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 1st Feb 2014, 23:02
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
That challenge should be ignored. It's Lawyer bait and thinly disguised.


You may be half right however. If we consider for example, how it would look for Cardinal George Pell to 'defrock' himself during a Royal commission. An assumed admission of guilt would apply as would any other person holding a senior role in The Bureaucracy. Threatening to sack that same person before the results are in would put the 'ace' firmly in the wielders hand. Reverse psychology and all that.


Also it may be advantageous that he stay so the wielder can use his 'ace' against him thus protecting his bum and making the person accountable for his actions or non actions. The word scapegoat comes to mind.


At present I can't see why the DAS would want to hang around any longer than he has to, thus giving me the impression there is purpose to his extension of tenure for such a short period.


But I was wrong once before.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2014, 23:04
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 30
Posts: 150
Superannuation comes to mind Frank
No Hoper is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2014, 23:24
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Forsyth update & risk of FAA downgrade!

ozaub the ICAO link provides an interesting comparison that hopefully does not go unnoticed by the powers to be in Can'tberra..

I noticed you also posted your last on Ben's article..: aubury martin Perhaps Comet's post (a couple above) goes to the real risk, that the Miniscule should be concerned with when the FAA casts their roving audit eyes our way..:
comet

Posted February 1, 2014 at 10:01 am | Permalink

A downgrading of Australia would produce short-term pain, but long-term gain.

It would force Australia to improve its aviation regulation, just like India is now taking action to improve the way it regulates aviation. The improvements that India is now making would not have happened without the downgrade.

In Australia, the Labor government failed to take action when needed. Now it has become clear that the Abbott government is also not taking decisive action.

Therefore, an FAA downgrade is the only thing that will force Australia to get its house in order. A downgrade is preferable to a downing of an aircraft.


But moving along & reference Forsyth's WLR update... Coupla noteworthy quotes...

Mr Forsyth said there was a consistency among most of the issues aired in the submissions, including the relationship between the various safety agencies and the effect of regulation on small business.
Read RED TAPE TB..

And the RRP headache..

"The hardest job by far is the regulatory reform program," he said. "That's been going on for so long, it's such a big issue and any potential solutions for it have such huge implications, it's going to require a lot of thought and lot of discussions with people and industry and government."
"The reg reform program's the only one that is threatening that, but we're still pretty confident we'll be able to work our way through that and come up with some recommendations," he said.
Well Mr Forsyth perhaps you need only refer to your GA panel support team's final submission for helpful hints... (c/o Australian Flying)
AOPA Advocates Kiwi System

30 Jan 2014

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA) is advocating the New Zealand system of regulation be adopted in Australia.

The statement was made in AOPA's submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review and posted on their website.

Dealing specifically with the issues general aviation has with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the submission stresses that dealing with individual problem would help the situation, but that a larger solution was needed.

" ... it is with some regret that our organization has come to the conclusion that continuing to patch up problems is like renovating a house with rotten foundations," the submission says. "You spend twice as much time and money and at the end of the day you still have an old house.

"We now believe in nothing short of a clean sweep of the old, and adoption of FARs [Federal Aviation Regulations], as has been demonstrated by NZís adoption of the FAA GA model about 17 years ago. It is fact that since then, NZís GA has outstripped Australiaís.

"We have heard it said that where it takes a wheelbarrow to carry a copy of all regs pertaining to GA, New Zealandís can be carried in one hand. This may be an exaggeration, but it is not an exaggeration to say that adoption of the NZ regulatory system for GA would improve the prospects of GAís survival.
Or maybe refer to the AMROBA submission which should have similar sentiments...(reference: Vol_11_Issue_1AMROBA newsletter )

Act: An Act is required to enable the setting up of an aviation regulator to meet Australiaís obligations under international treaties,
especially the Convention and subsequent Protocols.

Regulations: Provide Head of Power for Aviation Safety Standards that were previously promulgated as ANO/CAOs. Abandon the two-tier legislative system for the three-tier legislative system that has a proven
legislative record and safety outcomes.

