Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Soteria]

Bit off topic but someone from PMC just landed a gig high up the ladder in OTS, so maybe a wordsmith from PMC will also be anointed as CASA DAS?
Just wish the FAA and ICAO would come back with a bag of pineapples and downgrade us, that will force some needed change and wake up all the silly old farts asleep at the aviation wheel.

[dubbleyew eight]

one of the great advances made by CAsA in recent years is to cease publishing the paper copy of the aviation safety digest.
for decades the message in it hasn't been relevant to actual aviation.
every month when it arrived I felt guilty not reading it.
occasionally I would succumb and have a browse. always just the same old same old.
now that it isn't posted out I don't feel in the least bit guilty in not logging on to the website.
the peace has been amazing.

I thought I was unique but I noticed last visit that the club librarian was throwing them out as well.

I love this electronic age.

[Sarcs]

There at it again - Divide & Conquer

Hmm...wonder what Phil & the AAAA have to say about this??

Courtesy of Bladeslappers:

Meeting AHIA & CASA cancelled

A meeting between the Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) and CASA planned for Friday 29 August 2014 to discuss Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing) was cancelled after several eleventh hour teleconferences.

AHIA President, Peter Crook had requested a face to face meeting with senior CASA staff to seek a delay in the introduction of the new rules on 1 September 2014. However, the AHIA and CASA agreed so many final changes were underway; the meeting would not achieve its objective; being scheduled on the last working day prior to the new rules coming into effect. However, some critical elements were clarified by the CASA’s AHIA Liaison Officer from the Standards Division.

Firefighting Authorisations. From 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement.

The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1) do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement. To overcome the problem, CASA is preparing an exemption which will relieve pilots from the requirement to hold an aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement subject to certain conditions. The conditions would be consistent with the requirements that apply to pilots currently when conducting firefighting operations with a focus on an operator’s training and checking requirements when managed under a CAR 217 organisation or the assessment of the operator’s Chief Pilot.

Pilots that would qualify for the exemption would be those that held requisite authorisations under CAR 1988; for example, for aeroplane pilots, an agricultural rating (aeroplane) and for helicopter pilots conducting bucket operations, a low level permission and sling endorsement.

Pilots would also still need to complete training in firefighting operations conducted by the operator and a proficiency check also conducted by the operator, as they do currently. The training operations would need to be conducted under an AOC that authorises that kind of operation. The exemption, if made, would be in force until 31 August 2015.

So Part 61 with a combined total of over 1600 pages (and even before the ink has had a chance to dry), FF are already negotiating putting in place an exemption to placate one small sector of the industry...

Don't get me wrong I do admire the AHIA's, as a relatively new industry association, endeavour to try to negotiate less regulatory burden for their concerned members. But FF have played this game for far too long to simply allow one small sector of the IOS to have a win and there is always a catch and a devious ulterior motive...

Memo for Boyd & co:

Stop this bollocks now!

Possible solution to Part 61 (all 1600+ pages of it): Part 61- CAA Consolidation,10 November 2011 - Pilot Licences and Ratings

Now if we accept that our uniquely Australian conditions, where topography and bushfires are much more significant an issue than in NZ, water bombing therefore is an essential service to containing these bushfires.

Okay so we have a point of difference with NZed. So using the AHIA Firefighting Authorisations example above, & accepting the NZed Part 61 as a barebones blueprint for our own Part 61. We then go to the relevant section for Agricultural Ratings (Aerial Application etc), which is contained within six pages, pg 66-72.

After real consultation with the relevant associations, whose members operate in this unique environment, we then allow these same experts to partake in a draft addendum to Part 61 which would with minor changes end up as law.

Therefore straight up we've cut down the red tape, years of procrastination & industry anxiety and finally any need for further exemptions to Part 61 (Oz style 1600 + pages). At the same time the Part 61 (NZed blueprint) would still be well within a 100 page count and much more easily readable/understandable for the average operator/pilot...

Come on Boyd & co you know it makes sense...

[Kharon]

"Accounting to the stakeholders for the organisation's performance";

Has Truss finally managed to publicly announce the CASA board – No?; well he should because there's work for it to do. Even allowing Cox, Smith and Taylor a weekend to digest Part 61, Boyd, Danos and Hawke have had ample time to realise that the part is 1600 wasted pages, wasted time, money and effort; (anyone guess on the cost?). The board should advise the minuscule to delay the introduction until the patent errors have been addressed.

