Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 21st Nov 2014, 10:22
  #1481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
On a more serious note
Jinglie mine was a serious post.

the great problem in australian aviation is that the overarching philosophy of it all has never been decided by common agreement.
McComic has structured a law framework based on mandating the "certified" way of doing things.
It has been apparent now for over a decade now that CAsA totally ignored requests to implement Canadian owner maintenance.
The result is the we continue to do it illegally supposedly.

as a private owner I have an inalienable right to the use, enjoyment and maintenance of my private property. something blithely ignored by CAsA.

article 20a of the universal declaration of human rights is pretty specific.
"no person shall be forced to join an association". it was ratified by australia in 1952 I believe. sorta screws a fair chunk of aviation law I would have thought.

they can write what they like into law. it will only survive until overturned in the high court. in the meantime we just ignore it.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2014, 12:48
  #1482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,187
Tell me more about Canadian owner maintenance. Is this for a normally certified aircraft?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2014, 13:21
  #1483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Dick, I understand it is applicable to normally certified aircraft but the aircraft gets a special certificate of airworthiness.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...507sh-1837.htm
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2014, 07:05
  #1484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
Sunfish,
I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.

The real problem is CASA misbehavior, trying to use some CAAPS/ACs/AMCs to micromanage the whole industry, but the problem is not just "compliance", it is the fact that CASA gets itself involved in said micro management to a degree unknown elsewhere in aviation, even China.

As I said in a previous post, the answer to over regulation is not more regulation, a schizophrenic concept, if ever there was one, but a complete cultural shift in CASA.

Without that cultural shift, it doesn't matter what form "the regulations" take, Australian aviation is stuffed.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2014, 07:14
  #1485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Dick,
The Canadian system has been in place since the mid-1990s, and has been very successful. There have been no "safety" issues.

There are limits as to what aircraft are included, a different "owner maintained" C.of A is issued, which limits the use of the aircraft to strictly private operations, and from memory, there is no reverse path back to a normal C.of A.

The bottom line is: It has been very successful.

There were some discussions here in Australia, but it was comprehensively knocked back by CAR 30 Maintenance Org. proprietors and the ALAEA, including the ALAEA members who comprise most of the AWIs. All on safety grounds, you understand, not self interest.

Cast you mind back to when you first started flying, in Australia, a private owner could do far more than the present Schedule 8 maintenance allows, and when a LAME could do an annual inspection/100 hourly under the iron gumtree --- no CAR 30 (now Part 145) approval required.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2014, 08:17
  #1486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,187
We must copy this.

Any further details much appreciated?

Have they had lots more accidents? Bet not.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2014, 08:53
  #1487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,482
Leadslead?:

Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
Sunfish,
I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.
Leady, I am not suggesting that the current "advisories" be turned into regulation. i am suggesting that the current advisories be turned into recommendations!

The difference being that CASA is required to be responsible for what it recommends, and that compliance with CASA recommendations is an automatic and ironclad defence against punitive action in any form from any authority.

To put that another way, have an accident and kill someone while following CASA recommendations and the law? Sorry Mr. Coroner, talk to CASA, not me.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2014, 14:21
  #1488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Sunfish,
Advisory material, whether it be ACs, CAAPs or AMCs are acceptable means of compliance --- a lot more than "recommendations".
The current very serious problem is some of the newer home grown material, all added to the horrendously voluminous MOS, on to of world leading ( by words or page count) ultra prescriptive regulations.
The intent of too many in CASA is to use advisory material to get around Parliamentary scrutiny and possible dissallowance --- a completely dishonest and unethical way of doing business.
Indeed, the situation, due to peculiarities of Australian legislation, means that AWIs, as delegates under Commonwealth legislation, are not bound by the CAAPs etc., but can impose and enforce their own "standards". Sadly, there is aviation legal precedence for this, but there is not time to go into detail now.

