The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever

[Kharon]

Finally, managed to clean up and archive some of the 'older' research data; amazed by the amount collected and the number of items filed in the wrong place. Horrible job, but strangely satisfactory.

Anyway – Here's a picture blast from the past, which, for my two bob's worth says it all......

[aroa]

Aahhh... the InTollerable years

Love the historic doc Shape your Industry..read ..but keep the SickSac handy.! Crapspeak tru!

Alas CASA have done it for us over/ or done us over, the last decade...and its currently shaped like a dog turd/polished.

If its cobbled up by those that can only deal up sh*te, and it smells like sh*te.. then it really is SH*TE.

Like said... CASA really is the sewerage farm.

[my oleo is extended]

Careful aroa, the 'powers to be' may make a voodoo doll copy of you and start sticking pins in it!

[Sunfish]

Whats the date on the image? Can a copy be submitted to the Senate Committee? One picture is worth a Thousand words.

[Kharon]

It's all a bit too much, ain't it?

Creamie reckons, correctly, not too big a voting block in 'aviation'; but, if the 'punters union' suffer because of a downgrade in Australia's ICAO status that might make just a bit a difference. Question – how close is Australia to a downgrade? Are the combined fiascos since the last FAA/ICAO enough to finally engage the full attention of the heavy mob??

It's not so much the time or money thrown at rescuing the CASA from the jaws of a downgrade which annoys me so much as the nugatory results of the spending spree. Particularly visible in the rubbish being cast as law, the ludicrous penalties, the manufactured 'difficulties' in compliance and the ease of prosecution. Someone should tell them, you can't prosecute safety into the industry. The response will be a classic 'mudguard syndrome', all squeaky clean, Teflon coated on top etc. The underground 'by the book' business will flourish, it does now.

Perhaps, it's all our fault – allowing the lunatics to run the asylum and then passively standing by as the garbage is delivered. Maybe AMROBA has the right idea, slug it out now before the law is made. The question haunts me is why has the process been derailed so often?; there has, in the past been glimmers of sanity, logic and sensible legislation, then it's as though the hoodoo of voodoo strikes and it all mysteriously disappears into the ether.

The industry is not a government funded playgroup for the study of arcane rights and academic legal practice. Grey thoughts for a grey day indeed– but no amount of plain and fancy law will keep anyone any the safer; I worry that the latest efforts will have a reverse effect.

Fatigue – FRMS – CAO 48, when was the last time anyone in the CASA flew a full roster under commercial pressure, or were called out at short notice to work a long shift. Fatigue!, they wouldn't know it if it jumped up and bit 'em in the arse. Yet we get the latest 48 essay and FRMS burble from the office of NFI, only after the fact, forced by the sheer embarrassment of the Pel Air cock up. They completely bollocks fatigue up, sack the 'expert', turn Chambers loose and then, have the hide then start preaching, in print about what should be done and how to do it. Gods spare me.

OK, Rant over, steam off. But it has to end, somewhere, don't it??.

Creamy – a dose of sanity would be good about now.....

Safety tip - Buttered SAO should not be dropped onto your keyboard, makes a hell of a mess.

[Sarcs]

"2003 and the RRP!"

Sunny:

Whats the date on the image? Can a copy be submitted to the Senate Committee? One picture is worth a Thousand words.

Very hard to track…hmm guess its been ‘shelf-wared’ in the FF ‘shelf ware’ chronicles!

However we can possibly track where it fell, chronologically speaking, in the years 2002-2003..

Take a look at this RRP Update newsletter on page 30 you see an advertisement headed…. “Are you being heard?”

http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/news...d/ne0205rp.pdf

The advertisement page layout and graphics were first used by FF in the middle part of 2002. The wording of the advertisement seems also to run along in a similar sentiment to Kharon’s image.

So best bet Sunny would be late 2002 or early 2003 for the ‘Shape your industry’ advertisement and I would hazard a guess that Bill McIntyre commissioned the writing of it.