One major issue is the need to negotiate instruments and exemptions. This alone is open to the suggestion of corruption, simply by being highly subjective. A 1600 page part 61 with multiple 'accommodations' made at the whim of a FOI is potentially as 'unsafe' from a legal standpoint as it is from an operational purview. One of the major headaches and complaints raised during the Forsyth review by industry was/ is the wide variation in regulatory interpretation by individual FOI.

Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.

The board could earn it's corn, get off it's collective rump compare the FAA/CAA/NZCAA regulation to the 'thing' which is to become Australia's millstone and have a quiet word to the minuscule. Now would be good; but no later than Monday.

Sarcs "Come on Boyd & co you know it makes sense."

Second the comrade Sarcs motion....

[Sarcs]

Part 61 has the true puppet master's vote??

Kharon:

Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.

Interesting that by default Part 61 (all 1600 + pages of it..) appears to be acceptable law and is being actively embraced by the recently sighted 'fabled bull elephant'...

Insurer to provide PI so flight examiners don’t fly solo

All in a selfless interest of course...

“supporting the long-term health of the local aviation industry”

&..

“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”

...because:

ATOs had been protected for professional liability by CASA however the Authority announced earlier this month that existing ATOs will be transitioned to a FER on 30 June 2016, at which point protection would cease. Those transitioning to or commencing as FERs from 1 September 2014 will also no longer be covered by CASA and will be required to make their own insurance arrangements.

Call me cynical....but could Part 61 be the new age 'bad-law' equivalent of CAR 206?? Lets face it with LHR, Hempel (see footnote #1) & the PelAir embuggerance CAR 206 as a 'cash cow' has almost passed it's use by date...

Footnote #1 - Hempel sighting of FBE...

Email one:

Adam, Narelle,

I received a phone call from the individual below. He claimed to represent the insurers of Hempel Aviation, (blank) have received a claim from Hempel's Aviation. He also stated that Hempel's has provided a document on a record that showed Barry Hempel still held all his ratings at the time of the accident.

He also stated that he has seen the request for information on the CASA web site and that he has doubts as to the truthfulness of the claim.

I did not discuss any of the details of the investigation but did commit to have someone contact him to determine if he constitutes a bonafide interested party.

Email 2 (fwd):

Adam,
I advised (blank) that you were the most appropriate person to handle this.
Regards,

Narelle

Email 3 (reply):

I spoke to Mr (blank) - I advised him of Mr Hempel's licence status at the time of the accident- he will make an FOI request seeking relevant documents, he was very cooperative and said he considers Hempels are trying to make a fraudulent insurance claim.

(blank) -he said he is happy to speak to you in the event you would like any information you may not already have.

{Disclaimer: The email chain excerpts are extracted from documents released under the FOI Act 1982}

Q/ So will Part 61 be as equally & eagerly manipulated to the advantage of the true puppet masters of Oz aviation regulation??

Buyer beware: Any current ATOs or future FERs signing up to the PI offered, FFS get your lawyer (lawyer friend) to decipher the Fine print..

MTF...

[dubbleyew eight]

the trick with insurance is to exaggerate the risk way higher than it actually is.
promote the fear that the exaggerated risk will occur.
then offer to carry the exaggerated risk for a financial consideration.
all the while writing into the agreement such weasel words that you can escape making any payouts for the eventuality of the actual risk.

ponzie schemes are illegal in australia but insurance and superannuation are scams of high profit for some.

[thorn bird]

“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”

Hmmm, wonder which CAsA iron ring members have suddenly become major shareholders in QBE??

[robsrich]

AHIA and CASR Part 61

Today is 1 September 2014 - CASR Part 61 is alive!

Due to intense interest from the Australian industry - we will create a new thread for the Flight Crew Licensing changes; which are still coming as various concessions are worked out.

Also, media interest is intense; probably as fire fighting qualifications did not come across into the new legislation today. In theory, no fire fighting operations until CASA promulgates a short term concession. Hopefully today.

To be fair we need to give CASA a chance to catch this bouncing ball, thus a need for a specific thread on the technical aspects of the new legislation; allowing the more political discussions to continue on other threads such those commenting on the Truss issues (or lack of) - ASRR + Industry follow through. Now scheduled for late 2014?

Please send your questions to us and we will do our best to find someone who is up to date on the latest rule changes.

