Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Addendum..
Arscis "It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.
..
TB "It occurs to me that in the past our RPT brethren didn't much bother about CAsA imposts on their bottom line, they could just up the ticket price a few bucks to cover it. Perhaps the costs are starting to bite."
The kicker is, they'll be right. The time honoured tradition of rule by exemption and instrument is deeply entrenched and valued by industry – they see an advantage over the 'competition' if they have a special 'exemption' someone else has not.
It's a little academic, but I should add here that one of the mainstays supporting a 'three tier' rule set is the valid argument that it will eliminate the 'instrument and exemption' system. The system can be perceived as 'capturing' an operation and potentially be exposed to allegations of corruption. This system can be eliminated through a two tier system, but it needs a mature regulator with 'honest' intentions. Fat chance.
Aye – 'tis a funny old game; - when played rough and down in the weeds.
Toot toot..
PS - My Google translated a 10 page document to French in about 30 seconds; why must we wait until the whimsical, non specific estimate of 'hopefully late Autumn' for the TSBC to translate and publish 'the report'?. Now is that Canadian or Australian late 'Autumn'? And when in all the seven hells is 'late Autumn' anyway? Ye gods: and we just put up with it..
Words fail at this point, we hope to resume normal service after second coffee....
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Sep 2014 at 21:55. Reason: Edit morphed into a PS - breathe, that's the trick..
The miniscule is still awake??
Err KC this..
Score: 4/10 Some changes introduced
...may need a remark, it would appear the miniscule woke up sometime today...
: Media Release - WT171/2014 - 15 September 2014
Oz Aviation wins the prize for catching a glimpse of the miniscule before his afternoon nap...:
Maybe REX pending doom statement from it's Chair had some effect in disturbing the miniscule's slumber...
: Rex says aviation sector in “deep crisis”
Meanwhile over at Sleepy Hollow the other geriatrics are busy working out how best to continue to white ant the government's Red Tape Reduction policy, while pineappling other smaller players in the industry to keep with their policy of 'safe skies are empty skies'....
:
Funny how the PG statement has a familiar undertone to that given for the CVD & Cooper Pedy embuggerances...
MTF...
6.
Support Regional Aviation
The Coalition will introduce a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme
for regional commercial airline carriers to support low volume and new routes to
small and remote communities.
The Coalition will introduce a new and better targeted En Route Rebate Scheme
for regional commercial airline carriers to support low volume and new routes to
small and remote communities.
Score: 4/10 Some changes introduced
: Media Release - WT171/2014 - 15 September 2014 Oz Aviation wins the prize for catching a glimpse of the miniscule before his afternoon nap...
:
Government revives enroute scheme
The federal government will spend $1 million a year to bring back a scheme that subsidises the cost of navigation charges for flights to smaller regional centres. Called the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme, airlines will be able to recoup 60 per cent of air navigation charges levied by Airservices on existing routes and 100 per cent of the charge for new routes for up to three years.
Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss says the scheme, which was cut under the previous government, would support vulnerable air routes to regional and remote communities.
“The Coalition in government is focused on encouraging the growth of regional aviation services across Australia and expanding the current network by giving impetus for operators to test whether a new route can be commercially viable,” Truss said in a statement on Monday.
“It can take years for new regional routes to establish sufficient support to become viable, which is why we are providing this additional support for up to three years. If we want to better connect regional Australia we must better target government support to where it is needed for those start-up and marginal routes. A relatively modest amount of government assistance can make a big difference.”
Truss, who is the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, said airlines would be able to apply for assistance on routes carrying up to 15,000 passengers a year using aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 15 tonnes. Priority would be given to routes that linked a regional or remote community with a capital city or major regional centre.
“This ensures people have the best possible access to health and other professional services, as well as providing essential links for doing business in regional areas,” Truss said.
The scheme, which would cost $1 million a year for four years, came on top of the $1 million each year allocated to supporting vital aeromedical services such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Truss said.
Applications, which can be made at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, were now open for all eligible services flown since July 1 2014.