Dick,
The aircraft that have "owner maintenance" C.of As that I have seen in Canada, are like most Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, an extraordinary level of workmanship, because it is "no expense spared" in terms of hours devoted to the maintenance and general upkeep.

I have never seen any suggestion that the accident rate for these aircraft, particularly maintenance related incidents or accidents, is any different to any other production aircraft.

The chances of getting such a system in place in Australia now is as good as nil, because of the opposition, even more adamant about "safety" than in the mid- 1990s. I doubt that even the present AOPA would support it!

Like NAS, it may work "overseas", but it will never work in Australia is the mantra, just like independent instructor pilot training, the now neutered PIFR and so on. The net result here is a great deal of "owner maintenance" done behind closed doors. You would be amazed how extensive an "oil change" can be on some older aircraft, and how reliable these aircraft are, going from annual to annual without a single defect.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2014, 23:24
  #1489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Get on with it!

A good debate but may I suggest it is a debate that will remain purely academic until there is a strong undertaking for the miniscule & government to take up all the recommendations of the Forsyth report or to put it bluntly just...Get on with it!(courtesy of Pro Aviation)

Long read so here is just the first part of it..
The national aviation authority’s new director won’t have to look very far for examples of systemic breakdowns that urgently need fixing. The regulator’s most recent assault on the aviation industry’s trust and respect displays most of the hallmarks of similar actions over the past 20 years, and could easily be interpreted as the adoption of a “scorched earth policy” by elements whose departure may be imminent.

The events surrounding CASA’s publication of Consultation Draft CD 1425SS – Operating limitations for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines, reprinted below, and the response of RA – AUS President Michael Monck, appear to be typical of dozens of CASA actions we have reviewed in the past, in which a “financial first strike” is adopted in preference to measured and professional compliance with the regulator’s common law duty of care, statutory obligations, and its own compliance & enforcement guidelines.

Assuming Mr Monck’s narrative doesn’t contain any major errors or omissions, CASA’s management of the events as he records them appears to have been seeking the same outcomes, and we’ll leave readers to draw their own conclusions. They also appear to support Mr Monck’s labelling of the event as “the misconduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.”

The Jabiru issue isn’t the only aberration that has cropped up since David Forsyth’s ASRR report was released, but so far it’s the most drastic, and has further elevated industry concerns at the government’s tardiness in responding to the ASRR, and also finalising the composition of CASA’s board. Of even more concern is the growing industry belief that Minister Truss is simply stalling the government’s detailed response to the review it commissioned. What industry cannot understand is what is holding the Minister back, who is responsible for developing the government response, and when it will be delivered.

Another puzzle is a meeting in Sydney that is planned for next Friday (November 27) of the all-but-defunct AICC (Aviation Industry Consultative Committee or Council) – nobody remembers.) All former members have been invited to attend, along with a few people from the industry forums who are not former members, but also not CEOs of their organisations. The inaugural meeting is at the Commonwealth Parliament offices in Sydney, costs of attending meetings will not be met by the Council, and at this stage there are to be two meetings per annum. No agenda for the meeting is at hand.

What nobody understands is why on earth the Minister needs yet another advisory body at this point. How many more people need to tell him that CASA is broken and urgently needs fixing? That some of its crazier initiatives need to be frozen in time or in some cases reversed until they have been properly scrutinised? What will be achieved through a biannual meeting of the AICC that the Minister’s ASRR and on-going implementation of the Forsyth report cannot achieve?

And if there are any information gaps why not consult the Australian Aviation Associations Forum, which presents a concise, industry-wide, mutually agreed, collective position, intelligent recommendations, and access to more aviation savvy than exists within the entire national aviation authority? Is the Sydney meeting just another piece of placatory window-dressing, while obfuscation continues and decisions are avoided? Is there something missing from the Forsyth report that the Minister needs to know? It seems to most that the needs of the industry are precisely known, to everyone, except apparently to the Minister and the bureaucrats and advisors who surround him.