AHIA
Regulatory Review Coordinator
[email protected]

[Kharon]

Aw - for crying out loud.

RR # "In theory, no fire fighting operations until CASA promulgates a short term concession. Hopefully today.

Oh pretty please can we have a concession; don't want to rush you, but Victoria is on fire and we would really like to go to work; if that's ok with you, today ??. Oh thank you; thank you very much, bow, grovel, crawl, slobber. Bollocks. FCOL....

The ball is not bouncing; it has been well and truly dropped – by CASA. What sort of a rule needs immediate concession?, what is the point of having a 1600 page rule set which required 1600 pages of concessions, instruments and exemptions. It's a complete, total utter waste of time, money and energy. Once you have been 'granted' a concession, you are owned and have to play nice to keep it. Tell them to stick their bloody concessions where the sun don't shine and fix this unmitigated pile of crap you paid for....

Watch as the AIHA, standing alone are sucked into a trap; the old one, used for years to defer, delay, dilute.

The AHIA have no business attempting to 'negotiate' without the other industry bodies being involved. They are leaping into trap two - divide and conquer and exemptions out the wazoo.....

The industry should just slap the NZ part 61 on the table and say this is what we want – with these variations. Industry has paid for this legislation, not CASA – it's 'our' legislation. Tell them it's no ducking good, not worth the expense and get them to fix it....

If you paid an engineer to fix your aircraft and it came back a complete Cock-up; there would be hell to pay. What makes a pile of crap work from CASA any different????.....

FFS Don't ask them – tell them.

[thorn bird]

Woke up this morning quite surprised.
The sun actually came up and the sky hadn't fallen.
But then the reality that Australia's unique Part 61 is with us.
No last minute court order to delay the execution.
No call from the governor to grant clemency.
The industry is strapped to the gurney and CAsA is going to proceed
with the bizarre, macabre little ritual of killing an industry in cold blood.
Unfortunately is wont be a quick and painless death, it will be slow and painful as 1600 pages of indecipherable poorly drafted gobblegook slowly suffocate the condemned.
Could it be that is the only way for the powers that be come to realize the folly in the way our tyrant regulator is allowed to trample on the dreams and aspirations of so many.

The example is just across the Tasman of what good regulation can do.

Hopefully when the Australian Aviation industry is dead, wiser heads will
prevail, its tormentor reformed allowing the industry to be reborn and be a as vibrant and productive as in other countries.

[Sarcs]

Give them an inch they'll take a mile.

Hey Rob how about having a chat with Phil to get a feel for how your current conciliatory approach will eventually end in tears while dealing with the current toxic FF culture. I'm sure he will enlighten you...

See pages 6-7 & appendix one here: ASRR Recommendations – Responses from AAAA

"The more concerning issue, however, is that the current members of the CASA Board thought it appropriate to write to AAAA while the review process was still in train.

The apparent intent of the CASA letter appears to be to intimidate a representative body participating in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review and to undermine the validity of the AAAA submission.

The willingness of the CASA Board to actively participate in the ‘politics’ of the ASRR process should sound clear alarm bells to the Minister and anyone else interested in the appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the current CASA Board.

Apart from its factual errors, the CASA letter served no purpose other than to provide further evidence to the ASRR Panel (if more was needed) of the very problems of poor culture, bullying and intimidation highlighted in many of the submissions – with clear evidence – to the ASRR."

Also RR FFS ask PH what AAAA's considered opinion is on what should be happening to Part 61 (in it's current form). Or if you prefer read the following:

CASR Parts 61, 141, 142

Recommendation 31 says that all regulations not currently made should be reshaped into a three tier structure with the aim of gaining significant simplification and thereby improved compliance.

AAAA strongly believes that the current CASR Parts 61,141 and 142 should again be deferred for implementation and should be the first regulations subject to the ASRR Recommendation 31.

The simple fact that CASA have only recently released critical parts of the Manual of Standards for industry to consider, and that there is ongoing conjecture from within CASA about the transition of roles such as ‘approved pilots’ in aerial application, suggests that any move to make the regulation ‘active’ by September is simply premature.

The complexity of the writing of the CASR 61 itself works against compliance by being so difficult to understand. Consider the difficulties when trying to trace the requirements for training, licensing and, critically, privileges of each licence/rating/endorsement across a number of licences (eg CPL, low-level rating, application rating, firefighting endorsement, etc), having to manage both the regulations and the MOS of over 1500 pages.

