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 16th Apr 2014, 06:03
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,311
...And it will require not One, but Three smoking holes before anything changes.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2014, 11:13
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 278
Ben's article was superb. Bad sadly the culture in Australian politics will always be one of lies, deceit, cover ups and spin. It's embedded, it's historical, it's a culture that will never change.
But here is a thought. Considering the deceitful and weak manner in which our political hierarchy and their departments operate, what confidence does this give the FAA when our airlines travel in to their territory, and their airlines travel in to our territory? Surely that must sit in the back of their minds somewhat? And to be honest, although the FAA is not as clean as it would like others to believe, it does have somewhat larger, more robust testicles. At least most Yanks know if they are travelling on a half decent carrier or one that is a complete cluster f#ck. Sadly we down under don't normally receive such liberty as our pathetic bureaucratic system thrives on deception, obsfucation and outright incompetence.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 06:09
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
PT comments plus 'other safety related matters'

P377:
Ben's article was superb. Bad sadly the culture in Australian politics will always be one of lies, deceit, cover ups and spin. It's embedded, it's historical, it's a culture that will never change.
You may well be right Para and on current evidence maybe it will require Sunny's prediction of three smoking holes so that...

"...The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster..."

However while we are on Ben's 'superb' article there are also some excellent comments worth viewing and another (heart felt) troubling publicly available WLR submission..:
discus
Posted April 16, 2014 at 9:57 am | Permalink
David, I do not think that is the point.

One, they did find it even if way too late. Two, having found it they acted strongly.

Finding the error itself is remarkable considering the time and resources it takes to carry out detailed forensic audits like this.

Airlines largely self regulate which is another part of the problem. Problems can be hidden by incorrect data entry, misunderstanding of the AD by the engineers/technical people or just plain negligence.
The point is that, at least it is a public issue and the fine substantial.
The contrast with that and CASA’s secretive operations and somewhat selective attention to some operators is quite clear in the cases Ben has brought to our attention.

There are many good people at CASA but as an organisation they leave a lot to be desired.

My fear is that they are not being allowed to be a more effective regulator.

Self Loading Freight
Posted April 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
The proposal to adopt FAA-style financial penalties in Australia has been raised before and most recently in the ALAEA submission to Forsyth:
http://alaea.asn.au/attachments/arti...n_20140214.pdf

The apparently cosy relationship between CASA and the major operator(s) has been a complaint heard regularly from industry stakeholders including ALAEA and AIPA as well as from GA operators contrasting their treatment by CASA. We can only hope that Forsyth seriously considers both the claim and possible remedies.

Toodle loo.

Pete Simpkins
Posted April 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
CASA is your bog standard public service department with its own typically opaque bureaucracy that hides a 9-5 culture, all ranks filled with incompetent/lazy regulators and relationships that are way to skewed to keeping friendly relations with airlines. It needs a broom, and while I suspect it will never rise to levels of efficiency, it could at least aspire to effectiveness. Unfortunately, I highly doubt this will happen until there’s a serious accident, by which time it can be expected to shock the public. We have a safety record due only to efforts of the industry, which is not acceptable given the statutory responsibilities of CASA. Props Ben for keeping this issue alive, keep doing so.

David Klein
Posted April 17, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Ben, you are correct in commenting on the submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review not being made available to the public being a form of suppression and for this reason my submission has been chapter and verse below:

AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW SUBMISSION
As a retired front line CASA airworthiness inspector I wish to make a submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review panel based on my concerns for the significant shortcoming of the CASA regulatory oversight of Qantas. My experience as an airworthiness inspector from 1987 to 2008 involved over 10 years regulating General Aviation from the Bankstown airport office and another 10 years regulating Qantas with other regional airlines from the Sydney airport office. Unfortunately in my time there were a number of major restructures to the organization and from my observations it has only been the dedicated inspectors working at the coalface, despite ever changing politics and ineffective management of DOA, DOT, DOTC, CAA and CASA, that has kept the Australian aviation industry to even a reasonable level of air safety.

For many of my years working at the Sydney airport office I headed up the airworthiness inspection team to oversight Qantas and I found the limited resources and minimum unrealistic audit regime set by CASA management for the organisation almost beyond belief. At every endeavour when a head office manager from Canberra visited and engaged in an open question forum at the Sydney office I presented my concerns, as the head airworthiness inspector working at the Qantas coalface, but to no avail.


After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.

