The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett
You put your finger exactly right on it.
The problem with our whole regulatory regime and that isn't just aviation is that we still suffer the remnants of post colonial rule and the Brit/Euro way.
The US fought a very serious and devastating War of Independence to get away from that exactly that attitude. It was the bedrock on which their subsequent success was built.
"here's the basic rules and what we want to achieve and we trust you to get on with it" with the caveat that if you dont there will be consequences.
Recent evidence is the huge fines paid by Southwest and American for what were relatively minor oversights. Whistleblowers or not that's the only thing at the end of the day that gets the message across. Sure the FAA aren't perfect but at least you know where you stand.
Opspec8 in GA terms is really starting to bite even if it is a bit late. We need something like this in Australia to clean out a few cupboards.
You put your finger exactly right on it.
The problem with our whole regulatory regime and that isn't just aviation is that we still suffer the remnants of post colonial rule and the Brit/Euro way.
"we are the government and we know better so do as we say"
"here's the basic rules and what we want to achieve and we trust you to get on with it" with the caveat that if you dont there will be consequences.
Recent evidence is the huge fines paid by Southwest and American for what were relatively minor oversights. Whistleblowers or not that's the only thing at the end of the day that gets the message across. Sure the FAA aren't perfect but at least you know where you stand.
Opspec8 in GA terms is really starting to bite even if it is a bit late. We need something like this in Australia to clean out a few cupboards.
Thread Starter
the current rewrite is a farce that should be humanely put down to and out of it’s misery
As to the model to be adopted, I'm not fussed either way, provided a decision one way or the other is made soon, is implemented and managed, and is not allowed to turn into another pointless and expensive exercise in horse design by committee.
(peuce) Consensus is not achievable in this area. If it were, it would have been achieved years ago and rules - prescriptive or otherwise - would not be necessary.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Creamy. I put the apostrophe down to the red wine I had with dinner earlier. I will remove it for you and correct the appalling grammer.
But seriously, I think the model to be followed is important. The regulatory approach has been the traditional model in Australian aviation and I no longer think it is effective or can be effective. The number of cases (criminal, not necessarily aviation) before the courts that fail because of loopholes in the relevant legislation is ever increasing. As a former practicing lawyer doing mostly criminal work for defendants complicated legislation was a gift.
The basic approach referred to by gaunty makes it far easier to get a conviction and it would be easier to extend liability further up the line.
But seriously, I think the model to be followed is important. The regulatory approach has been the traditional model in Australian aviation and I no longer think it is effective or can be effective. The number of cases (criminal, not necessarily aviation) before the courts that fail because of loopholes in the relevant legislation is ever increasing. As a former practicing lawyer doing mostly criminal work for defendants complicated legislation was a gift.
The basic approach referred to by gaunty makes it far easier to get a conviction and it would be easier to extend liability further up the line.
Thread Starter
As I say: I’m not fussed about which model is followed, provided it’s one model and one person is accountable for implementing that model by a deadline.
I’m not sure you’re going to get consensus on your implied point that the rules should be designed to make convictions easier.
PS: Thanks for correcting the apostrophe. I lose (or, in pprune-speak, ‘loose’) sleep about these things.
I’m not sure you’re going to get consensus on your implied point that the rules should be designed to make convictions easier.
PS: Thanks for correcting the apostrophe. I lose (or, in pprune-speak, ‘loose’) sleep about these things.
Maybe we could do it the NASA/Australian Government way ( if the film, "The Dish", is correct) and just draft a law the says:
"You must build, maintain, fly and seperate aircraft safely"
...and work our way out from there....if we have to
"You must build, maintain, fly and seperate aircraft safely"
...and work our way out from there....if we have to
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett
Unfortunately the USA does not use an "advisory"sytem. They rely very much and very heavily on the regulatory approach. If you want to use the US system then you have to understand it - and most people who advocate it simply don't. They just rely on what some professed experts in AOPA tell them. There was a very good discussion about this on the CASA regulatory review website a couple of years ago where the matter was put into proper perspective. The discussion pointed out the legal advice provided by the Australian Government Solicitor on the issue. Here is some of what was said. But I encourage you to read the whole posting on the CASA site because it puts a lie to all the nonsense by the bush lawyer brigade who have no grasp of the issue whatsover.
(a) Enforcement
The AGS advised that the FARs depend on a civil penalty enforcement system with substantial financial penalties. The Civil Aviation Act did not authorise such a system. Accordingly, to ensure that the adopted FARs could be effectively enforced, the enforcement system applying under the Civil Aviation Act would need to be reviewed. This has never been done.
The fact is that the FAR system operates on an administrative enforcement system. The offences under the FARs are not criminal offences and so the FAA does not have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. I have personally discussed this issue with the FAA who have advised that the FARs would be virtually impossible to operate in a criminal enforcement system such as that currently in place in Australia.
