The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Thread Starter
One day to go to scheduled SCC meeting No. 29, and the Agenda hasn’t been published. The Minutes of the 14 November 2007 meeting are not yet published.
If only the ‘SCC efficiency’ action item hadn’t been airbrushed out of history.
Will be ‘celebrating’ the 10th anniversary of the making of the ‘new’ but still uncompleted regulations soon.
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.
If only the ‘SCC efficiency’ action item hadn’t been airbrushed out of history.
Will be ‘celebrating’ the 10th anniversary of the making of the ‘new’ but still uncompleted regulations soon.
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.
Creamie, Old Mate,
10th Anniversary, that's nothing, we've just had the 17th Anniversary of the Night Vision Goggles project.
Or ---- wait for it, the 40th Anniversary of the project to develop the successor to then ANO 48, I think I am getting Fatigue Risk Management Fatigue. What a ripper of a Fatigue Assessment Risk Timetable.
Ain't life grand??
Tootle pip!
10th Anniversary, that's nothing, we've just had the 17th Anniversary of the Night Vision Goggles project.
Or ---- wait for it, the 40th Anniversary of the project to develop the successor to then ANO 48, I think I am getting Fatigue Risk Management Fatigue. What a ripper of a Fatigue Assessment Risk Timetable.
Ain't life grand??
Tootle pip!
Thread Starter
Ah yes Leaddy, good ole ANO/CAO 48: the ‘rule’ to which a ‘standard’ exemption is issued.
The ‘reform’ resources seem always to be dissipated on fiddling at the edges, rather than concentrating on resolving the most important issues first. If they can’t make a decision on classification of ops, flight rules, flight time limitations etc, they shouldn’t be stuffing around with the rest.
The ‘reform’ resources seem always to be dissipated on fiddling at the edges, rather than concentrating on resolving the most important issues first. If they can’t make a decision on classification of ops, flight rules, flight time limitations etc, they shouldn’t be stuffing around with the rest.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't they just can the whole CASA reg. suite take the Find "FAA" and Replace with "CASA" thingy to the FAR's and then lay about with OpSpec 008 to the Part 135 bizniss if they have to.
It would only take a cuppla days and the odd bit of edit.
It would only take a cuppla days and the odd bit of edit.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day gaunty. Haven't seen you around these parts of late.
Isn't your suggestion what the enzedders did? It may have been a few pages back on this thread where someone mentioned that they have now got around to reviewing their new regs given a bit of actual experience under their belt. What's more, a lot of the Pacific Islands who once looked to Oz for their aviation leads have now turned to NZ. Smart people.
Isn't your suggestion what the enzedders did? It may have been a few pages back on this thread where someone mentioned that they have now got around to reviewing their new regs given a bit of actual experience under their belt. What's more, a lot of the Pacific Islands who once looked to Oz for their aviation leads have now turned to NZ. Smart people.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Torres, Old Mate,
To add insult to injury, the Balus program, which put the NZ rules in place in PNG (amongst other aviation reforms) was paid for by us, the good old Australian taxpayers, by way of a tied grant.
As part of the tender documents said: "------ because the Australian regulations are no longer regarded as usable" ---- and that was years ago.
The NZ rules were not just the FARs topped and tailed, our mates across the pond were much smarter than that, and got rid of years of accumulated regulatory detritus, and also picked up a few of the better bits of the JARs.
China has followed the NZ example, the new CCARs are largely FARs with minor amendments, with the same bits of EASA the kiwis found useful, largely Part 145, which is now FAR/EASA (JAR)145 anyway.
Balus was even headed up by Doug Roser, a name many of you will recognize from CAA days.
Tootle pip!!
To add insult to injury, the Balus program, which put the NZ rules in place in PNG (amongst other aviation reforms) was paid for by us, the good old Australian taxpayers, by way of a tied grant.
As part of the tender documents said: "------ because the Australian regulations are no longer regarded as usable" ---- and that was years ago.
