Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 6th Jan 2014, 20:09
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DO or DI?

While we are discussing CAO 48, disallowable instruments, motions and the like, I wonder if the WLR panel will have the nouse to look at other Disallowable Instruments (DI) which are or, have been 'rubber stamped' and passed through the system, unscathed.

There are 120 DI on the list at the moment; ranging from 'means of providing surface wind' to the 'number of cabin attendants', all manner of issues presented to the rubber stamp factory. Couple of troubling things;

That there is a need for so many exemptions must be one of the clearest signposts to a regulatory suite which has not kept pace with, or is incapable of supporting 'modern' operations. Prescriptive, complex and ruthlessly micro managed rule sets create the need for operational 'exemption'. Heaven only knows what the 'real' cost of this system is. A company wishing to stay 'legally safe' but operationally efficient needs to draft a proposal, this in all probability will involve operational and legal advice, time and money. Then the 'thing' has to go to the administrator and be processed through reception, recording, evaluation, drafting, legal and a final approval system, all fully documented. Then the 'thing' is off to parliament, through yet another expensive process, before the rubber stamp is used and the operator eventually receives a piece of very expensive paper granting an exemption against the 'rules', as writ.

No doubt the system is above board and the exemptions 'made' legal; but I wonder, when was the last external, independent audit of not only the system but some of the decisions. Some of the 'justification' for approval is mind bending, convoluted and abstruse, to say the least.

I've no objection to 'operations' having exemptions, or instruments, but would question the need for so many. Perhaps a WLR panel member could question why there is a need for so many and the real costs. When you start to add up the costs involved to produce a request for 'instrument', the cost of submission, the cost of process to get the 'thing' to parliament, the cost of parliamentary rubber stamping, all paid for by the travelling public (one way the other); you end up with some very scary numbers. Add this annual cost to the cost of regulatory reform, whichever way you look at it; the numbers are truly concerning especially when weighed against the progress made thus far.

Perhaps the WLR panel cost added to the cost of all previous parliamentary costs for inquiry should be tacked on at the end of a long column of figures which could then be used to define the absolute and abject failure of the great Australian regulatory reform program.

FAR or NZ CAR; pick one and lets be done with it. We could save a packet and send the visiting firemen home; for a rest, after their strenuous labour down-under, in the land of the long week end.

Selah -and/or Tick tock

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Jan 2014 at 20:19.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 22:11
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WLR: Disallowable instruments...audit please??

In case you were wondering what in the world Kharon is talking about....here is a link for the lists of disallowable instruments currently before the 44th Parliament: Disallowable List - Parliament

And if I extract just one sitting day that instruments, related to the CAA 1988, have been introduced..here is what it looks like {Note: Have linked some of them to the COMLAW site, the one in red I find somewhat amusing..}
Presented to the Senate on 12 November 2013
5 sitting days remaining for notice to disallow

Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 117) Regulation 2013—Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 222 [F2013L01539].
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Subpart 21.J) Regulation 2013—Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 188 [F2013L01444].
Civil Aviation Order 82.6 (Night vision goggles – helicopters) 2007—Exemption — initial NVG pilot flight training prerequisites—CASA EX87/13 [F2013L01488].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Approval and directions — operations without an approved digital flight data recorder system—CASA 190/13 [F2013L01763].
Civil Aviation Order 40.3.0 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 2) [F2013L01712].
Civil Aviation Order 100.28 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01711].
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01330].
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 2) [F2013L01486].
Civil Aviation Order 104.0 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01746].
Civil Aviation Order 108.56 Repeal Instrument 2013 [F2013L01331].
Direction — number of cabin attendants for Airbus A320 and Fokker F100 aircraft (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines)—CASA 132/13 [F2013L01278].
Direction — number of cabin attendants for Fokker F70 and Fokker F100 aircraft—CASA 164/13 [F2013L01489].
Direction — number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft, Qantas Airways Limited—CASA 158/13 [F2013L01491].
Direction — number of cabin attendants (National Jet Systems)—CASA 170/13 [F2013L01501].
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Sunstate Airlines)—CASA 133/13 [F2013L01280].
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Tiger Airways)—CASA 121/13 [F2013L01274].
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia Airlines)—CASA 87/13 [F2013L01215].
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia International Airlines)—CASA 88/13 [F2013L01213].
Direction — parallel runway operations at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport—CASA 192/13 [F2013L01671].
Directions under subregulation 235(2) relating to landing weight and landing distance required—
CASA 116/13 [F2013L01276].
CASA 181/13 [F2013L01629].
CASA 205/13 [F2013L01757].
CASA 213/13 [F2013L01762].
Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (A330 and B737NG aircraft)—CASA 186/13 [F2013L01627].
Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (B737NG and B777-300ER aircraft)—CASA 187/13 [F2013L01626].
Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (B787-8 aircraft)—CASA 220/13 [F2013L01797].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Exemption, permission and direction — helicopter search and rescue operations and training for such operations—CASA EX66/13 [F2013L01724].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Airworthiness Limitations—AD/B767/145 Amdt 2 [F2013L01698].
Amendment of instrument CASA 125/09 — Drug and alcohol testing by CASA under Subpart 99.C of CASR 1998—CASA 165/13 [F2013L01616].
Approval – means of compliance with Airworthiness Directive for Grob G 109 and G 109 B aircraft—A&ESB 12/3050 [F2013L01704].
Auto-Speedbrake Control System—AD/B767/178 Amdt 1 [F2013L01313].
Automatic Flight Control System—AD/A320/3 Amdt 1 [F2013L01691].
Cabin Altitude Warning Takeoff Briefing—AD/B737/346 Amdt 1 [F2013L01751].
Darwin Inspection and Testing Service Ultrasonic Inspection—AD/GENERAL/86 [F2013L01490].
Elevator Flutter Damper Shear Pins—AD/CL-600/36 Amdt 1 [F2013L01332].
Escape Slide Release Cable—AD/B737/42 Amdt 1 [F2013L01750].
Exemption – carriage of flight data recorder – Pel-Air Aviation—CASA EX80/13 [F2013L01393].
Exemption — CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 or Part 145 organisations overseas—CASA EX95/13 [F2013L01675].
Exemption — certificate of release to service – foreign approved maintenance organisations—CASA EX74/13 [F2013L01378].