And it is important to understand what the Americans themselves think of the FAA system. The following is an extract from the book “Please Call, the Tower: A Pilot’s Guide to the FAA Enforcement Program”:
“It is important to note that administrative law proceedings are much less formal thatn criminal investigations And do not include traditional defendant protections, such as presumption of innocence, rights to legal counsel, or notice that any information or statement provided by alleged violators can and will be used against them. Further, the evidence gathering and admissibility in administrative law cases are much lower than in criminal cases. In establishing that an FAR violation has occurred and the certificate holder is responsible, the burden of proof on the FAA is merely to show a preponderance of the evidence [ie balance of probabilities] rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal proceedings”.
(b) Subordinate US Instrument
The AGS advised that the FARs are supported by voluminous, detailed Handbooks, Technical Standards Orders, Security Directives and Advisory Circulars. These instruments are used in the administration (and interpretation) of the FARs. Thus, a superficially simple provision in the FARs may have a considerable body of subordinate instruments applying to it. The legal status of these subordinate US instruments and their application and availability in Australia, needed further consideration. The AGS advised that these issues would probably require an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act. This has never been done.
( c) Other US Laws
The AGS pointed out that the FARs do not exist in a legal vacuum. They exist in the context of, and are affected by, other United States laws. The impact of these laws needed to be considered and dealt with if the FARs were to be adopted as part of Australian law. He gave as examples, the relevant provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code (especially chapters 1(transport organisation), 401 (general provisions about air commerce and safety), 441 to 453 (air safety), 461 (investigations and proceedings) and 463 (penalties). He advised that these provisions needed to be considered to identify matters that should be dealt with in harmonising Australian aviation safety laws with the FARs. He further advised that some of these matters would probably require an amendment of the Act. This has never been done.
Other US laws not mentioned, but which are relevant and need to be considered in any policy to adopt the FARs include the Federal Torts Claims Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
(d) Interpretation of FARs
The AGS advised that United States courts differ from Australian courts in the approach they take to statutory interpretation. In particular, United Stated courts tend to give greater weight to legislative history and policy. AGS therefore advised that it would be prudent to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to make it clear that words and expressions used in the adopted FARs had the same meanings in Australia as they have in the United States. The amendment would, however, need to allow scope for the regulations to make contrary provision or clarify the meaning of adopting FARs for Australian purposes. This has never been done.
What the AGS did not mention in relation to the interpretation of the FARs is the doctrine of deference that exists in the USA. This doctrine has recently been affirmed (and expanded) by the US Courts in the case of Garvey, FAA v. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrell 190 F. 3rd 571, 577 (D.C. Cir.1999). Under that doctrine the FAA’s lawyers can make interpretations of the FARs against a certificate holder in the middle of an adversary litigation proceeding. Further, the FAA litigation attorney’s interpretation will be binding not only on the defendant but also on the judge and appellate adjudicatory authority. As a result of that decision, it appears that many FAA orders ands manuals, previously considered advisory, will now become binding interpretations of the regulations.
This doctrine of deference has been given statutory force in Title 49, at section 44709, which provides that on an appeal against an FAA decision to amend, suspend or revoke a certificate or licence, the appellate body “is bound by all validly adopted interpretations of laws and regulations the Administrator carries out and of written agency policy guidance available to the public related to sanctions to be imposed…”
A similar provision exists in section 46301 of Title 49 in relation to decisions of the FAA to impose a civil penalty for a violation of the FARs.
It would be instructive for Mr Hamilton to read the Merrell case to see how the FAA/FAR system works in the real world.
None of these issues have ever been properly considered in the discussion on the wholesale adoption of the FARs.
Now the new regulatory team in CASA is planning to adopt the European approach. But here again they completely lack any understanding of the how the Eurpoean approach works. They think that the EASA ""rules" is the model to follow - but they completely misunderstand how it works in Europe where the myriad of soveriegn countries have their own way of adopting and implementing the EASA "rules". But that should not be surprising given that those who head the reform program have no understanding of, or experience in, regulatory development. But they do Byron's bidding ever so well................
Unfortunately the USA does not use an "advisory"sytem. They rely very much and very heavily on the regulatory approach. If you want to use the US system then you have to understand it - and most people who advocate it simply don't. They just rely on what some professed experts in AOPA tell them. There was a very good discussion about this on the CASA regulatory review website a couple of years ago where the matter was put into proper perspective. The discussion pointed out the legal advice provided by the Australian Government Solicitor on the issue. Here is some of what was said. But I encourage you to read the whole posting on the CASA site because it puts a lie to all the nonsense by the bush lawyer brigade who have no grasp of the issue whatsover.
