Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Steve's been busy.
Don't hold back Ferryman...
On peas & cajones: Noticed that SC from the MMSM stable has been busy of late...
We don’t need any more CASA regulation: Angel Flight
Which is mostly a rehash of other Aviation MSM coverage with absolutely zilch opinion or commentary.
Next... Tighter search-and-rescue chopper rules ‘risk lives’
Actually not too bad, gives a different perspective with new material on another long running and contentious issue but really Steve (much like the previous article) you must have some view on this??
Next article is just another take on the TAAAF story carried a couple of days ago...
Deputy PM Warren Truss urged to push on with CASA shake-up
...with the addition of some rather disturbing comments from the miniscule's spokesperson...
Still no hard nose in your face questioning, just wet lettuce comments regurgitated from a miniscule minion out of their depth and with NFI...
Next Dick is at it again..
: ‘Guinea pigs’ fly courtesy of CASA, says Dick Smith
"...FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has accused the air-safety regulator of using airline passengers as “safety guinea pigs’’ and mishandling changes it made to the radio frequency used by light aircraft at some small airstrips..."
All in all not bad coverage but seriously Steve when are you going to grow a set??
Addendum to Part 61 debate - FF say 61 addresses ATsB SRs??
Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits
"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
MTF...
Please note: We pay for the service CASA provides; not the bloated bloody plutocrats blocking the changes. Man up, deep breath, support the reform, give the job to the right bloke and for once, do the right bloody thing; provide the changes which are expected and the reforms which are demanded.
We don’t need any more CASA regulation: Angel Flight
Which is mostly a rehash of other Aviation MSM coverage with absolutely zilch opinion or commentary.
Next... Tighter search-and-rescue chopper rules ‘risk lives’
Actually not too bad, gives a different perspective with new material on another long running and contentious issue but really Steve (much like the previous article) you must have some view on this??
Aviation consultant and former Civil Aviation Safety Auth*ority project manager Allister Polkinghorne said provisions in Civil Aviation Safety Regulations parts 133 and 138 could see some helicopters currently used in rescue and ambulance operations permanently parked...
...“Virtually every hospital heliport would be unavailable to anything except a helicopter with CAT A performance because the hospitals don’t have suitable forced landing areas on approach and departure paths,’’ Mr Polkinghorne said. “It will require bigger, noisier helicopters in noise and down-wash-sensitive areas.
“Where a rescue is performed for an injured patient, for example, surf rescue in a single-engine helicopter in Perth, the patient will be prevented from being transported to hospital by the new rules.’’...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromedical Society of Australasia president Graeme Field said the society supported the move to the air-transport cate*gory, but had written to CASA *expressing concerns about issues it believed needed further discussion, including the category of helicopters that could be used as an air ambulance.
He said the regulator had to be cautious that it did not make the rules so hard that the industry could not fly.
“We thought CASA needed to work more closely with state health authorities and governments in relation to these hospital landing sites,’’...
“So I think it’s important that we’re not restricted in our endeavours to make do with the available resources,’’ he said.
“While it’s fine to compare us with overseas countries, and it is useful, I think any future legislation has to take into account our uniqueness, the uniqueness of the Australian environment in which we have to provide aeromedical operations.’’
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAsA spokesman: “However, CASA acknowledges that, in some cases, applying all of the air-transport operations suite of standards to medical transfer flights would not be practicable. Due to the highly specialised *nature of some medical transfer flights, some of the rules in the air transport operational rules will not apply.’’
“This is in recognition of the unique circumstances of a search-and-rescue situation,’’ he said. “CASA is seeking to improve the safety standard of search and rescue operations where possible, but without limiting the potential for these operations.’’
...“Virtually every hospital heliport would be unavailable to anything except a helicopter with CAT A performance because the hospitals don’t have suitable forced landing areas on approach and departure paths,’’ Mr Polkinghorne said. “It will require bigger, noisier helicopters in noise and down-wash-sensitive areas.
“Where a rescue is performed for an injured patient, for example, surf rescue in a single-engine helicopter in Perth, the patient will be prevented from being transported to hospital by the new rules.’’...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromedical Society of Australasia president Graeme Field said the society supported the move to the air-transport cate*gory, but had written to CASA *expressing concerns about issues it believed needed further discussion, including the category of helicopters that could be used as an air ambulance.
