Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't goats like lettuce?
So how has CAsA improved since 'Lockhart'? Well we have had Pel Air, Canleyvale, regulatory reform..........not to mention the ATsB slipping from a separate entity to CAsA to now being its bitch!!
Full article below:
Lateline - 04/04/2007: CASA under fire over Lockhart River crash
CAsA got slapped with the wet lettuce leaf over Lockhart, and it's been slapped again with a wet lettuce leaf over Pel Air. What will be the catalyst for the next wet lettuce slap? A380 down? A330? Maybe a 737? Why doesn't this ridiculous WLR Team look at the systemic issues that date back? Go talk to some of the victims of Pel Air, or some of the families of the deceased from the Transair accident? No, of course they won't, and why:
MARTIN FERGUSON, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN: If CASA had have been doing its job, the Lockhart River accident, which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
KAREN BERKMAN: The inquiry found that CASA had not properly followed its own procedures and guidelines.
BRUCE BYRON: Yes, I saw that, and that's definitely an area of concern. I would say that across the board CASA’s surveillance needed improvement across all areas.
KAREN BERKMAN: The inquiry found that CASA had not properly followed its own procedures and guidelines.
BRUCE BYRON: Yes, I saw that, and that's definitely an area of concern. I would say that across the board CASA’s surveillance needed improvement across all areas.
Lateline - 04/04/2007: CASA under fire over Lockhart River crash
CAsA got slapped with the wet lettuce leaf over Lockhart, and it's been slapped again with a wet lettuce leaf over Pel Air. What will be the catalyst for the next wet lettuce slap? A380 down? A330? Maybe a 737? Why doesn't this ridiculous WLR Team look at the systemic issues that date back? Go talk to some of the victims of Pel Air, or some of the families of the deceased from the Transair accident? No, of course they won't, and why:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa anyone?? what is their obligation?? in this
The following is from the "new AC" on ADSB:
and at:
Question is - Why do we have casa at all, when they are relying on asa????
and the Safety Case??
AC 21-45 v2.1 APRIL 2014
AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL OF AIRBORNE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST EQUIPMENT
AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL OF AIRBORNE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST EQUIPMENT
APPENDIX D
ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT COMBINATIONS
1. The equipment combinations listed in Schedules 1 and 2 are not exhaustive, and are a historical record and not subject to further update. The lists were compiled from data obtained from individual applications to Airservices Australia by operators wishing to be included in the ADS-B separation services.
2. Following legislative changes and technical review of the performance of existing transponder combinations Schedule 3 lists those combinations that are no longer acceptable for use in Australia. This list is not exhaustive, and is a historical record and not subject to further update.
3. Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems (ACSS) XS-950 transponders are not acceptable unless software modification A is incorporated
ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT COMBINATIONS
1. The equipment combinations listed in Schedules 1 and 2 are not exhaustive, and are a historical record and not subject to further update. The lists were compiled from data obtained from individual applications to Airservices Australia by operators wishing to be included in the ADS-B separation services.
2. Following legislative changes and technical review of the performance of existing transponder combinations Schedule 3 lists those combinations that are no longer acceptable for use in Australia. This list is not exhaustive, and is a historical record and not subject to further update.
3. Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems (ACSS) XS-950 transponders are not acceptable unless software modification A is incorporated
Question is - Why do we have casa at all, when they are relying on asa????
and the Safety Case??
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Junior Ministerial oversight required for aviation portfolio?
So if there is any truth in Mr Abbott's announcement about Badgery, this would be the biggest aviation related event this country has seen in some time. When it comes to the infrastructure portfolio, some of the following areas will require ongoing oversight;
• Completion of/or scrapping the current regulatory reform program and getting the job done, correctly, once and for all.
• The dismantling of CASA and creation of a new aviation safety body.
• The clean up and rebuild of the ATSB.
• The building, planning and structure of Badgerys. Yes to be structured in a way that ensures the taxpayer and government reap some financial gain out of the the asset, not just somebody like J.P Morgan.
• Revamp and streamlining of the Office of Transport Security.
• Improvement and greater oversight of ASA.
• GA assistance. GA has been neglected, misunderstood, undervalued, ignored and trashed for too long by successive governments. The turnaround of this sector is vital and critical.
• To do all this there needs to be the appointment of a Junior Minister for Aviation. Someone who actually knows, understands and has 'tasted' the industry (not someone who only has QF Chairmans lounge experience)
A Junior Minister for Aviation is a justifiable role which must remain separate to the current Infrastructure portfolio. Aviation in this country is far more important than what the Nupty's in power realise. As an example a robust GA sector, properly managed Sydney airport and efficient aviation safety regulations would dovetail to make a quality industry with the spinoff being more jobs and a solid revenue stream. Somebody like David Fawcett would absolutely be the man to implement the changes desperately needed. He has experience, vision and the balls to do it. But it won't happen without our support.
It's time for change. We are a laughing stock and an embarrassment. We are decades in arrears. We are truly a third world outfit in more ways than one, and it has to change.
• Completion of/or scrapping the current regulatory reform program and getting the job done, correctly, once and for all.
• The dismantling of CASA and creation of a new aviation safety body.
• The clean up and rebuild of the ATSB.
• The building, planning and structure of Badgerys. Yes to be structured in a way that ensures the taxpayer and government reap some financial gain out of the the asset, not just somebody like J.P Morgan.
• Revamp and streamlining of the Office of Transport Security.
• Improvement and greater oversight of ASA.
• GA assistance. GA has been neglected, misunderstood, undervalued, ignored and trashed for too long by successive governments. The turnaround of this sector is vital and critical.
• To do all this there needs to be the appointment of a Junior Minister for Aviation. Someone who actually knows, understands and has 'tasted' the industry (not someone who only has QF Chairmans lounge experience)
A Junior Minister for Aviation is a justifiable role which must remain separate to the current Infrastructure portfolio. Aviation in this country is far more important than what the Nupty's in power realise. As an example a robust GA sector, properly managed Sydney airport and efficient aviation safety regulations would dovetail to make a quality industry with the spinoff being more jobs and a solid revenue stream. Somebody like David Fawcett would absolutely be the man to implement the changes desperately needed. He has experience, vision and the balls to do it. But it won't happen without our support.
It's time for change. We are a laughing stock and an embarrassment. We are decades in arrears. We are truly a third world outfit in more ways than one, and it has to change.
Hawaiian pineapple vs miniscule wet lettuce
Ben let's fly on FAA vs FF comparison...
Hawaiian proposed safety penalty sets example for Australia
America’s FAA- its safety regulator and equivalent of Australia’s CASA- has proposed a fine of $US 547,500 be paid by Hawaiian Airlines for among other things ignoring advice that one of its 767-300s did not comply with an airworthiness directive by flying it a further 14 times after its record keeping error was discovered.