The federal government will spend $1 million a year to bring back a scheme that subsidises the cost of navigation charges for flights to smaller regional centres. Called the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme, airlines will be able to recoup 60 per cent of air navigation charges levied by Airservices on existing routes and 100 per cent of the charge for new routes for up to three years.
Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss says the scheme, which was cut under the previous government, would support vulnerable air routes to regional and remote communities.
“The Coalition in government is focused on encouraging the growth of regional aviation services across Australia and expanding the current network by giving impetus for operators to test whether a new route can be commercially viable,” Truss said in a statement on Monday.
“It can take years for new regional routes to establish sufficient support to become viable, which is why we are providing this additional support for up to three years. If we want to better connect regional Australia we must better target government support to where it is needed for those start-up and marginal routes. A relatively modest amount of government assistance can make a big difference.”
Truss, who is the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, said airlines would be able to apply for assistance on routes carrying up to 15,000 passengers a year using aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 15 tonnes. Priority would be given to routes that linked a regional or remote community with a capital city or major regional centre.
“This ensures people have the best possible access to health and other professional services, as well as providing essential links for doing business in regional areas,” Truss said.
The scheme, which would cost $1 million a year for four years, came on top of the $1 million each year allocated to supporting vital aeromedical services such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Truss said.
Applications, which can be made at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, were now open for all eligible services flown since July 1 2014.
: Rex says aviation sector in “deep crisis” Meanwhile over at Sleepy Hollow the other geriatrics are busy working out how best to continue to white ant the government's Red Tape Reduction policy, while pineappling other smaller players in the industry to keep with their policy of 'safe skies are empty skies'....
:
Angel Flight services not in danger
Sept. 15, 2014, 4 a.m.
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.
It comes after Angel Flight, an organisation that uses volunteer pilots to provide air transport for rural and regional people to access medical care in larger centres, raised concerns it could be grounded by unworkable and expensive red tape imposed by the aviation watchdog.
"CASA is looking at imposing an additional regulatory layer of bureaucracy on Angel Flight, with the charity required to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance," the charity said in a statement.
Angel Flight founder and CEO Bill Bristow said CASA in 2003 gave the charity it's "blessing" in written approval to start operations but was now seeking to impose new rules to "regulate" Angel Flight in the future. He said flights co-ordinated by Angel Flight were no different to private general aviation flights in Australia.
"All of our 2700 volunteer pilots who generously give their time to assist struggling families must adhere to the rules and regulations already imposed and rigorously controlled by CASA," Mr Bristow said.
"When we first heard about CASA proposing regulatory changes, I presented our grave concerns to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's chief of staff David Whitrow in March this year. However, it seems that those concerns have fallen on deaf ears."
He said he was worried the cost of complying with "onerous federal regulations" would financially cripple Angel Flight.
CASA rejected suggestions it was planning to impose crippling red tape, saying all it had done was start a discussion about aviation safety issues relating to community service flights.
A discussion paper on options for safety standards had been released for public comment so the public could understand them and consider whether there might be ways of managing safety more effectively, CASA said.
It said at the moment community service flights were considered to be private flights and pilots had varying levels of qualifications and experience and the aircraft involved differed in size, power and sophistication.
"If any changes to the safety standards covering community service flights are proposed in the future there would be further and comprehensive consultation before any action was taken," a CASA spokesperson said.
Sept. 15, 2014, 4 a.m.
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.
It comes after Angel Flight, an organisation that uses volunteer pilots to provide air transport for rural and regional people to access medical care in larger centres, raised concerns it could be grounded by unworkable and expensive red tape imposed by the aviation watchdog.
"CASA is looking at imposing an additional regulatory layer of bureaucracy on Angel Flight, with the charity required to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance," the charity said in a statement.
Angel Flight founder and CEO Bill Bristow said CASA in 2003 gave the charity it's "blessing" in written approval to start operations but was now seeking to impose new rules to "regulate" Angel Flight in the future. He said flights co-ordinated by Angel Flight were no different to private general aviation flights in Australia.
