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 8th Dec 2014, 06:35
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
it always amazes me that the technology of aviation is so utterly reliable.
use the air at speeds faster than freeway driving and it performs admirably as a useable fluid.
the reactions are understood and can be accurately predicted.
machine can be built in a myriad of materials that manipulate the air reliably.

however it is a technology that isn't obvious.

what amazes me in Australia is that people who have no knowledge at all can set themselves up to control something that they have no understanding of.
they are even seen as competent airing policy that is nothing but unfounded fear.
it beggars belief that the entire system of aviation regulation is controlled by people who have no competent understanding of any of it.

the system of control we have in this country is one of the very reasons we have accidents.
if I can manage years of accident free flying over the 42 years since I started then any one can.
pity is that they have to do it illegally because the regulations don't work.
they have actually never worked but being unenforced no one noticed.

australia you take the cake for utter stupidity in government.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2014, 12:18
  #1562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development...
Ive been trying to tell everyone this for 2 months, but nobody would listen. Y'all thought I had been chewing beetlenut and smoking Kharon's bloody elephant pooh (dried out of course). So this is a tricky one, the wily old Skull actually has quite a high I.Q, smart bloke. The downside is his vile temper and inability to feel empathy for human beings. Although that complete **** Albo thinks Herr Skull is the best thing in aviation since the universe was created (or just appeared, whichever theory floats your boat), those of us who don't have our toenails hanging out of a Prime Ministers (or former Prime Ministers) anus know that the stoogie muncher set Australian aviation back a good 5 years. That's the reality. God help aviation worldwide if 'he who hates tautological rubbish' receives an anointing at the Montreal star chamber. Oh dear......
Soteria is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2014, 16:47
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 547
So who will be next for an icao audit?

a) Canada

b) Australia.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2014, 19:36
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,375
Soteria,

"God help aviation worldwide if 'he who hates tautological rubbish' receives an anointing at the Montreal star chamber. Oh dear......"

Fortunately ICAO, much like the UN, is or has become a bit of a toothless tiger. Actually it might be a good place to put the screamer. He'd be in an environment where his ego would be continually stroked and his ability to damage aviation any further would be minimal.

The FAA, as I understand it, have already witnessed the Skull is full out of control screaming rage mode.

I'd love to have witnessed one of those.

A very senior FAA person did and described it as awesome.

I also understand the FAA provides a quite large slice of ICAO's funding.
The Skull may have to enroll in Anger Management classes because I doubt the USA will put up with his Jeckle and Hyde antics and they are well aware of the regulatory debacle he inflicted on Australia

"that the stoogie muncher set Australian aviation back a good 5 years".

A good bit father than that I fear.

General aviation in Australia is on its last gasp. Flying training is probably all that's left and only then with government subsidy which could be pulled at any time. I just cannot see foreign students coming here, unless they are looking for a passport rather than a pilots license.

Our costs are about to skyrocket thanks to part 61 and its associated gobbledygook, much like the death of our manufacturing industry, we are regulating ourselves out of business.

The airlines will fare little better. I suspect the limit has been reached where regulatory costs can just be added to the ticket price without affecting yield.

All the parasite industries that have sprung up that suck the life out of airlines are doing very well, but their host I'm afraid is starting to falter.

The airline industry I fear, is slowly morphing back to the two airline days, seat prices are rising and I think the punters are doing their sums and moving back to their cars.

Over regulation has become the biggest enemy of aviation in Australia and McComic presided over the implementation of the worst of it.

Sunnies post on Albo's speech illustrates just how ill informed the politicians are and how much they care.



thorn bird is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2014, 23:54
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Midweek around the traps on industry response to ASRR.

First from Hitch...: Industry reacts to Forsyth Response Some parts of which are repeats of industry identities commentary on the Govt response. However Hitch did get this from KC (& the AMROBA Band..):
Ken Cannane from the Aircraft Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) approached the response cautiously, offering a more tempered analysis.

"After closely studying the response, AMROBA supports what government proposes to do but are concerned that this political response is similar to past governments’ responses to the numerous aviation reviews and enquiries during the past 30 years.