This persistent failure to comply with US safety laws might be explained by inadequate management skills, a basic failure to understand simple English, or arrogance, or an operational contempt for the safety rules.
There is no acceptable excuse for what Hawaiian did. Hence the proposed penalty.
It wants to talk to the FAA about this issue in private. This is surely unacceptable. There is nothing private about the consequences of airlines ignoring their obligations to the safety rules and Hawaiian ought to seek a public hearing, so that it’s position can be better understood and its fitness to fly better assessed by members of the public before they find themselves inside its airliners.
Whatever the explanation, the buck in America stops with management, while in Australia, the notion of such transparency in air safety regulation has been anathema when it comes to actual practice in successive governments, including the current one.
Safety is run by department heads, and the managers of the safety authorities, and Ministers appear to shut up and do what they are told, which above all, is not to rock the boat, to mix a metaphor.
This attitude implies an Australian unwillingness to be responsive in the US manner to the public interest, which is that gratuitous or incompetent breaches of the aviation regulations should be punished, like they are when banking or investment fraud or misconduct comes to the attention of our financial regulators. (Oops, another bad metaphor.)
This is what the FAA says in its media statement.
Pel-Air, Barry Hempel, and Transair, are key words which will yield legally privileged court documents and Hansard recorded proceedings that shown that CASA has been a shamefully inefficient and indifferent organisation when it comes to safety administration which can’t even manage today urgent mechanical inspections in Cessnas in a timely manner never mind act in the public interest when known unsafe operations put lives at risk.
We have had a lot of words of contrition at the top of CASA when it has been cornered, but we haven’t had effective or timely action.
CASA doesn’t tell the public that dangerous airlines like defunct Transair are in fact known to be dangerous as a matter of policy. It ignored according to the Queensland coroner the evidence that Barry Hempel was unfit to fly paying members of the public on aerobatic joy rides. It has to be dragged into court, or before Senate committees, to tell things that the public should have been told before blood was spilt, not after.
Which is why examples like the proposed Hawaiian penalty are so important, because they tell us aviation administration in this country is fraught with the risks that come with secrecy in public life. The FAA regularly punishes in public US carriers that fail to adhere to the law. It’s a policy that was given lip service by former Coalition transport Minister John Anderson, but which he failed to deliver on. As have his successors also failed.
The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster.
The current aviation administrative embarrassment for this government is Transport Minister Warren Truss’s otherwise welcome and commendable Aviation Safety Regulation Review. This review, which is due to report next month, has kept all of the supposedly public submissions made to it un-public by not following western democratic practice and making them accessible in a privileged place.
These submissions include a number that are not just severely critical of CASA, but come with detail and allegations.
This amounts to suppression by a Coalition government (which is in full and welcome pursuit of wrong doing in opposition and union ranks) of similarly serious disclosures about the conduct and effectiveness of Australia’s air safety regulator.
It is very poor optics, and it doesn’t serve the public right to be informed, in advance of the release of a review which will inevitably have its legitimacy criticised.
Don't hold back Ben...
Hawaiian proposed safety penalty sets example for Australia
America’s FAA- its safety regulator and equivalent of Australia’s CASA- has proposed a fine of $US 547,500 be paid by Hawaiian Airlines for among other things ignoring advice that one of its 767-300s did not comply with an airworthiness directive by flying it a further 14 times after its record keeping error was discovered.
This persistent failure to comply with US safety laws might be explained by inadequate management skills, a basic failure to understand simple English, or arrogance, or an operational contempt for the safety rules.
There is no acceptable excuse for what Hawaiian did. Hence the proposed penalty.
It wants to talk to the FAA about this issue in private. This is surely unacceptable. There is nothing private about the consequences of airlines ignoring their obligations to the safety rules and Hawaiian ought to seek a public hearing, so that it’s position can be better understood and its fitness to fly better assessed by members of the public before they find themselves inside its airliners.
Whatever the explanation, the buck in America stops with management, while in Australia, the notion of such transparency in air safety regulation has been anathema when it comes to actual practice in successive governments, including the current one.
Safety is run by department heads, and the managers of the safety authorities, and Ministers appear to shut up and do what they are told, which above all, is not to rock the boat, to mix a metaphor.
This attitude implies an Australian unwillingness to be responsive in the US manner to the public interest, which is that gratuitous or incompetent breaches of the aviation regulations should be punished, like they are when banking or investment fraud or misconduct comes to the attention of our financial regulators. (Oops, another bad metaphor.)
This is what the FAA says in its media statement.
LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $547,500 Civil Penalty against Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. for operating a Boeing 767-300 that was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft thousands of times when it was not in compliance with a July 2000 Airworthiness Directive (AD) that required inspections of certain engine thrust reverser components. The purpose of the AD was to prevent a portion of the thrust reverser from coming off in flight, which could cause a rapid decompression of the aircraft.
The AD required initial and repetitive inspections of the components to detect damage and wear, and corrective actions if necessary. It required replacement of the components with new and improved parts within four years of the AD taking effect.
During a July 2012 inspection, the FAA discovered that some of Hawaiian’s records erroneously showed the AD did not apply to one of its Boeing 767 aircraft. The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft more than 5,000 times – mostly on passenger carrying flights – between July 2004 and July 2012 when it was out of compliance with the AD. The FAA further alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft on 14 passenger flights after the agency alerted the carrier that some of its records erroneously indicated that the AD did not apply to the aircraft.
Additionally, the FAA alleges Hawaiian failed to keep required records of the status of the AD for the aircraft in question.
Hawaiian has requested an informal conference with the FAA to discuss the matter.
The contrast with Australia is alarming. As the Pel-Air crash disclosures in the Senate and elsewhere have shown, our safety regulators are obsessed with confidentiality and cover ups, putting the notion that Australia is a country with robust and effective safety regulations into the realm of the ridiculous.The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft thousands of times when it was not in compliance with a July 2000 Airworthiness Directive (AD) that required inspections of certain engine thrust reverser components. The purpose of the AD was to prevent a portion of the thrust reverser from coming off in flight, which could cause a rapid decompression of the aircraft.
The AD required initial and repetitive inspections of the components to detect damage and wear, and corrective actions if necessary. It required replacement of the components with new and improved parts within four years of the AD taking effect.
During a July 2012 inspection, the FAA discovered that some of Hawaiian’s records erroneously showed the AD did not apply to one of its Boeing 767 aircraft. The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft more than 5,000 times – mostly on passenger carrying flights – between July 2004 and July 2012 when it was out of compliance with the AD. The FAA further alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft on 14 passenger flights after the agency alerted the carrier that some of its records erroneously indicated that the AD did not apply to the aircraft.
