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 20th Aug 2014, 01:27
  #1021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
When the "great smoking black hole" happens, who will be the most vocal? (excepting of course the aviation industry that has been warning of it for years).

Yes folks, it's the poor bloody fare paying public who will scream most and loudest and they "WILL" effect change. The same public that made change to keep our "National Carrier" despite it being on the verge of non existence through a variety of fiscal, management, and environmental reasons. (What's their share price today)?

The same public that hold thousands and thousands more votes than the entire aviation industry and its family's dogs and cats and relatives.
Without alarming that same public by advising them their sorry backsides are in danger from an unelected inept and probably corrupt and destructive mob of public servants, (because that will probably be cause for action under some anti terror law), they are the ones this pitiful industry need to get on side.

I've given up preaching to those who can't effect change because they are irrelevant in the big scheme of things, and I intend to hitch my wagon to some ratbag populist mob like Wikileaks, Green or PUP Senators who WILL effect change because people do listen to them, (if only to criticize them). Bugga me, the left handed lesbian surfboard riders association have more members that the aviation industry. The industry Unions have more chance of making change. Look at the recent decision not to fly over war zones.

Before you dismiss this "ratbaggery", just look at some of the previous comments you have written here. One poster has linked Pink Batts, school halls, fighter planes to the current mob of political lightweights that somehow finds relevance in an aviation problem. The fact that Defence spending has increased is irrelevant because that's not what the public "THINK".

One problem, CAsA, which functions irrespective of political master. One solution and that solution is out of the aviation industry control. That solution is out of political control.

Actually it's the "problem" that's "IN CONTROL".

The public need to be afraid!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 01:48
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,932
Folks,
Just to remind you that the only reason the runway width issues has been created is "ICAO Compliance". For years we built runways to a set of standards that were the US standards.

Instead of the current "project" a simple way would have been to notify ICAO of a difference, but that would have raised the issue of CASA "liability" for allowing operations that did not meet ICAO SARPs.

On this basis, YSSY should be very carefully examined, runway width and length are not the only criteria for aerodrome standards --- I believe such an examination would result in operations rates on 16R/34L being severely curtailed.

That would get the attention of the Minister !!!!!

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 08:33
  #1023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
TAAAF speaks up.

Courtesy of Australian Flying:

Industry Keen for New CASA Relationship: TAAAF

20 Aug 2014


An aviation industry forum has expressed its enthusiasm for resetting its relationship with CASA in the wake of the Forsyth Report.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for more co-operative interaction between CASA and the aviation industry, stating that the last five years have been damaging.

"The industry has a mature approach to aviation safety and recognizes that working with a regulator is far more likely to produce positive safety outcomes than the inappropriate aggressive regulatory stance identified in the Forsyth Report into CASA," Chris Manning, Honorary Chair of TAAAF said on behalf of the united associations.

"The Minister’s imminent announcement of the new CASA Board, the announcement of the successful candidate for the Director of Air Safety / CASA CEO position, the outlining of a new direction for CASA through the Government’s response to the Forsyth Report and the Government’s honouring of its pre-election commitments to an Aviation Industry Consultative Council and other measures represent a significant changing of the guard.

"Industry stands ready and enthusiastic to bring in a new era of enlightened regulation for aviation safety in Australia to repair the damage of recent years."

As well as expressing a desire to improve the strained relationship with the regulator, TAAAF also took aim at the new regulations scheduled to become effective on 1 September. Among those is the 1500-page CASR Part 61, which deals with a new licencing scheme, and Part 141, which details the requirements for non-integrated flying training.

"Many industry participants have reasonably asked for the parts’ commencement to be deferred again as CASA – and consequently industry – is simply not ready," Manning said.

"Part 61 is an overcomplicated and overweight document that would benefit from an intense period of quality control. The likely impacts on training businesses are significant.

"The final Manual of Standards is apparently still under development."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from Australian Aviation: Industry forum says imminent announcement of new CASA boss a chance for fresh start

Six days till parliament sits, maximum of eleven days till a new DAS is announced, not sure on the two new board member announcements..

TICK..TOCK RED nearly time to wake up the miniscule!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 09:02
  #1024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 603
...a simple way would have been to notify ICAO of a difference, but that would have raised the issue of CASA "liability" for allowing operations that did not meet ICAO SARPs.
I'm not so sure that CASA would be too bothered about liability LS, what with 97 pages of differences filed at last count (AIP SUP H18/14).

