Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Updating on the boning
Dangling parts, it was the EM Corporate Services. Interesting because she was given the 2 minute walk of shame.....strange as nobody ever, and I mean ever, gets sacked from CASA! Perhaps it had something to do with those pesky Paywave credit card issues??
TAAAF report card on Wuss & co.
From AA online:
From Oz Flying online:
That will bring a huge sigh of relief to some of the IOS members as there were suspicions that certain factions of the TAAAF had sold out to the dark side...
On other matters it should not be forgotten that the AACCI AAT hearing is currently in progress, the outcome of which will be significant to all IOS members:
18th November 2014
The proceedings commenced by the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc. to set aside the Ministerial Decision of former Transport Minister Anthony Albanese in May 2012 approving the Archerfield Airport 2011-2031 master plan will commence its hearing trial in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane today Tuesday 18th November until 26th November.
Witnesses for the Chamber will include a former Federal Minister of Aviation Mr Peter Morris and other aviation experts, some of whom are former Federal Government employees.
The Chamber will assert that the Department of Transport and Infrastructure and CASA did not assess the approved Master Plan with the required detail and technical accuracy demanded. In short the approval was granted without having regard to current applicable legislation, the interests of the aviation industry, the general public and the use of erroneous technical assessments.
The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations to the responsible Minister being taken by uninformed bureaucrats who do not understand the industry or apply the law correctly.
Chief among these failings has been the extraordinary policy of the Department to absolutely refuse to apply the statutory requirements of the Airports Privatisation Act. They advise that all problems arising between the users of airports and the lease holders, where the leaseholders breach the Act, are commercial disputes and should be settled in the courts.
Instead of the Government applying its laws the onus is transferred to the general community to do so. The so called “Light Hands Policy” in relation to airports, a policy designed as a cover for bureaucratic executive action, has no legal backing at all and has never been raised in the Parliament.
The Department has been acting as an un-informed regulator and uniformed protector of the public interest. It has been acting only as a post office rather than doing its job to protect the airports and the users. The consequences are that general aviation industries are being destroyed and airports infrastructure including runways being downgraded or lost.
There is no or inadequate compensation to aviation businesses losing their assets through a system of refusals to renew aviation related leases of Commonwealth owned airport land upon which tenants paid for the buildings and improvements. Aviation land through the airport’s master plan will be converted to commercial and industrial sites without any control or supervision by State planning authorities.
The full resources of Governments of all political persuasions has been deployed to ensure the commercial profits of the airport lease holders are ensured, without regard as to the loss of vital national infrastructure or the interests of the community at large, and the viability of general aviation businesses that try to provide services in a competitive market environment.
The Act provides that airport lease holders must not alienate land that is required for present and future aviation needs. The Chamber’s application is to preserve our precious aviation infrastructure, stop new commercial and industrial development on land that is currently being used for runways and aviation businesses and to send a clear message to all Federal Airport Leasing Companies that only aviation related developments on taxpayer land in Australia will be permitted.
- END –
Gov’t yet to meet half of its aviation commitments, Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum says
The federal government is yet to deliver on more than half of its aviation commitments and has shown a lack of commitment to the sector, the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF) says.
In a statement released on Thursday, TAAAF expressed its concern that the government is yet to release its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) and that three vacancies on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board are yet to be filled.
“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said.
“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.”
The TAAAF brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner.
TAAAF called on Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Industry and Regional Development Warren Truss to “respond urgently” to the ASRR, given the report written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth was “seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator”.
The ASRR, released in June, called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.
It found the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.
TAAAF said the government should immediately establish a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until newly appointed director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore starts in his new role, the CASA board was appointed and there was a “clear response” to the Forsyth review.
“In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development,” TAAAF said.
Part 61 was a set of new regulatory measures for pilots, operators and flightcrew licensing that has been strongly criticised from some sectors in the aviation industry.
“CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,” TAAAF said.
“It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.
“Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.”
The federal government has promised a response to the ASRR before the end of 2014.
The federal government is yet to deliver on more than half of its aviation commitments and has shown a lack of commitment to the sector, the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF) says.
In a statement released on Thursday, TAAAF expressed its concern that the government is yet to release its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) and that three vacancies on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board are yet to be filled.
“In considering the government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40 per cent of their commitments,” TAAAF said.
“A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the government’s own promises.”
The TAAAF brings together the peak bodies of the aviation sector in Australia under one banner.
TAAAF called on Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Industry and Regional Development Warren Truss to “respond urgently” to the ASRR, given the report written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth was “seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator”.
The ASRR, released in June, called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.
It found the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry was “in many cases, adversarial”.
TAAAF said the government should immediately establish a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until newly appointed director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore starts in his new role, the CASA board was appointed and there was a “clear response” to the Forsyth review.
“In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development,” TAAAF said.
Part 61 was a set of new regulatory measures for pilots, operators and flightcrew licensing that has been strongly criticised from some sectors in the aviation industry.
“CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,” TAAAF said.
“It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.
“Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.”
The federal government has promised a response to the ASRR before the end of 2014.
Aviation Forum calls for Government Action
19 Nov 2014
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called on the Federal Government for more action to reform aviation.
In a statement released today, TAAAF said the government had under-performed when it came to keeping election promises.
"In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments," the statement said.
"A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review [Forsyth Report]. The Review was seen as a blueprint for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.
TAAAF called on Minister Warren Truss to respond to the Forsyth Report urgently, and to officially announce the three new CASA board members.
"The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA," TAAAF said. "It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report."
Among other issues in the statement, the TAAAF also:
19 Nov 2014
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called on the Federal Government for more action to reform aviation.
In a statement released today, TAAAF said the government had under-performed when it came to keeping election promises.
"In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments," the statement said.
"A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review [Forsyth Report]. The Review was seen as a blueprint for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.
TAAAF called on Minister Warren Truss to respond to the Forsyth Report urgently, and to officially announce the three new CASA board members.
"The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA," TAAAF said. "It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report."
Among other issues in the statement, the TAAAF also:
- Supported a return to three-tier regulation
- Rejected CASA's move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policies and manuals
- Called for a moratorium on all CASA regulation work until the new Director Mark Skidmore is in effective control
- Called for CASR Part 61 to be suspended and a joint industry/CASA task force created to establish sound regulations
- Supported a ban on un-manned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being used over fire ground by members of the public.
On other matters it should not be forgotten that the AACCI AAT hearing is currently in progress, the outcome of which will be significant to all IOS members:
18th November 2014
The proceedings commenced by the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc. to set aside the Ministerial Decision of former Transport Minister Anthony Albanese in May 2012 approving the Archerfield Airport 2011-2031 master plan will commence its hearing trial in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane today Tuesday 18th November until 26th November.
Witnesses for the Chamber will include a former Federal Minister of Aviation Mr Peter Morris and other aviation experts, some of whom are former Federal Government employees.
