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 Feb 2014, 00:21
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I'm beginning to believe it' just a twenty three year combined clusterfcuk that happened in the usual course of events, but you have to admit working backwards someone must have been a catalyst for the end result.


I'm also getting strong 'vibes' about some functionaries that were wearing black hats now wear white hats out of frustration of how it all arrived at the morgue platform instead of the interstate express platform. As for someone now having to do a boring as bat$hit job, well we all reap what we sow. If a white hat got that job I feel sorry for him. If he's a senior functionary with a white hat, I feel sorry for him, but I hear the wages are pretty good without getting 'feeling sorry for yourself' penalty rates.


Apologies if the metaphors are vague but I'm attempting to give one alleged white hat the benefit of the doubt for now and don't intend to compromise him. He should be cognizant of exactly who invented payback however, if he intends to do harm to my most trusted friend who is doing likewise. Enough said, so don't PM me. I won't tell.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 02:33
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I think it means your a Queensland supporter. The boobs are a dead giveaway. Anyone in business would probably stump up for the caps if they are in CASA's jurisdiction.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 6th Feb 2014 at 02:35. Reason: My prickly pear is ready to put into the fruit salad.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 03:43
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
clothing...

caps are easy.
How about a T shirt?
...The wearer is one of the Ills of Society,due to of overdose of bureaucratic bullsh*t

ps neither the GG or the PM do regulations...as some CAsA persons suggested to me that they did !

Does IOS have a logo ?
aroa is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 04:43
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
'We're here to help'
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 07:00
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
IOS logo and 'any other safety related matters'

aroa:
Does IOS have a logo ?
Perhaps a pic with a pineapple sticking out of the cargo door of VH-NGA..hmm on the back you could have It's the PIT(s) {PIT- Pineapple insertion team}...

On ToR 'any other safety related matters' I noticed the AAA have made their submission publicly available..

AAA- SUBMISSION TO THE AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW


And Australian Aviation provides a summary of that submission..:
AAA calls for aerodrome safety regs review

1:35 pm, Thursday February 6 2014

The Australian Airports Association (AAA) has called for a full review of the CASA regulations governing the operation of Australian aerodromes as part of its submission to the government’s review of aviation safety regulation.

Specifically, the industry body says MOS Part 139 should be reviewed as a matter of priority to bring the standards up to date with current systems and technologies. The Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139 – Aerodromes is the set of regulations established and maintained by CASA which covers all aspects of the operations of aerodromes.

“Industry has identified a number of serious issues with MOS Part 139, including the need to update the text to reflect the latest developments in aircraft technology and airport operations,” Caroline Wilkie, CEO of the AAA said in a statement. “MOS Part 139 contains many conflicting rules and definitions, right down to the most basic interpretation of an ‘aircraft’. The lack of clarity and consistency in MOS Part 139 has the potential to cause safety risks at aerodromes.”

An AAA standards group has made several other recommendations, including:
  • CASA increasing their stakeholder engagement in relation to regulation and audit process changes;
  • All future changes to safety regulations be made using a risk based approach;
  • Implementation of a clearly defined and documented change management system to track any changes made to key safety and compliance processes;
  • Establishment of a joint working group between CASA and industry to work on future regulatory requirements for aerodromes;
  • Development of training programs in the areas of airport and airport operations;
  • Separation of responsibilities for the policy making and regulation of aerodromes;
  • The timely release of safety reports into incidents that have occurred;
  • Increased capacity for CASA to approve or not approve developments that could impact on airport safety;
  • An increase in staffing levels for the Aerodromes section of CASA to meet growing industry demands; and
  • The increase of the CASA board to eight members and to include experienced aviation industry professionals.

    The AAA’s full submission to the aviation safety review can be viewed at Submissions | Australian Airports Association
Further to India ICAO Category 2 story - The following is an article that highlights the potential knock on effect if we were ever to be bumped to Cat 2 by the FAA ...

Singapore Raises Inspection of Indian Planes After FAA Downgrade

Addendum: Although I am fully supportive of the AAA submission I thought the following (real AOPA) , from the yanks, makes for a feel good read...

Perhaps shows (much like Archerfield's Tenancy group..) what can be achieved by small, committed, like-minded individuals if they combine and put their collective efforts to a common cause...:
'Benign neglect'

Venice Airport has a new lease on life
January 22, 2014

Venice Municipal Airport in Florida, once a victim of “benign neglect” according to its supporters, is in trouble no more. The historic former army base on the Gulf Coast of Florida has turned itself around, thanks in great part to a small cadre of supporters who never stopped believing.