And also, taking into account the difference filed by CASA with ICAO Annex 19 (Safety Management), Chapter 1. Industry codes of practice, because those aren't referred to in Australian legislation, it seems highly likely that to CASA the SARPs don't matter in any case.
SIUYA is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 10:24
  #1025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Unhappy liability?

Hey Leadsled,

To whom and to what extent would CASA be liable by maintaining sovereign rules that differ from ICAO?
scrubba is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 17:07
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Six days till parliament sits, maximum of eleven days till a new DAS is announced, not sure on the two new board member announcements..

From The Australian
THE search is on for a new head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority after incumbent John McCormick opted not to renew his contract.

Mr McCormick will stay as director of aviation safety until August 31 while the CASA board hunts for a replacement and to handle any fallout from the federal government’s review into aviation safety regulation due to be completed in May.
So McCormick was /is due to finish on the 31st. Yet the new director has not been announced. Isn't it usual for a handover period.

Truss and senate inquiry well buried in the long grass. Just wondering if the independents can stir it up next week?
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2014, 07:19
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Patience Grasshopper!"

From Dougy's insight 21 August 2014:
I note that the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum has been quietly prodding the Minister this week, with a press release saying in part “while industry has been very patient over the last 12 months, it is now keen to see real change and a more positive, cooperative relationship with CASA that is the benchmark of good aviation safety regulation across the world”.

This comes on top of earlier calls from industry for the Minister to expedite the process, but there’s still no sign of an announcement about either the Director of Safety or two other board roles at CASA. I know it’s critical to get it right but how long can it take? You have to start to wonder whether the shortlist put forward has been rejected in total. The current DAS’s time runs out on 31 August and I strongly suspect neither he nor the Minister wants an extension.
Hmm...Dougy is no wiser than the rest of the IOS..

"Like sand through the hourglass (or the TICK TOCK of a clock) so are the days of our lives"

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2014, 19:24
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Muddy waters, too thin to plough, too thick to drink.

I'm no longer certain the minuscule can tie his boot laces without makeup and medication let alone face down the 'Iron Rong' or escape from the clutches of the murky Machiavellian crew.

Qantas and Virgin are centre stage next week distracting the media and industry. There will never be a better time for a sneaky, low key announcement of the Rong DAS being appointed and of a soft white paper emerging; neatly hidden within the Qantas white noise.

Of the two remaining candidates there is only one serious contender; but the GWM don't want a bar of either a reform DAS or the reforms. There is enormous resistance, much subtle and some not so subtle pressure on Truss to renege on promises and dilute the process down to an Albo style of white paper and engage the department's Rong selection. Will he back down again is the big question? Can the Abbott government afford another broken promise is probably a bigger question; for without doubt if Truss drops the ball, that's what it will be. Aviation may be insignificant, but a broken promise in the hands of the opposition, even a small one can and will be used against.

The potential for damage to industry, particularly in rural electorates is immense. Truss is supposed to be National, Rural and to care for his constituents. When aviation crumbles, as it must, for it can no longer limp along as it does now; it will be the bush that suffers most. If Truss drops the ball will he be gifting his seat to the opposition or worse Palmer or even a green thing. Not many votes in aviation eh? – not until the opposition start working on another failure of the Abbott government promises.

Put the aviation industry first:-

Think of the millions saved and the millions brought in by a healthy robust industry.

Think of the international kudos for Truss and Australia; for people overseas know exactly how much shite the industry is in.

Please note: We pay for the service CASA provides; not the bloated bloody plutocrats blocking the changes. Man up, deep breath, support the reform, give the job to the right bloke and for once, do the right bloody thing; provide the changes which are expected and the reforms which are demanded.

Selah..

Last edited by Kharon; 21st Aug 2014 at 20:41. Reason: Albo must be drooling in anticipation.
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2014, 01:26
  #1029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Steve's been busy.

Don't hold back Ferryman...
Please note: We pay for the service CASA provides; not the bloated bloody plutocrats blocking the changes. Man up, deep breath, support the reform, give the job to the right bloke and for once, do the right bloody thing; provide the changes which are expected and the reforms which are demanded.
On peas & cajones: Noticed that SC from the MMSM stable has been busy of late...