The Chamber will assert that the Department of Transport and Infrastructure and CASA did not assess the approved Master Plan with the required detail and technical accuracy demanded. In short the approval was granted without having regard to current applicable legislation, the interests of the aviation industry, the general public and the use of erroneous technical assessments.
The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations to the responsible Minister being taken by uninformed bureaucrats who do not understand the industry or apply the law correctly.
Chief among these failings has been the extraordinary policy of the Department to absolutely refuse to apply the statutory requirements of the Airports Privatisation Act. They advise that all problems arising between the users of airports and the lease holders, where the leaseholders breach the Act, are commercial disputes and should be settled in the courts.
Instead of the Government applying its laws the onus is transferred to the general community to do so. The so called “Light Hands Policy” in relation to airports, a policy designed as a cover for bureaucratic executive action, has no legal backing at all and has never been raised in the Parliament.
The Department has been acting as an un-informed regulator and uniformed protector of the public interest. It has been acting only as a post office rather than doing its job to protect the airports and the users. The consequences are that general aviation industries are being destroyed and airports infrastructure including runways being downgraded or lost.
There is no or inadequate compensation to aviation businesses losing their assets through a system of refusals to renew aviation related leases of Commonwealth owned airport land upon which tenants paid for the buildings and improvements. Aviation land through the airport’s master plan will be converted to commercial and industrial sites without any control or supervision by State planning authorities.
The full resources of Governments of all political persuasions has been deployed to ensure the commercial profits of the airport lease holders are ensured, without regard as to the loss of vital national infrastructure or the interests of the community at large, and the viability of general aviation businesses that try to provide services in a competitive market environment.
The Act provides that airport lease holders must not alienate land that is required for present and future aviation needs. The Chamber’s application is to preserve our precious aviation infrastructure, stop new commercial and industrial development on land that is currently being used for runways and aviation businesses and to send a clear message to all Federal Airport Leasing Companies that only aviation related developments on taxpayer land in Australia will be permitted.
- END –
Proaviation - Albanese airport decision under AAT microscope
Good luck AACCI...
Good luck AACCI...
MTF on this important case...
Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Nov 2014 at 08:18.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of glossy paper and non committal words
The ASRR, released in June, called for substantial cultural and structural changes at CASA and for better leadership of and coordination between Australia’s aviation safety agencies.
Don't hold your breath boys...
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dept absence of specialised resources!
SARCS,
"The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations....."
Let's hope the AACCI are not referring to Beaker
I needed a good laugh today!!!
"The Department in recent years has suffered from an absence of specialised professionals in the aviation field with important decisions and recommendations....."
Let's hope the AACCI are not referring to Beaker
I needed a good laugh today!!!
AHIA joins forces with TAAAF in struggle with CASA.
Now is the time for Government to act – TAAAF concerns about regulator’s performance.
Note: The TAAAF is a forum of peak aviation bodies that includes the: Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA); Aerostructures and Aircraft Manufactures (AAM); Australian Association of Flight Instructors (AAoI); Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA); Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA); Australian Women Pilots’ Association (AWPA); Aviation Law Association (ALA); Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA); Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus); Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) and Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia (RFAC).
A TAAAF Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 states:
Now is the time for Government to act!
The combined peak bodies for aviation met in Sydney last Thursday to consider a range of urgent aviation issues. In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments.
A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The Review was seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.
It called on the Minister to respond urgently to the Forsyth Review, to finalise Board appointments to ensure the CASA CEO is supported by a strong Board reflective of the interests of the industry, and to issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction under the Civil Aviation Act.
The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA. It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report.
With regard to the Forsyth report the Forum strongly supported the return to a three tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules. The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy, manuals and forms as compliance requirements for operators and pilots. It also strongly supported the introduction of key quality assurance mechanisms within CASA, including a merit decision appeal process; again as identified in the Forsyth report.
The Forum called on the Government to establish immediately a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until such time as the new CEO is fully operational, the CASA Board is appointed and the Government has made a clear response to the Forsyth Report.
In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development.
CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form. It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators. Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.
Noting the start of the bushfire season, the Forum supported calls for the creation of an offence for any unmanned aerial system (UAS) to be deployed at a fire-ground by a member of the public not under the control of the relevant fire agency, with serious penalties of the order of AUD$50,000 for any instance.
Media Enquiries: Chris Manning, Chair, 0414 672 212
Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 ends.
AHIA: We are trying so hard to make changes - even the combined associations with direct access to responsible minister are ignored!.
Australian Helicopter Industry Association
What do you think?
Note: The TAAAF is a forum of peak aviation bodies that includes the: Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA); Aerostructures and Aircraft Manufactures (AAM); Australian Association of Flight Instructors (AAoI); Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA); Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA); Australian Women Pilots’ Association (AWPA); Aviation Law Association (ALA); Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA); Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus); Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) and Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia (RFAC).
A TAAAF Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 states:
Now is the time for Government to act!
The combined peak bodies for aviation met in Sydney last Thursday to consider a range of urgent aviation issues. In considering the Government’s performance against their 12 key aviation election commitments, TAAAF scored the government as having delivered around 40% of their commitments.
A key issue noted was the lack of drive and commitment to act urgently on aviation – even judged by the Government’s own promises. In particular, the Forum expressed concern at the lack of a Government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The Review was seen as a blue-print for the reform of CASA to make it an effective, efficient, fair and trusted regulator.
It called on the Minister to respond urgently to the Forsyth Review, to finalise Board appointments to ensure the CASA CEO is supported by a strong Board reflective of the interests of the industry, and to issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction under the Civil Aviation Act.
The appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA Board was warmly welcomed but it is of ongoing concern that the CASA Board still has three vacancies, which is seen as holding back the reform of CASA. It also welcomed the appointment of a new CEO but clearly indicated that significant challenges lay ahead in the reform of CASA and in bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted in the independent Forsyth Report.
With regard to the Forsyth report the Forum strongly supported the return to a three tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules. The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy, manuals and forms as compliance requirements for operators and pilots. It also strongly supported the introduction of key quality assurance mechanisms within CASA, including a merit decision appeal process; again as identified in the Forsyth report.
The Forum called on the Government to establish immediately a moratorium on all CASA regulatory development work until such time as the new CEO is fully operational, the CASA Board is appointed and the Government has made a clear response to the Forsyth Report.
In particular, CASR Part 61 should immediately be suspended to prevent further damage to the industry and a joint industry/CASA taskforce appointed to apply the principles of sound regulatory development.
CASR Part 61 was seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form. It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators. Additionally there is clearly confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.
Noting the start of the bushfire season, the Forum supported calls for the creation of an offence for any unmanned aerial system (UAS) to be deployed at a fire-ground by a member of the public not under the control of the relevant fire agency, with serious penalties of the order of AUD$50,000 for any instance.
Media Enquiries: Chris Manning, Chair, 0414 672 212
Communiqué of 19 Nov ’14 ends.
