Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Perspective - KC & the AMROBA Band
While we are still waiting - along with our new DAS Skates apparently - 
..for the miniscule and his motley crew of discredited crats to respond to the Forsyth report HMHB brings up yet another fundamental pillar of a sound State aviation safety system i.e. AME/LAME & MROs. Perfect timing as AMROBA have recently released their November edition newsletter which gives an interesting review of the current snail's pace state of play...
First and somewhat related to Biccy's post
GA LAME NPRM
By now everyone should have read the NPRM and hopefully drawn the same conclusions. This proposal is unworkable and therefore must be rejected unless some major changes are adopted.
CASA has not addressed the fundamental problem facing the aviation industry — a clear delineation between AME training and the LAME’s responsibility.
AMROBA was involved in consultation with CASA on removing the ridiculous “exclusion” system and create a licence plus ratings just like CAR 31/CAO 100.90 series. What was not discussed is the broad based training needed to underpin this aviation industry.
What is missing in aviation today is the previous broad based AME training system that provided AQF transportable qualifications. CASA has not consulted on how this proposed AME licence and ratings will be integrated into the confusing CASR system.
Though the proposed licence and ratings, with some adjustments, will be better received by non-airline maintenance organisations, there is real concerns with what CASA has highlighted in their “Key Proposal”.
The first paragraph would mean that Schedule 6 ICAO responsibilities would be replaced by CASR 42 LAME privileges & responsibilities. Part 42 is about signing for maintenance tasks and signing the maintenance release. It is not about signing “COMPLETION” of maintenance that can be carried out by AMEs. Nor does it require “stage” inspections and completion of mods, repairs, etc. i.e. coordination.
ICAO states - “the privileges of the holder of an aircraft maintenance licence shall be to certify the aircraft or parts of the aircraft as airworthy after an authorized repair, modification or installation of an engine, accessory, instrument, and/or item of equipment, and to sign a maintenance release following inspection, maintenance
operations and/or routine servicing.”
The removal of Schedule 6 responsibilities that are based on ICAO privileges and to overcome safety related issues with maintenance records in the past is not supported.
It works and enables AMEs to perform and certify maintenance tasks and the LAME to coordinate the maintenance.
Our safety record did not come about by accident. In the non-airline sector, the LAME is the quality control of maintenance. CASA’s proposal under the CASR’s is to remove that privilege like they have done in the airline sectors.
Both EASA & FAA use the LAME (B1/2 or A&P/IA) as quality control.
And next AMROBA's take on the new DAS appointment...
:
Worth a read for all aviation Small Business owners & IOS members alike is the segment under the heading - Small Business Growth - enjoy 
.
MTF...
..for the miniscule and his motley crew of discredited crats to respond to the Forsyth report HMHB brings up yet another fundamental pillar of a sound State aviation safety system i.e. AME/LAME & MROs. Perfect timing as AMROBA have recently released their November edition newsletter which gives an interesting review of the current snail's pace state of play...First and somewhat related to Biccy's post
GA LAME NPRM
By now everyone should have read the NPRM and hopefully drawn the same conclusions. This proposal is unworkable and therefore must be rejected unless some major changes are adopted.
CASA has not addressed the fundamental problem facing the aviation industry — a clear delineation between AME training and the LAME’s responsibility.
AMROBA was involved in consultation with CASA on removing the ridiculous “exclusion” system and create a licence plus ratings just like CAR 31/CAO 100.90 series. What was not discussed is the broad based training needed to underpin this aviation industry.
What is missing in aviation today is the previous broad based AME training system that provided AQF transportable qualifications. CASA has not consulted on how this proposed AME licence and ratings will be integrated into the confusing CASR system.
Though the proposed licence and ratings, with some adjustments, will be better received by non-airline maintenance organisations, there is real concerns with what CASA has highlighted in their “Key Proposal”.
The first paragraph would mean that Schedule 6 ICAO responsibilities would be replaced by CASR 42 LAME privileges & responsibilities. Part 42 is about signing for maintenance tasks and signing the maintenance release. It is not about signing “COMPLETION” of maintenance that can be carried out by AMEs. Nor does it require “stage” inspections and completion of mods, repairs, etc. i.e. coordination.
ICAO states - “the privileges of the holder of an aircraft maintenance licence shall be to certify the aircraft or parts of the aircraft as airworthy after an authorized repair, modification or installation of an engine, accessory, instrument, and/or item of equipment, and to sign a maintenance release following inspection, maintenance
operations and/or routine servicing.”
The removal of Schedule 6 responsibilities that are based on ICAO privileges and to overcome safety related issues with maintenance records in the past is not supported.
