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 Mar 2014, 03:56
  #441 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
See if you can pick who and when:
Govt clips the wings of air safety body

The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.

The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The Transport Minister [Tweedle Dumb] says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.

The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.

Mr [Dumb] says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.

"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.

Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.


The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.

Laborial transport spokesman, [Tweedle Dumber], says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.

"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 04:32
  #442 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,403
New Board members for CASA? Why of course! Alan Joyce and Olivia Wirth...
Sunfish is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 04:51
  #443 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
this outcome is deplorable.
McCormic's comment that no matter what the new rules will remain seems to have come to pass.
stupid incompetent politicians.

back in the 70's the air was the same and the aeroplanes were the same.
we were congratulated for years of safe aviation.
people occasionally came to grief but weather and granite can be unforgiving and we all understood that.

nowadays we still fly without incident but the regulator can't stand us ignoring their dribble and seek to grind our noses in it.
dare we do what is safe and ignore them we are all criminals.

what utter bloody nonsense all this new environment is.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 06:21
  #444 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Gold Star UITR!

See if you can pick who and when:
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 06:36
  #445 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 64
Posts: 677
Eight is a bard's delight.

To start the ball rolling on a database of malapropisms...

abrogate, alleviate, date (as in the anatomical location e.g. the eight's date of appointment), debate, defecate, deflate, delineate, discombobulate, illiterate, inarticulate, inappropriate, levitate, obfuscate, permeate, prostate, prostrate, regurgitate, relegate, resuscitate, sate, wait ...there must be more in the MEL.

So rotate ye bards
VR-HFX is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 06:51
  #446 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.
Creamie, I reads very close to the one put out prior to McCormick joining? But could be an earlier one. Establish a board, de establish , re establish etc.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 08:09
  #447 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Miniscules explanatory statement..

From HoR Hansard for Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014:
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (12:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities—and our cities to the world.

The increased diversity of the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system—any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates.

Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)—Australia's aviation safety regulator.

CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator—a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.

The CASA board, in its current form, was established in July 2009 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be adopted by CASA. The board is also responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, complying with directions given by the minister.

The CASA board currently consists of the Director of Aviation Safety (who is also the Chief Executive Officer of CASA), as an ex-officio member, and up to four board members (including the chair and deputy chair).

The Coalition's Policy for Aviation, released in August 2013, outlined a number of commitments to enhance and strengthen aviation.

The government has since established an external aviation safety regulation review, which is being undertaken by a panel of leading aviation experts.

The review is well underway, with the review panel examining the suitability of Australia's aviation safety related regulations and the outcomes and direction of CASA's regulatory reform process.

The panel is also examining the structures, effectiveness and processes of CASA with a view to ensuring that best practice in aviation safety is maintained. The panel has received around 250 submissions from interested parties across the aviation industry. The review panel is expected to report to the government by the end of May 2014.

The Coalition's Policy for Aviation also outlined our commitment to improve CASA's structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation's abilities to function as Australia's aviation safety regulator.

To deliver on this commitment the government intends to appoint two additional members to the CASA board.

At least two of the board members will be required to have technical and/or operational aviation experience to strengthen the board's aviation knowledge, skills and practical experience. The expanded board will be well-placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction—which the government will issue, as allowed for under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act, after the government has considered the review panel's final report.

Establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation will enhance CASA's capability to respond as Australia's aviation safety regulator. Through the introduction of a new strategic direction, the government plans to reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but will also set out the leadership role of the board in implementing the strategic direction of CASA.

Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that implements this commitment to take decisive action to strengthen the nation's aviation safety agency and their oversight of the aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill will allow the government to fulfil undertakings, made in the coalition's policy for aviation, to have important enhancements to safety governance in place from 1 July 2014.

The bill will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the size of the board by two members. The appointment of two additional members will increase the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board, which will better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation.

The bill improves the capacity and effectiveness of CASA to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse aviation industry. CASA must have the right structure, resources and legal framework to regulate the civil aviation industry to enhance the safety of the travelling public, industry participants and the wider community.

The provisions of the bill will provide for the CASA board to be comprised of six members appointed by the minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member, that is, seven members in total.