He said the regulator had to be cautious that it did not make the rules so hard that the industry could not fly.
“We thought CASA needed to work more closely with state health authorities and governments in relation to these hospital landing sites,’’...
“So I think it’s important that we’re not restricted in our endeavours to make do with the available resources,’’ he said.
“While it’s fine to compare us with overseas countries, and it is useful, I think any future legislation has to take into account our uniqueness, the uniqueness of the Australian environment in which we have to provide aeromedical operations.’’
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAsA spokesman: “However, CASA acknowledges that, in some cases, applying all of the air-transport operations suite of standards to medical transfer flights would not be practicable. Due to the highly specialised *nature of some medical transfer flights, some of the rules in the air transport operational rules will not apply.’’
“This is in recognition of the unique circumstances of a search-and-rescue situation,’’ he said. “CASA is seeking to improve the safety standard of search and rescue operations where possible, but without limiting the potential for these operations.’’
Deputy PM Warren Truss urged to push on with CASA shake-up
...with the addition of some rather disturbing comments from the miniscule's spokesperson...
A spokesman for Mr Truss said the government was carefully considering the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth Report and it would be tabled before year’s end.
“In relation to the commencement of CASE part 61 regulations on September 1, CASA will work with industry to enable an effective transition to the new arrangements over the next few years,’’ he said.
“In relation to part 141 (flying training) the government has agreed to regulation amendments that will reduce the administrative burden of existing requirements on the aviation industry.
“These amendments will also take effect from September 1 and allow industry to transition to the new arrangements over the next few years.’’
“In relation to the commencement of CASE part 61 regulations on September 1, CASA will work with industry to enable an effective transition to the new arrangements over the next few years,’’ he said.
“In relation to part 141 (flying training) the government has agreed to regulation amendments that will reduce the administrative burden of existing requirements on the aviation industry.
“These amendments will also take effect from September 1 and allow industry to transition to the new arrangements over the next few years.’’
Next Dick is at it again..
: ‘Guinea pigs’ fly courtesy of CASA, says Dick Smith"...FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has accused the air-safety regulator of using airline passengers as “safety guinea pigs’’ and mishandling changes it made to the radio frequency used by light aircraft at some small airstrips..."
All in all not bad coverage but seriously Steve when are you going to grow a set??
Addendum to Part 61 debate - FF say 61 addresses ATsB SRs??
Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits
"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
Part 61 has come under fire from industry groups recently, who have called for the 1 September date to be pushed out further.
Perhaps most vocal has been the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, which has voiced concerns over the availablility of the new Flight Examiners (formerly Authorised Testing Officers) to cope with demand, and has called for the new regulations to be written in plain English.
Further support to postpone CASR Parts 61, 141 and 142 have come from the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association and from The Australian Aviation Associations Forum.
CASA has recently deferred mandatory transition to the new Flight Examiner rating by two years, and will keep the current regulations surrounding helicopter licensing until 2017.
It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations.
Perhaps most vocal has been the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, which has voiced concerns over the availablility of the new Flight Examiners (formerly Authorised Testing Officers) to cope with demand, and has called for the new regulations to be written in plain English.
Further support to postpone CASR Parts 61, 141 and 142 have come from the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association and from The Australian Aviation Associations Forum.
CASA has recently deferred mandatory transition to the new Flight Examiner rating by two years, and will keep the current regulations surrounding helicopter licensing until 2017.
It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations.
Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Aug 2014 at 02:36.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of being good.
Sarcs – "Don't hold back Ferryman".
Mind you, if the creature who drafted that 'thing' in the SMH yesterday is representative of 'independent' 'impartial' journalists, I'll stand bare arsed. Thirty pieces of silver to kick a cripple, not bad for 30 minutes of disgusting gutter work.
But don't hold your breath for Australian journalists to grow a pair; the only way they stand out in a mob of sheep is that small, but significant difference.
Toot toot....
...
Impatience grows while miniscule procrastinates
Kharon:
The biggest problem is with each passing day that this 'dithering' continues the more IOS speculation & anxiety grow...
In sport & politics time wasting/obfuscation only ever plays into the hands of the opposition. How many times have we watched a football match where the underdog side is grimly hanging onto a narrow lead only to be smashed & humiliated by an opposition goal right on the siren??
