Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of the day
White flag! The re-appointment of BEAKER says it all. As a proud professional with 30 in the industry, i've decided Australia is not the place to be anymore. Going with great skills to a brighter future. Well done Wuss, and Albo! Pathetic!
I don't suffer fool's lightly!
I won't say tick tock, but I will say "brace brace brace"!
I don't suffer fool's lightly!
I won't say tick tock, but I will say "brace brace brace"!
Last edited by Jinglie; 5th Aug 2014 at 11:30.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaker gets to play accountant!!
Latest from the Beaker files;
Stellar groups jostle for MH370 search contract - Malaysiakini
This will keep him busy! Contracts, consultants, a giant pot money to the tune of $60 million, decisions decisions, the bald beardless one will mi mi mi be in his element! I wonder if he will pack his abacus and Bow tie analysis tool and head off to W.A for a visit offshore to the search site?
"In the meantime, ATSB chief Martin Dolan will be spending weeks sifting through the bids with the help of five bureaucrats, the WSJ reports".
This will keep him busy! Contracts, consultants, a giant pot money to the tune of $60 million, decisions decisions, the bald beardless one will mi mi mi be in his element! I wonder if he will pack his abacus and Bow tie analysis tool and head off to W.A for a visit offshore to the search site?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder...
Don't know as yet if the reappointment of Beaker is cause for alarm; only a faint whisper, but I did hear his appointment was 'short term' and future tenure depends very much on the Canadian report. Also, it's worth remembering that there is a recommendation in the Forsyth review for 'experience' to be brought into the ATSB, mindful that the 'Senators' may be smooth on the surface, but Beaker has gravely offended them, on more than one occasion.
Much to consider; if Truss is as ga ga as persistent rumours insist; perhaps the changes will start at the top; even if he digs in and stays on until the Qld elections, Abbott is no mug and his aviation flank is exposed. Could perhaps a junior minister be appointed? one with competence and experience, given the potential for bad reports being published; would be politically advantageous and operationally expedient.
Probably not, but they do need drivers – airframe – in China and I like the food and beer well enough. I'll give it month or so before grabbing the big port from storage and blowing the dust off.
Much to consider; if Truss is as ga ga as persistent rumours insist; perhaps the changes will start at the top; even if he digs in and stays on until the Qld elections, Abbott is no mug and his aviation flank is exposed. Could perhaps a junior minister be appointed? one with competence and experience, given the potential for bad reports being published; would be politically advantageous and operationally expedient.
Probably not, but they do need drivers – airframe – in China and I like the food and beer well enough. I'll give it month or so before grabbing the big port from storage and blowing the dust off.
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Aug 2014 at 21:23. Reason: Hate dragging dunnage around airports.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed bump.
I wonder what heinous crime 004 has committed, this time? the posts I can read seem positively sanguine, with barely a curse to offend the delicate sensibilities.
Aye well – We can only hope it's a temporary. I will miss the pawky sallies, mulled wit and pointed barbs. But, you pays your money and takes your chances.
Sad little Toot toot.
Aye well – We can only hope it's a temporary. I will miss the pawky sallies, mulled wit and pointed barbs. But, you pays your money and takes your chances.
Sad little Toot toot.
The Last Hurrah!
It is my solemn duty to officially welcome the AHIA, back from the dark side, to join the swelling ranks of the IOS (membership card is in the mail..
):AHIA mobilises industry volunteers to help with regulatory review.
"...But their requests have fallen on deaf ears; in fact, the silence from the politicians handling the fallout of the ASRR and post ASRR recommendations is concerning...
...If you think CASR Part 61 was hard to understand - just wait for the 133 (Air Transport) and 138 (Aerialwork) review. AHIA is looking ahead and there are some very expensive options coming up for things we have been doing for decades with no incidents...
...and starting a "call to arms" seeking experienced operators who can guide us all and provide timely feedback to the regulators to avoid draft rules being ignored and then later we cause a riot when they become law! (But you will need a speed reading course as everything seems to hundreds of pages long!)..."
However before entering the IOS favourite haunt (war room) for the Friday arvo constitutional (i.e. beer'n'nuts) can you please tie up that bloody rabid dog of yours...
MMSM right of reply: CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark
"...For these reasons, among others, I was disappointed to see the negative comments made by the Australian Helicopter Industry Association about the new licensing suite of regulations, which take effect from September 1...
...Many of the claims made by the association were wide of the mark and do not reflect the close consultation CASA has been undertaking with the broader helicopter community, including association representatives..."
Hmm..where have I heard this before..:
Oh well moving on..
Dougy's weekly insight yesterday: Besides paying tribute to the sad passing of Aussie aviation safety legend Macarthur Job (RIP), Dougy makes mention of the GDB ('Great {new} DAS debate'):
So Dougy feels it is all still to play for....next
From the RAAA 'Winter Newsletter' Paul Tyrell (from the RHS) seems to be still reasonably upbeat:
Time is ticking miniscule..
What is it to be the long drop or the 'Last Hurrah'??
MTF..
):AHIA mobilises industry volunteers to help with regulatory review."...But their requests have fallen on deaf ears; in fact, the silence from the politicians handling the fallout of the ASRR and post ASRR recommendations is concerning...
...If you think CASR Part 61 was hard to understand - just wait for the 133 (Air Transport) and 138 (Aerialwork) review. AHIA is looking ahead and there are some very expensive options coming up for things we have been doing for decades with no incidents...
...and starting a "call to arms" seeking experienced operators who can guide us all and provide timely feedback to the regulators to avoid draft rules being ignored and then later we cause a riot when they become law! (But you will need a speed reading course as everything seems to hundreds of pages long!)..."
However before entering the IOS favourite haunt (war room) for the Friday arvo constitutional (i.e. beer'n'nuts) can you please tie up that bloody rabid dog of yours...
MMSM right of reply: CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark
"...For these reasons, among others, I was disappointed to see the negative comments made by the Australian Helicopter Industry Association about the new licensing suite of regulations, which take effect from September 1...
...Many of the claims made by the association were wide of the mark and do not reflect the close consultation CASA has been undertaking with the broader helicopter community, including association representatives..."
Hmm..where have I heard this before..
:
CASA rejects the claim that elements of the manual can encourage unsafe practices. Where earlier drafts of the manual revealed some unintended consequences, appropriate changes were made, informed by constructive feedback from the industry. That is one of the purposes of the consultation process. It goes without saying that CASA would never intentionally introduce or retain requirements that might be detrimental to safety.
