Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Sarcs]

Wuss new (old) aviation policy - Aviation to be bone-yarded.

Strange Dichotomy

Yesterday miniscule Wuss in a very longwinded spiel......to the SEGRA (Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia) conference in Alice Springs did not once mention the dreaded "A" words (i.e. aviation, airports or aircraft)... But then in the five short paragraphs contained within his conclusion he mentions the "A" words no less than ten times...: Keynote Address: SEGRA 2014 Connecting Matters

Conclusion

For those in the crowd who may not be aware, Alice Springs Airport is now home to Australia's first aircraft storage facility.

It is an exciting step for aviation in Australia and is the first Asia-Pacific based alternative to the Mojave Desert in California and Arizona's 840-hectare Pinal Airpark for airlines with aircraft based or operating throughout our region.

Australian-based company Asia Pacific Aircraft Storage and Northern Territory Airports management are to be congratulated on the development which will be able to accommodate up to 250 to 300 aircraft.
The latest arrivals are, I understand, a Qantas 767 and four Airbus single-aisle planes from Tigerair Singapore.

Not only has this facility created jobs during construction but will continue to generate local jobs in terms of aircraft maintenance and the like, but I think I can safely say that it will be yet another popular tourist destination for visitors to the Red Centre.

Thank you.

Hmm...much like the government's hunt for remote landholders that have available & applicable land for a nuclear waste dump, maybe some enterprising regional airports, or even farmer Joe, should consider following the lead of APAS/NTA...

Safe skies are empty skies & safe airports are aircraft boneyards...

MTF...

[Sarcs]

RAAA conference 2014: Baldwin on Bored & other aviation safety matters

While the miniscule is busy promoting the government's infrastructure programs, promising billions to all other modes of transport.. ..and apparently inspecting the government funded Tennis Alice Springs new facilities - New tennis club house served up for Masters Games...

Meanwhile in a land far removed from the Red Centre the RAAA are convening a large assembly of aviation stalwarts - some of whom actually give a toss about our industry...

From AA online today: New CASA board members to come soon

Further appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board will be made soon, parliamentary secretary to the minister for industry Bob Baldwin says.

Baldwin says the federal government is committed to increasing the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board “to better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation”.

“I understand the deputy prime minister hopes to make further appointments to the CASA board very shorty,” Baldwin told delegates at the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) national conference on Thursday.

It was understood the government had chosen three new CASA directors – Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and David Cox.

Taylor was most recently was president of 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 formerly head of engineering at Qantas.

CASA’s three current board members were chair Allan Hawke, as well as the recently-appointed deputy chair Jeff Boyd plus Trevor Danos.
A fully formed CASA board needed to be in place before a new CASA director of aviation safety could be named.

Meanwhile, Baldwin reiterated the government’s commitment to respond to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) report before the end of 2014.

“I am aware of the significant level of interest in the independent aviation safety regulation review report,” Baldwin said.

“The government is now carefully considering all of the 37 recommendations and other matters arising from the report and we intend to provide a comprehensive response before this year is out.”

Deputy Prime Minister and minister for infrastructure and regional development Warren Truss made a similar commitment at the Airservices Waypoint conference in September.

The head of the ASRR, David Forsyth, was due to speak at the RAAA conference on Friday.

The report, published in June, highlighted the sometimes “adversarial” relationship between CASA and the industry and called for substantial structural and culture change at the regulator, among other matters.

RAAA chairman and Regional Express director Jim Davis said the reform of CASA had a “long way to go”.

David said a new director of aviation safety and new CASA board members needed to be named without any further delay.

“Every day that CASA is without a permanent head and a fully constituted board is a day’s delay in taking the important decisions that will make CASA a more responsive and effective organisation,” Davis told delegates at the conference, held in the NSW Hunter Valley.

“I’ve always firmly believed that the industry working in partnership with CASA is by far the best approach and achieves the best safety outcomes.”
“Sadly this has not been the case in recent years.”

Also from Dougy, who is now back from his 3 weeks of international jet setting...:

...I was somewhat surprised to return to no news of a new director of safety for CASA. But I understand that we will not have to wait much longer.