"The government has placed ineffable trust in the CASA Board and CASA DAS Skidmore to take actions as directed by a new Minister’s 'Statement of Expectations'.

"Other recommendations have been left for CASA to consider. Our members are, were and will be looking for more permanent long term solutions that, in AMROBA’s opinion, can only be properly and permanently implemented if the Civil Aviation Act is amended to provide legislative support to many of the changes proposed in the ASRR Report.
"Without a commitment to permanent changes being included in the Civil Aviation Act, our members do not see the cycle of continual aviation reviews and enquiries stopping.

"Notwithstanding, AMROBA is fully committed, as we have done in the past, to working collaboratively with government and CASA to adopt and implement the endorsed recommendations of the ASRR report. In addition, we support the time table for regulatory change contained in the Report so jobs can be created, especially in general aviation."
Next is Phelan with this headline... - Go easy on the euphoria


Input from general aviation identities isn’t exactly brimming with relief at the government’s response to the ASRR Panel’s detailed study and recommendations – and it’s easy to understand why. Here’s a comment from veteran airport, charter and training operator Sandy Reith, who no longer operates an aviation business and has no personal axe to grind.

Sandy is down to just one private aeroplane (although a remarkable one to be sure) but still cares about what is and what is not happening.



The letter was originally from Sandy to former AOPA Chair Phillip Reiss in response to Phillip’s circular to AOPA members, and was also widely circulated to interested parties including the media. It reminds us that a great deal more needs to happen before all that mistrust can be expected to start dissolving.

Phillip,
I am sure that we are all gratified that at least, and at last, General Aviation industry ills have gained some recognition. Unfortunately the mooted remedies will fade away, whiteanted, delayed and ultimately lost from memory except for the few of us who have watched with dismay the destruction of what should be a vibrant and useful Australian industry. Younger GA participants could not imagine the dynamic growth of GA in the thirty years to, say, 1990.

The government’s response is full of ‘maybes’, ‘lots of work to assess’, ‘if resources can be found’, ‘may take some time’, ‘must check with ICAO’, ‘new board and CEO need to formulate strategies’ etc etc ad nauseam. Take as an example the agreement to consider the ASIC problem, the report finishes talking about just a possible change but in reality keeping this card. Thus the ‘agree in principle’ CASA modus operandi is writ large throughout the document. Soft soap from the experts.

Not a word about deleting the requirement for an AIr Operator Certificate for flying training, mentioned for further consideration by the Panel but not given as a recommendation. This would be probably the only measure that could quickly reinvigorate training. Flying training is the first and most urgent segment of GA that needs to be unshackled from the exceptionally onerous and expensive AOC system. In the USA some 70% of pilots are trained by individual instructors. VH (ie. mainstream GA aircraft) flying schools are now the rarest of animals, even the Nation’s capital lost its last school four years ago. This is a National disgrace. Nearly 400,000 Canberrans, of the wealthiest demographic and most influential have no flying school. Airline pilots are now on the 457 visa list.

The new CEO has a command pyramid type background, and no ‘coal face’ GA business experience. Minister Truss did nothing to assist GA when he was the Minister in the Howard government. I took a deputation to Mr Truss regarding reform during that time. Instead of listening to our suggested growth plans, he cut short our (concise) presentation and defended the decline in VH registered GA as being balanced with the growth in RAAus below 600 kg category. The low weight category in present form is extremely poor policy, encouraging thousands of flyers into, in many cases, unsuitable light weight aircraft hard up against the thoroughly unrealistic gross weight limit of 600 kg. That is often the combination of two people, engine, propellor and fuel and oil leaving not much for an airframe fit for purpose.

Unless the Minister makes fairly specific directions and imposes time limits, then the CASA juggernaut will roll on. Can anyone really believe that the authoritarian and make work CASA system and culture will now be turned into an enlightened and helpful regulator? I fully agree with your concerns in this regard. If real reforms were carried out half the CASA staff would be redundant, they know this better than anyone. Most of their work could be tendered out for a fraction of present cost, NZ CAA would be a prime contender.

What is it now? Twenty five years, hundreds of $ millions and still they have not finished the rule re-write. The system is broken and the Board, without Ministerial Direction and backup, will be impotent.