"All of our 2700 volunteer pilots who generously give their time to assist struggling families must adhere to the rules and regulations already imposed and rigorously controlled by CASA," Mr Bristow said.
"When we first heard about CASA proposing regulatory changes, I presented our grave concerns to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's chief of staff David Whitrow in March this year. However, it seems that those concerns have fallen on deaf ears."
He said he was worried the cost of complying with "onerous federal regulations" would financially cripple Angel Flight.
CASA rejected suggestions it was planning to impose crippling red tape, saying all it had done was start a discussion about aviation safety issues relating to community service flights.
A discussion paper on options for safety standards had been released for public comment so the public could understand them and consider whether there might be ways of managing safety more effectively, CASA said.
It said at the moment community service flights were considered to be private flights and pilots had varying levels of qualifications and experience and the aircraft involved differed in size, power and sophistication.
"If any changes to the safety standards covering community service flights are proposed in the future there would be further and comprehensive consultation before any action was taken," a CASA spokesperson said.
MTF...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcsy,
Interesting stuff from minister "Wuss" but a few bucks thrown at air nav charges unfortunately wont cut the mustard.
The millions of dollars and years of delay to gain regulatory approval make any form of regional RPT unviable.
The new Part 61 adds further unsustainable $$$ to operating costs on top of Australia's asinine maintenance regulations.
The current Regionals are operating profitably for now on grandfather infrastructure in place before MComic turned up.
As they have to ramp up their ticket price to comply with new regulations and the regulatory cost of introducing new equipment more and more of their customers will decide to hit the road rather than their wallets.
Effectively we are going back to the two airline days where punters would drive to Bn or Mel from syd to attend a weekend wedding because they couldn't afford or justify the ticket price.
That price was dictated by monopoly, but also by union intransience.
Today the price is driven by regulatory compliance.
Often wonder how many of the punters became casualties of that folly, and I wonder how many in the future from the current CAsA folly. Will CAsA be culpable for those casualties??...should be!!! but of course CAsA are never responsible for anything.
Unfortunately minister "Wuss" aint awake, he's blind
The answer is so simple, instead of doing a Europe and killing our industry, do a Kiwi and watch our industry take off.
How much is it going to cost the "Guv mint" subsidizing essential services when aviation in Australia does a Europe??
Angel flight?...same parameters...a real charity, not a pseudo charity like the RFDS or Care flight.
Commercial entities masquerading as charities, bidding for commercial contracts with a definitive advantage over their competitors.
Angel Flight fills a gap where no $$$ are currently available for a commercial operator, and does it very well.
CAsA hates an anomaly that they cant control or manipulate, so they will kill angel flight.
The punters left with little choice but to hit the road Jack!!
Interesting stuff from minister "Wuss" but a few bucks thrown at air nav charges unfortunately wont cut the mustard.
The millions of dollars and years of delay to gain regulatory approval make any form of regional RPT unviable.
The new Part 61 adds further unsustainable $$$ to operating costs on top of Australia's asinine maintenance regulations.
The current Regionals are operating profitably for now on grandfather infrastructure in place before MComic turned up.
As they have to ramp up their ticket price to comply with new regulations and the regulatory cost of introducing new equipment more and more of their customers will decide to hit the road rather than their wallets.
Effectively we are going back to the two airline days where punters would drive to Bn or Mel from syd to attend a weekend wedding because they couldn't afford or justify the ticket price.
That price was dictated by monopoly, but also by union intransience.
Today the price is driven by regulatory compliance.
Often wonder how many of the punters became casualties of that folly, and I wonder how many in the future from the current CAsA folly. Will CAsA be culpable for those casualties??...should be!!! but of course CAsA are never responsible for anything.
Unfortunately minister "Wuss" aint awake, he's blind
The answer is so simple, instead of doing a Europe and killing our industry, do a Kiwi and watch our industry take off.
How much is it going to cost the "Guv mint" subsidizing essential services when aviation in Australia does a Europe??