Getting the new CASA board members names off the Cabinet table and out to industry has taken an understandably lower profile than some of the issues that the Federal Government has had to deal with lately. Though one might also have thought that it is still of considerable importance to the Australian industry and that ways could have been found to deal with it outside the Cabinet process. The delay in the announcement of the new DAS has been more complicated and some of it has been associated with a determination to deliver the right outcome. But it is believed that that ‘right’ outcome has been arrived at and that an announcement is imminent.

That outcome is likely to include a team approach rather than the appointment of a single individual, to take full advantage of some considerable talent that has been unearthed by the process.

I’m at the RAAA Conference today and tomorrow. The Hunter Valley (NSW) venue was perhaps a bit of a risk given accessibility issues, but the turnout has been strong in both quality and quantity. And there’s not a dinosaur in sight! And the program is also something of an experiment, with ‘marquee’ speakers alongside the usual. Paul Tyrell and his team have scored heavyweights such as Terry Farquharson (CASA), Greg Hood (Airservices), ACM Mark Binskin (ADF), Martin Dolan (ATSB) and David Forsyth (ASRR plus). Highlights will follow.

Careful Terry....better watch your intake of Chardy, that excellent Hunter stuff has a habit of creeping up on you mate...

Hmmm...on second thoughts Teza have a couple more...

CASA hopes for improved relationship with industry

TF - “Safety is an element of what the industry does, it is the reason for CASA being there and the government have made no suggestions they are going to rehash the Civil Aviation Act in any fundamental way.”

Farquarson said CASA, in its role as aviation safety regulator, had to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions. He also acknowledged it was currently a period of change with “a lot of stuff coming through” as they moved to new systems and regulations.

“Most importantly, we need to move into the future with a mutually respectful understanding of each other’s roles,” Farquarson said.
“Chucking bricks, going into the trenches is unhelpful in the extreme.
“I hope this gives us a platform to work conjointly for a better safety future.”

From the man who brought to the Senate this insipid performance -

You Tube

And just like back then by the Heff....I'm calling it now Teza - "BOLLOCKS absolute BOLLOCKS!"


MTF...

[Jinglie]

Heavyweights!

"Paul Tyrell and his team have scored heavyweights such as Terry Farquharson (CASA), Greg Hood (Airservices), ACM Mark Binskin (ADF), Martin Dolan (ATSB) and David Forsyth (ASRR plus)."

"Dolan a heavyweight" ??????? Now I've heard it all
IMHO, one of these guys is a heavyweight, one is a middleweight, one is mumbling idiot-weight, one is in the a..e-kissing weight and the last is in the narcissist-weight. In no particular order, of course. I'm sure any decent IOSS member can figure my choice.

[Soteria]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck....

“Chucking bricks, going into the trenches is unhelpful in the extreme.
“I hope this gives us a platform to work conjointly for a better safety future.”

I agree, chucking bricks is useless. You are better off chucking fresh poo, poison darts or sharpened knives, much more effective.

Message to Terry (I will whisper as you will be asleep) - Please Mr Heavyweight, take your A380 ticket, Sky Sentinel, Jason recliner chair and Viagra and leave the building immediately. Nobody is listening to you and nobody really wants too. It's time for you to go bye byes, please. And one other thing - take Boyd, Campbell, Ferrit-a-day, Gibson and Wodger with you and please don't bang the door on the way out, ok?

[Jinglie]

Tezza and his "mates"!

Soteria,

I agree. I wonder does the acting role come with the Mistress? After the display at last years RAAA, it wouldn't surprise me.
And an interesting anecdote, was Sleepy actually interviewed for his Deputy job or just appointed by his mate Herr Screamer?? MM like to comment? That runs against government protocols.

Sleepy needs to get out of FF before the Senate or the AFP get onto the SKySentinel deal. Could be too late for that

[Jinglie]

Late news!

Sleepy (Tezza) was reported to the ICC by a female CASA officer on the grounds of sexual discrimination. No doubt the "mistress" (ICC) took little notice or no action regarding that. CORRUPTION!!!!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Didn't think employees could report stuff to the icc? Not much point in HR but guess have to try that route. I'd go straight to a decent lawyer and there are a couple that have won against casa. There was one newbie manager to casa that got a bullying case against him within 6 months. Apparently the complainent (iOS) used a good lawyer based in Melbourne. The manager put some nasty stuff in writing amongst other things. Still there the complainent isn't though. Although a number of jobs are being restructured now.