The NZ rules were not just the FARs topped and tailed, our mates across the pond were much smarter than that, and got rid of years of accumulated regulatory detritus, and also picked up a few of the better bits of the JARs.
China has followed the NZ example, the new CCARs are largely FARs with minor amendments, with the same bits of EASA the kiwis found useful, largely Part 145, which is now FAR/EASA (JAR)145 anyway.
Balus was even headed up by Doug Roser, a name many of you will recognize from CAA days.
Tootle pip!!
Time for a global if not regional set of regulations without the need for every country to put in their own specific circumstances in the form of different regulations. The global village is here now and we no longer can we afford the unique ubangi ubangi (three q's) solution and the associated costs to industry. We need robust and endearing regulations now!!!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast
Age: 58
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
I'll put a few bob (no.. not you Mr T) on EASA rules bieng adopted in the majority with a couple of FAA (JAR) ones thrown in for good measure.
The only real problem is, how long will it take Dept of Legal to actualy draft the things in a form suitable to them.!!
PS Mainframe, I'm all TOOTLE PIP'ed out - get a new monica!
The only real problem is, how long will it take Dept of Legal to actualy draft the things in a form suitable to them.!!
PS Mainframe, I'm all TOOTLE PIP'ed out - get a new monica!
Thread Starter
That's very kind of you, FB. In respect of airspace issues, Torres will attest that the biggest airspace problem is the one between my ears!
In respect of regulatory 'reform' in Australia, perhaps they need to put a Kiwi in charge?
Mainframe: you're like a broken record. There are no lawyers left in CASA writing rules. There haven't been for years. If you're so smart and the solution is so self-evident, I give you the challenge that I have repeatedly given Leaddy and others: draft them yourself and publish them on the internet.
You will forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting……
In respect of regulatory 'reform' in Australia, perhaps they need to put a Kiwi in charge?
Mainframe: you're like a broken record. There are no lawyers left in CASA writing rules. There haven't been for years. If you're so smart and the solution is so self-evident, I give you the challenge that I have repeatedly given Leaddy and others: draft them yourself and publish them on the internet.
You will forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting……
I doubt there has ever been any real lawyers in CAA/CASA! 
However, back to the topic. The present Government, whilst in Opposition, were critical of CASA. Whilst it is early days, is there any indication the new Minister is making any impact on CASA?
However, back to the topic. The present Government, whilst in Opposition, were critical of CASA. Whilst it is early days, is there any indication the new Minister is making any impact on CASA?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe takes my point to it's logical conclusion.
I believe our old friend Pb0x90 was part of a team that took the FARS and the NZ stuff Part by Part examined each one took the most suitable and produced a perfectly satisfactory Aussie suite. Gordian knot solution it may have been at the time but probably too simple for the then post colonial mindset. So it's not a new idea.
We did have an NZ DCA/CAA/DOTARS (strike out unnecessary acrimon) boss and my memory is becoming increasingly scratchy with age but the power that was at the time must have had his ally foil hat on at the time and he was pushed out.
Maybe the time has come for Mainframe. Mind you there are SOME warts on the FAA system, but at least they haven't been dicked around forever.
I believe our old friend Pb0x90 was part of a team that took the FARS and the NZ stuff Part by Part examined each one took the most suitable and produced a perfectly satisfactory Aussie suite. Gordian knot solution it may have been at the time but probably too simple for the then post colonial mindset. So it's not a new idea.
We did have an NZ DCA/CAA/DOTARS (strike out unnecessary acrimon) boss and my memory is becoming increasingly scratchy with age but the power that was at the time must have had his ally foil hat on at the time and he was pushed out.
Maybe the time has come for Mainframe. Mind you there are SOME warts on the FAA system, but at least they haven't been dicked around forever.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety
Safety is a function of the integrity, resouces and knowledge of the operators, pilots and engineers. They can be helped or hindered by administrators and the regulator. But you cannot regulate, or enforce safety. The people who work in the industry determine that.
It appears that the real purpose of the regulator at the moment is to protect our government from any legal liability resulting from aviation.
