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 25th Apr 2014, 02:34
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
TICK TOCK miniscule Budget estimates fast approaching?

Top stuff UITA good catch & research!

The fuel excise question was not missed by the RAAA either..

From the RAAA aviation policy (2013):
CASA FUNDING

The FY11 federal budget introduced a significant rise in funding for CASA by way of an increase in the fuel levy. In the forward estimates the amount of the fuel levy allocated to CASA increased from $80M in FY10 to $124M in FY14. Proportionally this raised the amount of CASA funding out of the fuel levy from 61% to 74% over the period with the balance
coming out of ordinary appropriations.

This had the effect of exacerbating an already inequitable situation as international flights (including those operated by Australian carriers such as Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin Australia) do not pay the fuel levy. Similarly, the major airports and Airservices Australia do not pay the fuel levy yet they come under CASA’s jurisdiction. Clearly, a very large proportion of CASA’s resources are expended on services which do not contribute to CASA funding.

Effectively this has put the main burden of CASA funding on the regional operators and the mainline domestic operators. However as the main domestic airlines all belong to company groups that have international operations they are receiving some benefit from this arrangement. It is the regional operators that are paying far more than their fair share under
this funding arrangement.

This was the subject of a Senate Inquiry in 2010 with some concern expressed by Coalition Senators in the final report as to the process employed to enact this increase.

POLICY

Funding of CASA should be provided totally out of consolidated revenue rather than the current inequitable method used with the fuel levy. However if it is deemed that industry needs to contribute to CASA funding then such funding should be based on more equitable parameters that measure activity such as passenger numbers and/or ASKs (Available Seat Kilometers). These parameters could be adapted to suit both airlines and airports.
Basically put the regional aviation & GA sectors are footing the bill for FF, for what would appear to be no tangible benefit, this was noted by the Coalition in opposition...so minuscule...TICK bloody TOCK!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2014, 00:16
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Addendum to $89.9 million bucket QON??

On the (now) miniscule's speech in 2010 it is worth regurgitating the full speech because it has particular relevance in the run up to the Mayday presentation of the WLR wodgered weport (www....).

{Comment: The bit in red is also interesting in light of the AAAA WLR submission & apparently panel requested sup submission, see here}
Mr TRUSS (Leader of the Nationals) (12:50 PM) —I am speaking today on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and I» «move» :

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in regulating for safety in aviation;

(2) notes that CASA’s funding from aviation fuel excise has increased from $53.96 million in 2002-03 to $78.37 million in 2008-09, and will continue to increase as the industry expands;

(3) calls on CASA to improve its efficiency in the way it conducts its business so that it may use its existing resources more effectively in the regulation of the aviation industry;

(4) notes that the bill proposes to increase the excise on aviation fuel from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre, that is, by 25 per cent, from 1 July 2010; and

(5) condemns the Government for introducing a 25 per cent tax increase on the aviation sector without first consulting and informing the aviation industry”.

These bills increase the excise levied on aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene sold in Australia by 25 per cent. The funds raised from this increase are to be allocated to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to enable it to recruit 97 new staff and expand its surveillance activities. It is also intended that some of the money raised by this tax increase will be directed towards allowing CASA to clear its backlog of regulatory reforms and regulation redrafting. Aviation safety is an important issue, and the people of Australia have a right to expect that regulatory authorities like CASA are focused on ensuring that Australian skies remain safe, that our industry is well run and appropriately regulated, and that there is sufficient support for the aviation sector to be able to meet its obligations under the various regulations.

Over the years it has to be said that the relationship between CASA and the industry has not always been cordial. There has been a lot of conflict and concern within the sector that CASA is sometimes heavy-handed and unhelpful and interferes in ways that the industry considers to be inappropriate. On the other hand, I think the public do expect a competent and effective organisation that will ensure that aviation safety standards are met and that they can undertake air travel with the expectation that they will arrive safely at their destination. And those who live near an airport or, for that matter, anywhere that aviation activity occurs do not want to be innocent victims of an incident where inappropriate standards may have been practised.

CASA has a very important job—and that should never be underestimated—and it needs to have appropriate and adequate resources to be able to do its job. On the other hand, it also has an obligation to be efficient and reliable and to undertake its activities in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, Australia has maintained an exemplary record in the field of aviation safety and it is critical that aviation in Australia remains as safe and secure as possible.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the coalition government took action to improve aviation security in Australia. Since that time over $1 billion has been spent to enhance aviation security. We expanded the screening of passengers and checked baggage to ensure consistent security screening treatment of all passengers and baggage carried on jet aircraft departing anywhere in Australia. Additional funding was provided to improve security in the air cargo sector. The coalition also created the air security officer program in December 2001, which placed sky marshals on selected domestic and international flights. The sky marshal program is a valuable program and it is worth fully supporting. I was disappointed when the government downgraded the sky marshal program very early in its term. It is important that we ensure funding for this program is maintained rather than playing fast and loose with the lives of the flying public to save a few dollars. The government cannot on the one hand demand additional funds for CASA and then take a casual approach towards other elements of aviation security and border protection. I am disappointed that the government, whilst it has been keen to increase the surveillance of passengers and others entering aircraft from security perspectives, has been prepared to wind back the number of people in customs and quarantine services at airports so that inspections of not just passengers but particularly cargo have been reduced substantially. Indeed, in each budget this Australian government has cut funding to customs and quarantine services. Frankly, I think that is unsatisfactory.