With respect, there is actually no firm result and little hope of timely meaningful reform. Platitudes and window dressing is about all we really have, until and unless Parliament finds the willpower and demands action. This will not happen unless we achieve the sympathetic attention of Federal MP’s. I have suggested that AOPA run a petition, one measure that might gain publicity. I would appreciate an answer or acknowledgment of that email.

Regards,

Sandy Reith

ProAviation invites readers to contribute similar summaries on this issue, which we would propose to publish as opinion at the foot of this article. They should be restrained, factual, ASRR-relevant and free from vituperation, and we offer the option of identifying writers or not, according to their preference. Please address them to [email protected].
And while Proaviation was filing the above, some very ASRR – relevant comment arrived in a media release from Ken Cannane at AMROBA:

GOVERNMENT AVIATION RESPONSE IS OPEN-ENDED
The Aviation Maintenance Repair & Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) welcomes the government making public its response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) Report and the announcement of the remaining members of CASA’s Board.

The government has agreed to 20 of the 37 recommendations; agreed in-principle to eleven more, noted five and rejected one.

However, there is a real urgency today to move from words to outcomes for industry than at any time during the past three decades. Many of the non-airline sectors are basically in recession awaiting job creation opportunities.

After closely studying the response, AMROBA supports what government proposes to do but are concerned that this political response is similar to past governments’ responses to the numerous aviation reviews & enquiries during the past 30 years.

The government has placed ineffable trust in the CASA Board & CASA DAS Skidmore to take actions as directed by a new Minister’s “Statement of Expectations”.

Other recommendations have been left for CASA to consider. Our members are, were and will be looking for more permanent long term solutions that, in AMROBA’s opinion, can only be properly and permanently implemented if the Civil Aviation Act is amended to provide legislative support to many of the changes proposed in the ASRR Report.

Without a commitment to permanent changes being included in the Civil Aviation Act, our members do not see the cycle of continual aviation reviews and enquiries stopping.

Notwithstanding, AMROBA is fully committed, as we have done in the past, to working collaboratively with government and CASA to adopt and implement the endorsed recommendations of the ASRR report. In addition, we support the time table for regulatory change contained in the Report so jobs can be created, especially in general aviation.

Contact Person Ken Cannane, AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715; Mobile: 0408029329; Website: AMROBA - Safety all around | Australia's aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul industry
Hmm...PP is kind of leaving himself open there...

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2014, 07:13
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,225
Unfortunately possums, the Ministers "Statement Of Expectations" of CASA will be written by Mr. Mrdak and CASA itself, thus neatly negating any possibility of reform.

I have it in my mind to talk to one or Two MP's and Senators I know plus One ex-PM if I can sufficiently distract him into being candid. My suspicion now is that private and general Aviation is equated with terrorism. We are to be killed off as "too dangerous".

CASAs solution to this is to regulate every aviation institution as if it were an airline thus giving effect to the "only airlines and RAAF" limitation on flying.

I come back again to the need for an Aviation enthusiasts political party targeting marginal Senate seats nothing else will get the politicians attention.

A Petition to Parliament?? Are you kidding? What a waste of time!

A more useful idea would be to develop a questionnaire on aviation and send it to every member of parliament and the Senate and every candidate in future.

To put that another way, the time for "sweet reason" is over. It ended with the governments lukewarm non-response to the review and the appointment of a superannuated doddering complaisant RAAF officer to preside over the next phase of our destruction.

To put that another way, fight or you are going to go under. Take lessons from the CFMEU.

For a start, if there were an industry association with any guts, call for a complete GA and recreational aviation boycott of the Avalon Exhibition next year .
Sunfish is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2014, 11:01
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Frankston
Age: 59
Posts: 5
VH nga

i know nothing abut aviation but judging by the present state - there will be no future - you cannot have people who are condemned by their peers running a successful circus.

And the problem for them is - the evidence is in and even a layman knows it

where are the incorruptible, the honest?
Man the lifejackets is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2014, 19:52
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Screamable frustrations; in a vacuum.

