Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Prince Niccolo M]

Truss' aviation adviser

Mr Truss' aviation adviser is Ms Peta Credlin, assisted by John McCormick. There is no identifiable need for additional advice

[Sunfish]

Cabinet has correctly calculated that nobody in Australia apart from pilots gives a **** about aviation.


.......at least until the smoking holes start appearing regularly.

[Cactusjack]

Truss' aviation adviser
Mr Truss' aviation adviser is Ms Peta Credlin, assisted by John McCormick. There is no identifiable need for additional advice

Well there you have it really. An 'aviation' advisory team consisting of a young career bureaucrat racing industry PR spin doctor and a silly old pilot with alleged anger management issues. Both advising a well experienced turd polisher and gravy train connoisseur about aviation matters! In turn he of bucked tooth nature and turd polishing advises a Prime Minuscule who has adopted a policy of not being open and transparent on matters affecting our nation but instead telling the nation 'shhhhhhh we won't talk about things'.

My oh my, doesn't that install robust confidence in aviation oversight!

TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

Taking a Mulligan.

Rather than incur the wrath of Tidy Bin by drifting ever closer to the ragged edge of the 'stay on topic', no poems, no chanties and definitely no laughs lecture; thought I'd shuffle further discussion of the Pel Air story across to the Senate thread. It really belongs there and anyway; the WLR is not expected to sort out CWA knitting pattern arguments, let alone this mess. The treatment of pilots in the secret world of the aftermath needs to be brought, clearly and succinctly to the miniscules attention. Not that we'd expect anything done of course; but when the Wet Lettuce Review is over and if we get another wretched thing like the 'Albo white elephant paper' delivered; there will lots and lots for the Senate to play with. Rumour has it that Forsyth and Fawcett chat, which means Xenophon in the loop, so no need to abandon all hope just yet.

The WLB (both of them) come from foreign climes, from a different mind set, from a different rule set and an entirely un-Australian attitude toward the 'pilot-in-command'. I doubt they would credit what was done and still happening to DJ after he'd passed through a normal rehabilitation program. But then I just can't see either Canadian or European pilots being treated in this manner or putting up with it. No matter, there are other dark, but not so dangerous corners into which the WLB may shine their guiding light. The advisors will undoubtedly show the way.

[Jinglie]

Mea culpa

K, if LV is so experienced, why did he screw the flight planning figures (see Davies submission) I wonder?? Perhaps Wodger should require him to re-sit all his ATPL theory and conduct a flight test by and industry nominated ATO!
What goes around....!

[aroa]

A new high in safety advice...!! WTF !!

WE / the IOS / GA industry can now all sleep well at night knowing that Ms Peta Credlin, the unknown ...is to be "assisted" by the unmentionable. FCS!

One seriously aviation knowlegable "safety adviser" she must be to need that kind of back up. Independent???...yeah, right!

Good one, "Minister"...this is CAsA CYA 101 PhD quality blanket move.

Looking forward to the White (dunny) Paper to tell us what a wonderful aviation environment we "live" in.

You cant be an eagle if you're trussed like a turkey

[Paragraph377]

Sarcs, post #1692 on the senate inquiry thread, well done sir
It also applies to this thread, nice bit of work. Amazing how the same names pop up consistently whenever there is CASA shenanigans going on? Sarcs, are you using that robust program Sky Sentinel to put your data together?
There are so many clues in many of Fort Fumbles writing styles. It isn't too difficult to tell when you have been targeted by the GWM, or when Flyingfiend has been doing his thing, or when you are being wogered by Woger or when you are under the spell off a Voodooist.
The treatment of Dominic James is palpable. The method in which there was an attempt to slow bake him, the audacity of the Regulator in its modus operandi is deplorable and absolutely questionable, and the freeness, ease and dexterity of the Regulators disregard for ethics and systematic abuse and 'embuggerance' of the system is breathtaking at times.
The CASA house of cards has collapsed, the Frankenstein (as Creampuff correctly puts it) has morphed into something similar to "The Thing". It is a rabid dog that needs to be put down immediately. I have seen this all before in another country, and the end game isn't pretty. Hard decisions with dramatic results need to be made forthwith before the inevitable occurs.

Finally, can anybody confirm that Crudlin is in fact Mr Truss's aviation adviser per se? I know she is chief of staff for the big eared speedo wearers inner sanctum of oinkers, which includes Truss. I thought MrDak was Truss's information and technical adviser on all things aviation, with Crudlin being more the policy and spin writer? Perhaps not, I have lost track and the trail of political **** leads from one corner of Canberra to another.

On a final note, the current malaise and spotlight rests with the Regulator, and rightly so, but don't forget that the ATSB and ASA still aren't out of the woods. ASA has a lot to answer for, particularly from the Russell era with which many effects are still being felt today. And there is the ridiculous way that the ATSB has virtually prostituted itself to CASA, not to mention its complete loss of direction, standards, capability, reputation, and independence. Once again a feeble, inept attempt at creating perfection has resulted in an ATSB Frankenstein of monumental proportions.