However, as part of the previous government’s response to aviation security challenges, we introduced the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, which involved aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required them to develop and comply with a transport security program. That legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. The coalition has a good record of ensuring safety in the aviation sector for the millions of Australians who depend on it either for their livelihood or for the ability to travel safely for work or pleasure.

CASA bears much of the responsibility for ensuring that Australian skies are safe and it is appropriate that it is both adequately resourced and efficiently run. Since being founded, CASA has been funded in part by the excise on aviation fuel, which these bills propose to increase. The rate of excise has been varied from time to time when appropriate. Most recently it was cut to its current level of 2.854c per litre at the time that the location specific pricing subsidy ended in November 2005. For many years the rate of excise on aviation fuel was linked to the CPI and was often indexed twice annually for inflation. The coalition ended this practice in March 2001, along with the deindexation of petrol and diesel excise. Some would argue that this means CASA is underresourced as it is funded in part by a tax that is not indexed to inflation. But the government is not proposing to increase the excise through this bill to address increases in costs on account of inflation but rather plans to fund an expansion of CASA’s workforce and regulatory activities—and, I might add, to pay for the new board that it has introduced to control CASA’s activities. At any rate, the amount of aviation fuel sold in Australia has increased significantly in recent years. In 2003-04, 4.4 billion litres of aviation fuel were sold in Australia. By 2008-2009, this had increased to 6.3 billion litres. Not all of these sales are subject to excise. The military, for example, are not charged excise on aviation fuel, and aviation fuel used on international flights is also exempt. Still, it is clear that, as the amount of aviation fuel sold increases, the amount that CASA collects through the excise on aviation fuel and the amount it has available to spend also increases.

CASA’s annual reports indicate that in 2002-03 it received just under $54 million from aviation fuel excise. By 2008-09, this had increased to $78 million, an increase of over 45 per cent in six years. So CASA has not been starved of funds; it has received a significant increase through the growth in aviation fuel sales. The proportion of CASA’s revenue that comes from this excise has varied slightly over time but has generally been between 50 per cent and 60 per cent over the last decade. There are other revenue streams such as direct charges that also fund CASA’s activities.

There have also been increases in fees charged by CASA in recent years as a part of a move to full-cost recovery. CASA revenues from the sale of goods and services, most of which is its fees charged to the industry, have shot up from $9.8 million in 2006-07 to $19.2 million in 2008-09. This revenue stream has nearly doubled in two years. It is also worth noting that the revenue provided by the tax increase proposed in these bills is $23.1 million in the first year. Just the increase in tax will be larger than CASA’s entire cost-recovery scheme from last year. Figures from CASA’s budget estimate that CASA expects to receive nearly $80 million from aviation fuel excise in the current financial year. At the current rate of excise, this suggests that there are just under 2.8 billion litres of aviation fuel sold on which excise has been levied. The government estimates that the increase in excise proposed by these bills will mean an additional $89.9 million over four years. This would mean the government expects to charge excise on 12.8 billion litres of aviation fuel over the next four years, averaging 3.2 billion litres per year. This means that, just on increased volume, excise would be levied on an additional 400 million litres of aviation fuel every year, or an additional 1.6 billion litres of aviation fuel over four years. This would mean an increase in CASA’s budget of an average of $11.6 million per year and a total of $46.4 million over four years just by maintaining the excise at its current rate and reaping more excise from higher volumes being consumed.

So there will be a considerable increase in CASA’s revenue from excise over the years ahead, and presumably also from its fee structure, even if these bills are not carried—even if we do not give them this extra 25 per cent excise increase. These bills propose to increase the excise on aviation fuel by 0.702c per litre from its current 2.854c per litre to 3.556c per litre. That 0.702c per litre may not sound like much, but it represents an increase of nearly 25 per cent on top of the increases in volume that are expected.

A media release from the minister’s office on budget night described this as ‘a small increase in the aviation fuel excise’. Well, if the minister thinks that 25 per cent is a small increase, I think that speaks volumes about his attitude and the attitude of the whole government towards taxes. Of course, this government has form when it comes to tax increases. It was this government that increased the passenger movement charges—a revenue measure—in its first budget. The Treasurer increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47 and attempted to apply this tax retrospectively to tickets that had already been sold. That $9 is costing airlines, travel agents, tourism operators and the flying public and it hit the aviation industry at a time when it was already struggling with rising costs and an uncertain economic environment. Even worse, the government has committed itself to its giant new tax on mining and has declared war on an entire industry, its workers and every Australian who owns shares in mining companies or has superannuation.

And who can forget the ETS—the great big new tax on everything—that this government is still holding over the head of every Australian. The tax increase proposed by these bills is significant, and it is causing concern amongst those in the aviation industry. Many aviation industry stakeholders I have spoken to have expressed concern over the lack of consultation involved in these bills. Many first heard about the proposed tax increase when my office contacted them for comment.

This tax increase will add costs to the aviation industry at a time when it is already facing difficult economic conditions. The aviation sector, which contributes over $6 billion each year to Australia’s economy and directly supports nearly 50,000 jobs, deserves to be regarded as more than a cash cow. Charter operators servicing fly-in fly-out mining operations are already facing a drop in business on account of the government’s superprofits tax on the mining sector. As mining operations are shut down, they are being hit from both sides, with business drying up at the same time as their fuel costs increase.