In the history of the Regulatory Reform Program (and what a infamous history it is!!) 2003 was somewhat of a break through year, here’s an example that is context of the above newsletter:

Code:

CASA Media Release - Thursday 16 January, 2003
Key conference on new aviation rules
Full details of a major conference focusing on the development of new aviation safety rules have been released by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. 
CASA is holding a three-day conference in Sydney in March to examine proposed new rules covering flight crew licensing, operations and training. 
The conference gives people in the aviation industry a special chance to take part in the detailed development of the new rules. 
Feedback from the conference will play a key role in the final drafting of proposed regulations. 
CASA is inviting aircraft operators, chief pilots, flying instructors, testing officers, pilots and flight engineers to attend the conference. 
The conference features four half-day workshops where specific parts of the new rules will be looked at closely. 
These workshops will give people in the aviation industry a unique opportunity to learn about the proposed regulations and provide feedback directly to the CASA staff working on regulatory reform. 
 

Workshops will cover: 
Flight crew licensing – Part 61 
Air transport, small aeroplanes – Part 121B 
General operating and flight rules – Part 91 
Flight training – Part 141 
Flight crew training and checking – Part 142 
Rotorcraft, aerial agriculture and aerial work – Parts 133, 136, 137 
Opening and closing plenary sessions will summarise the discussions and present a complete picture of the status and next stages of regulatory reform. 
CASA’s executive manager Standards, Bill McIntyre, says the conference is a must for people in all sectors of the aviation industry. 
“ The issues are critical to people in both general aviation and for those working for the large operators,” Mr McIntyre says. 
“ CASA needs the ideas, comments and criticisms of a broad cross-section of the aviation industry so we get the best possible outcomes from regulatory reform.” 
The conference is being held 3-5 March at the Sydney Convention Centre. Full details at www.casa.gov.au/seminars/

Unfortunately most of the break throughs of 2002-2003 were to be thwarted in the Byron years….two steps forward…three steps back…etc..etc coming up to a quarter of a century and over 300million…tick tock!

For a more comprehensive summary of the RRP Phelan's article 'To hell with the rules' is worth a read, although it's probably a 2 coldies Sundy Arvo read :To hell with the rules | Pro Aviation

[gobbledock]

Unfortunately most of the break throughs of 2002-2003 were to be thwarted in the Byron years….two steps forward…three steps back…etc..etc coming up to a quarter of a century and over 300million…tick tock!

Byron couldnt get the job done. Nor Smith, Nor the current DAS (who will be gone around Oct/Nov).
I have said it many times, the problems lay within the long term individuals who are the real puppet masters. Cut the strings from their clutch and we can get on with business.......

[Stan van de Wiel]

Flight Safety mags

Quote:
Whats the date on the image? Can a copy be submitted to the Senate Committee? One picture is worth a Thousand words.

The image referred to was part of 2001 & early 2002 Flight Safety magazines and submitted by me as part of the August 2002 AAT documents as Applicants submission A 41 in the Schutt Aviation appeal ref: shooting the messenger Proaviation.com.au

Will forward copies to the individual Senators as the committee is bnot accepting late submissions. Originals are in my archives.

Empty skies are safe skies

[Kharon]

I liked the following quote from the ICAO audit; perhaps we could send our blokes across the Tasman for a dose of humble pie and a quick training camp. I bet Joolia would love to have the real amount of dollars spent tucked away in a sock right about now, what is it ? Ľ billion and counting.

ICAO – January 2009 -3.2.3 For the regulatory framework and rulemaking procedures, the Regulatory Development Management (RDM) Manual, dated 20 February 2008, describes the processes and requirements involved in the making of aviation safety regulations, standards and associated advisory materials. Procedures for amending regulations, including identifying and notifying differences to ICAO, are established and documented in the manual. In addition, the manual provides an overview of the requirements established by the Australian Government for conducting consultations on regulatory requirements and following other regulatory “best practices.”

However, the procedures described in the new manual for the amendment of regulations and for the identification and notification to ICAO of differences existing between the ICAO SARPs and PANS (Procedures for Air Navigation Services) do not address adopted regulations and have not kept the national regulations in pace with ICAO Annex amendments, in particular for personnel licensing, airworthiness and aircraft operations. In addition, not all differences to ICAO SARPs have been notified to ICAO.

What are we doing ?- seriously.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and the waste and failure to meet ICAO requirements

Great catch K

That is an admission of casa to fail to meet ICAO standards and how it thinks it is the only responsible body. Is this the smoking gun??

Be damned to the Industry

[SIUYA]

UITA...

You only need to compare the Annexes to the filed differences in the AIP Supplement to work out that CASA is NOT filing all the differences that it SHOULD be filing.

So 'yes', CASA is NOT a responsible body under its present [mis]management.