(a) Enforcement
The AGS advised that the FARs depend on a civil penalty enforcement system with substantial financial penalties. The Civil Aviation Act did not authorise such a system. Accordingly, to ensure that the adopted FARs could be effectively enforced, the enforcement system applying under the Civil Aviation Act would need to be reviewed. This has never been done.
The fact is that the FAR system operates on an administrative enforcement system. The offences under the FARs are not criminal offences and so the FAA does not have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. I have personally discussed this issue with the FAA who have advised that the FARs would be virtually impossible to operate in a criminal enforcement system such as that currently in place in Australia.
And it is important to understand what the Americans themselves think of the FAA system. The following is an extract from the book “Please Call, the Tower: A Pilot’s Guide to the FAA Enforcement Program”:
“It is important to note that administrative law proceedings are much less formal thatn criminal investigations And do not include traditional defendant protections, such as presumption of innocence, rights to legal counsel, or notice that any information or statement provided by alleged violators can and will be used against them. Further, the evidence gathering and admissibility in administrative law cases are much lower than in criminal cases. In establishing that an FAR violation has occurred and the certificate holder is responsible, the burden of proof on the FAA is merely to show a preponderance of the evidence [ie balance of probabilities] rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal proceedings”.
(b) Subordinate US Instrument
The AGS advised that the FARs are supported by voluminous, detailed Handbooks, Technical Standards Orders, Security Directives and Advisory Circulars. These instruments are used in the administration (and interpretation) of the FARs. Thus, a superficially simple provision in the FARs may have a considerable body of subordinate instruments applying to it. The legal status of these subordinate US instruments and their application and availability in Australia, needed further consideration. The AGS advised that these issues would probably require an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act. This has never been done.
( c) Other US Laws
The AGS pointed out that the FARs do not exist in a legal vacuum. They exist in the context of, and are affected by, other United States laws. The impact of these laws needed to be considered and dealt with if the FARs were to be adopted as part of Australian law. He gave as examples, the relevant provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code (especially chapters 1(transport organisation), 401 (general provisions about air commerce and safety), 441 to 453 (air safety), 461 (investigations and proceedings) and 463 (penalties). He advised that these provisions needed to be considered to identify matters that should be dealt with in harmonising Australian aviation safety laws with the FARs. He further advised that some of these matters would probably require an amendment of the Act. This has never been done.
Other US laws not mentioned, but which are relevant and need to be considered in any policy to adopt the FARs include the Federal Torts Claims Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
(d) Interpretation of FARs
The AGS advised that United States courts differ from Australian courts in the approach they take to statutory interpretation. In particular, United Stated courts tend to give greater weight to legislative history and policy. AGS therefore advised that it would be prudent to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to make it clear that words and expressions used in the adopted FARs had the same meanings in Australia as they have in the United States. The amendment would, however, need to allow scope for the regulations to make contrary provision or clarify the meaning of adopting FARs for Australian purposes. This has never been done.
What the AGS did not mention in relation to the interpretation of the FARs is the doctrine of deference that exists in the USA. This doctrine has recently been affirmed (and expanded) by the US Courts in the case of Garvey, FAA v. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrell 190 F. 3rd 571, 577 (D.C. Cir.1999). Under that doctrine the FAA’s lawyers can make interpretations of the FARs against a certificate holder in the middle of an adversary litigation proceeding. Further, the FAA litigation attorney’s interpretation will be binding not only on the defendant but also on the judge and appellate adjudicatory authority. As a result of that decision, it appears that many FAA orders ands manuals, previously considered advisory, will now become binding interpretations of the regulations.
This doctrine of deference has been given statutory force in Title 49, at section 44709, which provides that on an appeal against an FAA decision to amend, suspend or revoke a certificate or licence, the appellate body “is bound by all validly adopted interpretations of laws and regulations the Administrator carries out and of written agency policy guidance available to the public related to sanctions to be imposed…”
A similar provision exists in section 46301 of Title 49 in relation to decisions of the FAA to impose a civil penalty for a violation of the FARs.
It would be instructive for Mr Hamilton to read the Merrell case to see how the FAA/FAR system works in the real world.
None of these issues have ever been properly considered in the discussion on the wholesale adoption of the FARs.
Now the new regulatory team in CASA is planning to adopt the European approach. But here again they completely lack any understanding of the how the Eurpoean approach works. They think that the EASA ""rules" is the model to follow - but they completely misunderstand how it works in Europe where the myriad of soveriegn countries have their own way of adopting and implementing the EASA "rules". But that should not be surprising given that those who head the reform program have no understanding of, or experience in, regulatory development. But they do Byron's bidding ever so well................
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clapton
Thank you for your post and I have to admit to being guilty of simplification in my earlier posts.
I am well aware that you cannot just lift another country's laws without consideration to the supporting framework but with that said I still believe the FAA approach would be more beneficial.
