Airspace Reform - A New Start
Thread Starter
Airspace Reform - A New Start
Folks,
Bruce Byron has announced the new head of his Airspace office.
Is this really going to be a new start to the Government's stalled airspace reform policies, let's hope so.
The record of imports over the years has been less than spectacularly successful, think back to the end of the last century, for imports that flopped.
In my opinion, Bruce Byron is on the right track, let's hope he has more success with imports than his predecessors.
Tootle pip!!
Bruce Byron has announced the new head of his Airspace office.
CASA media release - Thursday 10 May 2007
Head of Airspace Office appointed
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has appointed the head of the new Office of Airspace Regulation.
Peter Cromarty, who has more than 30 years experience in international aviation, will join CASA next month.
Mr Cromarty has worked as an air traffic controller, an air traffic services manager and as a pilot in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Middle East.
He will head a team of ten airspace specialists who will make up the new Office of Airspace Regulation.
The Office of Airspace Regulation is being set up to take over responsibilities for regulating airspace from Airservices Australia. The Federal Government decided to move the functions from Airservices Australia to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest between airspace service delivery and airspace regulation.
The new Office will be operational from 1 July 2007 and will be based in Canberra. It will have the decision making powers for regulating civil airspace.
The Office will be required to make airspace decisions in accordance with an Australian Airspace Policy Plan.
This plan, which is under development, will set the Government's policy for the longer term objectives for airspace, determine standards for airspace classification and service provision and decide the levels of service to be provided according to a common risk management framework.
CASA's chief executive, Bruce Byron, says CASA's new airspace responsibilities are a welcome challenge.
“The Government has given CASA a key role in airspace management and we are putting together a strong team of people to deliver the required outcomes,” Mr Byron says.
“I am very pleased that we have the services of Peter Cromarty, who is a very experienced international aviation professional. He has been appointed after a thorough international search.
“I will be working closely with Peter in coming months and introducing him to all sectors of the aviation industry as we begin work in this new area of responsibility.”
Media contact:
Peter Gibson
mobile 0419 296 446
Ref: MR0728
Head of Airspace Office appointed
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has appointed the head of the new Office of Airspace Regulation.
Peter Cromarty, who has more than 30 years experience in international aviation, will join CASA next month.
Mr Cromarty has worked as an air traffic controller, an air traffic services manager and as a pilot in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Middle East.
He will head a team of ten airspace specialists who will make up the new Office of Airspace Regulation.
The Office of Airspace Regulation is being set up to take over responsibilities for regulating airspace from Airservices Australia. The Federal Government decided to move the functions from Airservices Australia to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest between airspace service delivery and airspace regulation.
The new Office will be operational from 1 July 2007 and will be based in Canberra. It will have the decision making powers for regulating civil airspace.
The Office will be required to make airspace decisions in accordance with an Australian Airspace Policy Plan.
This plan, which is under development, will set the Government's policy for the longer term objectives for airspace, determine standards for airspace classification and service provision and decide the levels of service to be provided according to a common risk management framework.
CASA's chief executive, Bruce Byron, says CASA's new airspace responsibilities are a welcome challenge.
“The Government has given CASA a key role in airspace management and we are putting together a strong team of people to deliver the required outcomes,” Mr Byron says.
“I am very pleased that we have the services of Peter Cromarty, who is a very experienced international aviation professional. He has been appointed after a thorough international search.
“I will be working closely with Peter in coming months and introducing him to all sectors of the aviation industry as we begin work in this new area of responsibility.”
Media contact:
Peter Gibson
mobile 0419 296 446
Ref: MR0728
The record of imports over the years has been less than spectacularly successful, think back to the end of the last century, for imports that flopped.
In my opinion, Bruce Byron is on the right track, let's hope he has more success with imports than his predecessors.
Tootle pip!!
They should put an Aussie in the position.
Sounds like Mr Cromarty has fine credentials, but I think the practice of bringing in overseas experts is used as a kind of smokescreen to make us think we're getting the world's best, playing on the cultural cringe factor.
Sounds like Mr Cromarty has fine credentials, but I think the practice of bringing in overseas experts is used as a kind of smokescreen to make us think we're getting the world's best, playing on the cultural cringe factor.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully support bringing in facilitators from overseas. Its clear that we have such a level of resistance to change here that we need to find people actually willing to support rather than resist airspace reform. If that means bringing in an outsider that doesn’t have a political agenda then we may have a chance of implementing the desperately needed changes to airspace.
Airservices has shown they are not interested in government policy regarding NAS and as such I also support sending airspace regulation to CASA. The one thing that has me concerned is the following.
Did we not have a plan already; NAS? Did we not already have standards for airspace classification in NAS? And has there not already been a risk assessment for this airspace, i.e. FAA NAS?
I hope there will be no new agenda other than to implement NAS as it was planned.
MJBOW2
Airservices has shown they are not interested in government policy regarding NAS and as such I also support sending airspace regulation to CASA. The one thing that has me concerned is the following.