We don’t need any more CASA regulation: Angel Flight

Which is mostly a rehash of other Aviation MSM coverage with absolutely zilch opinion or commentary.

Next... Tighter search-and-rescue chopper rules ‘risk lives’

Actually not too bad, gives a different perspective with new material on another long running and contentious issue but really Steve (much like the previous article) you must have some view on this??
Aviation consultant and former Civil Aviation Safety Auth*ority project manager Allister Polkinghorne said provisions in Civil Aviation Safety Regulations parts 133 and 138 could see some helicopters currently used in rescue and ambulance operations permanently parked...

...“Virtually every hospital heliport would be unavailable to anything except a helicopter with CAT A performance because the hospitals don’t have suitable forced landing areas on approach and departure paths,’’ Mr Polkinghorne said. “It will require bigger, noisier helicopters in noise and down-wash-sensitive areas.

“Where a rescue is performed for an injured patient, for example, surf rescue in a single-engine helicopter in Perth, the patient will be prevented from being transported to hospital by the new rules.’’...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromedical Society of Australasia president Graeme Field said the society supported the move to the air-transport cate*gory, but had written to CASA *expressing concerns about issues it believed needed further discussion, including the category of helicopters that could be used as an air ambulance.

He said the regulator had to be cautious that it did not make the rules so hard that the industry could not fly.

“We thought CASA needed to work more closely with state health authorities and governments in relation to these hospital landing sites,’’...

“So I think it’s important that we’re not restricted in our endeavours to make do with the available resources,’’ he said.

“While it’s fine to compare us with overseas countries, and it is useful, I think any future legislation has to take into account our uniqueness, the uniqueness of the Australian environment in which we have to provide aeromedical operations.’’
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAsA spokesman: “However, CASA acknowledges that, in some cases, applying all of the air-transport operations suite of standards to medical transfer flights would not be practicable. Due to the highly specialised *nature of some medical transfer flights, some of the rules in the air transport operational rules will not apply.’’

“This is in recognition of the unique circumstances of a search-and-rescue situation,’’ he said. “CASA is seeking to improve the safety standard of search and rescue operations where possible, but without limiting the potential for these operations.’’
Next article is just another take on the TAAAF story carried a couple of days ago...

Deputy PM Warren Truss urged to push on with CASA shake-up

...with the addition of some rather disturbing comments from the miniscule's spokesperson...
A spokesman for Mr Truss said the government was carefully considering the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth Report and it would be tabled before year’s end.

“In relation to the commencement of CASE part 61 regulations on September 1, CASA will work with industry to enable an effective transition to the new arrangements over the next few years,’’ he said.

“In relation to part 141 (flying training) the government has agreed to regulation amendments that will reduce the administrative burden of existing requirements on the aviation industry.

“These amendments will also take effect from September 1 and allow industry to transition to the new arrangements over the next few years.’’
Still no hard nose in your face questioning, just wet lettuce comments regurgitated from a miniscule minion out of their depth and with NFI...

Next Dick is at it again..: ‘Guinea pigs’ fly courtesy of CASA, says Dick Smith

"...FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has accused the air-safety regulator of using airline passengers as “safety guinea pigs’’ and mishandling changes it made to the radio frequency used by light aircraft at some small airstrips..."

All in all not bad coverage but seriously Steve when are you going to grow a set??

Addendum to Part 61 debate - FF say 61 addresses ATsB SRs??

Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits

"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
Part 61 has come under fire from industry groups recently, who have called for the 1 September date to be pushed out further.

Perhaps most vocal has been the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, which has voiced concerns over the availablility of the new Flight Examiners (formerly Authorised Testing Officers) to cope with demand, and has called for the new regulations to be written in plain English.

Further support to postpone CASR Parts 61, 141 and 142 have come from the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association and from The Australian Aviation Associations Forum.

CASA has recently deferred mandatory transition to the new Flight Examiner rating by two years, and will keep the current regulations surrounding helicopter licensing until 2017.

It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations.
MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Aug 2014 at 02:36.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2014, 21:13
  #1030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of being good.