Forget tick Tock, VOTE 1 IOS

[Sarcs]

Around the traps….??

Well less than a week out from WLR submission due date, perhaps now would be a good time for an IOS review of industry planned involvement, possible content of individual/organisational submissions & whether or not submitters are basically singing from the same hymn sheet...

At the same time maybe we can inspire the fence sitters to take the plunge and grab the keyboard, even if it is a regurgitation of a submission they may feel akin to, with a proviso of… “I agree wholeheartedly and unconditionally with what this mob are suggesting”….


However before we kick off we need to mention the now familiar elephant in the room..






And much like Albo before him, the miniscule fails to address the EITR in his WLR ToRs...


A true bona fide IOS member Maxtreight.. (however) ‘nails ’ the EITR in a comment tacked on the end of an Australian Flying article…Safety Review Open for Submissions

…“CASA needs to be completely removed from the General Aviation (GA) picture. It has shown total ineptitude with its involvement with GA, most recently with the aborted implementation of the brilliant new Part 61 licensing regulations. The structure of CASA may well be suited to the oversight of RPT operations, but as far as its involvement with GA is concerned CASA has been too far removed for far too long. CASA take a persecutorial approach to even the most minor of regulatory infractions by GA pilots and those who are on the CASA blacklist best just give up the game early or face the litigation-fest that is the CASA legal department….”

Refer to the link above for more of Max’s insightful comment…


{Note: Maxtreight your outstanding IOS membership fees for ’14 have been waived in lieu of this contribution}


Ok on to the IOS review…


Many of the various alphabet soup aviation organisations have expressed an interest in getting involved in the WLR, how many of those will actually make submissions is anyone’s guess..?? However a troll of g.o.o.g.l.e and organisational websites seem to suggest that there will be a healthy contribution from a large number of industry stakeholders:

FedSec Steve’s crew ALAEA - Aviation Safety Regulation Review — Submissions from members

“..Now Open ALAEA members are invited to provide to the ALAEA any views, experiences or evidence that the ALAEA may use in preparing a submission to the Federal Govt on Aviation Safety. Our submission has to be completed and submitted to the Minister Dept by 31st January 2014. See media release below…”

The AAA (airport’s mob) - “ The AAA looks forward to contributing to the review process on behalf of Australia’s airport operators.”

The SAAA – President’s Chat newsletter December 2013

“..We have a relatively short space of time to put together a written submission to the panel, I would therefore ask you to have a read of the terms of reference and then put your thoughts into an e-mail and either submit it yourself directly to the Panel, or preferentially to [email protected] so that we can present a united voice to the Panel & therefore the Minister…”

AMROBA - As quoted in my earlier post # 300, AMROBA well and truly indicate where their submission is going in their latest Newsletter


“… Adoption of the Kiwi aviation Act & Regulations in toto would put us in a better position to obtain these important agreements…”

{Comment: The interesting thing with AMROBA & AAA is that both organisations are also part of… ‘THE AUSTRALIAN AVIATION ASSOCIATIONS’ FORUM’…so presumably their personal submissions will strongly reflect the TAAAF Aviation Policy. Hmm…wonder if the TAAAF will also be making a combined submission??}

While on the TAAAF and the letter ‘A’, it is interesting that AOPAA chose not to sign up to this ‘alliance’ for the reasons stated in this Australian Flying article: AOPA Responds to TAAAF Issue

So to AOPAA…this is one submitter that has made a draft submission publicly available and therefore open to IOS scrutiny… - Submission to regulator review panel, from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, (AOPA).{Hmm..is this a conflict of interest submission perhaps??}

Well there is a small cross-section example to mull over on the Australia Day long weekend…more to follow K2 (Sarcs)…

[Frank Arouet]

Well, the AOPAA individual submission goes to a 'page not found' page and the president appears to have memory loss WRT membership numbers and exactly who he represents today, (not 60 years ago). This organizational miasma purporting to represent me also have a senior member as an 'expert' advisor to the 'review' do they not? I doubt Truss knows what a TAAF is, let alone SBAS/GBAS/WAAS or wassamattermate?

[Sarcs]

Passing strange Frank…??

Frank:

Well, the AOPAA individual submission goes to a 'page not found' page and the president appears to have memory loss WRT membership numbers and exactly who he represents today, (not 60 years ago).

It would appear the AOPAA link is now defunct….

Perhaps it was…

…the COI query that did it..??

…an extreme overload of the url link due to the many thousands of IOS members interest in what ‘the voice of GA’ had to say??

…sudden realisations that maybe the proposed submission may breach the unwritten, politically correct MOU with FF??

…an IT glitch and it was never intended for the submission to be available for general (IOS) consumption??

Shame really.....it could have been a good promo for future membership.