Funny how bullying and harassment keeps cropping up. Casa has a duty to provide a safe workplace and that includes emotionally safe too.

Always worth a read
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/

[Soteria]

Biscuit, Mr Fanta pants in Brisbane had some pretty serious accusations levelled against him as well for bullying staff. He lost the plot after not receiving an executive role he felt entitled too and started taking it out on staff. What a shock! Anyway that's just one little story. And who could forget FOI 'Pothole'? He still trawls the Brisbane office hallways like a prize rooster wearing his silly boots and belt, eager to fill any listening ear with countless stories of flying 737's and how absolutely wonderful he is! Puke Most people run the other way when Herr Pothole is doing his rounds. I don't believe there is one single person within industry or Fort Fumble who haven't been offended by his bullying tactics.

As for the impending senate estimates, it should be a great laugh. As usual Fort Fumble will sit under the spotlight, the Senators will give them a good dusting, lots of QON's will eventuate and ultimately team Pumpkin Head will sweep all under the carpet. It's a game of tautology, it's played every so often and it's fun to watch. But nothing will actually come out of the process, never does. But I do recommend front row seats if you can get them, watching turkey neck Terry trying to answer intelligent questions and not fumble, stammer or sleep his way through the answers is priceless!! Sadly we won't get to see JMac turning purple with veins protruding from his neck anymore, but that's ok as there are other players to watch. I would like to see the Senators place a torch to Boyds toes if he is on the 'pineapple panel', he is a conceited sneak who holds contempt for the Senators, I reckon if he were to be given a JMac style grilling for a few hours he would either break down in tears or explode with the force of Terry's weak bladder in the middle of the night. Priceless!!

Now enjoy your weekend flying you kids and fly safe.

[Sunfish]

A Warning To CASA.

If I was running CASA, I would be extremely worried about its future because a vicious circle is forming very quickly.

Administration is not cheap. If administrative costs keep increasing to the point where market participants start leaving the industry, a vicious circle forms where increasing administrative charges have to be born by a decreasing number of participants.

The major airlines can not be milked - they have political clout and can tell CASA where to stick it and in any case CASA don't have the skills, experience, courage and capabilities in depth to make any meaningful regulatory impact on Qantas and its competitors, let alone value add. That is why Terry Farquesons A380 endorsement is a joke - Qantas will not permit CASA to have anything to do with its operations apart from a little window dressing for appearances sake, and that by the way from a Qantas pilot mate.

That leaves the Third tier airlines, charter, GA and recreational sectors to pick up CASA's tab. My impression is that those people are fast running out of money to pay for "exemptions", "permissions" and "acceptances", the cost of which are now apparently escalating to stratospheric heights.

At some point the last straw breaks the camels back and CASA will be overtaken by events. Let me tell you where I see the trends going and why I would be concerned if I was CASA:

- Rapid technological change, particularly in Avionics, is going to put very major pressure on CASA to approve/accept. call it what you will, a bewildering array of new technologies and do it fast or risk becoming a laughing stock as well as courting widespread disobedience and flaunting of its rules. The whole electronic flight bag / iPad issue is a case in point.

For example, I can already access the marine AIS (automatic identification system) via an App. I can even paint myself on radar screens as displacing 20,000 tons if i want to.

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/boat...494877039?mt=8

I wonder how fast the aviation equivalent "plane beacon" App will arrive and how that will totally disrupt ADS-B?

- Civil disobedience, although I have no knowledge of it, I would expect that at some point, a proportion of aircraft operators are going to start to decide to operate illegally making the judgement that the cost and likelihood of getting caught is smaller than the cost and complexity of compliance. If that proportion is significant it will swamp whatever oversight mechanism CASA thinks it has.

- A general economic downturn will also contribute to this vicious circle. I do not believe the Federal Treasurer is going to allow CASA to continue wasting money.

By my way of thinking, it is not a good idea for CASA management to assume that the Government will continue to put up with their antics. A good place to start would be the Senate Estimates Committee asking very pointed questions about the need for the Acting DAS to get an A380 endorsement.

[Sarcs]

'Plight of the Angels' - Former heavyweight weighs in.