"In addition, some areas of the MOS that cover competencies for aerial application and firefighting are not acceptable to industry in their current form and require further refinement. It appears that a range of prerequisites suggested by industry have not been included, nor has adequate recognition of prior learning for an application pilot, for example, to attain a firefighting endorsement."

To ask industry to absorb and be functionally capable of working with over 1500 pages of regulations and standards when the latest requirements have only been released in the last few weeks makes a mockery of any implementation ‘strategy’.

For those companies having to transition to Part 141 operations so as to be able to provide the critical role of training for aerial application sector within the current timeframe is another problem. It is highly unlikely that the companies will be able to develop the appropriate operations manuals now required under CASA’s ‘simplified’ approach within the current timeframe due to the need to develop curriculum and competency training syllabus and assessment procedures that are in line with the new Part 61/141. The flight test requirements were only released in the last few weeks and have NOT been the subject of industry consultation – as is the case with much of the recent MOS related publications.

It is also highly unlikely that CASA will be able to assess and accept the various requirements mandated in the MOS and Part 141 before the commencement of operations under the new regulations.

The only logical outcome is to put the current Part 61/141/142 on hold until it can be subject to the ASRR recommendations. As an absolute minimum the September start date should be deferred for at least 12 months to enable training organisations to absorb what has only recently been released...

Here you go here is the contact details webpage: AAAA contact


MTF...

[Soteria]

CASA is cancerous in its entirety

The apparent intent of the CASA letter appears to be to intimidate a representative body participating in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review and to undermine the validity of the AAAA submission.
The willingness of the CASA Board to actively participate in the ‘politics’ of the ASRR process should sound clear alarm bells to the Minister and anyone else interested in the appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the current CASA Board.

So let me get this straight. CASA has a history of bullying industry, as well as it's lower ranked people. It had the Skull (of Star Chamber fame) at the forefront, followed by lieutenants who have had a hand in the Pel Air debacle, Lockhart mismanagement, Butson pineappling and the outright assault on the rights of one John Quadrio. Now we add into the mix the Board, the people who are expected to uphold integrity and transparency, also acting in a despicable bullying manner, as has been revealed in their correspondence with AAAA. And the Minister, throughout all of this has done...........that's correct, nothing, except grudgingly ordering a review and then keeping that damning reviews outcome under lock and key. Oh yes, I forgot, he approved Mr Mrdak's reappointment as the Conductor who has been presiding over this mess for years. So there you have it, the rot, the cancer, is embedded all the way to the PMC....what a disgrace to the taxpayer.

The situation is toxic, it is putrid, and if ever there was a reason for a royal commission it is now. Now is the time for a social campaign against those responsible for the embuggerance of our livelihoods. Now is the time to seek out all those Independent politicians in our communities and charge them with righting the wrongs. This is the only way that our decrepit system can be fixed.
Oh I forgot, in amongst all this it would be also nice to see levels of SAFETY returned to our industry! Just a side point that is forgotten by the political parties playing with the safety of the publics lives.

[robsrich]

AHIA - Awaiting CASA exemption to fire fighting rules.

CASA and Media misunderstanding - Fire fighting pilots.

Today there has been a lot of media reports about the fire fighting pilots being grounded - see previous. In reply, CASA Standards have said their intention is to issue an exemption which has been proposed verbally and by email; but not officially yet.

However, the AHIA is asking how this will be done? - A Media Release or similar. President, Peter Crook has been in contact with CASA Standards who have again confirmed a Media Release is imminent. We are not sure of the 'legal' form it will take; being Day 1 of Part 61, etc.

Maybe when the CASA position is formally stated as the regulator, then this confusion will be cleared up.

So in the meantime - don't let your kids play with matches?? But we believe it will all be resolved in a few hours. So have an extra beer with lunch!

AHIA

[Kharon]

Dancing with Trolls and the like.

Sarcs - "Hey Rob how about having a chat with Phil to get a feel for how your current conciliatory approach will eventually end in tears while dealing with the current toxic FF culture.