The draft submission may have only been five pages and somewhat diluted for impact (i.e. as per the UMOU), but the general premise of the submission was on the whole pretty good...

Dilemma: How are the IOS to do a proper, comprehensive & transparent....review, of committed industry stakeholders to the WLR, without documented evidence such as the AOPAA draft submission??

Well it just so happens that I downloaded a hardcopy of the AOPAA draft submission, so maybe some cherry picked paragraphs (again unverified for veracity..) could be of interest to the IOS review panel…
{Note: Please bear in mind that this is ‘draft’ only and 3rd hand, therefore not to be relied on for veracity & true final AOPAA opinion i.e. hearsay only}

Skipping the standard couple of pages with the usual preamble, organisation priorities..etc..etc; and the problems that AOPAA believe face GA, now and into the future; we finally get to the ‘meat & veg’ section (pages 3-5):

Specifically, the aspects of the regulator that we believe requires change are as follows.

1. Industry consultation. Although communication (and subsequent goodwill) between GA and CASA has improved in recent years, it is a fact that new regulations or changes in regulations are frequently presented to GA as an ultimatum.
A consultative approach is required with those contending with and introducing innovations and technical improvements in all aspects of aviation. This calls for legislative reform.
It is apparent that the CASA legal department, whilst efficient and capable in itself, has an influence which leads to preoccupation with legalistic arguments. Legalism is an arid process. Aviation is an industry of practical and constantly changing technology. Legalism should give way to practicality in the development of aviation.

2. CASA enforcement. The industry is rife with stories of individuals who have been “persecuted” by CASA. Sometimes these cases do sound like individual disagreement “payback” fights, and sometimes problems occur through an area FO making his own interpretation of rules in contrast to everyone else. Sometimes these arguments go on for years at high cost to all concerned. Justice should be seen to be done and the processes
altered to enable that to occur.

3. Aviation should be encouraged by CASA as part of its formal charter. Having its charter limited to ‘Aviation Safety’ encourages negativism, which is widely seen in practice. There is no settled standard for ‘air safety’. This leaves CASA with a poorly identified obligation, and
no obligation to act for the benefit of Australian aviation.

4. Australian LAME training standards are lower than those of NZ. Our training schools don’t align curriculums to industry requirements, and those curriculums vary from state to state.
We should support an Australasian / Pacific approach to maintenance. CASA will base future AMR licences on academic achievement, with insufficient emphasis on experience.

5. Inconsistent CASA policies: CASA must be required to act coherently across all of its officers and offices.

6. To the outside observer, sometimes CASA appears to consist of 4 organizations in one, and each part appears to believe it runs the organization in the style of the Satraps. Those 4 parts are upper management, middle management, the field officers, and the legal dept.
This may be an unfair criticism, but again to the outside observer, CASA often appears to fail to adhere to government directives, or to enforce its own regulations. Different interpretation of regulations by middle management, field officers, and by the legal dept can cause the hapless aviator considerable difficulties.
The 4 parts of CASA make consultation with industry very difficult. Many is the time that various GA organizations have thought to have come to an agreement with CASA, only to find that an agreement has been ignored or reversed by another of CASA’s “parts”. A formalized consultative procedure that overcomes this problem would be very desirable.

7. Constant regulatory changes breed confusion, mistrust and doubt. A safety case should be presented and debated prior to any alteration to the Act, Regulations and other dictums.
CASA’s regulatory changes frequently have no perceptible safety outcome, or certainly none relevant to GA.

8. Pilot licencing: This extensive topic will no doubt be dealt with by others. We limit our comment to suggest that proper accord should be given to foreign training qualifications.
We have seen highly qualified and experienced pilots required to sit for exams in Australia, even when their overseas training was from facilities recognized as the best in the world.
This can be inconvenient and costly for Australian pilots, and can make it impossible for overseas pilots who wish to fly and/or holiday in Australia.

9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, demanding specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and frequent rejection of those specialist reports Avmed has demanded. Demands have become ever more complex and expensive; opinions of DAMEs are often ignored, and opinions of appropriate specialists are often ignored. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor. It can be argued that CASA should rely more on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.

10. Passenger Insurance: AOPA calls for an industry wide insurance scheme in the manner of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act (Cth) to be made applicable and exclusively so for all passengers in all Australian aircraft, whether paying passengers, students or otherwise.

11. EASA rules. The GA industry appears to be universally against this implementation. These rules are designed for and suit airline aircraft, not private GA. They are too complex for a typical small GA maintenance organization, and thus add more expense. Most GA aircraft are FAA type-certified. It is perverse and inappropriate to adopt European Rules.

Other Pacific nations, including NZ (which has a thriving GA scene), use FAA regulations. In fact we would do well to align ourselves with NZ, in regulation of individuals (not organizations), training and qualifications, and with inspection authorizations.