The board will play an important role monitoring CASA's effectiveness and accountability across the authority's range of functions and will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, allowing for meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders.

Importantly, the enhanced board will be in place to implement CASA's new strategic direction.

Enhancing the CASA board is one important step in ensuring we continue to foster an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is proportionate to risks and delivers the highest level of safety—a level of regulation that does not unreasonably restrict innovation and growth in the industry.

It is vital that government and industry share the responsibility for addressing these challenges.

The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety—we are taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry.

Debate adjourned.
Which, if you remember, is what was promised in the Coalition’s pre-election aviation policy...

"...b. CASA board
CASA’s board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established again.

While boards in other agencies have been successful in setting and implementing the strategic direction of their agency, CASA’s board structure has been the subject of criticism.

The Coalition will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the board from four to six members, including some with aviation skills and experience.

This expansion will increase the breadth of knowledge and experience on the CASA board and better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation..."

Interesting that after question time in the Senate on Tuesday, proceedings went to the TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS debate, the subject matter being (of course) Qantas. Senator Fawcett made a contribution to that debate, where he said:
That is why I welcome the coalition's promise of reforming the CASA board. We see that the coalition will be increasing the size of board to bring skills of aviation engineering and operations onto that board. We also see reform of the regulatory sector, which is undergoing an inquiry right now.
Which is a slight expansion on the original pre-election promise and it would appear that this is one promise that the miniscule will adhere to...

Here is the video cut of the complete DF statement, which is interesting in itself..:[YOUTUBE]Senator Fawcett Carbon Tax & Aviation 04/03/14 - YouTube
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 11:06
  #448 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Devil new board members

so Forsyth gets the engineering slot, who gets the operations slot?

the Skull, perhaps???
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 11:54
  #449 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
Old games rehashed

Board positions did I hear you say??
All open slots will go to people with Coalition heritage, or in the very least have loyally served their masters in some capacity over the years.
This entire episode will be a circus act. Current Board members will already have slots lined up back in Can'tberra somewhere as nobody in bureaucracy comes out as a loser.
Truss's announcement is soft, a slap with Creampuffs wet lettuce. Expand the seats at the trough x 2, bring in another DAS 'yes man'. Add to this the Dolan trio of Commissioners over at the other alphabet soup organisation, they will also go, then you will have some robust debate that will take place over the following 18 months about which set of aviation rules to adapt and hey presto it's election time again! It's all tautological, a merry-go-round, Groundhog Day.

For any credibility to shine out of all this we would have to see Fawcett appointed as junior minister for aviation, somebody like Mike Smith brought in as CASA DAS, MrDak removed, no Skull affiliation with the new Board and ALL existing CASA Board members wiped along with the 'other' two DAS members that make up the trio. The LSD would need to be replaced and here is a thought - Accountability introduced into the CASA framework. And finally, a Royal Commission, which actually has teeth, formed to investigate the allegations of systemic malfeasance and corporate abuse towards individuals inside and outside of CASA, and an investigation of the $250 million 25 year sinkhole called Regulatory reform. Add to this the need for scrutiny over the Pel Air and Lockhart crashes which remain unresolved from which justice has to be sought for those families and friends of the deceased or injured in these accidents. Then the IOS may be mildly convinced that changes, real changes, are afoot.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 19:05
  #450 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Wheat from chaff.

There seem to be more positive features in yesterday's back and forth than negatives; I believe a small round of polite applause may be given. With perhaps a small bravo thrown in for the debate between – Fawcett – and - Xenophon – on the CAO 48 matter. DF essentially agrees with the wide concept of change and industry involvement but feels that while 48 is not perfect; it is an improvement. NX presents an equally compelling argument that 48 is 'bad' law and CASA need to go away and do their homework. The real win (IMO) is that two Senators feel secure enough to take a different stance, present lucid, intelligent argument, for and against the disallowance, without any other issues at heart, bar aviation improvement. It's most refreshing to find a subject like pilot fatigue being debated, both sides of the coin articulated and the chance to reach a rational conclusion, a real bonus. The NOES had it; (that's democracy) but well done Senators, VIPA, AIPA and others who assisted to bring the subject to debate . The notion that industry may have a voice is appealing; 48 may have been the subject but it has opened several previously closed doors. Bravo.