AHIA: We are trying so hard to make changes - even the combined associations with direct access to responsible minister are ignored!.
Australian Helicopter Industry Association
What do you think?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think?
that was when the department ran publications, control towers, airport maintenance, rescue and fire fighting, accident investigation and guessed their way through aeronautical engineering issues.
ok the government split all that up and privatised out the stuff that a buyer could be found for.
we now have a situation where their dispersed, privatised best ideas aren't working.
STUPIDITY is what I think.
if you get inept idiots to manage something they don't have much of an understanding of they will make a right hash of it all won't they.
well they have.
Air Vice Marshal (retired) Skidmore would have had experience of useless units that had a function that was actually needed.
the services suffer these from time to time.
the solution used in the forces is a total staff change.
I was involved in one of these once and what a difference we made.
3 year delays were replaced by an ability to meet the need within 5 working days. even if the need was in the tons.
CAsA is on the skids. no denying that. odd that they should draft in a guy named Skidmore. is there some freudian humour at play there?
just in passing I would comment that you need to get the overarching philosophy right. in CAsA's case it clearly isn't.
CAsA only legislates in the interests of safety. well bollocks to that claim.
2 years in prison if your aircraft takes off without a maintenance release.
ha ha ....bull****.
as a private owner who maintains his own aircraft and is the only pilot why would I need a maintenance release? I know the state of the aircraft intimately since I maintain it myself.
I haven't bothered with the paperwork bull**** it a decade come two months time.
you'd think I would have crashed by now if CAsA's great mantra was even half way correct. 42 years accident free and counting.
get stuffed CAsA. you are such plonkers.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AACCI
On a more serious note, the AAT is not the place to fight. Lightweights in the legal world and frowned upon by QCs and serious counsel. A well known QC gave me this beauty last week! He said "it's like comparing Romper Room to the 7:30 Report. One is happy, forgiving and will adapt to the clients (kids) needs, the other is opinion based on cold hard fact"! The AAT is full of self opinionated wankers who never made the real deal. Someone once asked me "why do people buy Land Rover Discovery's?" the response was "cause they can't afford a Range Rover"! A lot like the AAT vs the Fed court! (Apologies to any Disco owners, no harm implied personally)!
The Forum rejected the current CASA move toward the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material
This is an absolutely crazy statement.
We have had CAAPs for years, they are advisory material.
We have had Advisory Circulars since 1998, without problems.
Both have exactly the same legal status, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with the related regulation. Why is that such a problem?? You don't have to "comply" with the CAAP, but you do have to comply with the related regulation, so your alternative is to negotiate an alternative means of compliance.
Do you all really want the contents of all the CAAPs/AC to be legislative instruments, that have been worked over by the legal drafting mob at the Parliamentary Counsel's office.
We already have an absolutely ridiculous volume of aviation legislative instruments. It is crazy that, very time an airline wants to change something like a minima, it has to go through the whole Parliamentary process
The bulk of technical detail under the US system is in Advisory Circulars, likewise EASA (AMCs and TGLs). What's the problem there, the answer is none.
Both the US and EEC (EASA) have two tier legislation, we have had it since 1998, where's the problem that more (not less) aviation regulation is needed in Australia.
With all the whinging about the amount of aviation regulation in Australia, why is the industry demanding more regulation??
Tootle pip!!
PS: The idea of translating something like the technical specifications for a Level 7 ( or D, if you prefer) via the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (the intent of IACO Doc. 9625, Issue 3) into a Legislative Instrument is the thing of nightmares, and that is what is being advocated by "the industry".
How about the ACs for certifying a aircraft, or an engine, or avionics and instruments --- do you really want that translated into the language of a legislative instrument???
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archerfield, a pleasant spot, for a BBQ.
Amazed by the machinations and convoluted argument; massaged definitions of 'air transport', intrigued by the misguided analysis of aircraft certification performance data and confounded by the naked greed, I thought it meat to have a look at this storm in the minuscule teas cup. The problem is one of remarkable simplicity – it is an aerodrome. Which implies that aircraft will use it for take off and landing (gods willing, weather permitting).
It is, amongst other things, a training aerodrome, which implies that folk would go there to take flying lessons, this inevitably leads to inexperienced pilots, grappling with their lessons often without an instructor inboard.
The safety case therefore must allow for the most reasonably probable 'worst case'; lets take a nervous neophyte sent out on second solo, the instruction for EFATO burned into the forebrain. Land straight ahead. But on what asks the newbee?, perplexed.
There's the rub – if an aircraft cannot safely GO – it must be able to safely STOP.
Expecting aircraft not certified or guaranteed to climb on one engine; or aircraft which must, by the laws of physics, land in the event of power failure to do so, within some mathematically manipulated, minimum 'take off' distance: a distance only required to achieve a speed slightly above the 'stall' is not only preposterous, but risky.
When our nervous neophyte lobs into McDonalds as a fireball; or a Chieftain full of big blokes on their way to work punches a bloody great big hole in Westfields; who then is going to responsible for that. Obviously, the pilot for operating from a runway too bloody short. As no one can operate from a field without the mandated distance safety margins; exit aircraft, enter developers and Whallop. Someone (or two) makes a bundle.
It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.
Archerfield, bringing crispy critters to a mall near you....
It is, amongst other things, a training aerodrome, which implies that folk would go there to take flying lessons, this inevitably leads to inexperienced pilots, grappling with their lessons often without an instructor inboard.
The safety case therefore must allow for the most reasonably probable 'worst case'; lets take a nervous neophyte sent out on second solo, the instruction for EFATO burned into the forebrain. Land straight ahead. But on what asks the newbee?, perplexed.
There's the rub – if an aircraft cannot safely GO – it must be able to safely STOP.
Expecting aircraft not certified or guaranteed to climb on one engine; or aircraft which must, by the laws of physics, land in the event of power failure to do so, within some mathematically manipulated, minimum 'take off' distance: a distance only required to achieve a speed slightly above the 'stall' is not only preposterous, but risky.
When our nervous neophyte lobs into McDonalds as a fireball; or a Chieftain full of big blokes on their way to work punches a bloody great big hole in Westfields; who then is going to responsible for that. Obviously, the pilot for operating from a runway too bloody short. As no one can operate from a field without the mandated distance safety margins; exit aircraft, enter developers and Whallop. Someone (or two) makes a bundle.
It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.
Archerfield, bringing crispy critters to a mall near you....
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Nov 2014 at 00:36.
AACCI v Miniscule AAT - Pivotal to GA survival.
Top post "K" that perfectly highlights the bureaucratic disconnect between the theory and operational reality for many owners, private pilots and GA operators operating out of our essential secondary airports.
Maybe just maybe that will be the only thing these bureaucrats will truly understand; i.e. the fear of litigation if something (God forbid) goes horribly wrong and an avoidable accident can be traced back to unimpeded urban development in the vicinity of a secondary (GA) airport...