Additionally, the FAA alleges Hawaiian failed to keep required records of the status of the AD for the aircraft in question.
Hawaiian has requested an informal conference with the FAA to discuss the matter.
Pel-Air, Barry Hempel, and Transair, are key words which will yield legally privileged court documents and Hansard recorded proceedings that shown that CASA has been a shamefully inefficient and indifferent organisation when it comes to safety administration which can’t even manage today urgent mechanical inspections in Cessnas in a timely manner never mind act in the public interest when known unsafe operations put lives at risk.
We have had a lot of words of contrition at the top of CASA when it has been cornered, but we haven’t had effective or timely action.
CASA doesn’t tell the public that dangerous airlines like defunct Transair are in fact known to be dangerous as a matter of policy. It ignored according to the Queensland coroner the evidence that Barry Hempel was unfit to fly paying members of the public on aerobatic joy rides. It has to be dragged into court, or before Senate committees, to tell things that the public should have been told before blood was spilt, not after.
Which is why examples like the proposed Hawaiian penalty are so important, because they tell us aviation administration in this country is fraught with the risks that come with secrecy in public life. The FAA regularly punishes in public US carriers that fail to adhere to the law. It’s a policy that was given lip service by former Coalition transport Minister John Anderson, but which he failed to deliver on. As have his successors also failed.
The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster.
The current aviation administrative embarrassment for this government is Transport Minister Warren Truss’s otherwise welcome and commendable Aviation Safety Regulation Review. This review, which is due to report next month, has kept all of the supposedly public submissions made to it un-public by not following western democratic practice and making them accessible in a privileged place.
These submissions include a number that are not just severely critical of CASA, but come with detail and allegations.
This amounts to suppression by a Coalition government (which is in full and welcome pursuit of wrong doing in opposition and union ranks) of similarly serious disclosures about the conduct and effectiveness of Australia’s air safety regulator.
It is very poor optics, and it doesn’t serve the public right to be informed, in advance of the release of a review which will inevitably have its legitimacy criticised.
Don't hold back Ben...
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ben's article was superb. Bad sadly the culture in Australian politics will always be one of lies, deceit, cover ups and spin. It's embedded, it's historical, it's a culture that will never change.
But here is a thought. Considering the deceitful and weak manner in which our political hierarchy and their departments operate, what confidence does this give the FAA when our airlines travel in to their territory, and their airlines travel in to our territory? Surely that must sit in the back of their minds somewhat? And to be honest, although the FAA is not as clean as it would like others to believe, it does have somewhat larger, more robust testicles. At least most Yanks know if they are travelling on a half decent carrier or one that is a complete cluster f#ck. Sadly we down under don't normally receive such liberty as our pathetic bureaucratic system thrives on deception, obsfucation and outright incompetence.
But here is a thought. Considering the deceitful and weak manner in which our political hierarchy and their departments operate, what confidence does this give the FAA when our airlines travel in to their territory, and their airlines travel in to our territory? Surely that must sit in the back of their minds somewhat? And to be honest, although the FAA is not as clean as it would like others to believe, it does have somewhat larger, more robust testicles. At least most Yanks know if they are travelling on a half decent carrier or one that is a complete cluster f#ck. Sadly we down under don't normally receive such liberty as our pathetic bureaucratic system thrives on deception, obsfucation and outright incompetence.
PT comments plus 'other safety related matters'
P377:
You may well be right Para and on current evidence maybe it will require Sunny's prediction of three smoking holes so that...
"...The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster..."
However while we are on Ben's 'superb' article there are also some excellent comments worth viewing and another (heart felt) troubling publicly available WLR submission..
:
Tick Tock miniscule...
Ben's article was superb. Bad sadly the culture in Australian politics will always be one of lies, deceit, cover ups and spin. It's embedded, it's historical, it's a culture that will never change.
"...The risks of ministerial administrative capture need to be shut down in Australia, before they become the focus of a Royal Commission into a preventable disaster..."
However while we are on Ben's 'superb' article there are also some excellent comments worth viewing and another (heart felt) troubling publicly available WLR submission..
:
discus
Posted April 16, 2014 at 9:57 am | Permalink
David, I do not think that is the point.
One, they did find it even if way too late. Two, having found it they acted strongly.
Finding the error itself is remarkable considering the time and resources it takes to carry out detailed forensic audits like this.
Airlines largely self regulate which is another part of the problem. Problems can be hidden by incorrect data entry, misunderstanding of the AD by the engineers/technical people or just plain negligence.
The point is that, at least it is a public issue and the fine substantial.
The contrast with that and CASA’s secretive operations and somewhat selective attention to some operators is quite clear in the cases Ben has brought to our attention.
There are many good people at CASA but as an organisation they leave a lot to be desired.
My fear is that they are not being allowed to be a more effective regulator.
Self Loading Freight
Posted April 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
The proposal to adopt FAA-style financial penalties in Australia has been raised before and most recently in the ALAEA submission to Forsyth:
http://alaea.asn.au/attachments/arti...n_20140214.pdf
The apparently cosy relationship between CASA and the major operator(s) has been a complaint heard regularly from industry stakeholders including ALAEA and AIPA as well as from GA operators contrasting their treatment by CASA. We can only hope that Forsyth seriously considers both the claim and possible remedies.
Toodle loo.
Pete Simpkins
Posted April 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
CASA is your bog standard public service department with its own typically opaque bureaucracy that hides a 9-5 culture, all ranks filled with incompetent/lazy regulators and relationships that are way to skewed to keeping friendly relations with airlines. It needs a broom, and while I suspect it will never rise to levels of efficiency, it could at least aspire to effectiveness. Unfortunately, I highly doubt this will happen until there’s a serious accident, by which time it can be expected to shock the public. We have a safety record due only to efforts of the industry, which is not acceptable given the statutory responsibilities of CASA. Props Ben for keeping this issue alive, keep doing so.
David Klein
Posted April 17, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Ben, you are correct in commenting on the submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review not being made available to the public being a form of suppression and for this reason my submission has been chapter and verse below:
AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW SUBMISSION
As a retired front line CASA airworthiness inspector I wish to make a submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review panel based on my concerns for the significant shortcoming of the CASA regulatory oversight of Qantas. My experience as an airworthiness inspector from 1987 to 2008 involved over 10 years regulating General Aviation from the Bankstown airport office and another 10 years regulating Qantas with other regional airlines from the Sydney airport office. Unfortunately in my time there were a number of major restructures to the organization and from my observations it has only been the dedicated inspectors working at the coalface, despite ever changing politics and ineffective management of DOA, DOT, DOTC, CAA and CASA, that has kept the Australian aviation industry to even a reasonable level of air safety.