As an example of my concerns, during my tenure at the Sydney office the CASA Surveillance Manual provided all airworthiness audit requirements, however the matrix in the manual to determine the size of a Certificate of Approval holder, which dictated the type and frequency of audits required was limited to a provision for either above or below 55 staff. There was no separate provision in the manual for Qantas with over 6000 engineering staff and this resulted in the minimum number of audits required in the manual being totally unrealistic for Qantas, given the massive scale of the organisation across Australia and it’s numerous overseas line stations. For the majority of my years at the Sydney office the total number of inspectors dedicated to the Qantas airworthiness team was only four, resulting in a very small audit sample of the organisation and most of the 24 Qantas overseas maintenance line stations rarely received an audit.

Also adding to my concerns is many of the Qantas audits and surveillance requirements took place at Sydney airport where the CASA office was located. Since my retirement the office at Sydney airport has been closed and all front line inspectors have been amalgamated with the Bankstown airport office inspectors to an office building in the Sydney Central Business District, as a CASA cost cutting measure to reduce overheads in administration. However as established in a 2012 Senates Estimates hearing the move into the CBD has been found to actually increase CASA costs. The productivity now lost in travel to achieve the same audits and surveillance on each airport would be incalculable, not to mention the surveillance oversight benefits that are lost in not having a permanent CASA regulatory presence on site.

Trusting the members of the Safety Review Panel will give my submission due consideration towards improving the regulatory oversight performance and accountability of CASA under the “Safety related matters” terms of reference.

Yours sincerely,
David Klein


Tick Tock miniscule...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 11:22
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Former CAsA Inspector Joins IOS

Very interesting post by Mr Klein. People at the coalface often provide a more realistic report on what is truly going on.
No surprise about a lack of QF oversight and a CAsA surveillance procedures manual that doesn't address an organisation the size of QF. Also moving the field office into Sydney's CBD was another brainless idea created by executives with not a clue on how the field operations center truly works. I am surprised they don't move all offices to one location on an offshore oil rig somewhere in the Bass Strait?
Negligible CAsA oversight/audits of international operations including maintenance facilities? No surprise with that. CAsA's pot of money gets spent on 72 year olds getting A380 endo's and on executives jetting off to ICAO conferences, rather than sending inspectors overseas to audit operators and their lack of third party oversight. Imagine CAsA catching an operator out for not auditing its operation internationally? Hypocrites. Then again, the idiot government has yet again told all departments, including CAsA, that they have to shave 10% off the bottom line! How can a regulatory department that operates within a growing sector be expected to take budget cuts? Dolan would be proud!!!

Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'.

TICK TOCK
004wercras is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 20:49
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 30
Posts: 150
WTF, Oleo you are posting on the same thread under two handles.
Split personality?
What wil happen if you have a disagreement with youselves
No Hoper is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 21:17
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Wow Owen, you are so clever! You worked it out. I ended my post with TICK TOCK, like Sarcs did, so we must be one and the same!! Amazing!

And you fix planes for a living?? Heaven help us.
004wercras is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 22:01
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 30
Posts: 150
No para377, sarcs isn't the one
No Hoper is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 23:00
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Hahaha, wrong again McGrath 50/Owen Meaney/Blackhand/FONC/No Hoper....so many aliases, how do you find the time!
004wercras is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2014, 01:45
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
DK & 'other safety related matters' cont..

004:
Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'.
Red flags indeed 004.. Or to put it another way (& despite Beaker's 'beyond all sensible reason' approach..) James Reason's Swiss Cheese holes are aligning..
After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.
If we refer to the submissions page from the FF admin inquiry in 2008...Submissions received by the Committee as at 18 September 2008...you will see that Mr Klein's submissions are at the top of the page. The supplementary submission begins with...
Dear Senate Inquiry Secretary,

Please find attached the response to my email from Bruce Byron, that I would like attached to my formal senate inquiry submission dated 06 June 2008. Needless to say I'm not happy with the response and it's use of motherhood statements about current airworthiness regulatory oversight resources and use of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as a future solution by CASA. Transport of Canada were the first to implement the SMS regulatory oversight approach about five years ago and from the reports I have read it has been an abject failure.

Regards,
David Klein

----- Original Message -----
From: ANDERSEN, DAVID
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Virgin Airlines international announcement [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
For David Klein
David,

Bruce Byron has asked me to forward the attached letter from him in response to your email concerning CASA's oversight of Qantas and others out of the Sydney office.

Regards

David Andersen
Adviser
Office of the CEO
And the following is the Byron correspondence to DK:


Then if we go to part of the evidence given recently by (TIC: Our resident {quote: militant..} unionist) Fedsec Steve...
[YOUTUBE]
And here as...

