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 15th Dec 2013, 22:07
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Objection ! M'lud.

Too much palaver and amateur legalise. If it's a numbers game what about a simple submission supporting your favourite alphabet soup outfit. With the best will in the world, no panel will plough through and evaluate every single complex submission, no matter how well scripted, persuasive or multi coloured. Ones individual submission is just that, but 1000 supporting an organisation gives a sense of industry concord, 'unity' if you like; the non aligned affording credibility to an established membership statement.

Even if it's supporting the Kickatinalong aero club with a half dozen members, the submission carries the 'weight' of numbers. Get the 'boys' together, bring a slab, light the BBQ, kick it around, make some bullet points, expand into short paragraphs – PDF and click send. It's a worthwhile and a doddle, when KISS is applied.

By all means express your dissatisfaction with the ToR and security, it may make you feel better, it may even increase the 'numbers'; but, complaining after the event serves very little practical purpose. There is sod all chance of them doing it again, because "we wuz afeared". The only problem I can see is that the 'heavy duty' public submissions may not be available for reading until after the closing date, so perhaps if you contact the alphabet group of your choice a copy may be made available. You can always ask, they will value your support; they may even put on their website. (Hint).

I know – back to my knitting right.
Kharon is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2013, 19:33
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sunny # 155 –"So herewith my submission:
LOL: Sad part is there's probably more sense, wisdom and correct interpretation within that passage than ever came out of Sleepy Hollow over than past few years. At least it can be transmogrified and parlayed into policy. It also serves as a mirror, sans smoke, the characters being easily identified. Tanks, for the laugh Sunny.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 02:42
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Bah! Humbug! What a patronising prat.


(purple suspect smilie).

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 17th Dec 2013 at 02:44. Reason: and another thing
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 10:23
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 305
Not only do you get pinged by CASA's tracking code if you click that link, you get pinged by PPRuNe's advertisers too.

The direct link is (copy this into your browser and change the xx to tt):

hxxp://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/

It puzzles me why Truss thinks aviation is going to expand in the next 20 years, when GA has been shrinking for the past 20 with no sign of slowing down!
bankrunner is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 21:24
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
"Baldrick's law" would suggest he is "hatching a cunning plan".


It's either that, or he is ignorantly challenged, and simply not up to the job he is being paid to perform.


Wasn't he part of the team that promised to cut red tape, downsize the bureaucracy, and encourage growth in the economy?


Given the terms of reference and the lack of parliamentary protection, his enquiry appears to be following a script that guarantees a pre determined outcome.


None of which will achieve anything toward his pre election pledge. (yellow pukey smilie).
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2013, 09:17
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
I'm still stunned at the medical statistics that someone posted.
I thought Australia had a population of about 12,000 pilots.
the medical stats seemed to indicate 3,000 pilots a year for 3 years walking away from the wonderful warm fuzzy feeling elicited by casa.

most would have moved to an environment where the RAA staff listened to CASA, nodded sincerely but did nothing and let the guys just get on with it.

when do we get to a point where there is nothing left to regulate and the entire CASA staff can be amalgamated with the Canberra City Council Parking Inspectors ?

CASA are stuffing up so badly that it must become obvious ...surely.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2013, 13:10
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 305
I sent some information into the ASSR yesterday and the following was on the reply from the "secretariat":
Looks like a precanned warning that the department's email system tags onto every message on the way out.

I don't know why they bother though, not one email confidentiality warning footer has ever been found to be valid by any court in Australia.
bankrunner is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2013, 22:04
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A four horse race?

Xenophon " I note that the Canadian TSB has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the ATSB’s reporting processes.
Not, for one moment would anyone seek to question the personal integrity of the Truss review panel members; but, is the 'review' starting to look just a bit soft around the edges? Time will tell the tale. However, from a purely turf accounting (bookie) perspective the odds against a meaningful epiphany need to be carefully evaluated.

If it is to be open slather on who reads the submissions, then perhaps some form of 'open' progress reporting or even public hearings should be contemplated. I'm not certain that I like the idea of all 'private' sit downs with panel selected individuals or groups. The Senate inquiry conducted the 'public hearings' very well, being both productive and informative. Surely a hearing room could be afforded the review, the big name public submissions discussed in open forum. The 'secret squirrel' concept of this review needs to be exorcised. It would be nice to see the panel actually doing the job, not phaffing about in 'camera'. Will there be a record of 'in camera' interviews a`la the Senate?. This review panel may need to rely on a little more than blind faith if it is to have credibility and succeed where other previous 'reviews' have failed. I think LS quoted some 20 odd failed attempts over the last 25 years, that cost - combined with the estimated AUD$ 250,000,000 dead loss on reform is starting to be a big number, even for a 'flush' government.