Dougy's weekly insight yesterday: Besides paying tribute to the sad passing of Aussie aviation safety legend Macarthur Job (RIP), Dougy makes mention of the GDB ('Great {new} DAS debate'):
More than one correspondent has expressed the view that the new CASA DAS will need a broad range of skills, rather than specific industry experience. People have talked of elements such as risk management and communications. I would add vision and the ability to pick the right people to perform functional roles at the next level of management exceptionally. Well, we should now know sooner rather than later whether that’s the sort of package we’re getting.
I’m continuing to pick up on a rising tide of frustration and indeed anger at the lack of decision making in the Minister’s office. What had seemed to be a spirit of real engagement with industry has evaporated. Let’s hope it’s not irretrievable.
I’m continuing to pick up on a rising tide of frustration and indeed anger at the lack of decision making in the Minister’s office. What had seemed to be a spirit of real engagement with industry has evaporated. Let’s hope it’s not irretrievable.
From the RAAA 'Winter Newsletter' Paul Tyrell (from the RHS) seems to be still reasonably upbeat
:
It may be winter in Canberra but things certainly haven’t cooled down for the RAAA. As many of you are aware the long awaited Aviation Safety Regulation Review was released.
The RAAA had significant input including five face to face meetings with the review panel. Of the thirty seven recommendations we only disagreed with three.
Prima facie it appears that the panel has listened carefully to RAAA and industry concerns. In some ways though, the report is the easy part. The test will be to see how Deputy Prime Minister Truss responds to the recommendations. He certainly has the ammunition to instigate significant change but it is unusual for government to act on every piece of advice.
Jeff Boyd, our immediate past Chairman, is warmly congratulated on his appointment to the Deputy Chair role at CASA. It is a sign that the government values regional aviation and long-term practical industry experience. We wish Jeff every success in this vital and challenging role...
...Soon we hope to hear who are the new CASA Board members. A new Director of Aviation Safety will also be appointed by 1 September and
followed closely by a fresh Industry Complaints Commissioner, with new responsibilities, joining the CASA team.
It is also likely that an extra ATSB Commissioner with significant aviation experience will be appointed in the near future. Finally, it is hoped that the announcement of the make-up of the Minister’s Aviation Advisory Council is not far away.
The RAAA had significant input including five face to face meetings with the review panel. Of the thirty seven recommendations we only disagreed with three.
Prima facie it appears that the panel has listened carefully to RAAA and industry concerns. In some ways though, the report is the easy part. The test will be to see how Deputy Prime Minister Truss responds to the recommendations. He certainly has the ammunition to instigate significant change but it is unusual for government to act on every piece of advice.
Jeff Boyd, our immediate past Chairman, is warmly congratulated on his appointment to the Deputy Chair role at CASA. It is a sign that the government values regional aviation and long-term practical industry experience. We wish Jeff every success in this vital and challenging role...
...Soon we hope to hear who are the new CASA Board members. A new Director of Aviation Safety will also be appointed by 1 September and
followed closely by a fresh Industry Complaints Commissioner, with new responsibilities, joining the CASA team.
It is also likely that an extra ATSB Commissioner with significant aviation experience will be appointed in the near future. Finally, it is hoped that the announcement of the make-up of the Minister’s Aviation Advisory Council is not far away.
What is it to be the long drop or the 'Last Hurrah'??
MTF..
Addendum to my last...
From Oz Flying today...
Aviation Bodies Call for New Rules to be Deferred
08 Aug 2014
Aviation bodies have lobbyed Minister Warren Truss to have the new CASR Parts 61 and 141 deferred further.
The new regulations were due to be introduced on 1 September, having already been postponed from 4 December last year.
Part 61 deals with new licence and endorsement procedures, and Part 141 relates to training organisations.
Phil Hurst, CEO of the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) told Australian Flying that they support any moves to stop the new rules coming into force in three weeks time.
"Our problem is that CASA is more and more like a rudderless ship on this issue and no-one seems to see what is coming – ie from 14 September all new licences must be trained for and issued under the new requirements," he said.
"The training orgs have not been reached out to by CASA or case managed so that they can start with compliant training from day one. The real weakness seems to be the Part 141 transition process – or lack of process perhaps.
"If companies are unable to start training under the new requirements in September because they have not been transitioned across to Part 141 by that time, I think you can imagine the outcome.
"Our particular concern remains the lack of a case-management strategy for all the companies likely to transition to a 141 organisation from the current ATO (Authorised Testing Officer) arrangements. While the requirements have been simplified, there is still a lot of work to be done on both sides. And of course there remain unresolved issues such as the role of ‘approved pilots’ under the new regime."
Last week, the Australian Helicopter Industry Association announced they had written to Warren Truss with similar concerns, and further support has since come from the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA).
"Like most associations we have written to the Minister supporting this approach," said AMROBA CEO Ken Cannane.
"Because CASA is currently in a state of flux awaiting on the appointment of new Board members and a new DAS [Director of Aviation Safety] and the Minister is yet to announce the Government’s response to the damning criticisms of CASA in the Forsyth Report, all regulatory development should be put on hold.
"The Forsyth Report has strong industry support for most of the recommendations. The Minister must direct the Board/CASA to await the outcome of the above. The three-tier system will reduce the red tape created by this Part."
A key recommendation of the Forsyth Report was that CASA adopt a three-tier system of regulations, which are 1. Act 2. Regulation 3. Plain-English Standards.
The third tier is being seen by most aviation bodies as key to a better understanding of regulations.
Someone check the miniscule's vitals and FFS empty out his intray...
...I've now got some irate bloke on the line from the TWU banging on about whether we'd received his letter asking for an urgent meeting and had we read the Oz article apparently titled..Govt failing to act on safer skies: union
TICK..TOCK..TA, JH & WT...
Aviation Bodies Call for New Rules to be Deferred
08 Aug 2014
Aviation bodies have lobbyed Minister Warren Truss to have the new CASR Parts 61 and 141 deferred further.
The new regulations were due to be introduced on 1 September, having already been postponed from 4 December last year.
Part 61 deals with new licence and endorsement procedures, and Part 141 relates to training organisations.
Phil Hurst, CEO of the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) told Australian Flying that they support any moves to stop the new rules coming into force in three weeks time.
"Our problem is that CASA is more and more like a rudderless ship on this issue and no-one seems to see what is coming – ie from 14 September all new licences must be trained for and issued under the new requirements," he said.
"The training orgs have not been reached out to by CASA or case managed so that they can start with compliant training from day one. The real weakness seems to be the Part 141 transition process – or lack of process perhaps.
"If companies are unable to start training under the new requirements in September because they have not been transitioned across to Part 141 by that time, I think you can imagine the outcome.
"Our particular concern remains the lack of a case-management strategy for all the companies likely to transition to a 141 organisation from the current ATO (Authorised Testing Officer) arrangements. While the requirements have been simplified, there is still a lot of work to be done on both sides. And of course there remain unresolved issues such as the role of ‘approved pilots’ under the new regime."