AOPA Manager of Airport Policy John Collins saw firsthand the accomplishments at Venice Municipal Airport Jan. 15 as he toured the 835-acre airport, spoke before the city’s economic development advisory board, and was a guest at the monthly meeting of the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI). “You have a very valuable and economically viable airport here,” Collins told the advisory board. “The differences between my visit in 2010 and today are incredible—the rehabilitation of Runway 5/23, the new fencing, the obstruction removal, the realigned taxiway. We can’t thank you enough for your support of your airport.” He conveyed the same message to city council members and VASI members in the audience at the VASI meeting as well.

Venice Municipal faced opposition in this small resort town (population 21,000), which welcomes “snowbirds” January through March, when northerners trek south to Florida’s sunny shores. Venice is a charming and quaint small town bordered by the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway. The airport, established in 1947, was a training base and later an active general aviation airport. But as the city grew and economic belts tightened, the airport began to suffer from “benign neglect,” according to Paul Hollowell, a member of the VASI board of directors.

And because of the city’s neglect of its airport, its detractors started to nibble at the airport's 835-acre footprint. They wanted to shorten one of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways. They wanted to deny new business. They wanted to take airport land—the golf course and the mobile home park, and the restaurant, and the former Barnum & Bailey Circus winter headquarters—all airport land tenants. Even though the airport was self-sustaining and an economic boon, detractors started a smear campaign, which called out the airport for noise, jet traffic, and being a bad neighbor (one of the terrorists of the 9/11 attacks had trained at the airport).

It worked. The most vocal detractor and two of her friends were voted onto the city council. One was the mayor.

Noise reduction signs were installed by the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI) in 2009. The “Always Fly Friendly” signs verbally and graphically depict noise-reduction flight procedures at the departure ends of each of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways.

Noise reduction signs were installed by the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI) in 2009. The “Always Fly Friendly” signs verbally and graphically depict noise-reduction flight procedures at the departure ends of each of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways.

VASI President Emeritus and AOPA Airport Support Network Volunteer Nick Carlucci calls these times “The Troubles.” When the airport detractors stirred up the citizens, they picketed landing jets at the airport and stood on the island’s bridges with signs telling visiting pilots to go home. They forced legislation and worked to close the airport.

Carlucci, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a Cessna 172 owner and pilot, hasn’t lost his Brooklyn accent, nor his Brooklyn brashness. The former Marine Corps colonel joined forces with Hollowell and some others and activated VASI. They worked with AOPA and the FAA. Carlucci’s tenaciousness is a key factor in why Venice Municipal is no longer under attack.

“Tremendous advocates,” is the phrase Venice Mayor John Holic uses to describe Carlucci and the VASI members. “They love flying above just about everything else, but the love they have for the city has turned out positively for Venice and its airport.”

The situation at Venice Municipal was so poor that when airport manager Chris Rozansky accepted the job in October 2010, a friend said he wouldn’t wish that job on his worst enemy. And, initially, Rozansky suspected his friend might have been right. He was harangued and badgered, but with the help of the team from VASI and a new mayor and council members, he slowly was able to “tell the airport story.” A story of how much income the city derives from its tenants and users, how only three percent of the 60,000 takeoff and landings are from jets, and that the FAA wasn’t planning on taking residential housing.

“Often the stated concerns like noise are symptoms of a larger, unrealistic fear,” Rozansky says. “I listened—we listened—and when we could get to the root problem, which was usually unrealistic fears, we could get people on our side.”

With a supportive mayor and council, the vigilant work of VASI members, support from the FAA, and silenced detractors, Venice Municipal recently opened a reconstructed noise-mitigation Runway 5/23 (there’s a plaque outside the airport manager’s office that says Rest in Peace for the old runway). There are 220 based aircraft, an FBO, avionics shop (Sarasota Avionics, which has contributed to AOPA sweepstakes aircraft projects), two flight schools, and maintenance facilities. The Sarasota County Sheriff’s helicopter, providing law enforcement and firefighting support, and Agape Flights, a missionary organization, are based at the airport.

“Venice Municipal Airport has gone from the poster child of neglected airports to a business case in one turning around,” proudly states Brett Stephens, VASI president.

Council Member Kit McKeon, who served on the past council and was re-elected for a second term said, “We’ll remain vigilant against those who might try to diminish our airport, but let me assure you that the modernized Venice Municipal Airport is open for business.”