The AACCI put out a media release back in May calling for urgent action from the miniscule and to endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal:
It is also well worth the time to read the AACCI ART proposal - Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal (
137kb)
In Senate Estimates we all know that Senator Fawcett is a strong advocate for the issues faced by aircraft owners/operators from Secondary Airports.
Trolling through previous Estimates Hansard/QONs etc. I came across a disturbing chain of two-way correspondence between the RRAT committee and the department aided & abetted by Beaker, which further highlights the issues as presented in the above Kharon post.
This chain first started with an exchange between Senator Fawcett & Beaker in the 2012 May Budget Estimates:
Beaker conflict of interest??
Since that exchange we have now discovered that Beaker in the early part of the century till 2004 was in a different role within the department i.e. Airports division; where his primary role was the architect of many of the airport lease agreements that were at the time being drawn up under the Airports Act 1996...
Ok so back to the chain...
On 6 September 2012 as Chair of the RRAT Legislative Committee Senator Sterle sent the following missive to Beaker:
Mr Dolan: The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—
Even the man at the back of the room can see the disturbing disconnect that the Chief of our so called aviation safety watchdog has when placing the EFATO risk as minor in regards to small GA/RAA aircraft coming to grief at our secondary/training ground airports.
That is why IMO the AACCI AAT case is so crucial to the survival of GA and should be openly supported by all IOS members...
MTF...
Kharon - It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.
The AACCI put out a media release back in May calling for urgent action from the miniscule and to endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal:
...The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”
The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”
The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”
The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.
The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.
The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.
Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.
Lindsay Snell
President
The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”
The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”
The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.
The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.
The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.
Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.
Lindsay Snell
President
- Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal ( 137kb)In Senate Estimates we all know that Senator Fawcett is a strong advocate for the issues faced by aircraft owners/operators from Secondary Airports.
Trolling through previous Estimates Hansard/QONs etc. I came across a disturbing chain of two-way correspondence between the RRAT committee and the department aided & abetted by Beaker, which further highlights the issues as presented in the above Kharon post.
This chain first started with an exchange between Senator Fawcett & Beaker in the 2012 May Budget Estimates:
Senator FAWCETT: I am very heartened to hear about the role that you said you play in following up on issues. I congratulate you on, for example, the report that you issued on single-engine failures and reduced power situations after take-off and exploring that whole issue. Going back to previous estimates, I asked about the number of examples of aircraft that had these sorts of failures. I noticed there was a figure of around 21 that had been highlighted in a short time frame. Your report goes to a much larger number. Can I confirm that they are only talking about GA aircraft and that if RAA aircraft were included that would be a larger number?
Mr Dolan : I need to confirm that with Mr Walsh but my understanding is that we were focused on VH registered aircraft. So the number of 242 partial power loss on take-off events over a 10-year period relates to single-engine aircraft with VH registration.
Senator FAWCETT: In terms of your tracking of safety issues and monitoring developments, your report goes to the heart of the fact that, following a partial power loss or a complete engine failure, the pilot essentially has three options, which is to do a forced landing outside the airfield, on the airfield but not on the runway, or on the runway if they are very skilful or have the appropriate height et cetera.
Two of those situations require that clear space be available. Are you concerned by the encroachment of residential and non-aviation facilities, whether that be Bella Vista at Caloundra, the old folks home that has just been approved at Evans Head, or things like the Toll building at Bankstown in the undershoot of the approach to the helipad? Do you have concerns from a safety perspective, given that your excellent report highlights the need for survivability for the pilot to be able to conduct a forced landing in and around the vicinity of the aerodrome, that this encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure is actually elevating the risk, given the relatively high occurrence of those power loss situations?
Mr Dolan : The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—
Senator FAWCETT: For GA. If you include RAA—
Mr Dolan : for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue.
Mr Dolan : I need to confirm that with Mr Walsh but my understanding is that we were focused on VH registered aircraft. So the number of 242 partial power loss on take-off events over a 10-year period relates to single-engine aircraft with VH registration.
Senator FAWCETT: In terms of your tracking of safety issues and monitoring developments, your report goes to the heart of the fact that, following a partial power loss or a complete engine failure, the pilot essentially has three options, which is to do a forced landing outside the airfield, on the airfield but not on the runway, or on the runway if they are very skilful or have the appropriate height et cetera.
Two of those situations require that clear space be available. Are you concerned by the encroachment of residential and non-aviation facilities, whether that be Bella Vista at Caloundra, the old folks home that has just been approved at Evans Head, or things like the Toll building at Bankstown in the undershoot of the approach to the helipad? Do you have concerns from a safety perspective, given that your excellent report highlights the need for survivability for the pilot to be able to conduct a forced landing in and around the vicinity of the aerodrome, that this encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure is actually elevating the risk, given the relatively high occurrence of those power loss situations?
Mr Dolan : The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—
Senator FAWCETT: For GA. If you include RAA—
Mr Dolan : for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue.
Since that exchange we have now discovered that Beaker in the early part of the century till 2004 was in a different role within the department i.e. Airports division; where his primary role was the architect of many of the airport lease agreements that were at the time being drawn up under the Airports Act 1996...
Ok so back to the chain...
On 6 September 2012 as Chair of the RRAT Legislative Committee Senator Sterle sent the following missive to Beaker:
6 September 2012
Mr Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Mr Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Dear Mr Dolan,
You will be aware that the committee has asked for details on risk assessments conducted by the ATSB on previous occasions at Senate Estimates. At Budget Estimates in May 2012, you were asked about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure, and whether or not that elevated any risk, in the occurrence of power-loss situations.
Your response was as follows:
Your response was as follows:
Mr Dolan: The short answer is that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake, I am not at the point where I share the concern, or not to the extent that you clearly do. The number is, say, 242 occurrences over a 10-year period, which is 24 a year—
Senator FAWCETT: For GA. If you include RAA—
Mr Dolan: for single-engine GA. I would have to confirm the figures on that, but it is something like 1.6 million movements each year. Once we look at the likelihood as well as the consequence in our risk assessment, we do not see this as a significant safety issue.
The committee would like the ATSB to provide the committee with the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis taken in these circumstances and the empirical basis of that approach including the decision theory on which it is based. It would be appreciated if you could provide a response by Thursday 20 September 2012.
The committee would like the ATSB to provide the committee with the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis taken in these circumstances and the empirical basis of that approach including the decision theory on which it is based. It would be appreciated if you could provide a response by Thursday 20 September 2012.
If you require any further information, the contact officer is:
Cassimah Mackay
Research Officer
Ph. 6277 3514
Research Officer
Ph. 6277 3514
cassimah.mackay @aph.gov.au
Yours sincerely,
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair
Chair
The following is Beaker's response (note the date of the weasel worded reply..