It is of concern to many that at the last ministerial iteration old Trusty was not a stellar performer and disappointed many punters. It is whispered that the special advisor has, on many occasions, publicly stated that CASA must not be criticised. Now, speculation is rife, is the Canadian connection 'muddled and complex'?, (thinks Montreal). There is a persistent, widely held precept that the MoC only appears to provide an establishment figure head; which only leaves the mystery Pohm (thinks EASA) to be evaluated. There is much speculation amongst the troops; theories of divine intervention in the form of the PMC; arguments that the Senate crew have an agenda to take over; there's even a notion of pointless, profitless effort being wasted against foregone conclusion; a letter to Santa being the preferred alternative for direct action.

Selah.

Last edited by Kharon; 21st Dec 2013 at 22:17.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2013, 08:08
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A turkey, for the trussing of.

There is much for the Truss committee (regulatory review panel, if you insist) to ponder this new year. Once again the indefatigable Sarcs brings home the bacon in post - #34 – here, on PPRuNe. In a quiet, unassuming way, manages to highlight several points with which the panel, to gain respect and credibility must deal. It's all to easy to quote ToR, hide behind guidelines, only interview the 'chosen' few and operate behind closed doors; hell's bells, my Grand Mamma could do that; (probably do a better job, if the Gin ain't adulterated).

CAUTION : You need to read the Sarcs post before proceeding. The discussion is simple – in 1990, the Canadians grasped the nettle and sorted out, with the full cooperation of their "CASA" two serious safety concerns; still endemic in Australia. Since then, in Canada, repeat incidents have reduced. "Twenty three years"; yes kids, that's 23 years later we are still trying to resolve 'our' own, unique, now beyond reason, safety ethos on these two matters; and making a complete bollocks of it.

Over the two issues Sarcs quotes, the Kanucks generated 27 + 48 = 75 safety recommendations, which they made stick, through education and regulatory modification. No fuss, no chest beating, no Wodgered reports: – just a safety conscious all around effort to eradicate a couple of problems. Guess what, they did it complete, not easy, but bless 'em all; the job got done, proper.

Big boots to fill Mr. Truss, big boots. If "our" unique, good (oh YUK) system is to improve. Can your hand picked wonder team of wet lettuce leaf wielders claw back from 23 years behind, to allegedly being No 1 in the world. Get on with it, quit poncing about, before Sunny 's great smoking hole appears in a back yard near you. Remember – Canely Vale came within a whisker of landing in (or on ) a school, in flames, followed by a fireball.

Aviation, a political non entity, really ? – I don't think so. And dare you Mr. Truss think real safety is not expensive - wait there for another while – listen - Tick tock.

Sarcs – I do intend to hunt you down and buy you a very well deserved beer or three; before the new year and offer you full membership of the BRB, (they're a rum crew, but I feel you'd be right at home).

Last edited by Kharon; 26th Dec 2013 at 08:18. Reason: To confirm Christmas pud and ale decelerate typing speed and etc.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2013, 11:17
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 306
2014 - The buggerisation of aviation will continue

Kharon, inspiring post. And your reference to the Sarcs post is relevant. Your place within the IOS remains robust.
Sarcs, good post and good research. Your post earns you an IOS gold medallion and sees you move to the front of the line!

But, and there is always a 'but'. All is futile when you have a country where successive governments have run, hidden, manipulated, obsfucated and sodomised the truth. The cover up of regulatory incompetence, mismanagement of aviation, malfeasance and buggerisation of aviation has snowballed to a point where the way things currently are is normal (yes I know its a subjective word open to interpretation) It simply cannot be changed, fixed, rebuilt, polished, whatever you want to call it, without massive political fortitude, conviction and hard fought work. And that my friends will never ever occur under the current Australian system. Nupty's like Albo and Truss won't even slap CAsA with a limp piece of Creamy's stale lettuce let alone grab a spiny pineapple and shove it up CAsA's kyber sideways.
It is going to take a Sunfish smoking hole or some kind of sudden robust power is bestowed upon the Independents, like a miracle from heaven, for them to make any headway.

Both the FAA and TC have made positive steps forward in their safety and regulatory oversight only due to the perseverance, balls, power and intellect of certain politicians. Unfortunately we have just a fistful of aligned Senators taking up the mantle, and it just won't work.
Sorry to piss on your parade boys but Truss and his 'Lettucesexuals' will achieve exactly what they have set out to achieve - SFA.