Although the potential Angel Flight embuggerance, instigated by our big "R" regulator, has slid slightly to the edge of the radar it is still very much a political hot potato for the Wuss & his minions... Example - Scott Lobbies For Angel Flight:

Member for Maranoa Bruce Scott says the Federal Government is all about “removing red tape” rather than creating “onerous obstacles” for charity organisations such as Angel Flight.

Angel Flight CEO Bill Bristow recently criticised a Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) discussion paper that suggested the charity group should be included under a new aviation organisation which would approve pilots and aircraft types, and monitor safety standards.

“There has been no demonstrated safety issue arising out of Angel Flight’s already greater than 16,500 missions and therefore the ‘safety authority’ appears to be introducing … bureaucratic intervention which does not appear to us to have any foundation,” Mr Bristow told The Australian newspaper.

Mr Scott said today he had made urgent representations to the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to ensure Angel Flight, “a well-respected and admired community organisation”, could continue its work.

“Angel Flight does outstanding work across Australia with its volunteers, including the pilots, giving their time and resources so country people with health issues – who are under financial hardship – can obtain the treatment they need,” Mr Scott said.

“The Liberal National Coalition Government is all about removing red tape and cutting regulations that place unreasonable burdens on businesses and community organisations.

“We are not in favour of creating onerous obstacles where none are needed.

“CASA is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of civil aircraft and that objective will not be compromised.

“From time to time, CASA issues discussion papers when it’s considering options to revise regulatory measures. The purpose of discussion papers is to ensure that options being considered are the best available before beginning any new rule making procedures.

“The government has recently completed a major review of CASA and will shortly respond to its major recommendations.

“The government is also in the process of appointing new CASA board members and a new CEO.”

Angel Flight co-ordinates non-emergency flights from volunteer pilots to transport patients from rural areas to hospital.

Today is the last day to show support for Angel Flight through the FF DP1317OS. All you have to do is answer - not acceptable under any circumstances (here) - to all available options...

Now if you are after inspiration to pass comment/condemnation.... perhaps some of the following replies to the AA article may help - Angel Flight anger over proposed CASA changes

Frank says:

Another example of just how out of touch CASA is would be a sad day for the community if licensed people decided it was too tiresome to volunteer their time. Disgraceful!

Fred says:

This is ridiculous.
CASA is the regulatory body that is supposed to ensure private pilots are competent and safe upon issuance of their licence and ensures that the individual pilot maintains, at least legally, some proficiency by regular flight reviews, etc. By imposing this “ASAAO” upon Angel Flight, CASA is really just struggling to admit that their own ability to regulate private operations is either ineffective or that they are under resourced and can’t meet the regulatory demand.

Angel Flight operations are regular private flights and carry no greater risk to the passengers than any non-Angel Flight organised trip. An individual pilot making poor operational decisions under the banner of Angel Flight should be reprimanded by CASA directly. An Angel Flight pilot is never under any pressure to complete a “mission”. In fact, they are encouraged to give up their mission if there is any doubt as to the conditions and the pilot’s ability. A pilot is always purely a volunteer, operating privately. The Angel Flight organisation should never be held responsible for the individual’s decision.

As far as I understand, why should one of the most well-meaning and effective charities in Australia take on the regulatory responsibility of a government-funded department?

Joanna van der Drift says:

To place the responsibility of all of that onto to provider is ridiculous. A licence to fly comes with obligations, owning and running an aircarft comes with obligations and registration is subject to the plane being fit to fly. Why bring into the equation another body to be rsponsible for this as well?

Scott says:

A beheamonth of a beauracracy thats totally out of touch with GA and recreational flying and desperate to over-regulate to death, those with the least resources, therefore creating safety issues for CASA to resolve and regulate with glee. Without the “burden” of GA, CASA would only have to regulate several hundred jet aircraft with the huge resources it currently wastes at tax payers expense. Why any private flight below 1200kg needs to hold a Class 2 Medical, and often redundant ASIC for a bit of recreational flying and the odd Angel Flight is unintelligent. 20 years ago we had CASA grounding light aircraft operators for having undersized rego letters, henious safety issue that it was, seems not much has changed at the retirement factory for those who couldn’t make it in the real world of proffit and loss…!

Or you could refer to the following leaked response to the DP from the former CAsA boss Mick Toller...:

Ex-CASA chief blasts Angel Flight curbs

FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mick Toller has slammed as unnecessary and unfounded a proposal to more tightly regulate community service organisations such as Angel Flight.

