Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Kharon]

Queer giraffes and the ICAC.

The educational video (below) provides instruction on how, in days gone by, a man who had been ripped off could gain some form of restitution and a degree of satisfaction. The educated viewer may gleam from the subtle messaging and sub text the risks associated with doing dodgy business. These days we have the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC); same principal, only the satisfaction of physical contact is denied.

Problem is the system only targets corruption 'done', not the means by which the corruption is flavoured. There remains the contentious issue of whether the corruption is of a moral or legal flavour. It is a sickness of the time we live in – legal and tidy ?= all good. The moral or ethical questions in any situation may be, with impunity, dusted off.

There is no ICAB (Bull-dust). There is a 'legal' impediment to offering 'real' protection from persecution, so there; that's it. Yet we are expected to 'play up' and make genuine, but toothless complaint against the PPP of CASA and meekly accept that we may rely on some second hand fridge, converted (with a new padlock) to a safe, for industrial security. No moral obligations whatsoever to protect witness is envisaged. Bollocks, give this revue back to the Senate, where it belongs; with folk who understand parts, if not all of it. Then drag S. Palethorpe esq. and his crew back from wherever they are toiling and lets have this thing done "proper", or let's not bother at all.

There is no ICAP (Patronising). "GA people"; "Industry players" and all the poor people out there, not sitting on a cushion. You note the high handed, demeaning words used. Not a whisper of robust comment, perhaps along the lines of "We understand and support the need for your protection; there are some legal impediments to this at moment, however we shall discuss the matter with the Miniscule and his watchdog, to ensure that full protection is available to those who's business and career depend on not becoming a haunted or hunted species". Stone the crows, (insert retch break here).

“It may not make your readers totally happy, because some would have been seeking parliamentary privilege. But what we’ve done – and we’ll be telling GA people this when we talk to them as well

Damn straight it don't.

There is no ICAP (Platitudes). A pat on the head and a soothing, but meaningless reassurance from a professional Master of Ceremonies (or a Head waiter for that matter) mean Jack; they're both very superior, cynical and professionally superficial beings.

“So there’s a wall around the review, around its files, around its information and around its people. Each person in the office has signed a confidentiality agreement and gone through all of the processes that generally apply to these sorts of reviews.

There is no ICARR. (Rigged races) the Murky Machiavellian team will no doubt impress the mug punters. Much in the same way a showy, jail bait chestnut filly prancing around the saddling paddock will always attract the 'ladies' money (mine sometimes and I should know better), even at short odds. But, under the sleek glossy hide although all looks well, the fix is in. It will be a legal fix no doubt, the mare returning to stables for a good rub down, in a warm stall the feed bag full of favourite sweetmeats. The rest will just be 'rid hard and put away wet', after all they're just spares to make it look like a real race, the knackers yard awaits.

There is no ICAC. (Confusion). The internal Rift (IR) wars at political level need to be settled. Wazza says it's OK – go for it, I've got your 6. The PC/PC says no pushing, or hair pulling for there is to be no protection against that sort of behaviour (Mummy smack). Which, FPS is it?

Aye well, the Sarcs defined Politically Correct (PC) Professional Chairman (PC) only needs to polish off the welcome speech, work a little more on the closing speech and it's all done and dusted: neat and legal; tied up with a pretty PC ribbon. Special advisors can swagger off to a special congratulatory dinner; and the long serving calendar girl may even be able to return to the stable that bred it.

EdVid 101.

Step up boys and girls; otherwise, no one will be able to say "Oi !, you sold us queer giraffes". Or hear you scream in space.

Selah.

[thunderbird five]

Aviation Safety Regulation Review OPEN

On 14 November 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon Warren Truss MP, announced the Government has established an independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

The submission process is now open.


Submissions will be accepted until 31 January 2014.


Aviation Safety Regulation Review



Sure don't give industry a whole lot of time to get submissioning does it....


I urge every pilot and every organisation to have their say on how we compare with other countries. But not here on Pprune! GO TO THE SUBMISSION FORM and have your say COUNT.

[hiwaytohell]

Interesting that the terms of reference does not include:

"Outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and operators/industry!

Nor the need to protect the confidentiality of submissions and contributors. We can provide detailed submissions, but without strong protections in place there is a lot of opportunity for payback from some very nasty CASA FOIs and AWIs down the track.