Sarcs – "Hmm...PP is kind of leaving himself open there.
I think Paul is like many of us; and simply cannot comprehend why the indefensible, irrefutable, independently provided evidence is being treated as something nothing. The jury has returned a guilty verdict yet the culprits are still at large, fancy free and continuing their good works – all in the name of safety, you understand

Perhaps it's the 'new' law; commit any crime you like and toddle off, Scot free with a gold plated watch at the end of your shift. Those dragged up in front of ICAC must be breathing a sigh of relief, for no matter what you do, you're safe. Oh, sorry, it appears that only applies to a very select few of those who must be protected, lest the unpleasant truth of carefully concealed 'bigger' secrets are revealed. Sad and shameful, but there sits the evidence in full public view and no one will lift a finger or even break wind to sort out the unholy mess. What an indictment....

Toot toot...
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2014, 20:45
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The Nationals. the weak link.

Labor Constituents have the option of voting for a plethora of alternative Party's if the mob offered up fail to meet their expectations. The Greens for example. Few will ever vote for the conservatives while there is an alternative who will probably give preferences to them anyway and their protest vote is heard.

LNP Constituents do not have that luxury. Time after time Pauline Hanson/ Palmer types crop up and amount to nothing in The House of Representatives. The Senators are mainly viewed as an impediment to progress and I believe this may be sorted out before the next elections which WILL be a DD for sure.


The Nationals will be having meetings in telephone box's shortly and they know it. They are in trouble in the bush and if it weren't for a couple of performers, and a couple of independent ex Nationals, people in the rural areas would be voiceless. They have been let down badly. Truss is a poor leader and a worse Deputy Prime Minister. Abbott could do better and I believe he knows it. GA needs rural representation.

It's worth the time to advise every National MP that you, if you are a Constituent, do not intend to vote for them or anyone who preferences them. A "donkey vote" is the same as giving Labor the vote so the threat has to be prove to us you are up to the job or we vote Labor. What you actually do is your business as it should be, but the threat must be believable. The list follows.

The Nationals > Our Team > The Nationals Parliamentary Team

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 9th Dec 2014 at 20:53. Reason: Neatness and niceness.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2014, 20:55
  #1570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
And another thing.

The aviation industry has to lobby for a Minister for Aviation.


We don't have one now.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 02:59
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 102
Err,, how about "Aviation Enthusiasts Party" for the senate?
bilbert is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 04:37
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Miniscule is in the office.

Bilbie - "Err,, how about "Aviation Enthusiasts Party" for the senate?"

How about joining Nick's mob...
It's time for politics, done differently.
Good Morning.
I wanted to personally write to you today to let you know about my plan to try and take federal politics in a new direction.
The last two weeks in Federal Parliament have been further proof of how toxic and gridlocked politics has become in our nation.
That's why I'm sticking my neck out to form the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), a new national political movement that will run candidates in every state and territory at the next federal election.
NXT is all about politics, done differently.
The major parties have turned politics into an ideological arms race.
NXT is not about left or right, it is about right or wrong.
You have been of invaluable help to me in the past. I couldn't have gotten across the line without you.
Now I need your help to be part of a new, national, common-sense approach to solving the challenges our country faces.
I would encourage you to be a part of this by becoming a founding supporter member of NXT.
If you have friends or family that may be interested in being part of this, please also let them know.
If they live interstate that’s even better, because the plan is to take NXT national.
This is our chance to build a team that will bring some balance, civility and common-sense back to Australian politics.
With best wishes






Become a founding member of NXT
When you become a founding supporter member of NXT you will be a part of a new, centrist, common-sense voice in Australian politics.
Your membership fee will help fund the day-to-day operation of NXT and ensure we have the resources to make a real difference.
You will also receive regular updates on key issues and have the opportunity to provide feedback on our policies and direction at member forums.

Annual membership fees are $50 per person, or $75 per couple. Concession holder fees are $25 per person, or $37.50 per couple.

And to thank you for your past support, we'll also extend your membership period for an extra 12 months, with our compliments.

To become a Supporter Member, click here.

And Nick's current feelings on the gov't response to the ASRR etc. - Aviation safety failure :

"...Senator Xenophon said the Government was yet to act on the findings of the Senate report, and criticised the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report, launched last November and completed in June, as “a missed opportunity for reform"...”