Last edited by Sarcs; 6th Feb 2014 at 09:46.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 11:03
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 275
Creampuff,
The individual departments don’t 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.
Creampuff, you are a bright individual, and obviously somebody with a passing interest in legal things, tell me, would organisations such as AMSA or NOPSEMA also operate in the same said manner as what you mention above in relation to CASA? Just curious really.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 19:27
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Precisely the same manner.

Instructions for Regulations go from them to OPC (nee OLDP).

You might be getting confused with Civil Aviation Orders, Marine Orders and delegated legislation other than Regulations.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2014, 05:43
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
TASRR (WLR) & the legal perspective...??

Have been reliably informed that there is a number of submissions, some requested by the panel themselves, from some very heavy hitters in the Aviation legal fraternity. Here is a couple of publicly available submissions that I have been able to find thus far...:

Submission of the Australian Lawyers Alliance

In brief, the Australian Lawyers Alliance recommended that the Panel should advise Government that:

1. Guidance material on CASA’s enforcement policy which guides CASA decision makers should be legally binding and itself enforceable under an Ombudsman-type arrangement akin to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
2. Strict adherence to AAT expert evidence guidelines and procedural rules be demanded of all litigants in aviation administrative matters (both CASA and represented applicants).
3. Australia’s fatigue risk management system rules should be further developed by CASA in light of the merits of the US FAA approach which came into effect on 14 January 2014.
4. Australian aviation drug and alcohol management (DAMP) policy should be clarified by adding an “Objects” section to either Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth), or Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), to reflect Parliament’s intention that DAMP rules operate to minimise harm in aviation, not punish.
5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
6. CASA should undertake as a priority, a review of the need for regulations on cockpit automation and adapt and implement relevant recommendations of the FAA in its comprehensive September 2013 report on this subject including, in particular, a proposed requirement for Australian AOC holders to create explicit flight path management policies.
And from a solely victims perspective..:

Shine Lawyers submission
In turn, Shine Lawyers recommended to the ASRR Panel that it should advise the Government to:

1. Extend the concession Commonwealth employees travelling on Commonwealth business enjoy under Part III of the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act 1963 (Cth) (AACL Act) to all Australians, or repeal Part III of the AACL Act; or
2. Review the AACL Act’s consistency with the policy behind the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) (CACL Act), and update the AACL Act to reflect its original intent as expressed by Parliament in 1963; and
3. Remove all references to the term “personal injury” in s.12 of the AACL Act (or return that term to the wording of the CACL Act for consistency); and
4. Legislate for the imposition of adherence to the IATA (or some other suitable) intercarrier agreement as a condition for non-Australian airlines which service Australia (as recommended at Preliminary Finding 4 of the 2009 DOIRD Discussion Paper).
Just can't go past supplying a couple of cherry picked quotes from the ALA submission...

On Fort Fumble in the AAT:
"...Anecdotally, confidence in decision making by CASA is at an all-time low. Furthermore, there have been several indications from Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) members indicating that the AAT has been the (erroneous) venue for criticisms of CASA’s investigative or decision making processes.20 Unless an independent alternative forum for such critique is available, Tribunal resources and CASA resources will be wasted in the pacification of litigants who claim misfeasance or similar civil wrongs, and/or decide to use particular decisions of CASA as springboards to attack CASA policies. This assists no-one.

It is recommended that the decision making processes and considerations outlined therein be reduced into a legislative instrument to ensure accountability by CASA decision makers as a matter of right, and that this oversight be the responsibility of an independently established Ombudsman in the vein of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO).


We submit that the EM is so precise that it lends itself to independent oversight for contravention. This would reassure aviation stakeholders that potentially incorrect or “not preferable” decisions would not just be reviewable in the case of individually affected or aggrieved stakeholders, by virtue of an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).


Thus, independent oversight as proposed here is not intended to supplant proper access to administrative review in the AAT. Rather, the mechanism proposed below or any variation of it, has the capacity to reduce costly litigation in the AAT and Federal Court which can sometimes be motived by allegations of erroneous or misapprehended decision making, to a forum of its own, where compliance by CASA officers with the EM can be addressed practically and openly to ensure future adherence with the policies underpinning it...