Last week, the Australian Helicopter Industry Association announced they had written to Warren Truss with similar concerns, and further support has since come from the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA).
"Like most associations we have written to the Minister supporting this approach," said AMROBA CEO Ken Cannane.
"Because CASA is currently in a state of flux awaiting on the appointment of new Board members and a new DAS [Director of Aviation Safety] and the Minister is yet to announce the Government’s response to the damning criticisms of CASA in the Forsyth Report, all regulatory development should be put on hold.
"The Forsyth Report has strong industry support for most of the recommendations. The Minister must direct the Board/CASA to await the outcome of the above. The three-tier system will reduce the red tape created by this Part."
A key recommendation of the Forsyth Report was that CASA adopt a three-tier system of regulations, which are 1. Act 2. Regulation 3. Plain-English Standards.
The third tier is being seen by most aviation bodies as key to a better understanding of regulations.
Someone check the miniscule's vitals and FFS empty out his intray...
...I've now got some irate bloke on the line from the TWU banging on about whether we'd received his letter asking for an urgent meeting and had we read the Oz article apparently titled..Govt failing to act on safer skies: union
A SENIOR union leader has threatened internationally-backed industrial action to force the Abbott government to stop airlines from flying over war zones following the MH17 disaster.
TRANSPORT Workers Union (TWU) secretary Tony Sheldon also lashed out at the International Civil Aviation Organisation after their global conference last week in Montreal failed to deliver measures like enabling flight crews to stand down from work if they are set to fly over a conflict zone.
The union said that Australian government representatives were at the meeting which resolved to let airlines continue to assess safety risks.
"They've just re-stated the same failed policy that saw so many people lose their lives in Ukraine (on MH17)," Mr Sheldon said.
He accused the watchdog and government of allowing airlines to prioritise profit over the safety of passengers and aircrews.
Mr Sheldon said it would have cost Malaysia Airlines an additional $28,000 to take a different route to the fatal path taken by MH17.
"They chose profit before safety and now we are mourning dead ones today," Mr Sheldon said.
Aviation security expert Ron Bartsch said that while airlines are best positioned to assess the risks of flight paths, it is critical for governments to proactively share information if they want to prevent another tragedy like MH17.
"The Australian government is not alone in being behind the eight-ball here," said the former head of safety at Qantas.
"Governments need to be more active in communicating information about hazards and danger areas to the international body who can then disseminate those crucial details to the carriers."
The TWU indicated that they would take the issue to the International Transport Federation to force authorities to act.
"Since MH17, we've seen government inaction, airline inaction and watchdog inaction," Mr Sheldon said.
Qantas recently buckled to public pressure following the US regulator's warnings about flying over Iraq.
They joined Emirates and Virgin Atlantic airlines in diverting their Dubai to London route away from the conflict zone in the Middle East.
TRANSPORT Workers Union (TWU) secretary Tony Sheldon also lashed out at the International Civil Aviation Organisation after their global conference last week in Montreal failed to deliver measures like enabling flight crews to stand down from work if they are set to fly over a conflict zone.
The union said that Australian government representatives were at the meeting which resolved to let airlines continue to assess safety risks.
"They've just re-stated the same failed policy that saw so many people lose their lives in Ukraine (on MH17)," Mr Sheldon said.
He accused the watchdog and government of allowing airlines to prioritise profit over the safety of passengers and aircrews.
Mr Sheldon said it would have cost Malaysia Airlines an additional $28,000 to take a different route to the fatal path taken by MH17.
"They chose profit before safety and now we are mourning dead ones today," Mr Sheldon said.
Aviation security expert Ron Bartsch said that while airlines are best positioned to assess the risks of flight paths, it is critical for governments to proactively share information if they want to prevent another tragedy like MH17.
"The Australian government is not alone in being behind the eight-ball here," said the former head of safety at Qantas.
"Governments need to be more active in communicating information about hazards and danger areas to the international body who can then disseminate those crucial details to the carriers."
The TWU indicated that they would take the issue to the International Transport Federation to force authorities to act.
"Since MH17, we've seen government inaction, airline inaction and watchdog inaction," Mr Sheldon said.
Qantas recently buckled to public pressure following the US regulator's warnings about flying over Iraq.
They joined Emirates and Virgin Atlantic airlines in diverting their Dubai to London route away from the conflict zone in the Middle East.
Last edited by Sarcs; 8th Aug 2014 at 06:13.
Meanwhile in the UK...
New Approach to Regulation
The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says it is moving toward "regulating in a more proportionate, effective and risk-based way," using the safety management systems in place at airlines, airports and ground handling organizations to help identify areas that present the greatest risks to safety.
"Performance-based regulation takes our safety oversight to a new level," Mark Swan, director of the CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group, said in early June. "By working hand-in-hand with the aviation industry, EASA [the European Aviation Safety Agency] and other national authorities to identify and manage risk effectively, we can concentrate our attention where it is most needed."
Swan added that industry cooperation would ensure the success of the new regulatory effort.
The CAA said that the new system would help the agency measure "the true extent of the risks to U.K. passengers and the general public" and identify and implement appropriate actions to manage risks. One key element calls for cooperating with civil aviation authorities in other countries that could take action to mitigate risks to U.K. operations.
The agency expects to have a full performance-based regulation system in place by April 2016 but already has established several elements of the system, including a new method of safety oversight based on identified risks and safety performance and a series of risk-mitigation activities and associated safety projects. The CAA also has established requirements for "an integrated safety risk-reporting and management system to better inform strategic decisions made by the CAA Board and the allocation of resources to act on them."
The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says it is moving toward "regulating in a more proportionate, effective and risk-based way," using the safety management systems in place at airlines, airports and ground handling organizations to help identify areas that present the greatest risks to safety.
"Performance-based regulation takes our safety oversight to a new level," Mark Swan, director of the CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group, said in early June. "By working hand-in-hand with the aviation industry, EASA [the European Aviation Safety Agency] and other national authorities to identify and manage risk effectively, we can concentrate our attention where it is most needed."
Swan added that industry cooperation would ensure the success of the new regulatory effort.
The CAA said that the new system would help the agency measure "the true extent of the risks to U.K. passengers and the general public" and identify and implement appropriate actions to manage risks. One key element calls for cooperating with civil aviation authorities in other countries that could take action to mitigate risks to U.K. operations.
The agency expects to have a full performance-based regulation system in place by April 2016 but already has established several elements of the system, including a new method of safety oversight based on identified risks and safety performance and a series of risk-mitigation activities and associated safety projects. The CAA also has established requirements for "an integrated safety risk-reporting and management system to better inform strategic decisions made by the CAA Board and the allocation of resources to act on them."