While on the rare subject of politics & aviation it would appear the Miniscule has briefly made an appearance back in Cantberra...:
New Aviation Industry Consultative Council takes flight

Media Release
WT257/2014
10 December 2014




Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has established the Aviation Industry Consultative Council—providing the aviation sector with a direct voice to the Minister and the Australian Government.

Chairing the first meeting in Canberra today, Mr Truss said the Council is dedicated to aviation matters and will be a valuable forum for discussion between the industry and Government.

“Aviation is central to the Australian economy—from domestic and international tourism, to business and work-related travel, family reunions and medical emergencies; so the Australian Government is committed to ensuring aviation's many voices are heard,” Mr Truss said.

“Our government has already initiated and responded to the landmark Aviation Safety Regulation Review, we have reformed the Qantas Sale Act, abolished the carbon tax on aviation fuel, revived the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme and ended half-a-century of dithering by locking-in Badgerys Creek as the site for a dedicated Western Sydney airport.

“But there is more to do in this ‘aero-space’ and we welcome ideas and insights from industry. The Council will act as an advisory body tackling high level strategic issues, but it is not a decision-making entity.

“The Council is made up of 18 members from across the aviation sector (see ‘Attachment A’ below), providing a broad range of perspectives, including representatives from airlines, airports, manufacturing, maintenance and flight training sectors.”

At today's inaugural Council meeting, members highlighted issues of concern to the industry, notably opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens, challenges in regional aviation, the need to revitalise the General Aviation Industry Action Agenda, aviation workforce skills and implementation of the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.

These will be considered further as part of the future work program for the Council.
Mr Truss also introduced the newly appointed Director of Aviation Safety, Air Vice-Marshal (Ret'd) Mark Skidmore AM, to the Council. The Council will meet twice a year, or as required, and will complement other industry forums, not compete with them.
“I am pleased to be Chairing this new Aviation Industry Consultative Council and working side-by-side with industry to build a better future for Australian aviation,” Mr Truss said.

Attachment A
Aviation Industry Consultative Council membership

Mr Stephen Goodwin* - National Chairman - Australian Airports Association
Mr Jim Davis - Chairman - Regional Aviation Association of Australia
Mr Martin Laverty - CEO - Royal Flying Doctor Service
Mr Alan Joyce* - CEO - Qantas
Mr Michael Monck - President - Recreational Aircraft Australia
Mr John Borghetti* - CEO - Virgin Australia
Mr David Boundy - Chairman - Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia
Mr Mike Close - President - Air Sport Australia Confederation
Mr Barry Abrams - Executive Director - Board of Airline Representatives of Australia
Mr Ken Cannane - Executive Director - Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
Mr Philip Reiss - Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
Mr Peter Pallot - CEO - Sunshine Coast Airport
Mr John Patterson - Executive Director - Australian Mayoral Aviation Council
Mr Tony Brand - Director - Horsham Aviation Services
Mr Pine Pienaar - CEO - Flight Training Adelaide
Mr Allan Brooks* - President - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
Ms Marj Davis OAM* - Immediate Past Pres. - Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia
Mr Darryl Taylor* - Managing Director - Tasmanian Helicopters

Not present at the first meeting. Mr Joyce, Mr Borghetti and Mr Goodwin nominated alternative representatives who took part in the meeting.
While your there Miniscule how about putting Beaker out of his misery...

MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Dec 2014 at 04:48.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 05:49
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
UITA. It's probably gone over most heads the name of the Federal Treasurer of The nationals. Shouldn't say any more.


Sarcs. So we now have another acronym to memorize. (ICC). Groan! Maybe they'll recommend another inquiry or review, to review the review, before the recommendations of the last review gets implemented.


I wish Senator X well. unfortunately I'm too old and tired of it all now. I'm going sailing.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 10th Dec 2014 at 05:50. Reason: Thought about a Capital letter for nationals but changed my mind.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 07:02
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Thumbs up Hitch and his 'Magnificent Seven'.

Sarcs. So we now have another acronym to memorize. (ICC). Groan!
Actually it is AICC Frank but who cares about semantics...