"...3. In our opinion the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner is not a suitable entity for such oversight, given its strictly limited and dissimilar roles under its own Terms of Reference.22 Rather the oversight of regulatory decision making should lie with an entity which is particularly charged with the singular and unfettered role of examining regulatory decision making by reference to CASA’s own policy, and setting suitable penalties for noncompliance in instances where the policy has not been adhered to…"


On Fort Fumble MLR obligations:
"...A matter which has bolstered aviation operators’ lack of confidence in administrative decision making, which criticism has been relayed to the ALA, together with our own examination of decisions on CASA decisions reaching the AAT, results in the identification of a further issue which should be considered by the Panel.


The AAT recently set aside the decision of CASA to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after suffering an attack while out with friends in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).In this decision what is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action…"


On FRMS :
“…The relevant CASA surveillance which resulted in the requests for corrective action predated the existing FRMS requirements, but post-dated the commencement of CASA’s original Civil Aviation Order 48.1 which prescribes duty flight time limitations.36 This means that minimum rest time for pilots was set by CAO 48.1 and not strictly the subject of a formal risk management system as it might be argued might now applies to such an operator. The issue then becomes less one of FRMS per se, but one of FRM regulatory oversight. Is a prescribed duty time limit easier to enforce and better than a FRMS which leaves such decisions to pilots and operators in the high demand environment of commercial aviation?...


…In our submission the criticism for the Panel to note is that the FRMS rules now applicable by virtue of the commencement of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (No. 1)38 on 30 April 2013 are not only subject to major contrary views but this view was acted upon by a motion to disallow in the Senate which lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 prior to the Federal Election. Since that time, and following the opening of submissions to the present ASRR, a second motion to disallow was made, and is presently pending for resolution in the Senate by 24 March 2014. These indications of public discontent must not be forgotten in determining a way forward for resolving the debate on flight time limitations…”


On systemic oversight beyond LHR..:
“…No submission to a review of aviation safety regulation would be complete without addressing the regulatory safety factors identified by the ATSB in its investigation report of Australia’s worst modern air crash disaster, the collision with terrain of a Fairchild Aircraft Inc aircraft operated by Transair north west of Lockhart River in Queensland on 7 May 2005.

In the report, just as with the Pel-Air report, 43 deficiencies with industry surveillance and consistency of oversight activities with CASA’s policies, procedure and guidelines were implicated in relation to the lack of detection of fundamentalproblems associated with Transair’s management of regular public transport flights operations (such as pilot training, checking, supervision of line flight operations, standard operating procedures, risk management processes etc).44…

….The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).

Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”


I could cherry pick more but then I would destroy the intrigue for the avid IOS readers..



IMO it is well worth the time....more to follow K2 (Sarski)
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2014, 11:21
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 275
Interesting that you should raise this one Sarcs:
On systemic oversight beyond LHR..:
“…No submission to a review of aviation safety regulation would be complete without addressing the regulatory safety factors identified by the ATSB in its investigation report of Australia’s worst modern air crash disaster, the collision with terrain of a Fairchild Aircraft Inc aircraft operated by Transair north west of Lockhart River in Queensland on 7 May 2005.

In the report, just as with the Pel-Air report, 43 deficiencies with industry surveillance and consistency of oversight activities with CASA’s policies, procedure and guidelines were implicated in relation to the lack of detection of fundamentalproblems associated with Transair’s management of regular public transport flights operations (such as pilot training, checking, supervision of line flight operations, standard operating procedures, risk management processes etc).44…
This remains a travesty. Fort Fumble could've learned from this. Tombstone technology to coin a phrase. An accident happens, it gets properly investigated and lessons are learned. Unfortunately the only lesson CASA learned from Lockhart was one of CYA. If anything the stakes have gotten higher and the system more dysfunctional and of a higher risk. Justice still awaits the loved ones of those killed, and a different form of justice still awaits those with blood stained hands.

Australia's two biggest in around 40 years - Transair and Pel Air and yet the regulator still obsfucates, ignores, eludes, hides, weaves, denies, distorts and distances itself? Vile individuals.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2014, 22:35
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel ALA R5: Top shot!

“...All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not....”


Or basically put "do as I say not as I do" is no longer going to be accepted by IOS as legitimate excuse for bureaucratic spin & obfuscation at any level...


Yes Para the ALA recommendation 5 provides a subtle but clear message that even a simple knuckledragger, tinpusher or gingerbeer can understand …:
5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
Comment: The IOS ‘Great Unwashed’, with elephant memories , may recall that Annex 19 was a topic of discussion way..way back on the first but ‘CLOSED’ (RIP ‘lest we forget’) Senate thread on about page 85. {Note: For those that need a refreshing of the neurons Annex 19 references started around.... post #1682}

But back to ALA R5 it is worth bringing up the footnote #52 link provided, which will lead to a pdf version:

AUSTRALIA’S STATE AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM APRIL 2012

Then it is well worth reflecting on the Foreword to that document:
FOREWORD

The safety of the aviation industry is paramount to its ability to maintain the confidence of the travelling public as it continues to grow and to connect people, communities and nations.