Last edited by Paragraph377; 26th Dec 2013 at 13:23. Reason: So they lock up all the wet lettuce in a Lockwood safe also?
Paragraph377 is online now  
Old 26th Dec 2013, 22:33
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
There is only one solution to "the problem" and that is a political solution.


To aid the political solution they need a clearly defined one sentence aim in which to pursue. (They get confused you see). I think they already know the system is buggered and the people in charge of "buggerance" will fade away with time or replacement, albeit with mentoring by the departed so nothing changes. Therefor the politicians need a new system that isn't buggered yet, that will please all, and they will be seen to be doing something. It will bring an end to the regulatory review process and the waste of taxpayers money. The plebiscite will be suitably amazed and the world will be saved. To this end the clearly defined aim should be;


To replace the existing flawed and potentially catastrophically fatal system with a world industry acceptable system such as exists in US/ NZ/ PNG.


Karma will get the manipulating miscreant's. (Or someone with a reason). But this is a different problem and needs a different Aim or objective.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 26th Dec 2013 at 22:36. Reason: I forgot to put in THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE MADE MORE AWARE.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 12:38
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
damnit frank put canada at the front of that list!!!!!
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 23:42
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
How ignorant of me not to include the Dominion in the Northern Hemisphere. I apologize and prostrate myself in their direction by the great circle route. (that being the shortest distance I believe).


Oh, and the public should be made aware. Or did I say that already?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 07:33
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Yes there's a lot to like about the Canuck aviation safety system!!

IMO if you begin by fixing the ATsB and making them truly independent, like the TSBC, then you are well on the way to addressing the bureaucratic embuggerance of the Oz aviation safety system.

Although loosely modelled on the Yank's NTSB, the TSBC's act should be seriously looked at (Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act) as a template for a possible TSI Act 2003 replacement. Consideration should also be given to totally divorcing the ATsB from the purse strings of the Department and directly reportable to the Parliament.

Not sure about the Canuck's CARs, they do seem to largely mirror the US FARs... : Canuck CARs


At least they're contained within 1000 pages and would probably be less if they didn't have to run a French version alongside...


But perhaps it would be more advantageous to aim for regional uniformity (i.e. the NZ regs) but you could do a lot worse than adopting the TSBC model for our transport safety investigator, coupled with a purge of the senior ranks of both Fort Fumble and ATsBeaker...

Till then....TICK TOCK!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 08:19
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Not sure about the Canuck's CARs, they do seem to largely mirror the US FARs... : Canuck CARs
A third the size of Australia's Frankenstein. And it would be a sixth if they didn't have to duplicate the text in English and French.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2013, 01:55
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sheep or Wolves?

But perhaps it would be more advantageous to aim for regional uniformity (i.e. the NZ regs) but you could do a lot worse than adopting the TSBC model for our transport safety investigator, coupled with a purge of the senior ranks of both Fort Fumble and ATsBeaker
A third the size of Australia's Frankenstein
Seems as though size does not matter, it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.

Last edited by Kharon; 29th Dec 2013 at 02:19. Reason: Baa, baa - humbug ??????? Ho ho ho
Kharon is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2013, 02:19
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sheep or Wolves?

This Truss review panel is going to need (like it or not) to address some big issues. Whether these issues go quietly into the night or not will very much depend how well the smoke, mirrors and ToR preventing clarity are circumvented. A fair test of this will be seen in two forms, the ministers response to Pel Air; and, whether the Senate committee responsible for the Pel Air inquiry turn out to be sheep in wolves clothing; or the real deal 'wolf pack'.

Much depends on independent Nick Xenophon being supported by the other 'bi-partisan' Senate committee members. In terms of the 'regulatory deformation' process, NX has made a start, upsetting the CAO 48/ FRMS apple cart. There is much empirical evidence and scientific study which makes a nonsense of the CASA non science of flight crew fatigue. NX nailed this down during the inquiry into 'pilot training', ran with it through the Pel Air inquiry and, put his money where his mouth was, blocking the shambles known as CAO 48. The bi-partisan committee, although quiet must at least tacitly support his cause. For example; despite fatigue being blithely ruled as an irrelevance in the Norfolk ditching; fatigue was clearly a factor.

Although the serious safety based questions hanging over the ATSB, their relationship with CASA, the abysmal quality of their recent reports and the implications to industry being fed and reliant on non relevant or misleading safety information is not within the ToR for the Truss panel; the whole package is of critical relevance to 'safety'. The Sarcs posts – 34104 – here on PPRuNe leave little room for argument that the fine work and positive safety outcomes generated by the – TSB reports - serve to highlight the depths to which our very own ATSB have plummeted.