Hitch has fired up this arvo 1st giving us a summary on the Miniscule missive - New Consultative Council meets in Canberra

But then Hitch dares to go - where other aviation journalists from the MSM dare not go - with an opinion piece on the Gov't response to the Forsyth Report:

A Perspective on the Forsyth Response

10 Dec 2014
by Steve Hitchen


Comment

When I first wrote the words "The Forsyth Report", it sounded scarily like the title to a Robert Ludlum novel. I imagined a Matt Damon-like hero running through the cobbled streets of an eastern European city whilst shadowy gunmen who look like Dolph Lundgren charge after him in black Mercedes saloons; their misson to stop him making the contents of the covert Forsyth Report known to benevolent power brokers high in the US government.

There might even be a late-night dash from Washington to Europe in a Legacy 500 or Citation X+ involved.

And for a while there, between June and December, it seemed like my little fantasy was not that far-fetched, provided you took away Damon and Lundgren. Although the Forsyth Report was made public in June, it was another six months or so before the government released their response. That was plenty of time for the aviation community's optimism to erode and fertilise the growth of conspiracy theories that had many filing the Forsyth Report away under the heading "Aviation White Paper".

Some people, such as me, were expecting a complete white-wash of the whole affair presented to parliament on the last sitting day of the year in a dump-and-run style, similar to a late Friday Show Cause Notice. In fact, although it was very late in the parliamentary year, the response was far from a white-wash, it was more like stripping off the paint to expose the true structure beneath.

The government's response recognises the truth in what aviation's town criers have been shouting for years: aviation regulation needs a overhaul badly to repair the damage of neglect and a corrosive attitude towards aviation. For the first time in many years, the government and the industry are at last on the same page, and work on the restoration can now begin in earnest.

So what is it in the Forsyth Response (a Ludlum sequel?) that gives us the confidence that CAVOK days lie ahead for aviation in Australia? It's not the full 37 recommendations, or that the government has agreed outright with 20 of them; for aviation to start healing, the government needed to agree to only seven. They are (in precis):

(6) CASA board to exercise full governance control
(14) CASA to change regulatory philosophy to build a relationship with industry
(17) CASA to publish and demonstrates a "just" culture
(18) CASA to reintroduce use of discretion
(24) CASA to provide full disclosure at audit exit briefings
(25) CASA to introduce graded Non-conformance Notices based on the level of seriousness of the offence
(26) CASA to ensure audit consistency.

It is the government's agreement to these seven recommendations (No.18 in-principle) that enables us to declare the entire review panel, report and response process and complete success for aviation. None of the others will have an impact on the aviation community as much as these seven will. Without agreement to these, the other 30 were a waste of printer's ink.
For it is these seven that together exhibit the basic concepts of fairness, transparency and respect that the aviation community longs for. All the other recommendations are will be nice if we can get them, but they are peripherals. Aviation needs these central seven in order for the Forsyth Report to have any meaning whatsoever. Think about it. If these recommendations were missing from the report when it was released in June, would we have hailed it heartily as we did?

But, I am perhaps putting aviation a bit further down the recovery road that it really is. The government has at this stage only agreed; it still has to implement. There are some industry commentators who are crying for changes to the Civil Aviation Act to force these reforms to be permanently enshrined so we don't have to keep reviewing, writing, rewriting and lobbying to ask for the same reforms year after year.

Of the "peripheral" recommendations, there are another eight that stand to make substantial improvements to aviation:

(8) CASA to adopt a code of values
(15) CASA to continue to indemnify delegates
(21) CASA to move to client-oriented outcomes
(28) CASA to establish risk-management hierarchy and base oversight on risk levels
(30) CASA to change to a three-tiered system of regulation, where the third tier is in plain English
(35) CASA to delegate DAMEs to issue medical certificates where the standard is met first time
(36) Government to change regulations so Aviation Security Identification cards are needed only for Security Restricted Areas.

In these recommendations we have day-to-day changes that stand to restore faith in CASA's ability to manage their own operations, and a recognition that they exist to service a community external to Aviation House. In sum, they tell us that CASA will recognise the impact of what they do on stakeholders.