It works and enables AMEs to perform and certify maintenance tasks and the LAME to coordinate the maintenance.
Our safety record did not come about by accident. In the non-airline sector, the LAME is the quality control of maintenance. CASA’s proposal under the CASR’s is to remove that privilege like they have done in the airline sectors.
Both EASA & FAA use the LAME (B1/2 or A&P/IA) as quality control.
:
CASA’s New DAS’s Challenges Volume 11, Issue 11
AVM Mark Skidmore has been appointed by the CASA Board for a period of 5 years. As many of our members have commented—obviously nobody in civil aviation are seen as appropriate or maybe nobody in civil aviation is willing to apply for the job. The job is not seen as attractive to overseas based ex-regulators either.
This makes 4 successive DAS that have had their base training in the RAAF with various levels of civil aviation experience. Mark Skidmore has the least amount of civil aviation experience than his predecessors. This means that he will be totally influenced by his staff in how to provide regulatory oversight, how to develop and apply the regulations and how they are applied.
Is this not the issue raised by many submissions to the ASRR?
Though hopes for the industry were positive with the election of the LNP, they actually had an aviation policy that sounded positive and the Minister introduced a regulatory review that also made positive recommendations and had industry support, many have lost the trust they put in government. Of course, the new DAS may completely surprise us.
At this stage, we do not know whether the Minister will endorse the recommendations from the ASRR Report, nor do we know when the vacancies on the CASA Board will be announced.
Neither will make much difference UNLESS the government amends the Civil Aviation Act to provide the “head of power” and direction to implement the ASRR Report recommendations.
The 3 tier system recommended in the ASRR Report, if done correctly, can return to a “rule of law” system that Australia is supposed to have.
· Civil Aviation Act—enables aviation to happen.
· CA[S]R—specifies how the legislation is applied.
· Standards—The Government gives force of law to standards, by including or referring to them in the Act or Regulations.
The question is, can the new DAS get back to a system where what the industry comply with is specified in the Act, regulations and legislative standards?
Compliance must be with the Act, Regulations and Standards NOT requirements contained elsewhere.
Most employers in our association find the regulatory system a mess, complicated and confusing that is really dependent on the interpretation of the next CASA audit team or any other CASA officer.
Can DAS Skidmore overcome the issues identified in the ASRR Report so industry can prosper?
One of the first challenges, if the government endorses the ASRR recommendations, is restructuring CASA so it aligns with industry clients. The ASRR provided guidance for a client based organisation but the “maintenance & production” sector was ignored.
The Australian aviation industry is fundamentally five major operational departments as follows:
1. Product Certification & Design
2. Maintenance & Production including training
3. Airspace & Aerodromes
4. General Aviation, Aerialwork & flight training
5. Air Transport operations
6. [Temporary] Regulatory Reform (3 years)
If the new DAS follows the intent of the ASRR, then the regulatory reform will be completed within 3 years and the individual departments would be responsible for:
A. Standard Setting including Corrective/ Enforcement Programs.
B. System Assessment including International Standards and Regulatory & Safety Promotion.
C. Entry Control including Regulatory Services.
D. Regulatory Oversight including monitoring of industry participants.
This approach is included in the ASRR Report and is intended to make the Head of each Department responsible for all aspects of their aviation sector reporting directly to the DAS.
What AMROBA would like to see is the Civil Aviation Act to be amended so that CASA would forever be client based in its structure. If the Civil Aviation Act is not amended then the next DAS in 5 years time will restructure once again.
Any civil organisation that has been restructured as many times as CAA/CASA has since its inception in 1988, would have the same difficulties as they face internally today.
By far the largest challenge facing the new DAS is the finalising of the regulatory development into a 3 tier system SUITABLE for Australia. It must place safety responsibility on the industry and remove the current micro management approach contained in recent regulations and proposals. Aviation does not need to be so highly regulated to obtain safety.
Implementing the ASRR Report Recommendations, if & when the Minister adopts, is a real challenge.
AVM Mark Skidmore has been appointed by the CASA Board for a period of 5 years. As many of our members have commented—obviously nobody in civil aviation are seen as appropriate or maybe nobody in civil aviation is willing to apply for the job. The job is not seen as attractive to overseas based ex-regulators either.
This makes 4 successive DAS that have had their base training in the RAAF with various levels of civil aviation experience. Mark Skidmore has the least amount of civil aviation experience than his predecessors. This means that he will be totally influenced by his staff in how to provide regulatory oversight, how to develop and apply the regulations and how they are applied.
Is this not the issue raised by many submissions to the ASRR?
Though hopes for the industry were positive with the election of the LNP, they actually had an aviation policy that sounded positive and the Minister introduced a regulatory review that also made positive recommendations and had industry support, many have lost the trust they put in government. Of course, the new DAS may completely surprise us.