For many of my years working at the Sydney airport office I headed up the airworthiness inspection team to oversight Qantas and I found the limited resources and minimum unrealistic audit regime set by CASA management for the organisation almost beyond belief. At every endeavour when a head office manager from Canberra visited and engaged in an open question forum at the Sydney office I presented my concerns, as the head airworthiness inspector working at the Qantas coalface, but to no avail.
After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.
As an example of my concerns, during my tenure at the Sydney office the CASA Surveillance Manual provided all airworthiness audit requirements, however the matrix in the manual to determine the size of a Certificate of Approval holder, which dictated the type and frequency of audits required was limited to a provision for either above or below 55 staff. There was no separate provision in the manual for Qantas with over 6000 engineering staff and this resulted in the minimum number of audits required in the manual being totally unrealistic for Qantas, given the massive scale of the organisation across Australia and it’s numerous overseas line stations. For the majority of my years at the Sydney office the total number of inspectors dedicated to the Qantas airworthiness team was only four, resulting in a very small audit sample of the organisation and most of the 24 Qantas overseas maintenance line stations rarely received an audit.
Also adding to my concerns is many of the Qantas audits and surveillance requirements took place at Sydney airport where the CASA office was located. Since my retirement the office at Sydney airport has been closed and all front line inspectors have been amalgamated with the Bankstown airport office inspectors to an office building in the Sydney Central Business District, as a CASA cost cutting measure to reduce overheads in administration. However as established in a 2012 Senates Estimates hearing the move into the CBD has been found to actually increase CASA costs. The productivity now lost in travel to achieve the same audits and surveillance on each airport would be incalculable, not to mention the surveillance oversight benefits that are lost in not having a permanent CASA regulatory presence on site.
Trusting the members of the Safety Review Panel will give my submission due consideration towards improving the regulatory oversight performance and accountability of CASA under the “Safety related matters” terms of reference.
Yours sincerely,
David Klein
Posted April 16, 2014 at 9:57 am | Permalink
David, I do not think that is the point.
One, they did find it even if way too late. Two, having found it they acted strongly.
Finding the error itself is remarkable considering the time and resources it takes to carry out detailed forensic audits like this.
Airlines largely self regulate which is another part of the problem. Problems can be hidden by incorrect data entry, misunderstanding of the AD by the engineers/technical people or just plain negligence.
The point is that, at least it is a public issue and the fine substantial.
The contrast with that and CASA’s secretive operations and somewhat selective attention to some operators is quite clear in the cases Ben has brought to our attention.
There are many good people at CASA but as an organisation they leave a lot to be desired.
My fear is that they are not being allowed to be a more effective regulator.
Self Loading FreightPosted April 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
The proposal to adopt FAA-style financial penalties in Australia has been raised before and most recently in the ALAEA submission to Forsyth:
http://alaea.asn.au/attachments/arti...n_20140214.pdf
The apparently cosy relationship between CASA and the major operator(s) has been a complaint heard regularly from industry stakeholders including ALAEA and AIPA as well as from GA operators contrasting their treatment by CASA. We can only hope that Forsyth seriously considers both the claim and possible remedies.
Toodle loo.
Pete SimpkinsPosted April 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
CASA is your bog standard public service department with its own typically opaque bureaucracy that hides a 9-5 culture, all ranks filled with incompetent/lazy regulators and relationships that are way to skewed to keeping friendly relations with airlines. It needs a broom, and while I suspect it will never rise to levels of efficiency, it could at least aspire to effectiveness. Unfortunately, I highly doubt this will happen until there’s a serious accident, by which time it can be expected to shock the public. We have a safety record due only to efforts of the industry, which is not acceptable given the statutory responsibilities of CASA. Props Ben for keeping this issue alive, keep doing so.
David KleinPosted April 17, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Ben, you are correct in commenting on the submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review not being made available to the public being a form of suppression and for this reason my submission has been chapter and verse below:
AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW SUBMISSION
As a retired front line CASA airworthiness inspector I wish to make a submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review panel based on my concerns for the significant shortcoming of the CASA regulatory oversight of Qantas. My experience as an airworthiness inspector from 1987 to 2008 involved over 10 years regulating General Aviation from the Bankstown airport office and another 10 years regulating Qantas with other regional airlines from the Sydney airport office. Unfortunately in my time there were a number of major restructures to the organization and from my observations it has only been the dedicated inspectors working at the coalface, despite ever changing politics and ineffective management of DOA, DOT, DOTC, CAA and CASA, that has kept the Australian aviation industry to even a reasonable level of air safety.
For many of my years working at the Sydney airport office I headed up the airworthiness inspection team to oversight Qantas and I found the limited resources and minimum unrealistic audit regime set by CASA management for the organisation almost beyond belief. At every endeavour when a head office manager from Canberra visited and engaged in an open question forum at the Sydney office I presented my concerns, as the head airworthiness inspector working at the Qantas coalface, but to no avail.
After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.
As an example of my concerns, during my tenure at the Sydney office the CASA Surveillance Manual provided all airworthiness audit requirements, however the matrix in the manual to determine the size of a Certificate of Approval holder, which dictated the type and frequency of audits required was limited to a provision for either above or below 55 staff. There was no separate provision in the manual for Qantas with over 6000 engineering staff and this resulted in the minimum number of audits required in the manual being totally unrealistic for Qantas, given the massive scale of the organisation across Australia and it’s numerous overseas line stations. For the majority of my years at the Sydney office the total number of inspectors dedicated to the Qantas airworthiness team was only four, resulting in a very small audit sample of the organisation and most of the 24 Qantas overseas maintenance line stations rarely received an audit.
Also adding to my concerns is many of the Qantas audits and surveillance requirements took place at Sydney airport where the CASA office was located. Since my retirement the office at Sydney airport has been closed and all front line inspectors have been amalgamated with the Bankstown airport office inspectors to an office building in the Sydney Central Business District, as a CASA cost cutting measure to reduce overheads in administration. However as established in a 2012 Senates Estimates hearing the move into the CBD has been found to actually increase CASA costs. The productivity now lost in travel to achieve the same audits and surveillance on each airport would be incalculable, not to mention the surveillance oversight benefits that are lost in not having a permanent CASA regulatory presence on site.
Trusting the members of the Safety Review Panel will give my submission due consideration towards improving the regulatory oversight performance and accountability of CASA under the “Safety related matters” terms of reference.
Yours sincerely,
David Klein
Tick Tock miniscule...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Former CAsA Inspector Joins IOS
Very interesting post by Mr Klein. People at the coalface often provide a more realistic report on what is truly going on.
