The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
guess who's waiting in the wings to again lead OLC !
Fresh from his Oscar winning submission in the Senate Inquiry.
Lets hope this rumour turns out false.
guess who's waiting in the wings to again lead OLC !
Fresh from his Oscar winning submission in the Senate Inquiry.
Lets hope this rumour turns out false.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on and on and on
And on and on and on and on. 21 years to get to about 20% done, that's pretty good for the Commonwealth, we have been promised reform of tax laws for half a century now have we not?
Also From what I hear with the importation of all things good from Cathay into CASA and the Star Chamber management method in full bloom there will be no one decent left to do the work anyway, so it will go on and on and on. First there were the 49ers then 09ers!!
The aeroplane will be but a nostalgic memory when they finally come up with some reasonable means of regulating aviation.
Also From what I hear with the importation of all things good from Cathay into CASA and the Star Chamber management method in full bloom there will be no one decent left to do the work anyway, so it will go on and on and on. First there were the 49ers then 09ers!!
The aeroplane will be but a nostalgic memory when they finally come up with some reasonable means of regulating aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aeroplane will be but a nostalgic memory when they finally come up with some reasonable means of regulating aviation.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ml#post5350870
Read the linked letter. Sums up the state of play in no uncertain terms!
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
A Great Man
John F Kennedy once said -
'Delaying a decision is itself a decision, a decision with risks. There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction'.
Pity he wasn't still around, he could have taught this theory to CASA ?
'Delaying a decision is itself a decision, a decision with risks. There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction'.
Pity he wasn't still around, he could have taught this theory to CASA ?
Moderator
How to change a CASA Form Number:
Project MS 09/22 Amendments to CAAP 42W-1 and CAAP 42W-2
I wonder how this little tax gobbling project will enhance aviation safety?
Project MS 09/22 Amendments to CAAP 42W-1 and CAAP 42W-2
I wonder how this little tax gobbling project will enhance aviation safety?
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
We should all hold our breath with anticipation of the final solution when it is announced on 1st February 2010. I wonder what has happened and how much it cost in the period between 20th November 2009 and then?
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
Will The Real CASA Please Stand Up
I guess the ironic thing at the end of the day is that although we vent and raise fists of rage at CASA more often than not,the real villans are perched on leather chairs within Government's so called 'Silo of Excellence',Parliament House.Government pulls and controls CASA's strings.Government supplies CASA's (lack of) funding,the Governemnt tell's CASA what it can and can't do,and the Government sings CASA's praises when things are looking good,then tears through CASA when things don't look favourable.The game of Politics is what prevents CASA operating 100% effectively.If the Government properly funded CASA,didn't interfere with any decision making processes when those decisions affected an individual politicians ego or reputation, and allowed CASA to do carry out its soul purpose - 'To oversight safety within Australian aviation', then Australian aviation would be a better place.
I am really starting to see CASA as being the messenger, so should we shoot the messenger ? I'm not so sure anymore.....
Over to you Frank!
I am really starting to see CASA as being the messenger, so should we shoot the messenger ? I'm not so sure anymore.....
Over to you Frank!
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
The more corrupt the state, the more laws.
The Regulatory Reform program will therefor drift along forever.
Which particular government do we blame for this?
The Regulatory Reform program will therefor drift along forever.
Which particular government do we blame for this?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gobbledock - I think you will find there has been no interference in CASA by Government on account of the Westminster doctrine. Governments set policy and make law they do not and cannot implement such laws nor can they influence the decisions taken by a government body such as CASA. As far as I can see and as far back as I can remember CASA have got everything they have asked for in regulatory terms and policy support. When threatened with change or demands for accountability CASA simply has to put up the bogey man - 'Safety' and all the pollies run for cover, they do not spend the time to either understand or put in the time to find out, ergo, they continue to accept the unchallenged blandishments offered by government departments such as CASA as to what is what or what is not what. The public is no better they just want to depart and arrive safely and in case you had not noticed 80% of the populace hate flying anyway and have no interest in the subject.