Additional information from Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, received 20 March 2014.

You begin to see that certain sectors from both sides of the industry divide are indeed singing from the same hymn sheet...

So yes () miniscule TICK TOCK!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2014, 04:43
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
SMS? What SMS?

The letter from Byron to Klein was somewhat smug in parts, however one expects such attitude from CAsA executives, just look at the Director, Mr Skull, and his attitude toward AMROBA, publicly.

Steve Purvinas (life long member of the IOS and executive manager of sniffing out bullshit and coverups) was bang on the money. QF have lost oversight of third party international providers (interesting as this conflicts with the requirement of a Safety Management System) and CAsA itself has neglected the need to audit third party providers, in this case the providers of maintenance services in Singapore (again in stark contrast against the requirement of a Safety Management System). So I am amazed and amused that both QF and CAsA are prepared to ignore an element of the SMS which is to ensure an operator has a connection with third part providers who actually become part of the operators SMS?
It would seem that one set of rules apply to CAsA and QF, and a different set of rules apply to everyone else.

And finally, why did Mr Gibson, on the behest of CAsA, issue such a rapid defence of QF? CAsA seemed awfully confident to defend QF within mere hours of the allegations airing? Did CAsA have some kind of magical insight and proof? Did they panick at the thought of dear Qantas being tarnished so they felt the need to jump to its defence? Funny, I haven't seen Fort Fumble do that with others such as Ansett and Tiger? Funny thing that isn't it?

Sarcs, para, Owen/No Hoper - TICK TOCK
004wercras is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 22:10
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
AMROBA still kicking...plus TAAAF behind closed doors??

Bit of an update for some of our more vocal IOS protagonists...

From Ken & Co the following from the latest AMROBA newsletter (see here) certainly keeps the fire lit under the miniscule and reflects several of the concerns coming from the more high profile publicly available WLR submitters..:
Increasing Regulatory Impost

This government was elected, from our aviation participants’ perspective in particular, to make radical changes to lower regulatory costs, reduce red and green tape and support aviation, especially rural aviation.

These are their key points.


To support the growth of our aviation industry, the
Coalition will:
  • abolish the carbon tax and its insidious impact on
  • aviation fuels and aviation businesses;
  • establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council to meet regularly with the Minister;
  • establish a high level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia; [happening]
  • ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is adequately resourced;
  • reform the structure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority;
  • focus on the better utilisation of Australian airspace;
  • support regional aviation by introducing a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme;
  • recognise the importance of Australian airports to the economy;
  • revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda;
  • continue to promote aviation liberalisation;
  • enhance aviation skills, training and development;and
  • ensure that aviation security measures are risk based.

The Coalition will ensure Australia has a safer and more competitive aviation sector.
Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.

Everything in the Government Policy is consistent with the hopes of the aviation industry.

Back in September last year, this government election policy also included a pledge to reduce the ever increasing government red tape so businesses can get back to doing business.

More than 6 (six) months since the election and we wonder when will CASA get the message? Don’t we all…

At the last CASA SCC Operations sub-committee, we were promised a lot more regulatory packages that are so big, they will be submitted to parliament in 2 separate bundles.

Under this government and their policies, they should and must be totally rejected.

The Government’s Guide to Good Regulation states:

1. What is the problem you are trying to solve?
The RIS requires you to explain the problem — and your objective — simply and clearly.
A crisply defined problem offers scope for innovative, non-regulatory thinking.

The problem is that CASA’s leadership is hell-bent on creating Parliamentary Regulations which are excessively prescriptive to support a safe and potentially growing aviation industry. Where is the non-regulatory thinking?

In the late 1980s, the government started the process to amend regulations to reduce regulatory burden on the aviation industry — the only area that has been successful is CASA issuing Type Acceptance Certificates based on aircraft Type Certificates from recognised countries.

Certification teams no longer go overseas to type certificate aircraft from recognised countries.

CASA administrative processes are growing immensely and impose more costs than equivalent NAAs.

Since the start of the 1990s, the growth in government burden, aviation incurred, has drastically reduced rural communities aviation service providers.

In the last decade there has been no “innovative, nonregulatory thinking” from CASA.

The whole regulatory approach is contradictory if the Australian government wants an aviation industry to grow, especially in rural Australia.

With our climatic conditions and geographic size, the aviation industry should be continually growing and ought to be utilised more than it was in the 60s and 70s.

The ASRR Report must recommend radical change for aviation, outside major airlines, to grow. It will need a radically different CASA culture and structure for the aviation industry to trust and respect.