T28 #105 -"Has been on my mind for some time, is the "fix" in ? one might be a little concerned given the number of Montreal trips and the close association of the witch doctor in Montreal that the "fix" is indeed well and truly "in" we hope not but hope is a slippery thing to hold onto.
This is a racing certainty. One does not need clairvoyance or voodoo to agree with the T28D opinion of the lettuce leaf review. These issues may not be covered by the trite, narrow, nugatory Truss ToR, but they are crucial to safety. The Senators recognised this, industry recognises this, hells bells, the world and it's wife realises this. So here we are then, nearly into another new year, dragging the last 25 years of baggage behind us. It's not as if the Senators are unaware; it's not as if the bi-partisan political horsepower is lacking: we've all seen all the Senators challenge the grip of the iron ring, unafraid to beard the lions in their dens.

Now good Senators; will you let Truss and his minders undo all your good work? What's it to be Senators ?; will ye be seen as wolves or sheep ?.

Tick Tock indeed.

Last edited by Kharon; 29th Dec 2013 at 02:23. Reason: Lost links - weird
Kharon is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2013, 05:38
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
The new "Price is (not yet) right" and the real elephant in the (TASRR) room!"

Kharon:
Much depends on independent Nick Xenophon being supported by the other 'bi-partisan' Senate committee members. In terms of the 'regulatory deformation' process, NX has made a start, upsetting the CAO 48/ FRMS apple cart. There is much empirical evidence and scientific study which makes a nonsense of the CASA non science of flight crew fatigue. NX nailed this down during the inquiry into 'pilot training', ran with it through the Pel Air inquiry and, put his money where his mouth was, blocking the shambles known as CAO 48. The bi-partisan committee, although quiet must at least tacitly support his cause. For example; despite fatigue being blithely ruled as an irrelevance in the Norfolk ditching; fatigue was clearly a factor.
Creamy:
The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.
Okay so we all agree the TASRR fix is firmly in place and the Government response to PelAir recommendations will go begging unless the non-aligned Senators (including the Greens..Creamy!) create an alliance to force the Government to appropriately address the PelAir report recommendations.

IMO it is also crucial to aviation safety in this country that the current executive culture within the ATsB is fixed and that respective governments of either colour pay respect and action, not lipservice, their common rhetorical mantra of "aviation safety is...(our)... number one priority".

To follow on from the Kharon post and on the subject of fatigue...

Over the last decade, in aviation safety circles, the buzzword has been human factors. As a consequence we saw the rise of HF experts with scientific based research exploring the human element causal to accidents/incidents; i.e. why do pilots, engineers, controllers etc continue to make, sometimes fatal, critical errors??

We then saw government agencies/authorities employing these HF experts to further promote/foster this new proactive safety age of trying to address the human error element in transport accidents.

In Australia Fort Fumble and the ATsB followed suit, employing their own HF experts. However after the previous 2 Senate Inquiries (especially PelAir) it became obvious that these HF experts were only ever meant to be 'seen not heard'. They weren't meant to be making waves by producing potentially revealing, embarassing audits of the supposedly compliant, bigend of town Operator/Airline Safety Management and Fatigue Risk Management systems (ala Ben Cook's audits of a certain airline's YPDN base Flight & Duty practices and his Special Audit report on the PelAir FRMS).

The following article, from one of those bothersome "HF experts", highlights that the HF FRMS conundrum is not just isolated to Australia
Opinion: The Price of Reducing Pilot Fatigue

By Ashley Nunes


In 2009, Colgan Air 3407 crashed while landing at Buffalo, N.Y., killing all 49 people on board. An investigation determined that leading up to the crash, pilot performance was likely impaired by fatigue: a finding that came as no surprise to safety advocates who had long recognized its dangers.

In the 1980s, NASA dedicated an entire research program to understanding fatigue. The effort was groundbreaking for its time, as researchers examined the influence of sleep loss and interruption on brain function, muscle activity and alertness. Those measures were used to paint a snapshot of fatigue, based on when pilots flew, how long they flew and how much rest they had obtained before the flight. The program laid the critical groundwork for the development of the fatigue management standards used today.

However, these standards have faced stiff resistance from air carriers. For example, when the FAA recently announced limits on night flying, cargo carriers successfully lobbied for exclusion because of the “unreasonable” $550 million price tag. That decision appalled many. Robert Travis, president of the Independent Pilots Association, notes that it was not the government's intent to address the important issue of pilot fatigue “only if the price is right.” Perhaps not, but costs are precisely why fatigue management standards are opposed; they reduce profit margins by limiting how much productivity can be squeezed out of workers. And in a climate of fierce economic competition, airlines hesitate to pass on any additional costs to customers.