The fact is there is no incentive or pressure on the bureaucrats to hasten change or consider alternatives and as long as it all sticks then Ministers will not consider any alternatives they just don't want bad press or questions in the house that cast their government or their departments in a negative way not when they have more important political agendas - the political game of staying in power.
You would clearly have to also recognise that there is no critical scrutiny in the mainstream media of air safety (crash coverage merely feeds the drama human interest angle for the media) and virtually none at all of aviation administration (industry focused news does not sell papers or advertising time) there will be no critical scrutiny at a political level. So all you have to do is write the occasional press release claiming its all going swimmingly and nobody will question the underlying reality.
So regulatory reform will go on and on and on!
The fact is there is no incentive or pressure on the bureaucrats to hasten change or consider alternatives and as long as it all sticks then Ministers will not consider any alternatives they just don't want bad press or questions in the house that cast their government or their departments in a negative way not when they have more important political agendas - the political game of staying in power.
You would clearly have to also recognise that there is no critical scrutiny in the mainstream media of air safety (crash coverage merely feeds the drama human interest angle for the media) and virtually none at all of aviation administration (industry focused news does not sell papers or advertising time) there will be no critical scrutiny at a political level. So all you have to do is write the occasional press release claiming its all going swimmingly and nobody will question the underlying reality.
So regulatory reform will go on and on and on!
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
and on and on and on and on.....
Grip-pipe, I must admit I quite enjoyed your response,and yes, I am educated in the Westminster doctrine.I dont however subscribe to it's true value nor it's effectiveness as the 'separation of powers' in my opinion has never been clearly and concisely defined, let alone enacted successfuly. I guess another time and place would make a good debate on this issue, and to be fair,we will have to 'agree to disagree' on some of your points, however in regards to your below statement :
I couldnt agree more, you are right on the money !
With that thought, an interesting quote comes to mind from a former Adviser with the Whitlam Government, who wrote ( in part ) :
"Stunting - The futile,posturing determination of some politicians to be seen to be doing something important, and using taxpayers money to pander their egos, while in reality avoiding the hard,important issues"
I believe that this is also an accurate description of the Australian political game here.
So all you have to do is write the occasional press release claiming its all going swimmingly and nobody will question the underlying reality.
With that thought, an interesting quote comes to mind from a former Adviser with the Whitlam Government, who wrote ( in part ) :
"Stunting - The futile,posturing determination of some politicians to be seen to be doing something important, and using taxpayers money to pander their egos, while in reality avoiding the hard,important issues"
I believe that this is also an accurate description of the Australian political game here.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gobbledock - Correct a discussion on the Westminster doctrine would go on forever.
The great tragedy of the last 21 years has been a lack of coherent industry policy at the national level on the industry in all its manifestations and as a result a complete failure to understand that regulatory reform meant less not more and let those who participate in the industry manage the risks, economic and operational appropriately, as they have done quite admirably without any real input from CASA or its forebears for decades. I am firmly of the view that half the current regs are but disguised economic regs left over from another time in which are entwined various strands of archaic labour controls and guild licensing processes. The current aviation regulatory regime is ideally suited for the maritime industry circa 1890 not the aviation industry.
Every so often the pollies appoint yet another director or CEO of something and promise to do what they promised to do before liked they promised to do before. I have become so cynical about the whole process like most of my compatriots I simply do not believe them any more. They have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to not listen to the voters or to enact change. Just look at the Tax Act, umpteen inquiries and still no sensible change but it is still promised.
Any way I could go on and on too but at the risk of boring everybody I wont.
The great tragedy of the last 21 years has been a lack of coherent industry policy at the national level on the industry in all its manifestations and as a result a complete failure to understand that regulatory reform meant less not more and let those who participate in the industry manage the risks, economic and operational appropriately, as they have done quite admirably without any real input from CASA or its forebears for decades. I am firmly of the view that half the current regs are but disguised economic regs left over from another time in which are entwined various strands of archaic labour controls and guild licensing processes. The current aviation regulatory regime is ideally suited for the maritime industry circa 1890 not the aviation industry.
Every so often the pollies appoint yet another director or CEO of something and promise to do what they promised to do before liked they promised to do before. I have become so cynical about the whole process like most of my compatriots I simply do not believe them any more. They have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to not listen to the voters or to enact change. Just look at the Tax Act, umpteen inquiries and still no sensible change but it is still promised.