The Forsyth report recorded concerns about “the internal management and governance of CASA.” The message from within the industry has been pretty clear. It is that if those responsible for reform are not looking closely at the top three levels of CASA management there will be no culture change, no reform, and no implement ion of the Forsyth panel’s recommendations.

What is the government waiting for?
Plenty areas of interest and promising debate in that PP offering but for mine the best bit is the title...

Just a reminder for the ailing miniscule, his minions, the PMC & the Government - it is today 376 days since the miniscule first implemented the Forsyth review & 145 days since the report was handed down...TICK TOCK goes the Play School clock...

MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Nov 2014 at 23:39.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2014, 23:52
  #1490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,482
It's time for the gloves to come off folks, CASA wants to shut down non airline and non RAAF aviation. How are you going to respond? More milksop stuff? The beast has thrown down the gauntlet.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 24th Nov 2014, 20:00
  #1491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
No wuckers mate;

Sarcs - "[it] is today 376 days since the miniscule first implemented the Forsyth review & 145 days since the report was handed down."
Perhaps, like Baldric he has a 'cunning plan'. After all, the wages roll in, the super piles up, the tea is warm, chocolate biscuits free, the office is air-conditioned and the seat very comfy. He can wait, till anger turns to frustration, frustration to despair and the industry disunites, to become isolated, easy pickings for the hyena packs, roaming the dark places.

No, there's no rush, it'll soon be Christmas (which comes late in the Canadian Autumn) which take us into January (month of the dead), followed by the traditional land of the long weekend lazy weeks. By Easter it will all be just as close to reality as the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.

Never mind, the water remains, for the time being, potable. What a great, lucky country we are fortunate to live in; if you don't want to do anything, that is. What a holiday destination.....
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 02:15
  #1492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Dark places.

It’s said the law is for everyone and justice is there for those that can afford it. This unfortunate truism manifests itself here regularly and the frustrations are obvious. It won’t be long until these frustrations boil over and somebody gets badly scalded.
When people are denied a redress of wrongs, or when people are subjected to vexatious attack, humiliation, they are lied to, had their time and effort wasted, lost employment and forced to become impecunious, have lost family and friends, become marginalised, treated in such a way that they end up with depressive and psychological issues, and society rejects them. If that leads them to attempt to seek redress and justice in alternative ways. It should be then asked, if that person resorts to alternative and illegal or violent means, can it be as a result of the actions of the antagonist?
Understanding depends on one’s ability to accept there is a problem in the first place. It’s a pity any normal theatre for redress is often denied defendants to the extent that many aviation problems can be due to a regulatory opinion outside a Court of law and involving a corruption in the prosecution, a simple peculiarity of an FOI or the breaking of chains of evidence, the loss of evidence, the obfuscations because of "safety" or "commercial in confidence" in discovery of documents or interrogatories that the matter ends up in the AAT as the final avenue of redress.
Assuming, as one example, someone has been prosecuted for not having a dust cap on one tyre, be it because it was not replaced after regular maintenance, stolen, or fell off in flight due to lack of tension applied in the replacement, and that prosecutor is CasA and the charge relates to safety breaches.
1) The offender has lost the opportunity to escape from further attention. Therefore the offender now has the problem and he’s unemployed.
2) Coping mechanisms fail due to any of the aforementioned problems in para 1.
3) There is escalation.
4) There is disobedience because of the pettiness of the prosecution.
5) There is a trigger.
6) There is violence/ explosion.
7) There is a lowering of tension.
8) A denial of a problem. (still unsure what problem).
9) Remorse.
10) Guilt.
(but the guilt is for the explosion and the violence, not the dust cap).
People who read this and can associate themselves with the experience will instantly see we are collectively at about para 3). Unless some means of redress is made available to those wronged, the public can expect to see the remainder of this table enacted simply because that’s how the human mind works. That’s why domestic violence continues, that’s why much disharmony exists in Australian society today. The Strict Liability tool left in the hands of Bureaucrats will continue to exacerbate this problem.
There is only a political solution to the problem and that Politician will carry the burden of whatever escalates if he doesn’t act soon.


