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 Aug 2014, 02:18
  #1041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
Which is why your treatment of pilots with colour vision deficiencies has been particularly egregious.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 05:58
  #1042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
MMSM Steve on outgoing DAS missive??

Steve is quick off the mark on the DAS (STBR) side swipe at IOS..





CASA boss McCormick to stand down at the end of the month THE outgoing head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has argued he is leaving the organisation a more effective regulator as he ends a controversial tenure at the end of the month.

In his last message to the aviation community, CASA boss John McCormick said his more than five years at the helm of the of the regulator was “challenging, satisfying and at times difficult”.

“I firmly believe that as I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world,’’ he said in an online briefing released today. “Like any good organisation CASA is a team of people with a mix of skills, knowledge and experience that when constructively managed deliver excellent outcomes.

“In 2014, I look at CASA and see a clearer focus on priorities, documented processes and procedures that are followed as required, better training and support for staff and an understanding that decision making must be transparent and fair.’’

Mr McCormick’s comments come as CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, representing eight industry associations, last week called on Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to move to reset the industry’s relationship with CASA “following the damage of the last five years’’.

Mr Truss has promised to react by year’s end to a report by industry veteran David Forsyth that called for sweeping reforms at the regulator and found that its ‘hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to a lack of trust between it and operators.

CASA also attracted flak from a Senate committee for its handling of the 2009 ocean ditching of a Pel Air crash.

The committee found regulatory procedures at the time of the crash were deficient and wrote to the Australian Federal Police to ensure “any appropriate action is taken’’ over a failure by CASA to provide documents to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

CASA stood by its handling of the controversial issue, despite an ABC Four Corners investigation that revealed a special audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and `serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick acknowledged that he and CASA had its critics and said constructive criticism had been welcomed and valued.

He said he had never pretended CASA had all the answers to every aviation safety issue and he had encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate’’.
“However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgments, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety,’’ he said. “Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.

“It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. “Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position.’’

Mr McCormick also hit out at the way the debate about the regulator had degenerated and become personal. He said this was not constructive and did nothing for aviation safety.

“It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves,’’ he said.
An international search has been underway for a replacement for Mr McCormick but Mr Truss has yet to make an announcement.
(Err...Steve you do know it's not Friday right??)

Addendum

Must be a slow news day Oz Aviation is also onto it..: CASA has global respect: McCormick

Passing strange that on the one day that the media shows any interest in the CAsA site it apparently suffers a melt down??

MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Aug 2014 at 06:30.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 06:19
  #1043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.
[Bolding added]

What sections of the industry are happy with CASA's handling of regulatory change?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 07:18
  #1044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
“Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
Couldn't agree more. Let's see if the above features in the MoP the senators have lodged.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 25th Aug 2014 at 14:27. Reason: Mop
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 08:38
  #1045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
"The future for CASA will be positive."

Pity the same cannot be said for the industry they have buggered.

" I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world."

Self aggrandizing Clown!! Must be all the cigars and expense account banquets in Montreal that gives him that idea.

From my experience overseas, mention CAsA to other regulators and they give you a pitying look and roll their eyes skywards.

"I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers."

Err... John..Mate!!...are you awake??? or just stupid!!

In case you hadn't noticed the aviation industry in Australia is spiraling down the gurgler!!

Meanwhile, across the Tasman, where they have "Proper" regulation, their industry goes from strength to strength.

John, go back to Hong Kong, there are one or two people who would love to have some constructive conversation. Any back street in Kowloon would do..

Don't bang the door on your way out!!




Last edited by thorn bird; 25th Aug 2014 at 09:22.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 12:17
  #1046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety.
so why is it that the legislation is written to enforce just your view of the world?

why don't we have Canadian Owner maintenance? the canadians have enjoyed it for well over a decade.

why can't we de-certify a privately owned aeroplane and maintain it on a stand alone basis? in the case of two seat Cessna's I am aware of one with just 300 hours on it sitting in a hangar, I'm also aware of some with over 12,000 hours on them in training environments. why do they all need to undergo the SIDS program.