Exemption — from having training and checking organisation—CASA EX81/13 [F2013L01493].
Exemption — from holding an air traffic control licence—CASA EX108/13 [F2013L01754].
Exemption – from standard landing minima – Boeing 737 fail-passive aircraft – Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd—
CASA EX73/13 [F2013L01400].
CASA EX86/13 [F2013L01496].
CASA EX114/13 [F2013L01882].
Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd—CASA EX103/13 [F2013L01771].
Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd—CASA EX115/13 [F2013L01883].
Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Vietnam Airlines—CASA EX99/13 [F2013L01688].
Exemption — instrument rating flight tests in a synthetic flight training device—CASA EX116/13 [F2013L01869].
Exemption of DAMP organisations for collection and screening of specimens—CASA EX112/13 [F2013L01806].
Exemption — recency requirements for night flying (Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd)—CASA EX90/13 [F2013L01628].
Exemption – recency requirements for night flying – Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd— CASA EX118/13 [F2013L01871].
Exemption — requirement to wear seat belt and safety harness—CASA EX 106/13 [F2013L01805].
Exemption — Sydney Jabiru Flying School solo flight training at Bankstown aerodrome—CASA EX111/13 [F2013L01877].
Exemption — take-off with residual traces of frost and ice—CASA EX70/13 [F2013L01203].
Exemption — temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace—CASA EX113/13 [F2013L01837].
Exemption — use of ADS-B in Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft LV-CSF—CASA EX96/13 [F2013L01662].
Exemption — Virgin Australia International Airlines from subregulation 217(2) of CAR 1988 and paragraph 3.3 of CAO 82.5 (cabin crew training)—CASA EX69/13 [F2013L01202].
Exemption — Virgin Australia International Airlines from subregulation 217(2) of CAR 1988 and paragraph 3.3 of CAO 82.5 (flight crew training)—CASA EX68/13 [F2013L01200].
Exhaust System Inspection – Heat Exchanger—AD/X-TS/1 Amdt 1 [F2013L01664].
Fatigue Critical Components – Retirement Lives—AD/TSA-600/38 Amdt 2 [F2013L01597].
Flightcrew Oxygen Masks—AD/B737/294 Amdt 2 [F2013L01697].
Fuel Injection Servo Plugs—AD/FSM/31 Amdt 3 [F2013L01792].
Fuel Probes—AD/A320/9 Amdt 1 [F2013L01690].
Fuel System Ventilation and Drainage Modification—AD/GA8/7 [F2013L01663].
Main Cabin Upper Door—AD/TSA-600/39 Amdt 3 [F2013L01791].
Main Rotor Mast and Trunnion – Retirement Index Number (RIN) Recount/Inspection—
AD/BELL 204/6 Amdt 13 [F2013L01470].
AD/BELL 205/1 Amdt 33 [F2013L01472].
Maintenance on warbird and historic and replica aircraft (WHR) — directions and licence condition—CASA 197/13 [F2013L01747].
Manual of Standards Part 139 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01756].
Nose Wheel Steering Control—
AD/A320/27 Amdt 1 [F2013L01692].
AD/A320/27 Amdt 2 [F2013L01835].
Oxygen System—AD/HS 125/161 Amdt 1 [F2013L01679].
Part 66 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01399].
Part 147 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01397].
Pitot Probe Hoses—AD/A320/24 Amdt 1 [F2013L01693].
Revocation of exemption — CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 organisations overseas—CASA EX97/13 [F2013L01676].
Revocations of Airworthiness Directives—
CASA ADCX 012/13 [F2013L01333].
CASA ADCX 013/13 [F2013L01411].
CASA ADCX 014/13 [F2013L01494].
CASA ADCX 015/13 [F2013L01566].
CASA ADCX 016/13 [F2013L01596].
CASA ADCX 017/13 [F2013L01637].
CASA ADCX 018/13 [F2013L01700].
CASA ADCX 019/13 [F2013L01752].
CASA ADCX 020/13 [F2013L01828].
CASA ADCX 021/13 [F2013L01823].
CASA ADCX 022/13 [F2013L01902].
Take-Off Warning—AD/B737/18 Amdt 2 [F2013L01703].
{Note: If you are interested in some of the other individual instruments just copy and paste to search engine and click on the COMLAW link provided}