But perhaps the greatest source of concern arising from these bills is the lack of transparency in how the money will be used. The aviation industry understands, as do I, that aviation safety is a serious subject and that CASA needs to be adequately resourced to perform its duties. But these bills make no specification about how the $89.9 million estimated to be raised is to be spent by CASA. The combined second reading speeches on these two bills lasted for only 2½ double-spaced pages so there was not much detail provided. Is it any wonder that the industry is concerned? The bills simply replace one excise rate with another. There is no full detailed breakdown on how the additional funding is included in the bills. There is no guarantee that the money raised by this excise increase will make Australian skies any safer. There is also the question of why CASA needs to hire an additional 97 staff. What will these 97 new employees do? How will they contribute to a safer aviation environment? These are questions that deserve answers, but answers have been in short supply from this government.

After consultations with the aviation sector let me say that there has been considerable alarm about the new costs that this bill will impose on the sector. Virgin Blue, for instance, argue that CASA should look at cost savings within its own budget to fund some of its activities and reduce the burden of inefficient and inappropriate regulation. Rex Airlines—and I know that Rex is very much dear to the heart of the member for Riverina, who has just entered the chamber—is concerned about the tax increase. It pointed out that the excise tax was meant to be a growth tax that would enable CASA’s role to grow as the industry grew. As I pointed out earlier, the revenue for CASA has grown and will grow without this 25 per cent increase. Rex believes that CASA should live within its means. Alliance, the largest charter airline in Australia, with many fly-in fly-out mining operations, are also concerned about a tax increase at a time when their revenue is also threatened by the government’s supertax on mining profits. They will face increased costs at the same time as their revenue is reduced.

The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia oppose any increase in the tax on aviation fuel that is not linked to increases in efficiency on CASA’s part. They regard reform of CASA as a very high priority and feel that the tax increase is an example of CASA treating the industry like a cash cow. The Regional Aviation Association are not happy. Although they accept that CASA may need an increase in their budget if they are going to improve performance, they are very concerned about the impact of this extra tax on what is already a hard-pressed sector.

There is no doubt that, had the government sought to consult with industry before they announced this tax, they would have got a lot of negative feedback. They would have got a lot of advice about how CASA can do the job expected of it without having a great big new tax imposed on the sector. I am disappointed that the government has not allowed for there to be greater consultation with the industry. In fact, the legislation, brought on early in the House today—for, I appreciate, organisational reasons—is supposed to take effect from 1 July, just four or five sitting days away. So there will be little opportunity for even the Senate to undertake normal, appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. It has been brought into the House and it has to be dealt with within days, and the industry will have to start picking up the cost immediately.

There are concerns about the way this funding is going to be used. We are told that there are going to be 97 additional employees in CASA as a result of this legislation. It is my understanding that the bulk of the excise increase, estimated at approximately $59.5 million, is to be spent on recruiting these 97 new staff. On rough calculations, that is about $600,000 per employee. I do not know how much safety inspectors get paid, but, even taking travel, superannuation and other ancillary costs into account, I am not sure why the cost of employing these staff reaches that sort of level. Both the aviation sector and the parliament are entitled to an explanation.

The legislation says it will enable CASA to continue random alcohol and drug testing. Alcohol and drug testing is already occurring. The airlines conduct random alcohol and drug testing at their own expense, in their own interests. They want to protect their reputations—a priceless asset for any airline operator—but they also want to ensure the protection of their employees and their property.

No key performance indicators or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the additional funding have been released. The government is responsible for ensuring that the aviation sector is effectively and efficiently regulated. This means ensuring that CASA is adequately resourced but it also means ensuring that any increase in the costs borne by the aviation industry is justified. They must be able to explain to those who have to pay the costs why it is necessary.

It is for these reasons that the opposition has acted in the Senate to refer these bills to the appropriate committee for examination. The committee will obtain information on why CASA needs this extra money, how it will be spent, what safety risks are involved and how this tax increase will improve aviation regulation and safety. It will also give CASA the opportunity to justify to its critics how it is managing its existing budget. I commend the amendment to the House.
UITA: "...Question is where is Minister Truss now??..."

Probably struggling out from under a coupla 4 tonne elephants full from swilling from the trough... However I note that the miniscule is due to put out some more spin & bulldust this week at the National Press Club, see here.

IOS opportunity perhaps??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2014, 02:25
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A bakers dozen.

It is clearly apparent; every time matters aeronautical surface, the media don't feel the need to investigate or interrogate the powers that be; but, the miniscule is off to the Press Club bash. The BRB find this to be both diverting and amusing, considering the stories available from the festering pile of detritus parked under the arse of the incumbent miniscule and the total lack of investigative interest from the press ass ahole.

Anyway, we decided to make a list of the questions which Truss will not be asked by our lacklustre media. We have not, as yet, decided quite what prevents the press from ripping into Truss, considering the unholy mess the aviation safety system is in, now confirmed by Senate evidence, as it was in 2008, when Truss had the reigns. However, even without that famous keen Australian journalistic insight; just for PPRuNe fun, we propose some of those interesting little questions the miniscule seems to be able to duck, at will. Ribald answers will be tolerated during school holidays.