The longer we remain in this state of flux the more damaging the rumours/ Chinese whispers become and the more opportunity for the GWM to run, yet another, destabilising rear guard action designed to put more doubt in an ailing miniscule's office, the ominous signs are already there...
Example:
Media rumour not confirmed - "It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations."
GWM response
The hypocrisy of this reasoning/justification by FF, to continue unabated with the Part 61 implementation, should not be lost on the IOS, given the disturbing findings documented in the PelAir report...
But the message is clear i.e. we've taken onboard those findings and we are now embracing the bureau's SRs to better enhance safety risk mitigation...
There is also another disturbing example.,in recent days, that has some bizarre parallels to the PelAir ditching investigation. However this example also shows that a leopard doesn't change it's spots, as FF simply can't hide their contempt for the Senate, particularly towards Senator Xenophon..
Australian Aviation carried this story on Friday - Airnorth boosted pilot ranks, changed rosters after 2013 incident: ATSB.
And this was the bureau report on the incident - AO-2013-010
From the report a 'Safety Issue' was addressed to the operator & published on the bureau website - AO-2013-010-SI-01
{Comment: See the parallels now?? }
Then we have the proactive action from the Operator..:
Lesson learnt and job well done...
But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
Pretty hard to miss the 'up yours' in that statement directed towards Senator Xenophon (& by association AIPA) in his negatived attempt to disallow CAO 48.1...
But the message is very clear to the miniscule's office..."Look what we've done to mitigate this potential safety risk!"
Of course we all know it is bollocks and is merely the last thrashings of a dying beast...
A word from Ken that more than highlights why the current FF strategy will not work:
So my advice to the IOS is to man up, hold the line and stop jumping at shadows past..
...considering the endless vacillation, dithering and general buggering about from the miniscule's office...
In sport & politics time wasting/obfuscation only ever plays into the hands of the opposition. How many times have we watched a football match where the underdog side is grimly hanging onto a narrow lead only to be smashed & humiliated by an opposition goal right on the siren??
The longer we remain in this state of flux the more damaging the rumours/ Chinese whispers become and the more opportunity for the GWM to run, yet another, destabilising rear guard action designed to put more doubt in an ailing miniscule's office, the ominous signs are already there...
Example:
Media rumour not confirmed - "It is believed that Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has asked CASA for more information regarding the new regulations."
GWM response
Courtesy Australian Flying 22 August 2014: CASA Points to Part 61 Safety Benefits
"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
"...In respect to lessons learnt, the points below are also relevant and where necessary competency standards, specified in the MOS [Manual of Standards], have been added or modified to address safety issues identified in ATSB recommendations..."
But the message is clear i.e. we've taken onboard those findings and we are now embracing the bureau's SRs to better enhance safety risk mitigation...
There is also another disturbing example.,in recent days, that has some bizarre parallels to the PelAir ditching investigation. However this example also shows that a leopard doesn't change it's spots, as FF simply can't hide their contempt for the Senate, particularly towards Senator Xenophon..
Australian Aviation carried this story on Friday - Airnorth boosted pilot ranks, changed rosters after 2013 incident: ATSB.
And this was the bureau report on the incident - AO-2013-010
From the report a 'Safety Issue' was addressed to the operator & published on the bureau website - AO-2013-010-SI-01
Safety issue description
Although the operator’s rostering practices were consistent with the existing regulatory requirements, it had limited processes in place to proactively manage its flight crew rosters and ensure that fatigue risk due to restricted sleep was effectively minimised.
Although the operator’s rostering practices were consistent with the existing regulatory requirements, it had limited processes in place to proactively manage its flight crew rosters and ensure that fatigue risk due to restricted sleep was effectively minimised.
}Then we have the proactive action from the Operator..
:
Airnorth advised that, since the time of the occurrence, it had increased its E170 flight crew by about 30 per cent. This increase had resulted in flight crews doing less flight hours and providing more flexibility in rostering the flight crews.
In addition, Airnorth advised that due to changes in schedules, its rostering patterns had changed so that there were no longer any planned rosters that required overnight free of duty periods of less than 10 hours.
Occasionally there were actual overnight free of duty periods less than 10 hours when the day’s duty period was extended for operational reasons, but these were relatively rare.
In addition, Airnorth advised that due to changes in schedules, its rostering patterns had changed so that there were no longer any planned rosters that required overnight free of duty periods of less than 10 hours.