I know different political systems and all that.. but interestingly enough in the US recently the House Transportation Committee instigated an audit of the FAA:
Inspector General To Audit FAA Organizational Structure

House Transportation Committee Requested The Probe

The DOT Inspector General plans to begin an audit of the FAA's organization structure this month at the request of the chairs of the House Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee.




In a document posted on the Federal Register, over the past two decades, FAA has undergone several reorganizations and structural changes in an effort to improve its operation of the National Airspace System, such as the establishment of the Air Traffic Organization in 2000. The IG says the audit objectives are to:
  • Determine whether FAA reforms implemented since 1995 have resulted in improved air traffic operations, reduced Agency costs, and expedited delivery of new technologies
  • Compare the processes used by different countries to deliver air traffic services and implement new technologies.
FAA reauthorization legislation is scheduled to be before the committee later this month. LoBiondo said at a hearing December 12 that one of his top priorities was the implementation of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, and that organization changes at the agency may be necessary for that to be accomplished.
Question for those kosher with the Oz system: Would it not be possible for the WLB (Wet Lettuce Brigade) to enlist the help of the Senate RRAT committee to make a submission to the ANAO or OBPR (Office of Best Practice Regulation) to audit/review the CAA DIs??

The ANAO/OBPR in turn could enlist the expertise of the WLB, along with maybe some guidance from the PMC endorsed Best Bractice Regulation Handbook, pool their resources and before you knew it you'd be well on the way to a fully independent, transparent process of auditing the DI list...hmm food for thought perhaps??

ps All in the interest of the Governments Red Tape Reduction policy of course...

Last edited by Sarcs; 6th Jan 2014 at 22:43.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 18:40
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now, what was I talking about?

Oh yes.

116/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
118/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
205/13 These directions apply to Boeing aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
213/13 These directions apply to Boeing 787-8 aircraft operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
I have only cherry picked the above from the Sarcs list because of their similarity and ease of reference. Here we have Tiger, Qantas and Jetstar all needing an 'instrument' approving operations, as writ. Now Airbus and Boeing did not wake up one morning and jointly decide to change the method of complying with the Australian CAO, make the changes by lunch time, work out the new data and have it published and distributed by afternoon tea, before retiring for the day to the pub, for a well earned pint or two. Did they now?

I'd risk a choccy frog and bet that the cast and crew at all the above air operators knew that changes were imminent and were all prepared, well in advance. Training, scheduling, TEM and etc. i.e. all facets analysed well in advance of change over day. I'd even hazard a further choccy frog that the CASA FOI were equally ahead of the game, being informed of and probably involved in the step by step process. Change was coming and everyone was prepared – except the regulator's rules.

The primary effect of this instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer.
Why, oh why do we persist with this expensive, counterproductive approach when by simply accepting that the manufacturer and grown up regulators may just know a thing or two and adjust our regulation, once, in advance to accommodate the facts of life. Would that not save a world of time, effort, trouble and money?.

Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire.

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Jan 2014 at 18:54.
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 19:45
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAsA as an entity should be repealed!

Kharon,
The primary effect of this instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer.
Yes yes, a 'new method', a bit like mi mi mi Beakers 'new' Beyond Reason approach to the mystique of aviation investigations?

So this has been written, accepted and published by not a technical person, but by a senior bureaucratic legal hoodoo wordsmith with no technical firsthand understanding or idea, and of course this is after being advised by a junior bureaucrat with a similar 'no idea background' in all things aviation.

No Kharon, we need our hands held, bottys wiped and to be breastfed from the CAsA teat because we are a silly industry. WTF would Boeing, Airbus, our major Australian carriers, FOI's (the smart ones, not those indoctrinated in the laws of Wodger), Pilots, flight ops departments, and old mother Hubbard know!! Thank god we have the CAsA, praise the Lord of troughs, amen!
Cactusjack is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 21:52
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One thousand seven hundred reasons for adopting NZ regs!

Kharon:
Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire.
Surprise..surprise "K" for once the DAS and you actually agree on something...

He even gives the figure for exemption instruments as 1700, sheesh.... no wonder it is SOPs for the pollies to just rubber stamp these instruments straight through both chambers without a secondary glance..

See here from about 45 seconds...:

[YOUTUBE]
Warning: Bucket may be required on standby!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 00:13
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well what he says makes sense to me
No Hoper is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 01:32
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry and so is mccormick

Well there must be a review on:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/461...ml#post8252641

A new review of NVFR!!!
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 02:05
  #208 (permalink)  
 
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
I would have thought that part of the definition already included as a prerequisite to VFR flight at night to have a discernible external visual horizon. (No more than 4/8ths of cloud and VFR conditions).


How much will this little junket cost. A one line addition to definitions perhaps but, irrespective of how many hours of instrument time is required by the NVFR pilot, the aircraft must be instrument equipped, the pilot must be similarly equipped, and rated on the instruments he/she wants to use if you want to fly in non-VFR conditions. Night VFR is not non-visual flight.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 03:31
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"All the proof of a pudding is in the eating."