McCormick, you leave aviation as one of the greatest fckuwits ever to walk through the doors. Most of what you leave behind as a legacy will need to be redone by someone sensible. ....and we paid you 3 million dollars. can we have a refund?
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 14:48
  #1047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,164
Tell us more about the Canadian maintenance self doing deal. Is it for fully certified aircraft or is it just for Ultralights and experimental!?
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 15:45
  #1048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Dick,

Part V - Standard 507 Appendix H - Aircraft Eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance


See link

Part V - Standard 507 Appendix H - Aircraft Eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance - Transport Canada
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 19:41
  #1049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Out, out, brief candle!

I have tried, very hard to make some sense of the quote below; only to be defeated. I can neither fathom the madness nor define the evil within it, save that it simply defies all known fact and ambient logic.

“Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
Portria. - A gentle riddance.—Draw the curtains, go.—
Let all of his complexion choose me so.

The - Morocco – part preceding is worth a moments consideration.

"Damn it! What’s this? It’s a skull with a scroll in its empty eye socket. I’ll read it aloud."

'Nuff sed methinks.....
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 21:05
  #1050 (permalink)  
windforce
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
McCormick, on your way out can you pick Mr. Navathe up as well? dumber and dumber...

ps, don't bang the door on your way out!!
 
Old 25th Aug 2014, 21:23
  #1051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,379
McCormick hit out against those that resorted to personal attacks when CASA ruled against them.

“I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA,” McCormick said.

“But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position.

“Sadly when some of CASA’s critics have not got their own way the debate has degenerated and become personal, which is not constructive and does nothing for aviation safety.

“It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves.”
Folks, this is called "projection" in psychiatry - the act of attributing the characteristics of your own behaviour to your critics.

By all accounts, Mc Cormick got the nickname "the screaming skull" for his behaviour towards others when he didn't "get his own way" and to divert attention from his own behaviour.

Furthermore his participation in the "star chamber" process at Cathay involved intensely personal judgements based on no documented evidence or transparent process whatsoever.

The rest of the article indicates a man totally out of touch with reality because, unless the submissions and the conclusions contained in the inquiry report to Government are totally wrong, he has presided over a total basket case.

Last edited by Sunfish; 25th Aug 2014 at 21:38.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 00:59
  #1052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Right, so much for sentiment...back to business!

McCormick, on your way out can you pick Mr. Navathe up as well? dumber and dumber...
Nail in head..

And a choccy frog for Sunny..
Folks, this is called "projection" in psychiatry - the act of attributing the characteristics of your own behaviour to your critics...

...The rest of the article indicates a man totally out of touch with reality because, unless the submissions and the conclusions contained in the inquiry report to Government are totally wrong, he has presided over a total basket case...
And if you want evidence here it is...


Notice that the SS still believes that he will have the final say on the CVD decision making process... As Sunny indicates the guy is seriously delusional...

Anyway (FLICK..) back to business...

Noticed that the AA mag carried an article from Senator David Fawcett in their July edition where he gives his appraisal of the Forsyth (ASRR) report..

A turning point

The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review

It is my genuine hope that the Australian aviation community will be able to look back on June 2014 when the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) was tabled in Parliament and see it as a milestone that marked the beginning of a turnaround for the industry.

The review was undertaken by David Forsyth (Australia), Don Spruston (Canada) and Roger Whitefield (UK) but their work was only made possible because individuals and companies proved willing to engage with them in a constructive manner. This cooperation has resulted in a sweeping but balanced evaluation of the current state of industry-regulator relations. Most importantly, it has identified a number of achievable measures to create a safe and sustainable aviation industry across each of the various sectors involved.

Space dictates I can’t hope to comment on all 37 recommendations but I will pick up on some key themes and outcomes.

Leadership

The panel acknowledges that there were positive comments about the regulator, reflecting the fact that many CASA staff work hard to support those whose livelihoods or recreation are tied up with aviation. The review makes clear however that the majority of industry feedback was critical, highlighting that CASA has become more heavy-handed in its approach to regulation over recent years and that communication or engagement with industry can no longer be characterised across the board as constructive.