UK CAA can get its regulations overhauled to the new model in a couple of years, but here in Australia the numbnuts at CASA have dragged the process out for over 20 years while successive Ministers have sat on their ar$es twiddling their thumbs and doing fcuk-all to ensure that the mess we call our regulations got fixed.
To make matters worse (if that's at all possible) we apparently have Dolan reappointed as the Chief Commissioner.
MINISTER - DO SOMETHING!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headliners – and Has bin liners.
I did mention that the Abbott aviation flank was exposed; when MH 17 was destroyed, blind Freddy could see it was going to turn into a political bun-fight; and so it has. We now have 'Air safety' as a headline; no matter that the topics are 'flight paths', closed air space etc. it matters that the words air and safety are very topical.
If the idiot press (and some of the better ones) ever latch on to the notion that Australian aviation has got it's tits in the mangle, the spotlight will be on the Abbott government's aviation policy and what will they find? an industry on the brink of collapse, bad reports on CASA and worse on the ATSB; in short a shambles, not a good look. Maybe it's time to shut some of the stable doors, before the horses bugger off.
I'll second what Siuya says; with equal gusto.
If the idiot press (and some of the better ones) ever latch on to the notion that Australian aviation has got it's tits in the mangle, the spotlight will be on the Abbott government's aviation policy and what will they find? an industry on the brink of collapse, bad reports on CASA and worse on the ATSB; in short a shambles, not a good look. Maybe it's time to shut some of the stable doors, before the horses bugger off.
I'll second what Siuya says; with equal gusto.
Last edited by Kharon; 8th Aug 2014 at 21:49. Reason: Getting very untidy, ain't it minuscule?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truss must have a medical problem to let Albanese off the hook when he had the chance. He could have blamed everything CAsA on Labor, alongside the GFC, Union embuggerance, The Greens, Palmer, UN, ICAO, Malaysia, global warming/ cooling, (insert name of the week), gay marriage, breast cancer, The ABC, Fairfax and of course the Ills of Society.
Now he's stuck with the baby and the bath water, the phone's ringing and The Jehovah's witnesses are knocking at the door.
Put your feet up Minister, give the job to Barnaby and Fawcett and let loose the dogs of war. Enough with the metaphors.
Where have all the sophists gone?
Now he's stuck with the baby and the bath water, the phone's ringing and The Jehovah's witnesses are knocking at the door.
Put your feet up Minister, give the job to Barnaby and Fawcett and let loose the dogs of war. Enough with the metaphors.
Where have all the sophists gone?
Sunday cogitation - All to play for.
A good point you make SIUYA, 2 conservative governments with the same desire to reduce red tape and therefore cost to industry stakeholders. However that is where the similarity stops...
The UK initiative started with the govt putting down the GA red tape challenge (RTC)...
CAP 1123quote from the CEO of the CAA
Hmm..certain parts of the following sound very familiar..
Interesting that the PBR approach (SIUYA post) is apparently strongly backed by EASA & ICAO..
Mark Swan (CAP 1184):
"...Performance-based regulation (PBR) is central to EASA's and ICAO’s future plans. The CAA is working closely with our international colleagues to shape how PBR works in practice. The UK industry has fed back that it believes PBR should make the CAA more proportionate and targeted, have a greater degree of commercial awareness and be more transparent about how money is spent..."
And the timeframe/progress report so far for the UK CAA PBR initiative
Great initiative but unfortunately it doesn't really help us much...
However before we all start drowning our sorrows in despair or jumping the ditch to NZed, please reconsider the rather optimistic message from the RAAA newsletter. Then consider the following recent RAAA submission to the PMC (cc'd to the miniscule): RAAA SUBMISSION - CUTTING RED TAPE
Considering the above, & the fact that the previous RAAA Chairman is now sitting on the FF board, does anyone seriously think (for a moment) that the RAAA are just going to chuck it in cause we currently have another small speed bump (i.e. an ailing miniscule)??
TICK..TOCK miniscule
ps Love the CVD para..
The UK initiative started with the govt putting down the GA red tape challenge (RTC)...
CAP 1123quote from the CEO of the CAA
The UK General Aviation (GA) sector finds itself under increasing strain as costs of operation rise due to fiscal pressures, a greater focus on environmental issues and the application of a European regulatory framework, and perceived over regulation by the CAA. Too much prescription in the rules and a lack of proportionality have both impacted adversely on the sector.
The Government's GA Red Tape Challenge (RTC) was both timely and welcome. It has given my colleagues and I at the CAA a powerful reminder that we need to inject more pace into how we introduce a more proportionate and risk-based regulatory regime for the UK GA sector and push harder for change across Europe to meet the demand evident from
the GA community.
The Government's GA Red Tape Challenge (RTC) was both timely and welcome. It has given my colleagues and I at the CAA a powerful reminder that we need to inject more pace into how we introduce a more proportionate and risk-based regulatory regime for the UK GA sector and push harder for change across Europe to meet the demand evident from
the GA community.
A fundamental theme running across the Red Tape Challenge was communication between the CAA and the GA community. Many felt that the CAA’s website could be improved and accessibility of CAA guidance made better. The Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory Requirements, Policy and Guidance2, CAP 804, attracted particular criticism.
Another common concern was that regulations appeared to be introduced without due consideration of how they might impact on the GA sector. Many suggested that before any new regulations, interventions or guidance are introduced, their impact on the GA sector should be assessed and suitable changes made to reduce the impact, without compromising safety.
They asked that regulatory interventions should be risk-based, proportionate and the minimum necessary for safety.
There was naturally a strong desire to see greater efficiency from the CAA and a more customer-centric approach.
There was a general dissatisfaction with EASA rules and a perception that the CAA is prone to gold-plating these rules. The CAA has already responded publicly to this challenge. The CAA announced on 4 June that it is "committed to identifying and eliminating any such gold-plating".3
Another common concern was that regulations appeared to be introduced without due consideration of how they might impact on the GA sector. Many suggested that before any new regulations, interventions or guidance are introduced, their impact on the GA sector should be assessed and suitable changes made to reduce the impact, without compromising safety.
They asked that regulatory interventions should be risk-based, proportionate and the minimum necessary for safety.
There was naturally a strong desire to see greater efficiency from the CAA and a more customer-centric approach.
There was a general dissatisfaction with EASA rules and a perception that the CAA is prone to gold-plating these rules. The CAA has already responded publicly to this challenge. The CAA announced on 4 June that it is "committed to identifying and eliminating any such gold-plating".3
Mark Swan (CAP 1184):
"...Performance-based regulation (PBR) is central to EASA's and ICAO’s future plans. The CAA is working closely with our international colleagues to shape how PBR works in practice. The UK industry has fed back that it believes PBR should make the CAA more proportionate and targeted, have a greater degree of commercial awareness and be more transparent about how money is spent..."