Yes Sarcs, I noticed that: synchronisation lasted about 20 seconds; then I reached for the bucket. I keep wondering if our unfortunate man has a blind clue what the mice do – when the cat's away. Hell, he may even mean well – I mean it's possible –ain't it????. But the 'video' is a classic of spin delivery, start with an undeniable truth, embrace it, acknowledge it, show the pathway; then, having roped in the mugs, look all truthful and concerned and sneak in the 'whammy' - 'Industry may not cope with sudden change' (look concerned here). etc. etc.

Not able to cope? Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. Bring in the NZ rules, give industry six months to adjust the manuals another six months for the FOI to read them; then lead or follow, but do not, ever again get under the industry's feet.

Nearly everyone remotely famous has made a 'quote' relating to failure of delivery, failure of leadership, some have even made quotes about both.

"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else". - John Burroughs.
And, ass one good video deserves another - just for a laugh –
.

Last edited by Kharon; 8th Jan 2014 at 03:48. Reason: Minor, irritaing editorial amendments, you know.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 10:45
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kharon, at least the Screamer has a fan in 'No Hoper', everybody else just seems to be a real Meaney! No Hoper tells me that the Skull really likes to get down amongst the weeds, to get black hands, as he tries to guide Australia's aviation oversight forward. Is this not a good thing?

I gotta get the FONC out of here, plane to catch
Cactusjack is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 20:10
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WLR alternative topics.

Did you ever go to the theatre to see a pantomime and notice how the spotlight kept your attention focussed on the characters?, away from what was occurring in the dark areas out of the light. The stars in the spotlight of the WLR are the 'regulations' as they affect operational and engineering perspectives, rightly so. But hiding away in the dark corners there are other characters, equally important just not as obvious. I wonder if anyone is going to make a submission on these topics?

The Act; a couple of the wiser owls of my acquaintance reckon that many of today's problems are created by the Act. Seems as though the Act gives the authority almost a 007 license. I expect that most folk have brushed over the Act, seeking out the parts which affect what we do, but have neither the expertise or interest in dissecting the thing. But my owls say it's a must do item. Suggestions ?– anyone?

Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous. The new blood sugar rules have specialist doctors rolling about the floor laughing, there's tales that cardiologists tell at dinner parties about gross ignorance. The Hempel imbroglio remains an embarrassing classic there's even rumoured to be a list of young fellahin who owned up to having more beers a week than Avmed reckon is salutary and are making regular visits to the pathologist. It's a strange little empire this one, mostly left undisturbed to blunder along without check or external audit. I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making? That submission would probably be flicked by the Murky Machiavellian censor, long before it got to the old Kenwood fridge, posing as a security vault.

I'd risk a choccy frog and say no one has thought to shine a light into some of the darker corners. They probably could, but doubt the game is worth the candle. Time will tell.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 23:21
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down Is Avmed the ultimate 3rd world bureaucratic onion??

Kharon:
Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous.
Ah yes the Avmed imbroglio....and the 3rd world bureaucratic approach of the subcontinent PMO, who is seemingly taking back the advancements of modern medicine to at least the 19th century.

For the WLB to get a feel for this bizarre monstrosity of bureaucratic obfuscation and embuggerance, one only need visit the FF AAT records in recent years: CAsA AAT decisions

If they're game the WLB should also take a sampling of the more than 2000 page DAME Handbook ....{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??}

And while stepping through the Avmed minefield the WLB should enquire about this little outstanding project on Part 67:
Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical -
Consultation history
Title Details Date Consultation updates in 2011 Project FS 11/39 - Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical Project approved. 22 Sep 2011
While on the subject of FF stalled projects the WLB need to take a serious look at this list... Active projects
{Comment: It would appear that one of the main reasons for a lot of the stalled projects is because they are awaiting for a new reg to be written, approved or enacted} Either way you cut it the WLB have definitely got a serious bureaucratic onion to peel back..

Hmm...given the size of the onion (and the time constraints) perhaps the WLB should seriously consider taking up the generous offer of assistance from the Chair of the Senate RRAT committee...