In a submission obtained by The Australian, Mr Toller told CASA there was no evidence or solid data in a discussion paper *released by the authority suggesting there were problems with *operations in the community *service sector.

“The discussion paper states that there are identified safety concerns regarding varying pilot qualifications and experience levels as well as aircraft certification and maintenance standards,’’ he said. “No examples of these identified concerns are given.’’

Mr Toller is among the Angel Flight volunteers lining up to support the group, which has also received support from local authorities and patients potentially affected by any move by CASA to increase regulation.
He headed CASA when Angel Flight was set up in 2003 and gave the organisation the green light to start operations co-ordinating non-emergency flights for needy patients, relatives and carers. It now has about 2600 pilots on its register and has helped more than 2500 people across the country.

CASA has emphasised that it may not proceed with any changes that would affect Angel Flight, but its decision to specify a preferred option in its discussion paper has alarmed the organisation’s management and volunteers.

Its preferred option would see an organisation set up to assess and authorise pilots, require proficiency checks and assessments and approve aircraft types. It *argues it could monitor safety standards under the system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.

The authority subsequently rejected claims it was moving to shut down community service flights, but said it made no apologies for canvassing safety issues.

Other options in its paper include taking no action at all, *special passenger briefings on community service flights, additional pilot training, a volunteer registration system and operations under an air operator’s certificate.
The authority this week reiterated its stance that no decision had been made and it would consider all responses to the discussion paper before deciding what, or if, further action was appropriate.

“If any changes to the current safety management of community service flights are to be proposed these will be subject to full consultation with all stakeholders,’’ a spokesman said.

“Currently community service flights are considered to be private flights and the safety rules do not take into account the special characteristics of these operations.’’

But Mr Toller noted in his submission that Angel Flight policy already required pilots to have 250 hours experience, in excess of the requirements for a commercial *pilots’ licence, and their aircraft have a valid airworthiness certificate and current maintenance release. “It is not possible to impose a greater requirement than a valid certificate of airworthiness and current maintenance release on any operation,’’ he said.

“The question therefore has to be asked — what problem are you trying to solve?

“Neither is there a lack of transparency regarding choice of aircraft or pilot as alleged.

“What does not seem to be clearly understood by CASA is that Angel Flight and any future similar organisation is a facilitator, not an operator. It links people who elect to fly rather than travel by car, bus or train, if the option is available, with pilots keen to offer their time to assist.

“As such each flight is a normal private flight subject to the rules, regulations and requirements imposed on all private flights.’’
Mr Toller said CASA’s proposal would add a unique classification of operations not existing anywhere else in the world.

He said this was contrary to the policy of harmonisation that had been at the core of all regulatory reform and underpinned the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

A simple solution that endorsed the current safety levels and precluded any newcomer operating at a minimum standard would be to require a memorandum of understanding with each charity based “on the current proven standards that have served the community well”. He added: “We are talking about private operations, operated in accordance with all CASA rules and regulations, with additional safeguards required by the charity.”

Hmm...interesting comments from MT???

MTF...

[Sarcs]

RAAA conference 2014: Forsyth on trust.

From AA online today...

Forsyth suggests two-year timeline to restore industry’s relationship with CASA

Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) author David Forsyth estimates it will take about two years to fix the relationship between the industry and the regulator.

However, trust between Australia’s aviation players and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would take longer, Forsyth says.

In an indication of the lack of trust in Australia compared with other countries, Forsyth noted carriers such as British Airways and Easyjet freely sent the majority of their operational safety data through to their national regulator, something that would be unheard of here.

“I would never have done it in Qantas 10-12 years ago and you can be damn sure no one is going to do it in this country now,” Forsyth told delegates at the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) national convention in the NSW Hunter Valley on Friday.

“Overseas, operators share some and in some cases operators share all of that in-house data with the regulator.”

“That’s not happening in Australia. In fact, the reverse is true.”

Forsyth said the industry’s view that the relationship with CASA was both inappropriate and unhealthy centred on the availability and use of safety data.

Technological advancements in aircraft design and production meant safety systems had evolved, making operations more reliable and eliminating the likes of fixed interval overhauls and “over-the-shoulder” inspection and quality assurance roles. As a result, regulators needed to know more than what was available from incident reports, such as information from airlines’ increasingly sophisticated data and analytical tools within their safety management systems.