Australia has an excellent aviation safety record with a mature regulatory framework and a broadly accepted and industry-supported safety culture.
Even a mature safety system must include processes for ongoing improvement. Continuing rapid advances in navigation and aircraft technology and the intense commercial pressures of the aviation industry require the continuing improvement and refinement of our aviation safety systems.

Australia supports the efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish Safety Programs for member States to better ensure effective integration of aviation safety standards and practices. This builds on the approach endorsed by ICAO to have air transport operators, airports, air navigation and maintenance service providers and other critical aviation operations establish comprehensive safety management systems to guide the management of the range of activities involved in ensuring safety.

Australia’s State Safety Program plays an important part in identifying, monitoring and maintaining the effectiveness of the various elements of our safety systems. The Program identifies and describes current arrangements and outlines the steps we need to continue to take in order to respond to safety challenges in the future.

The history of Australia’s formal oversight of its civil aviation operations dates back to the enactment of the Air Navigation Act by the Commonwealth Parliament in 1920.

Over the ensuing 90 years, regulatory oversight of the safety performance of civil aviation operations has required continual revision and modernisation in response to, and on occasion in anticipation of, a range of technological advances and changes in the operational environment.

Australia was a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) in 1944, and has been a member of ICAO since its establishment. From the outset, Australia has been an active participant in, and a strong supporter of ICAO’s activities, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to the enhancement of the safety, security and environmental sustainability of civil aviation. As a large island nation, the availability of safe, regular and efficient air services within Australia and between Australia and the rest of the world is critical to our national interest.

A number of Australian Government agencies have responsibilities for aviation safety including the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Department of Defence, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. These agencies have now produced the first revision of Australia’s State Safety Program. I would like to acknowledge all of these agencies for their contributions to this Program and for their continuing commitment to aviation safety in Australia. The State Safety Program will be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects evolving aviation safety standards and practices.

Mike Mrdak

Secretary

Department of Infrastructure and Transport

April 2012
Then quietly remember that this bureaucratic masterpiece was promulgated prior to the PelAir sh#t storm…

Hmm..do you reckon the Department boys’n’gals....(& possibly PMC) are going to be very busy over the next year..while dreading the knock on the door from Mr FAA {ICAO} ??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2014, 04:38
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Unhappy Annex 19 - I'll say it again

Back in the closed thread at #1772, I said http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post7839442

Annex 19 - Panacea?


All this enthusiasm for Annex 19 as some form of panacea for the ills of Australian aviation is a little bemusing. My understanding of Annex 19 is that it is a collection of existing provisions, edited only for document continuity. As I further understand it, there will be no new provisions for a number of years.

Any existing shortfalls in Safety Management at a State level will continue as shortfalls when measured against Annex 19 (when it transitions from the current 'green' version to a fully-fledged 'blue' version).
Well, it is now a blue version and the foreword reconfirms:

This Annex consolidates material from existing Annexes regarding SSP and safety management systems (SMSs), as well as related elements including the collection and use of safety data and State safety oversight activities. The benefit of drawing together this material into a single Annex is to focus States’ attention on the importance of integrating their safety management activities. It also facilitates the evolution of safety management provisions
So, all of the compliance issues that may exist are old, meaning everyone waving Annex 19 around like the Sermon from the Mount should have previously identified and complained about any shortfalls with the pre-existing SARPs
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 04:44
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Meanwhile back at FF work continues

Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 15:03
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
FWIW, the AFAP submission is located here...

http://www.afap.org.au/files/nrteUpl...3A453A25PM.pdf


OVERVIEW
The Federation's submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR or Review) is structured in accordance with the Review terms of reference. Our submission supports that:

1. All aviation agencies and responsibilities be brought back under the oversight of a single Aviation Minister or, at a minimum, the Director of Aviation Safety should not be able to operate independent of a Board structure.

2. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should be better resourced. That programs and initiatives aimed at greater self-regulation do not come at the expense of internal expertise within CASA. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular is in need of an overhaul to ensure clearer processes and that specified service standards are delivered.

3. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) remains independent and purely safety focused. In line with this, that legislative immunity is provided for flight crew who raise safety concerns and the material gathered by the ATSB during investigations is protected from any other party.