At this stage, we do not know whether the Minister will endorse the recommendations from the ASRR Report, nor do we know when the vacancies on the CASA Board will be announced.
Neither will make much difference UNLESS the government amends the Civil Aviation Act to provide the “head of power” and direction to implement the ASRR Report recommendations.
The 3 tier system recommended in the ASRR Report, if done correctly, can return to a “rule of law” system that Australia is supposed to have.
· Civil Aviation Act—enables aviation to happen.
· CA[S]R—specifies how the legislation is applied.
· Standards—The Government gives force of law to standards, by including or referring to them in the Act or Regulations.
The question is, can the new DAS get back to a system where what the industry comply with is specified in the Act, regulations and legislative standards?
Compliance must be with the Act, Regulations and Standards NOT requirements contained elsewhere.
Most employers in our association find the regulatory system a mess, complicated and confusing that is really dependent on the interpretation of the next CASA audit team or any other CASA officer.
Can DAS Skidmore overcome the issues identified in the ASRR Report so industry can prosper?
One of the first challenges, if the government endorses the ASRR recommendations, is restructuring CASA so it aligns with industry clients. The ASRR provided guidance for a client based organisation but the “maintenance & production” sector was ignored.
The Australian aviation industry is fundamentally five major operational departments as follows:
1. Product Certification & Design
2. Maintenance & Production including training
3. Airspace & Aerodromes
4. General Aviation, Aerialwork & flight training
5. Air Transport operations
6. [Temporary] Regulatory Reform (3 years)
If the new DAS follows the intent of the ASRR, then the regulatory reform will be completed within 3 years and the individual departments would be responsible for:
A. Standard Setting including Corrective/ Enforcement Programs.
B. System Assessment including International Standards and Regulatory & Safety Promotion.
C. Entry Control including Regulatory Services.
D. Regulatory Oversight including monitoring of industry participants.
This approach is included in the ASRR Report and is intended to make the Head of each Department responsible for all aspects of their aviation sector reporting directly to the DAS.
What AMROBA would like to see is the Civil Aviation Act to be amended so that CASA would forever be client based in its structure. If the Civil Aviation Act is not amended then the next DAS in 5 years time will restructure once again.
Any civil organisation that has been restructured as many times as CAA/CASA has since its inception in 1988, would have the same difficulties as they face internally today.
By far the largest challenge facing the new DAS is the finalising of the regulatory development into a 3 tier system SUITABLE for Australia. It must place safety responsibility on the industry and remove the current micro management approach contained in recent regulations and proposals. Aviation does not need to be so highly regulated to obtain safety.
Implementing the ASRR Report Recommendations, if & when the Minister adopts, is a real challenge.
.MTF...
Angel Flight update...well sort of??
Future of Angel Flight hangs in the balance
By Bill Bristow AM
Nov. 10, 2014, midnight
WHILE the future of our Angel Flight charity still hangs in the balance, I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of country Australia and local councils for publicly supporting our organisation.
The many thousands of our volunteers, who generously give their time to help Australians in need, appreciate the immense community support Angel Flight has received in our struggle for survival.
We have strongly argued our case in a detailed submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we now must nervously wait to hear the outcome of their deliberations.
Angel Flight has flown 17,000 flights over the past 11 years, providing no-cost transport for isolated people of all ages seeking vital medical treatment in major cities.
Our charity wants to continue that work.
Angel Flight believes that where you live shouldn't deny you safe and swift access to medical expertise and treatment.
We are about eliminating distance and distress for those in need.
The kind and supportive messages we have received from concerned local councils and rural communities all over Australia have lifted our spirits and made us more determined to fight to keep flying.
Too many people in many remote towns rely on Angel Flight for assistance, and we can only hope that commonsense and compassion overrides red tape when CASA finally makes its decision on our future.
Staying silent is not an option, and with your encouragement and support we will keep fighting and flying.
That last line in bold IMO should be the common creed for all IOS members...
For to do otherwise and just accept that the bureaucrats will in goodwill act on the Forsyth report in full etc..etc..will be allowing them to obfuscate on fixing the morass that is aviation safety in this country until the next change in government and the next..
That is time that this essential industry simply does not have...
MTF...
By Bill Bristow AM
Nov. 10, 2014, midnight
WHILE the future of our Angel Flight charity still hangs in the balance, I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of country Australia and local councils for publicly supporting our organisation.
The many thousands of our volunteers, who generously give their time to help Australians in need, appreciate the immense community support Angel Flight has received in our struggle for survival.
We have strongly argued our case in a detailed submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we now must nervously wait to hear the outcome of their deliberations.
