Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Sarcs]

While on ‘A’..back down to earth!

Not quite the headline statement of the AAAA (Aerial Ag Phil) submission, nonetheless of substantial quality and still singing from the same hymn sheet, is the submission from ALGA (Australian Local Government Association). This submission also strongly backs up the AAA (who is also in alliance with the AAAA through TAAAF) submission:

ALGA ASRR submission

5 Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of Australian airports are owned and operated by local councils for the regional and remote communities that they serve. For many regional communities, access to air services is essential for their social and economic wellbeing. These air services provide access to major cities and other major regional centres facilitating out-bound and in-bound tourism, personal and business travel, personal and business freight and importantly access to social and community services that are less readily available in regions, such as education and health services.

Australia’s agricultural production is also considerably enhanced by aerial agricultural services like crop dusting and mustering operated from regional and remote airports. Further, some regional airports also provide pilot training facilities which assists with sustaining the aviation industry. In addition, other regional and remote airports provide a valuable service in enabling fire-fighting to be undertaken in areas where road transport is not possible or is too slow.

The economic contribution of Australia’s regional and remote airports is significant, estimated (in 2011) at $329m with $216m in gross operating surplus (GOS) and $113m in wage payments accumulated from the activity generated from regional and remote airports, although this is conservative estimate of this sectors contribution, for reasons explained earlier in this submission.

However regional and remote airports face considerable challenges in maintaining, let alone growing, the service they provide to their local communities. Maintaining and developing the capacity of these airports is expensive. This situation is compounded by the fact that the costs of regulation at these airports are disproportionately greater than for capital city airports – often by a factor of three.

Therefore, there is a serious need to review and address safety, security, environmental controls, as well as development planning and control regulations which may not be fit for purpose. ALGA looks forward to working with the Commonwealth to address unnecessarily complex and inconsistent regulatory requirements which are not sufficiently sensitive and flexible to the challenging circumstances faced by our regional and remote airports

Found a ‘V’ in my alphabet soup??

While on the subject of airports it would appear that one of the VIPA WLR submission’s focal points, along with the CAO 48.1 debacle, revolves around Sydney Airport, Ben’s Article yesterday...

Virgin pilots highlight Sydney Airport’s serious problems

The association will make the congested airport’s problems a part of its submission to the federal government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review when it meets with its panel in Brisbane this Thursday.

VIPA is also calling for a restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), measures to reduce pilot fatigue and other aviation regulation reforms.

The association’s president, Captain John Lyons, said “For pilots, the issue of a second Sydney airport is faster becoming an urgent debate about safety, rather than economics.”

Still on airports I heard a rumour....that the Archerfield’s tenancy group submission is as equally heavy hitting as the AAAA sub…hmm wonder if I can get a copy??…

[LeadSled]

SARCS,
The Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce submission, as I understand it, largely draws on the major legal action initiated by the AACC, much of which is in the public domain.

See if you can find a member of the AACC and ask them for a copy

<http://www.aacci.org.au>

Tootle pi[p!!

[CASAweary]

Deputy DAS Becomes A380 endorsed RORTS RORTS RORTS!

So why have the taxpayers forked out around $40k so that Terrence can have an A380 endorsement? Is this an accompliment to Sky Sentinel?
Why does a near 80 year old geriatric who couldn't even move his arthritic bones into the flight deck need such an endorsement? Is it for ego, out of boredom, some perverted sense of pride or just an addiction to wasting taxpayer money?

CAsA executive management's nosewheel has hit the ground and the remainder of the organisation has skidded to a halt (Oops, Creampuff know's all about nosehweel scrapings).

Why do bullies like Terry, Herr Campbell and Flyingfiend get promoted through the ranks? C'mon Flyingfiend, come out and play. What, scared of the AFP? Not so brave anymore old chap are you.

Why is 'the Doc' gaining behind the scenes votes? A showdown coming? Is he working with the department to rid the Skull? MrDork must be desperate, but then again he is the main problem. Get rid of all the DAS, MrDork, Truss, The Board, the lot of them. CAsA is a bunch of arseclowns
and are supported by the department and the Ministers office. What a shonky bunch of muppets and serial trough abusers.