Most mature aviation regulators have a better relationship with their industry that enables both the regulator and the regulated to work together to improve safety.

Safety needs a combined approach that fosters safe growth and a ‘just culture’ by all in this industry.
Keeping with AMROBA & their mutual alliance with TAAAF..


According to RR from AHIA there was another behind closed doors.. meeting held on the 8 April in Sydney (courtesy of Bladeslappers forum):
AHIA attended TAAAF meeting at which Warren Truss was guest speaker.

On Tue 8 Apr ’14, AHIA President, Peter Crook and Company Secretary, Rob Rich attended a meeting of the Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF), in Sydney. The TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. The members of TAAAF are:

• Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia
• Australian Association of Flight Instructors
• Australian Business Aviation Association
• Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia
• Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia

TAAAF Chairman Chris Manning welcomed the AHIA and said three members of the HAA attended the first TAAAF meeting in 2008.

Although we are not allowed to comment in detail on the Deputy Prime Minister's informal discussions, it was encouraging to note the government is taking care to action the pre-election promises. In fact, some are significant projects which by their very nature will be hard to undertake; the second Sydney Airport decision is probably their greatest challenge.

It is no secret that most of the associations present were looking for an update on the review of CASA, due to be completed in May and hopefully changes announced in June/July 2014. In particular, the non-acceptance of the current new EASA based rules by most reflected the concern at the damage being caused by complex, verbose and legalized worded texts written by lawyers for lawyers in the Crimes Act format.

During the final discussions, the AHIA explained both aeroplane and helicopter flight schools are facing expensive changes to be compliant; however, no safety case from CASA has been sighted. The helicopter industry, unfortunately, is facing the greatest impost and some observers suggest about one third of our schools many stumble after September when CASR Par 61 becomes effective.

In reply, Warren Truss asked that we wait for the review process to be completed; however, his comments were worded in such way it appeared the industry may have their concerns addressed in a satisfactory manner.
The last part of the RR post is interesting and perhaps reflects a certain naivety in regards to the AHIA agenda:
Bladeslappers who want to keep up with the debate on the troublesome changes heading our way should go the http://www.aopa.com.au and read their submission to the review committee. It is well written, concise and covers the future needs of our industry.

Students of history can see a wealth of CAA/CASA history at
http://www.proaviation.com.au It is good to see how the EASA process started and the reason why there was so much debate amongst CASA heavies – most now retired or resigned. You just have to be patient with the sometimes biased comments; but overall it is good debate from both sides.
We are doing our best to help you guys trying to earn a buck with wobbly wings.

Rob Rich AHIA
Maybe RR needs to reflect on the Aerialag's (AAAA) limited success with the 'tea & biccys' conciliatory approach to dealing with FF.

I also query AHIA hitching their horse to the 'No Hoper' wagon...

One week to Mayday...TICK TOCK miniscule!

More to follow...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 23:10
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
EASA moves to ease GA regulations

Even EASA now seems to have recognised that it has over regulated GA. Surely that leaves CASA out on its own now.

EASA moves to ease GA regs - AOPA
Old Akro is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 23:27
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Akro, interesting read, thanks for posting the article.
I think EASA's hand was a tad forced though, many of its members were either intending or in the process of writing their own GA reg's, even the good old British CAA. I think a comment on the article was interesting;



"JFKENTON5 hours ago In the 90's, I did 2 yrs in Frankfurt, GR, as a FAA safety inspector at our Int'l Fld Off. that we had there. It was obvious that the European authorities had no interest in encouraging GA, and certainly not private aviation. Until they changed the rules, those that could, would come to the US to get their pilot certificates. And anyone that could find a way to have their aircraft registered with the US did so as the European inspection system calls for significantly more inspections than does the FAA. I thought it interesting that, when I first saw the European Joint Aviation Reg's, they looked like the FAA, but, rather than making the new rules simpler, they complicated them with all kinds of nickpicking stuff."


Sound familiar?? How long before Virgin is offering holiday packages to NZ to gain a pilots licence, as they did in UK to Florida? How long before ZK registered aircraft are the norm here rather than VH. Already applies to the heavy end of GA.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2014, 13:42
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
guys.

watch very carefully what happens to that ATR sitting in Albury.

that is the closest we have come to a hundred dead passengers and a dead crew in quite a while.

thank heavens for a bird strike!

there are a lot of airline accountants that cannot, will not believe what that aircraft is telling them. they are about to make the same mistake about 150 or 160 times.

just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't.

if you don't believe me sneak over the fence and have a really good look at the aircraft yourself. from the last passenger window aft is where you need to look.
I'll bet you won't sleep that night.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2014, 23:18
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Unhappy Fort Fumble & the $89.9 million bucket...where did it go??