Angel Flight has flown 17,000 flights over the past 11 years, providing no-cost transport for isolated people of all ages seeking vital medical treatment in major cities.
Our charity wants to continue that work.
Angel Flight believes that where you live shouldn't deny you safe and swift access to medical expertise and treatment.
We are about eliminating distance and distress for those in need.
The kind and supportive messages we have received from concerned local councils and rural communities all over Australia have lifted our spirits and made us more determined to fight to keep flying.
Too many people in many remote towns rely on Angel Flight for assistance, and we can only hope that commonsense and compassion overrides red tape when CASA finally makes its decision on our future.
Staying silent is not an option, and with your encouragement and support we will keep fighting and flying.
That last line in bold IMO should be the common creed for all IOS members...
For to do otherwise and just accept that the bureaucrats will in goodwill act on the Forsyth report in full etc..etc..will be allowing them to obfuscate on fixing the morass that is aviation safety in this country until the next change in government and the next.. That is time that this essential industry simply does not have...
MTF...
EASA Prompts Controversy with Single-engine Helo Rule
AIN 7 Nov '14
Since October 28, the EASA has been strictly enforcing a rule that prohibits single-engine helicopter flights above densely populated and other “hostile” areas, thus igniting a controversy in the European helicopter operator industry. Most vocal has been French lobbying association UFH, which was hoping that existing exemptions would be maintained. Instead, the UFH said the bulk of the operations at Paris heliport are now seriously threatened. UFH president Dominique Orbec also pointed out that some recent high-profile helicopter accidents in urban areas involved a twin-engine helicopter, including the November 2013 crash of an EC135T2i in Glasgow.
Meanwhile, Swiss authorities rejected the EASA rule. “We have kept local rules for mountain rescue, thus allowing singles,” a spokeswoman for Swiss civil aviation agency OFAC told AIN.
The EASA insists the industry had years to prepare and a transition period is ongoing for non-commercial operations, circular flights and aerial work. “Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained.
AHIA
AIN 7 Nov '14
Since October 28, the EASA has been strictly enforcing a rule that prohibits single-engine helicopter flights above densely populated and other “hostile” areas, thus igniting a controversy in the European helicopter operator industry. Most vocal has been French lobbying association UFH, which was hoping that existing exemptions would be maintained. Instead, the UFH said the bulk of the operations at Paris heliport are now seriously threatened. UFH president Dominique Orbec also pointed out that some recent high-profile helicopter accidents in urban areas involved a twin-engine helicopter, including the November 2013 crash of an EC135T2i in Glasgow.
Meanwhile, Swiss authorities rejected the EASA rule. “We have kept local rules for mountain rescue, thus allowing singles,” a spokeswoman for Swiss civil aviation agency OFAC told AIN.
The EASA insists the industry had years to prepare and a transition period is ongoing for non-commercial operations, circular flights and aerial work. “Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained.
AHIA
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Nobody can guarantee single-engine helicopters offer an acceptable level of safety for passengers and inhabitants of densely populated areas,” an EASA spokesman maintained".
Neither do single engine aircraft, looks like the property sharks will achieve their dream.
CAsA subscribes to EASA rules, therefore no more single engine operations at the secondaries?
Might as well carve them up and flog them off, there won't be much in the way of an industry left anyway.
Neither do single engine aircraft, looks like the property sharks will achieve their dream.
CAsA subscribes to EASA rules, therefore no more single engine operations at the secondaries?
Might as well carve them up and flog them off, there won't be much in the way of an industry left anyway.
Last edited by thorn bird; 11th Nov 2014 at 23:17.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRB - Notions and some potions.
BRB last evening; the really good part was the last item, a low key but very enthusiastic celebration for CHC and their associates; glasses were raised, toasts (and sacrificial peanuts) were offered to the pagan gods who occasionally break wind and make something really good happen. It's not our tale to tell, I'll leave that to those with first hand knowledge; but well done – you know who you are. We wondered if the inestimable Xenophon will have a word or two to say?????_?...
The more routine parts focussed on the vexed issue of whether Australia needs EASA, NZ or FAA style rules. The new DAS, like most of us, is rumoured to be more familiar with the FAA/NZ style, format and philosophy, so that was a factor in the discussion. Anyway – FWIW the vote went slightly toward the NZ system, but it was a close run thing; the FAA supporters were just short a couple of their stalwarts; EASA finished a long way behind. We decided to call it a draw and schedule a serious discussion at the next big indaba. Why?, well the answer really lays in industry hands; it was decided to 'reach out' as the Americans say and see what 'other' folk thought. It's a serious question, because if the regulatory reform program (remember that) is to be 'open' and consultative, industry needs to know what it wants.