C'mon Gaunty, Flyingfiend and Clinton, come out and play!!

[Cactusjack]

Gold Casaweary Gold!
But I thought Terry was older than that

[thorn bird]

Casaweary, please tell us!! their not actually going to let him fly a real airplane are they?? by that I mean actually sit in a control seat and play
"I'm an airline Captain"?? surely not....I mean think of the risks!!..If he's just going to sit on the jump seat not so bad but I can envisage a raft of NCN's for improper operation against the operating crew because he is now an annointed expert, hell even if they are not endorsed FOI's direct how operations are to be conducted.
Thats up until a ding happens because of their insane procedures, then of course..."ME your honour?? Absolutely not!! these "Not fit and proper persons, criminals really" totally misconstrued what I was forcing....err suggesting they do".
We had a Captain sheik once, son of one of the rulers, decided to be an airline captain because he thought thats where the chicks were!! His country had to underwrite the insurance every time he flew...paid out a few mil in heavy landings and screwed engines its rumoured.
So who underwrites the insurance if this geriatric has a brain fart somewhere and bends an A380??...Damn it all my daddy said I should have been a lawyer!! Why didnt I listen!!

[LeadSled]

Industry often comments that it is not possible to make this stuff up – only CASA has the prerequisite levels of incompetence to create and sustain such regulatory nonsense.

Folks,
Of all the quotable quotes from the AAAA submission, the above is just about my favorite.
Tootle pip!!

[Paragraph377]

Thy trough runneth over

My favourite part of Casaweary's post:

CAsA executive management's nosewheel has hit the ground and the remainder of the organisation has skidded to a halt (Oops, Creampuff know's all about nosehweel scrapings).

Seems Casaweary knows a lot of history? Creampuff care to respond?
As for the quote about the deputy DAS, if this is true then whoever authorised his endorsement is not only an idiot but obviously a fellow abuser of the taxpayer purse. These blokes really are disconnected from reality aren't they? No wonder industry has started to revolt.

Thorn bird, no A380 will be bent. The old geezer can only bend the taxpayers purse by becoming endorsed. I doubt he could see all those gauges, colours or words on the FMS anyway. Plus incontinence is a problem for the elderly too so the flight deck is not the place to be!
Wonder if signed him off as being medically fit, Hemples doctor? Or maybe Terry is one of those blokes from the movie 'Cocoon'?

[Creampuff]

Creampuff care to respond?

My parents always advised me not to make eye contact with lunatics.

Jeremy Clarkson cautions against trying to engage in intelligent conversation with mouth-breathers.

So I’ll pass.

[thorn bird]

Para, all is well. no need to worry about A380's landing on the house.
Apparently the endo for Terrence was not so he could play "I'm an airline captain", just put a bit of icing on his retirement cake, something about being based on his last years salary which should be the equivalent of what a real A380 check and trainer earns, which is fair enough now he's an A380 expert.

[Frank Arouet]

How come Gaunty got a mention. Is he part of the iron circle?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I have a bit of a problem with this A380 story.

If the said gentleman's pension is to be based on an (presumably QF, as the only Australian example) A380 Check and Training Captain, I would have thought that was a reduction, compared to the CASA senior executive salary levels.

Tootle Pip!!

[Boratous]

Creampuff

I agree with your comments about the AAAA submission. It's very perceptive and accurate.

However, I'm not sure about your comment that:

"The fundamental constraint that ‘outsiders’ overlook is that the CASA Board can’t make or unmake decisions to e.g. refuse, suspend or revoke an AOC. The CASA Board can’t direct a delegate to make or not make a regulatory decision."

I think it's true that the Board can't direct delegates how to exercise their delegated powers. But I think that the Board can probably issue, suspend, revoke AOCs etc. This is because such regulatory powers (and most powers) are given to "CASA".

Subsection 53(3) of the Civil Aviation Act unambiguously states that -

"(3) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Board are taken to have been done by CASA."