{Note: The above would appear to be part of an exec summary, as there were numerous references at the end of each numbered paragraph. Presumably there is intended to be a factual addendum that addresses the individual points more comprehensively}

And finally the money shot.. (i.e. Conclusion):

D. Conclusion.


Without a radical revision, it seems that GA will follow so many other
Australian industries into oblivion, taking jobs, opportunities, and skills with it. The prospective GA pilot faces problems with access to airfields, high costs, and a far from appealing ageing aircraft fleet. The aircraft owner faces a frequently hostile airport owner, shortage of licenced maintenance engineers, rising maintenance costs, increased paperwork, and such uncertainty with both CASA and airport owners that it
is difficult to obtain finance to purchase new aircraft.
Addressing the problems with CASA would go a long way towards easing this situation, as has been demonstrated by NZ’s adoption of the FAA GA model about 17 years ago. It is fact that since then, NZ’s GA has outstripped Australia’s.
We have heard it said that where it takes a wheelbarrow to carry a copy of all regs pertaining to GA, New Zealand’s can be carried in one hand. This may be an exaggeration, but it is not an exaggeration to say that adoption of the NZ regulatory system for GA would improve the prospects of GA’s survival.

Hmm…so that'd be another tick for adopting the NZ regs....Ok over to you IOS review panel….

[Up-into-the-air]

ASRR

Browsing today takes me to the Truss words in Hansard when he announced the "Review":

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (10:54): by leave—Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—our safety performance is among the best in the world—and it is built on a strong regulatory system and the commitment to safety that is shared amongst the thousands of companies and the tens of thousands of individuals who make up our aviation industry. Aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities, our cities to the world. The industry employs tens of thousands of Australians and supports investment and innovation, but it is also an enabler for broader economic activity, particularly outside of our major population centres.

Our aviation industry is growing strongly—and is expected to double in size in the next 20 years. We are also witnessing a myriad of changes:
the growth of new routes and markets with resulting changes in risk;

• new air traffic management technology;
• the introduction of new aircraft types and larger aircraft, with more sophisticated technology on board, and more complex support requirements on the ground;
• the rapid growth of emerging segments of the industry such as recreational aviation;
• increasing difficulty for the general aviation sector to cope with a more complex regulatory system; and
• increasingly, an industry that must be able to compete internationally.

Any regulatory system must evolve to keep pace with the industry it regulates. Given the speed with which the aviation industry evolves, the need for continued improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system is even more critical than in many other sectors. So now is the right time to reflect and take stock of how our safety regulatory system is placed to deal with this economically important industry. The coalition government is determined to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to make our safety system even better.

Today, I am pleased to inform the House that the Australian government has met its commitment and commissioned an independent review of aviation safety regulation. This is a key element of the aviation policy we took to the last election. The review—to be undertaken by a panel of three eminent and experienced members of the international aviation community—will examine how well our regulatory system is positioned to ensure we remain at the forefront of aviation safety globally. This review will consider the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety, and the relationships and interactions of those agencies as they work together in one system. It will consider the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and it will benchmark our safety regulations and regulatory systems against other leading countries. Safety will always remain the government's highest priority in aviation policy. That will never change.

In delivering on that unwavering commitment we can, and should, make sure we are regulating in a smart and efficient manner. The government has a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business, and this goal will be part of the review. If there are ways to improve our safety outcomes and reduce the regulatory burden and the costs imposed on industry, then we can create a win-win outcome for the Australian economy overall. In doing this, I acknowledge the concerns being expressed by some sectors of the aviation industry, in particular, general and regional aviation, about the costs of regulatory compliance and how outcomes of the current aviation safety regulatory reform program compare with regulatory approaches in other countries.

The review will also consider matters raised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations. That inquiry, with its long and detailed examination, highlighted a number of issues with our air safety regime that warrant further consideration. The committee's report will be a valuable perspective for the review panel.

I am very pleased with the breadth and depth of expertise that we have secured to conduct this review. Mr David Forsyth, a respected aviation engineer and former airline executive, current chairman of Safeskies Australia, and former chairman of Airservices Australia, will chair the review panel, bringing over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business. Made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2013 for his significant service to the aviation industry, Mr Forsyth will bring his leadership and safety experience to this important task.

To deliver an international perspective, he will be joined on the panel by Mr Don Spruston from Canada and Mr Roger Whitefield from the United Kingdom.
Mr Spruston was, until recently, Director-General of the International Business Aviation Council. He is a former Director-General of Civil Aviation and Transport Canada and a former adviser to the International Civil Aviation Organization, where he helped develop the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program which is now used across the globe as a means of assessing the health of national safety oversight systems.

Mr Whitefield combines over 30 years experience as a pilot and senior executive with British Airways with 10 years experience as a board member on the UK Civil Aviation Authority, giving him insights into both the regulation and the operation of civil aviation internationally. He was an external adviser to the Qantas Safety Board for six years and is Chairman of Air Safety Support International.