Yes the Civil Aviation Act does not allow that approach but that should not stand in the way of wholesale legislative rewrite. Massive change is needed because the present legal framework is not working. Most governments hate changing an Act because it has to be done through parliament whereas regualtion amendments can be done administrativey unless challenged by parliament.
My principal reason for wanting change is that liability should be extended much further to include all culprits. At present it is too easy for an organisation to wash their hands of any responsibility for a contravention of a regulation where they may be equally responsible for the breach as the person who directly breached it. I have heard of countless examples of companies who push their pilots to complete flights that should be grounded. The pilot can cop it in the neck but the ops manager who pushed the flight out the door is able to say "...I would never force a flight that should not have left. We say in our Ops Manual that all CASA legislation is to be obeyed." Bovine excreta I say.
Let me leave you with a question. Why should the owner of a company escape all liability for deaths of passengers on a flight conducted by his/her company due to the actions of a pilot with a record of dangerous flying and the owner has done nothing to prevent that pilot from conducting flights in a dangerous manner? For that matter, why should that not include the regulatory authority who had oversight of that company and failed to do anything?
Thank you for your post and I have to admit to being guilty of simplification in my earlier posts.
I am well aware that you cannot just lift another country's laws without consideration to the supporting framework but with that said I still believe the FAA approach would be more beneficial.Yes the Civil Aviation Act does not allow that approach but that should not stand in the way of wholesale legislative rewrite. Massive change is needed because the present legal framework is not working. Most governments hate changing an Act because it has to be done through parliament whereas regualtion amendments can be done administrativey unless challenged by parliament.
My principal reason for wanting change is that liability should be extended much further to include all culprits. At present it is too easy for an organisation to wash their hands of any responsibility for a contravention of a regulation where they may be equally responsible for the breach as the person who directly breached it. I have heard of countless examples of companies who push their pilots to complete flights that should be grounded. The pilot can cop it in the neck but the ops manager who pushed the flight out the door is able to say "...I would never force a flight that should not have left. We say in our Ops Manual that all CASA legislation is to be obeyed." Bovine excreta I say.
Let me leave you with a question. Why should the owner of a company escape all liability for deaths of passengers on a flight conducted by his/her company due to the actions of a pilot with a record of dangerous flying and the owner has done nothing to prevent that pilot from conducting flights in a dangerous manner? For that matter, why should that not include the regulatory authority who had oversight of that company and failed to do anything?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett
You raise a very different issue here. And I entirely agree with you.
Adopting the FAR system won't change the sitauation. One of the problems here is that the regulator take so little regulatory action where it is needed. QF has contravened safety regulations on numerous occasions but the CASA approach is to let QF deal with the issue itself for fear of offending QF. There has not been one regulatory action taken against QF for anything. QF is so powerful that it can stall a prosecution of its pilots for several years to the point that they can then apply to the Supreme Court for a permanent stay on the basis of undue delay (all caused by them). And CASA does nothing- even when faced with direct evidence of contraventions. That is one of the significant problems in CASA. And it is even worse now with an industry customer ethic in CASA so beloved by Byron and his yes men.
So yes I agee with your sentiments - and yes the legislation could be changed ( the FAA system is quite irrelevant to the issue) - but it will mean nothing while we have a regulator that is beholden to the industry and punishes the pilots rather than the real culprits in management. This was exactly the situation in the Whyalla accident and what action was taken against the managers. Nothing to speak of...........
Check out the recent scandal in the FAA where management threatened FAA regulatory staff with dismissal and worse for wanting to take action against the airlines - because this would be inconsistent with their industry partnertship approach. CASA is doing exactly the same - and it is this that needs to be exposed before the inquiry.......
You raise a very different issue here. And I entirely agree with you.
Adopting the FAR system won't change the sitauation. One of the problems here is that the regulator take so little regulatory action where it is needed. QF has contravened safety regulations on numerous occasions but the CASA approach is to let QF deal with the issue itself for fear of offending QF. There has not been one regulatory action taken against QF for anything. QF is so powerful that it can stall a prosecution of its pilots for several years to the point that they can then apply to the Supreme Court for a permanent stay on the basis of undue delay (all caused by them). And CASA does nothing- even when faced with direct evidence of contraventions. That is one of the significant problems in CASA. And it is even worse now with an industry customer ethic in CASA so beloved by Byron and his yes men.
So yes I agee with your sentiments - and yes the legislation could be changed ( the FAA system is quite irrelevant to the issue) - but it will mean nothing while we have a regulator that is beholden to the industry and punishes the pilots rather than the real culprits in management. This was exactly the situation in the Whyalla accident and what action was taken against the managers. Nothing to speak of...........
Check out the recent scandal in the FAA where management threatened FAA regulatory staff with dismissal and worse for wanting to take action against the airlines - because this would be inconsistent with their industry partnertship approach. CASA is doing exactly the same - and it is this that needs to be exposed before the inquiry.......