We need to have rules and a regulator. But our present rules, and the way they are used seems very wrong. Too often it appears that they are used to manipulate the industry according to what Sir Humphrey thinks it should be. The same rules are taken to mean different things at different times.
An aeroplane has to have it's wing spars changed at 11,000 hours (only in Australia) when the maker says it can go to 70,000 hours.
Another aeroplane, which has a history of wing structural problems is given approval to carry a 100 kg overload, despite the recommendations of the maker.
Another aeroplane is rejected by the military as unsafe (after it has been in use for decades) but is perfectly safe for civilian use.
FOI's who will tell operators to rewrite part of their operations manual EVERY TIME they visit.
Massive operations manuals that duplicate what is written in the regs and in the flight manuals. WHY? To make it easy to prosecute? This massive paperwork is detrimental to safety. It should be simpler and less ambiguous.
And that "scheduled service" nonsense. It has been established that a flight that has been arranged a day before it's departure is a "scheduled" flight. Nearly every charter flight in the country is arranged this way. And the route is set at the same time. If this flight is advertised, and seats sold then it is illegal. ??????
So pre planning and advertising makes it more dangerous????? A number of charter companies have had their operating licences withdrawn for doing this.
Mail runs that used to be charter are now RPT????? They are done in the same way, over this same routes in the same aeroplanes, flown by people with the same licences.
And not just mail runs.
And it's ok because Sir Humphry wrote something different on a piece of paper. Nothing whatever to do with safety.
It seems to be a tool used to manipulate.
And the public see light aircraft services as the same as Boeing services, as they are licenced the same. It seems that this "non scheduled" nonsense is there to differentiate between big aeroplanes and small ones in the eyes of the pubblic.
Why don't we get real and stop fooling the public, by calling them "licenced light aircraft services" and doing away with this "non scheduled" nonsense. Let operators concentrate on their job, and not have to worry about the tricks that "big brother" may be up to, and the fine line they have had to walk. It will be safer that way.
And rename our regulator "The Australian Civil Aviation Service". The "Safety Authority" did not prevent Lockhart River. A different way is needed.
And try to help.
Our light aircraft service about 80% of our country.
It appears that the real purpose of the regulator at the moment is to protect our government from any legal liability resulting from aviation.
We need to have rules and a regulator. But our present rules, and the way they are used seems very wrong. Too often it appears that they are used to manipulate the industry according to what Sir Humphrey thinks it should be. The same rules are taken to mean different things at different times.
An aeroplane has to have it's wing spars changed at 11,000 hours (only in Australia) when the maker says it can go to 70,000 hours.
Another aeroplane, which has a history of wing structural problems is given approval to carry a 100 kg overload, despite the recommendations of the maker.
Another aeroplane is rejected by the military as unsafe (after it has been in use for decades) but is perfectly safe for civilian use.
FOI's who will tell operators to rewrite part of their operations manual EVERY TIME they visit.
Massive operations manuals that duplicate what is written in the regs and in the flight manuals. WHY? To make it easy to prosecute? This massive paperwork is detrimental to safety. It should be simpler and less ambiguous.
And that "scheduled service" nonsense. It has been established that a flight that has been arranged a day before it's departure is a "scheduled" flight. Nearly every charter flight in the country is arranged this way. And the route is set at the same time. If this flight is advertised, and seats sold then it is illegal. ??????
So pre planning and advertising makes it more dangerous????? A number of charter companies have had their operating licences withdrawn for doing this.
Mail runs that used to be charter are now RPT????? They are done in the same way, over this same routes in the same aeroplanes, flown by people with the same licences.
And not just mail runs.
And it's ok because Sir Humphry wrote something different on a piece of paper. Nothing whatever to do with safety.
It seems to be a tool used to manipulate.
And the public see light aircraft services as the same as Boeing services, as they are licenced the same. It seems that this "non scheduled" nonsense is there to differentiate between big aeroplanes and small ones in the eyes of the pubblic.