Angel flight?...same parameters...a real charity, not a pseudo charity like the RFDS or Care flight.
Commercial entities masquerading as charities, bidding for commercial contracts with a definitive advantage over their competitors.
Angel Flight fills a gap where no $$$ are currently available for a commercial operator, and does it very well.
CAsA hates an anomaly that they cant control or manipulate, so they will kill angel flight.
The punters left with little choice but to hit the road Jack!!
Last edited by thorn bird; 15th Sep 2014 at 09:20.
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
Reducing en route nav charges means they won't tax you as much. (A bit like being shot with a .22 instead of a .308), However it would be well intentioned if the local airport operators don't adjust their charges by the logarithmic amount. Does anybody remember Compass? They were mainly sent broke by a government policy Not to waive some government charges that may have helped save the company and save the jobs. I think it was Labor wasn't it?
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 15th Sep 2014 at 10:30. Reason: Deleted Ansett reference and a transport guy. Oh, and "Bobhawke"
Thornbird, the existing regulations plus CASA enforcement, a few accidents in experimental and RAA aircraft, coupled with an increase in security requirements beyond the ASIC, coupled with privatisation of regional airports and perhaps some more medical requirements (sleep apnoea + Colour vision issues) will kill all forms of domestic aviation apart from major RPT, stone dead.
One can already see that if the RAA and SAAA accept the mantle of becoming "designated authorities" or whatever its called, CASA will just pile requirement after requirement onto them until they sink like the commercial GA sector.
One can already see that if the RAA and SAAA accept the mantle of becoming "designated authorities" or whatever its called, CASA will just pile requirement after requirement onto them until they sink like the commercial GA sector.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of mighty opposites.
Between the pass and fell incensèd points Of mighty opposites.
Is the Pel Air cover-up going to drag on forever? Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking -
Bloody good question Ben, and an inkling of what the minuscule and his department may expect when the now valueless report is finally allowed to be seen, after editing and translation and modification and embuggerance.
" It is difficult to imagine an experienced minister leaving advice on such an important matter to the same department responsible for both CASA and the ATSB, which according to evidence before the Senate committee, conspired to hide information that the regulator had failed to carry out its duties in relation to oversight of the flawed Pel-Air Westwind operation."
Shame on the whole rotten lot, even more shame on industry and the people paid to represent the travelling public for tolerating a single word of it.
It's immoral, despicable and disgusting to see the work follow the money, time and effort down the sewer. Too little too late was a bad option – but sweet bugger all, sometime never is no option at all. BOHICA...in spades.
Iago: "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Angel Flight Addendum.
PG the consummate bull-sh*t artist - "Trust me I work for CAsA!"
Angel Flight not threatened by red tape - CASA
16/09/2014 , 10:00 AM by stuart stansfield
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has moved to reassure rural communities that charities such as Angel Flight are not under threat.
But a discussion paper on safety standards for community service flights is being circulated.
Interview with CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.
(Image: Angel Flight)
PETER GIBSON AUDIO
Angel Flight not threatened by red tape - CASA
16/09/2014 , 10:00 AM by stuart stansfield
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has moved to reassure rural communities that charities such as Angel Flight are not under threat.
But a discussion paper on safety standards for community service flights is being circulated.
Interview with CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.
(Image: Angel Flight)
PETER GIBSON AUDIO
AHIA - Disappointed with Minister's Reply - CASR 61
An update on AHIA's continuing concern - CASR 61 - Week 2.
From AHIA's Official Journal - Airwaves October 2014.
As this is the first edition after the launch of CASR Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing); I have asked our President, Peter Crook to start this column with a brief overview of things happening at his end of the line. Peter is in Sydney and your editor (AHIA Secretary) resides in Brisbane.
Peter’s comments:
We are almost through the second week the implementation of the new CASR Part 61 and associated MoS and I and other members of the AHIA have been fielding a considerable number of questions from the industry. Some of the more pertinent issues are:
From fixed and rotary wing flying schools, "I cannot understand the new Regulation, the wording is unclear and in some cases ambiguous. Can you please help in the interpretation; we do not want to operate illegally".