Together, the panel brings together a broad and complementary range of aviation experience across technical, operational, regulatory and management roles in both the public and private sectors. The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers to assist on specific aspects of the review. The specialist advisers will ensure that the perspectives of different sectors are heard.

I recognise that it is particularly difficult for the diverse general aviation sector to have its voice heard in a review like this and so I have asked Mr Phillip Reiss, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, to take a particular responsibility as a specialist adviser to ensure that the concerns of general aviation and regional operators are well aired. His experience will provide valuable insight and technical expertise to the panel. But this panel, no matter how expert, could not take forward the review process without listening to the views and input of the aviation industry and members of the Australian community, and I would expect that many people will wish to contribute their views to the review. The review panel will engage with industry and other stakeholders, with a period of public consultation to take place over the coming months. Further details will be available on my department's website in the near future.

The review I am announcing today will be systemic and strategic in nature. It will not be reopening previous air safety investigations nor will it be a forum to resolve individual complaints or grievances. It is about the future regulatory challenges and growing our industry.

This government is determined to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to make a good safety system even better. I have moved quickly to establish this review and, to maintain momentum, I have asked the panel to report its findings to me by May 2014.

The aviation sector in Australia is vitally important for our economy and for the wellbeing of Australians. We must ensure that we foster an aviation industry that is dynamic, growing and overseen by a regulatory system that delivers the highest level of safety.

I table the ministerial statement and the terms of reference for the review. I ask the House for leave to move a motion to enable the member for Grayndler to speak for 8½ minutes.
Leave granted.

Mr TRUSS: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Grayndler for speaking in reply to the minister's statement for a period not exceeding 8 and a half minutes.
Question agreed to.

AND Albanese's reply:

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:03): Labor welcomes the minister's statement and the announcement of a further review into the regulation of aviation safety. As the minister said, this country has an enviable record of aviation safety, the result of governments of either political persuasion taking a nonpartisan approach to this issue, as is entirely appropriate. During the period in which the current minister was the shadow minister, when it came to safety and security issues they were dealt with in a manner above politics, and I intend to adopt exactly the same approach. It is absolutely critical that safety not be an issue which becomes part of the political contest.

It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead.
All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government. We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation. I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues.

I think this plan has got it right by looking forward and making sure that it looks at the strategic framework and the balance that must be there between appropriate safety, regulation and costs. The minister referred to that and I would agree with that. I would say this, though: there should be no compromise in terms of safety being the absolute priority—something I am sure that the minister agrees with.

I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel.
About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector.
I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience.

In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes.
That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.

In conclusion, the aviation sector injects some $7 billion into the Australian economy each year. Australia has an enviable record of aviation safety, but we should not be complacent at any time. We need to ensure that we keep our personnel appropriately trained and skilled and be prepared to provide proper resourcing.

In 2010, I was very proud that Labor announced an additional $90 million in funding over four years to provide CASA with long-term funding stability. That was not an easy process to get through our cabinet, but people recognised that this was a priority. I would say to the minister that it is important that the resourcing from government to these organisations in charge of safety and security also be kept up. This extra assistance that we provided has allowed the authority to better meet the demands of a growing and ever more complex domestic and international industry.

The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians.

I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May.

I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support.

No admission by Albanese of the reply that he never gave to the parliament.

Too hot to handle perhaps??

[Frank Arouet]

Truss puts aviation head of concerns.....etc.

In the Truss website link below he invites input on various topics. Given he is the Minister for Transport, one would think this would be high on his list of invitations for comment. What hope have we got with this bloke?


Warren Truss MP (Federal Member for Wide Bay and Leader of The Nationals)

[thorn bird]

Absolutely None Frank, he's a seat warmer. His lifetime pension assures him a very comfortable lifestyle, he's hardly likely to rock the boat now.

[Sarcs]

Submissions & common themes...??

4 days and counting on the road to doom or redemption...

Moving right along.....noticed the non-powered crew (GLF) had an invite to meet with the WLRP prior to Xmas...

Aviation Safety Review

In December last year the Vice-President and I were invited to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister’s independent aviation safety regulation review panel to discuss important aspects impacting our aviation sector. We agreed to submit a Briefing Advice to assist the Panel’s review as a fore-runner to an eventual submission to the panel. A copy of that briefing advice can be found HERE.


Submissions to the panel are to be lodged by 31 January 2014 and I encourage every Australian glider pilot concerned about the future of our great interest and sport make their own submission after reading our advice to the panel.I encourage every glider pilot and supporter concerned for our future to lodge a submission to the Minister’s Review Panel and express their personal thoughts about what they think is important for our gliding Freedom to Fly.

Coupla quotes from the briefing paper (mentioned above)...