1) The - Nick Xenophon – remarks in response to the slippery, official nonsense reply to Pel Air raises a truckload of very serious, very real public safety questions. Would the miniscule care to respond to any of questions raised by the good Senator?

2) Can the miniscule justify signing off on the dismissive, nonsense-response to the damning Senate Pel Air inquiry which basically is insulting to both industry and the Senators?

3) Who suggested 'gazumping' the proposed the Senate inquiry into CASA and the unbelievable cock up made of the legislative reform process, by initiating the Wet Lettuce Review? Was the miniscule aware that this ultra cynical move would knobble the Senate before it had a chance to extend the good work done on Pel Air, slowly but surely exposing the depth and breadth of top level shenanigans?

4) Why, when and by whom was it decided that submissions to the Truss WLR were not to be published, as usual?

5) Why were submissions to the WLR not provided any sort of protection; would the miniscule care to provide a complete list of everyone who has accessed the submitted documents and be prepared to have that list publicly scrutinised?

6) Is the miniscule prepared to consider a judicial inquiry empowered to consider the many alleged travesties inflicted by CASA on industry, Tiger, Pel Air, Airtex, Polar, Barrier to name a few of the many companies; or Quadrio, Hempel, James etc. as 'individual' events?

7) How does the miniscule intend to re-establish operator control of their businesses and prevent the endless interference of 'officialdom' in operational matters like check lists, operating approvals, standards, instructing to name but a few of the endless list of CASA technical and operational incompetence's?

8) How does the miniscule propose to deal with the evidence provided by the Senate Pel Air committee and will he transparently define exactly how far the AFP investigation into the matters raised has progressed?

9) Miniscule, you are faced with a hostile, disillusioned, cynical industry, what measures and policy do you propose to gain some personal credibility, re-establish Australia as a world class aviation nation and repair the damage inflicted by the McComic years?

Miniscule, in your 2010 speech, (ref Sarcs above) you say "But perhaps the greatest source of concern arising from these bills is the lack of transparency in how the money will be used. The aviation industry understands, as do I, that aviation safety is a serious subject and that CASA needs to be adequately resourced to perform its duties. But these bills make no specification about how the $89.9 million estimated to be raised is to be spent by CASA. The combined second reading speeches on these two bills lasted for only 2½ double-spaced pages so there was not much detail provided. Is it any wonder that the industry is concerned?"

10) Can you now explain, four years later, how it is that neither you or the industry is any further forward with regard to detailed CASA budgeting, or how AUD $89,000,000 was justified, the process by which it obtained, whether it was used effectively and how did industry benefit from providing their part of those monies?

In the same speech you say – "There are concerns about the way this funding is going to be used. We are told that there are going to be 97 additional employees in CASA as a result of this legislation. It is my understanding that the bulk of the excise increase, estimated at approximately $59.5 million, is to be spent on recruiting these 97 new staff. On rough calculations, that is about $600,000 per employee. I do not know how much safety inspectors get paid, but, even taking travel, superannuation and other ancillary costs into account, I am not sure why the cost of employing these staff reaches that sort of level. Both the aviation sector and the parliament are entitled to an explanation".

11) Could we have that explanation now, please?

In the same speech you say. "No key performance indicators or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the additional funding have been released. The government is responsible for ensuring that the aviation sector is effectively and efficiently regulated. This means ensuring that CASA is adequately resourced but it also means ensuring that any increase in the costs borne by the aviation industry is justified. They must be able to explain to those who have to pay the costs why it is necessary".

12) Could we have that explanation now, please?

13) Is the miniscule prepared to provide a time line and plan defining how and when he intends to grab both ATSB and CASA by the scruff of the neck and shake them into becoming the service to industry, so desperately needed and pays dearly for. Balls or a Junior minister, which one will you pick one?

I just can't fathom Australian journalists and aviation; even when they can be bothered to get off their collective arses, they either stuff it up completely or drag quotes out of some dreadful creature, like GT. I assume most journalists still have the basic intelligence required to get onto an aircraft. I'm just perplexed as to why they don't wonder about how and what is keeping them safe, Shirley that would be more interesting than some Polly getting caught in a cat house again (surprise, surprise); or some Muppet falling off a pushbike; or, another one found with a paw in the cookie jar; or, land rights for gay whales.

Aye well – I expect the miniscule's words will be digested along with the 'pudding' and meet the same sad end; no doubt the refreshments will assist in keeping moribund brains in the accustomed, comfortable, somnolent condition.

Last edited by Kharon; 29th Apr 2014 at 23:29. Reason: Cat on keyboard; just missed it - due jet lag.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 08:12
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
3 years in the making (& overdue)

On the Senate thread I posted...Right of reply-AMROBA three tiers & the Canuck vote plus PP opinion
...which was followed by a slightly more cryptic......but seemingly jolly post by the Ferryman...

"...Don't fret. The Gobbledock (GD) only exists to serve the cause. Now, safely returned from his sojourn as 'secret agent' (the IOS secret weapon) in Montreal and other 'interesting' places he is quite happy, taking a break at house boat park. Currently; pandering to the needs of his beloved elephant. He did however manage to track the WLR Secretariat on their mind boggling tour of foreign parts. To say they were surprised by the levels of 'operational' ease, communication, mutual trust, the spirit of willing cooperation and the tangible (measurable) safety outcomes, easily achieved between industry and regulator, in meetings, was 'palpable', is an understatement.