So if the Board issued an AOC (or refused to issue or revoked an AOC) in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then that would be a lawful exercise of CASA's power. However, no doubt the Board would not want to actually exercise any regulatory powers for fear of getting it wrong and being accountable.

This is the same sort of power that the Director uses under s 73(2) of the Act which says that:

"(2) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Director are taken to have been done by CASA."

What do you make of subsection 53(3)?

[LeadSled]

CASA Media Release - 14 February 2013
Director of Aviation Safety
The Chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board, Dr Allan Hawke, has today announced that Mr John McCormick will not be seeking a further term of appointment as Director of Aviation Safety.
Mr McCormick has, however, agreed, to the Board’s request to stay on in the position until 31 August 2014.This will allow for an executive search process to fill the position and enable the Director to assist the Board’s initial consideration of the Government’s Independent Review of Aviation Safety Regulation scheduled to be completed around the end of May.
Mr McCormick’s leadership over the last five years has been the critical factor behind the significant improvements to Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime and CASA’s performance. The aims he set out when taking up the position have been largely achieved, including:

• refocussing CASA on regulation of aviation safety as its core activity;
• improving CASA’s governance by restructuring it around functional lines;
• ensuring CASA staff are properly trained and deployed through the Brisbane-based training school and establishment of the Central Region and satellite offices at Broome, Gove, Horn Island and Kununurra;
• addressing emerging issues such as remotely piloted aircraft and Australia’s ageing aircraft;
• completion of the major part of the modernisation of aviation safety standards in a most expeditious manner and the attendant improvements in industry performance through the regulatory reform program;
• introduction of advanced air traffic navigation and surveillance equipment;
• reform of CASA’s surveillance and safety management systems oversight; and
• enhancement of air traffic services at major regional and capital city secondary airports.

These improvements have come at a time of increasing and more complex demands on CASA with major growth in Australia’s diversified aviation sectors and record numbers of domestic and international passengers flying in Australian skies.
Australia’s outstanding international reputation for aviation safety owes much to John McCormick’s stewardship and the reforms and initiatives undertaken on his watch.
Dr Hawke acknowledged that CASA had had to take significant regulatory action in relation to a few aviation operators, aircraft types and aircraft equipment over the last five years. Dr Hawke praised Mr McCormick’s key role in ensuring that these actions were taken by CASA to protect the travelling public and industry operators.
The Authority has also developed a more stable funding model under Mr McCormick’s direction to underpin sustainable and effective operations for CASA.
The Board has regarded it as a privilege to serve with John McCormick in the interests of “Safe Skies for All” and wishes him all the very best in his future endeavours.
Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [email protected]
Ref: MR1214

Folks,
Don't you just luuurve spin doctor's press releases, when about 95% of the aviation community agree to a large degree with the views of the AAAA, RAAA etc., (except for AOPA, sadly, but he who pays the piper calls the tune))
Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Boratous: You are conflating the consequences of what the Board does with what the Board has power to do. Section 53(3) does not determine what the Board has power to do (just as section 73(2) does not determine what the Director has power to do). A Board has functions. They are set out in s 53.

If the Director says "I claim this Island in the name of CASA", or "I purchase this casino in the name of CASA", I'm confident CASA won't own the Island or be obliged to pay for the casino.

But I could be wrong: Submit your next AOC application to the Board and let us know if the Board resolves to issue you with, and issues you with, an AOC.

Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution.

Interesting times.

[Boratous]

Creampuff
I’m not sure that your example is a valid example. Of course, neither the Board nor the Director could simply say “on behalf of CASA I grant you a passport”. This is because CASA itself does not have any statutory power to grant passports – or to claim an Island or casino (as in your example). Section 53(3) clearly only works in the context of CASA’s statutory powers. On this basis, if the Act or regulations give "CASA" a power to do something, then section 53(2) expressly states that if that thing is done by the Board in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then it is taken to have been done by CASA (similarly with the Director under 73(2)).