To their great credit, the panel has taken a “whole of system” approach and highlights the role of leadership, from government, Department and the CASA board in promoting and developing a safe, secure and sustainable aviation industry in Australia. In my view, “sustainable” is a key word here as there is a strong link between commercial viability and capacity for safe operations. This concern also extends to the protection of airport flight paths and operations from the encroachment of on- and off -airport developments with the panel identifying this as an urgent policy issue with an emerging risk to the long term viability of Australia’s existing aviation infrastructure.

In addition to an enhanced Departmental role, I am pleased to see the panel’s view that the board should exercise full governance over CASA with non-executive directors possessing a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds in aviation, safety, management, risk, regulation and governance.

The panel also sees a leadership role for industry, particularly in respect to collaborative rule making, which is critically important to acceptance and commitment, but which in practice does not currently exist.

This increased accountability to a better informed and engaged Department, board and industry, perhaps allowed the panel to make a recommendation that while aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable, the next Director of Aviation Safety must have leadership and management experience with demonstrated capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. This will be an interesting space to watch.

Regulatory reform and future rule making

I’m not surprised that the long and sometimes tortuous process of regulatory reform was a key feature which the panel estimates will take at least another five years to complete if the current approach is retained.

More significantly, the review notes that the final product of the current regulatory reform process is unlikely to meet the aviation community’s needs and is unlikely to be consistent with the ICAO principles for plain language safety rules.

The panel therefore recommends a structured project management approach to complete all outstanding CASR Parts, overseen by a steering committee.

Linking back to the importance of accountability and leadership, I’m pleased to see the recommendation that this committee would report to the CASA board and would include a Department representative as well as two industry representatives appointed by the Minister.

Industry will also have a key role in the subject matter sub-teams for relevant aviation disciplines (spanning operations and maintenance ranging from high capacity RPT through to charter, airwork, agricultural and training to private GA operations).

These teams would include representatives from CASA and the industry selected on the basis of their knowledge, ability and commitment.

I’m very conscious that many in industry have expressed deep disappointment with what they see as “one-way communication” by CASA in the consultative arrangements that currently exist. I believe that the commitment to a meaningful role for industry’s voice in this new process is backed up by the panel’s recommendation that not only is industry’s time and knowledge required in this collaborative rule making effort, but that CASA would need to compensate them for it.

Culture and organisation

Key concepts here include trust, the appropriate use of discretion and service. Leading overseas regulators are using a ‘trust and verify’ approach which leads a generally collaborative relationship, working with industry to build safety outcomes, but taking a hard line when necessary. Most industry representatives I’ve spoken to would have no problems with such an approach.

The panel notes that CASA may need to be more reliant on industry delegates to issue low-risk approvals on its behalf. This builds on the successful ATO scheme and in a move that will be welcomed by industry, the recommendation is that CASA must continue to indemnify industry delegates, when they are making decisions on behalf of the regulator, to ensure that they are able to carry out these functions with confidence and legal certainty.

While not supporting the many calls for Australia to adopt the NZ CAA regulations outright, there is a call for CASA to adopt an organisational structure similar to that developed for New Zealand, which would structure CASA along the lines of industry’s activities (a client-oriented output model) rather than being structured around CASA’s activities. While I know many CASA staff already try to provide a service to industry, having a service oriented corporate structure and culture would make their job so much easier.

This could see a move back to having small, industry focused teams at secondary airports to assist industry in coordinating approvals and performing routine monitoring and ramp inspections. To overcome some of the current issues that lead to “office shopping” by industry, system audits would be conducted by audit teams from other CASA offices.

Having seen the success of third party industry audits such as BARS and IOSA, I’m really pleased to see a focus in the review on the potential for CASA to increase the acceptance of third-party expertise to contribute to ongoing audit and inspection schedules. There is also a focus on ensuring that CASA abides by international best practice in respect to audits through measures such as full disclosure of findings at exit briefings.

Finally, one of the measures that will be most welcome is a completely new approach to providing individuals and companies with a timely and affordable appeal mechanism. The proposed Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) review panel would provide a suitably separate and impartial review mechanism that gives the board direct insights into the impacts of CASA decision-making. It allows for timely review by a panel chaired by a CASA board member, supported by independent experts which will consider both the merits and process of matters (including AVMED). No officer of CASA is exempt from the ICC’s jurisdiction and while CASA can object to the ruling, they have to explain their decision to the board and parties still have recourse to the AAT.