One bright spark opined that industry don't give a hoot, have little interest and simply want the 'grown ups' to make a ducking decision, get on with it and let them get on with doing business.
Another 'clever lad' piped up that industry is indeed very interested and quoted numbers, ranging from submissions to inquiry, the WLR and from our very own Pprune to qualify the argument. They are impressive – for example the two Senate threads (don't mention the unforgivable closure of the first one, dust up every time) combined have generated some 1, 200, 000 reads; that's one million, two hundred thousand 'views' and counting. The Truss WLR thread has generated a further 167, 400 'views' and counting. Just looking at Pprune now there are 719,032 views of the two threads. Now, I'd call that interest. There must be some out there with an opinion on which direction the rules set should take and how many 'tiers' we really want or need.
Perhaps it's a good idea, to have an idea of the answer, before the question is asked.
Right then; back to my knitting....
The more routine parts focussed on the vexed issue of whether Australia needs EASA, NZ or FAA style rules. The new DAS, like most of us, is rumoured to be more familiar with the FAA/NZ style, format and philosophy, so that was a factor in the discussion. Anyway – FWIW the vote went slightly toward the NZ system, but it was a close run thing; the FAA supporters were just short a couple of their stalwarts; EASA finished a long way behind. We decided to call it a draw and schedule a serious discussion at the next big indaba. Why?, well the answer really lays in industry hands; it was decided to 'reach out' as the Americans say and see what 'other' folk thought. It's a serious question, because if the regulatory reform program (remember that) is to be 'open' and consultative, industry needs to know what it wants.
One bright spark opined that industry don't give a hoot, have little interest and simply want the 'grown ups' to make a ducking decision, get on with it and let them get on with doing business.
Another 'clever lad' piped up that industry is indeed very interested and quoted numbers, ranging from submissions to inquiry, the WLR and from our very own Pprune to qualify the argument. They are impressive – for example the two Senate threads (don't mention the unforgivable closure of the first one, dust up every time) combined have generated some 1, 200, 000 reads; that's one million, two hundred thousand 'views' and counting. The Truss WLR thread has generated a further 167, 400 'views' and counting. Just looking at Pprune now there are 719,032 views of the two threads. Now, I'd call that interest. There must be some out there with an opinion on which direction the rules set should take and how many 'tiers' we really want or need.
Perhaps it's a good idea, to have an idea of the answer, before the question is asked.
Right then; back to my knitting....
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Nov 2014 at 04:18. Reason: Staying silent is not an option, and with your encouragement and support we will keep fighting and flying.
Dougy's on it.
From Dougy's insight - Editor's Insights 13 November 2014:
Hmm..not sure about the miniscule comment though...
MTF...
Apparently a lot of the delays recently, such as naming the CASA board new members, action on the Forsyth Report and perhaps even the announcement of Mark Skidmore as DAS, have been at least partly because there’s micromanagement going on in the Prime Minister’s office. Warren Truss’ department in turn has been doing a lot of waiting for things to come back their way. This is not good for Aviation. Truss is a capable minister who in general retains the trust of the industry despite the frustration over the many delays. Let him get on with the job.
Business entrepreneur (how else do you describe him?) Dick Smith remains vocal in Canberra. Let’s hope his views are considered in the correct proportion to his experience and expertise and not on the amount of noise he makes. Dick has strong and well-articulated views but they are still the perspective of a single individual; albeit one whose views have been sometimes been disruptive in the past.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum was briefing the media today on its views on the delays to action on the Forsyth Report. I was unable to make it as I was facilitating a NSW Trade & Industry sponsored seminar on autonomous systems, under the auspices of SADIG That turned out to be a fascinating insight into the issues that help and hinder total cooperation amongst government, industry and research units in our universities. There’s so much world-leading R&D happening in the academic institutions that is not getting the funding and other support it needs to become commercially viable that it all amounts to a failure on someone’s part. Probably government since that’s the sector that has the ability and resources to facilitate the success of such projects. Let’s hope there’s more to come in this vein. Well done to the organisers.
I’m hoping to get a delayed briefing from AAAF chairman Chris Manning on the press conference they were holding today. I’ll share it with you when I do...