He is the problem!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 04:43
  #1493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 45
Take back the skies

So nothing changes. New DAS, so what? Farkwitson still reigns supreme, dodgy A380 endorsements, Sky Sentinel farce - corruption, malfeasance, tax payer funded abuse. No accountability, no change to the system. Nothing new. The Skull (although a complete gimp) did what he did because he was authorised to do so. MrDak is a shonk, PMC are crooks, the Minister and Prime Minister are snivelling trough extractors loading their pockets and super funds. While Rome burns these parasites become wealthier and have no accountability. Only a revolution will change things. Time to pick up the firey torches and for 22 million people to make a stand in Australia. Until that happens you are all waisting your time.
I live on a very rural property. Do as I want when I want. I maintain my own aircraft and make my own rules. Nobody comes near me, and the day an FOI or AWI turns up, well they shall wish they didnt. And forget 'droning' me boys. A loaded shotgun is always on hand to deal with that situation. Aviation is stuffed and so is Australia. Dont get even, just get smart. I did.

Catch me if you can...................................................
CASAweary is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 06:55
  #1494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Got a spare shoe??

Here he is the Mandarin without a neck...:
Mrdak says government’s ASRR response on track for release by end of 2014

November 25, 2014 by Jordan Chong Leave a Comment




The federal government is on track to deliver its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) by the end of the year, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Secretary Mike Mrdak says.

The department was working through the government’s response, Mrdak told delegates at the Australian Airports Association national conference on the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

“The department has received over 60 industry submissions on the report and we are currently in the process of completing the government’s response which I anticipate will be tabled in the Parliament before the end of this year,” Mrdak said.

The ASRR was commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss.

Written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, the ASRR made 37 recommendations and found the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.

The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF), an industry group that brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner, recently criticised the government for its delayed response to the report.

“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said last week.
“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.”
Where's a spare shoe when you need one??

Oh and on Airports & uncontrolled development, well apparently M&M is mounting a rear guard action...:
Federal government clamps down on high-rise near airports

The federal government is keeping a close eye on high-rise and other developments near Australia's major airports and will not allow any buildings to be constructed if they interfere with current or future flight paths, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development secretary Mike Mrdak says.

Under the Airports Act, the government and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority can object to developments in protected airspace near the large federally regulated airports.

"If we don't protect that airspace now, we will in the long-term rue our failure to do so," Mr Mrdak told the Australian Airports Association national conference on the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

"I think it is one of the most important tasks government and industry must work together on. More and more, the potential for high-rise residential development is threatening to encroach on flight paths and protected airspace around our airports."

But such regulations do not apply to smaller airports outside capital cities that are not federally regulated.

Mr Mrdak said he would encourage states to look at a statutory regime like the Airports Act that would allow airport operators to have a say in how much airspace would be required for future growth.

"It is important that planning by state and local governments take into account airports," he said. "Developments near airports and under flight paths can constrain operations. I recognise this is a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use in their jurisdictions. But as we know, if we aren't protecting our long-term assets we aren't going to be meeting our growth challenge."

Mr Mrdak said he was optimistic about the potential for growth in the Australian aviation industry, even though Australians took an average of four flights a year, which is 30 per cent higher than Europeans and North Americans.

"This love of aviation services will continue," he said. "We have to plan and invest for this growth."

Mr Mrdak said consultations with Sydney Airport about its first right of refusal over the development of a new airport in Sydney's west at Badgerys Creek were proceeding "very well" and would continue in the new year.

He said the plan was for an initial one-runway development with a terminal capable of handling up to 3 million passengers a year – on a par with Canberra Airport – which would not have a curfew and would open in the mid 2020s.