Anyway, the BBQ is hot and (thank the gods) MKR is finished so here on the houseboat, all is well. Elephants fed, dogs and horses settling in for yet another quiet-'ish' evening of beer, BBQ and looking at a booking sheet which is; I must say, looking quite healthy. But company policy firmly bars wabbits for transport – no discussion. Gas chamber and onto the rhubarb patch; that's our firm, long standing policy (it ain't legal of course, but we do have some influence).

GD and Tidy Bin (laden with angst) simply failed to communicate; it happens even in the most pedantic of cockpits. GD is smiling, waving and; at least in spirit, is very much a part of PPRuNe (Bless it).

So, lest we have the thread locked, on free association grounds – that's it. Selah, Toot toot and good night. Endit........Jeez, those snags smell good..."


For the Ferryman to make such a post at this time means...(a) he has some information at his disposal that he (as yet) can't reveal; and (b) he also loves the possible implications of this secret intel for future ferry bookings...

So try to decipher the true message in the "K" post...go on I dare you??

Moving on and before AMROBA slides up the page there was an additional posting on their site which quoted from Chapter 3 of the ICAO Safety Oversight Manual....

At first I could not see the significance of this posting but then the penny dropped (in light of recent troubling events) when I scrolled down to the last two paragraphs..: (my bold)
3.9.7 Accident investigations also play a crucial role in the identification of deficiencies and safety concerns. Safety recommendations can be issued in the course of or at the completion of an investigation. Other essential tools are a mandatory incident reporting system and a voluntary incident reporting system (which shall be non-punitive). The establishment of an accident and incident database and the analysis of the information contained in such a database are means to identify safety concerns; a common taxonomy is essential to allow for the exchange of information between the users of the aviation system worldwide.

3.9.8 An effective resolution of safety issues is highly dependent on the authority vested in the CAA. This critical element can only be successful in situations clearly supported by and linked to the primary aviation legislation and regulations. There should be technical guidance and procedures for both the technical inspectors and the assigned CAA legal personnel. This guidance should be provided early in the programme of safety oversight improvement to avoid inconsistent extremes of actions by CAA personnel.
Again moving on, but while on ICAO, I note that ASA has just quietly slipped in the long awaited revision to the Oz version of AIP Gen 1.7 i.e. notified differences to ICAO SARPs: SUP H18/14

Hmm...happy reading!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 08:45
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,297
97 pages!!!!
Sunfish is online now  
Old 1st May 2014, 08:57
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,382
Oh good grief Sarcs,
McComic said we cant adopt Kiwi rules because they don't comply with ICAO??? Who are we to believe???
thorn bird is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 19:28
  #627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
SUP H18/14.

Angola 0 pages.
Bahrain 3 pages.
Bulgaria 1 page.
Cyprus 1 page.
Denmark 7 pages.
Hungary 6 pages.
India 8 pages.
Ireland 22 pages.
Malaysia 7 pages.
Norway 19 (Bi lingual) pages.
Thailand 2 pages.
Turkey 4 (Bi lingual) pages.
Slovakia 16 pages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All together 96 pages. All published as per contract, in the national the AIP.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Australia 97 pages.– Yay! we win. Not published, only available from AsA.

The true attitude of Australian safety culture may be defined in the wonderfully worded paragraph 1.2 of the H18/14 introduction. Not only has this thing languished in and out of date over a few years; it thumbs it's nose at contractual obligations to ICAO (tis a long tedious tale). If you can stomach it though, an interesting exercise is to look at one or two of the 'wordier' sections; like Avmed. The parts which relate to ATSB are an eye opener for anyone credulous enough to believe that the MOU between CASA and ATSB is a good idea.


Flashback - Sarcs - at full throttle, happy days.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st May 2014 at 20:36. Reason: One being singular.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 22:19
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Snoop The PPRUNE & MMSM "K"!

Touché "K"... Oh yes the ICAO Mount Non-compliance tale.. Ok...err maybe I too can be quite cryptic at times..

But back to the additional 'bakers dozen' of Ozfuscation (Oz ICAO notified differences) in three years (H12/11 to H18/14), by my calculation the page count, at this rate, will be at 364 by the turn of the century...happy days!

{Q/ Wondering how it is possible for there to be 13 extra pages introduced without impinging on the requirements of Annex 15 i.e. amendments/changes must be notified ASAP}

On the (MMSM) other "K", I note that he continues to catch up with where we are all currently at with the WLR pending report...:
Crop-dusters give CASA a spray in submission to federal inquiry

THE nation’s crop-dusting and aerial firefighting body has savaged the aviation regulator as a “low trust organisation” that is “dysfunctional at every level”.

In a scathing submission to the federal government’s inquiry into aviation safety regulation, the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia — representing about 300 pilots and 130 operators — called for a complete overhaul of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

“CASA is now performing so poorly as to demand significant change of its internal management and its relationship with *industry so as to implement practical systems that will lead to commonly accepted benchmarks of practice and outcomes,” the AAAA said.

“CASA is dysfunctional at nearly every level, its relationship with industry has been junked, and it is suffering from such a pathological culture that major surgery will be required to realign the organisation with the common hallmarks of a sound safety regulator.”