Occasionally there were actual overnight free of duty periods less than 10 hours when the day’s duty period was extended for operational reasons, but these were relatively rare.
But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
Although not in response to this occurrence, on 28 March 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released revised fatigue management and flight and duty time requirements in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013. These requirements were to take effect for existing operators on 30 April 2016.
The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.
If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:
a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.
Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts.
The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.
If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:
a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.
Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts.
But the message is very clear to the miniscule's office..."Look what we've done to mitigate this potential safety risk!"
Of course we all know it is bollocks and is merely the last thrashings of a dying beast...
A word from Ken that more than highlights why the current FF strategy will not work:
Delays & International Practices - GA
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system.
This was also the direction of CASA before Byron/McCormick and is possible under the many recommendations and observations contained in the Forsyth Report.
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected.
Minister Truss, industry continues in damage control waiting for your decision.
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system.
This was also the direction of CASA before Byron/McCormick and is possible under the many recommendations and observations contained in the Forsyth Report.
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected.
Minister Truss, industry continues in damage control waiting for your decision.
- The delay in appointing a new DAS
- Directing adoption of the Forsyth Report recommendations; and
- Amending the Act so the recommendations are permanently implemented.
AHIA and CASR Part 61
AHIA MEDIA RELEASE – 24 Aug ‘14
AHIA seeks closer contact with CASA to resolve Flight Crew Licensing concerns.
AHIA President, Peter Crook, recently wrote to CASA and stated; "The AHIA and other industry associations would welcome the opportunity to meet face to face with CASA to assist in achieving a SAFE, COST EFFECTIVE and OPERATIONALLY SOUND CASR PART 61. Crook strongly requested CASR Part 61 implementation due on 1 September 2014 be delayed until this consultative process takes place.
In response to his communiqué, CASA invited the AHIA Part 61 Review Team to a meeting in Canberra on Friday 29 August 2014.
The AHIA Board indicated this is a great step forward. Although CASA has limited discussion to specific topics, AHIA believes it will provide an opportunity to table other important issues involving the Part 61 and associated MoS. A post-meeting report will be provided to the helicopter industry.
Peter Crook
President
AHIA – 24 August 2014.
AHIA seeks closer contact with CASA to resolve Flight Crew Licensing concerns.
AHIA President, Peter Crook, recently wrote to CASA and stated; "The AHIA and other industry associations would welcome the opportunity to meet face to face with CASA to assist in achieving a SAFE, COST EFFECTIVE and OPERATIONALLY SOUND CASR PART 61. Crook strongly requested CASR Part 61 implementation due on 1 September 2014 be delayed until this consultative process takes place.
In response to his communiqué, CASA invited the AHIA Part 61 Review Team to a meeting in Canberra on Friday 29 August 2014.
The AHIA Board indicated this is a great step forward. Although CASA has limited discussion to specific topics, AHIA believes it will provide an opportunity to table other important issues involving the Part 61 and associated MoS. A post-meeting report will be provided to the helicopter industry.
Peter Crook
President
AHIA – 24 August 2014.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are you saying that CASA is still directing what the ATSB says?
hey K,
When you said:
did you mean that CASA somehow forced the ATSB to put in that little plug for the new CAO 48.1?
It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!
Oh, and in regard to:
that accolade falls into the same class as commending Pel-air's cleanup - and that class is: "oops, sprung, quick - add some numbers and write some new rules"...
When you said:
But then for some strange reason FF put their 2 bobs worth in:
It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!
Oh, and in regard to:
Lesson learnt and job well done...
Last edited by Prince Niccolo M; 24th Aug 2014 at 06:02. Reason: premature execution
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter;
QUOTE: "CASA has limited discussion to specific topics" QUOTE.
While it's always good to have an agenda, this censorship is usually a prelude to a given outcome, or a stalling of further discussion. The best you can hope for is a hearing within their terms of reference which may or may not be cause for celebration. I doubt the tabling of "other documents" may sway the pre ordained PART 61. I wish you well with this endeavor and hope it proves my cynicism wrong.
QUOTE: "CASA has limited discussion to specific topics" QUOTE.