Unsurprisingly, safety advocates lauded the FAA rule. Nico Voorbach, president of the European Cockpit Association, says that unlike European governments, the U.S. has taken a decisive step toward what a wide body of scientific medical research recommends to be safe. But does science really support the assertion that fatigue reduces safety? And more important, does the public value efforts to manage fatigue?

Justification of fatigue management standards is based on more than three decades of scientific research. Yet although these studies have examined the impact of fatigue on everything from oxygen levels in the brain to short-term memory, a mere handful have examined how fatigue affects a pilot's flying ability. This is surprising because today's technology allows monitoring of every facet of the job. Was too little engine power used during takeoff? Was too much brake pressure applied during landing? If so, the system has a record of it. And if a fatigued pilot is doing something dangerous, we should know about it.

Anecdotes tell of sleepy captains forgetting to extend flaps before takeoff to overworked first officers nodding off at the controls while in command. In one recent case, a fatigued Air Canada pilot sent an airliner into a 400-ft. dive over the North Atlantic after mistaking the planet Venus for another aircraft on a collision course. Sixteen passengers were seriously injured. However, standards must be based on methodologically sound research, not anecdotes, and as yet, the relevant research is lacking.

Whether the public values such efforts is a difficult question. A recent public opinion survey found that 82% of passengers rank fatigue as their most important air travel concern. But are their concerns reflected by their behavior? In 2006, a British television station used secret film to substantiate allegations that Ryanair forced its pilots to work excessively fatiguing schedules, flying multiple consecutive flights a day through congested airspace with few opportunities for rest.

How did customers respond? By helping Ryanair grow from a tiny, impoverished Irish carrier to Europe's largest airline, and a very profitable one at a time when some of its competitors are facing loses and insolvency. The secret to Ryanair's success is simple: cheap fares. Clearly, public concerns over fatigue are tempered by the prospect of flying from Brussels to Barcelona for €14.99 ($21).

Ryanair is hardly unique among its peers when it comes to reports of fatigue. But its remarkable growth despite such reports forces us to face a harsh reality: If passengers want air travel to be safe, they must be willing to pay for it.
Until governments, bureaucrats and airlines alike, realise that properly implemented FRMS/SMS are safety risk mitigators that are now essential to good, safe business practice then the bureau and Fort Fumble, 'beyond all sensible reason', will continue to operate in a vacuum, without scrutiny, without oversight and where aviation safety is in fact their very last priority....

TICK..TOCK indeed!

Addendum:

Recieved a PM from an IOS member suggesting I copy across some of my recent GA thread posts as they are somewhat relevant to this thread but I now see Kharon has linked them.

In case you missed the links:

TSBC in-flight breakup report a benchmark for ATsB??

Senator X questions veracity of the TSBC review?? & research report comparison.

Last edited by Sarcs; 29th Dec 2013 at 06:16.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2013, 19:53
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Quote:
Not sure about the Canuck's CARs, they do seem to largely mirror the US FARs... : Canuck CARs
A third the size of Australia's Frankenstein. And it would be a sixth if they didn't have to duplicate the text in English and French.
Too many factions in CASA pulling toward FAA, EASA and TC. I heard a rumour they were always advised to pick one either FAA or EASA and stick with it by both the FAA and EASA. I bet Canada and NZ based their regulations on one set?
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 05:02
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Warning Nick Xenophon – Warning.

NX- blogs "I admit I’m pretty ‘useless’ – at least when it comes to putting out blogs. It’s been a long time between drinks and my New Year’s resolution is to blog more often."
Now you have become a tendentious blogger, does this act qualify you as a fully fledged member of the Ills of Society? Could the blog could end up an extension of PPRuNe?; discussing matters such the Pel Air response, (or lack thereof); the CAO 48 rumble, the CASR bun-fight or even a repository for the IOS comments on the Truss wet lettuce leaf 'review' of aviation safety regulation. Or perhaps this little gem:-

The opening paragraph on the Infrastructure website under the heading of “Confidentiality and Personal Information” which advises:
Your submission, including any personal information supplied, will be provided by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department) to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel and its specialist advisers (as required) for the purpose of undertaking the review and preparing their report.
Seriously though, consider signing up and posting the odd sensible comment for consideration, you just never know –

Nick's Blog
Kharon 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.