The AAAA submission joins a large number of complaints lodged with the inquiry critical of CASA.

CASA is expected to be forced into a shake-up after the inquiry’s report is completed and handed to the Infrastructure Minister, Warren Truss, late this month.

Last week, inquiry chairman David Forsyth told The Australian “well over” 270 submissions had been received — double the number expected — with the *operations of CASA a key concern among respondents.

A major issue had been the agency repeatedly changing its mind over which overseas jurisdiction it would follow in terms of streamlining Australia’s aviation laws, with three major changes in direction over the past 20 years.

It has also been accused by *industry of using unnecessarily complex terminology, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots calling for regulations to be *“rewritten in plain English”.

CASA declined to comment when contacted this week by The Australian .

The head of the agency, John McCormick, has announced that he will not be seeking to renew his position when his contract *expires.

However, a replacement has not been announced.

The top job at CASA has long been a largely thankless role, but industry insiders say the agency’s operations have been growing worse. The AAAA represents 130 “application operators” nationwide, and about 300 pilots, which it says represents three-quarters of all operators and 90 per cent of aircraft in use.

In addition to its original 41-page submission to the inquiry, the AAAA has submitted a supplementary submission, indicating the inquiry has sought more information and is keenly interested in its views.

In the supplementary submission, the AAAA identified four “key deficiencies” it saw with the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

They included the lack of cost/benefit analysis of the CASA regulations and the “lack of the principles of fostering and promoting aviation as an integral responsibility of the regulator”.

The AAAA also complained there was “no clear delineation” between the level of regulator *resources to be dedicated to pas*senger aircraft regulation compared to aerial work and private aviation.

There was also a lack of board power to “actively engage in improving” the management of CASA through “directing the CEO”.
Dear John cc Wazza...the worm is turning...TICK TOCK!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 22:40
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,382
"re the Flashback"


"Note: Just out of interest I decided to explore our ANZAC ‘brothers in arms’ over the ditch and how they sort out compliance with the ICAO Annexes, in particular Annex 6. Here is what I found ‘Click Here’.

Very user friendly they even have a web page devoted to ICAO Compliance……yet another tick for the Kiwi system! "


But didn't McComic just say we couldn't have workable regulations like the Kiwi's that actually improve safety, because they don't comply with ICAO???? Please don't tell me Mr. McComic is telling Fibs! or is he practicing because he plans to enter Parliament when he retires from FF. Someone should tell him you don't need to be like a lawyer to be a politician, your lying doesn't have to be that convincing.
Oh Minister Miniscule you really need to take the S out of their name, now surely that cant be that hard can it??

Last edited by thorn bird; 2nd May 2014 at 00:13.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 22:45
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Are IOS hopes dashed?

NZ safety regs not suitable for Australia – CASA
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 3:31 pm, Wednesday April 30 2014 2 Comments

CASA has dismissed calls to adopt NZ-style regulations. (Michael Thomas)

The Director of Safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), John McCormick has dismissed calls from industry to adopt aviation safety regulations similar to those of New Zealand.
McCormick said the New Zealand rules allowed for considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance, and that many of the provisions in the New Zealand regulations were not consistent with Australian legislative standards, definitions, and terminology.

“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,” he said on the CASA website. “This would be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation.”

McCormick’s comments come in the wake of informal lobbying from industry bodies to Transport Minister Warren Truss to consider adopting New Zealand style regulations.

McCormick said the New Zealand rules left an operator open for prosecution if contravened, and that they contain too many differences to ICAO regulations. “We believe some rules may not offer adequate levels of safety and do not take into account Australian conditions and considerations,” he added.
Comments
2 Responses to “NZ safety regs not suitable for Australia – CASA”

1. Ben says:
April 30, 2014 at 4:54 pm
“… take into account Australian conditions and considerations,” Is that what bureaucrats say when they need a reason for making a decision to be more difficult than is required? Those same words have been dogging military projects for years, before we had a couple of very successful MOTS purchases.

Has CAANZ replied to his implication that their regs are unsafe? Will CASA one day realise that maybe their system of ‘Empty skies are safe skies’ isn’t the best formula?
2. Gerard says:
May 1, 2014 at 6:08 am
Given that all differences to the ICAO Standards and Practices (SARPs) have to be justified to ICAO, this smacks a little of “Not invented here”. I’d like to see these assertions supported by more detail.
Probably not. I seriously doubt this bill of goods can convince a good half of CASA, let alone a united industry, Senate and, with a bit of a push, the Minister. (my bold).

All good and well done 'The Australian'.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st May 2014 at 22:49. Reason: Lost the links somehow - sorry guys.
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd May 2014, 10:52
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
TICK TOCK

Funny thing is that I understand Kharons cryptic post very clearly

Now, those naughty pesky crop dusters. How dare they speak out against Herr Skull. Have they forgotten that Mr Angry flew big planes, not those silly little prop crop dusters! How dare they! What would they know? (spoken tongue in cheek)

So let me get this correct:
- Several hundred submissions to the wet lettuce review have condemned CAsA, with most so damning that the Government had to urgently bury them from public view. As a tiny example of who thinks CAsA is doing a shite job - The Ag boys, crop dusting and firefighting lads, most of industry, AMROBA, a bunch of Senators and assorted politicians, former CAsA employees, by their own previous admissions the ATsB, and the list continues
- Then you have a DAS who has publicly taken potshots at industry, AMROBA, the Senators, pretty much anybody who has an opinion that differs to his, our Kiwi brothers who are just a stones throw away, several IOS who have confronted him over the years, and even some of his own people!
- Consecutive Senate inquiries into several accidents, aviation safety and standards, and decades long criticism of the actions of a putrid and toxic government department,
AND NOTHING IS SUPPOSEDLY WRONG???