Business entrepreneur (how else do you describe him?) Dick Smith remains vocal in Canberra. Let’s hope his views are considered in the correct proportion to his experience and expertise and not on the amount of noise he makes. Dick has strong and well-articulated views but they are still the perspective of a single individual; albeit one whose views have been sometimes been disruptive in the past.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum was briefing the media today on its views on the delays to action on the Forsyth Report. I was unable to make it as I was facilitating a NSW Trade & Industry sponsored seminar on autonomous systems, under the auspices of SADIG That turned out to be a fascinating insight into the issues that help and hinder total cooperation amongst government, industry and research units in our universities. There’s so much world-leading R&D happening in the academic institutions that is not getting the funding and other support it needs to become commercially viable that it all amounts to a failure on someone’s part. Probably government since that’s the sector that has the ability and resources to facilitate the success of such projects. Let’s hope there’s more to come in this vein. Well done to the organisers.
I’m hoping to get a delayed briefing from AAAF chairman Chris Manning on the press conference they were holding today. I’ll share it with you when I do...
Hmm..not sure about the miniscule comment though...MTF...
EASA finished a long way behind.
Just to remind you all, what we have been getting here as "EASA like" rules are absolutely nothing like EASA rules.
They are an Australian bastardization of a complete misunderstanding of EASA.
Indeed, the bulk of the EASA rules for things like maintenance are outcome based, not prescriptive, let alone ultra-prescriptive as are all the "new" rules here.
Tootle pip!!
PS: We do not want the NZ medical standards, remember where Navathe did his training, and who his mentor was!!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You spent how much?
Leadie; Agreed, medicals and other matters were of concern to the BRB with regard to the NZ 'suite'. But the real head scratcher was our lack of 'working' familiarity with EASA, FAA and the NZ rule set, in practical, day to day use, for comparison sense. I'm certain there are folks operating under those rule sets who daily curse the daemon who drafted a rule, just as there must be those who revel in the better rules. What beats me (and others) is why Australia seems hell bent on adopting the worst bits of everyone's rules instead of the 'good' bits, then adding more.
Part 61 for example has to be the most ridiculous aviation rule ever written; bar none, add that to the farcical CAAP 215 and the need for regulatory reform immediately becomes apparent. The completely amateur approach to both defines those within the rule making 'team' -
- as the quintessence of NFI – at all; whatsoever. That's in both legal and operational terms. Want reg reform?, sack the egotistical fools who believe that they, and only they have the answer to a maidens prayer....
Waste of time and money reforming the regulations until you reform the mind set of the administrator; or, at very least try and hire those with a basic working knowledge of industry. The clown driving part 61 is simply a wannabe wordsmith, wallowing in an egocentric puddle, confused, lost in the wonder of grandiose point scoring dribble, which will impress those with even less idea of what's needed and what's not. Part 61 – where the sun don't shine and CAAP 215 is too ridiculous to contemplate; I'm certain we could find a suitable receptacle for that as well.
Strewth and stone the bloody crows. etc. etc. etc....
Part 61 for example has to be the most ridiculous aviation rule ever written; bar none, add that to the farcical CAAP 215 and the need for regulatory reform immediately becomes apparent. The completely amateur approach to both defines those within the rule making 'team' -
- as the quintessence of NFI – at all; whatsoever. That's in both legal and operational terms. Want reg reform?, sack the egotistical fools who believe that they, and only they have the answer to a maidens prayer....Waste of time and money reforming the regulations until you reform the mind set of the administrator; or, at very least try and hire those with a basic working knowledge of industry. The clown driving part 61 is simply a wannabe wordsmith, wallowing in an egocentric puddle, confused, lost in the wonder of grandiose point scoring dribble, which will impress those with even less idea of what's needed and what's not. Part 61 – where the sun don't shine and CAAP 215 is too ridiculous to contemplate; I'm certain we could find a suitable receptacle for that as well.
Strewth and stone the bloody crows. etc. etc. etc....
Last edited by Kharon; 13th Nov 2014 at 20:24.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard this week that a rather large international helicopter company had a win with CASA. Apparently CASA elected to settle out of court rather than face the music in court and most likely a larger payout to the company.
The new DAS needs to head to the USA ASAP and spend time with the FAA and operators over there to see how a proper regulator works.. He will find a thriving industry (from GA to Airlines) that's not held back with over regulation and FOI's who work with industry rather than against them.
The new DAS needs to head to the USA ASAP and spend time with the FAA and operators over there to see how a proper regulator works.. He will find a thriving industry (from GA to Airlines) that's not held back with over regulation and FOI's who work with industry rather than against them.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPA,
I hear the CHC case was so bad, CASA had no option but to run for the hills. Apparently the legal costs are huge on both sides. Huge waste of taxpayer money. A few people must get the flick, in PER and the LSD in CBR.
CHC always have been a solid operator, still are! I wonder whether Tezza went into bat for his PER buddies blindly, only to realise what he was dealing with was a lot of very big porkies made by an AWI causing havoc with a Flight Ops issue he knows SFA about! "Big" maybe in big trouble.