While it's always good to have an agenda, this censorship is usually a prelude to a given outcome, or a stalling of further discussion. The best you can hope for is a hearing within their terms of reference which may or may not be cause for celebration. I doubt the tabling of "other documents" may sway the pre ordained PART 61. I wish you well with this endeavor and hope it proves my cynicism wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nick – I think you are quoting from Sarcs @ # 1144. But it does seem to me as though 48 may be getting some additional, defensive oxygen; the answer is of course obvious. But I'm certain Sarcs can and will respond.
-.-....
-.-....
poop - my bad
Prince:
Totally agree it didn't seem out of place at all and it is entirely appropriate for the regulator to add such comment.. Plus by design, the MoU and convention the bureau allow DIPs to comment.
My point is that until very recently unless FF were the actual addressee of the SR/SI they were very loathe to add much in the way of commentary. Also prior to the PelAir debacle if FF were the addressee a large part of their responses was spent arguing the toss on the SR/SI , followed by years of delays, excuses etc..etc. So the response & involvement in AO-2013-010-SI-01 is not SOP for the regulator of old, that is all I'm saying...
ps As for the thread drift into the debate on FRMS/CAO 48.1 and Senator Xenophon's long running campaign on the matter, well that is probably best left to discuss on the Senate thread. For now back to thread topic and I heard a whisper (all rumour of course..) that there will be a significant announcement coming out of the miniscule's office very soon...
did you mean that CASA somehow forced the ATSB to put in that little plug for the new CAO 48.1?
It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!
It didn't seem to be particularly out of place as ATSB commentary, although they, consistent with their best Pel-air efforts, did not comment on the reduced rest provision that CASA put in there after dumping any restrictions on the following duty!
Plus by design, the MoU and convention the bureau allow DIPs to comment. My point is that until very recently unless FF were the actual addressee of the SR/SI they were very loathe to add much in the way of commentary. Also prior to the PelAir debacle if FF were the addressee a large part of their responses was spent arguing the toss on the SR/SI , followed by years of delays, excuses etc..etc. So the response & involvement in AO-2013-010-SI-01 is not SOP for the regulator of old, that is all I'm saying...
ps As for the thread drift into the debate on FRMS/CAO 48.1 and Senator Xenophon's long running campaign on the matter, well that is probably best left to discuss on the Senate thread. For now back to thread topic and I heard a whisper (all rumour of course..
) that there will be a significant announcement coming out of the miniscule's office very soon...
Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Aug 2014 at 21:59.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me guess..... An Acting (!) DAS from within the ranks until a final decision on the appointment is made from the final two!! I understand Cabinet must approve, so maybe a while yet?? How long is a bit of string???
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon the road block from the 'legal' department can only be shifted when there is a new DAS, which I think the 'full bored' will want to have a hand in selecting.
I reckon we'll get the board before that. If reform is fair dinkum we should see a solid 'aviation' team. Perhaps another from RAAA and someone with 'engineering' talent maybe; and a grass roots, heartland of real 'sport' flying type. There's some talent out there, shame not to use it.
Lets hope the DDAS can open enough golden parachutes before the reformation; make sure the rats get off before the cats arrive.
Speculative - Toot toot
I reckon we'll get the board before that. If reform is fair dinkum we should see a solid 'aviation' team. Perhaps another from RAAA and someone with 'engineering' talent maybe; and a grass roots, heartland of real 'sport' flying type. There's some talent out there, shame not to use it.
Lets hope the DDAS can open enough golden parachutes before the reformation; make sure the rats get off before the cats arrive.
Speculative - Toot toot
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screaming Skulls farewell message to the IOS
Asta lavista
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...::pc=PC_102132
His final spray at the IOS? Of course. And what about the bit about CASA being looked up to by other regulators around the world? WTF, has he lost his mind?
Farewell, good riddance and don’t bang the door on the way out....
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...::pc=PC_102132
This is the last time I will be communicating with the aviation community in my role as CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety. My slightly extended term as Director is completed at the end of August 2014. The last five and a half years have been challenging, satisfying and at times difficult. I firmly believe that as I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world. Like any good organisation CASA is a team of people with a mix of skills, knowledge and experience that when constructively managed deliver excellent outcomes. In 2014 I look at CASA and see a clearer focus on priorities, documented processes and procedures that are followed as required, better training and support for staff and an understanding that decision making must be transparent and fair. Safe skies for all is the goal that drives CASA.