No surprise about a lack of QF oversight and a CAsA surveillance procedures manual that doesn't address an organisation the size of QF. Also moving the field office into Sydney's CBD was another brainless idea created by executives with not a clue on how the field operations center truly works. I am surprised they don't move all offices to one location on an offshore oil rig somewhere in the Bass Strait?
Negligible CAsA oversight/audits of international operations including maintenance facilities? No surprise with that. CAsA's pot of money gets spent on 72 year olds getting A380 endo's and on executives jetting off to ICAO conferences, rather than sending inspectors overseas to audit operators and their lack of third party oversight. Imagine CAsA catching an operator out for not auditing its operation internationally? Hypocrites. Then again, the idiot government has yet again told all departments, including CAsA, that they have to shave 10% off the bottom line! How can a regulatory department that operates within a growing sector be expected to take budget cuts? Dolan would be proud!!!
Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'.
TICK TOCK
No surprise about a lack of QF oversight and a CAsA surveillance procedures manual that doesn't address an organisation the size of QF. Also moving the field office into Sydney's CBD was another brainless idea created by executives with not a clue on how the field operations center truly works. I am surprised they don't move all offices to one location on an offshore oil rig somewhere in the Bass Strait?
Negligible CAsA oversight/audits of international operations including maintenance facilities? No surprise with that. CAsA's pot of money gets spent on 72 year olds getting A380 endo's and on executives jetting off to ICAO conferences, rather than sending inspectors overseas to audit operators and their lack of third party oversight. Imagine CAsA catching an operator out for not auditing its operation internationally? Hypocrites. Then again, the idiot government has yet again told all departments, including CAsA, that they have to shave 10% off the bottom line! How can a regulatory department that operates within a growing sector be expected to take budget cuts? Dolan would be proud!!!
Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'.
TICK TOCK
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Owen, you are so clever! You worked it out. I ended my post with TICK TOCK, like Sarcs did, so we must be one and the same!! Amazing!
And you fix planes for a living?? Heaven help us.
And you fix planes for a living?? Heaven help us.
DK & 'other safety related matters' cont..
004:
Red flags indeed 004..
Or to put it another way (& despite Beaker's 'beyond all sensible reason' approach..
) James Reason's Swiss Cheese holes are aligning..
If we refer to the submissions page from the FF admin inquiry in 2008...Submissions received by the Committee as at 18 September 2008...you will see that Mr Klein's submissions are at the top of the page. The supplementary submission begins with...
And the following is the Byron correspondence to DK:
Then if we go to part of the evidence given recently by (TIC: Our resident {quote: militant..
} unionist) Fedsec Steve...
[YOUTUBE]
And here as...
Additional information from Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, received 20 March 2014.
You begin to see that certain sectors from both sides of the industry divide are indeed singing from the same hymn sheet...
So yes (
) miniscule TICK TOCK!
Mr Klein barely scratched the surface, however what he has highlighted should be considered to be 'sending up the red flags'.
Or to put it another way (& despite Beaker's 'beyond all sensible reason' approach..) James Reason's Swiss Cheese holes are aligning..
After my retirement in 2008 I also made a formal submission to the Senate inquiry hearings on CASA management to again express my concerns regarding the lack of Qantas airworthiness audits, but from the information I have received recently the current regulatory oversight by the Sydney office may have been degraded even further.
Dear Senate Inquiry Secretary,
Please find attached the response to my email from Bruce Byron, that I would like attached to my formal senate inquiry submission dated 06 June 2008. Needless to say I'm not happy with the response and it's use of motherhood statements about current airworthiness regulatory oversight resources and use of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as a future solution by CASA. Transport of Canada were the first to implement the SMS regulatory oversight approach about five years ago and from the reports I have read it has been an abject failure.
Regards,
David Klein
----- Original Message -----
From: ANDERSEN, DAVID
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Virgin Airlines international announcement [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
For David Klein
David,
Bruce Byron has asked me to forward the attached letter from him in response to your email concerning CASA's oversight of Qantas and others out of the Sydney office.
Regards
David Andersen
Adviser
Office of the CEO
Please find attached the response to my email from Bruce Byron, that I would like attached to my formal senate inquiry submission dated 06 June 2008. Needless to say I'm not happy with the response and it's use of motherhood statements about current airworthiness regulatory oversight resources and use of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as a future solution by CASA. Transport of Canada were the first to implement the SMS regulatory oversight approach about five years ago and from the reports I have read it has been an abject failure.
Regards,
David Klein
----- Original Message -----
From: ANDERSEN, DAVID
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Virgin Airlines international announcement [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
For David Klein
David,
Bruce Byron has asked me to forward the attached letter from him in response to your email concerning CASA's oversight of Qantas and others out of the Sydney office.
Regards
David Andersen
Adviser
Office of the CEO
Then if we go to part of the evidence given recently by (TIC: Our resident {quote: militant..
} unionist) Fedsec Steve...[YOUTUBE]
Additional information from Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, received 20 March 2014.
You begin to see that certain sectors from both sides of the industry divide are indeed singing from the same hymn sheet...
So yes (
) miniscule TICK TOCK!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMS? What SMS?
The letter from Byron to Klein was somewhat smug in parts, however one expects such attitude from CAsA executives, just look at the Director, Mr Skull, and his attitude toward AMROBA, publicly.
Steve Purvinas (life long member of the IOS and executive manager of sniffing out bull**** and coverups) was bang on the money. QF have lost oversight of third party international providers (interesting as this conflicts with the requirement of a Safety Management System) and CAsA itself has neglected the need to audit third party providers, in this case the providers of maintenance services in Singapore (again in stark contrast against the requirement of a Safety Management System). So I am amazed and amused that both QF and CAsA are prepared to ignore an element of the SMS which is to ensure an operator has a connection with third part providers who actually become part of the operators SMS?
It would seem that one set of rules apply to CAsA and QF, and a different set of rules apply to everyone else.
And finally, why did Mr Gibson, on the behest of CAsA, issue such a rapid defence of QF? CAsA seemed awfully confident to defend QF within mere hours of the allegations airing? Did CAsA have some kind of magical insight and proof? Did they panick at the thought of dear Qantas being tarnished so they felt the need to jump to its defence? Funny, I haven't seen Fort Fumble do that with others such as Ansett and Tiger? Funny thing that isn't it?
Sarcs, para, Owen/No Hoper - TICK TOCK
Steve Purvinas (life long member of the IOS and executive manager of sniffing out bull**** and coverups) was bang on the money. QF have lost oversight of third party international providers (interesting as this conflicts with the requirement of a Safety Management System) and CAsA itself has neglected the need to audit third party providers, in this case the providers of maintenance services in Singapore (again in stark contrast against the requirement of a Safety Management System). So I am amazed and amused that both QF and CAsA are prepared to ignore an element of the SMS which is to ensure an operator has a connection with third part providers who actually become part of the operators SMS?