Perhaps D8's comment..."just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't"...reflects the IOS sceptics amongst us and further highlights the DK & ALAEA concerns in regards to lack of resources and experienced staff for FF to oversight/audit MROs & AOC holders.

It is worth remembering the 2008 FAA/ICAO audit team had similar concerns and issued numerous NCNs reflecting these concerns (refer Appendix 3 here). As a consequence Fort Fumble went, with cap in hand, to the government to ask for extra funding to supposedly tackle this shortfall and subsequently were given a 89.9 million bucket over 4 years.

Quote from DAS (STBR) statement in FF 2010-11 AR:
Financial management
CASA recorded an operating deficit of $1.2 million in 2010–11, after recording a $1.8 million deficit in 2009–10.

The Government has allocated an additional $89.9 million over four years (2010–11 to 2013–14) to fund additional aviation safety activities. This is achieved through an increase in the aviation fuel excise rate of 0.702 cents per litre from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre.

CASA is budgeting for an operating deficit in 2011–12 of $4.5 million. At the same time, however, CASA is budgeting for small operating surpluses in the forward years 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2015–16.
It should also be remembered that the Chamberpot report in the PelAir debacle was apparently instigated by the DAS (STBR) to further justify this extra bucket of money and to scope in on the areas that urgently needed addressing. Hansard AAI hearing 15/02/2013:

Mr McCormick: "...If you look to the situation in CASA now—whether we had the resources and whether we did not—through 2009-10 and continuing to this day, an overhaul of CASA and the way we operate, the way we are structured, how we go about our surveillance, where we do surveillance and when we do it, and what systems we have to support it have been ongoing issues for myself and my team. We are deeply involved in reorganising CASA and have been, as I said, since I arrived. As for the resources, when we did go forward with what came out of the Chambers report—which I will say, again, is an internal report to CASA—the question of whether the ATSB would have changed its opinion of fatigue, and they have fatigue management experts as we do, is a matter to ask the ATSB.

We did look at our structure, we did look at where we needed to go forward and at changes we wished to make, and we approached the government and said, 'We need to get this on to a long-term funding strategy.' We put forward a new policy proposal, an NPP, to increase our numbers, which the government also supported, and we had, from memory, $89.9 million in long-term funding, which we are still under. And we had an increase in head count, to which we continue to recruit.

However, regarding the numbers that we put forward in the NPP—again, agreed to by the government, and I do not think anyone opposed it—we have fulfilled those positions, and we are continuing to develop the way we go forward and what we do..."

Or if you prefer visuals you can view here from about 04:25..


Presumably some of this $89.9 million bucket went to the new SPM rewrite & Sentinel software programs etc..etc. However where is the rest of the bucket being spent, because if the DK, ALAEA, UNSW, AAAA, AMROBA etc WLR (or Senate submissions) are even partly true, it would seem that there has been no real improvement in Fort Fumble's oversight of some of our bigger end of town airline operators.

As an aside if TA & WT are looking to address this part of their aviation policy...
  • ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is adequately resourced;
...maybe they should consider taking the .702 cents per litre fuel excise (additional industry impost) away from FF and giving to the ATsB for this financial year... Although I suggest they firstly get rid of Beaker and put someone competent in charge...

Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Apr 2014 at 02:05.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2014, 00:02
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Though shall load thy trough

Oh yes, Sky Sentinel 'the mystique of regulatory I.T'. Over $2.5 mil spent on that heap of shite, and it has robust connections to a member of the GWM. Then another $50k spent on the same GWM grandpa getting an A380 endo, again more money assigned to the department of GWM. Throw in quite a number of international sojourns for the top tier at FF, with each trip per person costing on average $20k and you start to see where a lot of that taxpayer money ends up!

Oink oink
004wercras is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2014, 04:44
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 939
From the CASA briefing April 2014 - emailed 23/April....

There has been some comment in recent months suggesting a simple solution to updating the aviation safety regulations would be for Australia to adopt the current New Zealand rules. While this may sound attractive to some people there are real issues to be considered. Right now the New Zealand rules could not simply be adopted and enforced in their current form as Australian regulations. Many provisions in the New Zealand rules are not written in a manner consistent with Australian legislative drafting standards. In addition, some content is not consistent with the definitions, terminology and requirements set out in our Civil Aviation Act and regulations. This means adopting the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety. If we went in this direction we may need to amend the Civil Aviation Act and rework the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations that have already been made. This would be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation.