The ASRR is not a silver bullet that will fix everything overnight, but it is a long overdue recognition that the concerns raised by all industry sectors over many years are valid. Importantly it provides a framework for stronger leadership, improved accountability, culture and regulatory process which I trust will enable Australia to have a safe and sustainable aviation industry into the future.



"..Another turning point a Fawcett stuck in the road.."

MTF..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 04:00
  #1053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
A key part of the problem

From an article titled “Some helpful advice for return of hostilities” by Nicholas Stuart and appearing in the 25 August 2014 Canberra Times:
Ah, welcome back! Yes, the Parliamentary winter break always offers a good chance for pollies and their hard-partying staffers to escape dreary Canberra's cold and grab a bit of time in the sun. After all, it's a well-known fact that nothing ever happens (politically) during this entire period. What's that you say? Never been busier? Budget not passed? Economy stalling? Goodness gracious, but don't worry about that, I'm sure that nice Mr Tony Abbott has a terrific plan in his back pocket that will fix everything up quick smart. Nevertheless, and just in case he doesn't, it's obviously my civic duty to ride to the rescue with a few carefully chosen words to provide assistance. So here goes. Firstly a diagnosis of the problem, then the remedy. It's simple, really, and I'm sure my solutions will be of great assistance.

A cabinet full of old fuddy-duddies. A couple of problems here. Firstly, the hopeless ones are all on the frontbench while the talented ones sit further back. Unfortunately, the opportunity for a shake-up has passed with the winter break. Abbott can't afford to shuffle the ministry now because he'll be throwing the new chums into a baptism of fire without any chance to get across the issues in the portfolio. The counter-argument to this, of course, is that no one can really be worse than George "Voltaire" Brandis, Peter "chuckles" Dutton or what's his name, you know the bloke, he's Deputy Prime Minister, oh, it's on the tip of my tongue. No, sorry, lost it.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 05:21
  #1054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
St Nicholas left out the following

I am sure the Canberra cold weather shrinks politicians brains (amongst other things). And yes, all old fuddy duddy old geezers taking up valuable oxygen. They sit around in their silk suits while limousines line up outside waiting to jump to their every need, they potter about from luxurious office to office sitting on leather couches, breathing in the vapours of their 5 star lunch cuisine while they work out how to look like they are doing something while remaining non committal. They have meetings, lots of them, they talk, they discuss, they hypothesise, then they book the next 'international speaking engagement' to Greece, Italy, Canada or France which encompasses 2 hours work with the rest of the time spent looking at 'policies and processes' while staying at retreats, eating fine cuisine, touring the local tourist spots and cavorting with other like minded rorting dignitaries. Yes our hard working front benchers arise at 0300, have lunch at 1000, dinner at 1600 then lights out at 1830.
Oh the tough life of a bureaucrat with his/her snout buried in a trough or up a foreign Presidents ass. Indeed,"it's good to be the king"
Soteria is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 05:35
  #1055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Question time today saw Truss nearly nodding off. No questions and one answered by the assistant minister for RRA&T. I'd send him a hot water bottle to warm his brain except it's probably a waste of money.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 07:54
  #1056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Word on the street is that 'Fanta pants' from Brisbane's head office went nuts when GC jagged the GM Operations gig a little while ago. Fanta pants supposedly went on the warpath, ended up with some bullying claims levelled against him from some staff, and as a result came very close to being frog marched out of The Circuit. That being said, he is a mate of the Skull's, and the Skull coincidentally helped Fanta pants walk straight into the plum Brisbane field office manager job in the first place, plus he used to fly the big tin also, so naturally he too has some misguided sense of pride and feels all rights and privileges belong to him.

Frank, that's because it was midday and past his bedtime.
Soteria is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 09:31
  #1057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
Tell us more about the Canadian maintenance self doing deal. Is it for fully certified aircraft or is it just for Ultralights and experimental!?
sorry Dick I missed your question.

if you google "canadian owner maintenance regulations" you will find many references.
the amending act is itself quite a tidy document but I can't find it.