It would seem that one set of rules apply to CAsA and QF, and a different set of rules apply to everyone else.
And finally, why did Mr Gibson, on the behest of CAsA, issue such a rapid defence of QF? CAsA seemed awfully confident to defend QF within mere hours of the allegations airing? Did CAsA have some kind of magical insight and proof? Did they panick at the thought of dear Qantas being tarnished so they felt the need to jump to its defence? Funny, I haven't seen Fort Fumble do that with others such as Ansett and Tiger? Funny thing that isn't it?
Sarcs, para, Owen/No Hoper - TICK TOCK
AMROBA still kicking...plus TAAAF behind closed doors??
Bit of an update for some of our more vocal IOS protagonists...
From Ken & Co the following from the latest AMROBA newsletter (see here) certainly keeps the fire lit under the miniscule and reflects several of the concerns coming from the more high profile publicly available WLR submitters..:
Keeping with AMROBA & their mutual alliance with TAAAF..
According to RR from AHIA there was another behind closed doors.. meeting held on the 8 April in Sydney (courtesy of Bladeslappers forum):
The last part of the RR post is interesting and perhaps reflects a certain naivety in regards to the AHIA agenda:
Maybe RR needs to reflect on the Aerialag's (AAAA) limited success with the 'tea & biccys' conciliatory approach to dealing with FF.
I also query AHIA hitching their horse to the 'No Hoper' wagon...
One week to Mayday...TICK TOCK miniscule!
More to follow...
From Ken & Co the following from the latest AMROBA newsletter (see here) certainly keeps the fire lit under the miniscule and reflects several of the concerns coming from the more high profile publicly available WLR submitters..
:
Increasing Regulatory Impost
This government was elected, from our aviation participants’ perspective in particular, to make radical changes to lower regulatory costs, reduce red and green tape and support aviation, especially rural aviation.
These are their key points.
To support the growth of our aviation industry, the
Coalition will:
The Coalition will ensure Australia has a safer and more competitive aviation sector.
Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.
Everything in the Government Policy is consistent with the hopes of the aviation industry.
Back in September last year, this government election policy also included a pledge to reduce the ever increasing government red tape so businesses can get back to doing business.
More than 6 (six) months since the election and we wonder when will CASA get the message? Don’t we all…
At the last CASA SCC Operations sub-committee, we were promised a lot more regulatory packages that are so big, they will be submitted to parliament in 2 separate bundles.
Under this government and their policies, they should and must be totally rejected.
The Government’s Guide to Good Regulation states:
1. What is the problem you are trying to solve?
The RIS requires you to explain the problem — and your objective — simply and clearly.
A crisply defined problem offers scope for innovative, non-regulatory thinking.
The problem is that CASA’s leadership is hell-bent on creating Parliamentary Regulations which are excessively prescriptive to support a safe and potentially growing aviation industry. Where is the non-regulatory thinking?
In the late 1980s, the government started the process to amend regulations to reduce regulatory burden on the aviation industry — the only area that has been successful is CASA issuing Type Acceptance Certificates based on aircraft Type Certificates from recognised countries.
Certification teams no longer go overseas to type certificate aircraft from recognised countries.
CASA administrative processes are growing immensely and impose more costs than equivalent NAAs.
Since the start of the 1990s, the growth in government burden, aviation incurred, has drastically reduced rural communities aviation service providers.
In the last decade there has been no “innovative, nonregulatory thinking” from CASA.
The whole regulatory approach is contradictory if the Australian government wants an aviation industry to grow, especially in rural Australia.
With our climatic conditions and geographic size, the aviation industry should be continually growing and ought to be utilised more than it was in the 60s and 70s.
The ASRR Report must recommend radical change for aviation, outside major airlines, to grow. It will need a radically different CASA culture and structure for the aviation industry to trust and respect.
Most mature aviation regulators have a better relationship with their industry that enables both the regulator and the regulated to work together to improve safety.
Safety needs a combined approach that fosters safe growth and a ‘just culture’ by all in this industry.
This government was elected, from our aviation participants’ perspective in particular, to make radical changes to lower regulatory costs, reduce red and green tape and support aviation, especially rural aviation.
These are their key points.
To support the growth of our aviation industry, the
Coalition will:
- abolish the carbon tax and its insidious impact on
- aviation fuels and aviation businesses;
- establish a formal Aviation Industry Consultative Council to meet regularly with the Minister;
- establish a high level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia; [happening]
- ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is adequately resourced;
- reform the structure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority;
- focus on the better utilisation of Australian airspace;
- support regional aviation by introducing a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme;
- recognise the importance of Australian airports to the economy;
- revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda;
- continue to promote aviation liberalisation;
- enhance aviation skills, training and development;and
- ensure that aviation security measures are risk based.
The Coalition will ensure Australia has a safer and more competitive aviation sector.
Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive.
Everything in the Government Policy is consistent with the hopes of the aviation industry.
Back in September last year, this government election policy also included a pledge to reduce the ever increasing government red tape so businesses can get back to doing business.
More than 6 (six) months since the election and we wonder when will CASA get the message? Don’t we all…
At the last CASA SCC Operations sub-committee, we were promised a lot more regulatory packages that are so big, they will be submitted to parliament in 2 separate bundles.
Under this government and their policies, they should and must be totally rejected.
The Government’s Guide to Good Regulation states:
1. What is the problem you are trying to solve?
The RIS requires you to explain the problem — and your objective — simply and clearly.
A crisply defined problem offers scope for innovative, non-regulatory thinking.
The problem is that CASA’s leadership is hell-bent on creating Parliamentary Regulations which are excessively prescriptive to support a safe and potentially growing aviation industry. Where is the non-regulatory thinking?
In the late 1980s, the government started the process to amend regulations to reduce regulatory burden on the aviation industry — the only area that has been successful is CASA issuing Type Acceptance Certificates based on aircraft Type Certificates from recognised countries.
Certification teams no longer go overseas to type certificate aircraft from recognised countries.
CASA administrative processes are growing immensely and impose more costs than equivalent NAAs.
Since the start of the 1990s, the growth in government burden, aviation incurred, has drastically reduced rural communities aviation service providers.
In the last decade there has been no “innovative, nonregulatory thinking” from CASA.
The whole regulatory approach is contradictory if the Australian government wants an aviation industry to grow, especially in rural Australia.
With our climatic conditions and geographic size, the aviation industry should be continually growing and ought to be utilised more than it was in the 60s and 70s.