Strewth Sarcs; Phil has a track record of equable dealing with CASA and a reputation for being able to negotiate and balance the 'regulator' and 'industry' standpoints. He has done and continues to do so, very well indeed without selling out to the dark side. It's what AOPAA and now the looks like the (RR version) of AIHA have failed miserably to do; it will all come down to money in the end. Government money, to foster and promote the 'agency' standpoint. Casasexuals are notorious for 'selective hearing', the rustle of crisp $100 bills creating foreground noise. I doubt Phil would waste his wind or time. If AIHA was 'fair dinkum' they would seek to collaborate with the various 'alphabet' groups, not independently negotiate with CASA. By joining in the chorus for 'reform'; we may even get it if the 'industry' sticks together. There are those in 'Chopper world' who simply cannot stay in business if this part 61 rule set, as it stands is allowed to take root.

The time to kill it was during the 'consulting' phase; now it's law the industry is screaming. To change it, retrospectively will require a big effort from all; all together. The introduction should be deferred until a 'proper', open, honest consultation and MoS have been considered and debated. As it is we're stuck with it, everyone looking to the other for salvation; or what's in it for me. Sad testimony of industry, even the 'heavies' have failed to weigh in. We are, it seems an industry conditioned to serve the regulator; that's arse about face if you think on it.

Much is written on the perils of doing deals, or dancing with devil. I notice each story, every time, ends in tears. With settlement money rapidly diminishing, perhaps some of the wiser heads in AHIA could have a quiet word before the inevitable happens. If that seems cryptic – I suggest a little independent research; it's not a happy story, but then real life rarely is.

Toot toot

[Frank Arouet]

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”


This mornings CAsA "blurb".


"CASA has transition arrangements in place to facilitate aerial firefighting operations for this season. An exemption has been made that commenced on 1 September and applies to pilots who intend to conduct firefighting operations from this date".


For years CAsA has ruled by "exemption" because the "Regs" were dysfunctional. If CAsa were to repeal all the exemptions immediately, aviation as we know it would be ended. The regulatory review process was supposed to give us a new suite. A joke I think, but if they thought the new "Parts" were relevant, they are off to a bad start with "exemptions".

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Interestingly, FAA is moving to provide industry delegates with Professional Indemnity cover , as CASA removes it.

Why?? Because FAA realizes that PI is becoming, or in some case, already is unaffordable, and FAA is smart enough to realize that lack of affordable PI cover drives experienced Check Airmen etc. out of the industry, something the industry cannot afford.

Is this why CASA is removing PI --- to get rid of ATOs etc., and make more work for CASA employees ---- not really, it is ideological, with CAAP Admin. 1 being viewed as an industry "subsidy".

In fact, it costs CASA nothing to extend the cover of its own employees to industry delegates --- established at Senate Estimates, this was even the case when CASA had to buy commercial policies, before Comcover took over CASA coverage.

This morning I was listening to Professor Alan Fells talking about ineffective anti-monopoly legislation in Australia.

He pointed out that, at the point in question, the US legislation was less than a page --- AND EFFECTIVE, the EEC legislation was one page --- AND EFFECTIVE.

The equivalent Australian legislation is seventy two (72) pages, and is INEFFECTIVE.

Canberra needs sorting out generally ---- this Government's anti-red tape drive hasn't scratched to surface, and has already stalled.

Maybe what we need is a couple of tactical nukes, "surgically" applied.

Tootle pip!!

[Soteria]

Frank, exemptions issued on day one is indicative of a system that is flawed and being managed by complete idiots. CASA should have listened to the real experts out in industry who were telling them that part 61 was ****e, would impose a great burden upon those trying to comply, and that it would potentially ruin some areas of industry, helicopter operators for starters. But of course they wanted to save face, rush it out there and to hell with those it will effect (not them of course as they swan around and office drinking coffee an adjusting the office temperature). Dopes

[Sarcs]

Speaker: "Ring the bells..division required!"

Kharon - Much is written on the perils of doing deals, or dancing with devil. I notice each story, every time, ends in tears. With settlement money rapidly diminishing, perhaps some of the wiser heads in AHIA could have a quiet word before the inevitable happens. If that seems cryptic – I suggest a little independent research; it's not a happy story, but then real life rarely is.

Hmm...strange dichotomy??? From Phelan article - Flawed safety laws must be stalled, says Helicopter Association - we had this from the President to the miniscule...

Dear Minister,

Urgent Request to Defer CASR Part 61

The initiative for the Aviation Safety Regulation Review was applauded by the Aviation Industry. The release of the report was welcomed by the Industry and by-in-large accepted as read. The industry was asked for comment which has been provided. Since the deadline for comment, the silence has been deafening.