However, Australian carriers were increasingly reluctant to share any more than was legally required to CASA.

“There was even some evidence that some people were actually not even reporting the mandatory data to CASA,” Forsyth said.

While airlines in some countries sent their safety data directly to the regulator, Forsyth noted Australian operators sent their information to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), where it was “de-identified” before a summary was produced for CASA. He described that process as “clearly out of step with best practice”.

“This issue revolves around trust.”

The ASRR report highlighted the at-times “adversarial” relationship between the industry and CASA, and that a new director of aviation safety (DAS) would be a chance for structural and cultural change.

“Their view was that you could certainly within two years if you approached it the right way get the relationship with the industry fixed,” Forsyth said.

“But it will take time for the industry – to use the T word – to trust the regulator.”

“Their view was that a year or two, or at the most three, in the right circumstances you could restore the balance to where it needs to be.”

Reviews into Australian aviation were nothing new, Forsyth said, with the ASRR the 10th government-initiated probe into the sector since the Plane Safe inquiry of 1995. Moreover, there had been seven reviews in the past seven years, including two conducted by a Senate Committee.

“Even in Australian aeropolitics that is not normal,” Forsyth said.

The federal government has pledged to respond to the report’s 37 recommendations before the end of 2014.

MTF...

[thorn bird]

Fox in the hen house

Trust CAsA!!!!!

with all the evidence available I'd trust ISL before I'd trust CAsA.

[Soteria]

Reviews into Australian aviation were nothing new, Forsyth said, with the ASRR the 10th government-initiated probe into the sector since the Plane Safe inquiry of 1995. Moreover, there had been seven reviews in the past seven years, including two conducted by a Senate Committee.

Quite simply it goes to show how utterly fu#ked CASA is and how utterly corrupt successive governments have been when at the end of the day nothing has changed after all these years, inquires and reviews.

[Sunfish]

Soteria:

Quite simply it goes to show how utterly fu#ked CASA is and how utterly corrupt successive governments have been when at the end of the day nothing has changed after all these years, inquires and reviews.

CASA puts a very simple value proposition to successive Governments that they always accept:

1. Aviation issues will never win you an election. The only aviation issue the public is concerned about are cheap flights, aviation noise in inner Sydney and a second airport at Badgerys creek. There is therefore no need for you to invest any time and effort on the subject.

2. If you take any action apart from spouting motherhood policy statements, you will be blamed by the public if a major crash occurs. There is no electoral "upside" from messing with this. There is only "downside" if you meddle.

3. Considering there is no upside and only downside for you in acting in aviation, then leave us in charge to do what we like. We give you electoral protection via plausible deniability and diffusion of responsibility. You can always blame us, we will then provide sacrificial lambs to absolve you of any guilt whatsoever."

....and each Government since at least as early as 1990 has accepted that bargain for those reasons.

[Creampuff]

It's taken you quite a while to get there, Sunny, but you're there. Well done.

This is why folks like Lookleft and I have been saying, for some time, that it's practically pointless to focus energy on arguing with CASA or the Minister, or to wait with credulous wonder for the Senate latest inquiry or new messiah to precipitate any substantial change.

Subject to one possible exception, the only glimmer of hope is the non-major party aligned Senators. They have the power to pressure governments to make real changes, in return for something the government really wants. As I've said before, if the non-major party aligned Senators said they won't vote for some controversial piece of legislation that the government was gagging to get through the Senate, unless ATCers wear pink bunny suits at the console, ATCers would be paid handsomely to agree a pink bunny suit obligation in their EBA by the close of business on the same day.

The one possible exception arises from Dick Smith's recent return to the aviation foray. If he put his formible profile and influence to work to create a credible threat to e.g. Barnaby Joyce's security in his House of Reps seat in NSW, unless specified substantial changes were made in the aviation sector, there may be substantial change. The challenge would be to ensure Dick didn't get distracted, as he has been before, by the political equivalent of shiny beads and cosy blankets.

Face it everyone: It's always about base politics, not high principle.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

Face it everyone: It's always about base politics, not high principle.

Therefore we need a cleanskin non pilot to start an "aviation enthusiasts party" that we can vote for with a mission to influence the composition of the Senate.