The ASRR Report must recommend radical change for aviation, outside major airlines, to grow. It will need a radically different CASA culture and structure for the aviation industry to trust and respect.
Most mature aviation regulators have a better relationship with their industry that enables both the regulator and the regulated to work together to improve safety.
Safety needs a combined approach that fosters safe growth and a ‘just culture’ by all in this industry.
According to RR from AHIA there was another behind closed doors..
meeting held on the 8 April in Sydney (courtesy of Bladeslappers forum):
AHIA attended TAAAF meeting at which Warren Truss was guest speaker.
On Tue 8 Apr ’14, AHIA President, Peter Crook and Company Secretary, Rob Rich attended a meeting of the Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF), in Sydney. The TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. The members of TAAAF are:
• Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia
• Australian Association of Flight Instructors
• Australian Business Aviation Association
• Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia
• Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia
TAAAF Chairman Chris Manning welcomed the AHIA and said three members of the HAA attended the first TAAAF meeting in 2008.
Although we are not allowed to comment in detail on the Deputy Prime Minister's informal discussions, it was encouraging to note the government is taking care to action the pre-election promises. In fact, some are significant projects which by their very nature will be hard to undertake; the second Sydney Airport decision is probably their greatest challenge.
It is no secret that most of the associations present were looking for an update on the review of CASA, due to be completed in May and hopefully changes announced in June/July 2014. In particular, the non-acceptance of the current new EASA based rules by most reflected the concern at the damage being caused by complex, verbose and legalized worded texts written by lawyers for lawyers in the Crimes Act format.
During the final discussions, the AHIA explained both aeroplane and helicopter flight schools are facing expensive changes to be compliant; however, no safety case from CASA has been sighted. The helicopter industry, unfortunately, is facing the greatest impost and some observers suggest about one third of our schools many stumble after September when CASR Par 61 becomes effective.
In reply, Warren Truss asked that we wait for the review process to be completed; however, his comments were worded in such way it appeared the industry may have their concerns addressed in a satisfactory manner.
On Tue 8 Apr ’14, AHIA President, Peter Crook and Company Secretary, Rob Rich attended a meeting of the Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF), in Sydney. The TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. The members of TAAAF are:
• Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia
• Australian Association of Flight Instructors
• Australian Business Aviation Association
• Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia
• Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia
TAAAF Chairman Chris Manning welcomed the AHIA and said three members of the HAA attended the first TAAAF meeting in 2008.
Although we are not allowed to comment in detail on the Deputy Prime Minister's informal discussions, it was encouraging to note the government is taking care to action the pre-election promises. In fact, some are significant projects which by their very nature will be hard to undertake; the second Sydney Airport decision is probably their greatest challenge.
It is no secret that most of the associations present were looking for an update on the review of CASA, due to be completed in May and hopefully changes announced in June/July 2014. In particular, the non-acceptance of the current new EASA based rules by most reflected the concern at the damage being caused by complex, verbose and legalized worded texts written by lawyers for lawyers in the Crimes Act format.
During the final discussions, the AHIA explained both aeroplane and helicopter flight schools are facing expensive changes to be compliant; however, no safety case from CASA has been sighted. The helicopter industry, unfortunately, is facing the greatest impost and some observers suggest about one third of our schools many stumble after September when CASR Par 61 becomes effective.
In reply, Warren Truss asked that we wait for the review process to be completed; however, his comments were worded in such way it appeared the industry may have their concerns addressed in a satisfactory manner.
Bladeslappers who want to keep up with the debate on the troublesome changes heading our way should go the http://www.aopa.com.au and read their submission to the review committee. It is well written, concise and covers the future needs of our industry.
Students of history can see a wealth of CAA/CASA history at http://www.proaviation.com.au It is good to see how the EASA process started and the reason why there was so much debate amongst CASA heavies – most now retired or resigned. You just have to be patient with the sometimes biased comments; but overall it is good debate from both sides.
We are doing our best to help you guys trying to earn a buck with wobbly wings.
Rob Rich AHIA
Students of history can see a wealth of CAA/CASA history at http://www.proaviation.com.au It is good to see how the EASA process started and the reason why there was so much debate amongst CASA heavies – most now retired or resigned. You just have to be patient with the sometimes biased comments; but overall it is good debate from both sides.
We are doing our best to help you guys trying to earn a buck with wobbly wings.
Rob Rich AHIA
I also query AHIA hitching their horse to the 'No Hoper' wagon...
One week to Mayday...TICK TOCK miniscule!
More to follow...
EASA moves to ease GA regulations
Even EASA now seems to have recognised that it has over regulated GA. Surely that leaves CASA out on its own now.
EASA moves to ease GA regs - AOPA
EASA moves to ease GA regs - AOPA
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro, interesting read, thanks for posting the article.
I think EASA's hand was a tad forced though, many of its members were either intending or in the process of writing their own GA reg's, even the good old British CAA. I think a comment on the article was interesting;
"JFKENTON • 5 hours ago In the 90's, I did 2 yrs in Frankfurt, GR, as a FAA safety inspector at our Int'l Fld Off. that we had there. It was obvious that the European authorities had no interest in encouraging GA, and certainly not private aviation. Until they changed the rules, those that could, would come to the US to get their pilot certificates. And anyone that could find a way to have their aircraft registered with the US did so as the European inspection system calls for significantly more inspections than does the FAA. I thought it interesting that, when I first saw the European Joint Aviation Reg's, they looked like the FAA, but, rather than making the new rules simpler, they complicated them with all kinds of nickpicking stuff."
Sound familiar?? How long before Virgin is offering holiday packages to NZ to gain a pilots licence, as they did in UK to Florida? How long before ZK registered aircraft are the norm here rather than VH. Already applies to the heavy end of GA.
I think EASA's hand was a tad forced though, many of its members were either intending or in the process of writing their own GA reg's, even the good old British CAA. I think a comment on the article was interesting;
"JFKENTON • 5 hours ago In the 90's, I did 2 yrs in Frankfurt, GR, as a FAA safety inspector at our Int'l Fld Off. that we had there. It was obvious that the European authorities had no interest in encouraging GA, and certainly not private aviation. Until they changed the rules, those that could, would come to the US to get their pilot certificates. And anyone that could find a way to have their aircraft registered with the US did so as the European inspection system calls for significantly more inspections than does the FAA. I thought it interesting that, when I first saw the European Joint Aviation Reg's, they looked like the FAA, but, rather than making the new rules simpler, they complicated them with all kinds of nickpicking stuff."
Sound familiar?? How long before Virgin is offering holiday packages to NZ to gain a pilots licence, as they did in UK to Florida? How long before ZK registered aircraft are the norm here rather than VH. Already applies to the heavy end of GA.