)
)
21 September 2012
The ATSB's risk analysis approach is not intended or required to be a complete analysis such as may be required for the purposes of a developing a safety case or as part of a formal cost-benefit analysis. lt is intended to be a structured, objective and efficient approach to determining whether a safety issue has a risk level which appears to warrant corrective action or, in some cases, further ATSB investigation. Our analysis will often be qualitative rather than quantitative in nature and is based on the evidence available to us through investigation, reports of safety occurrences and our research and analysis.
To support our approach to determining risk level and the possible need for corrective action, we have documented our safety analysis methodology and process as part of our Safety Investigation Quality System (SIQS). SIQS is supported by structured safety analysis training for all our investigators and by elements of our supporting Safety Investigation Information Management System (SliMS- our inhouse information technology system).
At Budget Estimates in May 2012, I was asked for my views about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure in the vicinity or aerodromes, and whether or not it elevated the risk arising from the occurrence of power-loss situations. I answered that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake (which I have outlined in this letter), I did not see the associated safety issue as significant.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair
Legislation Committee
Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Senator Sterle
Thank you for your letter of 6 September 2012 asking for information on the ATSB's approach to risk analysis. You wished to know the protocol, methodology or model underpinning the risk analysis we use to determine the significance of a safety issue. You also wished to know the empirical basis of our approach, including the decision theory on which it is based.
As a starting point, it may be helpful to describe some of the key components of our overall approach to safety investigation and analysis. We take safety to be the state in which the probability of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at, a level which is as low as reasonably practicable. Both our investigations and our safety research work are directed to the identification of safety factors: events or conditions that increase safety risk (that is, if they occurred in the future, they would increase the likelihood of an occurrence, and/or the severity of the adverse consequences associated with an occurrence).
As a starting point, it may be helpful to describe some of the key components of our overall approach to safety investigation and analysis. We take safety to be the state in which the probability of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at, a level which is as low as reasonably practicable. Both our investigations and our safety research work are directed to the identification of safety factors: events or conditions that increase safety risk (that is, if they occurred in the future, they would increase the likelihood of an occurrence, and/or the severity of the adverse consequences associated with an occurrence).
Some of the safety factors we identify are classified as safety issues: that is, they are assessed as having the potential to adversely affect the safety of future operations, and as being systemic and ongoing. When we identify a safety issue, we assess its risk level. The process of assessing risk level is in four parts:
determining scenario, assessing likelihood, assessing consequence and applying the results.
For scenario, we assess first what is the worst possible scenario that would result from an identified safety issue. Then, having assessed that in the light of existing risk controls, we determine the worst credible scenario. That scenario is then assessed for its consequence (minimal, moderate, major or catastrophic) and its likelihood (very rare, rare, occasional or frequent). For each of the classes of consequence and likelihood, we have indicative standards to guide the assessment. Application of the severity and consequence assessment results informs a decision about the level associated with risk of the safety issue as:
determining scenario, assessing likelihood, assessing consequence and applying the results.
For scenario, we assess first what is the worst possible scenario that would result from an identified safety issue. Then, having assessed that in the light of existing risk controls, we determine the worst credible scenario. That scenario is then assessed for its consequence (minimal, moderate, major or catastrophic) and its likelihood (very rare, rare, occasional or frequent). For each of the classes of consequence and likelihood, we have indicative standards to guide the assessment. Application of the severity and consequence assessment results informs a decision about the level associated with risk of the safety issue as:
• Critical: associated with an intolerable level of risk, or
• Significant: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable, or
• Minor: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk.
• Significant: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable, or
• Minor: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk.
Our approach to risk assessment of safety issues is based on the current international and Australian standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009- Risk management- Principles and guidelines and associated material. That standard, however, is principally directed at proactive risk management by organisations, while the business ofthe ATSB as a safety investigation organisation focuses on understanding the potential significance of safety issues and assessing whether others might need to take action. For that reason, we have focused particularly on the risk analysis and evaluation components of the standard. We have also drawn on approaches and techniques used by major transport organisations.
The ATSB's risk analysis approach is not intended or required to be a complete analysis such as may be required for the purposes of a developing a safety case or as part of a formal cost-benefit analysis. lt is intended to be a structured, objective and efficient approach to determining whether a safety issue has a risk level which appears to warrant corrective action or, in some cases, further ATSB investigation. Our analysis will often be qualitative rather than quantitative in nature and is based on the evidence available to us through investigation, reports of safety occurrences and our research and analysis.
To support our approach to determining risk level and the possible need for corrective action, we have documented our safety analysis methodology and process as part of our Safety Investigation Quality System (SIQS). SIQS is supported by structured safety analysis training for all our investigators and by elements of our supporting Safety Investigation Information Management System (SliMS- our inhouse information technology system).
At Budget Estimates in May 2012, I was asked for my views about the encroachment of non-aviation related infrastructure in the vicinity or aerodromes, and whether or not it elevated the risk arising from the occurrence of power-loss situations. I answered that, in accordance with the risk analysis that we undertake (which I have outlined in this letter), I did not see the associated safety issue as significant.
In terms of the methodology I have outlined, the most credible scenario arising from an interaction between partial engine failure and the development of non-aviation infrastructure would be a collision with a building resulting in injuries or fatalities to people on the ground.
In terms of our indicative standards, such a scenario would be assessed as having a moderate consequence.
Our best evidence for likelihood is our database of aviation safety occurrences. During the last ten years, we have records showing two occasions where there have been minor injuries on the ground as a result of accidents in the vicinity of an aerodrome. We have no records of fatality or serious injury. This is in a context where there are about 14 accidents in the vicinity of aerodromes for each million departures, with no significant variation in trend. Based on this and the longer-term information in our database, we would assess the likelihood of on-ground injury or fatality as rare. A safety issue that is assessed as of moderate consequence and rare likelihood generally given a risk rating of minor.
In terms of our indicative standards, such a scenario would be assessed as having a moderate consequence.
Our best evidence for likelihood is our database of aviation safety occurrences. During the last ten years, we have records showing two occasions where there have been minor injuries on the ground as a result of accidents in the vicinity of an aerodrome. We have no records of fatality or serious injury. This is in a context where there are about 14 accidents in the vicinity of aerodromes for each million departures, with no significant variation in trend. Based on this and the longer-term information in our database, we would assess the likelihood of on-ground injury or fatality as rare. A safety issue that is assessed as of moderate consequence and rare likelihood generally given a risk rating of minor.
I trust that this provides sufficient context for understanding my remarks.
Yours sincerely
Martin Dolan
That is why IMO the AACCI AAT case is so crucial to the survival of GA and should be openly supported by all IOS members...
MTF...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, the circus came to town.
Bea-cur has style, all the waffle, weasel words and flummery of 'statistics' except the ones that really matter – abandoned take off and 'long' long landing numbers. You see a fair few of those about the place and 'tis true no real harm has been done. Could it be, perhaps, that the existing runways and stop or clearways are long enough to cope with a reject; or, a long series of bounces; or, even the odd EFATO.