Minister Truss, this is YOUR problem. Just like our deteriorating economy, you can't blame the past, the present lays in your hands. Just like the economy, you must act now, decisively, on a scale not seen before.

Minister Truss, if you think you have problems now, just wait until you have three smoking holes on your hands (Please refer to Avipedia, section 11.6 under 'Sunfish/IOS/Ticktock' for a full explanation) and the FAA and ICAO come knocking on your door. One downgrade is all it takes. Then you will really see how an economy can be pissed down the drain in one fell swoop of a pen!

Minister Truss, distinguished guests, children of all ages - TICK TOCK
004wercras is offline  
Old 2nd May 2014, 23:41
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,297
McCormick said the New Zealand rules allowed for considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance, and that many of the provisions in the New Zealand regulations were not consistent with Australian legislative standards, definitions, and terminology.
Gentlemen this is called in psycholgical terms; "projection" - the attribution to others of the condition you suffer from. Thus a congenital liar will brand critics as "liars", the envious will accuse others of "envy" and so on.

The problem with the Australian rules is precisely what McCormick accuses the NZ regulations of, to whit, the Australian regulations " considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance" - this is the source of almost all our misery.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 3rd May 2014, 03:53
  #633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,382
"considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance"


Ah, but Sunny my dear fellow, CAsA deliberately writes the rules this way.


Its called "employment"


Cant have these aviation folks actually understanding the rules, no no no wouldn't do at all. If they understood them CAsA wouldn't have to employ all these lawyers to write them.


Then of course look how CAsA absorbs so much dead wood from the industry not to mention the ones that reach the end of the line from the Military.


I mean where else would these poor fellows get a job?


CAsA can happily leave it up to them to work out the "intent of the regulations", bit frustrating for the poor old operator I know, having a manual compliant today and its not tomorrow, but it adds up to many chargeable hours so CAsA can employ lots more industry rejects and ex RAAF people as more and more of the new unintelligible rules come on line and need interpreting.



Jobs for everybody, don't you see that's the goal.


We are rapidly approaching the point where we wont have an industry at all, so CAsA, ever looking towards the future, has already solved the problem it created.


Forget about the "Industry", never was much money in it anyway.


We can all go and work for CAsA.


Think how easy things would be!!


No competency or productivity issues.


Never have to mention that word "Safety" again.


No industry winging all the time. buggered up lunch afternoons "Consulting"


Public service Lurks and perks.

The lawyers can happily go on churning out new regulations, CAsA staff can go on interpreting them, senior management can go on smoke and mirroring the Pollies, and the punters can go on cheap foreign airlines...they'll never notice the difference anyway and there has to be something for all the parasitic industries that have grown off the back of aviation to feed off, hell there would be riots in Lakemba if the mascot security industry was shut down, and how the hell else could the baggage handlers distribute their "stuff"?

Last edited by thorn bird; 3rd May 2014 at 07:19.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 4th May 2014, 14:03
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Grrr you lot are confusing me again

"considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance"

Ah, but Sunny my dear fellow, CAsA deliberately writes the rules this way.
So, let me get this straight.

The CAA 88 and the CAR 88 were considered to be too prescriptive, thus creating a rigidity that prevented adaptation with industry changes and prevented discretionary interpretation to further commercial outcomes without compromising safety.

The alternative, much touted, is "outcomes-based legislation" that does away with the prescription and, for those who have sniffed avgas the longest, creates a commercial advantage engendering regulatory world that is agile and flexible enough to keep pace with industry change but with far less compliance complexity.

As an aside, nobody has ever published a compelling case for achieving standardisation in an outcomes-based world in which safety cases become the new field of entrepreneurial endeavour. But, let's not bother with such trivia and just get back to the subject...

We are slowly getting the new rules, but surprisingly they are not what I envisaged "outcomes-based legislation" would look like and all I hear is that they are even more prescriptive than the rules they will eventually replace. Unlike some others, I read the McComic statements as being anti-outcomes-based and being pro-prescription, perhaps because he has comprehensibly failed to standardise his inspectors and decision-makers.

But, bugga me dead, Torn Bird falls out of his tree whinging about CASA deliberately attempting more discretion despite greater prescription...

So what the pk do you really want out of your rule set and how do you propose to make it sensibly work?

Last edited by Prince Niccolo M; 9th May 2014 at 15:46. Reason: outed by Kharon
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 4th May 2014, 22:52
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,382
Your Highness,
I think New Zealand have admirably demonstrated a rule set that works. Given how robust their aviation Industry is becoming is all the proof you need that good regulation works, allows industry to get on with it, and maintains an acceptable safety level.
Australia may be a pimple on the ass of the world, but we cannot live in isolation, the world is getting smaller and we have to compete, having unique, prescriptive, restrictive legislation is not going to improve safety nor create an atmosphere for growth.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 4th May 2014, 23:57
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,297
Prince Niccolo:

So what the fk do you really want out of your rule set and how do you propose to make it sensibly work?
Rules written in plain English that are outcome based and do not use the words
acceptable", "Appropriate", "Generally" and similar nominatives that mean different things depending on who is asked.