You do that not by getting your own candidate elected, you do it by preference deals to make sure your target is NOT elected.

Where and what are the marginal seats such a party could target?

[Frank Arouet]

Creampuff. Once again you have identified a problem which most all would agree with. Now, can one assume yourself and your banal associate, have approached the non major party aligned Senators. May we know what their response to you was?
I doubt, that there would have been a Senate inquiry, a review, or an overseas audit, without some prompting by someone, (possibly you two), and further I believe PPRune has played a vital part up to the hiatus we now find ourselves at.
As for Dick, I believe your encouragement lacks sincerity. Perhaps reference to beads and blankets is not the best way to get him on board. Ridicule would, in my opinion, cement the reasons he gave up last time and probably be treated with contempt and have the opposite effect. Some may engineer that to achieve such an aim.


Sunfish. There is a plethora of "independants" (small i), who will probably suffer the same fate as any other "single issue" mob at the next election. I believe the "electability" and "preference issue" will be addressed by both major party's before then.

[Creampuff]

If the Laborials can't manage to get legislative amendments through to undo the above-the-line preference swap mechanism (that was, ironically, originally intended to ensure minor candidates' preferences always ended up in the same place - a Laborial), there might be a chance of getting some influence through the Senate election process. Given that the Laborials are just that - a 'unity ticket' on this issue - the likelihood is, unfortunately, that the amendments will be pushed through. Assuming they aren't...

Register a political party. Call it anything you like e.g. the Aviation Promotion Party. The name just needs to be recognisable to anyone involved in anything to do with aviation. The rest don't care. All the party needs is a few hundred members and, hopefully, at least one candidate for each State, the NT and ACT.

Then you encourage anyone and everyone connected with aviation to vote APP above the line on the Senate ballot. Simple policies e.g:

- dismantle CASA and rebuild the regulatory structure from the ground up.
- kill, cremate and bury the regulatory reform Frankenstein, and adopt the NZ rules
- turn airports back into airports.

Behind the scenes the key is to do preference swap deals with other minor parties/independents with similar aims/interests/philosophies. That way, whatever way the preferences flow, there's a greater likelihood of electing candidates with APP sympathies.

The APP will, of course, be internally divided and eventually disintegrate due to the egos involved. But all it needs is a few years with a government's nuts in a Senate deadlock vise, to get fundamental changes to the aviation sector.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

The APP will, of course, be internally divided and eventually disintegrate due to the egos involved. But all it needs is a few years with a government's nuts in a Senate deadlock vise, to get fundamental changes to the aviation sector.

Correction, all it needs is the threat of placing a Governments nuts in a vice.

Truss and his ilk on both sides of politics will receive very unfavourable attention from their compatriots if they are deemed responsible for creating an electoral irritation like the APP.

Is there enough interest in the aviation community to create such a beast?

[Sarcs]

RTR, airports & political expediency??

I noted with interest the fact that the government rep chosen to speak at the RAAA conference was the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister for industry...

Some may say this is typical of government (past & present) obvious dis-interest in all things aviation but on a quick perusal of Bob Baldwin's CV it is quite obvious this man is not a light weight in political circles, the man is a doer rather than (like Wuss) a snoozer...

Now the doomsayers may also say - "so what"- & that this is just more political posturing from the laborials but IMO this is an obvious sign that the government RTRB (Red Tape Reduction Brigade), of which BB is heavily involved, has been tasked with getting stuck into the 20+ year mess that is Fort Fumble's RRP...

As noted in Progressive's thread here, yesterday FF quietly/stealthily.... released their contribution to the RTR program - Red Tape Reduction and Audit :

The Australian Government has committed to a red tape reduction programme to boost productivity growth and enhance competitiveness across the Australian economy. One component of the programme is to undertake an audit of all regulations and estimate the compliance cost for a sample of those regulations. Further information about the red tape reduction programme can be found at: Cutting Red Tape website.