I personally have been in the Aviation Industry, as a pilot, company co-owner, manager, sales representative for 51 years. Never in this time have I seen such turmoil and mistrust in the Regulator.

As President of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, I am very concerned with the difficulties our CASR Part 61 Regulatory Review Team, and others, are having with understanding the mooted changes to this Regulation. The introduction of a completely new licensing system together with new training syllabuses, with no perceived safety benefits, but additional cost, in the current “Two Tier” format is not understood.

Legislation needs to be in the “Three Tier” format, in plain English and not in the Criminal Code format which is understood by Judges but not Aviators.

As this third tier has not yet been introduced we, the Australian Helicopter Industry, respectfully request the introduction of CASR Part 61 be further delayed to allow time for Industry to negotiate the proposed changes further with CASA. Why introduce a Regulation which will require concessions to operate until the Regulation is in the proper format, should it not be fixed prior to introduction on 1 September 2014?

Regards

Peter Crook, President, Australian Helicopter Industry Association



Perhaps the AHIA would do well to read Creamy's overview of the FF RRP and in particular Part 61 (post #8):

"Why is it us Aussies detest change so much?"

Can't talk for other transport modes, but in aviation it's not change as such. In aviation it's generally the 'collateral damage' arising from:

- non-existent, poor or counter-productive pre-commencement industry education
- unintended consequences that consume resources for no safety or other benefits
- multiple, complex exemptions, rendering an already complicated set of rules even more complicated and meaningless on their face
- more rules that require approvals, permits, certificates, authorisations, endorsements and ratings that depend on CASA "acceptance" or "satisfaction", increasing the scope for zealots on a crusade to implement their view of aviation utopia (for a fee and after a delay, of course)
- inconsistent interpretations by different people
- dozens of offences added to the already-bloated and ever-growing body of criminal law,

... none of which does much to alter behaviour or safety outcomes.

Top summary Creamy...

[Sarcs]

BOTP Post: Is Gone is GOOD!

AA catching up with the DPM Truss Glacier {careful mugshot included..}:

Farquharson to fill in as CASA director of aviation safety

Terry Farquharson is filling in as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) acting director of aviation safety until the successor to John McCormick is named.

McCormick ended his five and a half year run as the director of aviation safety on Sunday, August 31 and has left the organisation.

CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson said Farquharson, currently the deputy director of aviation safety, started as acting director on Monday.

The appointment of a new director of aviation safety would have to wait until a full board of CASA has been formed. That was due to occur after the formal announcement of three new board members.

Aviation Business reported last Friday the three new people to be appointed to the board were Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and David Cox.

Taylor was most recently was president of the Gliding Australia, Smith is the Australian Maritime and Defence Foundation of Australia president, while Cox is chief operating officer of the faculty of engineering and information technologies at Sydney University and a former head of engineering at Qantas.

It was understood the three names have been submitted to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss.

CASA’s three current board members were chair Allan Hawke, as well as the recently-appointed deputy chair Jeff Boyd plus Trevor Danos. The director of aviation safety also sits on the CASA board.

The fully formed CASA board would then consider the best candidate from an international search undertaken by an external recruitment company.
The process was believed to have come down to two candidates. However, the appointment of a new director of aviation safety was expected to be some time away given the minister’s office needed to approve any name put forward by the CASA board and take that name to cabinet.

Australian Aviation has sought comment from Minister Truss’s office. {Along with every other Tom, Dick & Harry...}

Psss TF watch the monkey...

You Tube

And no need to ask for permission anymore e.g.

From:

FARQUHARSON, TERENCE

Sent:

Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:36

To:

McCormick, John

Cc:

Subject:

FW: Pel air Accident VH-NGA Final Report [SEC=UNCLASSIAED]

The attached Pel Air report has been finalised. Subject to one final confirmation of the fuel calculations by (being conducted this week), is comfortable with the report's content, to the extent that it correlates with the AAT material to be submitted shortly and that there are no differences that can be highlighted by the opposing legal
team.

The release of this report will provide Ops with the material to begin consideration of any further action that may be necessary against the any of those involved in the accident.

When has confirmed the fuel calculations, would like to discuss in general the report with ATSB. In any discussions would not provide the ATSB with a copy of the report but would talk about the salient points. This is in keeping with the spirit of the MOU.

Your approval to release the report is requested.

Regards

MTF...

[Cactusjack]

Will they provide Terry with a cot so that he can lay down and have an afternoon nap?