"[The airport] will provide an avenue for economic growth for western Sydney, which is already the third-largest economy in Australia," he said.
However too little too late; much like FF M&M suffers from a severe case of Bullshititis and the WIOS has recognised this and from here after will never believe a word that emanates from his pumpkin head... {Bullshititis: A condition which causes the sufferer to habitually lie without cause or reason. May derive from a nervous compulsion to ocassionally impress certain social groups but can soon evolve into daily habit.}

MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Nov 2014 at 07:14.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 08:38
  #1495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,391
Who screws the screwer? ...CASAWEARY!!! mate!!... where you been??..
Hang on a sec....Where's your note??
Good to see your still in there with an interest in matters aeronautical, and glad to see you've "got smart".
At the same time cant help but feel sad that Australians have to descend to civil disobedience, to do what we used to do when aviation was fun and administered by competent people. Hard to imagine that in todays world Sir Kingsford Smith would be slung in Jail for what he did.

With any luck the Pumpkin head will end up there when the corruption associated with our secondary airports finally gets out in the open. Eddie thought he could thumb his nose at the people of NSW, maybe Pumpkin head has the same delusion he can do it to the people of Australia.

Last edited by thorn bird; 25th Nov 2014 at 08:50.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 11:43
  #1496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,225
Welcome back...

CAsAweary..good to hear from you.

You havent been reading any text off that "Painted Wagon" aka Cairns to Cantberra Anti Corruption Carvan have you.?

No ?...thats ok MANY people along the road had like thoughts about FF incompetence, corruption, bureaucratic buggery and all the other things they get up too, so the vanners tell me.

Heat up is it ?...so MM plays the "reed in the wind" trick...very convenient 'bend', now that there's some flak incoming ??

Now why is the word corruption bandied about so much?

Spare shoes ?...i'd willing sacrifice me favourite old thongs for good cause.
aroa is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 20:41
  #1497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
King of Spamberra, speaks to the masses.

well apparently M&M is mounting a rear guard action
He's certainly 'mounting' a rear something – again. Seems to me if the fire had not been lit in the first place, he wouldn't be out there now, pee-ing on it. Airports will be of great interest over the coming months; considering. I wonder who arranged matters so that 'airport owners' were led to believe that almost anything goes, and, once the nasty, noisy aircraft were forced out, with a little departmental help; the bulldozers could set to work.

"I think it is one of the most important tasks government and industry must work together on. More and more, the potential for high-rise residential development is threatening to encroach on flight paths and protected airspace around our airports."
Which is why Archerfield has just spent a serious amount of money in the AAT demonstrating just how closely the government and industry 'work' together. Bollocks..

But such regulations do not apply to smaller airports outside capital cities that are not federally regulated.
Not since someone changed the words, to make it all so much more 'buyer' friendly.

"It is important that planning by state and local governments take into account airports," he said. "Developments near airports and under flight paths can constrain operations. I recognise this is a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use in their jurisdictions. But as we know, if we aren't protecting our long-term assets we aren't going to be meeting our growth challenge."
Suddenly – it becomes the States problem; I wonder how that came about? More trips to court I expect, to untangle it. Be too late by then of course, CASA will have the industry dead and buried long before the developers move in, to utilise the now unused land.

"This love of aviation services will continue," he said. "We have to plan and invest for this growth....."
Sure we do, here's a good plan. Lets ground half of the training fleet, then make the airports they use too short for legal operations, increase all the fees, turn the rabid safety watchdog loose to savage the survivors, use the AAT to decimate operators with any sort of financial ability to fight back. Then finally, we can create an atmosphere so toxic, with rules so complex and expensive to comply with, that only the protected 'airlines' will be able to survive; we must have a chairman's lounge.

Top plan, minuscule supported, well funded and in action at an airport near you. They're not bad at it, you have to admit.

Wish he'd just sit down and shut up though – makes my old wooden head hurt.....

Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Nov 2014 at 20:55.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 23:57
  #1498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 719
As far as discretionary, recreational flying goes, I find it so much easier to keep my aeroplane thousands of miles away from CASA. Many Australians find delight in owning and using for a month/year an RV based in North America. I can likewise satisfy all my GA urges in a few weeks of flying over fresh water, canoe strapped to the float struts, in a blissful CASA-free zone. There are bugs though, and that pesky midnight sun.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2014, 05:36
  #1499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Olive branch? temporary reprieve? Or Rule 101 - Divide & Conquer?

Call me a confirmed sceptic but I do wonder about Fort Fumble's timing for the release of the monthly missive - some of which is covered by the AA & AF online publications.

AA first on the handover period for DAS Skates:
New CASA DAS to start January 1 2015 after one-month handover

November 25, 2014 by australianaviation.com.au Leave a Comment

Incoming DAS Mark Skidmore. (CASA)

Incoming Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety (DAS) retired Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore will have a one-month handover period starting December 1 before formally taking up his new role.

The current CASA acting DAS Terry Farquharson said in his November briefing note published on November 25 that Skidmore would officially become the regulator’s DAS on January 1 2015.

Skidmore’s first month at CASA would be spent receiving briefings, meeting representatives from government, the aviation community and within the air safety regulator, Farquharson wrote.

“The transition will give Mark the smoothest possible start to his term as director, which will officially begin on 1 January 2015,” Farquharson said.
Skidmore was named as the permanent replacement to former DAS John McCormick on October 30 for a five-year term.

Farquharson has filled in as temporary DAS after McCormick finished up at CASA at the end of August.

The former F-111 pilot, who retired from the RAAF in 2012 and flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said on the day he was appointed he would make listening to industry a priority.

“One of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

Skidmore’s arrival at CASA on December 1 meant he will be on deck when the federal government handed down its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, which was due before the end of the year.

Farquharson said “everyone in aviation will welcome Mark to his new role”.

“Mark places high importance on consultation and communication so you can expect to hear from him in one way or another in the not too distant future,” Farquharson said.
Not much that we didn't already know although I do wish Skates would drop the pretence that he needs to listen to industry to find out what the concerns are....FFS read the bloody Forsyth report & the couple of hundred publicly available industry submissions and get on with it...

The other article from Oz Flying is more interesting given the fact that a reasonably high profile AAT hearing has just concluded (& waiting now on the President's deliberations) and a AAA conference is currently being held on the Gold Coast...:
CASA to probe Aerodrome Regulations

26 Nov 2014

CASA will conduct a review of aerodrome regulations with the aim of reducing the burden on the aviation industry.

The objectives for the review include a gap analysis against ICAO standards to align rules with international best practice and collaborating with the aviation industry to improve the regulations without compromising safety.

In announcing the review in his CASA Briefing for November, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Terry Farquharson said: "One key aim of the review will be removing any unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs resulting from the current aerodrome regulations. A project has been established to review Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Regulations and the associated manual of standards.

"These rules were implemented in 2003, meaning there have since been changes in international practices and standards, developments in the aviation industry and many evolutions in technology."


According to CASA, the aviation industry is loaded with unnecessary cost and operating impacts resulting from:
  • the ongoing transition from legacy standards which existed prior to the CASR Part 139 implementation
  • requirements in Part 139 MOS which exceed equivalent ICAO Annex 14 requirements without clear justification
  • disconnects between Part 139 and other CASA regulatory parts, standards and advisory information
  • inflexible standards which necessitate compliance with legacy technology when superior infrastructure and equipment has since become available
  • standards which don't reflect the operating requirements for current-generation aircraft
  • complexities with understanding the three types of aerodrome categorisation under Part 139 as well as Aeroplane Landing Areas and Helicopter Landing Sites which are unregulated.
The review will result in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) being developed for industry comment.