The New Zealand rules often provide for considerable discretion to be exercised by the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable in terms of compliance. Adoption of these principles could significantly hinder CASA's efforts to achieve a high level of standardisation in applying and enforcing the aviation safety legislation of Australia. CASA views increased standardisation as a key outcome of the regulatory reform program. In some cases this means less discretion being exercised by CASA officers and more certainty being provided directly in the regulations and standards. It should also be understood the contravention of any New Zealand civil aviation rule is a criminal offence for which a person may be prosecuted. In some cases, there may also be an infringement notice process. While offences or penalties are not specified in the rules themselves they are contained in another piece of legislation—the Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006. This contains a lengthy schedule setting out the penalties corresponding to each rule. In Australia we set out the offences and penalties in the aviation rules themselves, making our legislation more transparent and up front about penalties.

The New Zealand rules for aircraft operations contain more differences to International Civil Aviation Organization standards than Australia currently registers. CASA is striving to further reduce the number of these differences in the rewrite of the new operational Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. The New Zealand rules in some areas are also not as up to date as the new Australian regulations. We believe some rules may not offer adequate levels of safety and do not take into account Australian conditions and considerations. In summary, the New Zealand rules could not simply be adopted in their current form as Australian regulations. That said, where New Zealand rules are seen to be useful and advantageous, CASA is always willing to consider how and to what extent we can take advantage of their beneficial features by adapting them to the Australian aviation safety environment.
It seems obvious that the DAS just does not get it. A change to the Act and a restart to the reg rewrite is what many of us have been asking for, as the existing rewrite has failed big time.
How user friendly is a book of regs that has the penalties inserted thru the document. What we need is simple rules and the penalties elsewhere as our friends in NZ have done.
You really cannot regulate safety! You can educate and promote, but to regulate is a dream, given human nature and the existing culture, within both the industry and the existing regulator. Good safety promotion and education will obtain far better results than penalties inserted in the regs.
triadic is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2014, 07:39
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
the problem with CAsA and the ATSB is that there are aeronautical engineering design standards issues surfacing, particularly with the ATR that they are totally unable to even understand.
This is a time when there needs to be competent sensible practised aeronautical engineers overseeing the design standards applicable to aviation in this country.
Lawyers and dumbed down clerical types just don't make the grade.
The time is fast arriving when the Ex-RAAF jobs for the "we know safety" mates will be shown as a total fraudulent bastardising of what should be happening.

you only need to look at the totally poxed up state of australian regulation to realise that these people are so utterly clueless as to what should be occurring.
this is what you would expect from ex-raaf and ex-airline managers who have next to no aeronautical engineering appreciation. they really don't know what safe aviation is actually underpinned by.

that ATR sitting in albury represents a situation that should be giving the accountant managers in VARA sweaty palms and sleepless nights.
the disaster that could end the airline came so close to occurring.

how is it that an airliner flown within operational limits could have such catastrophic damage? the airline is a competent operator.
the two ATR pilots are competent. the aircraft was flown in turbulence usual for that time of year. ATR build their aircraft competently. ATR have designed an aircraft to the standards using state of the art techniques.

so how did an aircraft nearly break up in flight?????

just maybe the sophisticated design methods have taken the strengths too close to the old standards. and in light of the number of ATR's that have been lost in flight, just maybe those old design standards are not sufficient for today's weather.

but of course we have the ATSB who investigate all accidents and serious incidents with the purpose of ensuring that the design standards remain up to snuff in today's world.
you would have to be incompetent to think that all theoretical work done by the americans in creating the FAR23 design standards was the be all and end all of it.
maybe if you did think that you could evolve the job into a cozy mates place on the assumption that you'd never have to do the hard stuff again.
maybe?

so just how did an ATR, flown competently within limits, come to be in a state where it almost broke up in mid air?

if it wasn't for the copilot (pilot flying) saying to the captain "this isn't flying right" and the captain saying "let me have a fly", and if at the very moment when both pilots had hands on the controls they hadn't hit the turbulence that caused the opposite motions on the yolks that broke the elevator disconnect it wouldn't be parked at albury.
if it hadn't hit the bird the mechanics wouldn't have pulled off all the panels to check out what damage it had suffered.
but for that bird strike all the serious damage within the empennage wouldn't have been discovered.