Some of the spin & bulldust in the FF Ranking of Regulations (28KB) is truly vomitus....& perhaps deserves further comment on here but for a simple summary here is the Oz Flying take:

CASA Calls for Input to Regulatory Burden Rankings -
13 Oct 2014



CASA has called for industry input in to the regulatory burden rankings as part of the Australian Government's Red Tape Reduction program.
The regulator has posted a list on it's website and ranked each Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) or Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) according to whether or not it sees the burden on industry as High, Medium or Low. The industry has been invited to submit their own rankings.
CASA's initial rankings were based on:

• the type of requirements the regulation imposes
• the complexity of the regulation
• the reach of the regulation
• the frequency of interactions with the regulation
• currency of review
• scope for reform.

Some of the rankings are likely to cause controversy as the CASA list appears to be at odds with what the industry believes is excessive burden. The following CASRs, which have proven contentious since introduction, have all been ranked as having low burden on the aviation industry.

CASR Part 141- Flight training other than integrated courses
CASR Part 142- Integrated and multi-crew flight training courses
CASR Part 147- Continuing airworthiness, maintenance training organisations
CASR Part 66- Aircraft engineer licences and ratings
CASR Part 61- Licensing has been ranked medium burden on the CASA list and Part 67- medicals has been ranked high burden, which is something
the industry will probably be happy to agree with.
The rankings list and instructions for input are all on the CASA website.

Strange world of Politics - On another front (i.e. Airports) there was a media release (13/10/14) put out by the miniscule on funding for Pormpuraaw Airport: WT204/2014

The funding contribution from the Fed/State government was..

"...The $1.04 million project was jointly funded by the Australian Government which invested $790,000 and the Queensland Government which contributed $250,000..."

...meanwhile, just last week, in a positive development for Coober Pedy.. :

Coober Pedy gets runway upgrade, keeps Rex service

Construction on widening the runway at Coober Pedy Airport will commence in November after the project secured state funding, in a move that ensures Regional Express (Rex) will be able to maintain services from Adelaide using Saab 340 aircraft.

The South Australian government has backed $1.3 million project to widen the runway to 30 metres, from 18 metres currently, so it will meet international regulations.

Coober Pedy district council mayor Steve Baines said the council was ready to begin work once the paperwork was settled.

“The threat to our vital air service has been lifted,” Cr Baines said in a statement.

“Losing the Rex flights would have killed off the tourism industry and had major impact on the residents of Coober Pedy and surrounding areas. Council and I are delighted that this has been resolved.”

Figures from the SA government showed 75 per cent of passengers on flights to Coober Pedy were visitors to the town.

SA transport and infrastructure minister Stephen Mulligan said the runway upgrade would allow regular passengers services to continue unrestricted to Coober Pedy.

“The prospect of losing commercial flights to Coober Pedy was unacceptable to the South Australian Government,” Mulligan said.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said on September 4 aspects of the current arrangements for Rex to operate to Coober Pedy did not provide the “appropriate continued management of safety on an 18-metre sealed runway with gravel edges”.

“CASA believes it is in the best interests of the travelling public to introduce new safety standards for all narrow runway operations across Australia, including Coober Pedy,” CASA said.

CASA said Rex would be permitted to operate into Coober Pedy while the runway widening work was carried out.

“It should be noted that leading aviation nations such as the United States, Europe and New Zealand do not allow narrow runway operations under the arrangements that have been in place in Australia,” CASA said.

“However, CASA believes it is in the interests of the Coober Pedy community to allow these flights to continue in the short-term because any restrictions could cause social and economic disruption.”

So the miniscule dodged a bullet there...

While in Victoria there was another airports & politics issue, from the - Last Minute Hitch: 10 October 2014:

The $1 million grant to Tyabb is causing some controversy, as it is the home club of Minister Gordon Rich-Phillips. Naturally, the opposition is calling it a conflict of interest and saying the airport doesn't qualify under the guidelines of the fund. Firstly, Rich-Phillips has stated that he took the conflict to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and washed his hands of the grant. That was absolutely the right thing to do, and it is what the Labor Party would be saying he should have done had he not done it. Secondly, the aviation fund is for regional airports be they public or private ... it says so in the guidelines.

But, the biggest question in my mind comes when you reverse the situation. Should Tyabb have been excluded from funding because the minister was a member? That doesn't seem fair to me; Tyabb has the right to apply the same as any airport does. As for the issue of the airport being privately-run, where were Labor's slings and arrows when Lethbridge was given a motza to seal their runway? I wonder if we'd even be reporting this story were a state election not coming up in November.

The strange..strange world of politics...

MTF...