Pathetic! Well done CASA! What a joke. The individuals need to be held to account for this bias. Don't you preach of being a model litigant? Certainly not on display in this case. Bravo to CHC to have the balls to stand up to what amounts to corruption.
I hear the CHC case was so bad, CASA had no option but to run for the hills. Apparently the legal costs are huge on both sides. Huge waste of taxpayer money. A few people must get the flick, in PER and the LSD in CBR.
CHC always have been a solid operator, still are! I wonder whether Tezza went into bat for his PER buddies blindly, only to realise what he was dealing with was a lot of very big porkies made by an AWI causing havoc with a Flight Ops issue he knows SFA about! "Big" maybe in big trouble.
Pathetic! Well done CASA! What a joke. The individuals need to be held to account for this bias. Don't you preach of being a model litigant? Certainly not on display in this case. Bravo to CHC to have the balls to stand up to what amounts to corruption.
Last edited by Jinglie; 14th Nov 2014 at 08:05.
Corruption...???
Jinglie.....surely not. CAsA is the epitome of honesty, integrity, fairness and a serious believer in justice, truth and the rule of law, is it not?.
Sorry ...the operative word is NOT
Just ask John Quadrio and a host of other CAsA client-victims who have been pineappled by CAsA crims.
Any names of the CAsA valiant fighters for just-arse and "safety" in the Golden West..would love to know if there are some that have finally received their comeuppance. Or karmauppance, whatever.
Trouble is the financial punishment does fall on these xxxxxx people...once again the taxpayer pays the bill.
Who will be the victim of the next CAsA deviant, I wonder.
Sorry ...the operative word is NOT
Just ask John Quadrio and a host of other CAsA client-victims who have been pineappled by CAsA crims.
Any names of the CAsA valiant fighters for just-arse and "safety" in the Golden West..would love to know if there are some that have finally received their comeuppance. Or karmauppance, whatever.
Trouble is the financial punishment does fall on these xxxxxx people...once again the taxpayer pays the bill.
Who will be the victim of the next CAsA deviant, I wonder.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aroa!
The kull should be the "Big" Deal followed by his helicopter mate and finally Mr A Nazty! All a disgrace to our so called democracy!
Unless heads role in this case, give up hope. It's so bad it's a joke. And what is Warren Truss doing? Having another nap!
The kull should be the "Big" Deal followed by his helicopter mate and finally Mr A Nazty! All a disgrace to our so called democracy!
Unless heads role in this case, give up hope. It's so bad it's a joke. And what is Warren Truss doing? Having another nap!
Hitch a ride – have a say.
Jinglie they must be keeping that one tightly under wraps...CIC perhaps??
From Last Minute Hitch
Anyone want to help the man out? ...Ideas ?, anyone???...
And from the regurgitator...:
the TAAAF equally are playing Mum...
..but not old Dick who is still at it...:
MTF...
From Last Minute Hitch
...I will be in Canberra on Monday week for a sit-down meeting with new CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore. What I am battling with at the moment is that I won't have him for too long, and with so many issues for both Mark and general aviation to face, what do I ask him. What do you all think? If you could only ask one question of the new DAS right now, what would it be?
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
..And from the regurgitator...
:
AVIATION industry organisations met yesterday to discuss the federal government’s track record in fulfilling its pre-election commitments. Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss recently announced the appointment of Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and moved quickly last year to announce an aviation safety review headed by David Forsyth. But there is concern about the lethargic response to the Forsyth review and the failure to set up an industry advisory committee. Questions have also been raised about why outstanding members of the CASA board have yet to be announced and who those members might be. The concerns come amid continuing anger among many sections of the community about reforms introduced under the tenure at CASA of previous head John McCormick. The government has promised a response to the Forsyth review by year’s end.
..but not old Dick who is still at it...:
FORMER CASA chairman Dick Smith has renewed his campaign of several years ago against the removal of VHF Flightwatch transmitters. He has accused the air navigation provider of failing to comply with its own legislative requirements that safety should be the most important consideration in the service of its powers and decision-making. Airservices chairman Angus Houston said the changes were introduced after a comprehensive safety analysis and an external review. He said the operational circumstances and a lack of occurrence reports since the decision supported the decision. But Mr Smith has accused Airservices of putting profits before safety and has asked for a copy of its review.
Last edited by Sarcs; 14th Nov 2014 at 20:10.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deal; or no deal. That is the question.
"Now Sir, will you have Bias stew or the Corruption meatloaf; both on special this week, only half a million each and seeing as the bottomless pit of public money is paying, why not have both?"
The story from the Perth fuel tanker is that this was to be a 'big deal' payback. Seems the big deal team were on a mission to 'square up' the accounts on behalf of a very disgruntled ex employee and when it got 'nasty' they started dealing to the legal eagles, from the bottom of the deck.
