Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Creampuff]

I’ve already explained on numerous occasions (and free of charge) the only idea that I consider has a snowflake’s hope in hades of resulting in any substantial change.

But let’s put on our ‘glass half full’ hats, and track through what’s going to happen.

(1) There’s going to be a ‘review’ and, finally, all of the truth will come out. (This will be reinforced by all the information provided to Senator Fawcett.) Yep?

(2) There will be a ‘report’ which will make ‘recommendations’ which, if implemented, will finally bring about fundamental root and branch changes to aviation regulation and accident investigation. Yep?

(3) Then the government will implement all those recommendations. Yep?

So, walk me through, in precise terms, what you think the recommendations at (2) will be, Mr Ideas.

[Frank Arouet]

I better go and have a word with the ills of society. Why don't you have another vat of wine, while you wait?

[aroa]

Upchuck...

As a long term member of the Ills of Society, I'll have a guess...

The very salubrious review panel will listen with great interest to stories, many and varied about CAsA, the impact of regs on the viability of GA and the sanity of its participants, some of its star staff performances and etc..

They will then report to the Minister with recommendations.

The Government will adopt those recommendations, and recommend that CAsA adopt those recommendations.

CAsA will then huddle up and form a Committee. That will meet every 6 months, to formulate a plan to advise the Minister on the schedule they will adopt on how the plan will formulate the process of diverting / sorry, adopting the recommendations once the plan is in place. The schedule for the plan to the Minister may be a few years in the making because the changes will be difficult and complex and CAsA is always short of money and properly trained staff.
And there could be legal implications/ complications. The DAS will consult with the Head of Legal Counsel..who will advise at the next Committee sitting...in 5 months or so.
So, in about 2015, with TAP/The Adoption Plan" in place ..and sent to the Minister for review and approval..CAsA will be all waiting and set to go.

2017. Looking good to go. Plan approved and trained staff in place. CASA is bleeding money of course, with "specialist" advisers and "consultants" and asks for more. Since this is not approved because the Government is on the financial ropes, there's a bit of a hold-up, impasse, whatever.

2018 Not to worry CAsA are still keen to divert / sorry, implement the changes, but only those that they want, so there's a bit of a stoush between CASA "experts" and ministerial know-it-alls, some of whom have actually been in an Airbus 330 to Bali for holidays.

2019. This is getting exciting. Looks like a change of Minister. Yehaaa.!
Drinks all round at Fort Fumble.

Emergency committee meeting to recommend changes to the plan to present to the new incumbent re modified recommendations to be defered, some maybe implemented and those that were far too difficult to deal with will be left to wither "off the vine", so to speak. BUT, there is a promise that the final draft of the final CAsR will be ready by 2025. Just a promise, mind.

2020. New Minister wants a halt in order to produce a "White Paper" to elucidate his vision for a new and revitalised Aviation Industry.
These recommendations to be followed by a "Green Paper,to be reviewed by a Committee of Aviation "experts" to see what is feasable. Once that review is tabled, recommendations will be forwarded to CAsA to divert/ sorry, implement the changes.

Its all a bit like the Universe really...it goes on forever.

For further recommendations re any changes to Australian aviation may I suggest Used Boats - New Boats - Search New & Used Boats For Sale - BoatPoint Australia some really lovely escape units with sails which will take you away slowly but surely into distant seas of CAsA free sanity.
sorry 40c

[Sarcs]

AMROBA on TASRR & former Canuck regulator...

From latest AMROBA newsletter: Vol 10 Issue 11

This government has turned the spotlight onto the government departments and agencies involved with the aviation industry.

One cannot imagine support for this Review coming from his own Department let alone CASA or the ATSB.

Mike Mrdyck, Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure; Mike Dolan, ATSB; Allan Hawke, Chair of CASA Board; John McCormick, CEO of CASA and CASA’s Senior Executive would have been against such a review.

The terms of reference for the review clearly demonstrates that this government does not have confidence in the current direction of aviation reform by those persons listed above.