Because if they are now 'too long' and may be safely shortened to minimum required, then his position makes a nonsense of 'widening' runways for safety sake. Clearly as they can be made as short as possible, then they should also be made as narrow as statistically possible, in direct proportion to their length. That'll build another nursing home and bus depot then. Although a golf course at DER would be handy, on occasion. The odd lightly lobbing onto the 14th fairway will only make a 20 second filler on the 1800 news; but a King-air, fully fuelled parked in a top floor window at a close by nursing home just may get a little more attention. Only need it to nearly happen; just once and all the wriggle room in the world won't save the minuscule; or his government. Won't bother 'the money', not one iota; that'll be safely tucked up in the Caymans, drinking Mochitos and eying the lovelies on the beach.
No, no, this is not a job for the bantam weight AAT. Hints of conflicted interests, whispers of manipulated definitions, safety authorities rumoured to be playing at silly buggers with 'the numbers', Pony pooh by the cartload delivered express by those shadowy figures purported to have 'vested interests' etc. etc. Perhaps the AG backed up by the AFP, even the ANO could sort it all out for the Commonwealth: ICAC for NSW Bankstown, Hoxton and Camden; now wouldn't that be fun.
What was it Nick Xenophon said, something like how he couldn't see how 'Dolan's position could be tenable'. Perhaps, now the answer to that question is emerging from shadow; maybe the murky Machiavellian department could be persuaded to fill in the gaps, as it were – in parliament – under oath. That also could be fun.
Aye well. It's a funny old world – "Now Bloggs, the accepted spell for becoming airborne is Wingardium Leviosa; works like a charm, just don't disturb the penthouse pets on climb out; got it?" – "Good". "All together now, Wingardium Leviosa, up up and away".
Training module – here.
Because if they are now 'too long' and may be safely shortened to minimum required, then his position makes a nonsense of 'widening' runways for safety sake. Clearly as they can be made as short as possible, then they should also be made as narrow as statistically possible, in direct proportion to their length. That'll build another nursing home and bus depot then. Although a golf course at DER would be handy, on occasion. The odd lightly lobbing onto the 14th fairway will only make a 20 second filler on the 1800 news; but a King-air, fully fuelled parked in a top floor window at a close by nursing home just may get a little more attention. Only need it to nearly happen; just once and all the wriggle room in the world won't save the minuscule; or his government. Won't bother 'the money', not one iota; that'll be safely tucked up in the Caymans, drinking Mochitos and eying the lovelies on the beach.
No, no, this is not a job for the bantam weight AAT. Hints of conflicted interests, whispers of manipulated definitions, safety authorities rumoured to be playing at silly buggers with 'the numbers', Pony pooh by the cartload delivered express by those shadowy figures purported to have 'vested interests' etc. etc. Perhaps the AG backed up by the AFP, even the ANO could sort it all out for the Commonwealth: ICAC for NSW Bankstown, Hoxton and Camden; now wouldn't that be fun.
What was it Nick Xenophon said, something like how he couldn't see how 'Dolan's position could be tenable'. Perhaps, now the answer to that question is emerging from shadow; maybe the murky Machiavellian department could be persuaded to fill in the gaps, as it were – in parliament – under oath. That also could be fun.
Aye well. It's a funny old world – "Now Bloggs, the accepted spell for becoming airborne is Wingardium Leviosa; works like a charm, just don't disturb the penthouse pets on climb out; got it?" – "Good". "All together now, Wingardium Leviosa, up up and away".
Training module – here.
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Nov 2014 at 18:04. Reason: Ever seen a boot assisted cat get airborne in less than a foot. It can be done (Chuckle chuckle).
Folks,
Just following on from my last post:
What "industry" is proposing is increased regulatory demands be placed on the "iron lung", instead of finding a cure for polio.
Unless there is a sea change in the CASA culture, the sad fact is that the form and style of legislation is immaterial, the Australian aviation sector is stuffed.
Tootle pip!!
Just following on from my last post:
What "industry" is proposing is increased regulatory demands be placed on the "iron lung", instead of finding a cure for polio.
Unless there is a sea change in the CASA culture, the sad fact is that the form and style of legislation is immaterial, the Australian aviation sector is stuffed.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie,
never truer word, if I wasn't coming to the end I'd emigrate to New Zealand. Might still do, if the flying bug is still biting after I retire.
Imagine, just being able to soar up there without constantly fretting over which regulations of the thousands we have to comply with you've busted.
Always daunting after a flight here. Adding up the penalty points and realizing if they came after you, your going to have a very miserable old age.
I wouldn't be surprised if CAsA after confiscating your super, could legally dock your old age pension.
Wouldn't put it past MMrdak to have that in the fine print.
Kharon did you hear about the guys in the sim at flight safety commenting how real the visuals were, before they discovered their feet really were on fire.
Could happen at a secondary near you.
Sad but its always about the money, public interest or safety just aint in it these days.
never truer word, if I wasn't coming to the end I'd emigrate to New Zealand. Might still do, if the flying bug is still biting after I retire.
Imagine, just being able to soar up there without constantly fretting over which regulations of the thousands we have to comply with you've busted.
Always daunting after a flight here. Adding up the penalty points and realizing if they came after you, your going to have a very miserable old age.
I wouldn't be surprised if CAsA after confiscating your super, could legally dock your old age pension.
Wouldn't put it past MMrdak to have that in the fine print.
Kharon did you hear about the guys in the sim at flight safety commenting how real the visuals were, before they discovered their feet really were on fire.
Could happen at a secondary near you.
Sad but its always about the money, public interest or safety just aint in it these days.
Last edited by thorn bird; 20th Nov 2014 at 06:10.
Weekly wrap.
Newsflash...the miniscule is crook..
Maybe he is suffering from a bad in-flight meal laced with ecoli or maybe he simply has bad indigestion from absorbing all the matters aviation currently coming at him. The trouble is while the cats away...
: Warren Truss illness sparks speculation about Barnaby Joyce as Deputy PM
Ok back to the weekly wrap and hot off the keyboard from Hitch..
And from the regurgitator SC a catch up to everyone else's coverage of the AAAF strongly worded media release (ps SC does however get a response from the ailing miniscule's office..): Forum calls on Warren Truss to act urgently on Forsyth report
Finally from Dougy yesterday...
MTF...
Maybe he is suffering from a bad in-flight meal laced with ecoli or maybe he simply has bad indigestion from absorbing all the matters aviation currently coming at him. The trouble is while the cats away...
: Warren Truss illness sparks speculation about Barnaby Joyce as Deputy PMOk back to the weekly wrap and hot off the keyboard from Hitch..