[thorn bird]

So what are all the all expenses paid trips to Montreal and Geneva for ??

[Creampuff]

There are some posts in the Senate Inquiry thread that are directly relevant to this thread, so I copy the text here:

CASR (1988) - 675 pages.

CASR (1990) - 1376 pages.

Source: Comlaw download pages.

NZ regs (from my poor addition of the pages in each pdf file) - 1814 pages

Civil Aviation Rules

Are we really so badly off?

But what you’re overlooking is the fact that the original Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 were only 155 pages long. (Copy here: Civil Aviation Regulations )

Those 155 pages were, apparently, so complex and convoluted that they had to be replaced with 2,000 pages (so far) of inexorably expanding regulations, plus 10 times that in MOSs.

155 pages simplified to 2,000 plus, with more to come.

The CAOs are still there, and they are expanding inexorably as well.

For those who have been active pilots in Australia over the period 1988 to the present, what substantial difference has any of those thousands of pages of extra regulations made?

Let’s see: Quadrantal cruising levels changed to hemispherical. No more full reporting for VFR OCTA. GAAP to Class D (but that’s been effectively AIP’d and ERSA’d back to GAAP). A bit of messing around with CTAFs and frequencies on charts (remember Dick’s biscuits?). A bit of messing around with circuit entry/straight in approaches and calls at non-towered aerodromes, and a bit of messing around with report items in CTA (sorry, Class X).

In short, f*ck all difference, which could have been achieved with a few deletions, amendments and additions.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and the waste and failure to meet ICAO requirements

Here is the real reason that this has taken some [almost] 1/3 billion dollars. Read and weep.

I did listen and "blah, blah, blah, blah................................."

Director of Aviation Safety on Regulation Reform - YouTube

The following is on the YouTube site:

Published on 26 May 2013
CASA Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, discusses the regulatory reform program for Australia's aviation industry. Produced in May 2013

All Comments

Comments are disabled for this video.

You can't even rate the video - They really don't want to know!!!!!!!!!!

[004wercras]

CAsA media folly

WTF? The link wouldn't play, said something about it being embedded? A bit like the ****ty CAsA culture - it is embedded in them. I did end up watching some of it on Poohtube but quickly became nauseated and chose to watch some 'Victoria's Secret' video's featuring Miranda Kerr instead
I guess it is fortunate that they didn't run out of band width trying to fit the angry mans giant bulbous bald head in the frame?
I did notice however he was not wearing his Friday Hawaiian shirt, nor did he have the blood spatters of innocent industry folk on his jacket or jack boots, very unusual? And from the small segment of dribble that I viewed I didn't see JMac throw a tanty!

Funny, in the early days The Skull quickly pulled the pin on Herr Quinn's video DCEO Reports, now here is The Skull swanning in front of the camera just like a 1970's porn star, just like his his old adversary! Talk about recycling ****, this proves it can be done!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Learn how complex regulatory reform is and that's why another 3 to 4 years before the task will be complete.

If it won't play google 'you tube casa briefing' and should find it.

[Kharon]

181 little words.

The pictures are, in this instance not worth 181 words.

Problem officer??

Regulatory reform.

6.56 The committee received information that there is concern in industry about the progress and direction of regulatory reform.54 It understands that this process has been going on for well over a decade55 and this extended timeframe is causing ongoing uncertainty for industry. The committee compares it with the regulatory reform process in New Zealand which has taken far less time and by all accounts has been effective.56

6.57 While a certain degree of concern is to be expected, the committee believes it is time to conduct a brief inquiry on the current status of regulatory reform to review the direction, progress and resources expended to date. This would include seeking perspectives from CASA and industry. It would also include benchmarking against the New Zealand reform process and outcomes, including industry acceptance.

Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.

You betcha – bring it on.

[owen meaney]

BWHA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Same empty crap from the same empty people.
No one is interested, no one cares. Not one question to Minister Albanese over this.
Storm in a tea cup.
You need to listen to Sunfish and Creampuff.
keep tilting at windmills though, saves any of you actually getting a life.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and it's failure to interface with industry

casa appears to have had the link removed and there is no way to "Like" or "Unlike", but here is a download of the transcript from yootube:

john mccormick says:

The regulations have to reflect reality,

0:09 they have to reflect where the industry is,

0:11 and at the moment they don't do that.