AMROBA membership supports the all encompassing review and hope they have enough time to properly analyse the aviation system properly.
We appreciated the LNP policy stating that:
“Labor’s approach to aviation policy over the past six years has seen cost after cost added to the bottom lines of airlines and airports, pilots and passengers.
Together, these measures have made the Australian industry increasingly uncompetitive internationally and have seen many smaller aviation providers struggle to survive.
Government imposed red tape is beginning to overwhelm many smaller and medium-sized businesses which struggle to cope with changing, complicated and confusing requirements.”
To achieve this massive change, they also recognised
that they needed to:
 reform the structure of the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority;
 revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda;
 enhance aviation skills, training and development.
AMROBA will lobby for:
 A more responsive CASA structure that holds
a senior individual responsible for standards,
regulatory services and oversight for discrete
industry sectors must be an outcome.
 A 3 tier legislative system where ICAO standards
& practices are promulgated by CASA as
‘aviation safety standards’ referred to in
CASRs must also be an outcome.
 A FAR based system for the non-airline sectors

must be another outcome.

And on the Canuck review team member:

Minister Truss has announced the team to review aviation in Australia.The terms of reference are fairly broad. Don Spruston has had 6 years as a regulator. He will bring a Canadian perspective to the review of the aviation sectors of Australia.
“Mr. Spruston is the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC). IBAC is responsible for representing the business aviation community worldwide. Don has held this position since the beginning of 1999.
Prior to assuming his present role, Mr. Spruston held numerous positions in the field of aviation, including managing partner of Canadian Aviation
Safety Associates where he conducted evaluations of civil aviation authorities and was advisor to ICAO in establishing the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program.
Prior to this Mr. Spruston spent 6 ½ years as Director General of Civil Aviation in Canada. He also gained considerable experience as an aircraft operator as Director General of Aircraft Services where he managed a flight department of over 90 aircraft. He also held a number of air traffic management positions including the Regional Director of Air Navigation in Transport Canada’s Pacific Region.
Mr. Spruston holds a Bachelor of Sciences degree from the Royal Military College of Canada. He has an Airline Transport Pilot Licence and has flown in various roles, such as worldwide cargo operations, VIP transport and system evaluation flying. He has written numerous articles on aviation safety and has won awards such as the Transport Canada Safety Award, Canadian Owners and Pilots President Award and the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute C.D. Howe Award.”

Let us hope that he listens to the plight of the industry in this country. Even if he makes comparisons with the Canadian system, we would be
better off than the direction we are heading.

They have an Act, Regulations that provide a head of power for Transport Canada to promulgate standards. Their standards are based on

ICAO Annex standards — a 3 tier legal system.

Mr Spruston's past experience as a Transport Canada regulator will have him comparing our convoluted regulation system to this...Canadian Aviation Regulations...

[Paragraph377]

I hope Mr Spruston brings with him a good sense of humour and a party hat because if he does a thorough job he will realise this;

- He has stepped into a bizarre labyrinth of voodoo mystical magic where industry is dressed up as piñata's and beaten mercilessly with big sticks by the kids from Canberra.
- He will discover a bureaucracy filled with overflowing troughs, sideshow alley style regulatory antics and even the odd bearded woman.
- Then there is the DOIT laughing clowns in which industry places it's declining income into the mouth of the clowns head only to win......nothing.
- But don't forget to buy your Parts 61 and 145 show bags which contain empty promises and nothing but the latest CASA newsletter and references to 'attainable safety', 'achievable outcomes' and other hollow statements.
- There will be riotous fun in the spooky House of Mirrors at Brisbane's regional field office where mi mi mi Beaker and Fort Fumbles finest spin doctors will hold up audit and investigation reports, internal processes and accounts reports to the mirrors which then twist and distort the material in an attempt to fool the unwary Spruston.

Who knows, Mr Spruston may be met by CASA's own version of a balmy army in which the wily hecklers tease and taunt Mr Spruston in an attempt to distract him from the job at hand?
I wonder if Sky Sentinel will be used to track his whereabouts as he strolls through the bowels of Fort Fumble, alerting the GWM whenever Mr Spruston detects a nugget?

[Sunfish]

Creamy, you are mostly right, the politicians can be snowed almost all of the time by public servants, an d this strategy has served DOT, CASA and ATSB well over the decades.

However there is one group that those gentlemen rightly fear as I have said: the good,folk at PM&C. They are public servants too, so the bull**** spinning doesn't work on them, they are whip smart and know exactly how to go for the jugular of fat and happy public servants who think they have it made.

If these folk get sicced on DOT, CASA and ATSB, then watch the fun, they don't stand a chance. It would be a foolish bureaucrat who calculated that PM&C are too busy to notice them.