This plan, which is under development, will set the Government's policy for the longer term objectives for airspace, determine standards for airspace classification and service provision and decide the levels of service to be provided according to a common risk management framework.
I hope there will be no new agenda other than to implement NAS as it was planned.
MJBOW2
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was any doubt as to the resistance to change, read the above post.
Arm out the window perhaps there is something in NAS that particularly bothers you or do you just want to express your feelings of wanting to resist any change?
Arm out the window perhaps there is something in NAS that particularly bothers you or do you just want to express your feelings of wanting to resist any change?
Thread Starter
Creamie, old mate,
Do I detect just a very slight touch of cynicism, born of long experience?
I rather suspect that the "no baggage" rule was a major factor in selection, the other two on the final short-list were well qualified, but all had "prior" as employees of sundry Australian aviation regulators.
Methinks the gentlemen is in for a baptism of fire, I have not noticed the slightest softening of union attitudes arraigned against the Government's NAS policy. There is much sucking of teeth through pursed lips by the usual regionals pilots, at the suggestion that they are going to be anything but the final arbiters of "safe" and "not safe", using their own self-selected criteria.
The NAS 2C PIR (DOTARS/ATSB) findings seem to have had not the slightest impact, "don't confuse me with facts, my prejudices are made up" would adequately describe their position.
Oh! Happy Days!!
Tootle pip !!
Do I detect just a very slight touch of cynicism, born of long experience?
I rather suspect that the "no baggage" rule was a major factor in selection, the other two on the final short-list were well qualified, but all had "prior" as employees of sundry Australian aviation regulators.
Methinks the gentlemen is in for a baptism of fire, I have not noticed the slightest softening of union attitudes arraigned against the Government's NAS policy. There is much sucking of teeth through pursed lips by the usual regionals pilots, at the suggestion that they are going to be anything but the final arbiters of "safe" and "not safe", using their own self-selected criteria.
The NAS 2C PIR (DOTARS/ATSB) findings seem to have had not the slightest impact, "don't confuse me with facts, my prejudices are made up" would adequately describe their position.
Oh! Happy Days!!
Tootle pip !!
All been done before......
Bring in the 'outsider',
Give him / her the 'Big Brief',
Spend lottsa $$$'s on the 'hooha',
Invite the Industry and 'Stakeholders' opinions,
Make a huge PR point of "Consultations" with said 'stakeholders',
After suitable time, ignore most of what is gleaned from above and revert to MAJOR Stakeholder's wishes / what THEY really wanted anyway.... Fed Govt.,
Sack outsider,
Spend lottsa more $$$$'s on the resultant 'hooha', and 'Golden Handshake' for job not well done....
Move on........till next time.
Result?
WE tried!
YOU mucked it up.
No Blame to anybody LOCAL. (Make your own list of assumptions as to who)
Bring in the 'outsider',
Give him / her the 'Big Brief',
Spend lottsa $$$'s on the 'hooha',
Invite the Industry and 'Stakeholders' opinions,
Make a huge PR point of "Consultations" with said 'stakeholders',
After suitable time, ignore most of what is gleaned from above and revert to MAJOR Stakeholder's wishes / what THEY really wanted anyway.... Fed Govt.,
Sack outsider,
Spend lottsa more $$$$'s on the resultant 'hooha', and 'Golden Handshake' for job not well done....
Move on........till next time.
Result?
WE tried!
YOU mucked it up.
No Blame to anybody LOCAL. (Make your own list of assumptions as to who)
mjbow, I'm not resistant to change on principle, I just think there should be good reasons to change, and I believe there has been a lot of unneccesary change in recent years that has pissed off the aviating public.
It's sensible to change procedures to take advantage of new technology, and if there are effective ways to save money and enhance safety, well and good, but I think there have been way too many changes ramrodded down our throats lately for no good reason except that someone in a position to influence the authorities has thought them a good idea.
Every couple of months, it seems, someone comes up with a 'revolutionary new scheme that will enhance air safety and cut costs', but then it turns out to be a pissweak non-starter that nobody wants except the instigator.
Meanwhile, everyone has to learn a new set of rules, no-one knows what frequency to be on or where the airspace boundaries are, and cynicism grows even more at the grass roots level.
Whatever information is released by the regulators and government spokesmen has the unmistakable taint of spin-doctored propaganda, and I'm sick of it.
It's sensible to change procedures to take advantage of new technology, and if there are effective ways to save money and enhance safety, well and good, but I think there have been way too many changes ramrodded down our throats lately for no good reason except that someone in a position to influence the authorities has thought them a good idea.
Every couple of months, it seems, someone comes up with a 'revolutionary new scheme that will enhance air safety and cut costs', but then it turns out to be a pissweak non-starter that nobody wants except the instigator.
Meanwhile, everyone has to learn a new set of rules, no-one knows what frequency to be on or where the airspace boundaries are, and cynicism grows even more at the grass roots level.