Standards: The Act provides for CASA to promulgate Aviation Safety Standards (ASS), not Manual of Standards or CAOs. Adapting EASRs/FARs, as applicable, as Civil ASS aligned with NZ Rules would adapt a safe aviation legislative system.
I'm sure there will be many other submissions with pretty much the same solution...so Mr Forsyth the RRP recommendation should be a no-brainer..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2014, 00:06
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 272
Frank, you got it one mate But shhhhh, don't tell the others.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2014, 22:28
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rarotonga
Posts: 204
Knowing Your Enemy

The perfect bureaucratic outcome is for a solution where there is no accountability attributable to any of the major players (especially the Minister) as the deck chairs are re-arranged.

The Minister will herald any changes as regrettable but necessary due to the inactions of the previous Labor Government. He will make a strong statement that under the Abbott Government action is now being taken 'to greatly improve aviation safety in Australia for the long term'.

I would not rule out organisational changes and responsibilities as a likely political strategy to get past the current situation. For example: CASA and ATSB returning to the public service and being part of a mega Department of Infrastructure. This way Mr Dak will have a much larger empire while assuring the Minister that this approach will resolve the personality induced events that have occurred in the past. (Interestingly, they will leave AMSA as an independent statutory authority arguing that the current model works for this mode of transport.)

Another approach would be for the department to take over setting aviation safety regulations (and accident investigation) while a much smaller CASA would have a very limited responsibility for enforcement. However, there would be performance indicators for this 'policing' agency to meet.

Interesting times but to quote Cold Chisel: 'I've had a bellyful of livin' on the same old merry-go-round.'

The former cranky but now reformed Franky!
Frank Burden is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2014, 23:18
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
If CASA draft the regulations, (appallingly I admit), they have no right policing those laws and claim any independence or statutory authority under the mantle of safety.


1) CAA, (omit the safety), should draft the regulations based on FAR's.


2) A new branch of Commonwealth Police should enforce those rules, carry out investigations aided by an in-house ATSB and,


3) The DPP prosecute any breeches.


4) Get rid of the AAT and give The Commonwealth Ombudsman more open terms of reference to enable third party investigations outside the umbrella of government and give him powers to make findings not just recommendations.


As for smoking big holes, the buck stops with The Minister and his Advisors.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 07:46
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
in my neck of the aviation woods the only reason the rules seem to work is that they aren't policed and you can use common sense instead.

the thought that we would actually have to adopt the rules chapter and verse is intolerable.

I think I might retire to new zealand just to be able to fly somewhere sensible.
....or canada.



just how many nutters make up a CASA?
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 23:15
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
A question for Roy....

Hey, Roy,...what have you been up to for the passed six years? Do tell.

Seems like "progress" on CASR 175 Aeronautical Information Management has been somewhat glacial.

Seems very strange to me that an "agency" that can't even manage itself and its staff properly has the temerity to postulate 175. ! FFS

Still, we the taxpayers must remember that these important "safety" issues must be considered, on and on and ongoing forever to keep people "employed" and in a career for life. All part of the empire building process.

For example...heard the anecdote years ago that in changing from the bound log books, with numbered pages to the coloured tab, loose leaf file arrangement...the design of, took two years to finalize.
Yep...no doubt about it if you have the right contacts in CAsA ...there's bucks to be made. Yours.
aroa is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 00:48
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,381
Damn it all!!! just renewed my Jepp subscription.
Oh well back to DAP's, can't see anyone else bothering to try and comply with that cr..p.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 09:20
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
Wayang...

Cactus...thanks for the cackle

The CAsA Bali puppet show is characters on a stick,or sticks stuck up a few characters, with lots of activity, alas casting but shadows, mate, just shadows.

That's why we never get anything concrete out of the place...its all myth, make believe and ephemeral.

Time to bring in Punch and Judy.!
aroa is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 20:33
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,289
CASR 175 is called " A licence to print money".

It is in Jeppesens interest, for example, to ensure that the process of becoming approved under CASR175 is as difficult, complex and expensive as possible, as well as maximising the costs and complexity of maintaining approval. This process is called building a "barrier to entry".

By doing that you will deter would be competitors from entering the market and can therefore charge exorbitantly for your product.