...."5. On the basis of its outstanding safety track-record of the past, the GFA agrees that the current relationship based on exemptions and delegations is better served by the proposed Part 149 Approved Organisation Model. Most important is GFA's continuing right to self-determine and administer its own culture and rule-making, its role in supporting glider pilots in command, their clubs and the maintainers ensuring the operating efficacy of the craft they fly; plus GFA’s agreed Manuals of Standard Procedures, operating rules, record keeping and audit activities..."

..."7. CASA’s respect for GFA’s role in self-administering Australia’s gliding realm and to not remove it from that role without first showing due cause and a process incorporating natural justice..." {Natural justice you say?? What's that....don't think that falls into the vernacular in the halls of Fort Fumble.. }

Ok moving on to the common themes...


.... "11. Oversight by CASA must be only via the GFA's manuals, procedures and structures, and not by direct intervention. Two recent examples of CASA officers circumventing the GFA in its dealings with its members. This undermined GFA’s authority to oversee and administer gliding in Australia with consequent negative safety outcomes. The importance of a mutually respectful and mindful oversight of gliding in Australia must be paramount.

12. Oversight and compliance is mostly achieved through a watchful and caring culture where subtle layers of fellow club members, instructors, safety officers, duty pilots and pilot peers look out for each other. It is an elegant, effective and respectful approach to mentoring and performance development. On the rare occasions (< 0.1% pa) that stronger discipline is necessary, infraction has been satisfactorily resolved over time. Criminal culpability as currently proposed by CASA is counter-productive to the just culture and safety management Australian gliding has developed and refined over decades..."

Part in red...now where have I heard that opinion voiced before...??

Finally GFA's message for the panel :

1. GFA recognises and appreciates the cooperation and collaboration evident within CASA through the Associate Director of Aviation Safety and the Self Administering Sport Aviation Office,

2. The Part 149 Approved Organisation model is the correct way forward,

3. Funding and the method of fair audit of GFA requires further consultation,

4. GFA is held in high regard by aviation generally and is well placed with CASA to build upon its existing administration and oversight of gliding in Australia,

5. A punitive, authoritarian and disrespectful attitude exists within the regulator’s approach to serving the best interests of Australia’s aviation industry. This is out of touch and not aligned with modalities for success, and

6. A thriving aviation sector is critical for Australia’s future. CASA’s current thrust is detrimental to this outcome and is unsupportable. A Ministerial Policy is urgently needed directing CASA to adopt a core mission to support and promote a vibrant, successful, diverse and thriving aviation sector.

Anyway over to the IOSRP...

Addendum: Someone sent me a PM link to the RAA's forum site that is currently running a similar thread..thank you for that..

Here's a particular (pertinent) post of interest from Oscar..: Post # 84

[Frank Arouet]

Years ago I had a serious complaint against CASA and "ministerialised" them resulting in a recommendation I take the matter up with The Commonwealth Ombudsman, as one was able to do in those days. CASA immediately pushed for an "own motion investigation" which limited my complaint to a vexatious loss of my evidence and left me with limited scope to attack them on due process and my claim of cronyism.


Today I note Fairfax newspapers and "our ABC" exposing corruption in the Unions and calling for blood. This, to my thinking was calling for an "own motion investigation" based on left leaning entity findings. I found it amazing anybody would see anything remarkable with exposure of this activity with the Unions, indeed it has been ignored in the main for six years. But the similarities struck me. See justice done under our terms.


Wouldn't it be grand to have a review into CASA as an "own motion" idea?


Write your own terms of reference with as near as possible accurate complaints, refuse to include historic data and push to ensure a pre determined outcome, then sacrifice someone to appease the plebs and just continue as before. Same horse with a different jockey.


I hope I'm wrong about Truss and his agenda, but unfortunately I have no faith that he will deliver an outcome beneficial to aviation in Australia, especially to Manufacture, GA and Engineering fraternity.


We all should beware The Ides of march, not just The DAS.


I wonder, will he get a reference with his golden handshake?

[Cactusjack]

I wonder, will he get a reference with his golden handshake?

Of course he will Frank. If they frog March him out the door it will make the Miniscule look bad, so the cigar man will leave with a nice reference letter and an email saying he has gone to take on a new venture - spending time with the pot plants, starting up a lettuce farm, Captain on the Ferryboat, worm farmer, pineapple plantation caretaker.......
Toot toot, all aboard!

TICK TOCK

[Paragraph377]

Truss builds upon the Grankenstein

Sarcs, I always enjoy your analytical posts and well researched information. 10/10. However, and there is always a however, it is painfully obvious that the WLR is a standard 101 government exercise in massaging the turd.
Truss promised a review of CASA as part of the Liberals desperate attempt to win votes at the election. A standard empty promise, but then they won! What to do what to do?? They must continue the farce and robustly look into the current malaise, and without rehashing old material, the WLR was born. A clever concoction of spin, magic tricks, massaging, deflection and of course 'all of it kept safe, in a safe, in the safe city of Canberra'!