One fixed wing flying school has made some calculations which indicate the cost of an endorsement on a basic light twin will increase by around $1,000.00. This is due to the instructor, who is not an ATO, now being unable to sign off the endorsement as before. They will have to hire in an ATO to carry out the competency check flight. "Some young students just don't have the additional funds available".
The Chief Pilot of a helicopter operation has held approvals to train and endorse pilots on a medium helicopter for many years. As he is not an ATO they will have to hire these services, as per the previous case. The additional cost of the ATO and the competency check flight could add around $7,000.00 to each endorsement.
As well as the additional cost there is also a degree of risk as the Chief Pilot has the knowledge and experience to conduct the training and check flight in a safe manner. The ATO who most likely would have minimum time on these machines could unwittingly compromise the safety of the check flight by not having the same level of experience and currency.
It was disappointing CASA did not listen to the number of individual aviation professionals, the major aviation associations via the TAAAF (The Australian Aviation Associations Forum) to further delay the introduction of CASR Part 61 until more of the problems were rectified.
Subsequent to my letter to The Hon. Warren Truss requesting a delay, a reply from his office states the delay in implementation from December 2013 to September 2014 was to allow changes in the regulation sought by industry be made in December 2013 and for recent amendments to related provisions under CASR Part 141 to also be approved which will reduce compliance costs for the industry.
Unfortunately from May 2014 to September 2014 there were several changes made to the legislation and associated MoS which were not made available for comment from the industry.
The reply from The Hon Warren Truss also suggests the understanding and implementation of the regulations will be further improved by a range of information available and being enhanced on the CASA website and Aviation Safety Seminars being held by CASA with industry around the country. One would have thought the Seminars should have been held prior to the implementation so as to avoid the obvious misunderstanding that currently exists.
The AHIA is working though Part 61 to prepare a report with constructive criticism and suggestions to amend what we have for the benefit of all. CASA has suggested this review should be completed in late March 2015. The AHIA will run several seminars to gather feedback from our members prior to March 2015.
Secretary AHIA
From AHIA's Official Journal - Airwaves October 2014.
As this is the first edition after the launch of CASR Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing); I have asked our President, Peter Crook to start this column with a brief overview of things happening at his end of the line. Peter is in Sydney and your editor (AHIA Secretary) resides in Brisbane.
Peter’s comments:
We are almost through the second week the implementation of the new CASR Part 61 and associated MoS and I and other members of the AHIA have been fielding a considerable number of questions from the industry. Some of the more pertinent issues are:
From fixed and rotary wing flying schools, "I cannot understand the new Regulation, the wording is unclear and in some cases ambiguous. Can you please help in the interpretation; we do not want to operate illegally".
One fixed wing flying school has made some calculations which indicate the cost of an endorsement on a basic light twin will increase by around $1,000.00. This is due to the instructor, who is not an ATO, now being unable to sign off the endorsement as before. They will have to hire in an ATO to carry out the competency check flight. "Some young students just don't have the additional funds available".
The Chief Pilot of a helicopter operation has held approvals to train and endorse pilots on a medium helicopter for many years. As he is not an ATO they will have to hire these services, as per the previous case. The additional cost of the ATO and the competency check flight could add around $7,000.00 to each endorsement.
As well as the additional cost there is also a degree of risk as the Chief Pilot has the knowledge and experience to conduct the training and check flight in a safe manner. The ATO who most likely would have minimum time on these machines could unwittingly compromise the safety of the check flight by not having the same level of experience and currency.
It was disappointing CASA did not listen to the number of individual aviation professionals, the major aviation associations via the TAAAF (The Australian Aviation Associations Forum) to further delay the introduction of CASR Part 61 until more of the problems were rectified.
Subsequent to my letter to The Hon. Warren Truss requesting a delay, a reply from his office states the delay in implementation from December 2013 to September 2014 was to allow changes in the regulation sought by industry be made in December 2013 and for recent amendments to related provisions under CASR Part 141 to also be approved which will reduce compliance costs for the industry.