Any way I could go on and on too but at the risk of boring everybody I wont.
Moderator
On 20 February 2005 Creampuff posted:
To correct the record, the regulatory reform commenced in 1988 when the "interim" regulations were introduced.
How is this for avoiding a straight and honest answer:
"The last formal kick-off..." is not the date the regulatory reform process began, Mr Gemmell! 
Australia has many practicing commercial pilots flying today who have never known a complete, final set of modern regulations, some of whom were born after the regulatory review process began.
That is the reality of CASA's Regulatory Review process.
I think Mr Byron, like his predecessor, is clever enough to know that regulatory ‘reform’ is one dead cat that’s best left moldering in the ‘pending’ tray. This question and answer (at page 124) occurred just before the passage quoted above:
I thought this expensive journey to nowhere began long before 1999, with the RSVP followed by the PAP or similar. It is surprising Mr Byron thought the regulatory reform program commenced in 2002. Wasn’t he on the board around the time Mr Smith put the kybosh on the regulatory reform program that had put the kybosh on the RSVP, and which itself was kyboshed by the “last formal kick-off for the current program”, which in turn appears to have been kyboshed by the decision to focus on “quality”.
At least we’ve managed to quadruple the size of the rules in the interim.
Q: What do you get when you cross a dead cat with a camel?
A: Australia’s civil aviation rules!
Senator MARK BISHOP …
When did the regulatory reform program begin and when was it originally scheduled to conclude?
Mr Byron—The regulatory reform program commenced—and I might need to take advice from Mr Gemmell, who was in CASA at the time—in about 2002.
Mr Gemmell—The regulatory reform program in various guises has been going for many years. The last formal kick-off for the current program was 1999. It was reviewed in 2001, a review done by me—in fact, I was newly joined to CASA—and we set ourselves a target of completing it by December 2003. Mr Byron joined as CEO on 1 December 2003, and it was at that point it was refocused from the time to the quality.
When did the regulatory reform program begin and when was it originally scheduled to conclude?
Mr Byron—The regulatory reform program commenced—and I might need to take advice from Mr Gemmell, who was in CASA at the time—in about 2002.
Mr Gemmell—The regulatory reform program in various guises has been going for many years. The last formal kick-off for the current program was 1999. It was reviewed in 2001, a review done by me—in fact, I was newly joined to CASA—and we set ourselves a target of completing it by December 2003. Mr Byron joined as CEO on 1 December 2003, and it was at that point it was refocused from the time to the quality.
At least we’ve managed to quadruple the size of the rules in the interim.
Q: What do you get when you cross a dead cat with a camel?
A: Australia’s civil aviation rules!
How is this for avoiding a straight and honest answer:
The regulatory reform program in various guises has been going for many years. The last formal kick-off for the current program was 1999.
Australia has many practicing commercial pilots flying today who have never known a complete, final set of modern regulations, some of whom were born after the regulatory review process began.
That is the reality of CASA's Regulatory Review process.
Tailwheel,
Spot on!!
I could almost say that it started withe the first "Lane" report, several years prior to 1988, or even the "Minister's Report to Parliament" on the operation of the Air Navigation Act 1922, (Minister Schwartz), in 1966.
That 1966 report is the first time (that I have ever found) where a Minister suggested we, Australia, should look at the FAA system, which he thought seemed to work well (including a better air safety record), without driving/strangling the aviation industry into the dirt/bankruptcy (outcome of choice).
As you well know, as Ministers/CASA CEOs/Reformers come and go, there is a core self-pepetuating group within (now) CASA who are the self appointed guardians of the DCA/DoT-ATG/DoA/CAA/CASA "Culture". With its' svengali/eminence grise waiting in the wings.
The question I have never been able to answer is: "What has Australian aviation done, to consistently receive the (bureaucratic) treatment it does".
Sadly, this has been quite consistent, right back to the first Civil Aviation Department, as an offshoot of the Department of Air (if I have those early titles correct).