And the timeframe/progress report so far for the UK CAA PBR initiative
We aim to adopt a full PBR approach by April 2016. So far we have established:
- Performance-based oversight – A new process for carrying out safety oversight based on known risks and safety performance.
- An initial total aviation risk picture and a series of prioritised risk mitigation activities with associated safety projects.
- The requirements for an integrated safety risk reporting and management system to better inform strategic decisions made by the CAA Board, and the allocation of resources to act on them.
- The key governance fora (a Safety Action Group and Safety Review Board) that will underpin the CAA’s internal Safety Management System.
However before we all start drowning our sorrows in despair or jumping the ditch to NZed, please reconsider the rather optimistic message from the RAAA newsletter. Then consider the following recent RAAA submission to the PMC (cc'd to the miniscule): RAAA SUBMISSION - CUTTING RED TAPE
Table of Contents
I. RAAA BACKGROUND 1
I. RAAA BACKGROUND 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
III. EXPENSIVE, UNNECESSARY CASA MAINTENANCE VISITS OVERSEAS 4
IV. CASA AUDITS 4
V. CASA APPROVAL OF MANUALS 5
VI. DRUG & ALCOHOL PROGRAM 5
VII. OVERLAPPING BUILDING CONTROL REGULATIONS 5
VIII. FAILURE TO UP-DATE NOISE CURFEW REGULATION TO
RECOGNISE NEWER, QUIETER AIRCRAFT 6
IX. LACK OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CASA REGULATORY
SERVICES 6
X. MEDICAL RENEWALS 7
XI. LETTERS TO DAMES, PILOTS AND AOC HOLDERS REGARDING
COLOUR VISION DEFECTS (CVD) 7
XII. ENGLISH PROFICIENCY FOR STUDENT PILOT LICENCE 7
XIII. SIMULATORS 7
XIV. CONCLUSION
III. EXPENSIVE, UNNECESSARY CASA MAINTENANCE VISITS OVERSEAS 4
IV. CASA AUDITS 4
V. CASA APPROVAL OF MANUALS 5
VI. DRUG & ALCOHOL PROGRAM 5
VII. OVERLAPPING BUILDING CONTROL REGULATIONS 5
VIII. FAILURE TO UP-DATE NOISE CURFEW REGULATION TO
RECOGNISE NEWER, QUIETER AIRCRAFT 6
IX. LACK OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CASA REGULATORY
SERVICES 6
X. MEDICAL RENEWALS 7
XI. LETTERS TO DAMES, PILOTS AND AOC HOLDERS REGARDING
COLOUR VISION DEFECTS (CVD) 7
XII. ENGLISH PROFICIENCY FOR STUDENT PILOT LICENCE 7
XIII. SIMULATORS 7
II. Executive Summary
The Government has published the document “The Australian Government’s Guide to Regulation” to help policy makers in the future ensure that regulation is never adopted as the default solution, but rather introduced as a means of last resort(1). This initiative is welcomed by the RAAA but does not address the excessive regulatory burden currently
borne by industry.
The Government has published the document “The Australian Government’s Guide to Regulation” to help policy makers in the future ensure that regulation is never adopted as the default solution, but rather introduced as a means of last resort(1). This initiative is welcomed by the RAAA but does not address the excessive regulatory burden currently
borne by industry.
The examples below are indicators that historic government monopoly and service behaviour is having a significant and deleterious effect on the regional aviation industry’s ability to grow and thrive.
Such behaviours must be expunged and the dead-weight of the government aviation bureaucracies lifted from an industry that is essential to Australia’s economic and social development.
Excessive red-tape only serves bureaucracies and throttles the industries that actually pay the taxes that keep government functioning.
Aviation is particularly susceptible to excessive red-tape because it is a highly regulated industry. Overblown safety and security arguments are often used to enable increases in red-tape and regulation for zero safety or operational gain.
The RAAA hopes sincerely that the government’s red-tape review is a serious attempt to release industry, and aviation specifically, from systems that serve no-one except the people administering them.
Given the losses or poor margins experienced by most parts of the aviation industry action on government red-tape can’t come soon enough.
Put your feet up Minister, give the job to Barnaby and Fawcett and let loose the dogs of war.
ps Love the CVD para..
Whatever the merits of any arguments about CVDs, the letters mentioned above were totally inappropriate in the way they attempted to shift responsibility to assess the medical risks to the letter recipients. CASA issues medical certificates and industry participants are entitled to rely on those certificates. Creating uncertainty in this way, when supposedly new medical evidence has not been tested and the manner in which implications when tested might be applied to aviation had not been discussed with or forecast to the industry, was entirely unacceptable.
When this argument is juxtaposed with the fact that a closely related issue is being tested currently at the AAT, the reasons and justifications for the CASA letter appear problematic, possibly an abuse of process, and out of step with the Government’s guidelines for cutting red tape.
When this argument is juxtaposed with the fact that a closely related issue is being tested currently at the AAT, the reasons and justifications for the CASA letter appear problematic, possibly an abuse of process, and out of step with the Government’s guidelines for cutting red tape.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAA - V
The issues raised in item 'V' (5 in new money) only lightly, almost unnoticeably touches on the very real issues associated with "manuals".
For starters; the very grey and much abused "accepted" or "approved" area is (IMO) one that must be addressed. As it stands, it's open slather and Raffetry's rules. This must be clearly redefined to the FOI dealing. If a thing is to be accepted then a personal 'preference' may be discussed, but ultimately it's the Chief pilot, not the FOI who carries then can. Where an "approval" is to be issued, then the FOI is only obliged to ensure compliance; not dictate how a manual may be structured and what it should or should not contain. This dislocation is most clearly apparent on "FCOM" and "Check lists". Subjective opinion is inflicted under duress lest the delay in obtaining 'approval' become financially unacceptable. For example this ridiculous idea of regurgitating almost the entire AFM into 'Part B' is so wrong, in so many way it's beyond being even remotely sane. Check systems (not lists) are another very contentious issue, some examples bordering on lunacy are actually out there, in use......Tick tock.
The idea of renewing an AOC to include a new, similar aircraft type is a great little earner. The costs are phenomenal, the time taken unbelievable and achieve little in the way of 'improved' safety. It's really just a rip off.
The good idea of 'upgrading' an AOC is another time consuming, expensive operation; another area which needs to be streamlined.