The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions. This does not seem to be relevant to the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers.

This seems to be the basis on which the DAS, for example, makes Civil Aviation Orders, eg:

“I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
22 March 2011”

The power to make Orders is given to CASA not the DAS. But acting under 73(2) the DAS can on behalf of CASA make an Order. If it was minded to, I think that the Board could also make Orders and do anything else that CASA was empowered to do. etc. But it obviously chooses not to do so for whatever reasons – probably fear of having to accept responsibility for any such decisions.

[Sarcs]

Maybe Hawke is right??

Creamy:

Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution.

That might be so Creamy but it is interesting that, so far at least, the only government site (including the Miniscule’s office) that is publishing the Hawke rubbish is Fort Fumble...

Maybe, in some bizarre way, Hawke is right and Skull has done the industry a huge favour.., after all where would we have got the term…“Ills of Society”…from if not for the, soon to be former, DAS?? Would industry groups have been quite so motivated to produce excellent submissions, like the AAAA one… , if we had a lesser sociopath at the joystick??

As for the WLR solution from the Miniscule, well it is fast becoming a rather forlorn hope while submissions like the following from ALAEA (FedSec Steve’s mob) keep popping up..

ALAEA WLR submission

Although obviously somewhat more subjective, the ALAEA submission still contains the same underlying & strong message (i.e. ‘same hymn sheet'), here are their recommendations:

Part 4 - ALAEA Recommendations

1. Based upon extensive professional experience Australia’s Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers recommend:

2. That CASA realign its organisational structure and priorities to the primary auditing and oversight role required as the supervisor of an outcome based aviation rule framework;

3.That in order to address the inherent conflict arising from outcome based approaches in a liberalised (commercially focused) industry, CASA must increase the strength of its enforcement activities and penalties (similar to the enforcement policy of the US FAA);

4.That CASA be required to respond in an official, open and timely manner to breaches and safety concerns brought to its attention and advise the outcomes of investigations or the reasons for non-action;

5. That the Government develop legislation supporting an aviation Whistleblower Protection Program. And that CASA develop the policy for the WPP and administer the program and an associated Whistleblower Hotline service;

6. That the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner be established as a separate statutory office and be given powers to investigate and report to the CASA board and Minister on complaints in regard to aviation safety regulation administration;

7.That the Government consider amendments to the Fair Work Act to support employees acting in accordance with their professional reporting obligations under the Civil Aviation Act 1988;

8.That the government and CASA ensure reciprocity of Australian Part 66 engineering maintenance licensed with the EU or remove the recognition of the EU aircraft maintenance license as the basis for issue of an Australian part 66 license;

9. That the government reassess the replacement of Australian regulatory content with EASA rules where the Australian rules are more appropriate for our specific national requirements and industry;

10.That in any ongoing process of ICAO regulatory harmonisation, Australia adhere to the longheld principle of independent professional license holders and not allow the transfer of certifying authority from license holders to non-licensed personnel or company authorisations;

11. That CASR 42 should require a CAMO to ensure that any system of recording certification formaintenance (including an electronic system) must be able to delineate and identify a person and their authorised certification privileges in relation to the work being certified; to ensure unauthorised persons are not certifying for work outside their scope of qualifications and authorisation.
{Note: It is also worth perusing some of the member’s submissions/comments from pages 36-40}

FedSec Steve’s mob are also strongly supportive of the ‘small end of town’ GA operators....and were quite disturbed by what they witnessed at the, now infamous, AMROBA 2013 meeting:

26. The ALAEA is concerned about reports that some CASA officers have exercised a heavy handed approach to regulatory enforcement on a large number of smaller General Aviation operations. The ALAEA attended a meeting of small maintenance organisations and operators in 2013 (also attended by Senator Ian McDonald) where a number of these actions were discussed. Some organisations had said that they were going to close down because they could no longer bear the stress and financial burden of meeting vague and often contradictory new standards. Aircraft were being grounded late on Friday afternoon over administrative errors and reputations were being trashed.