Rules that are not written in the negative as in:

"A pilot shall not fly an aircraft except....." or " A regulator must not issue an approval except......"

These are to be replaced with: " It is an offence to fly an aircraft if......"

Then get rid of criminal offences and strict liability.

I could go on....
Sunfish is online now  
Old 5th May 2014, 08:01
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,382
And meanwhile in China, who I am told is adopting....Guess who's....Not I repeat Capital NOT!! Australian reg's...is placing an order for 60 odd Gulfstream aircraft
thorn bird is offline  
Old 5th May 2014, 18:35
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Friend or enema?

Niccolo is being Puckish (1); his whimsical post cleverly highlighting 'what it ain't' rather than what it was supposed to be; and lays the blame for 'what it is', firmly where it belongs. He is quite clearly aware of the issues debated, particularly in educational and legal fields about the pros and cons of just such a system. Education being a useful by-product of a sensible rule set, preventing unintended breach. I also suspect he knows full well that the only sane method of matching the fast pace of technical and operational development is to get the rules either ahead of the game; or, positioned so that no matter 'how' a safety outcome is achieved, compliance is always the end result. Personally, I like to think of outcome based legislation as a rule written to guide the wise man. 101 "Thou shallt not run out of fuel, for there is no help for thee if thou doest". But, then again the 10 commandments were simple outcome based rules and look at the unholy mess those have landed us in.

Food for thought -my bold HERE

[Extract] - By principles-based regulation, the ALRC is referring to both the tools of regulation—that is, the principles—and adopting a more outcomes-based approach to regulating privacy. This section will examine in turn the theory of principles-based regulation and the notion of an outcomes-based—or ‘compliance-oriented’—approach to regulation.

4.5 Principles-based legislation relies on principles to articulate the outcomes to be achieved by the regulated entities. According to Professor Julia Black, principles are ‘general rules … [that] are implicitly higher in the implicit or explicit hierarchy of norms than more detailed rules: they express the fundamental obligations that all should observe.’ Black states that principles-based regulation avoids ‘reliance on detailed, prescriptive rules and rel[ies] more on high-level, broadly stated rules or principles’

4.6 Part of the guiding purpose of a principles-based approach is to shift the regulatory focus from process to outcomes. The rationale for this is described as follows:
Regulators, instead of focussing on prescribing the processes or actions that firms must take, should step back and define the outcomes that they require firms to achieve. Firms and their management will then be free to find the most efficient way of achieving the outcome required/

4.7 Principles-based regulation can be distinguished from rules-based regulation in that it does not necessarily prescribe detailed steps that must be complied with, but rather sets an overall objective that must be achieved. In this way, principles-based regulation seeks to provide an overarching framework that guides and assists regulated entities to develop an appreciation of the core goals of the regulatory scheme. A key advantage of principles-based regulation is its facilitation of regulatory flexibility through the statement of general principles that can be applied to new and changing situations. It has been said that such a regulatory framework is exhortatory (acting or intended to encourage, incite, or advise) in that it emphasises a ‘do the right thing’ approach and promotes compliance with the spirit of the law.
And again - Here

(1) Puck, also known as Robin Goodfellow, is a character in William Shakespeare's play A Midsummer Night's Dream that was based on the ancient figure in English mythology, also called Puck. Puck is a clever, mischievous elf or sprite that personifies the trickster or the wise knave. In the play, Shakespeare introduces Puck as the "shrewd and knavish sprite" and "that merry wanderer of the night" in some scenes it would seem that he is longing for freedom and he is also a jester to Oberon, the fairy king. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_(A...ht's_Dream)
A toast is a ritual in which a drink is taken as an expression of honour or goodwill.

Cin cin.

Last edited by Kharon; 5th May 2014 at 20:09. Reason: Not bold enough ?
Kharon is offline  
Old 5th May 2014, 21:11
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,297
Kharon, if CASA is indeed populated with ex-RAAF engineering types it would explain a lot because, with rare exeptions, RAAF engineers seem to exhibit a completely rigid personality type and the Two absolutely worst managers I have ever had the misfortune to work for were ex-RAAF engineers. Both had personalities like the apocryphal "East German Border Guard".

The combination of ex RAAF engineers and aggressive self serving solicitors on a mission to write so much as a childrens story, let alone a set of aviation rules, is guaranteed to produce a nightmare every time.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 5th May 2014, 21:34
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,382
Kharon,


your references to the 10 commandments could provide a parallel with CAsA.


you see originally there were 3759 and a 1/2 commandments. The people were having a lot of trouble keeping them and there was a lot of unintentional sinning going on because people couldn't remember or understand them all.
Sound familiar?
Well the people (IOS) winged and wined so much that the bearded bloke went up and had a chat with the bush (The burning one).
When he came back he told the people he had good news and bad.
The good news is I managed to get him to cut it down to ten commandments.
"So what's the bad" they cried.
"Adultery is still in"
thorn bird 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.