To actually start from scratch and obtain an AOC the patience of Job, the wealth of Croecus and the wisdom of Solomon are essential prerequisites; thats bad enough but the creatures to be dealt with beggar the imagination. The Kiwi's and even EASA guarantee three months and will refund any monies not used during process. Australia – can take up to a twelve month and will require a financial 'top up' at least once during process.
The 'red tape' and 'system' collude so very well, but unlike a tick, which will leave the host when the animal is dead, once CASA latches on – it stays on, feeding on the rotting carcass.
2008 was the time for the demanded changes; the Albo era gave us the McComic system of glutinous, black letter micro management and embuggerance. The Senate and Forsyth report insist there must be real changes. How about it, just once; can we have some value for the unimaginable amounts of money the industry has ploughed into the dead soil of 'Reform'; yes Sir, that is Real Reform with a capitol R.
Toot toot...
For starters; the very grey and much abused "accepted" or "approved" area is (IMO) one that must be addressed. As it stands, it's open slather and Raffetry's rules. This must be clearly redefined to the FOI dealing. If a thing is to be accepted then a personal 'preference' may be discussed, but ultimately it's the Chief pilot, not the FOI who carries then can. Where an "approval" is to be issued, then the FOI is only obliged to ensure compliance; not dictate how a manual may be structured and what it should or should not contain. This dislocation is most clearly apparent on "FCOM" and "Check lists". Subjective opinion is inflicted under duress lest the delay in obtaining 'approval' become financially unacceptable. For example this ridiculous idea of regurgitating almost the entire AFM into 'Part B' is so wrong, in so many way it's beyond being even remotely sane. Check systems (not lists) are another very contentious issue, some examples bordering on lunacy are actually out there, in use......Tick tock.
The idea of renewing an AOC to include a new, similar aircraft type is a great little earner. The costs are phenomenal, the time taken unbelievable and achieve little in the way of 'improved' safety. It's really just a rip off.
The good idea of 'upgrading' an AOC is another time consuming, expensive operation; another area which needs to be streamlined.
To actually start from scratch and obtain an AOC the patience of Job, the wealth of Croecus and the wisdom of Solomon are essential prerequisites; thats bad enough but the creatures to be dealt with beggar the imagination. The Kiwi's and even EASA guarantee three months and will refund any monies not used during process. Australia – can take up to a twelve month and will require a financial 'top up' at least once during process.
The 'red tape' and 'system' collude so very well, but unlike a tick, which will leave the host when the animal is dead, once CASA latches on – it stays on, feeding on the rotting carcass.
2008 was the time for the demanded changes; the Albo era gave us the McComic system of glutinous, black letter micro management and embuggerance. The Senate and Forsyth report insist there must be real changes. How about it, just once; can we have some value for the unimaginable amounts of money the industry has ploughed into the dead soil of 'Reform'; yes Sir, that is Real Reform with a capitol R.
Toot toot...
Last edited by Kharon; 10th Aug 2014 at 21:47. Reason: Selecting toys – for the throwing of.
AMROBA - Lack of Government Action
Has the ASRR report and recommendations created a false hope of reform to aviation. Prior to the election, the LNP met with many in the aviation industry and pro-duced the LNP Aviation Policy that was supported by most participants in this industry. The government’s aviation policy published last August has industry support and many are now asking when will anything constructive happen.
“Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.”
Many changes need to happen so the industry can grow in a safe, competitive, productive environment. The reversal of current direction being taken by CASA to create a regulatory environment based on EASA “organisational structure” to all sectors of aviation would be a start. The Minister’s ASRR has produced a report with recom-mendations generally supported by industry partici-pants. This report would change the regulatory direc-tion of CASA but the government has not yet endorsed the recommendations.
‘The public and industry comment period on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report is now closed. The Government is considering its response to the Report's recommendations and other matters arising out of the Report.”
The fear and concerns from industry participants is that the bureaucrats reviewing this report will not endorse the recommendations because it will affect the size and responsibility of their future roles. We are aware of interviews being carried out by the same ‘head -hunters’ from Melbourne obviously working with the same criteria as previously used to employ the last 3 CASA Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Will CASA end up with a new DAS committed to implement the Report or one that will continue on with the direction that CASA has taken under the stewardship of Byron and McCormick. Industry knows that it is others in CASA that are hell -bent on implementing EASA organisation structures to all sectors of aviation. EASA has accepted their blunder but not CASA. If the Report is taken honestly by the government, then the Civil Aviation Act will need to be amended so the outcome of the recommendations for CASA, CASA’s philosophy, its management structure and the development and promulgation of aviation standards comply with the criteria in the report.
Congratulations to Jeff Boyd being appointed as Deputy Chair of the CASA Board. Jeff has AMROBA support for this position and we hope that more aviation persons like Jeff are appointed to the Board. He is only one new ap-pointment, we wait anxiously for the rest to be appointed. The Minister must get the right people so the Board man-ages CASA, not CASA managing the Board.
Over the last decade, creating legislation has become the default approach to aviation safety. You can legislate safety in the design of products but it takes a lot more to create and maintain a safety culture with humans. The challenge to CASA is for them to develop and prom-ulgate requirement for industry participants to follow, without the need to “satisfy” CASA. If CASA standards were written as standards then there is no need to ‘satisfy’ CASA —all CASA needs to confirm is that the applicant/participant is following the standard. Real consultation died some time ago with CASA.
They have an attitude that their regulatory development pro-cess is best for safety without any consideration to the sustainability of the actual participants in this industry. You will get the argument from public servants that there are more than just the aviation regulatory requirements that are affecting the sustainability of various sectors of aviation. However, the same people point out that recrea-tional aviation is booming under a less rigid regime. If this regime is safe, then why isn’t it applied to all like aircraft in Australia? Why are some sectors discriminated against by the application of organisational requirements on sectors where the FAA, for instance, simply depend on individuals to take responsibility? Even if the ASRR Report recommendations were fully adopted, the rest of the regulatory system completed in 12 months, and the philosophy of CASA changed, will it enable the revival of those sectors that are suffering?
Even if the current regulatory system was revamped into the 3 tier system proposed by the Report, would there be a resurgence in those sectors suffering at present. It can, but it will take a determined DAS to bring back life into the aviation industry. All aviation can benefit if the new DAS creates an administrative structure similar to what the ASRR Report recommended and they have a re-sponsibility for safety and sustainability of their respec-tive aviation sectors. Adopting ASRR recommended international standards to all commercial aviation sectors would be the first step.
(From AMROBA newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 08 August — 2014)
MTF...
“Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.”
Many changes need to happen so the industry can grow in a safe, competitive, productive environment. The reversal of current direction being taken by CASA to create a regulatory environment based on EASA “organisational structure” to all sectors of aviation would be a start. The Minister’s ASRR has produced a report with recom-mendations generally supported by industry partici-pants. This report would change the regulatory direc-tion of CASA but the government has not yet endorsed the recommendations.