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clapton
I take your point that merely changing from one set of regs to another will not change the mindset of the regulator. Perhaps I was being optomistic in thinking that a root and branch change in the legislation would also lead to a change in the regulatory authority.
However, I must take issue with you on one point. The collapse of the prosecution against the QANTAS pilots over allegedly taking off at Launy without the runway lights was not due to undue delay. It was because evidence went missing that was crucial to the prosecution. Yes, a delay had been caused by the defence team (as I understand requesting vast amounts of prosecution evidence to be produced, most of which was irrelevent to the matter) but in the end it was the prosecution who could not proceed.
That CASA is failing on many fronts is I think indisputable. Their insistence on doing paper audits only will ensure it will never unearth malfeasance in the industry. However, I suspect that is the required result as it would seem that CASAs primary function is to prevent any blowback from getting to the politicians. It is time for a "root and branch" review of the organisation and it must include the pressures to which it has been subject, both from the industry and the government.
I take your point that merely changing from one set of regs to another will not change the mindset of the regulator. Perhaps I was being optomistic in thinking that a root and branch change in the legislation would also lead to a change in the regulatory authority.
However, I must take issue with you on one point. The collapse of the prosecution against the QANTAS pilots over allegedly taking off at Launy without the runway lights was not due to undue delay. It was because evidence went missing that was crucial to the prosecution. Yes, a delay had been caused by the defence team (as I understand requesting vast amounts of prosecution evidence to be produced, most of which was irrelevent to the matter) but in the end it was the prosecution who could not proceed.
That CASA is failing on many fronts is I think indisputable. Their insistence on doing paper audits only will ensure it will never unearth malfeasance in the industry. However, I suspect that is the required result as it would seem that CASAs primary function is to prevent any blowback from getting to the politicians. It is time for a "root and branch" review of the organisation and it must include the pressures to which it has been subject, both from the industry and the government.
Last edited by PLovett; 8th Jun 2008 at 08:14. Reason: Grammer....bleedin' grammer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett
I don't think that is quite correct. The issue was due to the continual requests for delay by QF - which was always granted. Evidence didn't go missing. What happeneed was that the court transcripts were somehow destroyed (can't blame CASA for that). But in the end those transcripts were irrelevant because all the issues would have been dealt with at trial. QF has the power and resources to stop any action against it. The actions of the DPP in this case to allow this to occur is where the blame lays. Doesn't excuse CASA for turning a blind eye to other contraventions by QF...........
I agree with the rest of your post.
I don't think that is quite correct. The issue was due to the continual requests for delay by QF - which was always granted. Evidence didn't go missing. What happeneed was that the court transcripts were somehow destroyed (can't blame CASA for that). But in the end those transcripts were irrelevant because all the issues would have been dealt with at trial. QF has the power and resources to stop any action against it. The actions of the DPP in this case to allow this to occur is where the blame lays. Doesn't excuse CASA for turning a blind eye to other contraventions by QF...........
I agree with the rest of your post.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe
Just came across this wonderful posting of yours. What a lovely blinkered and naive world to live in.
Since when has enforcement of the law had nothing to do with safety? If there is no need to enforce the law then there is no need for the law.
Obviously all the coronials and inquiries got it wrong because you are obviously so much more enlightened about safety and need for the regulator to serve its customers rather than doing the job it was set up to do.
The following are obviously just the rantings of ill-infomed meddlers who should stay out of safety issues because they obviously know nothing of value. And dear me, why should the public expect the regulator to look after its interests when it is much too busy cosying up to industry:
The Seaview Royal Commissioner made the following observation in his final report:
“4.24 No doubt the benevolent treatment of industry, and the apparent willingness to overlook quite serious breaches was given impetus by industry’s being declared the partner of the CAA. Partnership envisages co-operation. Prosecution, cancellation or suspension are hardly the actions of a partner; they are acts of hostility.
4.25 The partner, as has been seen, became the customer. Officers were encouraged to become “customer oriented”. It was not then a large step to embrace what is a commonplace in commerce, that “the customer is always right”.
The Monarch coroner stated:
“… it is clear that had the CAA management paid more attention to the law and less to accommodating their ‘customers’, NDU would have been grounded and AOC suspended … CAA management bent over backwards to protect the ‘industry’ from the constraints imposed by the Regulations … The CAA placed the commercial interests of its ‘customers’ above the safety of the public”.
The Senate Committee report into CASA’s dealings with ARCAS Airways contained the following recommendation:
“The Committee recommends that CASA take steps to recommit itself to strong action through prosecution or suspension of those operators who deliberately breach maintenance, airworthiness and reporting and recording requirements thereby compromising air safety.”
The recent Congressional inquiry into the FAA's cosy relationship with industry and the reluctance to enforce the FARS is reported as follows
CNN 1 April 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is putting the public at risk with lax oversight and a too-cozy relationship with the airlines, a top lawmaker and aviation experts said Tuesday.