The Australian aviation industry, the media (except some ABC reporters, Sandilands and Phelan) and most in general have been either duped by the pony act, are sadly as dumb as a pigs anus or quite simply couldn't give a **** (that will change when 200 charred fragmented unidentifiable corpses are removed from a smoking hole by using tweezers and a small spoon )

If Truss and his chief lettuce whippers of Mrdak and Credlin were serious about safety they would never have orchestrated this 'd' grade 70's porno flick called The Wet Lettuce Review. They would have launched a clear, transparent and credible review using known industry independents with real aviation experience and who have a spine. To get the real flavour of what CASA, ATSB and ASA have done, perhaps the WLR could interview the following people, just for ****s and giggles;

- Dominic James
- Nick Xenophon
- Clark Butson
- John Quadrio
- Brian Aherne
- Boyd Munro
- Shane Urquhart

Now wouldn't that be a hoot, and my wordy wouldn't we see the real Australian aviation scene exposed
And I am confident that if the above 7 had their chance to explain clearly, logically and succinctly their personal dealings and in-depth knowledge of working within the system it would be done without the use of limp wristed lettuce leaf slaps, stern talkings and home spun verbal diarrhea.

[Kharon]

Big bang theory- debunked.

P377 # 319 "[couldn't] give a **** (that will change when 200 charred fragmented unidentifiable corpses are removed from a smoking hole by using tweezers and a small spoon". (etc).

Just a stray thought, a twiddle with first coffee; but I wonder if anyone is truly worried about the "smoking hole", CASA least of all. The 'big one' scenario is probably the least of their worries, the 'operator', government, the whole lot will go slip quietly into the bomb shelters and wait it out. The tragic thing is they may be the only survivors after the holocaust and emerge into the new world and (here's the bad bit) start breeding. They built their bomb shelters, finest your money could buy ages ago and have had many, many years to perfect the evacuation and survival plan. The statistics, the law, the system and government all combine to ensure their survival. Nope, for first coffee thoughts, I'd scratch the big bang theory off their list of priorities.

I wonder though, as McComic toddles off home if it's not the 'smoking hole' worrying him, but a 'smoking gun'. I mean once he leaves the building, he leaves all that lovely protection behind and probably some enemies to boot; what if someone had very carefully built an extensive dossier and decided to 'challenge' the man himself, publicly and legally rather than take on the entire organisation what then?. Aye, it has all the makings of a fine novel, but it's probably a much more scary scenario than a well prepared 'smoking hole' defence and much more chance of being published. Name, shame and scandal beats the blame game and when he's no longer pack leader, how long will it be until the other jackals attack. Now I will buy a ticket for that show, front row and centre.

All bollocks, but I can have a daydream with first coffee, can't I ?.

Toot toot.

[Fantome]

well K me old dog's body . .. . . that first caffeine fix is always a wake up call , in one sense at least. If it achieves one illuminating thing it is the thought that you and the others here who are intimately and indubitably informed and thereby able to apply the Conan Doyle scrutiny and analysis to the mix and the mess, are worth your weight in . .. . . whole loads of it, out the back. My first 'hit' was two hours ago as today I shall mosey up to Bris to lunch and parley with the man writing the definitive bio (it can only be hoped) of one Patrick Gordon Taylor (Bill to his confreres). Were PGT still with us he would view the malaise that ails the industry, the chiefs and the sad culpable people who frame and administer the law , most askance.

The seven that para has come up with as potential informants is a good start. As facilitators your 'brigade' should take the thought of calling to arms the blokes listed to another stage. An integrated concerted platform consisting of these and others with like insight, need not be pissing in the wind. Brief them now so they are ready to go down on their marks when the time is ripest. Get some 4 corners type early warning system organised. Have someone like Chris Marsden supplied with a holding brief. Then start grinding them beans again, old bean.

Like 'The Games' it could morph into a droll mini-series . John Clarke could play a credible Skull . On his ear.

[Sarcs]

Borrowed from RAA member Bob...??

One more day...

Hope you don't mind BL but since we're into 'share and share alike'....thought your post from RAA forum was well worth regurgitating?? Kind of put's perspective on history, politics, the current malaise & future choices/actions by industry stakeholders of GA if certain actions/decisions aren't made:

Firstly: We are the only ICAO signatory in the world, whose National Airworthiness Authority DOES NOT have immunity from prosecution in the course of their normal affairs - thank you the Balmain pig PM, Paul Keating. As a result, CASA has had a degree of ****-covering since 1988. Secondly, the several attempts to introduce "and foster" into the Act have all failed, thanks to luddite fools in parliament or the senate. This is a matter of record. Thirdly, Dick Smith did (and still, I suspect, does not) understand the link between "airworthiness" and engineering judgement; so Keating - via Brereton - used him to gut CASA of most of its engineering heritage. Since then, with the exception of Byron, Ministers have been appointing fighter pilots to direct CASA. In parallel, since Anderson's era, our NAA has abused its discretionary authority, flouted the constitution, and exhibited a culture of arrogance that began to lose the credibility of supporting expertise in the late 1970s.