Unfortunately from May 2014 to September 2014 there were several changes made to the legislation and associated MoS which were not made available for comment from the industry.
The reply from The Hon Warren Truss also suggests the understanding and implementation of the regulations will be further improved by a range of information available and being enhanced on the CASA website and Aviation Safety Seminars being held by CASA with industry around the country. One would have thought the Seminars should have been held prior to the implementation so as to avoid the obvious misunderstanding that currently exists.
The AHIA is working though Part 61 to prepare a report with constructive criticism and suggestions to amend what we have for the benefit of all. CASA has suggested this review should be completed in late March 2015. The AHIA will run several seminars to gather feedback from our members prior to March 2015.
Secretary AHIA
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weasle words indeed Sarc's.
Angel flight may as well pack it in now.
They will allegedly consult, then implement the rules they have already descided on.
Country people should all get their cars serviced in preparation of lenghthy usafe drives...all in the name of safe skies are empty skies.
Angel flight may as well pack it in now.
They will allegedly consult, then implement the rules they have already descided on.
Country people should all get their cars serviced in preparation of lenghthy usafe drives...all in the name of safe skies are empty skies.
Rob. What is the position in the USA? Would all these extra costs happen there as well? That's an important point to communicate.
Very good chance of getting changed if the new rules result in greater costs than in one of our major trading partners.
Very good chance of getting changed if the new rules result in greater costs than in one of our major trading partners.
I refer to a post I made some time ago: "Jobs, investment and growth". Keep reciting that mantra at every opportunity.
Any letter to the Minister needs to make the following point in the First and last paragraph. "This action (or inaction) by CASA has the potential to adversely impact the number of jobs, new investment and growth in the industry".
Then explain why.
Then explain exactly what you want the Minister to ask CASA to do. The format should be "that you direct/require etc." ie: the act you want him to take - it must be an act or the letter is a pointless begging whining complaining letter which goes straight in the bin.
To put that another way; if you request that a Minister DO something, and they don't without seeking advice that contradicts your request and communicating that to you , and then something goes wrong, the Minister wears it if you go screaming to the press yelling "look at this! I told him what was wrong and he did nothing!".
Then repeat the jobs mantra in the final paragraph.
In my opinion the peak body of associations needs to send an ultimatum to Truss spelling out exactly what they think is going to happen if the Thirty Seven recommendations of the report are ignored. The letter has to state that the health and viability of the entire industry sector as well as the safety of the travelling public is at risk if CASA is allowed to continue on its current course.
If you write individual letters with vague complaints, all you are doing is building up a mountain of evidence that things aren’t as bad as they seem, that industry is divided, that the industry isn't unanimous, that CASA is simply doing its best to try to satisfy a vast amount of competing agendas (as evidenced by your lack of unanimity) the best way it can in a difficult budget situation, etc. etc,.
Get it down to a single unanimous letter with no let outs and nail the Minister right now. And if it was me, I'd go out on a limb and say words to the effect that we suspect you are going to do nothing and release your response after Christmas. although I'd couch it in polite terms that don't look like a direct accusation. eg: "could we be forgiven for thinking.....?
To put that another way, when the Governments response is released between Christmas and New Year, and whoever is first back to the office after the holdiays writes a whining non specific letter of complaint, it's too late!!!
Any letter to the Minister needs to make the following point in the First and last paragraph. "This action (or inaction) by CASA has the potential to adversely impact the number of jobs, new investment and growth in the industry".
Then explain why.
Then explain exactly what you want the Minister to ask CASA to do. The format should be "that you direct/require etc." ie: the act you want him to take - it must be an act or the letter is a pointless begging whining complaining letter which goes straight in the bin.
To put that another way; if you request that a Minister DO something, and they don't without seeking advice that contradicts your request and communicating that to you , and then something goes wrong, the Minister wears it if you go screaming to the press yelling "look at this! I told him what was wrong and he did nothing!".