CASA needs to have clauses inserted into its rectum that require it to promote the aviation industry as a whole. One corrolary of such a clause is that you don't build unnecessary barriers to entry into aviation related markets.

To put that another way, does anyone think pocket FMS, Ozrunways or anyone else is going to spend the money to become CASR175 compliant? I can see myself buying paper charts for years to come even though I wont be using them at all. ....Just bought a Garmin D2 watch last week as well
Sunfish is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 02:48
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
Love it....

Just love it!!
Real expert legal people in CDPP pointing out to CAsA pretend lawyer "experts" the error of their wordy ways.
What a crock of dodgy legalese CAsA loves to entertain...!

"technical" amendments ?...sounds like a serious legal correction to me.

CAsA must be pissed!.... remember these are the people that have made the statement .." the courts sometimes don't give us the results we require"
( or words to that effect)
Oh bugger...the rule of law.
aroa is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 02:48
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
You watch: Itíll start raining aluminium because now everyone can get drugged or p*ssed to the eyeballs and not get prosecuted. Just like they did before.

Itís surreal.

All of the time, cost and aggravation to make and implement Part 99 in response to theoretical rather than substantial safety problem, and itís fundamentally flawed.

Two words to fix Part 99 properly: ďReĒ and ďPealĒ.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 03:08
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
CASA's drug and alcohol push fascinated me. the entire thing was bought in on the basis of american statistics.

american statistics apply to the american population, not australians.

in 40 years in and around aviation in this country I have heard only two tales of alcohol and aviation.

one concerned a tiger moth pilot who flew lubricated all the time. he experienced a number of crashes during his time and all occurred when he was sober.

the other was a group of guys including one of my instructors who went for a fly in a twin after a party one night. they were all pilots. in the air they realised that none of them was sober enough to land the aircraft. the harrowing part of the tale was them trying to work out who was the least affected. my instructor drew the short straw. they survived ...just.
that story of horror told in the hangar must have been far more effective than anything casa has ever achieved.

it is all nonsense.

the technique seems to be
1. create a mythical fire breathing monster.
2. terrify all the kids with lurid stories of doom.
3. set up an authority to conquer the mythical monster.
4. perpetually seed the world with lurid tales of derring do.
5. pay themselves high wages as evidence that it is all serious stuff.
6. prohibit anyone from forming a contrary opinion.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 03:19
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Creampuff is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 05:45
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil Talking of cultures..did you hear the one about...

...the 36 Red Rats & 11 Vestile Virgins that went to a NYE piss up??
Well now they're all apparently in rehab...

[YOUTUBE]

Fifty Qantas and Virgin airline and alcohol drug testing

Love this bit..because according to the experts (WHO & the AODCA) we're all doomed to a life of tea totalling (& no more snorting lines on the tarmac) or else??
Last year a survey of more than 300 members of the Australian and International Pilots' Association pilots revealed a culture of heavy drinking.

It found one in seven was at risk of significant life problems because of excessive alcohol consumption. Eight pilots scored above the cut-off for alcohol dependence, according to a World Health Organisation scale.

The report compiled by former Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia chief executive Dr Donna Bull found three-quarters of international pilots drank at hazardous levels.

Forty per cent admitted to imbibing six or more drinks in a single occasion at least once a month _ the accepted definition of binge drinking.
Hmm...heard through the grapevine that this is just the tip of the Avmed iceberg in relation to the big end of town airlines, who are consequently..."NOT HAPPY JAN!"

Oh the FF PMO will be rubbing his hands in glee...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 07:19
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
UITA and Cactus

If itís possible for you to set aside your blind prejudice and be a teensy bit objective just for a little while, you might be able to comprehend the fact that:

- no one in CASA drafted Part 99, and

- no lawyer in CASA or elsewhere decided that Part 99 was good policy.

Think about it.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 18:53
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
No, because it is wrong.

Regulations are drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, on instructions from the relevant policy makers. Office of Parliamentary Counsel - About OPC (Regulations used to be drafted by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publication, but it was recently Ďabsorbedí into the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.)

Office of Legal Counsel in CASA hasnít draft any regulations for a looooooong time.

Office of Legal Counsel in CASA doesnít have authority to decide the policy around D+A testing.

