean whatever CASA chooses to interpret them to mean from time to time.
What a joke! Next year is the 20th Anniversary of CASA’s bureaucratic incompetence!!!
There always was many public servant jobs to retirement. With nepotism, the positions could become hereditary!!
So, Creamie, what has all this “regulatory reform” cost the hard working Aussie tax payer?? Is there no accountability??
There always was many public servant jobs to retirement. With nepotism, the positions could become hereditary!!
So, Creamie, what has all this “regulatory reform” cost the hard working Aussie tax payer?? Is there no accountability??
Creamy,
Old mate, you and Torres seem to have completely missed the two great achievements of the SCC in recent years.
Firstly, a great training ground for Chairmen to move seamlessly into CASA senior executive roles.
Secondly, an SCC review of SCC processes, the all hallowed “nine steps” was incredibly productive, it recommended an almost 100% increase in process to 15 steps.
Outcomes didn’t rate a mention, just the glorious process process --- Unless process is your bag, then it was a great outcome.
Tootle pip!!
PS Just in cased somebody might think otherwise, industry carries it's own costs at the SCC, except for the sandwiches, biscuits and instant coffee.
Old mate, you and Torres seem to have completely missed the two great achievements of the SCC in recent years.
Firstly, a great training ground for Chairmen to move seamlessly into CASA senior executive roles.
Secondly, an SCC review of SCC processes, the all hallowed “nine steps” was incredibly productive, it recommended an almost 100% increase in process to 15 steps.
Outcomes didn’t rate a mention, just the glorious process process --- Unless process is your bag, then it was a great outcome.
Tootle pip!!
PS Just in cased somebody might think otherwise, industry carries it's own costs at the SCC, except for the sandwiches, biscuits and instant coffee.
Thread Starter
Hopefully the November 2006 SCC meeting’s action item to develop a plan on what the SCC should do to deal with its action items more efficiently, will result in a 29 step process – sheer heaven!
And anyone who can design a regulatory ‘reform’ process this ‘efficient’ has clearly yet to reach their level of incompetence in the public sector.
And anyone who can design a regulatory ‘reform’ process this ‘efficient’ has clearly yet to reach their level of incompetence in the public sector.
Thread Starter
The more steps, the merrier!
39 steps. Even better!
There are similarities, Leaddy!
Buchan characterised The Thirty-nine Steps as an adventure where the events in the story are unlikely and the reader is only just able to believe that they really happened.
Who could believe that in a first world country, so much time and money could be spent creating a regulatory camel that is still sprouting humps, with no end in sight and no one responsible?
There are similarities, Leaddy!
Buchan characterised The Thirty-nine Steps as an adventure where the events in the story are unlikely and the reader is only just able to believe that they really happened.
Who could believe that in a first world country, so much time and money could be spent creating a regulatory camel that is still sprouting humps, with no end in sight and no one responsible?