Never-the-less I know CASA and myself in particular have our critics. Some of the critics offer constructive criticism and this is welcomed and indeed valued. I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety. Right through my term I have encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate. I know this work to get the best possible safety outcomes through joint efforts by CASA and the aviation community will continue. However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgements, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety. Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency. It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view an d arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position. Sadly when some of CASA’s critics have not got their own way the debate has degenerated and become personal, which is not constructive and does nothing for aviation safety. It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves.
The future for CASA will be positive. Our people are committed to their work, their organisation and Australian aviation. I am sure any changes made to CASA in the future will further strengthen the organisation and the outcomes it delivers for all Australians. I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers.
Best regards
John F McCormick
Never-the-less I know CASA and myself in particular have our critics. Some of the critics offer constructive criticism and this is welcomed and indeed valued. I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety. Right through my term I have encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate. I know this work to get the best possible safety outcomes through joint efforts by CASA and the aviation community will continue. However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgements, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety. Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency. It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view an d arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position. Sadly when some of CASA’s critics have not got their own way the debate has degenerated and become personal, which is not constructive and does nothing for aviation safety. It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves.
The future for CASA will be positive. Our people are committed to their work, their organisation and Australian aviation. I am sure any changes made to CASA in the future will further strengthen the organisation and the outcomes it delivers for all Australians. I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers.
Best regards
John F McCormick
Farewell, good riddance and don’t bang the door on the way out....
Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
MMSM Steve on outgoing DAS missive??
Steve is quick off the mark on the DAS (STBR) side swipe at IOS..
(Err...Steve you do know it's not Friday right??)
Addendum
Must be a slow news day Oz Aviation is also onto it..: CASA has global respect: McCormick
Passing strange that on the one day that the media shows any interest in the CAsA site it apparently suffers a melt down??
MTF...
CASA boss McCormick to stand down at the end of the month
In his last message to the aviation community, CASA boss John McCormick said his more than five years at the helm of the of the regulator was “challenging, satisfying and at times difficult”.
“I firmly believe that as I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world,’’ he said in an online briefing released today. “Like any good organisation CASA is a team of people with a mix of skills, knowledge and experience that when constructively managed deliver excellent outcomes.
“In 2014, I look at CASA and see a clearer focus on priorities, documented processes and procedures that are followed as required, better training and support for staff and an understanding that decision making must be transparent and fair.’’
Mr McCormick’s comments come as CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, representing eight industry associations, last week called on Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to move to reset the industry’s relationship with CASA “following the damage of the last five years’’.
Mr Truss has promised to react by year’s end to a report by industry veteran David Forsyth that called for sweeping reforms at the regulator and found that its ‘hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to a lack of trust between it and operators.
CASA also attracted flak from a Senate committee for its handling of the 2009 ocean ditching of a Pel Air crash.
The committee found regulatory procedures at the time of the crash were deficient and wrote to the Australian Federal Police to ensure “any appropriate action is taken’’ over a failure by CASA to provide documents to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
CASA stood by its handling of the controversial issue, despite an ABC Four Corners investigation that revealed a special audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and `serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.
Mr McCormick acknowledged that he and CASA had its critics and said constructive criticism had been welcomed and valued.
He said he had never pretended CASA had all the answers to every aviation safety issue and he had encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate’’.
“However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgments, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety,’’ he said. “Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
“It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. “Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position.’’
Mr McCormick also hit out at the way the debate about the regulator had degenerated and become personal. He said this was not constructive and did nothing for aviation safety.
“It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves,’’ he said.
An international search has been underway for a replacement for Mr McCormick but Mr Truss has yet to make an announcement.
- by: Steve Creedy
- From: The Australian
- August 25, 2014 11:28AM
In his last message to the aviation community, CASA boss John McCormick said his more than five years at the helm of the of the regulator was “challenging, satisfying and at times difficult”.
“I firmly believe that as I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world,’’ he said in an online briefing released today. “Like any good organisation CASA is a team of people with a mix of skills, knowledge and experience that when constructively managed deliver excellent outcomes.
“In 2014, I look at CASA and see a clearer focus on priorities, documented processes and procedures that are followed as required, better training and support for staff and an understanding that decision making must be transparent and fair.’’
Mr McCormick’s comments come as CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, representing eight industry associations, last week called on Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to move to reset the industry’s relationship with CASA “following the damage of the last five years’’.