In canada there are areas so remote that people are able to fly aircraft in the backwoods for the entire lifetime of the aircraft without anyone being the wiser.
these are usually illegally owner maintained.
Transport Canada realised at one time that they actually had enough statistical information to work out whether the owner maintenance ever actually caused a problem. as a result of their study they found that owner maintained aircraft crashed no more often than those in certified maintenance. so they changed the canadian regulations to create an amateur maintenance category.
a canadian private owner can apply to have any privately owned aircraft placed in the amateur maintenance category.
in addition, since private aircraft have such wide variation in usage and hours they created a provision to allow a certified private aircraft to be decertified and maintained on a stand alone basis. the owner applies to the minister for aviation for decertification. the minister approves and instructs the owner to locate every serial number plate on the aircraft and stamp the letter X at each end of the serial number. the aircraft is then maintained by the owner under the owner maintenance category.
Canada also wrote a whole bundle of regulations requiring owners to be trained and approved. however Transport Canada told all the owners that while the accident rate remained where it was or got no worse the training requirements would not be implemented.

Of course the FAA in america will not recognise Canadian owner maintained aircraft so none of these are permitted to fly over the border to oshkosh.
When I found that the EAA would not support canadian owner maintenance I cancelled my membership.

White South Africa had something similar in the LS2 regulations.

talking with owners who have worked under both systems they have never seen problems caused by owner maintenance. in fact most aircraft seem to improve as owners take the time to undo the effects of time and wear on the aircraft.

admittedly not all owners have the necessary skills and knowledge off the bat when these changes are introduced, but owning the aircraft and meeting the costs of fixing stuff ups is a fairly powerful motivator to learn and become competent and lets face it aircraft aren't that complex. AC43-13/2b is a fairly good educational tool.

late amendment.
haven't found the regs I am after but start a browse with this page. it'll give you a smile.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...507sh-1837.htm
and this one...
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...ation-2752.htm

this isn't the amending reg I was looking for but is the full incorporated regulation.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...04.htm#507s_03

you'll wish we all lived in canada.

Last edited by dubbleyew eight; 26th Aug 2014 at 09:57.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2014, 06:51
  #1058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
CAsA thumbing nose at Govt policy - Examples please

AMROBA Ken request from members -

"What I need to create is a submission to government with examples of recent costs for regulatory services. If any member is willing to provide me with the costs and the service provided that is seen as excessive, then I will collate as evidence of over charging."

Ken can the IOS membership put their two bobs worth in???
Increasing Costs & Red Tape

Recently some of our members have been bringing to my attention the massive increase in red tape and costs, costs that we find are far beyond what the regulatory service should cost. It is obvious that CASA has not yet come under the influence of this government. It is to be expected based on their track record to ignore previ-ous government and judicial recommendations.

Back in 2013, the LNP Aviation Policy stated that the Coalition would support the growth of the aviation industry by reducing red tape, reform the structure of CASA, establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council and, among other promises, establish a high level review of aviation safety and regulation.

So far the government has only met one promise. The Forsyth Report achieved what had not been possible in the past, a government review of safety and regulation whose outcomes are industry supported. The govern-ment has issued Guide for Better Regulation but, based on what CASA continues to produce, the government Aviation Policy and Red Tape Reduction processes are being totally ignored. Red Tape Principles:

1. Regulation should not be the default option for policy makers: the policy option offering the greatest net ben-efit should always be the recommended option.
2. Regulation should be imposed only when it can be shown to offer an overall net benefit.
3. The cost burden of new regulation must be fully offset by reductions in existing regulatory burden.
4. Every substantive regulatory policy change must be the subject of a Regulation Impact Statement.
5. Policy makers should consult in a genuine and timely way with affected businesses, community organisations and individuals.
6. Policy makers must consult with each other to avoid creating cumulative or overlapping regulatory burdens.
7. The information upon which policy makers base their decisions must be published at the earliest opportunity.
8. Regulators must implement regulation with common sense, empathy and respect.
9. All regulation must be periodically reviewed to test its continuing relevance.
10. Policy makers must work closely with their portfolio Deregulation Units throughout the policy making pro-cess.

Why is industry still being subject to all the negatives that the Forsyth Report identified, and industry had also identified to the LNP prior to becoming government? - most now feel deceived because of the lack of govern-ment action. It is almost 12 months since the government was elected.