The way they would do it is probably a masterful series of amendments to the appropriate legislation that would cut the feet out from under the targets and no one would be the wiser except for you lot.

[VR-HFX]

Sunfish

How right you are.Cannibalism is a favourite pastime in some circles in Canberra.

PM&C are the piranhas of the bureaucracy.

Their target often disappears without leaving even a fingerprint let alone a trace of genetic material.

[Capt Casper]

This thread is unintelligible to most mortals who do not follow every intricacy of the political intrigue of CASA and politics. As an instance who is “Wazza”? I honestly haven’t a clue.
I don’t want an on line answer to my question. A PM would be welcome.
I live in an electorate with a new Liberal member of parliament.
I am sure, that if accurate, succinct complaints could be placed before our parliamentarians, the pressure could be ramped up on the enquiry.
To that end, may I suggest a “stickied” forum of real complaints in simple language that the poster would be prepared to put his/her signature to, not on line of course, but if requested by a parliamentarian’s office. The contact can still be via a personal email to the anonymous Pprune address.
Each Ppruner can then put up or shut up via their local Federal MP and senator.
As the the thread grows pressure can be sought from the press, industry organisations and local IT media.
I am happy to bombard my member with every item I can, but I know if I just write a letter or email it will be insignificant in his other electoral issues.
If we want to progress the issue, it has to be “grass roots”, consistent, accurate and passionate, with widespread input – ie as many electorates and senators that we can reach involved.
If they don’t come on board write a direct letter asking why.
It is no use reading, the issue requires DOING!

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

Whatever else Federal politicians are, stupid they ain’t.

They aren’t being snowed by anybody.

They’ve snowed you and lots of others into believing that they’d intervene, if only they could understand the issues. Of course, the issues are so complex that lives would be at risk if they didn’t leave the experts in CASA to manage them, wouldn’t they?

Fawcett obviously has no idea. Heffernan; none. Nash; nada. Entsch; frozen with fear. Truss; powerless.

The mystique of aviation and all that.

If only someone in government understood the issues and had power to change things.

Alas, change can only be achieved after a ‘review’.

I say again: You’re being played for fools and, frankly, it's a very easy game to play.

Watch what happens with the promise to properly index DFRDB pensions. Another bunch of voters with the attention span of goldfish.

[No Hoper]

Creampuff, I like your take on these matters. Barrier no longer has an AOC so would be a moot argument, they would not be just given one on the say so of a Minister, unless I totally misunderstand the system.

Similar to you, I have seen the passing of many of these inquiries with no real changes.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I'm thinking about submitting the recent senate report. Complete with 26 recommendations and sen X's additional comments.

Change the name, abolish or reestablish the board etc.

It will be interesting to watch although it could be another Groundhog Day. I hope not. Only time will tell.

Although I urge people to submit. The weight of all those submissions may just work.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa the bully

Maybe this is how we should behave - these kids actually worked out how to deal with the schoolyard bully.


Boys band together to stand up for friend - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

They’ve snowed you and lots of others into believing that they’d intervene, if only they could understand the issues. Of course, the issues are so complex that lives would be at risk if they didn’t leave the experts in CASA to manage them, wouldn’t they?

Fawcett obviously has no idea. Heffernan; none. Nash; nada. Entsch; frozen with fear. Truss; powerless.

The mystique of aviation and all that

Creamy, this is where we differ. Many other public service institutions have decided to rely on the "technical complexity" and "risk" defences and they are now extinct. PM&C are quite capable of finding their own experts, if they in fact needed them.

In fact there are Two arguments that trump the "expert" defence every time and PM&C are the absolute masters of them: simple economics and administrative efficiency.

If, as I hope they will, somebody casts their eye over the cost and outputs of the regulatory reform program bells will ring. If they then look at the sheer volume of regulation compared to lot her countries, more bells will ring. If they then look at the economic costs of regulation on the Australian GA industry compared to other countries, the bells will reach a crescendo.

Then when they look at administrative efficiency, the first thing that will hit them is the shear lunacy of multiple inconsistent interpretations of the regulations and their complexity compared to the rest of the world, for example an FOI, when asked why there isn't a simple checklist of what is required of a private pilot flying a C172 to successfully complete any ramp check anywhere in the country told my friend that it was "Too complicated"!!!!! That should make another cathedral full of bells start ringing!