The FAA has shown a dangerous lack of enforcement compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands of people flying on potentially unsafe aircraft, said Rep. James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"This is the most serious lapse in aviation safety at the FAA that I've seen in 23 years," the Minnesota Democrat said in an interview with CNN, a position he restated at a news conference Tuesday.
"The result of inspection failures and enforcement failure has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, un-airworthy and at risk of lives," he said.
Just came across this wonderful posting of yours. What a lovely blinkered and naive world to live in.
FAA
Gaunty,
good point, lets make it even easier with less editing,
how about we simply rename CASA to FAA, (Federal Aviation Authority) and simply licence their rules and regs.
The "S" in CASA should never have been in the title in the first place.
Since the advent of plykism, it became an Enforcement authority, not a Safety authority.
Plyk's devotees are maintaining the enforcement theme instead of the safety theme
The word Safety is only intended to draw an emotional response from the taxpayer and elected representatives
and to give false credence to what is being done, or not being done.
I guess "C" for civil is probably a bit deceptive too, given that the Authority continues to be an ADF retirement club.
Gaunty,
good point, lets make it even easier with less editing,
how about we simply rename CASA to FAA, (Federal Aviation Authority) and simply licence their rules and regs.
The "S" in CASA should never have been in the title in the first place.
Since the advent of plykism, it became an Enforcement authority, not a Safety authority.
Plyk's devotees are maintaining the enforcement theme instead of the safety theme
The word Safety is only intended to draw an emotional response from the taxpayer and elected representatives
and to give false credence to what is being done, or not being done.
I guess "C" for civil is probably a bit deceptive too, given that the Authority continues to be an ADF retirement club.
Obviously all the coronials and inquiries got it wrong because you are obviously so much more enlightened about safety and need for the regulator to serve its customers rather than doing the job it was set up to do.
The following are obviously just the rantings of ill-infomed meddlers who should stay out of safety issues because they obviously know nothing of value. And dear me, why should the public expect the regulator to look after its interests when it is much too busy cosying up to industry:
The Seaview Royal Commissioner made the following observation in his final report:
“4.24 No doubt the benevolent treatment of industry, and the apparent willingness to overlook quite serious breaches was given impetus by industry’s being declared the partner of the CAA. Partnership envisages co-operation. Prosecution, cancellation or suspension are hardly the actions of a partner; they are acts of hostility.
4.25 The partner, as has been seen, became the customer. Officers were encouraged to become “customer oriented”. It was not then a large step to embrace what is a commonplace in commerce, that “the customer is always right”.
The Monarch coroner stated:
“… it is clear that had the CAA management paid more attention to the law and less to accommodating their ‘customers’, NDU would have been grounded and AOC suspended … CAA management bent over backwards to protect the ‘industry’ from the constraints imposed by the Regulations … The CAA placed the commercial interests of its ‘customers’ above the safety of the public”.
The Senate Committee report into CASA’s dealings with ARCAS Airways contained the following recommendation:
“The Committee recommends that CASA take steps to recommit itself to strong action through prosecution or suspension of those operators who deliberately breach maintenance, airworthiness and reporting and recording requirements thereby compromising air safety.”
The recent Congressional inquiry into the FAA's cosy relationship with industry and the reluctance to enforce the FARS is reported as follows
CNN 1 April 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is putting the public at risk with lax oversight and a too-cozy relationship with the airlines, a top lawmaker and aviation experts said Tuesday.
The FAA has shown a dangerous lack of enforcement compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands of people flying on potentially unsafe aircraft, said Rep. James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"This is the most serious lapse in aviation safety at the FAA that I've seen in 23 years," the Minnesota Democrat said in an interview with CNN, a position he restated at a news conference Tuesday.
"The result of inspection failures and enforcement failure has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, un-airworthy and at risk of lives," he said.
Thread Starter
Happy 10th Birthday 1998 Regulations!
As my 1000th and final post on pprune, I would like to wish the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 a (slightly belated) happy 10th birthday for the 22nd of July!
[Speech! Speech!]
Gazetted on 22 July 1998, the CASRs promised so much to so many: aviation paradise was just around the corner.
Sadly, 1998 regulations became the first hump on an increasingly humpy, ugly and expensive camel.
Missing vital organs, the 1998 regulations struggled into existence and, in the first of a number of ironic twists, became more complex and voluminous than their older brother who was reviled for his complexity and volume.
With no parent willing to take responsibility for their existence and advancement, the aviation legislation, of which the 1998 regulations are a part, are now kept alive by a convoluted and expensive array of committees approximating an iron lung.