For instance, British GA will benefit from a GA system that will be closer to the FAR system than Australia, even though the non-airline sectors have been lobbying for the FAR system for the last decade. CASA consultation is a joke in that it does not listen to their own industry because "they know best" ????

CAA(UK) Red Tape Reduction program has commenced—it will be completed within two years.
The CAA(UK) Performance Based Regulation program will also be completed within two years.

For CAA(UK) future work there will be two guiding ambitions and principles:
deregulation and delegation to remove the bulk of GA from the current regulatory oversight of the CAA.

Since September last year when the government was sworn in, this industry has been patiently waiting for CASA to start to be seen as adopting and implementing government’s policies and directions. However, the industry has seen CASA continue with increasing prescriptive regulations and red tape.

Under the government guidelines, all regulations proposed and made during the past 5-10 years also need to be totally reviewed.

What I need to create is a submission to government with examples of recent costs for regulatory services. If any member is willing to provide me with the costs and the service provided that is seen as excessive, then I will collate as evidence of over charging.

Other government departments/agencies are working to reduce regulatory costs, if the principles were properly applied, not only would costs be lowered for industry but improved productivity would benefit all.
Here's one example nicely outlined in a RAAA briefing paper titled - ISSUES WITH CLASSIFICATION OF AIR OPERATIONS
VI. EFFECTS ON THE INDUSTRY

The case raises significant issues for operators of air tourism and similar flights. There may now be operators who have been safely conducting air tourism flights for many years as charters who are now considered to be unlawfully conducting RPT operations.

Prior to the decision being handed down this was a grey area, but now it is clear that any flights operating to fixed times/schedules on which members of the public can acquire tickets are likely to require an RPT licence.

In addition, not all air operations can actually comply with RPT standards.

For example, the rules for RPT impose certain minimum standards for runways and security screening at airports. However, many small airports from which air tours operate do not have these facilities and compliance may require structural upgrades which are not possible.


In the wake of the Direct Air decision, CASA has issued a notice to all charter operators which suggests a partial solution to the problem. CASA has stated that it will consider providing RPT AOCs with exemptions or deviations from otherwise applicable requirements, provided that an acceptable level of safety is maintained. However, this opportunity has only been offered for aircraft with 9 seats or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 8,618 kg or less. This does not provide a solution for the whole of industry and it is difficult to see why it should not be extended to other operators.
This paper is extracted from the RAAA - MAJOR ISSUES - webpage, where you'll find several more examples of Government Policy non-compliance (NCN) by FF i.e. Red Tape Reduction, I'm sure the IOS can contribute many more...


MTF...


ps The RAAA (as previously mentioned on here) also wrote to the PMC on the subject -CUTTING RED TAPE

Last edited by Sarcs; 27th Aug 2014 at 07:39.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2014, 02:12
  #1059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Dougy's insight 28/08/14

Much like all the other journo's with an aviation bent, Dougy is carrying the Red Rat bad news story front and centre...

Qantas loses billions but confident of the future

However he has also put out his weekly - Editor's Insights 28 August 2014 - where he has a rehash on the soon to be retired DAS missive... But Dougy also leaks this positive information on the pending (when the miniscule wakes up) announcement of the final make up of the FF board...:
...Anyway, we are about to move into a new era of CASA so we should be looking forward with positivity.

Speaking of which, we now know that the three final names for the CASA board are: Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and David Cox. Anita has been high profile with the Gliding Federation, Ian is an integral part of the AMDA and David is the executive in charge of Sydney University’s Engineering School (and formerly, of course, head of engineering at Qantas).

Add those names to those already on the board, including recent vice-chairman appointee Jeff Boyd, and we have a pretty potent combination.

The Minister has said that the board would appoint the new DAS, so with the full board in place perhaps we can expect that announcement in the not too distant future. (Though it has been suggested to me that it isn’t going to happen that quickly.) From what I hear there are two strong candidates left in the running.
Hmm...interesting..

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2014, 05:43
  #1060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Cox

David Cox, a 'potent combination'? Oh my god, heaven help us...... At least we have established that the CASA Board is looking for bureaucrats still!
Soteria 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.