Why don't we get real and stop fooling the public, by calling them "licenced light aircraft services" and doing away with this "non scheduled" nonsense. Let operators concentrate on their job, and not have to worry about the tricks that "big brother" may be up to, and the fine line they have had to walk. It will be safer that way.
And rename our regulator "The Australian Civil Aviation Service". The "Safety Authority" did not prevent Lockhart River. A different way is needed.
And try to help.
Our light aircraft service about 80% of our country.
Last edited by bushy; 27th Apr 2008 at 08:21.
"Another aeroplane, which has a history of wing structural problems is given approval to carry a 100 kg overload, despite the recommendations of the maker."
In respect to the Lockhart River Coronial Inquest, I suspect Counsel Assisting engaged the services of this consulting firm, which would explain the presence of it's principal at the Inquest.
Unbelievably arrogant!
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres,
Not sure if you aware of the very clever (and underhand) game that was played by having someone present,
who may have been intimately involved, appear on the first day as a "consultant",
thereby preventing that person being called as a witness.
The inquest was stage managed to a degree that implies a very defensive stance,
and portrays knowledge that the regulator was vicariously liable.
This regulator, who flaunts the word "SAFETY" as a talisman, is like most public service entities, skilled at circling the wagons into a defensive position.
This regulator, like most public service entities, is terrified of, and objects to, accountability.
Australia's worst air disaster in 40 years has been written off as a minor incident,
when at least a Royal Commission, and preferably a Judicial Inquiry may have come to grips with the unsavoury facts surrounding the regulator.
Given the passage of time, it is hoped that the matter will fade, that memories will fade, and that the guilty will go unpunished.
Enormous public funds have so far been expended defending the indefensible, and none towards uncovering the unsavoury truth.
Minister Albanese, and his assistant Tony Sachs, have consulted CASA and accept CASA's view.
For a new and incoming Government this is a totally unacceptable stance.
Justice Seeker, you and other grieving parents and relatives may just have to live with the fact,
that it is far more important to protect the regulator than to investigate for the truth.
The sooner this regulator drops the word SAFETY from its title the better.
Enforcement and defensive activity take a much higher priority than safety, the word SAFETY is only included as a gimmick.
Not sure if you aware of the very clever (and underhand) game that was played by having someone present,
who may have been intimately involved, appear on the first day as a "consultant",
thereby preventing that person being called as a witness.
The inquest was stage managed to a degree that implies a very defensive stance,
and portrays knowledge that the regulator was vicariously liable.
This regulator, who flaunts the word "SAFETY" as a talisman, is like most public service entities, skilled at circling the wagons into a defensive position.
This regulator, like most public service entities, is terrified of, and objects to, accountability.
Australia's worst air disaster in 40 years has been written off as a minor incident,
when at least a Royal Commission, and preferably a Judicial Inquiry may have come to grips with the unsavoury facts surrounding the regulator.
Given the passage of time, it is hoped that the matter will fade, that memories will fade, and that the guilty will go unpunished.
Enormous public funds have so far been expended defending the indefensible, and none towards uncovering the unsavoury truth.
Minister Albanese, and his assistant Tony Sachs, have consulted CASA and accept CASA's view.
For a new and incoming Government this is a totally unacceptable stance.
Justice Seeker, you and other grieving parents and relatives may just have to live with the fact,
that it is far more important to protect the regulator than to investigate for the truth.
The sooner this regulator drops the word SAFETY from its title the better.
Enforcement and defensive activity take a much higher priority than safety, the word SAFETY is only included as a gimmick.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift, but cannot go without comment:
There is no evidence to suggest that the 2 failures in Australia are related to the increased MTOW. In both Australian accidents the wings failed outboard of the engines - in the accidents o/s relating to the spar issue, the failures were inboard of the engines.
Return to topic!
If you are referring to the Shrike, the Australia only approved overload VFR is closer to 400 kg, almost a 15% increase on the manufacturer's MTOW - despite two catastrophic in-flight failures in Australia in recent years plus a further twenty overseas!!
Return to topic!