4. Airservices Australia (AsA) improves its methodology to ensure appropriate service responses to rapid changes in traffic movements. AsA should also conduct a review of radio and operational procedures for all airports in G Airspace that involve regular public transport operations.

5. The operations of the Office of Transport Security (OTS) are an excessive cost burden on the industry and that many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary.

6. The recommendations of Senate Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations be revisited and implemented as a matter of priority.

7. In accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annex 13, information gathered in safety investigations or mandatorily supplied be protected and not shared between agencies.

8. The Regulations be re-written in plain English, targeted at and comprehensible to the industry.

9. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process be reviewed such that sensible and defensible timeframes are provided and adhered to.

10. Jurisdictional issues regarding Australian aircraft operating in New Zealand and New Zealand aircraft operating in Australia needs to be clarified.

11. Fatigue management legislation encompasses all safety sensitive personnel.

12. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) surveillance is implemented in all Australian airspace above 10,000 feet.

13. The upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) to Cat 3 at all Australian capital city airports.

14. Flight data is provided with legislative protection that ensures it may only be used for safety purposes and prohibits the use of this information in civil or criminal actions.

15. The recommendations of the 2000 Senate Inquiry into the incidents of contaminated cabin air are revisited and implemented as a matter of urgency.

16. Land use planning around airports be controlled and coordinated to ensure airport capacity is not restricted or that development does not adversely impact on existing operations.

A few quotes from the submission...

Whilst we do not object to a user pays model to cover the costs incurred in providing aviation services, we believe it is necessary to accurately quantify those costs and identify who the end users are to ensure that they contribute a fair share rather than attempting to recover the full cost of service provision from the industry. This applies to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia (AsA), the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Office of Transport Security (OTS). In this light it is somewhat disturbing that CASA reported a $12M profit over the last year.

The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue1. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.

The security screening processes applied to pilots are arbitrary and unnecessary. Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit seat beggars belief. Particularly when other airside workers, such as baggage handlers and catering staff, are not subject to the same screening processes. In addition, pilots are also subject to continual “random selection” for bomb trace detection tests in airports. This practice not only inconveniences aircrew, but also devalues the testing regime by targeting testing away from ordinary passengers. These measures appear driven by political and public relations concerns rather than any safety case.

Last edited by Blue Ruin; 10th Feb 2014 at 15:15.
Blue Ruin is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 15:21
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
so is there any sign of avmed getting its act together?
Fantome is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 19:27
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
From the “Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013” page 17:
CASA is determined to improve the delivery of medical certificates. One initiative being examined is the capability to issue a class 2 medical certificate at the time of the of the DAME’s office, right then and there. …”
It just shows how weak the fabric of government has become.

A regulator can, at a whim, stuff up a system that was working well, then, without even a hint of embarrassment or irony, print a glossy magazine nominating that as a system the regulator is determined to improve.

But they can’t make a decision and implement it. Oh no. It’s an “initiative being examined”. Some very important matters have to be considered (and objective safety data have to be ignored). First step will have to be drafting a plan as to when they plan to complete the examination of the initiative. By the end of 2006, perhaps?

And they couldn’t contemplate giving up the capacity to stuff at least someone around. Hmmm, how can we create the most mayhem for the least effort? I know: Class 1s. Let’s keep them! Yay! Class 1 medical holders can continue to pay us to stuff them around. What a hoot!

Here’s an idea for an initiative, CASA: Get out of the way and leave medical certification to people who know what they are doing.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 21:31
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Thumbs up Bravo AFAP!

Blue Ruin thank you for that, not being a member of the AFAP I was unable to access what appears to be another significant contribution to the ASRR... {Q/ BR what is the current membership number for the AFAP?}

IMO AFAP members should be (especially given the short time to prepare) suitably happy with the end result, as the submission appears to encompass many of the main membership concerns while providing historical, simple examples and practical solutions/recommendations with strong adherence to the ToRs...so bravo AFAP...

Supplementary to BR quotes (same hymn sheet..):

7. Alternatively, we believe that the Director of Aviation Safety should not be able to operate independent of a Board structure.


8. We consider it imperative that all senior appointments to any agency with a safety related role should have significant prior experience in a relevant field.
Further to CAsA, other than Avmed debacle (my bold):
11. Policy changes aimed at greater industry self-regulation than currently exists should be opposed. In a climate of reduced resources a philosophy of self-regulation may appear to be an attractive short term option. However, self-regulation is a self-fulfilling principle; the more that CASA devolves to industry, the less expertise resides within CASA to identify shortcomings, the less CASA is seen as ‘the Regulator’ and the less it accepts that responsibility.