More information on the review is available on the CASA website.
If this is truly the first step by FF to repair the damages inflicted by the previous DAS Skull - & not another attempt to wedge individual sectors of the industry - then we should also shortly see similar initiatives/retractions for Part 61, CVD pilots, proposed Charity Flight regulation..etc...etc. To do otherwise will be to show further contempt for the GA industry.

Just a reminder to Caroline Wilkie who according to the following is the Co-Chair of the AUG...
Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group
Sub-committee

The Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group (formerly known as the Airspace Users Group) is a joint CASA/aviation community forum for the development of regulations and standards pertaining to airspace, air traffic control, communications/ navigation/ surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes.

Co-Chairs
  • Caroline Wilkie - Industry
  • Roy Tuomela - CASA
Members

View the members.

Meetings
Working groups/project teams
  • Part 175 Project Team
  • Offshore Helicopter Working Groups
Current activity

This sub-committee has been involved with the pre-issue clearance of consultative documents for Notice of Proposed Change 139/03 – Proposed amendments to MOS Part 139-Aerodromes, as well as Amendments to Part 65 Air Traffic Services Licensing.

Terms of reference


The Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group is responsible for:
  • Reviewing and analysing all information relating to tasks involving the development of regulations and standards pertaining to airspace, air traffic control, communications/navigation/surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes;
  • Evaluating and developing options on the proposals;
  • Identifying, documenting and raising issues that need attention/resolution and report to the SCC as required;
  • Reviewing the impact of proposals using the Legislative Change Proposals procedure;
  • Discussing and clarifying the role and expectations of the sub-committee's members early in the process to avoid misunderstandings;
  • Fostering balanced and complete discussion on proposals, and working through all technical, legal and policy issues dealing with the development of regulations and standards related to airspace, air traffic control, communications/navigation/surveillance air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and aerodromes;
  • Reviewing and analysing information relating to Regulatory Development implementation.
...the AAA may have had a win here but do not forget that you also need to protect the interests of your fellow TAAAF members who only last week lambasted the miniscule & department for being tardy in responding to the Forsyth report and announcing the other FF board members. They (which includes you) were also demanding a moratorium be placed on any further regulatory actions till Skates is in full control...over to you CW!

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2014, 07:45
  #1500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,391
Oh God here we go.....sorry if I'm a tad skeptical.

"Skidmore’s first month at CASA would be spent receiving briefings, meeting representatives from government, the aviation community and within the air safety regulator, Farquharson wrote."

All part of the frontal lobotomy every CAsA employee receives as part of the induction process.

“One of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation.

Sorry mate, doesn't wash, we heard that from the previous lunatic.

What did that get us but grief.

Wherever you go now, the Murky Macavellian mandarin will ensure there is a minder on hand from the iron ring to ensure you only hear what they want you to hear.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

What reputation???

The real one where the industry thinks CAsA is totally corrupt, incompetent and out of control???

Or the CAsA spin doctors version where CAsA is a world renown leader in all things aviation (Not a laughing stock).

Or where CAsA has the complete respect and trust of the Australian Industry.

(trust them about as far as letting Eddie O'Bied manage your super fund.)

(Oh and he's coming to a secondary airport near you...oops sorry he's already been, so I'm told, courtesy of the Macavellian Mandarin)

Respect must be earned....

When has CAsA had the slightest respect for the industry.

They have never had anything but utter contempt for the industry.

No doubt after your frontal lobotomy the iron ring will have convinced you to believe in the latter.

Sarc'sie, all of a sudden, out of the blue, all this touchy feely pony poo being vomited out of bull..sh..t castle.

My thought immediately were,

Oh pur lease, give us a break, the Murky Macavellian is deluding himself if he thinks this will work with industry again.


"Farquharson said “everyone in aviation will welcome Mark to his new role”."

Then I suddenly realized, the Poo aint for industry, its for the punters, and all part of the brainwashing of Skidmark...sorry Skidmore.


Last edited by thorn bird; 27th Nov 2014 at 08:41.
thorn bird is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.