27. GA operators were finding that issues that had been sanctioned by CASA officers for decades had suddenly become no-go items with CASA taking an increasingly hard and inflexible line. On the other hand, CASA appears to be allowing larger operators to regulate themselves and seems extraordinarily concerned with any cost imposition the more powerful operators might have to bear. ALAEA questions the disparity in enforcement activity that appears to be taking place between the industry’s segments.

Unfortunately for Hawkey the ALAEA submission (along with many others) does not paint the same, rose coloured glasses, exemplary picture of the current FF (Skull led..) regime....more to follow K2..

[dubbleyew eight]

item 4 in their submission is an item that is a bit of a concern.

the regs are a pox because a few of the underlying assumptions are wrong.

australian regulations have never really been in synch with private property rights.
we have the concept of "private property" in this country.
an owner has the inalienable right to use, enjoy and maintain private property.
that is what ownership is actually about.
except in aviation the regulatory mindset is observably ex-RAAF, an environment where private ownership was totally unknown, where one never did one's own maintenance and where subservience to "orders" was the operating method.

Australian aviation laws have it wrong. The canadians had the penny drop after a safety case they ran and they introduced two things. Canadian Private Owner maintenance and the facility to de-certify a production aeroplane and there after maintain it on a stand alone basis if it was in private use.

The ALEA demand that CASA act on reports is all well and good until you realise that australian law doesn't adequately recognise private ownership concepts. Seeking to preserve the LAME mandate over private owners just impinges on an area where the laws are observably deficient.

Of course what actually is General Aviation?
there is a whole area of GA that is nothing to do with commercial operation.
their voice seems totally drowned out in all the angst.

[Frank Arouet]

The Liberal Party denied any liability that may arise from saying sorry to the traditional owners, (who reckon to have some sort of a claim against my property), in much the same way that CASA rarely, (I can't think of one actually), admit liability to anything they may have caused by their own negligence, incompetence or vexatious means. Rudd did and I don't feel any more guilty than I did before although it is touted as 'statesmanship' at its finest. Probably beats the Gillard rant about Abbott hating women when he was attacking Slipper for the same thing, but the end result is probably manna from heaven for our legal brethren.


No, I doubt Truss will find anything that could lead to such an avenue being opened up as a result of his 'review'. Worms everywhere and the government is fiscally broken.


The best one can hope for is to rid ourselves of some floating and available slime and put an end to the RRP and introduce FAR's in such a way as they can be manipulated to suit the snouts in the troughs.


Someone once called me an anarchist, but seeing as I don't understand the law as it is writ, I don't know how to break it. Perhaps the FAR's will be more understandable and I can break them with a clear understanding of what I hate about authority.

[Creampuff]

The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions.

And what are the Board's functions, Boratous?

Re the ALEA submission, Sarcs, I'm not as big a fan of the ALEA submission as I am of the AAAA submission. I suspect a lot of ALEA members haven't heard of the Waddington Effect or its causes.

[Creampuff]

PS

I'm intrigued to find out what everyone believes these Boards can do that results in so much faith being put in a Board as part of the solution?

In regulatory regimes like aviation safety regulation, the exercise of delegated powers is determined by the relevant criteria in the legislation and the general law of administrative decision-making. The Board can’t override or change any of that. The Board may make or endorse policies that are relevant to and within the narrow scope permitted by the legislation, but these are generally very broad statements of strategic principle – dare I say motherhood? CASA has an ample supply of warm and fuzzy policies.

My view is that the only practical thing a competent CASA Board could have done is prevented the creation and growth of the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program. But the far better way to have achieved that outcome was to not have given CASA the job in the first place.

You’ve seen the experiment right before your eyes: CASA with a Board and CASA without a Board. What difference did it make? One of those Boards had Dick Smith and Bruce Byron on it (among other people with business and aviation expertise). What difference did it make?

Board or not, CASA’s functions and powers must be constrained to a very narrow and simple regulatory role (which does not include managing the regulatory reform process), and the senior executives of the organisation must be qualified and experienced in managing regulatory organisations.