12. The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turn-over and low morale from within. Whilst we understand any regulatory authority will continually review its internal policies and administrative operations to improve service delivery and efficiency, there is a need for a clearly articulated long term goal of what the Regulator wants to achieve and how this will be done.
On the ATsB & PelAir report:
16. We support legislative immunity for flight crew who raise safety concerns and measures that allow flight crew to report directly to a better resourced and independent ATSB.


17. We oppose any relaxations which may allow greater access to information obtained by the ATSB during safety investigations.
25. We note that the Minister whilst in opposition supported demands for the immediate implementation of those recommendations and request that this Review revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend the implementation of those recommendations as a matter of priority.
28. This is contrary to the intent of ICAO Annex 13 which states that "the objective of an investigation of an accident or incident is prevention of future events" and the ICAO Safety Management Manual which states that "information should be collected solely for the purpose of aviation safety and information protection is essential in ensuring the continued availability of that information". It follows that ATSB reports on accident or incident investigations or any information from the mandatory reporting process should never be made available for regulatory enforcement purposes or civil actions.


29. For a safety reporting regime to operate effectively people must be confident that disclosure will not result in punitive action unless the action was deliberate or reckless.
Finally on RRP, I could quote the whole lot....but to summarise:
41. In contrast to Australia’s CASRs 1998, the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules are clear and comprehensible. While in no way endorsing the content of the New Zealand legislation, we would support clear plain English regulations aimed at and comprehensible to the industry, not just lawyers.


42. We therefore request that the regulatory development process be reviewed in the interests of achieving the goals of clear, concise and unambiguous regulations delivered in a timely manner.
{Comment: Especially liked the 'Aeroplane' definition example from para 35-39..}

I could go on cherry picking but this submission has already got the IOS tick of approval...again bravo AFAP!

Note: AFAP sub quote at the end...

"...As previously stated, the Federation would welcome the opportunity to supplement the above written submission via verbal submissions to the Review Panel..."

Although the time frame is still limited, it would appear that the panel would be willing to accept further supplementary submissions in support of original submissions, see here...

Submissions are now closed
The formal submission period has now closed. However the Panel will endeavour to consider late submissions.
To make a late submission please use the
Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form.

Addendum: Noted this short summary article from Australian Flying on the RA-Aus submission, where it seems the primary membership concern is the imposition of the ASIC: RA-Aus Weighs into ASIC Debate
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 22:24
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
safety, security...whatever

Had a visit to this regional field, no RPT, by some young AFP chappies recently who left a card which states ..."you are the eyes and ears of the airport, and if you see something suspicious call 131 AFP
And on the front See it, hear it Report it.

Quite fascinating that this was the very attitude taken in the USA after 9/11 and they DID NOT institute cards because they said the very words of the above...you are the eyes and ears etc..and those people at the field are part of the solution...seeing what goes on.

Its only taken 13 years then ?

So...is your "security " card ASIC soon to be changed to an ASAW, Airport Security Amateur Watchdog with a cheque for $200 to encourage you to keep a look out.
Dont think so somehow.
aroa is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 09:36
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 275
ICAO and Singapore can do it.

Latest ICAO release;
ICAO and Singapore Forge New Agreement on Leadership and Management Training

Cherry picked out of the press release (my bold);
SINGAPORE, 10 February 2014 – The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Government of the Republic of Singapore signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
“Singapore is a strong advocate of developing aviation leadership and human capital, which are key to addressing the challenges facing global aviation.

Director General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. “Singapore’s partnership with ICAO in leadership and management training affirms our commitment to contribute in a meaningful way to advancing international civil aviation.”

ICAO-Singapore collaboration under the new MOU will be focused around the development and delivery of leadership and management training and professional programmes, joint conferences, seminars and courses, the sharing of speakers, moderators and instructors and the exchange of information in areas of mutual interest in the field of civil aviation.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Stasi CASA could even remotely consider such a non punitive approach? Instead we have a legacy of incompetence and disgraceful abuse of unlimited power.
Dear Mr Truss and your Wet Lettuce Review team, please go talk Messrs Quadrio, Butson, Fernandes, James and Davy to name a handful. Then look at how most involved in causing these operators so much pain then got promoted to where they are today.
Sorry, at this point in time the review is a complete crock of shit.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 11th Feb 2014 at 09:52.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 16:45
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,299
...and Qantas thinks it has something to teach Asia?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 22:12
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Talking AAAA receives IOS golden Freddo award!