....and virgin are about to put 163 identical aircraft into service.

are the warning klaxons sounding yet? they bloody ought to be!
the virgin managers and accountants should be having nightmares.

what is the fault???
this little black duck thinks the design standards that the ATR has been so carefully designed to are deficient in this day and age.
maybe they have always been deficient but we never shaved and pared designs so close to them that we remained blissfully unaware.
maybe it is increased energy in a climate that is changing.
maybe it is a shonky world.

do watch what happens out of all this because it could put incredible pressure on people who just aren't up to it. would that be a bad thing?
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2014, 11:27
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Exactly why is it that this country seems incapable of being innovative or progressive and when someone does they get no support and are put down and humiliated.
Singapore restructured their system, rewrote their act, regulations the whole enchilada in less than two years and are 100% ICAO compliant, so I don't buy McComic's spin. To make something happen there has to be a Will, there is no will from our regulator nor from our political masters, McComic is just an egotistical clown, the industry saw through him long ago, unfortunately our gullible public may never understand the danger they are in, because the industry is now actively ignoring CAsA, except when they are forced to, and then they involve themselves just enough to placate the regulator.

Is there anything in Australia that has been built or enacted, that has come in on-time, on-budget, in the last fifty years. Probably the last thing built in Australia that anyone could take pride in was the snowy scheme, even the iconic Opera house was a screw up, so its not surprising the so called regulatory "REFORM" project was doomed from the start, ineptitude and corruption saw to that. I hate to say it, but the industry is screwed unless someone, somehow breaks the iron ring mold and takes the lead.

Last edited by thorn bird; 24th Apr 2014 at 20:25.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2014, 22:18
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
ANZAC Day: "Lest we (the IOS) forget!"

Probably not politically correct these days but while we wait for Centaurus to pass on another ANZAC legend (aviation) war story, thought it might amuse some amongst us that spent some time slogging round the Straits...err 'lest we forget!'

Sung to Redgum "I was only nineteen!":
BOUND FOR DARNLEY…..A Flight Over the Deep Blue.

First light at Horn Island
And the cloud was grey as slate,
As we kicked over
And rolled on zero eight.

The 206 was the first to go
And it was me who drew the card,
Out to Darnley
We did Kubin along the way.

And I can still see Mick and Mangy
Sitting on the couch back home,
Drinking VB tinnies
And playing Nintendo all alone.

Who’ll make the homebrew now
And who gets my CD’s
God help me…
I was bound for Darnley.

Levelled out at five and a half.
Hemispherical all the way.
Playing by the book
To keep those CASA boys at bay.

Looked down below and I saw a Bongo
Airborne out of Sue,
It was Lippy,
He was headed for Badu.

Then the engine started missing,
And the bloke behind me swore!
I went down along the checklist,
Through all that I’d been taught.

But nothing made it right again,
It was a stuffed up state to be.
God help me….
I was bound for Darnley.

I scanned the sea for a place to land
There was only one small reef
It was looking ugly
I knew we’d come to grief.
It was then I knew we were going down
The situation was looking grim
My heart was racing
Cause I knew I couldn’t swim.

There was Dixter, Dengue, Deefa
All the boys were out that day,
Sitting in their cockpits
All the fellas could do was prey.

But I changed the tanks
She sprang to life
I couldn’t have been much dumber
God help Me…..
I should have been a plumber.

Back upstairs she was looking good
It seemed I’d got us out of strife
The bloke beside me
Would be happy to see his wife.

Close to Darnley it was top of descent
And it was time to go on down,
I was in control now,
But I’d left my undies brown.

It was downhill on one zero,
With five knots up the arse.
At least the brakes were working
Thank Christ it wasn’t grass
I parked the plane,
Then turned around…..
The pax were in a flurry
HEY PILOT….YOU SABE WE STAP MURRAY!!!

And the ANSETT legends didn’t mention
Slogging around the straits.
A lifestyle that would make you cry,
If it wasn’t for your mates.

Now I’m in Sydney flying a jet
In money I am swimmin’….
God help me…
I MISS THOSE DARK WOMEN!!!!!
Oh well back on topic ...(from the new bloke at the MMSM ) a WLR update:
Industry gives CASA a big blast at inquiry

THE federal government inquiry into aviation safety has received almost double the number of submissions expected as the industry vents over concerns about regulator in effectiveness.

Inquiry chairman David Forsyth said “well over” 270 submissions had been received, with a key concern among respondents being the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Among the concerns was the agency repeatedly changing direc*tion about which overseas jurisdiction it would follow in terms of streamlining Australia’s aviation laws, and over it habitually using unnecessarily complex terminology when dealing with the industry.