[thorn bird]

Sad, but I have a horrible feeling that this enquiry has been nobbled from the start. The CAsA thugs have Trussed Truss up very well, much the same as organised criminals manipulate the legal system.
It would appear the committee members have not the slightest inkling of the corruption they are dealing with and it would take a very brave individual to attempt to educate them, given the extent CAsA would go to, and has gone to, to ensure any dissent is well and truely muzzled.
Creamie is probably right again it's another snow job.

[Sarcs]

"Football, meat pies, kangaroos and..err Airvans?"

TB:

Sad, but I have a horrible feeling that this enquiry has been nobbled from the start. The CAsA thugs have Trussed Truss up very well, much the same as organised criminals manipulate the legal system.

TB (tongue in cheek..) do you reckon?? Although I'm not so sure about??..."It would appear the committee members have not the slightest inkling of the corruption they are dealing with..."

IMO the players (Senators NX, DF..Wazza and co) don't know how to get around dealing with a Minister who is already trussed up and spinning around Kingcrat and FF's spit with a bloody great pineapple protruding from his err..mouth...

Anyway while we're waiting for Mr PC (under Dept direction) to officially draw up the rules of engagement... ...came across an article written on the back of Holden's demise that prompts food for thought..???

Why Holden is an aerospace opportunity.

Politicians are scrounging for reasons to blame or deny the imminent demise of Australia’s automotive manufacturing industry. Automotive’s future script has been clear for over two decades since Dr John Hewson announced a zero tariff regime for automotive products in 1992.

Indeed, the writing has been on the wall for the majority of Australia’s manufacturing industries for sometime, yet one industry is a clear performer. Australia’s $4 billion aerospace manufacturing industry is a minnow when compared to the automotive industry, but it still employs more than 14,000 people. Subject to aviation’s global fiscal uncertainty, it still continues to grow delivering consistent profit and growth as other industries shrink.

Before the election the Coalition presented a relatively well thought through aviation policy document, a step in the right direction after years of neglect. Specifically, section 11 of the Coalition’s aviation policy ‘Enhance Industry and Training’ identified the need to study “the state of the workforce in the broader aviation industry to inform future skills development and training policies.”

This opportunity presents a test of commitment. With thousands of skilled automotive workers searching for work, up-skilling them for aerospace manufacturing would be far cheaper than training a worker from scratch.
The technological efficiency demands of commercial and military operators require it to constantly adapt and recreate. This doesn’t happen overnight, aerospace plans decades ahead and the support of significant capital investment provides a certain guarantee of longevity. Substantially larger capital investment also means aviation has a better capability to absorb the cost of an expensive workforce, an Australian reality.

Australia already holds commitment for multiple, secure aerospace programmes over the next 20 years, including: Boeing’s Aerostructures Australia’s (BAA) $4 billion 787 component supply programme, and position as continued sole supplier of 737 ailerons; GippsAERO new Indian-owner Mahindra has committed to development of the GA-10 and GA-18 programmes, with the appointment of 14 new dealers to support expansion into markets in the Americas, Europe and South East Asia; and, F-35 component supply.

Further, production locations for Boeing’s next generation 777X programmes remain undetermined – wherever it lands will deliver billions in economic activity – presenting an opportunity for BAA to be a significant programme supplier. The F-35 support programmes will continue for the foreseeable future. And, if Tony Abbott signs a new Australia-China free-trade agreement (FTA) it presents considerable opportunity for an aerospace partnership with China’s largest manufacturer COMAC.

Is there an opportunity for Australia to be a significant component supplier for the 777X programme? Image: Boeing.

A genuine commitment made today to aerospace industry development and training support could see the number of manufacturers and component suppliers grown well above the 834 that exist today. As manufacturers and suppliers increase, planned training programmes could see automotive workers transition over the next three to four years as automotive shuts down.

Ultimately this growth, supports technological leadership and increased economies of scale, reducing the disadvantage of our distance and cost of doing business. With the right policy, planning and support, Australia’s new government could deliver a mini industrial revolution of sorts – this time in aerospace.

The government needs to look forward, continued bickering only promotes the supposition that Australia is devoid of opportunity. Could aerospace be the opportunity?

Our capabilities have been demonstrated, yet seemingly neither side of the political spectrum wants to recognise it.