Then when they look at work flow, "projects", lines of authority, approvals, not to mention enforcement actions, there is a whole other mess to be found. Finally they will look at the likes of Barrier, Polar, Quadrio, hempel and others and the penny will drop.

CASA needs to be broken up. the ATSB needs its full independence restored and confidentiality restored by the creation of a strict liability offence for any ATSB person to breath a word to anyone. There needs to be an economic fostering clause in the legislation and enforcement must be totally separated from rule making.

It can be done. PM&C people could do it over a weekend if they aren't too busy.

[Creampuff]

You miss my point (which may have been poorly expressed).

The government understands, completely, all of the issues and options.

The government is not snowed by the mystique of aviation.

The government isn’t doing anything, because it doesn’t need or want to do anything.

Mssrs Forsyth, Whitefied, Reiss and Spruston will feed the industry chooks for a few months to keep them distracted, the report of the review will be feted by the usual suspects then gather dust in the usual way. Job done.

[Cactusjack]

I do agree with Creampuff on his point, that the government really just doesn't care. Government Ministers do not like to work, especially the kind of work which involves getting their hands dirty. There are to many working studies to be enjoyed in foreign lands, taxpayer funded fiddles and excessive salary portfolios that need to be managed, not to mention allocating bonus money into future investments, plus the time it takes to manage your super fund.
Combine that with corporate lunches, public events, freebies and getting your family and friends in to a 6 figure salaried position in your department and there simply is not enough time to deal with silly regulations, pesky Senators, people championing safety and most certainly the IOS!

Now I'm off to go and food Creamy's chooks!

[Frank Arouet]

Someone should get rid of the rooster. He keeps turning the light off at the end of the tunnel.

[gaunty]

Creamie me old,

i have stayed away from these forums as apart from the same old, same old, not much of any proactive stuff I see, with the same tired old characters endlessly remembering the war and past glories.

i am disappointed that your continued exposure to it and the gallant efforts to maintain CDF here have blunted your previous edge.

Our friend Sunfish is right it can be done.

i have been called a lot of things mostly on these forums but naive I'm not when I say that I think this Government is waay different and the the terms of the review are very well informed and serious in their intent.

if you don't embrace change it will never happen

The usual suspects around here need to get their heads out of that place and get working on a really professional submission simply stating the issues, facts and recommendations and devoid of war stories, ego, grandstanding or personnel assassination, they have not the time nor interest

i have seen a couple of proposed industry submissions and I can only say they were so incompetent i would be ashamed to be included as one of said industry. If that the best we can do then God help us.

i know at least two of the panel fairly well and that will an instant turn off.

These guys have serious creds.

Get help, professional help in defining and framing up your submission and go do it.

This will be the last chance in most of our lifetimes.

Good luck

[thorn bird]

Gaunty me old,
there is really only two real issues.

1. Do you support an aviation industry in Australia or not?

2. Do you accept that corruption within the current regulator is perfectly acceptable or not?

If the answer to 1. is yes then there needs to be some fundamental changes in the way we regulate, because right now we are exporting our industry to our neighbours who have proper regulations.

If the answer to 2. is yes, then we are all screwed, not just the aviation industry, "banana republic" comes to mind.

[Creampuff]

Great to hear from you, gaunty!

I agree: It can be done.

I agree: It can be done, but only if it’s done professionally.

I’ve been trying to make those very points - evidently poorly.

I’d add only this: Unless the non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014 are convinced of the benefits of the recommendations arising from the ‘review’, those recommendations ain’t goin’ nowhere, ‘serious creds’ or not.

So….. some - in my opinion, most - of that professional submission-making horsepower must, in my opinion, be allocated to convincing non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014 in parallel to the review.

[Frank Arouet]

Bloody hell, Gaunty of all people! Here, giving advice!

i know at least two of the panel fairly well and that will an instant turn off.

I guess you don't like them?

These guys have serious creds.

No, I guess you like them after all?

i have seen a couple of proposed industry submissions and I can only say they were so incompetent

So this is why you would be ashamed to be party to "that" industry, or have you now entertained the idea of putting your own submission for us to judge your competence? Maybe you and Creamy should do a joint submission?

One thing is for sure, we can't call you a "usual suspect", being unusual and all that.

BTW Are you still painting that pot black?