‘The public and industry comment period on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report is now closed. The Government is considering its response to the Report's recommendations and other matters arising out of the Report.”
The fear and concerns from industry participants is that the bureaucrats reviewing this report will not endorse the recommendations because it will affect the size and responsibility of their future roles. We are aware of interviews being carried out by the same ‘head -hunters’ from Melbourne obviously working with the same criteria as previously used to employ the last 3 CASA Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Will CASA end up with a new DAS committed to implement the Report or one that will continue on with the direction that CASA has taken under the stewardship of Byron and McCormick. Industry knows that it is others in CASA that are hell -bent on implementing EASA organisation structures to all sectors of aviation. EASA has accepted their blunder but not CASA. If the Report is taken honestly by the government, then the Civil Aviation Act will need to be amended so the outcome of the recommendations for CASA, CASA’s philosophy, its management structure and the development and promulgation of aviation standards comply with the criteria in the report.
Congratulations to Jeff Boyd being appointed as Deputy Chair of the CASA Board. Jeff has AMROBA support for this position and we hope that more aviation persons like Jeff are appointed to the Board. He is only one new ap-pointment, we wait anxiously for the rest to be appointed. The Minister must get the right people so the Board man-ages CASA, not CASA managing the Board.
Over the last decade, creating legislation has become the default approach to aviation safety. You can legislate safety in the design of products but it takes a lot more to create and maintain a safety culture with humans. The challenge to CASA is for them to develop and prom-ulgate requirement for industry participants to follow, without the need to “satisfy” CASA. If CASA standards were written as standards then there is no need to ‘satisfy’ CASA —all CASA needs to confirm is that the applicant/participant is following the standard. Real consultation died some time ago with CASA.
They have an attitude that their regulatory development pro-cess is best for safety without any consideration to the sustainability of the actual participants in this industry. You will get the argument from public servants that there are more than just the aviation regulatory requirements that are affecting the sustainability of various sectors of aviation. However, the same people point out that recrea-tional aviation is booming under a less rigid regime. If this regime is safe, then why isn’t it applied to all like aircraft in Australia? Why are some sectors discriminated against by the application of organisational requirements on sectors where the FAA, for instance, simply depend on individuals to take responsibility? Even if the ASRR Report recommendations were fully adopted, the rest of the regulatory system completed in 12 months, and the philosophy of CASA changed, will it enable the revival of those sectors that are suffering?
Even if the current regulatory system was revamped into the 3 tier system proposed by the Report, would there be a resurgence in those sectors suffering at present. It can, but it will take a determined DAS to bring back life into the aviation industry. All aviation can benefit if the new DAS creates an administrative structure similar to what the ASRR Report recommended and they have a re-sponsibility for safety and sustainability of their respec-tive aviation sectors. Adopting ASRR recommended international standards to all commercial aviation sectors would be the first step.
(From AMROBA newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 08 August — 2014)
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 11th Aug 2014 at 18:02.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waiting, for practice.
Apart from gifting CASA a subterranean, lethal weapon with a 'third' tier which is 'unnecessary' instead of an 'Advisory' method of compliance there is little to dispute coming from AAAA, AMROBA, AHIA and RAAA etc. All seem to be supporting the Forsyth report to the hilt. It is encouraging that even the 'traditionalist' Brits have seen the light. Bravo.
There is even a whisper that the Rev. himself is contemplating rolling up his sleeves and pushing, which is a sustainable rumour; a man like that would want to see 'his' report put to work, see the job done as it were.
Could someone turn on the miniscule's desk lamp; he might just see the piles of paper-work and get on with the job. Anytime soon would be good.
Is today DAS day???
Toot toot.
There is even a whisper that the Rev. himself is contemplating rolling up his sleeves and pushing, which is a sustainable rumour; a man like that would want to see 'his' report put to work, see the job done as it were.
Could someone turn on the miniscule's desk lamp; he might just see the piles of paper-work and get on with the job. Anytime soon would be good.
Is today DAS day???
Toot toot.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What will be the departing angry man Mr Mc Comic's legacy be?
We know his arrogance and demeanour rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, alienated most of the industry, and put CAsA at odds with those they regulated.
Just what did he achieve in the time he presided as the DAS? other than sociapathic toxisity spread throughout his organisation, and a pathalogic race among his minions to see who can do the most damage to the industry. I think the Bankstown/Sydney warren is streets ahead, closely followed by Far North QLD.
From my experience, people involved in the commercial side of aviation are a fairly conservative lot, in fact I think that statement probably applies to most people involved in aviation across the board, it takes a lot to get them riled.
The GA sector in particular is generally too busy trying to stay afloat than devote time to really examine, digest and form an opinion on anything until its too late and change is forced upon them.
Will that be McComics legacy?
Through his arrogance he presided over the destruction of the Australian aviation industry?
Its hard to find an aviation association, magazine or web sight that doesnt contain concern and criticism of CAsA and their "Reformed regulation", yet Minister "WUSS" ignores the evidence, ignores the industry and ignores the advice from the very inquiry he instigated as well as the Senate of this nation.
Will history show that Mr McComic was the most powerful person in the land. More powerful than our Parliament, our prime minister or any of our courts. Where his officers could snub their noses at us all and operate freely without fear of sanction?
At the end of this month Part 61 will be upon us, inflicting more regulatory burden and confusion. With it, indeterminate cost burdens on an industry already buckling, and very soon, Part 135 which should just about finish the job.
No doubt, Mr McComic will crow that he made Australia the safest place on the planet for aviation.That will be because there is no aviation in this country.
Part 61 will export most of our flying training to NZ, maintenance will die because there will be nothing to maintain.
Minister WUSS, or someone who is awake in the Guv'mint, have a look across the Tasman!! The Kiwi's are leaving us for dead!!
I think I recall big, cigar chomping Joe mentioning how he admired what the Kiwi's were achieving.
Hey Joe, make sure you reserve the funds to massively subsidise assential services when the McComic legacy comes to fruition. Getting close now!
We know his arrogance and demeanour rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, alienated most of the industry, and put CAsA at odds with those they regulated.
Just what did he achieve in the time he presided as the DAS? other than sociapathic toxisity spread throughout his organisation, and a pathalogic race among his minions to see who can do the most damage to the industry. I think the Bankstown/Sydney warren is streets ahead, closely followed by Far North QLD.
From my experience, people involved in the commercial side of aviation are a fairly conservative lot, in fact I think that statement probably applies to most people involved in aviation across the board, it takes a lot to get them riled.
The GA sector in particular is generally too busy trying to stay afloat than devote time to really examine, digest and form an opinion on anything until its too late and change is forced upon them.