The Last Minute Hitch: 21 November 2014
21 Nov 2014
Quite naturally, the talk of the general aviation world this week is CASA's proposal to restrict Jabiru engine operations. Although this affects RA-Aus moreso than GA, there are many VH-registered aircraft that use Jabiru engines, and if these restrictions are applied, those owners and operators will be up the creek just as much as their RA-Aus counterparts. The feedback that has come my way is quite polarising. One Victorian engineer called for CASA to prove the Jab engine is unreliable with statistics, and one Queensland aircraft builder said he considers the Jab engine a "hand grenade". Either way, this issue is extremely damaging for Australia. All parties involved need to sort it out. They need to sort it out quickly, correctly and fairly.
From the TAAAF statement released this week, it is clear the aviation industry is getting impatient for the reform process to begin. The Forsyth Report charged the industry with an optimism that had been waning over several years, but after more than five months, minister Warren Truss has yet to reply to the report. The result has been a draining of the optimism that has left the industry wondering why. Here's a tip: if you leave the aviation industry to ponder for long enough they will come up with the worst-case scenario. The worst case is that Truss (and no doubt Abbott) intend to ignore the report and instead do a "White Paper" job to make us feel good but effect no real change. We have been told to expect a response by the end of the year. Great, but why have we had to wait this long?
Under the column marked "Good News", CASA has confirmed that RA-Aus hours will still count as aeronautical experience for a GA PPL. Some flying schools were concerned that CASR Part 61 excluded those hours, and when you consider the language of Part 61 is in some case ambiguous, you can't blame them for doing that. The problem lies in Australia's tenacious determination to write legislation that will require you to hire a lawyer to understand it. The recommendations of the Forsyth Report address the problem, but we won't know if the government is prepared to use plain English until they release their response to the report.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
21 Nov 2014
Quite naturally, the talk of the general aviation world this week is CASA's proposal to restrict Jabiru engine operations. Although this affects RA-Aus moreso than GA, there are many VH-registered aircraft that use Jabiru engines, and if these restrictions are applied, those owners and operators will be up the creek just as much as their RA-Aus counterparts. The feedback that has come my way is quite polarising. One Victorian engineer called for CASA to prove the Jab engine is unreliable with statistics, and one Queensland aircraft builder said he considers the Jab engine a "hand grenade". Either way, this issue is extremely damaging for Australia. All parties involved need to sort it out. They need to sort it out quickly, correctly and fairly.
From the TAAAF statement released this week, it is clear the aviation industry is getting impatient for the reform process to begin. The Forsyth Report charged the industry with an optimism that had been waning over several years, but after more than five months, minister Warren Truss has yet to reply to the report. The result has been a draining of the optimism that has left the industry wondering why. Here's a tip: if you leave the aviation industry to ponder for long enough they will come up with the worst-case scenario. The worst case is that Truss (and no doubt Abbott) intend to ignore the report and instead do a "White Paper" job to make us feel good but effect no real change. We have been told to expect a response by the end of the year. Great, but why have we had to wait this long?
Under the column marked "Good News", CASA has confirmed that RA-Aus hours will still count as aeronautical experience for a GA PPL. Some flying schools were concerned that CASR Part 61 excluded those hours, and when you consider the language of Part 61 is in some case ambiguous, you can't blame them for doing that. The problem lies in Australia's tenacious determination to write legislation that will require you to hire a lawyer to understand it. The recommendations of the Forsyth Report address the problem, but we won't know if the government is prepared to use plain English until they release their response to the report.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
): Forum calls on Warren Truss to act urgently on Forsyth report
THE Abbott government has fulfilled fewer than half its aviation election commitments more than a year after taking office, according to the Australian Aviation Associations Forum.
A scorecard compiled by the aviation organisations umbrella group found the government had delivered about 40 per cent of its 12 key commitments and criticised its lack of urgency when it came to aviation issues.
An overriding theme to emerge from a meeting of the eight aviation organisations in AAAF last week was the need for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to give higher priority to aviation issues and act with more speed. It is understood a final communique issued by the forum was a milder version of a first draft.
Mr Truss has moved recently to set up an industry advisory council and its first meeting is expected next week.
It singled out the government’s failure to respond to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by David Forsyth and handed down in March as a major concern and was also critical of the government’s failure to appoint the remaining members of the Civil Aviation safety Authority’s board.
The AAAF called on Mr Truss to urgently respond to the Forsyth review and finalise the board to ensure new CASA head Mark Skidmore is “supported by a strong board reflective of he interest of the industry”.
It also wants to see Mr Truss issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction and called for a full moratorium on all CASA regulatory work until Mr Skidmore finds his feet, a full board is appointed and the letter is issued.
This applied particularly to controversial Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61, which “should be immediately suspended to prevent further damage to the industry”.
“CASR Part 61 is seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,’’ it said. “It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.
“Additionally, there is clear confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.’’
While the appointment of Brindabella Airlines founder Jeff Boyd to the board was “warmly welcomed’’, the three outstanding vacancies on the board were seen as holding back reform at the authority.
The forum welcomed Mr Skidmore’s appointment but noted the challenges in reforming CASA and “bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted by the independent Forysth report”, including the introduction of key quality support mechanisms and the return of a three-tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules.
“The forum rejected the current CASA move towards the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy manuals and forms of compliance requirements for operators and pilots,” it said.
The communique also called for laws preventing unmanned aerial vehicles being deployed by a member of the public not under the control of relevant fire agency. It suggested fines of about $50,000 for breaches.
But a spokesman for Mr Truss said the government had taken action on a number of major aviation initiatives that included the Forsyth review and the appointments of Mr Skidmore and Mr Boyd.
“As the Deputy Prime Minister has consistently indicated, the government is looking to finalise a comprehensive response to the review report before the end of the year,’’ he said, noting this would largely inform the government’s expectations of CASA.
A scorecard compiled by the aviation organisations umbrella group found the government had delivered about 40 per cent of its 12 key commitments and criticised its lack of urgency when it came to aviation issues.
An overriding theme to emerge from a meeting of the eight aviation organisations in AAAF last week was the need for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to give higher priority to aviation issues and act with more speed. It is understood a final communique issued by the forum was a milder version of a first draft.
Mr Truss has moved recently to set up an industry advisory council and its first meeting is expected next week.
It singled out the government’s failure to respond to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by David Forsyth and handed down in March as a major concern and was also critical of the government’s failure to appoint the remaining members of the Civil Aviation safety Authority’s board.
The AAAF called on Mr Truss to urgently respond to the Forsyth review and finalise the board to ensure new CASA head Mark Skidmore is “supported by a strong board reflective of he interest of the industry”.
It also wants to see Mr Truss issue CASA with a new letter of strategic direction and called for a full moratorium on all CASA regulatory work until Mr Skidmore finds his feet, a full board is appointed and the letter is issued.
This applied particularly to controversial Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61, which “should be immediately suspended to prevent further damage to the industry”.
“CASR Part 61 is seen as a serious problem and not acceptable to the industry in its current form,’’ it said. “It was identified as a threat to the viability of some sectors and significant numbers of operators.
“Additionally, there is clear confusion within the regulator about the implementation of the rule-set and a lack of consistent interpretation and education.’’