Sarcs – "Don't hold back Ferryman".
I can assure you; I was holding back, very sanguine post I thought; considering the endless vacillation, dithering and general buggering about from the miniscule's office. I intend to be equally muted about the piss poor journalists who steal their money and spend days rehashing the old words of others without being able to put a constructive, analytical report or even an opinion to their long suffering readers. Quite apart from taking money under false pretences, this constant 'drip-feed' of party line sludge serves no purpose except that of the anointed spin doctors and ensuring advertising dollars; unless of course you count keeping a bunch of expensive legal types fat, dumb and untroubled.

Mind you, if the creature who drafted that 'thing' in the SMH yesterday is representative of 'independent' 'impartial' journalists, I'll stand bare arsed. Thirty pieces of silver to kick a cripple, not bad for 30 minutes of disgusting gutter work.

But don't hold your breath for Australian journalists to grow a pair; the only way they stand out in a mob of sheep is that small, but significant difference.

Toot toot.......
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 00:11
  #1031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Impatience grows while miniscule procrastinates

Kharon:
...considering the endless vacillation, dithering and general buggering about from the miniscule's office...
The biggest problem is with each passing day that this 'dithering' continues the more IOS speculation & anxiety grow...

In sport & politics time wasting/obfuscation only ever plays into the hands of the opposition. How many times have we watched a football match where the underdog side is grimly hanging onto a narrow lead only to be smashed & humiliated by an opposition goal right on the siren??

The longer we remain in this state of flux the more damaging the rumours/ Chinese whispers become and the more opportunity for the GWM to run, yet another, destabilising rear guard action designed to put more doubt in an ailing miniscule's office, the ominous signs are already there...

Example:

Media rumour not confirmed - "It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations."

GWM response
Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits

"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
The hypocrisy of this reasoning/justification by FF, to continue unabated with the Part 61 implementation, should not be lost on the IOS, given the disturbing findings documented in the PelAir report...

But the message is clear i.e. we've taken onboard those findings and we are now embracing the bureau's SRs to better enhance safety risk mitigation...

There is also another disturbing example.,in recent days, that has some bizarre parallels to the PelAir ditching investigation. However this example also shows that a leopard doesn't change it's spots, as FF simply can't hide their contempt for the Senate, particularly towards Senator Xenophon..

Australian Aviation carried this story on Friday - Airnorth boosted pilot ranks, changed rosters after 2013 incident: ATSB.

And this was the bureau report on the incident - AO-2013-010

From the report a 'Safety Issue' was addressed to the operator & published on the bureau website - AO-2013-010-SI-01
Safety issue description

Although the operator’s rostering practices were consistent with the existing regulatory requirements, it had limited processes in place to proactively manage its flight crew rosters and ensure that fatigue risk due to restricted sleep was effectively minimised.
{Comment: See the parallels now?? }

Then we have the proactive action from the Operator..:
Airnorth advised that, since the time of the occurrence, it had increased its E170 flight crew by about 30 per cent. This increase had resulted in flight crews doing less flight hours and providing more flexibility in rostering the flight crews.

In addition, Airnorth advised that due to changes in schedules, its rostering patterns had changed so that there were no longer any planned rosters that required overnight free of duty periods of less than 10 hours.

Occasionally there were actual overnight free of duty periods less than 10 hours when the day’s duty period was extended for operational reasons, but these were relatively rare.
Lesson learnt and job well done...

But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
Although not in response to this occurrence, on 28 March 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released revised fatigue management and flight and duty time requirements in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013. These requirements were to take effect for existing operators on 30 April 2016.
The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.

If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:

a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.

Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts.
Pretty hard to miss the 'up yours' in that statement directed towards Senator Xenophon (& by association AIPA) in his negatived attempt to disallow CAO 48.1...

But the message is very clear to the miniscule's office..."Look what we've done to mitigate this potential safety risk!"

Of course we all know it is bollocks and is merely the last thrashings of a dying beast...

A word from Ken that more than highlights why the current FF strategy will not work:
Delays & International Practices - GA

Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system.
This was also the direction of CASA before Byron/McCormick and is possible under the many recommendations and observations contained in the Forsyth Report.
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected.

Minister Truss, industry continues in damage control waiting for your decision.
  • The delay in appointing a new DAS
  • Directing adoption of the Forsyth Report recommendations; and
  • Amending the Act so the recommendations are permanently implemented.
So my advice to the IOS is to man up, hold the line and stop jumping at shadows past..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 05:47
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 300
AHIA and CASR Part 61

AHIA MEDIA RELEASE – 24 Aug ‘14

AHIA seeks closer contact with CASA to resolve Flight Crew Licensing concerns.