Hmm....for that kind of government initiative to be truly successful wouldn't someone need to grab the wood shed axe and chop the heads off a couple of raging, rampaging, reckless, red tape roosters??

NB Don't forget...

AMROBA – AGENDA
MOORABBIN AVIATION INDUSTRY MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2013
Location: Moorabbin Airport 1000 – 1500
Invited: Maintenance Organisations, Operators and Licence Holders
Host: Aviation Maintenance Repair & Overhaul Business Association, inc.
Purpose: Discuss Issues, Government Aviation Policy & Future Effect on Aviation
Contact: Linton Hayres. Aircraft Propellers & Spares. [email protected]
Mobile [phone]
Location: Dingley International Hotel (Next to Airport)
334-348 Boundary Road, Dingley 3172. [phone]

1000 - 1020 Introduction Ken Cannane, Executive Director, AMROBA
Change – need for new direction
Review – will it achieve change?
1030 – 1040 Government Policy – Direction Senator David Fawcett
LNP Aviation Policy
1040 – 1300 Open Forum - Issues
Chairs: Senator Fawcett, Ken Cannane
Local issues with:
 Airports/Operations/Maintenance/Personnel
 CASA interaction/processes & procedures.
 EASA and/or FAR system for Non-Airline sectors
 Pilot & Engineer qualifications and licensing
 Industry Concerns for future
 Regulatory Rewrite – Stop??
1230 – 1300 Working Lunch (Sandwiches etc Provided)
1300 – 1455 The Way Ahead
Chairs: Ken Cannane, Linton Hayres
Industry Expectations – Your Opinions
 FAR system for non-airline
o Pros & cons
 Independent LAME
 FAA Fixed Based Operators System
 Approved Maintenance Organisations
 AME Licensing
 Pilot/Instructor Licensing
o Independent Flight Instructors
1455 – 1500 Close Summation and thanks

[TWOTBAGS]

Yes it is a snow job.
We had a discussion today whether our organisation would make a submission based upon our current view of the in industry. Some of our management team have be in commercial aviation in and out of Australia for over 40 years. The result was we won't, here is why.

In summary, none of us have seen such a distrust of the regulator by the industry...... ever.

The overriding view is that without completely closed sessions between the respondents and the panel, industry will not speak up as to the atrocious performance of the regulator for fear for reprisal by the regulator and its staff.

The reform process has dragged on for so long and overcomplicated so many functions that the actual level of safety has decreased. I have witnessed operations where flight operations staff and compliance managers have spent so much time on a wild goose chase propagated by CASA not knowing how to apply their own regulations.

For a any organisation to put their skin in the game and say it how it is to the panel, that organisation is seriously compromising their own business continuity.

I am all for affordable safety, but compliance with all the wonderful rolled gold policy and procedures, safety systems and mechanisms is simply unsustainable from an economic stand point given the miniscule population base we have to sustain the cost of the operations.

There are no more glaring examples of this than the recent Part 61 kerfuffle which was doomed from the word go and ADS-B compliance, where by the regulator need to make a blanket exemption because the manufacturers of said equipment simply do not have the resources, to equip a very large percentage of the Australian fleet of jets manufactured pre 2007.

The Australianisation of what could be a simple after market fix for many Part 25 certified airframes is nothing more than a WOFTAM, that is costing the very industry that the regulator is meant to support, a fortune for zero increased safety benefit.

Licencing is another issue, in the US I can complete a type rating on a transport category aircraft in the sim. The check airman can issue me a temporary airman certificate I can walk out of the sim centre across the road to the FBO, and jump straight into that aircraft and fly it away on its delivery flight. In Australia, send the paperwork to CLARC and wait 56 days is their current answer....... for what.

The cost to business for that is not sustainable, zero safety benefit.

Unfortunately, in our view the review will end up not fixing anything.

The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down. Scrap the 25 years of the regulatory reform process and pass a bill in the senate thats says from this date the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations will mirror those of the FAA.

Do they have a higher accident/ incident rate per hour flown? per passenger carried? I would argue not, is it risk based affordable safety..... the answer is yes.

[gchriste]

The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down.

Catch 22, this will never happen if no one speaks up. No one seems brave enough to speak up, so nothing happens.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry

The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down.