In a further ironic twist, the job that was going to be done by the 1998 regulations is now being done by civil aviation orders under the 1988 regulations, both of which were to be rendered redundant by the 1998 regulations. Sadly, this drove the 1998 regulations to despair then insanity.
The kindest thing we could do now would be to put them out of their misery.
However, we're going to continue torturing them and the long-suffering taxpayer. Any decade now, somebody hopes to have an action item on when the plan for finishing most of the remaining …..
[Intermittent applause, as the 1998 regulations sit drooling in corner, chanting: 'kill me; kill me; kill me…..']
And on that note, it's farewell to pprune from Creampuff. It's been a hoot!
Good luck and safe flying.
[Speech! Speech!]
Gazetted on 22 July 1998, the CASRs promised so much to so many: aviation paradise was just around the corner.
Sadly, 1998 regulations became the first hump on an increasingly humpy, ugly and expensive camel.
Missing vital organs, the 1998 regulations struggled into existence and, in the first of a number of ironic twists, became more complex and voluminous than their older brother who was reviled for his complexity and volume.
With no parent willing to take responsibility for their existence and advancement, the aviation legislation, of which the 1998 regulations are a part, are now kept alive by a convoluted and expensive array of committees approximating an iron lung.
In a further ironic twist, the job that was going to be done by the 1998 regulations is now being done by civil aviation orders under the 1988 regulations, both of which were to be rendered redundant by the 1998 regulations. Sadly, this drove the 1998 regulations to despair then insanity.
The kindest thing we could do now would be to put them out of their misery.
However, we're going to continue torturing them and the long-suffering taxpayer. Any decade now, somebody hopes to have an action item on when the plan for finishing most of the remaining …..
[Intermittent applause, as the 1998 regulations sit drooling in corner, chanting: 'kill me; kill me; kill me…..']
And on that note, it's farewell to pprune from Creampuff. It's been a hoot!
Good luck and safe flying.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
wishing you all the best in your retirement. You will be missed.
Your informative and balancing views help make for thought provoking reading.
I don't necessarily agree with you on everything, nor do I expect you to agree with me on anything.
I trust that in your lifetime you may see closure on the regulatory reform program, but you may need to bat a century!
The essential is to discuss and debate and thus to learn by further inquiry.
Mainframe
wishing you all the best in your retirement. You will be missed.
Your informative and balancing views help make for thought provoking reading.
I don't necessarily agree with you on everything, nor do I expect you to agree with me on anything.
I trust that in your lifetime you may see closure on the regulatory reform program, but you may need to bat a century!
The essential is to discuss and debate and thus to learn by further inquiry.
Mainframe
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will miss you creampuff as will others who are as articulate.
I am guilty of acting out of passion and you are guilty of acting out of reason.
Next time I am in your neck of the woods may I suggest we get smashed at the P & Q. I am sure I can gather a few to make the party worthwile.
I am guilty of acting out of passion and you are guilty of acting out of reason.
Next time I am in your neck of the woods may I suggest we get smashed at the P & Q. I am sure I can gather a few to make the party worthwile.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farewell Creampuff!
I was going to make a somewhat caustic reference to pre landing checks, however, I decided that that would be a little inappropriate - so good luck and all the best with your own flying.
By the way, if you don't mind me asking (whilst acknowledging your retirement statement), what are you doing with yourself these days?
Cheers.
Henry.
By the way, if you don't mind me asking (whilst acknowledging your retirement statement), what are you doing with yourself these days?
Cheers.
Henry.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate recommendations CASA.
It's coming to an end. This is what the holdup was.
Mr Byron had refocussed the Regulatory Reform Program on producing a quality response rather than a timely completion.
Mr Byron had refocussed the Regulatory Reform Program on producing a quality response rather than a timely completion.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think September marks the 21st anniversary of CASA Regulatory Reform - a process originally estimated to be completed in less than five years.
The direct cost has been well in excess of $200 million.
Assuming the new regulations will be similar in size to the CAR 1988 (173,600 words), that cost equates to $1,152 per word!
But alas, due to CASA's bureaucratic incompetence, the new Regulations are no where near complete.
How many more years does CASA require Mr McCormick?
The direct cost has been well in excess of $200 million.
Assuming the new regulations will be similar in size to the CAR 1988 (173,600 words), that cost equates to $1,152 per word!
But alas, due to CASA's bureaucratic incompetence, the new Regulations are no where near complete.
How many more years does CASA require Mr McCormick?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulator Update
Before I get 'shat on' for this Thread, I am posting this article from 'The Australian' Newspaper. I am not offering any personal opinions, simply uploading it as it may be of interest to some members of the aviation community. Don't shoot the messenger.
CASA set to make regulatory reforms fly
THE industry's air safety chief has vowed to break the stalemate that has seen regulatory reform paralysed for more than two decades.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive John McCormick told industry members attending the Australian Airports Association convention in Sydney this week that industry consultation and input would continue to be key to the success of regulatory reform.