Like 377, I too am bored with the board; I fail to see how two additional members can achieve any more than a two or three 'man' board could, if indeed we need a board. It is of concern that Truss has elected to continue with the existing crew. Until it is made clear that the current board has not been compromised in any way, it could consider stepping aside. At least until the inevitable investigation of CASA is complete and the board is exonerated, beyond reasonable doubt. The departure of McComic is insignificant, the acts which have been committed in the name of the 'air safety' remain firmly attached. If the board was not made fully aware, then perhaps an excuse exists; but I doubt the CAC act is as forgiving as we may be. Even with Truss madly gilding the Lilly, it is hard to see how industry can have faith, considering the carnage, rapine and embuggerance left behind. Only my opinion of course, but I do believe the board has been compromised: if so, it is most certainly unintentional; probably in all innocence and undoubtedly in good faith, but...there is a spectral elephant parked next to the pot plant in the boardroom. Any board needs clear air to work in, credibility and our trust if it is to be effective. The Quadrio and Canely Vale matters, standing alone beg some very serious questions. The Forsyth nomination?, we shall see in May.

The whiff of a Dolan long overdue departure is in the air though, ain't it? Been tossing some ideas around (as you do, over a beer); ATSB should be easier to sort out than CASA (no board). I note CJ brings the inestimable Mike Smith to the CASA debate, but when ATSB is mentioned, the name Rob Graham gets some serious consideration. Consensus is that if he could be persuaded to take on a short term, say a twelve month, gig to clean up the Beaker'ised agency, normal service would soon be restored. Can you imagine having a non CASA'ised report on an accident like Canely Vale. Oh, be still my beating heart.

On balance, I'd say the IOS had a good day, yesterday. Not perfect, but considering the barriers and vested interests in play; not too shabby at all. Ye Gods, I hate politics; wish they'd get a bloody wriggle on. Whoop it up 'em Shags, they're not our engines.


Last edited by Kharon; 6th Mar 2014 at 20:25. Reason: There now, all better.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 19:26
  #451 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The experiment with the Board has already been run and the results are already in: With or without; big or small; aviation appointees or not – not a schmick of difference.

The Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act to expand the size of the Board is a perfect opportunity for the Senate to introduce amendments to implement the recommendations of its own Committee’s air accident investigation report. The Laborial Senators have the power to force those amendments.

Talk from Fawcett and his Laborial colleagues is cheap, Kharon. It’s how they use their Senate vote that counts. (What’s that old saying about judging people by what they do, not what they say …)

You watch: There’ll be lots of high sounding rhetoric about safety, but all that will come out of the Senate is a Bill for two more slots on the CASA Board.

That’s why CASA and ATSB called the Senate Committee’s bluff. They know the Laborial Senators are all talk and no action (unless it’s politically expedient).
Creampuff is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 20:00
  #452 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Concur with my learned colleague.

Cheers Creamy; and I must agree, up to a point. While not running out the bunting or dancing in the street, it did cheer me a little to see that the Senators are not following the trail of breadcrumbs to the changing rooms. I have very little faith and less time for Polly's, no matter what flavour or colour; but I can and do have an as yet untarnished faith in Fawcett, Xenophon and a couple of others on the inquiry committee. What they can still achieve will, as you quite rightly say, be seen. If it all turns to worms, then industry must accept a fair portion of blame. You all know the rest of that tune. All up, CASA and ATSB may well have won a small, insignificant battle, but look at what they have exposed to scrutiny. Even the longest journey starts with one small step. I'll hang in there for while yet. Peace in our time ?– Bollocks, not on my houseboat.

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun

Richard III: courtesy of Mr. Shakespeare.

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Mar 2014 at 20:06. Reason: Not a full stop then, just dust on the screen. Whistles up dogs, exits stage left.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 20:08
  #453 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
Kharon, post#542, think you have me confused with CJ. Thanks for the compliment though. I think
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 21:17
  #454 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Lady McTruss!