Scrap the 25 years of the regulatory reform process and pass a bill in the senate thats says from this date the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations will mirror those of the FAA.

or the CAA-NZ regs, which are at least regional

and WORKING

[Creampuff]

TWOBAGS

Yes, unfortunately it’s a snow job.

But the implications of the page you’ve posted on PPRuNe are profound and your organisation can make a submission …. to Senator Xenophon.

And, on 1 July 2014, there’s nothing stopping your organisation from urging the non-major party aligned Senators to follow Senator Xenophon’s lead on matters aviation.

(Bear in mind: The Panel won’t be reporting until “May 2014” – that will almost certainly be ‘re-established’ to beyond May, due to the ‘volume and complexity of the issues raised by the submissions’ received in the context of the terms of reference and the ‘overriding importance of safety and the obvious need to "get the recommendations right"’– so the government will be stalling on doing anything – sorry – ‘waiting with anticipation’ - until the recommendations of the ‘Review’ have been made.

The government’s response to the recommendations of the ‘Review’ will be to announce some ‘fundamental’ changes to a ‘good’ system to make it ‘even better’. Those changes will, in substance, be inconsequential, but at least one will involve legislation. That’s where the non-major party aligned Senators come in.

What the government mooveth, the non-government Senators can amendeth….

(And for Sunfish: The Holden announcement shows just how sensitive the government is to the job-loss shibboleth. i.e. not at all.)

[Up-into-the-air]

casa Job losses to follow??

from creamy:

(And for Sunfish: The Holden announcement shows just how sensitive the government is to the job-loss shibboleth. i.e. not at all.)

Thats good - There won't be any problem with getting rid of a pile of casa non-performers then.

[Kharon]

BRB AGM.

Creampuff # 148 But the implications of the page you’ve posted on PPRuNe are profound and your organisation can make a submission …. to Senator Xenophon.

Compared to the last hilarious weekend outing at Mr McKenzie's private lake (LBG) with a BBQ, elephant rides and a couple of effigy burnings (we did, most assiduously clean up afterwards) the formal annual meeting was a serious, even sombre affair. We even went 'hi-tech' and abandoned the usual carrier pigeons in favour of Skype for communications with our colleagues far from home.

Overshadowing proceedings, the Truss stitch up and what to do, for best. Not to much wind was wasted deciding that this wet lettuce leaf inquiry has been subject to a right royal embuggerance. Pretty much a given. Not to waste your time; the following ideas found the most merit:-

1) The notion of bombarding Sen NX with (probably) 2 or 300 hundred submissions was impractical; however the idea of sending a short succinct email voicing your objections and supporting a request for Senate committee involvement would be worth the time. cc Barnaby Joyce....(evil icon).

2) That those who wish to should send a submission to the review should do so. Keep it 'simple' and mention regulatory reform, without reform of the regulator is a waste and just another, pointless PC/PR exercise. It should be a fairly easy exercise to add a politely phrased objection to the terms of reference, lack of public reporting, the demeaning, intimidating pre bout rhetoric, the lack of any real protection and the perception that this review is an exhibition bout, rather than a title fight. (see your local wordsmith) and cc Barnaby Joyce.

3) – Three; aye well, three was 'off the wall'. But, a majority vote declared it a bloody good idea, to wit: a petition to Clive Palmer asking he present a private members bill supporting a notion to "Stop buggering about, bring in the NZ CAR, import some NZ talent to steer the process, and clean out the vermin". cc Barnaby Joyce.

There is some serious talent in the BRB, they reckon that it would take a five man team about a month to 're jig' some of the local peculiarities in the NZ CAR and make a working rule set. The Australian AIP being a whole different world of pain, but doable. One of the crew has compliance templates for parts 121, 125 and 135 to provide a guide for CP 's who would need to redraft (down size) their COM, and I am assured that similar templates are available for the engineering sector (foreign language to me). The proposal was marked for further serious consideration, it's wild, but I confess the more I think about it, the better I like it. P7 (TOM) and I walked home in a very thoughtful mood.

Anyway, there you have it, for what it's worth, a paraphrased, potted version of the Bar Room Barristers AGM. The Christmas bash is always a happier, if not healthier affair. (big grin).