Recommendation 30 got the loudest applause from me because it means regulations would be written so that we can all understand them, not just the CASA Office of Legal Services. The sting comes in the wording of the government's response, where it adds a little caveat that says "CASA ... will continue to ensure new regulations and instruments adhere to Commonwealth legal drafting practices ...". It is these very practices that the industry has trouble with! Scratch that recommendation.

Let's face it: 35 and 36 are really no-brainers, but despite persistant lobbying we've failed to get either. The DAME medical is particularly galling because two preceeding CASA bosses, Bruce Byron and John McCormick, both promised to make this happen, and yet in neither case did it happen. How was this possible that person at the top could not force change on their own organisation? Having the DAME medical as a Forsyth recommendation does not etch it on a tablet; there is clearly resistance from within.

The odd one out is recommendation 36. ASICs have nothing to do with safety or CASA. ASICs are demanded by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and are a security issue. However, the ASRR panel clearly had so many submissions during their inquiry that it became impossible for them to ignore it. Getting this up would be a huge win for aviation, but the chances are not good; it has to overcome the inherent resistance in goverment to relaxing security measures of any nature.

It is also true to say that all of the recommendations are going to meet resistance on sme level. The first challenge, that of getting official recognition that reform is needed, has been met, but the path to change goes through a gauntlet of hardened bureaucrats determined to alter the reform recipe into something that they believe the aviation community should just shut up and swallow.

For the ASRR to realise its raison d'etre in full, it needs the government, the new broom in CASA and the aviation community as a whole need to get just as hard-headed as the bureaucrats and insist, insist, insist.

The driving force behind this insistence may be the new Aviation Industry Consultative Council that met in Canberra for the first time this week. With representatives from all sectors of aviation, including GA, the AICC may be the last tumbler in the combination that is needed to crack open a new future for the aviation industry.
Well done Hitch hats off for you...

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 09:12
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Mr Hitchen is probably a very nice person with very good intentions, but he has, like so many commentators on aviation regulation, no clue on the subject. He lost me here:
(6) CASA board to exercise full governance control
I do take my hat off to successive governments at the masterful way in which they've scammed punters into believing that the CASA board makes a difference. However, I have difficulty in accepting that anyone who presumes to claim a modicum of knowledge or understanding of the recent (two decades or so) history of aviation regulation or the role of the CASA board can reasonably believe that the CASA board has made and will make a difference.

But I'm always prepared to stand corrected. Can anyone walk me through what s/he considers the CASA Board will do to change things?

An example: A CASA delegate has decided that pilots with CVD who can't pass either of the two prescribed colour vision tests, or the CAD test, are not allowed to have a particlar kind of medical certificate.

What do people think the CASA Board can do about that decision?

What, precisely?

I'm not interested in waffly Jeff-Boyd-and-Chuck-Yeager-on-the-Board-will-save-the-world-of-aviation crap (despite the fact that others, like me, may have enormous respect for both.)

Tell me what the Board does, in fact, step-by-step, to change the decision.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 11:13
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Creamy =
Exactly as I expected, not one response to Creampuff's challenge!! The CASA Board to date, has and will always, do sweet FA. Their role is solely to add another layer of protection to the Miniscules protective garrison to ensure neither he, nor his boss of the day the PM, are tarnished by some rogue aviation zealot armed with an SMS manual and a pilots licence shouting out some ritualistic fundamentalist safety prayer! Heaven forbid!
No, the Board are always people who have earned a reward for some good deed they have done for a bureaucratic mate, somewhere. They are people who like to earn 6 figures for one months work per year, and usually they sit on around 3 or 4 different Boards. So you be the judge as to what their main concerns are. The trough dwelling cardboard statue like Board members that have traditionally graced CASA's hallways are about as useful as a bad case of thrush.

Creampuff, you are very naughty setting a challenge that simply can't be met. Something a little easier next time, please?
Soteria is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 18:34
  #1577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,225
I note that the President of the SAAA is the only name missing from the consultative council. That means that Experimental is the next group to get the chop after CASA has finished digesting Jabiru and the RAA.

However the idea of "consulting" with CASA is like the Lamb "consulting" the wolf.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 18:49
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Two more for the minuscule pot.