But ----- something new ----- This is the first time we have had a CASA CEO/DAR who blames the "industry" for the lack of progress.
Tootle pip!!
PS: In my opinion, the group referred to above have has a "big win" in finally driving Gippsland Aeronautics off-shore.
Spot on!!
I could almost say that it started withe the first "Lane" report, several years prior to 1988, or even the "Minister's Report to Parliament" on the operation of the Air Navigation Act 1922, (Minister Schwartz), in 1966.
That 1966 report is the first time (that I have ever found) where a Minister suggested we, Australia, should look at the FAA system, which he thought seemed to work well (including a better air safety record), without driving/strangling the aviation industry into the dirt/bankruptcy (outcome of choice).
As you well know, as Ministers/CASA CEOs/Reformers come and go, there is a core self-pepetuating group within (now) CASA who are the self appointed guardians of the DCA/DoT-ATG/DoA/CAA/CASA "Culture". With its' svengali/eminence grise waiting in the wings.
The question I have never been able to answer is: "What has Australian aviation done, to consistently receive the (bureaucratic) treatment it does".
Sadly, this has been quite consistent, right back to the first Civil Aviation Department, as an offshoot of the Department of Air (if I have those early titles correct).
But ----- something new ----- This is the first time we have had a CASA CEO/DAR who blames the "industry" for the lack of progress.
Tootle pip!!
PS: In my opinion, the group referred to above have has a "big win" in finally driving Gippsland Aeronautics off-shore.
Moderator
If I recall correctly, Canada and New Zealand both completed their regulatory review process within five years.
Papua New Guinea was the smart state - they adopted the NZ regulations, using Australian Aid.
Somewhere back in PPRuNe, possibly in this thread, it was suggested the regulatory review process has cost $150 - $200 million so far. As I know the identity of the user that posted the comment, I know they were in a position to have accurate information.
The old Department of Civil Aviation was far from perfect, but it was a darn sight more user friendly than it's successors, the CAA and CASA!
Papua New Guinea was the smart state - they adopted the NZ regulations, using Australian Aid.
Somewhere back in PPRuNe, possibly in this thread, it was suggested the regulatory review process has cost $150 - $200 million so far. As I know the identity of the user that posted the comment, I know they were in a position to have accurate information.
Sadly, this has been quite consistent, right back to the first Civil Aviation Department, as an offshoot of the Department of Air (if I have those early titles correct).
I appreciate that this suggestion is not new but what exactly is wrong with adopting the NZ Regulations as a way of breaking through this ongoing issue? They are newer, (much THINNER) and more aligned with the rest of the world than ours. They are also written in plain English and are used pretty much throughout the South Pacific Region. By the way – I am not a Kiwi!.
Now that the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (Agreement?) – TTMRA – is up and running, any NZ airline can start up business in Australia under the NZ Regulations, as Australia recognises the NZ Regulations as providing an “equivalent level of safety”.
If we adopted the NZ Regulations Holus Bolus, there would undoubtedly need to be some “tweaking” as the Civil Aviation Act that gives the Head of Power in NZ is a bit different to ours but surely this is not beyond the wit of man to fix. After all, the Food Standards Regulations have been common between Australia and New Zealand for nearly 20 years.
Come to think of it, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is an Independent Statutory Authority (same status as CASA) except that it is a joint government bilateral agency set up between the two countries. (foodstandards.gov.au).
FSANZ seems to have functioned very effectively since 1991 and at least part of the justification for its formation was the reduction in duplication, bureaucracy and staff numbers on both sides of the ditch.
I wonder? No, it couldn’t even be considered – or could it................?
Now that the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (Agreement?) – TTMRA – is up and running, any NZ airline can start up business in Australia under the NZ Regulations, as Australia recognises the NZ Regulations as providing an “equivalent level of safety”.
If we adopted the NZ Regulations Holus Bolus, there would undoubtedly need to be some “tweaking” as the Civil Aviation Act that gives the Head of Power in NZ is a bit different to ours but surely this is not beyond the wit of man to fix. After all, the Food Standards Regulations have been common between Australia and New Zealand for nearly 20 years.