[Frank Arouet]

QUOTE: Lo the regulator. He riseth in the morning and upsetteth the whole applecart. Mighty are his endeavors. He goeth forth with great evil and no love in his heart and when the day is spent he returneth, smelling of strong drink and happy, and the truth is not in him.QUOTE
Anonymous.


Our new Attorney General is on to this mob. I doubt the obsfucation in the trussed up affair on note will pass muster when he gets through with his little inquisition. Someone should ask George Brandis what he's up to. Funny how these things dovetail into each other. (happy Frank smilie).

[denabol]

Ben has put up a post on the Senate matters and Truss today.

ATSB chopper emergency inquiry contradicts Pel-Air report | Plane Talking

[Sunfish]

The coming recession is going to put so much strain on the economy that CASA will have to go under, or their won't be a GA sector at all.

My own (uninformed) take on the CASA rules and regulations is that they are unworkable and the product of a dysfunctional organisation.

THe rules and regulations are not clear and readily understandable and seem to be designed to allow the regulator totally unfettered action to the point of an Alice in Wonderland standard.

The ATSB has been totally compromised

Air Services Australia is a failed ATC organisation thanks to a "profit centre" mentality that destroyed the controller base.

The AAT process used by CASA is abused.

So herewith my submission:

'Here!' cried Alice, quite forgetting in the flurry of the moment how large she had grown in the last few minutes, and she jumped up in such a hurry that she tipped over the jury-box with the edge of her skirt, upsetting all the jurymen on to the heads of the crowd below, and there they lay sprawling about, reminding her very much of a globe of goldfish she had accidentally upset the week before.

'Oh, I BEG your pardon!' she exclaimed in a tone of great dismay, and began picking them up again as quickly as she could, for the accident of the goldfish kept running in her head, and she had a vague sort of idea that they must be collected at once and put back into the jury-box, or they would die.

'The trial cannot proceed,' said the King in a very grave voice, 'until all the jurymen are back in their proper places—ALL,' he repeated with great emphasis, looking hard at Alice as he said do.

Alice looked at the jury-box, and saw that, in her haste, she had put the Lizard in head downwards, and the poor little thing was waving its tail about in a melancholy way, being quite unable to move. She soon got it out again, and put it right; 'not that it signifies much,' she said to herself; 'I should think it would be QUITE as much use in the trial one way up as the other.'

As soon as the jury had a little recovered from the shock of being upset, and their slates and pencils had been found and handed back to them, they set to work very diligently to write out a history of the accident, all except the Lizard, who seemed too much overcome to do anything but sit with its mouth open, gazing up into the roof of the court.

'What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.

'Nothing,' said Alice.

'Nothing WHATEVER?' persisted the King.

'Nothing whatever,' said Alice.

'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'UNimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

'UNimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone,

'important—unimportant—unimportant—important—' as if he were trying which word sounded best.

Some of the jury wrote it down 'important,' and some 'unimportant.' Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; 'but it doesn't matter a bit,' she thought to herself.

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out 'Silence!' and read out from his book, 'Rule Forty-two. ALL PERSONS MORE THAN A MILE HIGH TO LEAVE THE COURT.'

Everybody looked at Alice.

'I'M not a mile high,' said Alice.

'You are,' said the King.

'Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.

'Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: 'besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'

'It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.

'Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.

'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'

'What's in it?' said the Queen.

'I haven't opened it yet,' said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'

'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'

'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.

'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the OUTSIDE.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'

'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of the jurymen.

'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.

'It proves nothing of the sort!' said Alice. 'Why, you don't even know what they're about!'

'Read them,' said the King.

The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. 'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.

'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'

These were the verses the White Rabbit read:—

'They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.

He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?

I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.

If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.

My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.

Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.'

'That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King, rubbing his hands; 'so now let the jury—'

'If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) 'I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.'

The jury all wrote down on their slates, 'SHE doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,' he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; 'I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. "—SAID I COULD NOT SWIM—" you can't swim, can you?' he added, turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. 'Do I look like it?' he said. (Which he certainly did NOT, being made entirely of cardboard.)

'All right, so far,' said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: '"WE KNOW IT TO BE TRUE—" that's the jury, of course—"I GAVE HER ONE, THEY GAVE HIM TWO—" why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know—'

'But, it goes on "THEY ALL RETURNED FROM HIM TO YOU,"' said Alice.