Then repeat the jobs mantra in the final paragraph.
In my opinion the peak body of associations needs to send an ultimatum to Truss spelling out exactly what they think is going to happen if the Thirty Seven recommendations of the report are ignored. The letter has to state that the health and viability of the entire industry sector as well as the safety of the travelling public is at risk if CASA is allowed to continue on its current course.
If you write individual letters with vague complaints, all you are doing is building up a mountain of evidence that things aren’t as bad as they seem, that industry is divided, that the industry isn't unanimous, that CASA is simply doing its best to try to satisfy a vast amount of competing agendas (as evidenced by your lack of unanimity) the best way it can in a difficult budget situation, etc. etc,.
Get it down to a single unanimous letter with no let outs and nail the Minister right now. And if it was me, I'd go out on a limb and say words to the effect that we suspect you are going to do nothing and release your response after Christmas. although I'd couch it in polite terms that don't look like a direct accusation. eg: "could we be forgiven for thinking.....?
To put that another way, when the Governments response is released between Christmas and New Year, and whoever is first back to the office after the holdiays writes a whining non specific letter of complaint, it's too late!!!
Last edited by Sunfish; 16th Sep 2014 at 22:01.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angels in Flight
Safety first. Absolutely.
My questions are:
Last year CASA was a "Gold Sponsor" at the Aviation Law Conference, mainly for lawyers, brokers and insurers. Quite an expensive amount I would assume.
Rubbing shoulders with the insurers and creating throat cutting plans to protect themselves, well, from themselves.
This money would be better spent on providing pure non-profit organisations such as Angel Flight with ALL resources and staff to allow not only enhance safety, but give the company an applaud, assistance rather than throw them away like "oh well, so sad, too bad". Sound familiar.
With the Senate findings, ASRR and huge industry movement, all logic falls on the institutionalised minds of those that care only to protect the Gov'mutts posteriors.
How could the Gov'mutts be wrong.
We all know they are.
After reading the excellent article that Ben wrote regarding the "Pel-Air" cover-up, I pondered....
I spoke to a Gov'Mutt and asked two questions.
Were we protected by law from you prior to the ditching?
Is there protection/law in which I now fall in to?
Both answers were no.
I asked for that in writing.
A few days later, of course, nothing.
I call, complete attitude change telling me I can no longer help you.
This is the truth. Batty.
Same for the DP. Ridiculous responses.
Canadians. Well, well well.
What on Earth is happening Minister?
I would be so very pleased to organise a protest for transparent, fair aviation in Australia. No more mute voices. Kills, hurts and put great companies out of business.
CASA-I do not believe you should have anything to do with the insurers/lawyers conference. Spend your budget correctly. Angel flight needs your assistance. The industry wants to be heard.
Insurance companies that slowly try to shove you off if unfortunate to be a survivor, family member of loved one that have had their life cut short through the incompetences of our own Gov'Mutts. Botched investigations and more. Enter the Insurers. Dear oh dear.
So, who is running the country again?
Large co-ops, especially in the aviation loop?
I thought we voted to have our voices heard.
When that fails, which it has, united people can make change.
On the steps of Parliament.
PM if interested. This can happen, only if voiced. Not typed.
A date will be pending, soon.
I have to go for a bit. Still seeing the other sides medical team. Half a decade.
No resolve, just words and broken promises from my own Gov'Mutt.
Now Angel Flight turmoil.
Disgraceful behaviour and disloyalty to our own citizens.
Who's in? Loud and clear.
Never give up. Not done yet! Momentum, momentum, momentum!
How do they sleep at night? Shame.
Ziggy.
My questions are:
Last year CASA was a "Gold Sponsor" at the Aviation Law Conference, mainly for lawyers, brokers and insurers. Quite an expensive amount I would assume.
Rubbing shoulders with the insurers and creating throat cutting plans to protect themselves, well, from themselves.
This money would be better spent on providing pure non-profit organisations such as Angel Flight with ALL resources and staff to allow not only enhance safety, but give the company an applaud, assistance rather than throw them away like "oh well, so sad, too bad". Sound familiar.