0:13 Because as I've said, they've grown up basically organically.

0:17 When there's been a regulation required, it's been written.

0:19And people have done the right thing as far as they knew,

0:22 interacting with the industry and meeting the requirements.

0:25 Nowadays, we need to get all that internationally aligned.

0:30So we need to follow ICAO.

0:32 Our regulations up to now basically haven't.

0:34 The CASA parts will align us with ICAO,

0:37 will align us with interoperability

0:39 with other countries around the world.

0:41 It puts us into a modern system.

0:43 Whereas our system at the moment,

0:45 we've relied heavily on exemptions and permissions.

0:47 There's in excess of 1,700 of those documents out there.

0:51 And that becomes a case of ruling almost by exemption,

0:55 which is not the best manner.

0:57 Because if you have a regulation, then you exempt somebody,

0:59 and you exempt somebody, and exempt somebody,

1:01 by the time you get out over here somewhere,

1:03 this original rule is a nonsense.

1:05 So updating it to where we are and reflecting the industry,

1:10 putting us in a better position for the 21st century,

1:13 making them simpler because everything is contained in one place.

1:18 In other words, the manuals of standards

1:20 contain all the standards now.

1:21You don't have to look through various publications,

1:23 as it is a little bit the technique required today.

1:26 So that's the important part of it.

1:28 Updating them to the 21st century,

1:30 allowing industry to move forward in the new regime of equipment

1:33 in avionics and things that we have available,

1:35 making sure we're internationally aligned

1:37 as best we can for interoperability,

1:39 and certainly harmonise with ICAO requirements.

1:42 However, the real issue is

1:44 what is the industry's ability to absorb change?

1:47 So the time we take to implement the regulations

1:50 will be driven basically

1:52 by how well we see the industry adapting to the changes.

1:55 Some of the changes are quite minor.

1:57 Some of them radically change the way people approach things.

2:00 But in each case, we're trying to enable industry to move forward

2:04 on a solid basis of knowing what the requirements are.

2:06 And those requirements, we are trying to make them

2:09 no more onerous than any other country that we would consider to be

2:12 someone we would benchmark ourselves against.

2:14 Reg reform is not a two-minute job,

2:17 and those people in the industry who say

2:19 "Oh, yeah, you just write this and away you go,"

2:21 it shows most probably the fact that they don't understand

2:24 the concepts or the principles involved at sufficient depth.

2:27 We're not trying to...

2:29 You know, we're dealing with what will go through parliament,

2:31 and become a CASA part, it will become law.

2:35 We can't just willy-nilly sign something over

2:39 because we think that's good on that day,

2:41 and yet some of our critics would want just that.

2:45 The process has to involve industry and the aviation community at large,

2:49 which of course is the travelling public as well.

2:51 We have the Notice of Proposed Rule Making process

2:53 involving the Standards Consultative Committee.

2:55 Then we have more public feedback.

2:57 Then we have the Notice of Final Rule Making.

3:00 And again there's feedback on that.

3:02 And then they go forward to parliament

3:03 and then to the Governor-General for the assent.

3:06 Industry, anybody, is free to comment at any stage during that process,

3:12 until we get to the Notice of Final Rule Making,

3:14 and we've decided and we've finished the rules,

3:15 then the rules are finished.

3:18 But it's a very lengthy period of time

3:20 available for people to make comments and I would encourage them to do so.

3:24 The ops regulations, as well, are inextricably interwoven

3:27 with the maintenance regulations

3:29 in that the maintenance regulations

3:30 call up for a certain amount of maintenance.

3:32 Now this is just our preferred option.

3:34 Again, it's open for consultation, so we haven't set anything in stone.

3:37 But if we look at what we have out there now

3:40 in the phase one of the maintenance regulations,

3:42 it says if you are this sort of operator,

3:45 if you are a part 121 operator, you'll need this type of maintenance.

3:48 If you're a 135 operator, you'll need this type of maintenance.

3:51 Well, straightaway, we can see that if Regulation 135 doesn't exist,

3:56 how do you know if you're a 135 operator or not?

3:59 So we can't, in a lot of ways,

4:00 just put the maintenance regulations out there

4:02 where they refer to operational regulation parts

4:07 without the operational parts also being available.

4:09 I consider that it will take us in excess of three years, possibly four,

4:13 to roll out the maintenance regulations in total.

4:16 That doesn't mean that we are slow or we're slack or anything like that.