Addendum to Kharon's post :
I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making?
It is kind of ancient history now and filed well back in the Shelfware Chronicles but is this what you were referring to "K"
From the ATsB Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011:

19 November 1996
Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996
You are right though it did cause a massive stink at the time, perhaps best summarised in the following article: Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia
{Comment: You will also see that CVD guru Dr Arthur Pape features heavily in that article}

......"It was a well-orchestrated public resignation, with Dick Smith faxing the media a copy of Dr Liddell's letter to the director of air safety, Mr Leroy Keith. Dr Liddell's claims of low morale, the disempowerment of line management, the undermining of air safety surveillance and cuts in the budget to fund unbudgeted office refurbishments, are sufficient to make it a front-page story...."

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 04:02
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry

The following was posted, which brings up to date the 2013 data with that of 1997.

Here is the data direct:

2013 data compared to 1997 of the Aviation Industry


Makes an interesting comparison.

Is the ASRR Review Air Turbulence ? on the way or did it exist before ??




Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 9th Jan 2014 at 04:16.
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 04:19
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??}
my doctor is a pretty sharp cookie so I asked him about it one visit.

"yeah I looked into it because you're not the only pilot I see, but I'm a real doctor, I'm not going to waste my time with all that crap"

a thumbs down from my doctor.

when you look back through history, post WW2 it was realised that the civilian pilots formed the ready reserve for the Air Force.
the decision was to have pilots pass the military medical so that they could be absorbed without further screening.
medicals never were about fitness for civilian flying.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 09:41
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Funny aint it..outsourcing!! everyones at it from the Govmint down. We've outsourced so much we might as well outsource the lot before we become slaves in our own country. I'm sure the Chinese would consider a few million a head for each of us and we all bugger off and leave them with it!!
CAsA is no different regarding outsourcing
Think about it, there is anyone who is part of CAsA, the rest are criminals they havnt caught yet.
This of course includes Australian doctors, who must be corrupt and incompetent in CAsA's eyes, because CAsA accepts nothing they say, which is why so many of them are declining to get involved in Aviation medicine, or are leaving it, largely because it just aint worth the B..ll..sh..t and as the active pilot population steadily decreases, because more and more pilots just give up and go do something where they can earn a living, move to an offshore licence, or decide its just too expensive to keep an Australian medical, there is just no return in it for a doctor, other than a whole lot of grief and liability.
CAsA have outsourced their medical department to the Kentucky Fried Chicken medical school offshore, because they cannot attract Australian doctors who are actually smart enough to recognise Bul.sh..t when they see it and avoid aviation like the plague.
About ten years ago I received a CAsA letter saying my medical was not going to be processed due to a heart problem, I was offshore at the time and had renewed my FAA medical at the same time. Around ten grands worth of tests later my specialist in frustration wrote to CAsA and suggested whoever thought I had a heart problem should go back to medical school.
How many guys in the last year were informed by CAsA they had diabetes?
Love to know how many, cost me around a grand to prove I wasnt.
I've heard of a few guys who have spent a fortune proving they were'nt alcoholics as well because they were honest in the questionaire.
Meantime I renew the FAA medical year in year out, no hassles, no cost other than the doctor, and surprise, surprise the FAA respects their doctors competentcy, because he issues the medical and thats it.

Last edited by thorn bird; 9th Jan 2014 at 20:43.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 09:55
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thorny, anything that CAsA touches turns into dysfunctional unworkable bureaucratic ****e, the aviation medical field is no different. It is of no surprise that some pilots are treated like criminals and forced to spend thousands defending and clearing themselves. Gee, where have I heard that sort of system before? Oh yeah, CAsA
It's a shame that the same level of scrutiny and over the top personal health inquisitions aren't applied to the neurological and mental health functions of most CAsA staff, as then there would be no CAsA staff!!