But feel free to blame OLC: Thatís exactly what the organ grinders want you fools to do.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 23:04
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel Perhaps back on topic..??

Perhaps UITA you should change your name to Nutrigrain & carry on your Cereal Wars with Creamy elsewhere...

Interesting AQON (in part) to the former Miniscule for Ag Senator Ludwig (who you will remember right royally buggered up the live Cattle export trade to Indonesia..) which is relevant to the thread..:
Senator Ludwig asked:

1. Since 7 September 2013, how many new reviews have been commenced? Please list them including:

a. the date they were ordered;
b. the date they commenced;
c. the Minister responsible;
d. the department responsible;
e. the nature of the review;
f. their terms of reference;
g. the scope of the review;
h. whom is conducting the review;
i. the number of officers, and their classification level, involved in conducting the review;
j. the expected report date; and
k. if the report will be tabled in parliament or made public.

2. For any review commenced or ordered since 7 September 2013, have any external people, companies or contractors been engaged to assist or conduct the review?

a. If so, please list them, including their name and/or trading name/s and any known alias or other trading names.
b. If so, please list their managing director and the board of directors or equivalent.
c. If yes, for each what are the costs associated with their involvement, broken down to each cost item.
d. If yes, for each, what is the nature of their involvement?
e. If yes, for each, are they on the lobbyist register? Provide details.
f. If yes, for each, what contact has the Minister or their office had with them?
g. If yes, for each, who selected them?
h. If yes, for each, did the Minister or their office have any involvement in selecting them?
i. If yes, please detail what involvement it was.
ii. If yes, did they see or provided input to a short list.
iii. If yes, on what dates did this involvement occur.
iv. If yes, did this involve any verbal discussions with
the department.
v. If yes, on what dates did this involvement occur.

Answer:
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Aviation Safety Regulation Review

1. Yes, Aviation Safety Regulation Review

a. The review results from a 2013 election commitment.

b. 14 November 2013.

c. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

d. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

e. External review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

f. See Attachment A.

g. See Attachment A.

h. Mr David Forsyth AM, Mr Don Spruston and Mr Roger Whitefield.

i. SES1 x 1, EL2 x 1, EL1 x 1, APS6 x 1, APS4 x 1.

j. May 2014.

k. This is a matter for Government.

2. Yes

a. Mr David Forsyth AM, Mr Don Spruston, Mr Roger Whitefield, Mr Phillip Reiss (trading as Reiss Aviation).

b. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged as an individual or sole-trader.

c. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged at a rate of $1,500.00 per day ex GST plus reasonable expenses incurred.

d. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged to provide advisory services.

e. None of the people listed at 2.a above are on the lobbyist register.

f. The Minister met all four people listed at 2.a. above on 9 December 2013.

g. The Minister approved the selection of all four listed at 2.a. above on the basis of advice from the Department.

h. Yes.

i. The Minister approved the engagement of all four people on the basis of advice from the Department.
ii. Yes.
iii. Various dates in October/November 2013
iv. Yes.
v. Various dates in October/November 2013
Hmm AQON at 2(c).....not bad coin if you can get it...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 23:20
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
UITA: You continue to conflate the Ďideaí (the policy) with the activity of drafting the words giving effect to the idea (the Regulation). You said:
You well know as others on the thread that the individual departments write and hone the material, submit it via OLC then via AG's for approval then mrdak [Head of Department].

The part is then tabled usually sliding via parliament without notice for foisting on the great unsuspecting unwashed.
The individual departments donít write and hone the material. They come up with the bright ideas (policies) and tell OPC about them. OPC then drafts the Regulations to give effect to the bright ideas.

Someone in CASA now has to do the boring as batsh*t job of explaining to OPC why Part 99 has to be changed to address the problems identified by CDPP, so that OPC can draft a Regulation to amend a Regulation. How many pilots and engineers in CASA do you think volunteered for that?

If it makes you feel good to believe that CASAís OLC dreams up all the evil policies and drafts all the regulations that you donít like, so be it. The ignorance of industry is one of the reasons the regulatory reform program is where it is.
Creampuff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.