AHIA President, Peter Crook, recently wrote to CASA and stated; "The AHIA and other industry associations would welcome the opportunity to meet face to face with CASA to assist in achieving a SAFE, COST EFFECTIVE and OPERATIONALLY SOUND CASR PART 61. Crook strongly requested CASR Part 61 implementation due on 1 September 2014 be delayed until this consultative process takes place.

In response to his communiqué, CASA invited the AHIA Part 61 Review Team to a meeting in Canberra on Friday 29 August 2014.

The AHIA Board indicated this is a great step forward. Although CASA has limited discussion to specific topics, AHIA believes it will provide an opportunity to table other important issues involving the Part 61 and associated MoS. A post-meeting report will be provided to the helicopter industry.


Peter Crook
President
AHIA – 24 August 2014.
robsrich is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 05:56
  #1033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Unhappy are you saying that CASA is still directing what the ATSB says?

hey K,

When you said:

But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
did you mean that CASA somehow forced the ATSB to put in that little plug for the new CAO 48.1?

It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!

Oh, and in regard to:

Lesson learnt and job well done...
that accolade falls into the same class as commending Pel-air's cleanup - and that class is: "oops, sprung, quick - add some numbers and write some new rules"...

Last edited by Prince Niccolo M; 24th Aug 2014 at 06:02. Reason: premature execution
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 06:21
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Peter;


QUOTE: "CASA has limited discussion to specific topics" QUOTE.


While it's always good to have an agenda, this censorship is usually a prelude to a given outcome, or a stalling of further discussion. The best you can hope for is a hearing within their terms of reference which may or may not be cause for celebration. I doubt the tabling of "other documents" may sway the pre ordained PART 61. I wish you well with this endeavor and hope it proves my cynicism wrong.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 06:45
  #1035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Hi Nick – I think you are quoting from Sarcs @ # 1144. But it does seem to me as though 48 may be getting some additional, defensive oxygen; the answer is of course obvious. But I'm certain Sarcs can and will respond.

-.-....
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 15:35
  #1036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Red face poop - my bad

Sorry K,

a bit of halo effect and too many bubbles in my shiraz...

Sarcs, can you pick up the response please?
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 21:35
  #1037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Prince:
did you mean that CASA somehow forced the ATSB to put in that little plug for the new CAO 48.1?

It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!
Totally agree it didn't seem out of place at all and it is entirely appropriate for the regulator to add such comment.. Plus by design, the MoU and convention the bureau allow DIPs to comment.

My point is that until very recently unless FF were the actual addressee of the SR/SI they were very loathe to add much in the way of commentary. Also prior to the PelAir debacle if FF were the addressee a large part of their responses was spent arguing the toss on the SR/SI , followed by years of delays, excuses etc..etc. So the response & involvement in AO-2013-010-SI-01 is not SOP for the regulator of old, that is all I'm saying...

ps As for the thread drift into the debate on FRMS/CAO 48.1 and Senator Xenophon's long running campaign on the matter, well that is probably best left to discuss on the Senate thread. For now back to thread topic and I heard a whisper (all rumour of course..) that there will be a significant announcement coming out of the miniscule's office very soon...

Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Aug 2014 at 21:59.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 23:24
  #1038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
Let me guess..... An Acting (!) DAS from within the ranks until a final decision on the appointment is made from the final two!! I understand Cabinet must approve, so maybe a while yet?? How long is a bit of string???
triadic is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 01:59
  #1039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
I reckon the road block from the 'legal' department can only be shifted when there is a new DAS, which I think the 'full bored' will want to have a hand in selecting.

I reckon we'll get the board before that. If reform is fair dinkum we should see a solid 'aviation' team. Perhaps another from RAAA and someone with 'engineering' talent maybe; and a grass roots, heartland of real 'sport' flying type. There's some talent out there, shame not to use it.

Lets hope the DDAS can open enough golden parachutes before the reformation; make sure the rats get off before the cats arrive.

Speculative - Toot toot
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 02:10
  #1040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the other ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Posts: 0
Another Star Chamber nasty gone from our lives at last. The boys at Cathay Pacific will be pleased.
Captain Dart 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.