'Why, there they are!' said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. 'Nothing can be clearer than THAT. Then again—"BEFORE SHE HAD THIS FIT—" you never had fits, my dear, I think?' he said to the Queen.

'Never!' said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)

'Then the words don't FIT you,' said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

'It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

[Vref+5]

Anyone read the latest CASA annual report? According to their own report they have more senior managers than FOIs. And the number of staff earning over $180 000 increased by 50% in 1 year. No wonder we have to pay a fortune for everything and have to wait forever to get it

[advo-cate]

ASRR - David Forsyth and Others

Senator Fawcett is encouraging all aviation people with a distinct problem with the regulations to contact the ASRR and make a submission.

Senator Fawcett is aware that numerous people have problems with the Terms of Reference (TOR) and could be concerned about where the information could end up.

He still wishes the industry to make submissions.

It is important to make the submission, particularly as the number of submissions is always important and just being part of a "group submission" does not get the "number clock" running. The group submission does give protection to you, but does not "click-over" the "number clock" that the ASRR has attached to this type of review.

The ASRR are well aware of this.

Consequently, I suggest that you do make a submission in the following format, which you can "cut-and-paste" and get your say recorded as to your problems with confidentiallity and record your feelings as well.

There is a specific form to be used, with the usual tick boxes, then a place to upload an attached file.

The point of contact is via this web-link.

The following may assist you in formulating a response:

The Chair,
Mr. David Forsyth,
ASRR Panel,
CANBERRA 2600

Dear Sir,

SUBMISSION TO ASRR - 2013

I do wish to make a submission to the panel and am aware that the panels TOR are to investigate as follows:

1. the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;
2. the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
3. the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
4. the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and
5. any other safety related matters.

I have had a long experience as to how these matters are not working effectively in Australia through my own experience and with the Regulator (CASA) and at times, other agencies (such as AirServices and ATSB).

I am concerned that if I make a detailed submission to the ASRR, I and/or my business or people that I work with, will be submitted to recriminations or other sanctions, that will affect me personally or my ability to work in the aviation industry.

I believe the best way forward is to stop the flawed regulatory reform process immediately and introduce the CAA-NZ or FAA-FAR's immediately to stop the serious decline in aviation in Australia in safety, training, industry, maintenance and other areas.

I wish you to record my concerns and this submission and convey these to Senator Fawcett, Senator Xenophon and Minister Truss on receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

The pro-forma was (with thanks) up-loaded for your use and is in Word format.


The direct e-mail for the committee is: [email protected]

Senator Fawcett is very interested in the process of this and if you feel inclined, the Senator's e-mail is: [email protected]

[Kharon]

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.

[Cactusjack]

CAsA eCards - Another blunder from Fort Fumble

The buffoons are at it again, this time instead of calendars it's eCards!! Their silly eCard containing robust photos of 'large toys' as well as, dare I say, those pesky whirlybirds is flawed.
On the eCard there is a picture of a B747 fatboy, but it is described with B787 Screamliner words!!
Aagh yes, these guys really really can't get there **** together can they? And they regulate our industry's safety and standards?? Spare me....

[Kharon]

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.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa anyone?? what is their obligation?? in this

The following is FF's latest missive by the "venerable" ceo casa:

Regulation review seeks submissions

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, has announced the opening of the public submission stage of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The review is examining how well the nation’s regulatory system is positioned to ensure Australia remains at the forefront of aviation safety globally. “The general and regional aviation sectors, in particular, have told the Government they are concerned about the costs of regulatory compliance and how our regulatory system compares to other countries,” Mr Truss said. “This review will place us in a strong position to ensure our aviation safety standards remain up to the challenge of meeting the predicted expansion of aviation over the next 20 years. Australia has a world-class aviation safety record but that doesn’t mean we should sit by and just hope it stays that way. I encourage everyone in the Australian aviation industry to engage in this review. The Coalition Government is determined to do everything it can to make a good safety system even better.” The Review Panel, chaired by Mr David Forsyth, has called for public and industry submissions. Submissions close on 31 January 2014. The review panel will provide its report to the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2014.
Submissions to the review can be made through the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website at: Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

This allows a "click through" on the casa site [www.casa.grapevine.com.au]

How on earth can anyone be assured that casa is not "milking out" those who "click through"

BEWARE