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
guys.
watch very carefully what happens to that ATR sitting in Albury.
that is the closest we have come to a hundred dead passengers and a dead crew in quite a while.
thank heavens for a bird strike!
there are a lot of airline accountants that cannot, will not believe what that aircraft is telling them. they are about to make the same mistake about 150 or 160 times.
just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't.
if you don't believe me sneak over the fence and have a really good look at the aircraft yourself. from the last passenger window aft is where you need to look.
I'll bet you won't sleep that night.
watch very carefully what happens to that ATR sitting in Albury.
that is the closest we have come to a hundred dead passengers and a dead crew in quite a while.
thank heavens for a bird strike!
there are a lot of airline accountants that cannot, will not believe what that aircraft is telling them. they are about to make the same mistake about 150 or 160 times.
just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't.
if you don't believe me sneak over the fence and have a really good look at the aircraft yourself. from the last passenger window aft is where you need to look.
I'll bet you won't sleep that night.
Fort Fumble & the $89.9 million bucket...where did it go??
Perhaps D8's comment..."just when the world needs CAsA to be really competent... I'll bet they aren't"...reflects the IOS sceptics amongst us and further highlights the DK & ALAEA concerns in regards to lack of resources and experienced staff for FF to oversight/audit MROs & AOC holders.
It is worth remembering the 2008 FAA/ICAO audit team had similar concerns and issued numerous NCNs reflecting these concerns (refer Appendix 3 here). As a consequence Fort Fumble went, with cap in hand, to the government to ask for extra funding to supposedly tackle this shortfall and subsequently were given a 89.9 million bucket over 4 years.
Quote from DAS (STBR) statement in FF 2010-11 AR:
It should also be remembered that the Chamberpot report in the PelAir debacle was apparently instigated by the DAS (STBR) to further justify this extra bucket of money and to scope in on the areas that urgently needed addressing. Hansard AAI hearing 15/02/2013:
Mr McCormick: "...If you look to the situation in CASA now—whether we had the resources and whether we did not—through 2009-10 and continuing to this day, an overhaul of CASA and the way we operate, the way we are structured, how we go about our surveillance, where we do surveillance and when we do it, and what systems we have to support it have been ongoing issues for myself and my team. We are deeply involved in reorganising CASA and have been, as I said, since I arrived. As for the resources, when we did go forward with what came out of the Chambers report—which I will say, again, is an internal report to CASA—the question of whether the ATSB would have changed its opinion of fatigue, and they have fatigue management experts as we do, is a matter to ask the ATSB.
We did look at our structure, we did look at where we needed to go forward and at changes we wished to make, and we approached the government and said, 'We need to get this on to a long-term funding strategy.' We put forward a new policy proposal, an NPP, to increase our numbers, which the government also supported, and we had, from memory, $89.9 million in long-term funding, which we are still under. And we had an increase in head count, to which we continue to recruit.
However, regarding the numbers that we put forward in the NPP—again, agreed to by the government, and I do not think anyone opposed it—we have fulfilled those positions, and we are continuing to develop the way we go forward and what we do..."
Or if you prefer visuals you can view here from about 04:25..
Presumably some of this $89.9 million bucket went to the new SPM rewrite & Sentinel software programs etc..etc. However where is the rest of the bucket being spent, because if the DK, ALAEA, UNSW, AAAA, AMROBA etc WLR (or Senate submissions) are even partly true, it would seem that there has been no real improvement in Fort Fumble's oversight of some of our bigger end of town airline operators.
As an aside if TA & WT are looking to address this part of their aviation policy... Although I suggest they firstly get rid of Beaker and put someone competent in charge...
It is worth remembering the 2008 FAA/ICAO audit team had similar concerns and issued numerous NCNs reflecting these concerns (refer Appendix 3 here). As a consequence Fort Fumble went, with cap in hand, to the government to ask for extra funding to supposedly tackle this shortfall and subsequently were given a 89.9 million bucket over 4 years.
Quote from DAS (STBR) statement in FF 2010-11 AR:
Financial management
CASA recorded an operating deficit of $1.2 million in 2010–11, after recording a $1.8 million deficit in 2009–10.
The Government has allocated an additional $89.9 million over four years (2010–11 to 2013–14) to fund additional aviation safety activities. This is achieved through an increase in the aviation fuel excise rate of 0.702 cents per litre from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre.
CASA is budgeting for an operating deficit in 2011–12 of $4.5 million. At the same time, however, CASA is budgeting for small operating surpluses in the forward years 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2015–16.
CASA recorded an operating deficit of $1.2 million in 2010–11, after recording a $1.8 million deficit in 2009–10.
The Government has allocated an additional $89.9 million over four years (2010–11 to 2013–14) to fund additional aviation safety activities. This is achieved through an increase in the aviation fuel excise rate of 0.702 cents per litre from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre.
CASA is budgeting for an operating deficit in 2011–12 of $4.5 million. At the same time, however, CASA is budgeting for small operating surpluses in the forward years 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2015–16.
Mr McCormick: "...If you look to the situation in CASA now—whether we had the resources and whether we did not—through 2009-10 and continuing to this day, an overhaul of CASA and the way we operate, the way we are structured, how we go about our surveillance, where we do surveillance and when we do it, and what systems we have to support it have been ongoing issues for myself and my team. We are deeply involved in reorganising CASA and have been, as I said, since I arrived. As for the resources, when we did go forward with what came out of the Chambers report—which I will say, again, is an internal report to CASA—the question of whether the ATSB would have changed its opinion of fatigue, and they have fatigue management experts as we do, is a matter to ask the ATSB.
We did look at our structure, we did look at where we needed to go forward and at changes we wished to make, and we approached the government and said, 'We need to get this on to a long-term funding strategy.' We put forward a new policy proposal, an NPP, to increase our numbers, which the government also supported, and we had, from memory, $89.9 million in long-term funding, which we are still under. And we had an increase in head count, to which we continue to recruit.
However, regarding the numbers that we put forward in the NPP—again, agreed to by the government, and I do not think anyone opposed it—we have fulfilled those positions, and we are continuing to develop the way we go forward and what we do..."
Or if you prefer visuals you can view here from about 04:25..
Presumably some of this $89.9 million bucket went to the new SPM rewrite & Sentinel software programs etc..etc. However where is the rest of the bucket being spent, because if the DK, ALAEA, UNSW, AAAA, AMROBA etc WLR (or Senate submissions) are even partly true, it would seem that there has been no real improvement in Fort Fumble's oversight of some of our bigger end of town airline operators.
As an aside if TA & WT are looking to address this part of their aviation policy...
- ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is adequately resourced;
Although I suggest they firstly get rid of Beaker and put someone competent in charge...
Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Apr 2014 at 02:05.