Currently, CASA officers are trained in their responsibilities under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1988, but completely ignore their KNOWN responsibility towards natural justice, when directed by the head fighter pilot. There is no system of internal checks and balances, because CASA has neither the economic resources nor, it would appear, the moral resources* to successfully implement systemic change to the culture. It must be made clear that, at any point in time, CASA has (and has had) a significant number of highly motivated, well educated, and highly capable people, of high personal probity and good intent, who find themselves virtually paralysed in any attempt to reform or improve, due to the pervasive nature of the post-Anderson culture. CASA firmly believes that it has a near-divine responsibility to tell people what they can't do in the interests of safety, and that appointment to a position in CASA automatically imbues the appointee with moral authority, irrespective of the actual expertise. Within this culture, the few persons I have experienced who are persuing personal agendas have virtually no limits on their ability to negate the positive efforts of the most of CASA, most of the time.

*The structure and methodologies of CASA do not allow the officers any discretion to speak of, in allowing their personal probity to inform them in matters of regulatory judgement; I have a letter stating that CASA has a team of lawers to guide officers in making each regulatory judgement. it's not a lawer's bloody job to make engineering judgements, but this is the outcome of Paul Keating's all-embracing comprehension of the economics of management of hardware.

Now, CASA is - pointlessly, because Australia is very much not the US, OR the EEC - trying to emulate those NAAs, but at the same time do not have the corporate guts to recognise that the bulk of aeronautical expertise in Australia is in private industry, and can be used as a resourse to fulfil our ICAO obligations. because, as a member of CASA Engineering Services said to me (in personal conversation), "you can't trust pilots". John McCormack said to me, personally, face to face, in a room full of the operators of Approved Aircraft Maintenance organisations (LAMEs to a person), "what do these guys know about airworthiness? Nothing!". He was a fighter pilot (Mirages), so he knows.

We have a few career politicians, who have been exposed to CASA for so long, that they realise that the furphy of CASA's untouchable expertise is a Furphy; and we have a few relatively young, generally independent MPs, who are sufficiently iconoclastic to consider that CASA may, indeed, be somewhat less than perfect. Well, if they fix the frigging laws, so that CASA people can do their bloody jobs without looking over their shoulders all the time; admit that Australia deserves an aviation industry, and include "foster" as a prime directive in the CAAct; allow the reformers in CASA to work, under a director who (like Byron) was never a fighter pilot; and outsource airworthiness as the FAA so successfully has to DERs (who are members of the FAA when DERing, even if not employed by the FAA - make THAT work in Australia!)... then, in about3-5 years, our industry might start to recover.

Otherwise, we need to really work the trans-tasman bilateral, and move our industry to New Zealand.

Of politics & aviation - Too little..too much??

Interesting article out of the States...:

Congress to the Rescue?

The role of the legislative branch in aviation regulations is a troubling one.

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jan 28, 2014

How do you feel about Congress stepping in and telling the FAA how it should regulate aviation activities? Well, that probably depends on how you feel about the subject they’re weighing in on.

While it’s difficult to come up with hard statistics on the subject, industry observers believe that over the past few years Congress has taken a more active role than ever in mandating aviation regulations from the Hill, with little interference from the President when it comes time to sign them into law.

Over the past several years Congress has weighed in on pilot duty time, pilots’ rights, required experience for airline pilots, contract towers, FAA furloughs, drones, Part 23 regulation, fat pilots and a number of other issues.

Whether you agree with Congress’ views on the individual issues is not the point — we agree with some of its actions, like the Pilots’ Bill of Rights, and disagree with others, like the new ATP requirement for airline pilots. Regardless, the question is still this: How far should Congress go in writing aviation regulations?

It’s not an easy question to answer. For one, as the branch that doles out the dough for federal spending, it is smack dab in the middle of the FAA’s business. Which programs get funding, which ones don’t, which ones get more than their share and which one’s get the shaft, is all in Congress’ power and within its constitutionally delegated duties.

Still, the issue is similar in nature to juries deciding fault in aviation accidents. How can 12 lay-citizens be expected in the course of a couple of weeks to develop a sophisticated enough understanding of aviation issues to render a fair judgment on who was at fault for an accident that was likely so complex that veteran investigators would disagree on the root causes? The answer is they can’t be expected to be good judges, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

The same could be said for Congress. How could 535 non-aviation professionals (with a few exceptions) be expected to create laws requiring aviation regulations that make sense in the complex aerospace world in which we live? The answer again is that they can’t be, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

Of course complicating the matter is the fact that the FAA needs a babysitter. The agency is so entrenched and unresponsive to the needs and rights of the industry it regulates that Congress often has to step in to set the bureaucrats straight.

Read more at Congress to the Rescue? | Flying Magazine

Hmm think I'd prefer the Yanks conundrum than ours...