Will that be McComics legacy?
Through his arrogance he presided over the destruction of the Australian aviation industry?
Its hard to find an aviation association, magazine or web sight that doesnt contain concern and criticism of CAsA and their "Reformed regulation", yet Minister "WUSS" ignores the evidence, ignores the industry and ignores the advice from the very inquiry he instigated as well as the Senate of this nation.
Will history show that Mr McComic was the most powerful person in the land. More powerful than our Parliament, our prime minister or any of our courts. Where his officers could snub their noses at us all and operate freely without fear of sanction?
At the end of this month Part 61 will be upon us, inflicting more regulatory burden and confusion. With it, indeterminate cost burdens on an industry already buckling, and very soon, Part 135 which should just about finish the job.
No doubt, Mr McComic will crow that he made Australia the safest place on the planet for aviation.That will be because there is no aviation in this country.
Part 61 will export most of our flying training to NZ, maintenance will die because there will be nothing to maintain.
Minister WUSS, or someone who is awake in the Guv'mint, have a look across the Tasman!! The Kiwi's are leaving us for dead!!
I think I recall big, cigar chomping Joe mentioning how he admired what the Kiwi's were achieving.
Hey Joe, make sure you reserve the funds to massively subsidise assential services when the McComic legacy comes to fruition. Getting close now!
Last edited by thorn bird; 13th Aug 2014 at 23:38.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McComic 5th column; Fart or Friction..
TB # -"What will be the departing angry man Mr Mc Comic's legacy be?"
In short the argument goes like this; in the quest for compliance with some of the darker/sillier/whimsical, not applicable edicts of NFI-FOI, the 'traditional' CP types who will (would) send them packing with an earful have been 'overlooked' in favour of the Casaphile type who will either take the least line of resistance or gratefully accept and execute whatever Inutile or dubious proposal as 'the gospel'. Gee whiz, there were a lot of anecdotes to support the proposition; I do mean a lot.
The antagonists have demanded 'proof' positive of the protagonists; so I dare say the phones and Skype will run hot as it's a tricky thing to support, we shall see. But it's a tempting proposition. A long hard look at the hand selected, McComic anointed golden circle shows a definite 'type' in favour. It sort of makes sense that like would seek like – all mates together. One fellah rattled off the names of half a dozen 'shoo ins' for CP jobs who had been rejected, some, even busted down to a lower license etc and an equal number of names which, perhaps, it is kinder to say would not stand a chance – in a sane world.
More to follow on this; being neutral I'll probably end up refereeing; but, the Bankstown chronicles have been requested in the interests of a 'balanced' argument. This could end up a very interesting debate, considering other matters in play at the moment.
Thorny, you should now have the date for the next indaba, be a good night and seeing as you framed the question, you'd better get there to see what you started. Bring your darts and wallet.
Toot toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 15th Aug 2014 at 22:35.
miniscule on Qanda..
Here's your chance ask the miniscule a question..
: QANDA Monday 18th August
Go on I know some of you want to...
: QANDA Monday 18th AugustGo on I know some of you want to...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A key recommendation of the Forsyth Report was that CASA adopt a three-tier system of regulations, which are 1. Act 2. Regulation 3. Plain-English Standards.
how about
1. a sensible act where casa isn't responsible for my actions as a pilot, I am.
2. plain english regulations that respect my skill as a pilot.
3. if there just has to be a third tier then lets have nicely printed casa toilet paper.
(to show that even in the bogs of australia we're thinking of them)
watching all of this is like watching a stockholm victims gathering.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lampshades are not haute couture.
It's always the same story with newbee's. Mate, lampshades are only de riguer for initiation pow wow's and the like; but not for 'darts and debate' evenings (D&D). A D&D indaba is much more a 'pipe and slippers' sort of event; pints and the gentle plunk of a well thrown dart, gently applauded as it hits the nominated mark (a miss costs points). Occasionally (and I think TB has sparked one) debates require a hard hat and Wellie's, we managed to outlaw stumps, cricket bats and billiard cues, but sometimes – well, 'nuff said.
The McComic legacy, the left over tenets of fear, intimidation, twisted law, emasculated operations departments and the removal of those that actively 'enforced', by fair means or foul the McComic diatribe will also need some attention; deeply ensconced and cunning as they are. Plenty of willing hands – but Truss has the shovels locked away.
W8 has raised one topic which, if we go with reforms will require all the tact and cunning the 'advisory' panel can muster; it's a hot topic and the 'sides' have very strong arguments, pro and con. 'The only means of compliance – black letter' or; 'Not the only means of compliance – but our advice is....etc'. A pot boiler.
Then there is the unholy Part 61 to consider; although it seems the vast majority favour a public burning of the thing and unspeakable 'things' done to the 'inventors'. NZ part 61 for ever (with slight modification) seem to be in favour.
The Canadian report sitting in the Truss in-tray may be released by the appointed time; although a digestion period will be required and any response must be tempered with the decisions Truss makes and the new DAS must be considered, before any worthwhile discussion of that little 'ugly spot' is possible. The Senate MoP may yet alter the whole thing, again.
Aye – there's a whole load of work to do; if Truss ever delivers the lumber and the nails turn up that is; meanwhile darts and limericks seem to the only pastime for the BRB to pursue; there are always rugby songs to help while away the time. "Why are we waiting, oh why, oh why".
Toot toot....
The McComic legacy, the left over tenets of fear, intimidation, twisted law, emasculated operations departments and the removal of those that actively 'enforced', by fair means or foul the McComic diatribe will also need some attention; deeply ensconced and cunning as they are. Plenty of willing hands – but Truss has the shovels locked away.
W8 has raised one topic which, if we go with reforms will require all the tact and cunning the 'advisory' panel can muster; it's a hot topic and the 'sides' have very strong arguments, pro and con. 'The only means of compliance – black letter' or; 'Not the only means of compliance – but our advice is....etc'. A pot boiler.
Then there is the unholy Part 61 to consider; although it seems the vast majority favour a public burning of the thing and unspeakable 'things' done to the 'inventors'. NZ part 61 for ever (with slight modification) seem to be in favour.
The Canadian report sitting in the Truss in-tray may be released by the appointed time; although a digestion period will be required and any response must be tempered with the decisions Truss makes and the new DAS must be considered, before any worthwhile discussion of that little 'ugly spot' is possible. The Senate MoP may yet alter the whole thing, again.
Aye – there's a whole load of work to do; if Truss ever delivers the lumber and the nails turn up that is; meanwhile darts and limericks seem to the only pastime for the BRB to pursue; there are always rugby songs to help while away the time. "Why are we waiting, oh why, oh why".
Toot toot....