'Twas a sombre start to BRB last evening: item first, Bill Whitworth (Whitworth Aviation) has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind with a CASA FOI and failed his MECIR with all the associated trimmings. The number of IFR pilots Bill has trained and tested over a 40 (ish) year career must be in the many, many hundreds and I'd expect he would have struggled through some 50 or 60 ME IR 'proficiency' checks an equal number of Instructor rating renewals and a fair few revalidation of ATO delegations, not to mention Chief Pilot approvals etc. Seems this is of no value – whatsoever; a technical, contentious fail is all that's needed. Seems we have seen this stunt pulled before at Bankstown, by the same crew. There are now some fairly hefty scalps on the managers belt, a couple escaped but not without bending the knee and kissing some ass. Another great contribution to aviation safety made by the leading lights. Seems there is no satisfying the rapacious appetite for decimating the ranks of senior, experienced C&T pilots. No doubt the CASA spawned FTE will be taking over as they leave CASA, to "return to industry". A little more to follow on this outrageous episode, as they say.

- - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ - - -- - - - - - - - -

Lighter topics followed, the evening kicked off with a 'guest' speaker who has, literally, a back room piled with full document boxes, all related to secondary airports and the associated 'development' thereof, Bankstown being the focus. Now, I walked home scratching my head, for it was quite a story. In fact, I'm still trying to take it all in, which is why I thought it was worth a twiddle on PPRuNe. One thing was clear enough though, it would take ICAC (or similar) quite a while to untangle the 'corporate' side, which is murky and salted with tales of unpaid stamp duty and large sums of money slipping through the cracks. Too much for my un-corporate wooden head, but the solid logic and first class research impressed.

The part that intrigued me was the 'joining of the dots'. The picture I got was not one of 'conspiracy': being a follower of the duck up creed, the sceptic was to the fore, ready to decry the smallest chink or fluffy assumption. I'll leave it up to you, here are the salient details offered as a series of potted questions:-

(i) Where in the Sydney basin would be an ideal place for a large property development? The rider being, which council is developing 'river bank' areas as desirable life style projects.

(ii) Where in the Sydney basin is there a large open area suitable for development at a knock down price?

Clearly a no-brainer – Bankstown airport. Next came a curly question to which extensive research provided an answer.

(iii) Where has the most odious of CASA action against industry occurred?, the rider being which part of the aerodrome has been most affected?

Again, no-brainer; Bankstown, under Chambers has become a kill zone, 3:1 the ratio compared to the least mauled secondary airport.

(iv) Where have the most contentious brawls related to lease and rent agreements emanated? Same answer once again.

(v) Which airport has actually felt the weight of large trucks bearing fill and 'dozers to level it off. Same answer once again.

(vi) Who was responsible for 'tweeking' the rules to accommodate the sale of our secondary airports, who was running the sell off show and who has extensive influence within the infrastructure governing 'airports'. Well, it seems the Murky Machiavellian ticks all boxes.

I just don't know – it all makes sense in a weird way. I can see why the man flogging off the assets would finesse the rules to suit those who purchased the land with a view to development. I can even just about swallow a line that 'assistance' to reduce the number of movements and operations at airports to support a case for closing the now useless aerodromes was on offer. I can even manage the logic that CASA has been used to target Bankstown operators making life as miserable and difficult as possible. A five year plan is routine for this scale of operation, but to take over an airport by stealth, 'discourage' operators ,render it useless and build on it, well it's possible. The tail end of the 'briefing' listed the statutes, rules, regulations and tenets of decency which have been treated with contempt and manipulated, it is extensive.

Just dunno what to make of it all; it's a working hypothesis and certainly food for thought, but, has it got legs?.

Anyway: FWIW - Handing over.....

Don't shoot the messenger, I just thought it was worth airing the topic. BRB 50/50 spilt, dead even and no discussion afterwards. That, stand alone is remarkable, no doubt it will keep till next time.

Toot toot...
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 22:18
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Mike MrDak/ Max Moore- Wilton/MacBank.

Why do I get an illuminating and disturbing image of names with commonality of association flashing in my mind?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 22:41
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 468
Kharon, The history of Hoxton Park fits as well.

Tipsy

Last edited by tipsy2; 10th Dec 2014 at 23:25. Reason: Clarification
tipsy2 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.