While we're on Will...

“Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power
to account?
—Yet who would have thought the old
man to have had so much blood in him?”

It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)...

For those interested here are the poohtube segments from Nick's DM CAO 48.1 debate yesterday:

Hmm big contribution from the opposition's side of the fence..

Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2014, 18:41
  #455 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Elephant Gambit.

Queen's Pawn Countergambit (Elephant Gambit, Maroczy Gambit) – C40 – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5
Sarcs #546 –"It may all come to nought but the gun is well and truly pointed at the miniscule (with interest)
Thanks Sarcs - The 30 odd minutes of 'video' provided are interesting. Of course it depends on your point of view, but for mine, despite the opposing votes, both men between them essentially set out their vision for the future. If you compare the agreed points and neatly dovetailed argument, there is only one point of dissent and that was the 48 furphy. By debating the disallowance almost everything wrong within the aviation world was brought out and placed on record, which is (IMO) exactly what 'the boys' wanted. The cost of this pyrrhic CASA win was high, the whole sad saga dragged into the light; Dolan discredited and the Sleepy Hollow dirty laundry dumped in the street. Even the dubious, inutile Chamber pot missive was, once again, used as a stick to beat the hapless McComic. Everyone knows why that report was written; but the Senators gleefully continue to use it as the weapon of choice; bit unfortunate that, ain't it?

Truss may well have the Senators limited in what they can achieve; after all the miniscule has all the juice; but, that's where the buck stops. With Barnaby patting the miniscule back (to find a nice soft spot), Qantas and the rest all over his front, the opposition flanking; will he hazard his Queen to protect his Bishop?; course not. He may need to sacrifice Pawns even a Rook; his position is tenuous and Knights are regularly slaughtered to protect a King.

The Senators ranging shots have the miniscule neatly in the crosshairs and they still have at least three rounds of ordnance left to use; (i) the Pel Air response and all that entails; (ii) the CTSB report on our moribund ATSB, (iii) the WLR. Add to that CASA is on notice that unless industry is 'satisfied', each new piece of legislation can and will be challenged by the Senators. Bravo.

The question; is the miniscule part of the master plan?. He can't just pitch up and sack CASA, day one in office. If he is on the IOS team first he must be able to prove the case and win the appeal before the execution. The Senators have set this up beautifully for him; IF the WLR can establish 'facts and circumstances', presenting the miniscule with lots of wriggle room, buttons to push and levers to pull (it appears the Reverend Forsyth is doing just that); then, maybe, with a big push from behind, some of the less desirable acts committed under the smoke of safety mystique and the mirror of disinformation will be curtailed. No matter what, the clock is ticking and it is the miniscule to move next.

"We were eyeball to eyeball and I think the other guy just blinked". Dean Rusk (Cuban missile crisis).

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Mar 2014 at 18:57. Reason: Forgot the elephant, I know, I know: but I did.
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 23:43
  #456 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Snoop Behind closed doors and the Elephant Gambit??

Nick’s thought bubble on CAO 48.1 commenced with this…
From which a QON was received from NX…

“…Senator Xenophon asked:
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.

Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.

Mr Boyd: Indeed.

Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?

Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.

Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.

Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.

Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?

Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?

Mr Boyd: Absolutely….”

Which was finally answered like this…
A comprehensive briefing on fatigue and risk management systems (FRMS) and issues related to Civil Aviation Order 48 (CAO 48) was provided by CASA to members of the Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on Monday 24 June and Tuesday 25 June 2013.

Ultimately CASA must be satisfied that an airline’s FRMS meets its rigorous safety requirements and CASA will monitor and audit industry compliance with their approved FRMS.

CASA has established a comprehensive implementation and awareness program to inform the aviation industry and its employees of the new rules. This program includes the use of:

• a wide ranging fatigue “question and answer” section on its website;
• a detailed fatigue booklet and implementation guide on its website;
• a fatigue risk management system handbook and process manual; and
• national face-to-face briefing sessions with industry and interested stakeholders which commenced earlier in May 2013….”