While the appointment of Brindabella Airlines founder Jeff Boyd to the board was “warmly welcomed’’, the three outstanding vacancies on the board were seen as holding back reform at the authority.
The forum welcomed Mr Skidmore’s appointment but noted the challenges in reforming CASA and “bringing about badly needed improvements as highlighted by the independent Forysth report”, including the introduction of key quality support mechanisms and the return of a three-tier regulatory system to facilitate the drafting of simple operational rules.
“The forum rejected the current CASA move towards the use of non-regulatory measures such as advisory material, policy manuals and forms of compliance requirements for operators and pilots,” it said.
The communique also called for laws preventing unmanned aerial vehicles being deployed by a member of the public not under the control of relevant fire agency. It suggested fines of about $50,000 for breaches.
But a spokesman for Mr Truss said the government had taken action on a number of major aviation initiatives that included the Forsyth review and the appointments of Mr Skidmore and Mr Boyd.
“As the Deputy Prime Minister has consistently indicated, the government is looking to finalise a comprehensive response to the review report before the end of the year,’’ he said, noting this would largely inform the government’s expectations of CASA.
Editor's Insights 20 November 2014
20 Nov 2014
Doug Nancarrow
Next week I’m at the Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast. This is always a well-supported event with an interesting program.
It comes right on the heels of the coming-of-age of Australia’s newest airport, Wellcamp Brisbane West, near Toowoomba on Queensland’s Darling Downs. QantasLink provided the inaugural flight with a Q400 appropriately renamed the Darling Downs.
To celebrate, the owners (and builders) the Wagner Family held a late lunch at the prestigious Otto restaurant at Sydney Harbourside suburb Wooloomooloo. QantasLink boss John Gissing was on that first flight and up for lunch.
Family leader John Wagner flew his own King Air down for the occasion with a plane load of family in tow.
It’s a remarkable achievement, well worthy of the celebration. Now for the rewards.
The TAAAF briefing that I couldn’t make late last week has resulted in a press release that thinly disguises the assorted associations’ extreme frustration with the lack of action in Canberra on aviation issues. And it’s impossible to disagree with anything they have said in the release. Yes, we now have a new head for CASA, though he doesn’t put his feet under the desk until 1 December; but where are the other three CASA board members? Held up no doubt in that same micro-management process that I spoke of last week.
Speaking of last week, I copped a blast from Dick Smith over my plea that his voice be accorded the same weight in Canberra circles as everybody else’s. Dick seemed to think I was putting him down, but that was not my intent and I stand by my view that he is just one voice in any debate and that his high profile and ability to cut through should not overwhelm other informed perspective on aviation issues. We finished the conversation on a warmer note.
At least DAS PA Sandra Mavin is staying on to support AVM Skidmore in the new job. That’s not only valuable continuity, it’s also a recognition that Sandra is one very capable person. Good to see.
More next week from the Gold Coast, where I don’t think I’ve been since a Virgin Blue intro flight back in 2002.
20 Nov 2014
Doug Nancarrow
Next week I’m at the Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast. This is always a well-supported event with an interesting program.
It comes right on the heels of the coming-of-age of Australia’s newest airport, Wellcamp Brisbane West, near Toowoomba on Queensland’s Darling Downs. QantasLink provided the inaugural flight with a Q400 appropriately renamed the Darling Downs.
To celebrate, the owners (and builders) the Wagner Family held a late lunch at the prestigious Otto restaurant at Sydney Harbourside suburb Wooloomooloo. QantasLink boss John Gissing was on that first flight and up for lunch.
Family leader John Wagner flew his own King Air down for the occasion with a plane load of family in tow.
It’s a remarkable achievement, well worthy of the celebration. Now for the rewards.
The TAAAF briefing that I couldn’t make late last week has resulted in a press release that thinly disguises the assorted associations’ extreme frustration with the lack of action in Canberra on aviation issues. And it’s impossible to disagree with anything they have said in the release. Yes, we now have a new head for CASA, though he doesn’t put his feet under the desk until 1 December; but where are the other three CASA board members? Held up no doubt in that same micro-management process that I spoke of last week.
Speaking of last week, I copped a blast from Dick Smith over my plea that his voice be accorded the same weight in Canberra circles as everybody else’s. Dick seemed to think I was putting him down, but that was not my intent and I stand by my view that he is just one voice in any debate and that his high profile and ability to cut through should not overwhelm other informed perspective on aviation issues. We finished the conversation on a warmer note.
At least DAS PA Sandra Mavin is staying on to support AVM Skidmore in the new job. That’s not only valuable continuity, it’s also a recognition that Sandra is one very capable person. Good to see.
More next week from the Gold Coast, where I don’t think I’ve been since a Virgin Blue intro flight back in 2002.
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
If CASA had as part of its charter the requirement to foster the good health of the industry then the use of the term "advisory" would be no problem because by definition they could not then "advise" us to do anything deleterious to industry.
However, as we are constantly told, CASA is a safety regulator and nothing else, that by its own statements knows exactly what is required to be safe, then I believe we are entitled to be told exactly what is required of all of us to comply exacty with CASAs exacting requirements and therefore avoid even the slightest possibility of Administrative punishment, let alone prosecution.
To put that another way, CASAs total insistence on adherence to black letter law is totally, logically and morally inconsistent with "advising" us to do anything. Us compliant serfs are entitled to be told exactly what is required and we should demand nothing less!
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
If CASA had as part of its charter the requirement to foster the good health of the industry then the use of the term "advisory" would be no problem because by definition they could not then "advise" us to do anything deleterious to industry.
However, as we are constantly told, CASA is a safety regulator and nothing else, that by its own statements knows exactly what is required to be safe, then I believe we are entitled to be told exactly what is required of all of us to comply exacty with CASAs exacting requirements and therefore avoid even the slightest possibility of Administrative punishment, let alone prosecution.
To put that another way, CASAs total insistence on adherence to black letter law is totally, logically and morally inconsistent with "advising" us to do anything. Us compliant serfs are entitled to be told exactly what is required and we should demand nothing less!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more serious note
the great problem in australian aviation is that the overarching philosophy of it all has never been decided by common agreement.
McComic has structured a law framework based on mandating the "certified" way of doing things.
It has been apparent now for over a decade now that CAsA totally ignored requests to implement Canadian owner maintenance.
The result is the we continue to do it illegally supposedly.
as a private owner I have an inalienable right to the use, enjoyment and maintenance of my private property. something blithely ignored by CAsA.
article 20a of the universal declaration of human rights is pretty specific.
"no person shall be forced to join an association". it was ratified by australia in 1952 I believe. sorta screws a fair chunk of aviation law I would have thought.
they can write what they like into law. it will only survive until overturned in the high court. in the meantime we just ignore it.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I understand it is applicable to normally certified aircraft but the aircraft gets a special certificate of airworthiness.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...507sh-1837.htm
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...507sh-1837.htm