The headline on Australian Flying's article that summarises the AAAA’s WLR submission,is spot on…
Aerial Ag Gives CASA a Spray

The Ag crew do not hold back, the submission is akin to dumping water on Fort Fumble with a DC-10 fire bomber..
AAAA WLR Submission

Standby for some overspray quotes…
“Dear Miniscule, …noxious weeds are out of control”
CASA is now performing so poorly as to demand significant change of its internal management and its relationship with industry so as to implement practical systems that will lead to commonly accepted benchmarks of practice and outcomes. CASA is dysfunctional at nearly every level, its relationship with industry has been junked, and it is suffering from such a pathological culture that major surgery will be required to realign the organisation with the common hallmarks of a sound safety regulator. CASA must walk the talk.
There has been a complete breakdown in the relationship with industry at the highest levels, an example which has now cascaded throughout almost the entire organisation.

There are many good people working in CASA who are simply unable to make headway against the prevailing culture. They are increasingly isolated and powerless.

There are also some who delight in the culture of ‘gotcha’ that exists and is encouraged at various levels, where the ‘zero-sum game’ against industry is strongest. The lack of systems and confidence to allow the free flow of information both up and down the chain of command within CASA sustains the negative aspects of the CASA culture, and reinforces and encourages behaviour that in a healthy, open and just culture, with a clear focus on cooperation with industry and positive safety outcomes, would simply not be tolerated.

As with all cultures, the problem starts and is sustained at the top.
CASA demonstrates no strategic engagement, with industry withdrawing from meetings and discussions that involve senior management due to fatigue from being lectured to.

There appears to be a complete disconnect between words spoken by senior CASA management and what happens on the ground – with no consistency of policy or interpretation being a long-standing concern. CASA encourages industry to adopt sound management principles and systems such as SMS, ‘just’ cultures and strong executive control of aviation companies, but is hypocritical in not applying these same principles and practices to its own operations.

CASA does not have ‘aviation issues’ – it has management and cultural issues. A resetting of the CASA/industry relationship is critical to establishing a more mature regulatory safety culture in Australia.
“He’s not the Messiah..”
Many people in aviation believe that the critical component in sound aviation regulation is to have the ‘right’ person in key jobs, such as the CEO of CASA.

Unfortunately, this ‘messiah’ approach is fundamentally flawed if not supported by longer-term strategic approaches, systems and checks and balances, as demonstrated by the history of CASA and its predecessors.
When industry first heard of the shift of CASA to being a ‘Big R’ regulator, industry accepted that clearly that was the right of the regulator and, industry assumed, was being done with the support of the CASA Board and the Minister. What industry did not anticipate was that the move to a ‘Big R’ regulator was code for the introduction of a bullying and intimidatory culture that would lead to a breakdown in relationships between CASA and industry, a significant reduction in the focus on innovative safety programs and increasingly shrill policing activities that are not delivering real safety improvements.

As previously stated, no aviation association has the track record of AAAA of working positively with CASA for the improvement of aviation safety and regulation. But it is not possible to continue to return to the table when it is clear that there is no trust and no respect being shown for industry’s genuine concerns and its innovative suggestions for improvement.
On RRP spray ‘drift’ problems..
The regulatory reform program is certainly not ‘reform’ any longer.

There is no overall goal in play – ‘safety through clarity’ has been abandoned and there is no real reason for regulatory reform other than for its own sake. Key outcomes, goals, timelines (ie strategic planning) must be established.

Key goals for regulatory reform should include increased safety, reduced cost, simplification and harmonisation.

Key regulatory triggers or thresholds must be established – ie if CASA staff have a good idea, that does not mean, ipso facto, it becomes law. It should have to meet the key goals identified as a trigger for reform. Similarly, if it adds considerable cost for little or no safety benefit, it should not become law.

Regulation should be seen as the final option when other approaches have been exhausted – such as education and safety promotion including joint ventures with industry associations – rather than the default setting and starting point for guiding all aviation activity.

This is a fundamental shift in CASA’s worldview. It is the view of best practice regulators the world over. Of course there need to be rules, but there do not need to be rules for every possible eventuality.
I could go on and on (it's that impressive..) but I guess the real message here is… …“Dear Miniscule, noxious weeds eradication program urgently needed!!”
Sarcs 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.