Interesting that on the very same day of the FF 1st day of briefing (24 June 2013) Nick put forward his DM on CAO 48.1, which was closely followed (2 days later) by the AIPA media brief in support of Nick’s DM:

Safety risked by flawed aviation rules that would result in fatigued pilots landing planes after 20 hours at the controls

Then we had this revelation in DF’s contribution to the DM CAO 48.1 debate…
“….I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…
All those bods, behind closed doors, in one room the mind boggles..

Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1; or maybe they were otherwise engaged since then; or maybe they were happy with the general consensus (bi-partisan proposal) as stated by DF…

“…Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1….”

However history shows that such panel’s recommendations/concerns almost always are ignored when it comes to final rule-making by Fort Fumble, so what is different with this case?? Was their perhaps a multi-party informal agreement?? If so why did NX not drop the DM??

Passing strange....that the DM still had a number of sitting days to run and yet Nick had it brought forward for debate almost at the very same time that the miniscule was introducing the board amendment to the CAA…

The Elephant Gambit:

It may be the miniscule has the next move but the good Senators have certainly cut down his available options , while effectively outing at least one elephant on the board…

So to the division where the AYES are perhaps more interesting than the NOES- AYES: 10 NOES: 39 (The Senate divided. [13:27])

Creamy it would appear that Senator X has already established, in aviation matters at least, a loose alliance with the Greens.. Interesting times ahead come the 1st of July…
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2014, 03:13
  #457 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
Even Korea outclasses the Australian Skull and Beaker!

Interesting article linked below. It took an aviation 'kick in the pants' by means of a safety downgrade for the Koreans to get things together. Perhaps Australia can learn a lesson or two from the measures that they adopted? It is very obvious that the Skull and the Beaker show has not done anything to improve Australia's safety.

Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 02:57
  #458 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
While the Miniscule etc get the week off...

Submission update: While we continue to wait for the miniscule to make his next move....there is a couple more submissions that have come to light..: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia - Submission to Aviation Safety Regulation Review

The SAAA submission IMO gets the IOS tick of approval..

Coupla quotes...

"...Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are supposed to work together to administer aviation in Australia. Is this effective? The answer, in our opinion, is it could be a whole lot better. It is our opinion this may be because of the lack of a functional government mandate for the management of aviation in Australia...
...Other areas of CASA appear to be suffering high staff turnover, or have staff that cannot differentiate between commercial & private operations, and/or have no-one in charge willing to make any decision for fear of repercussions from other departments. CASA is therefore unable to manage outcomes in our sector of aviation (that have been identified by us and the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as desirable safety outcomes) that are well within the capability of the SAAA to deliver...

....then had to start all over again with a new CASA staff member who has not been fully briefed. This leads to delays that are measured in years due to corporate knowledge at CASA being lost in the transition of staff. Meanwhile, CASA demands management stability of our organisation as a condition of a small amount of funding for the hard work that we do for aviation safety, but is not able to offer us the same in return..."

Interesting take on ToR 2) and the Oz SSP :
a) The State Safety Program (SSP)

i) While there is a published SSP document which as of November last year is out of date due to the implementation of Annex 19.
ii) The document reads like a text book about SMS in parts but mostly it reads like a self-reflective feel good novel.
iii) The ICAO SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
iv) Such a SSP Program Document should articulate who is accountable and in the sub parts who is responsible for the component parts. The Document should state how the Program will work, what the component parts are and the overall performance goals are set and measured. It will state the role of CASA and other Departments in the overall delivery.
v) If an effective SSP existed any inter departmental ‘turf wars’ as we have witnessed in the past few years will be evident immediately and action taken to remedy the situation.
I could go on but because it is well reasoned and easily readable (14 pages) I'll let those interested do the reading..

So finally to the SAAA recommendations:
1) Minister intervention to force timely and correct change;

a) The SAAA requests CASA revisits the Project CS 13/01and apply some of the logic that allowed non TSO EFB in the cockpits of all the high and Low Capacity RPT aircraft in Australia.
b) Resource and direct a project to consider the application and empower the SAAA deliver the Flight Training project it initiated in 2008.
c) Resource and direct a project to consider SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to deliver trained Authorised Persons for the issue of Certificates of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft.
d) Resource and direct a project to consider S SAAA to manage the delegations on behalf of CASA necessary to issue Maintenance Authorities to members.
e) Mandate that all Amateur Built Aircraft builders and operators operate within a management stream of SAAA or a like organisation so that adequate standards are maintained and thus funds are available to deliver the proposed programs.