Whatever information is released by the regulators and government spokesmen has the unmistakable taint of spin-doctored propaganda, and I'm sick of it.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2,
A comparative risk analysis is only valid when the two systems being compared are the same. I believe Mr Toller in his long supressed advice to Minister Anderson put paid to the idea of US NAS and Australian NAS being the same thing.
I think you will also find that the remaining unimplemented charactersitics of the NAS are to be subject to the Common Risk Management Framework being developed by the Government avaition agencies.
AOTW,
I think your exact sentiments were captured in the NAS 2c PIR FInal Report. If nothing else comes from that report at least it will make those who seek to implement future airspace reforms to get industry onside first.
A comparative risk analysis is only valid when the two systems being compared are the same. I believe Mr Toller in his long supressed advice to Minister Anderson put paid to the idea of US NAS and Australian NAS being the same thing.
I think you will also find that the remaining unimplemented charactersitics of the NAS are to be subject to the Common Risk Management Framework being developed by the Government avaition agencies.
AOTW,
I think your exact sentiments were captured in the NAS 2c PIR FInal Report. If nothing else comes from that report at least it will make those who seek to implement future airspace reforms to get industry onside first.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did we not have a plan already; NAS?
Did we not already have standards for airspace classification in NAS?
And has there not already been a risk assessment for this airspace, i.e. FAA NAS?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coral
Have to agree with you on this thread mate.
1. Flight Following is brilliant (US style I think
) and I use it.
2. Can't comment does not affect me often.
3. This needs a major overhaul......dont know about down south but YRED-YCAB-YCDR ....you might be better turning it off altogether and just concentrating out the window, too much gabble. And while we are on that, I think many RPT GA & RAA & GFA pilots could do with a 3 day course on radio use, radio ettiquette and to check they work properly!!!!
4. Shall we start a list and go to Canberra with it?
Most is not system relate as much as Pilot related! (me included perhaps
)
J
Have to agree with you on this thread mate.
1. Flight Following is brilliant (US style I think
) and I use it.2. Can't comment does not affect me often.
3. This needs a major overhaul......dont know about down south but YRED-YCAB-YCDR ....you might be better turning it off altogether and just concentrating out the window, too much gabble. And while we are on that, I think many RPT GA & RAA & GFA pilots could do with a 3 day course on radio use, radio ettiquette and to check they work properly!!!!
4. Shall we start a list and go to Canberra with it?
Most is not system relate as much as Pilot related! (me included perhaps
)J
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on! Timing is everything. It's election time again. Hands up anyone who thinks this isn't just a cheap stunt to keep a few pilots quiet and aviation issues off the plate until after the election?
Bring Peter Cromarty over. Show him off prior to the election. Pay him well and then send him home again in a year.
Bring Peter Cromarty over. Show him off prior to the election. Pay him well and then send him home again in a year.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Luny Tunes
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good word is to expect a number of NAS reforms in 2008. Here we go again!
But this time Airservices is just one of the industry which will provide comment as will other stakeholders. The regulator will have to make all decisions and carry all the risk identified by all other stakeholders.
A precedent for CASA. Imagine the sound of heads hitting the table when a decision is called for on a nasty NAS reform. Can all spare backbones be forwarded to CASA by 20Jun07 so that they can be fitted prior to 01Jul07 to comply with the stringent CASA OH&S requirements.
But this time Airservices is just one of the industry which will provide comment as will other stakeholders. The regulator will have to make all decisions and carry all the risk identified by all other stakeholders.
A precedent for CASA. Imagine the sound of heads hitting the table when a decision is called for on a nasty NAS reform. Can all spare backbones be forwarded to CASA by 20Jun07 so that they can be fitted prior to 01Jul07 to comply with the stringent CASA OH&S requirements.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And PPRUNE is going to need a whole heap more realestate in the D&G section to cope with the influx of postings on NAS 2008. So gear up for it over there in the old dart!
J
J
Surely Mr Cromarty will get all the assistance he needs from the new 'Regulatory Reform Taskforce'. He should have this airspace gig knocked over by Christmas.
2027.
2027.
Excessively optimistic Creampuff? Only twenty years?
The regulatory reform process has only taken nineteen years so far and we are only two years past the point that……..
Why do you think airspace reform will occur in such an expedient manner?
The regulatory reform process has only taken nineteen years so far and we are only two years past the point that……..
“We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months.” Mr Byron
I see only two issues:
- As in the business world, the "build it and they will come" principle is unlikely to succeeed
As long as Airservices/CASA/The Task Force tell the Industry what it wants/needs, and then imposes it ... there will be robust opposition. How many times have you seen a Company told by its IT people that it needs such and such a piece of software kt, only to find that the Company's business processes are not supported by that Software solution (Airservices?)
The trick is to build the piece of kit based on the business requirements. - The chances of the combined Industry deciding (and agreeing) on what its requirements are, are slim
Unless some strong leadership from within can find some common ground, broker some compromises and present the "Government" with a solid workable proposal