Like most bullies, they enjoyed the threatening, posturing and swaggering about the playground looking tough, until someone called their bluff that is. Not only did they run away but they left their 'street cred' and lunch money behind.
Three things trouble me, the first being that once again the 'system' has been perverted and used for payback in an almost carbon copy of the Airtex and Barrier fit up, rather than the Pel-Air soft ride. Agree with Jingles – heads really must roll if Australia is to retain even a semblance of credibility. Despite the smoke and mirrors 'accounting' system used to define exactly how much money CASA get through 'prosecuting'; this little party has chewed up AUD$ 800,000 in costs alone; add air fares, accommodation, meals and the odd therapeutic 'massage'; for both teams and a cool AUD $1,000,000 has gone down the gurgler, for no safety or regulatory benefit: not to anyone who ultimately, one way or t'uther, pays for all this legal fro-licking.
I note with interest that Adam Anastasi was in thick of it, defending his corner. I always wonder how much reliance the LSD place on 'allegations' made by the ground troops, apparently, quite a lot. After all, can we reasonably expect the man or his team to examine and test, in detail every NCN or Chinese whisper that comes over their desks? But for a million dollar outing you could reasonably expect that all the 'homework' had been done. Another last minute walk away, after ruffling his lordships feathers with delay after delay on 'the day' begs some interesting questions. Like how a non starter ever got to court in the first place. That's question for estimates, or the AG; no one just launches a multi million dollar law suite just for practice or on a whim.
But the real headache comes from knowing that this disreputable behaviour from FOI and AWI is the accepted normalised devience we have inherited from the McComic era. It's why the industry is afraid of it's own shadow and demoralised. Cowed into silence by bullies and cowards who will, just for sport or payback attempt to decimate a company on what have been, clearly, very flimsy grounds supported by untenable argument. Disgusting...
Hitch - my question for the DAS: is this really good enough Mr. Skidmore, is it?
Toot toot.
The story from the Perth fuel tanker is that this was to be a 'big deal' payback. Seems the big deal team were on a mission to 'square up' the accounts on behalf of a very disgruntled ex employee and when it got 'nasty' they started dealing to the legal eagles, from the bottom of the deck.
Like most bullies, they enjoyed the threatening, posturing and swaggering about the playground looking tough, until someone called their bluff that is. Not only did they run away but they left their 'street cred' and lunch money behind.
Three things trouble me, the first being that once again the 'system' has been perverted and used for payback in an almost carbon copy of the Airtex and Barrier fit up, rather than the Pel-Air soft ride. Agree with Jingles – heads really must roll if Australia is to retain even a semblance of credibility. Despite the smoke and mirrors 'accounting' system used to define exactly how much money CASA get through 'prosecuting'; this little party has chewed up AUD$ 800,000 in costs alone; add air fares, accommodation, meals and the odd therapeutic 'massage'; for both teams and a cool AUD $1,000,000 has gone down the gurgler, for no safety or regulatory benefit: not to anyone who ultimately, one way or t'uther, pays for all this legal fro-licking.
I note with interest that Adam Anastasi was in thick of it, defending his corner. I always wonder how much reliance the LSD place on 'allegations' made by the ground troops, apparently, quite a lot. After all, can we reasonably expect the man or his team to examine and test, in detail every NCN or Chinese whisper that comes over their desks? But for a million dollar outing you could reasonably expect that all the 'homework' had been done. Another last minute walk away, after ruffling his lordships feathers with delay after delay on 'the day' begs some interesting questions. Like how a non starter ever got to court in the first place. That's question for estimates, or the AG; no one just launches a multi million dollar law suite just for practice or on a whim.
But the real headache comes from knowing that this disreputable behaviour from FOI and AWI is the accepted normalised devience we have inherited from the McComic era. It's why the industry is afraid of it's own shadow and demoralised. Cowed into silence by bullies and cowards who will, just for sport or payback attempt to decimate a company on what have been, clearly, very flimsy grounds supported by untenable argument. Disgusting...
Hitch - my question for the DAS: is this really good enough Mr. Skidmore, is it?
Toot toot.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to DAS.
What do you intend to do about the wanton, cavalier and purposeful destruction of the CAsA brand and how will such action restore a semblance of co-operation with the industry suffering at the hands of such vandalism?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to DAS.
Will you restore the burden of proof to the accuser and remove all strict liability offences?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to DAS.
Will you address faulty convictions by way of compensation and admit liability when it is proved against you?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to DAS.
Will you allow a branch of the Federal Police to frame charges against accused after consultation with DPP?