Come to think of it, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is an Independent Statutory Authority (same status as CASA) except that it is a joint government bilateral agency set up between the two countries. (foodstandards.gov.au).
FSANZ seems to have functioned very effectively since 1991 and at least part of the justification for its formation was the reduction in duplication, bureaucracy and staff numbers on both sides of the ditch.
I wonder? No, it couldn’t even be considered – or could it................?
The old Department of Civil Aviation was far from perfect, but it was a darn sight more user friendly than it's successors, the CAA and CASA!
My very first job in aviation was trying to get DCA "approvals" for inter-capital air freight ----- the DCA answer was "No, there is no market demand" ----- remember that, in those days, DCA was also an economic regulator.
The argument that we were the biggest parcel express operator in the country, we knew the market, cut no ice with DCA. We were forced to continue to use a fleet ot trucks, when using DC-4 freighters would have saved us linehaul cost.
Remember the IPEC High Court case, IPEC won, but lost, the "Commonwealth" power to economically regulate aviation was found to be unconstitutional, but IPEC could not import their freighters (again, DC-4) because the Commonwealth had the power to refuse import licenses.
Ask Keith Hilder (founder of Aeropelican) about Dear Old Sir Donald, nobody could get a Flying School License in NW NSW, it was all RNAC "territory", whose Patron was --- Sir Donald.
"Dear Old Sir Donald" announced there would be no cotton industry in Australia ---- actually what he said was that "Australian Rules" (and not that funny Victorian game) did not permit VFR by night, (long before NVFR) and certainly DCA would not countenance night spraying.
Shortly thereafter, Sir Donald was "advised" (by Senator Cotton, no less) that he, Sir Donald, would not be setting Australian agricultural development policy, particularly cotton. Very shortly thereafter, Col Pay and one other operator were up and running with night spraying.
Australia's "unique" certification rules (all established in the days of DCA) used to cost a fortune in "first of type" testing for any new model aircraft. Remember the cost of modifying every aircraft to come into Australia, to meet "DCA Rules".
Australia's "unique design and performance rules" cost Qantas a fortune in lost payload over the years, compared to competitors, that was only rectified with CASRs 21-35 in 1998. Big twins, like the B767 were really screwed, but the reasons are too technical for here. Ansett and TAA didn't care, because the "two airline" policy meant domestic operations were "cost plus", so excess operating costs made no difference.
The bureaucracy of the day, by whatever name it went under at the time, has always been a huge drag on any local aviation development, compared to just about any other comparable country, except UK.
The aviation bureaucracy in UK destroyed the industry hopes after WW 11, then far too many of the drones migrated to Australia, and guess what, got jobs in DCA.
The aviation sector is in for a rough ride, again, in the next few years.
Won't it be interesting, if Mahindra (a very smart company) shift Gippsland Aero to US (for regulatory purposes) with airframe manufacturing elsewhere, and India is not the only choice.
Tootle pip!!
Very interesting review of history Lead Sled - thanks.
So - learning from the lessons of the past and all that - what is the optimum way ahead?
By the way, a very Merry Christmas to all.
PJ
So - learning from the lessons of the past and all that - what is the optimum way ahead?
By the way, a very Merry Christmas to all.
PJ
tail wheel,
Old mate, aren't we all.
Another piece of nostalgia, we first met in the South Pacific Aero Club bar in POM, was it greenies or brownies we were drinking.
Remember the day of the inaugural flight of the PNG Gliding Club ---- when the new VIP Kingair ran out of motion lotion over the hill, just made it to a dead stick on the runway at Jacksons.
Tootle pip !!
PS: Remember E.G.Whitlam's comment about the (then) Qantas board: The Australian equivalent of being elevated to the House of Lords.
Old mate, aren't we all.
Another piece of nostalgia, we first met in the South Pacific Aero Club bar in POM, was it greenies or brownies we were drinking.
Remember the day of the inaugural flight of the PNG Gliding Club ---- when the new VIP Kingair ran out of motion lotion over the hill, just made it to a dead stick on the runway at Jacksons.
Tootle pip !!
PS: Remember E.G.Whitlam's comment about the (then) Qantas board: The Australian equivalent of being elevated to the House of Lords.