“The thing that has been at the nub of a lot of submissions … is the regulations in Australia have a drafting style to them, particularly the more recent ones,” Mr Forsyth said.

“That has caused a lot of angst because, mostly, overseas regulations are in fairly plain English.”

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which was announced in November by federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss, was launched to examine the effectiveness of aviation agencies, look for overlap, and determine the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety regu*lations compared with those abroad.

A key problem with aviation law in Australia has been a series of local regulations that are *“peculiarly Australian”, which needed to be more harmonised with international standards.

Mr Forsyth said over the past 20-odd years, CASA or its predecessor had been attempting to do this, but had repeatedly changed direction each time it came under new leadership.

“They were following the US regulations, then changed to NZ and then the European route — with each time there’s a change, it takes another five or six years to implement,’’ he said.

“The industry is upset about it, and justifiably so.” He said there was “no silver bullet” for the problem, but the inquiry had reached some conclusions.

“About a month ago we were starting to wonder where we were going with it all but we are getting there now,” he said.

The inquiry is due to report to the federal government next month, and was on track to do so, Mr Forsyth said. He said while submissions to the inquiry had closed on January 31, more than 100 had been received after the cut-off date.

“Submissions closed at the end of January but if any came to us after that we didn’t refuse them, that would be silly,” he said. “We have been out following up with people on a range of issues.’’

Mr Forsyth said two panel members had recently been overseas comparing our regime with those in the US and Europe. They were to return next week.

“We have two-and-a-bit weeks’ solid work to put the draft report together and then hopefully have it finalised before the end of May,’’ he said.
Numerous parties had raised concerns about overkill regarding aviation-security laws and associated ballooning costs.

However, given the terms of reference of the inquiry and its limited resources, it would examine a key issue of aviation security identification cards.

Background checks associated with the cards cost $200 and there were widespread concerns that they were demanded of people who had no contact with sensitive areas in and around airports, such as freight sheds or general areas.

“Someone made the point that since the September 11 (terrorist attacks), security requirements in Australia are far more strict than in the US, where the attacks occurred,” Mr Forsyth said.

“And from what we have inves*tigated so far that’s abso*lutely true. He said such security measures here had become “restrictive”, were not required elsewhere in the world, and were most likely not needed here.

“It’s pretty hard to argue Australia needs to have tighter security than the US: it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Also from the MMSM NB an article on BARA and red tape imposts to industry...:
Call to overhaul security red tape

THE nation’s airline representative body has called for an overhaul of aviation safety regulations, claiming the sector is riddled with unnecessary and costly duplicate laws.

Barry Abrams, executive director of the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents 29 airlines flying to and from Australia, said aviation security costs had ballooned in recent years on the back of increasingly bloated *bureaucracy in the sector.

He called on the Abbott government to review aviation safety as part of its national overhaul of costs associated with red tape.

“It’s 13 years now since September 11 and we have reached a point where we need to start thinking a lot harder about how effective these regulations are,” Mr Adams told The Australian.

“Given the large growth in security requirements, we now need to start asking if we are getting good value for money. There are a range of areas where we can reduce costs where we are duplicating duties and we are not seeing the best outcomes.”

Mr Abrams said that, as an example, the costs of security at Sydney airport had risen from $9 million in 2001 to $76m in 2012.

Federal Department of Infrastructure figures show government spending on aviation security has soared from about $30m in 2001-02, to more than $250m today.

“Having a review would be just part of good old regulatory practice,” Mr Abrams said.

The department rejected calls for an official audit, but was reviewing costs as part of the government’s broader “deregulation agenda”.

“The Australian government does not consider an audit of the costs of aviation security is required,” a spokeswoman said.

“As part of the government’s deregulation agenda, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is currently reviewing the regulatory requirements for transport security programs for airport and aircraft operators.”

The spokeswoman said the department had begun “initial consultations” with the aviation sector regarding “possible *options to reduce the regulatory burden for both airports and airlines”.

The calls from BARA echo those made earlier this month by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

In a submission to an ongoing government inquiry into security regulation in the aviation sector, the pilots union said screening processes for passengers at many regional airports were unnecessary, and screening processes for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”.

AFAP said security measures appeared to be implemented “without any regard” to the costs imposed on industry through screening requirements.

“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 beggars belief,” the pilot’s union said in the statement.

The Department of Infrastructure also rejected those calls, saying the level and type of screening was “appropriate”.

“The Australian government is aware of the social and economic importance of a vibrant and competitive regional aviation sector,” the spokeswoman said.
"Lest we forget!"
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.