Mr Truss has promised to react by year’s end to a report by industry veteran David Forsyth that called for sweeping reforms at the regulator and found that its ‘hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to a lack of trust between it and operators.
CASA also attracted flak from a Senate committee for its handling of the 2009 ocean ditching of a Pel Air crash.
The committee found regulatory procedures at the time of the crash were deficient and wrote to the Australian Federal Police to ensure “any appropriate action is taken’’ over a failure by CASA to provide documents to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
CASA stood by its handling of the controversial issue, despite an ABC Four Corners investigation that revealed a special audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and `serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.
Mr McCormick acknowledged that he and CASA had its critics and said constructive criticism had been welcomed and valued.
He said he had never pretended CASA had all the answers to every aviation safety issue and he had encouraged and facilitated consultation, information sharing and debate’’.
“However, I firmly believe that as a regulator CASA also has a responsibility to make judgments, take decisions and to act in the interests of protecting and improving aviation safety,’’ he said. “Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
“It follows, of course, that when a regulator takes actions not everyone is happy. “Again, I have had no problem with people putting their point of view and arguing their case as that is their right if they disagree with CASA. But just because some people may disagree it does not mean CASA is necessarily wrong or should step away from its position.’’
Mr McCormick also hit out at the way the debate about the regulator had degenerated and become personal. He said this was not constructive and did nothing for aviation safety.
“It is a fact of human nature that some people will personally attack others as a way of diverting too close an examination of themselves,’’ he said.
An international search has been underway for a replacement for Mr McCormick but Mr Truss has yet to make an announcement.
)Addendum
Must be a slow news day Oz Aviation is also onto it..
: CASA has global respect: McCormick Passing strange that on the one day that the media shows any interest in the CAsA site it apparently suffers a melt down??
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Aug 2014 at 06:30.
CASA has come under increased fire from some sections of the industry in recent months for its handling of regulatory change.
What sections of the industry are happy with CASA's handling of regulatory change?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Naturally these actions must be based on evidence and solid data and be taken following sound processes and procedures that ensure fairness and transparency.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 25th Aug 2014 at 14:27. Reason: Mop
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The future for CASA will be positive."
Pity the same cannot be said for the industry they have buggered.
" I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world."
Self aggrandizing Clown!! Must be all the cigars and expense account banquets in Montreal that gives him that idea.
From my experience overseas, mention CAsA to other regulators and they give you a pitying look and roll their eyes skywards.
"I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers."
Err... John..Mate!!...are you awake??? or just stupid!!
In case you hadn't noticed the aviation industry in Australia is spiraling down the gurgler!!
Meanwhile, across the Tasman, where they have "Proper" regulation, their industry goes from strength to strength.
John, go back to Hong Kong, there are one or two people who would love to have some constructive conversation. Any back street in Kowloon would do..
Don't bang the door on your way out!!
Pity the same cannot be said for the industry they have buggered.
" I leave CASA it is a better and more effective air safety regulator and I know it is respected by leading regulators around the world."
Self aggrandizing Clown!! Must be all the cigars and expense account banquets in Montreal that gives him that idea.
From my experience overseas, mention CAsA to other regulators and they give you a pitying look and roll their eyes skywards.
"I look forward to watching CASA become an even more effective safety regulator as Australian aviation grows and prospers."
Err... John..Mate!!...are you awake??? or just stupid!!
In case you hadn't noticed the aviation industry in Australia is spiraling down the gurgler!!
Meanwhile, across the Tasman, where they have "Proper" regulation, their industry goes from strength to strength.
John, go back to Hong Kong, there are one or two people who would love to have some constructive conversation. Any back street in Kowloon would do..
Don't bang the door on your way out!!
Last edited by thorn bird; 25th Aug 2014 at 09:22.
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
I have never pretended CASA has all the answers to every issue relating to aviation safety.
why don't we have Canadian Owner maintenance? the canadians have enjoyed it for well over a decade.
why can't we de-certify a privately owned aeroplane and maintain it on a stand alone basis? in the case of two seat Cessna's I am aware of one with just 300 hours on it sitting in a hangar, I'm also aware of some with over 12,000 hours on them in training environments. why do they all need to undergo the SIDS program.
McCormick, you leave aviation as one of the greatest fckuwits ever to walk through the doors. Most of what you leave behind as a legacy will need to be redone by someone sensible. ....and we paid you 3 million dollars. can we have a refund?