2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)

a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
Next was the Warbirds contribution, which was really a 'in support of' submission but does make some worthy points: Australian Warbirds - Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel

"...We strongly believe that, as part of its charter, CASA should be tasked with the support and promotion of Australian aviation. This would include but not be limited to protection of the nation’s airport infrastructure from overzealous or neglectful councils and landlords, the crafting of regulations that are conducive to investment in the industry and which eliminate a large amount of the red tape that currently exists, and efforts to bolster ties and cooperation with other nations and their respective national aviation agencies. With its sole stated purpose currently being aviation safety, CASA is in a perverse way fostering an environment that is in our opinion both less safe and overly consumed with regulatory compliance masquerading as safety. As more emphasis is placed on paperwork and more compliancy requirements pile up as part of the everyday operating demands of Australia’s general aviation sector, the incentives increase on otherwise professional businesses to cut corners and/or conduct things "off the books". These requirements are also leading to a dramatic increase in costs for operations such as flight instruction with very little or no benefit...
...The current environment has deteriorated to the degree that the general aviation community on a whole has lost faith in CASA in its present form to effectively regulate. Where a clear, well-understood, and accepted foundation for regulations should exist; we instead have a disjointed and inconsistent model. As a solution, the Australian Warbirds Association feels adoption of the New Zealand regulatory model for general aviation presents the best way forward. This will not solve all the problems currently affecting Australia’s aviation sector, but it will in our opinion put us on the right track. New Zealand, in contrast to Australia, has a vibrant aviation community. We hope to see the same here.."

Again (IMO) the AWA submission gets the IOS tick of approval...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 03:08
  #459 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Cool Behind Closed Doors


You intrigued me with your take on things (dunno about elephants though), so I made some calls.

the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same…
What I was told was - watch the smoke and mirrors!

The meeting was brokered by Senator Fawcett with the genuine intention of trying to negotiate an outcome that avoided the need for Disallowance. The "position" he read into Hansard was the position that he took to the meeting and it was never going to change. Albo's mob were never interested anyway and CASA were there because they were told to be. Truss wasn't there, but I gather his "position" on the subject was whatever DF advised him it would be. Importantly, neither AIPA nor Senators Xenophon and Rhiannon agreed or adopted DF's "position". CASA, led by the Skull, had no interest in the discussion other than the standard "trash the opposition" approach.

My reading of the tea leaves is that it was a meeting held so that it could be said that a meeting took place - as the Hansard now reflects, implying that it was a meeting of like-minded people genuinely trying to solve a problem. The real issue is that only AIPA,Senator Xenophon and Senator Rhiannon were trying to solve the CAO 48.1 problem - the others were trying to remove a 'machinery of Government" problem!

As for your:

Does kind of explain why AIPA went quiet on the subject of CAO 48.1
I am also told that the only "quiet" that occurred was due to the election and the need to start the Disallowance sequence all over again. AIPA apparently has continued to lobby for the disallowance right up to the debate, which occurred as originally schedule. I also understand that the "out of the public eye" approach, in stark contrast to Chicken Little Joyce's megaphone bullying, has garnered lots more listeners and believers.

I suggested that it obviously didn't work, because the motion was voted down. The response was that the ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.

For what it is worth, I was also told that "while this might have been a major battle, it isn't the end of the war"
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 09:09
  #460 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
[T]he ensuing division demonstrated how party politics works - the previous Government on whose watch the rules were made voted with the Government that has inherited the rules to avoid the embarrassment of shooting down their "own" agency.
I’d suggest everyone read that passage as many times as is necessary to understand the implications, and to ask questions if necessary.

I’ll start with a Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Fawcett’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?

A second Dorothy Dixer: Was Senator Xenophon’s vote an “aye” or a “nay”?

My suggestion: To avoid eventually feeling like a patsie, don’t judge Senators by what they say. Judge them by how they vote.
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.