UITA, good post mate, but oh so tautological don't you think? Same style of CAsA observations, same issues, same findings, over and over and over decade after decade after decade. One day someone will finally stomp on the CAsA windpipe and snuff this diabolical clump of bureaucratic pony pooh out of existence.

TICK TOCK
Cactusjack is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 20:11
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From a simple Ale –a headache.

Managed to have a quiet ale (or was it two) with P7. a.k.a. T.O.M. last evening; and, as you'd expect, the conversation turned to the Wet Lettuce Review. I mentioned 'medical matters', just in passing, mind you and there was a long sigh, a roll of the eyes then he says "skip it for tonight kid, there is not enough ale in the barrel to see us through that discussion". Despite my willingness to test theory, he declined further comment. But it did lead into a discussion of just how much ground the review must cover, if it's to do the job properly, rather than just look good.

Walking home I got to thinking about it all and there is a hellish tangle. TOM reckons most of the fix would come from a revised Act rather than the regulations, which makes some sense. And remembering Creampuffs words I finished up concerned that without involving the RAT Senate committee and their support crew, this already weak WLR is going to end up behind the proverbial 8 ball. I expect there are some reasons for shutting out the highly effective, bi-partisan RAT committee, not using their experience, horsepower, administrative and security know how; but be buggered if I can see it.

The words 'fatally flawed' seem to be being used rather a lot lately; Shirley it would ease the legal burden, expedite the process and provide a much better result if the Senate crew became involved, that would, at the very least provide the security and protection most serious submissions will require. I know TOM is concerned, "Arr well, you pays your money and takes your chances" quips he, in a truly dreadful attempt at a pirate's voice.

And so it was that a quiet ale developed into a thinking headache.

Creampuff -"Politics has almost nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. It’s almost entirely about what’s expedient. Come the day that the government desperately wants something passed through the Senate, and all the non-major party aligned Senators say: “Not until substantive actions have been finalised to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in Aviation Accident Investigation”, that’s when something substantive will happen. Until that day, forget the government. If the government cared about the recommendations, it would already have done something substantive about them."
Damn straight.

Last edited by Kharon; 9th Jan 2014 at 20:17. Reason: Oh, it was there, I was here and things just needed fixing.
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 20:55
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kharon

Funny thing is that over a quiet Latte yesterday morning we were discussing the same things.

I got my new medical 2 days ago. It was submitted on Dec 10. There were no problems, there has been no explanation about why it has taken so long. But it took me numerous phonecalls and emails to get it. Each time I spoke with pleasant people who apologised and made a new promise to mail it. Each time the promise was broken. The next phonecall would be pleasant to a nice person who had not the faintest scrap of concern that a colleague had not honoured an undertaking. Nor was there the slightest hint of concern that not having a class 1 medical might be an inconvenience to a CPL.

I don't think legislation has much to do with people honouring commitments. The trouble is that there is a culture in CASA that pilots just don't matter.

It didn't used to be like this. I think its 99% about the people & culture and people & culture problems are 99% about the guys at the top.

One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.

Some years ago I had the misfortune to be the first Australian pilot put on a particular drug. In the US this drug is listed in the FAA handbook as safe with no known side effects and not requiring FAA notification. In Australia this wasn't good enough for CASA. Nor was the opinion of my specialist (a world leader who regularly presents at overseas conferences). It wasn't until my specialist called in a favour from a colleague at the Mayo clinic that CASA became satisfied.

These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 03:36
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists."

Of course they dont Akro, didnt you know that being experts in all things aviation they are also experts in all things medical, and Australian doctors are all incompetent miscreants, only graduates from the Kentucky Fried Chicken medical school opinions will be accepted.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 04:45
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tsk tsk, so there you have it, all Australian doctors have been officially inducted into the IOS
Well done Fort Fumble. We, as a nation of around 22 million people only have approximately 700 aviation experts, and all work for CAsA supposedly!
Better call Guinness Book Of Records as this is a huge record to beat - 22 million IOS!
Cactusjack is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.