"But the practice of the past, where consultation to achieve consensus frequently paralysed action, sometimes for years, will not continue," he said.
"Such a stalemate does not assist either industry or CASA.
"Consultation does not equate to agreement and while all views will be seriously considered and taken into account, at the end of the day CASA, as the regulator, will still make the decision."
Mr McCormick is the latest of several CASA chief executives to promise to speed up and simplify regulatory reform. However, the process has invariably become bogged down in the disagreements and bureaucracy.
He said the authority was looking to have new maintenance regulations made in the first half of 2010 and complete the legal drafting of operational and licensing regulations by the end of the year.
CASA has called for comment by December 18 on the proposed new maintenance regulations covering aircraft and aeronautical products, licences and ratings for engineers.
It hopes to phase them in from November 1, with regular public transport operators and related maintenance organisations the first to switch over.
Mr McCormick also said he was waiting for the final report of a review of aircraft caps imposed on general aviation aerodrome procedures (GAAP) aerodromes and expected to make a decision soon. CASA earlier this year introduced controversial new rules that reduced the number of aeroplanes allowed in the circuit at Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield airports.
But the air safety boss said he viewed decision-making to be at the core of the regulator's role.
"The decision was not made lightly but was taken in the interests of safety," Mr McCormick said.
"The revised procedures are the result of numerous surveillance activities undertaken by CASA over the past 12 months, as well as reviews by independent consultants and accident reports from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
"It would be fair to say this action by CASA received mixed reviews from industry -- but again, it was a decision that had to be made in the interests of safety."
Turning to the future, Mr McCormick said other action by the authority had included decisions to open offices in the Top End and to establish a new sport and recreational aviation advisory body.
The federal government's white paper, due to be released early next month, was also expected to present CASA with new challenges and opportunities.
CASA set to make regulatory reforms fly
THE industry's air safety chief has vowed to break the stalemate that has seen regulatory reform paralysed for more than two decades.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive John McCormick told industry members attending the Australian Airports Association convention in Sydney this week that industry consultation and input would continue to be key to the success of regulatory reform.
"But the practice of the past, where consultation to achieve consensus frequently paralysed action, sometimes for years, will not continue," he said.
"Such a stalemate does not assist either industry or CASA.
"Consultation does not equate to agreement and while all views will be seriously considered and taken into account, at the end of the day CASA, as the regulator, will still make the decision."
Mr McCormick is the latest of several CASA chief executives to promise to speed up and simplify regulatory reform. However, the process has invariably become bogged down in the disagreements and bureaucracy.
He said the authority was looking to have new maintenance regulations made in the first half of 2010 and complete the legal drafting of operational and licensing regulations by the end of the year.
CASA has called for comment by December 18 on the proposed new maintenance regulations covering aircraft and aeronautical products, licences and ratings for engineers.
It hopes to phase them in from November 1, with regular public transport operators and related maintenance organisations the first to switch over.
Mr McCormick also said he was waiting for the final report of a review of aircraft caps imposed on general aviation aerodrome procedures (GAAP) aerodromes and expected to make a decision soon. CASA earlier this year introduced controversial new rules that reduced the number of aeroplanes allowed in the circuit at Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield airports.
But the air safety boss said he viewed decision-making to be at the core of the regulator's role.
"The decision was not made lightly but was taken in the interests of safety," Mr McCormick said.
"The revised procedures are the result of numerous surveillance activities undertaken by CASA over the past 12 months, as well as reviews by independent consultants and accident reports from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
"It would be fair to say this action by CASA received mixed reviews from industry -- but again, it was a decision that had to be made in the interests of safety."
Turning to the future, Mr McCormick said other action by the authority had included decisions to open offices in the Top End and to establish a new sport and recreational aviation advisory body.
The federal government's white paper, due to be released early next month, was also expected to present CASA with new challenges and opportunities.
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
"Consultation does not equate to agreement and while all views will be seriously considered and taken into account, at the end of the day CASA, as the regulator, will still make the decision."
The exception being is that the "consultation process" could cause public outcry, so we propose something outrageous and the halve it saying we have listened to industry.
Mr McCormick is the latest of several CASA chief executives to promise to speed up and simplify regulatory reform. However, the process has invariably become bogged down in the disagreements and bureaucracy.
CASA has called for comment by December 18 on the proposed new maintenance regulations covering aircraft and aeronautical products, licences and ratings for engineers.
It hopes to phase them in from November 1
It hopes to phase them in from November 1
the air safety boss said he viewed decision-making to be at the core of the regulator's role.
"The decision was not made lightly
"The decision was not made lightly
decisions to open offices in the Top End
establish a new sport and recreational aviation advisory body.
The federal government's white paper, due to be released early next month, was also expected to present CASA with new challenges and opportunities
What a crock!