4:21 What it means is that's about the rate

4:23 that we will see the industry take it up

4:24 because we don't want people to stop their day-to-day business...

4:29 ..having to suddenly adapt to a new set of regulations,

4:31 we want to transition them.

4:33 Part 141, for instance, on the flying training schools

4:35 is a whole new approach to demystifying

4:38 and decomplicating flying instruction for the simple operation,

4:42 the one-man, one-woman band,

4:44 or the small school that's not doing integrated training.

4:46 That's a whole new way of regulating that sector.

4:49 And we've gotta make sure that people can continue their business

4:52 but still, at the same time,

4:53 go through that transition period and come out the other side

4:56 in whatever reg part is applicable to them.

5:00 So that will take, I think,

5:02 a considerable amount of time in the coming years

5:05 purely because we'll have to drip-feed the industry.

5:08 And we have the fatigue rules around flight crew and cabin crew,

5:12 and then looking to develop

5:13 the fatigue rules for air traffic controllers.

5:16 again, the transition period for those will have to recognise the fact

5:19 that in some cases there may be crewing response changes,

5:24 there may be changes in roster patterns for the airlines, et cetera.

5:28 There may be some who wish to go to a fatigue risk management system.

5:31 There may be some who do not,

5:33 who wish to remain with the prescriptive regulations.

5:35 Hence, that transition period will be most probably three years

5:39 so that we can allow people time

5:41 to change rosters, recruit pilots, recruit cabin crew,

5:45 or reorganise, whatever they have to do to do their business.

5:49 We must make sure that we can facilitate that and allow them time.

5:52 So in reality, if we take three years,

5:55 I think it's a better result than if we pushed it through and said,

5:59 "By this day, you must be compliant."

6:01 We'd get a result. We'd be able to say, "Yep, everybody's compliant.

6:03 "Don't worry about that."

6:05 But it would be hollow.

6:06 I think one of the first goals I gave this organisation was

6:10 that we would have our staff properly trained and deployed.

6:13 Now we have to also train some of the industry.

6:16 There's also an onus on the industry to train themselves.

6:19 We provide the equipment, we provide the information,

6:21 we provide the background, we provide the regulations,

6:24 now it's up to you to assimilate all that into your organisation.

6:27 But training, education, the cornerstones of what we do.

6:32 If we do not educate people,

6:34 it doesn't matter what sort of regulation we write.

6:36 If you have the uneducated person,

6:38 they will do something most probably inadvertently,

6:42 which the regulation is not only there to make it some sort of offence

6:46 or to prohibit some action,

6:48 it is there because there is a safety requirement behind the regulation.

6:52 If people disregard the regulation out of ignorance,

6:56 well, that's something that we should hopefully be able to address

6:59 by helping them, but we can't make people learn.

7:02 We can't make people obey regulations.

7:04 The regulation doesn't make people safe.

7:06 It's their attitudes, their behaviours, their actions,

7:09 that's what makes them safe or unsafe.

7:11 But every publicly listed company that's an airline

7:15 or an air operator of some description in that business

7:17 that returns a profit at some stage in their process during the year,

7:24 they're deciding how much they're going to spend on safety.

7:26 If they spent everything they could on safety -

7:29 like continually renewing equipment, training people endlessly,

7:32 massive numbers of staff over and above what's required,

7:35 then they wouldn't show a profit.

7:39 So if they do show a profit, somebody, somewhere,

7:42 is making the decision of how much they're going to spend.

7:44 Our job is to make sure that the amount that is spent -

7:47 and I'm not interested in the dollar number, I'm interested in the result,

7:50 the result is showing that the safety is keeping

7:53 where the Australian public demands it is.

7:55 And after all, if we are writing the regulations,

7:57 then we answer to the parliament, and we answer to the industry, et cetera,

8:01 but in the end we answer to the Australian people.

8:03And it's the Australian public who demand a safe system.

Try that almost 25 years wasn't it??? and about 300million dollars???

[Creampuff]

In summary: The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever.

The regulation doesn't make people safe.

Errrrrrm, so why are there 2000 pages of them – simplified from 155 – with more to come indefinitely?

It’s desperately sad that government in Australia is now so inept as to be incapable of healing this running sore.

It’s like watching someone digging holes and filling in them in, decade after decade, with the only change being an increase in the amount of money thrown into each hole.