With the Senate findings, ASRR and huge industry movement, all logic falls on the institutionalised minds of those that care only to protect the Gov'mutts posteriors.
How could the Gov'mutts be wrong.
We all know they are.
After reading the excellent article that Ben wrote regarding the "Pel-Air" cover-up, I pondered....
I spoke to a Gov'Mutt and asked two questions.
Were we protected by law from you prior to the ditching?
Is there protection/law in which I now fall in to?
Both answers were no.
I asked for that in writing.
A few days later, of course, nothing.
I call, complete attitude change telling me I can no longer help you.
This is the truth. Batty.
Same for the DP. Ridiculous responses.
Canadians. Well, well well.
What on Earth is happening Minister?
I would be so very pleased to organise a protest for transparent, fair aviation in Australia. No more mute voices. Kills, hurts and put great companies out of business.
CASA-I do not believe you should have anything to do with the insurers/lawyers conference. Spend your budget correctly. Angel flight needs your assistance. The industry wants to be heard.
Insurance companies that slowly try to shove you off if unfortunate to be a survivor, family member of loved one that have had their life cut short through the incompetences of our own Gov'Mutts. Botched investigations and more. Enter the Insurers. Dear oh dear.
So, who is running the country again?
Large co-ops, especially in the aviation loop?
I thought we voted to have our voices heard.
When that fails, which it has, united people can make change.
On the steps of Parliament.
PM if interested. This can happen, only if voiced. Not typed.
A date will be pending, soon.
I have to go for a bit. Still seeing the other sides medical team. Half a decade.
No resolve, just words and broken promises from my own Gov'Mutt.
Now Angel Flight turmoil.
Disgraceful behaviour and disloyalty to our own citizens.
Who's in? Loud and clear.
Never give up. Not done yet! Momentum, momentum, momentum!
How do they sleep at night? Shame.
Ziggy.
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
Ziggy.
Everyone is a wakeup to the AAT and various Ombudsmen. CAsA won't take matters to real Courts. Aviation Lawyers will soon go broke. When people stop flying there will be no need for aircraft insurance except ground risks. Aviation Insurance company's and brokers will go broke. When there are no more aircraft flying CAsA will have no reason to exist and the bureaurats will have to find other jobs to infect.
When all this happens we can start afresh.
Everyone is a wakeup to the AAT and various Ombudsmen. CAsA won't take matters to real Courts. Aviation Lawyers will soon go broke. When people stop flying there will be no need for aircraft insurance except ground risks. Aviation Insurance company's and brokers will go broke. When there are no more aircraft flying CAsA will have no reason to exist and the bureaurats will have to find other jobs to infect.
When all this happens we can start afresh.
AHIA - Trying to establish cost of re-regulation
Dick,
We are doing our best to pin costs and handle hiccups. Some hiccups in the aeroplane world overflow into the rotorcraft operations. Heard a developing story today - problem with getting a Cessna Caravan endorsement - will be a problem for parachutist operators; according to our sources.
Colin (Chairperson -Part 61 Review Team) is running a check to see if we are heading into this problem. Will advise when more known - and of course how much will it cost to resolve the issue.
AHIA queries CASA’s lack of cost benefit analysis for CASR Part 61 after receipt of US data.
A recent NTSB report shows a US civilian accident rate of only 3.94 accidents per 100,000 hours. (A very good result). By comparison, the ATSB Transport Safety Report of October 2013 states our rate is 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours. Put simply, the FAA operators have an accident rate that is 2.74 times less than our CASA rotorcraft industry.
The AHIA is vigorously pursuing a study of extra expenses appearing as the CASR Part 61 Suite is being rolled out; our work is being slowed due to the number of exemptions, concessions and extra transition time needed to facilitate introduction of the new rules. The AHIA estimates on aircrew testing, ATO and FTE study (and looming shortages) will be a shock to many; especially when heavy multi-engine helicopters segment is looked at more closely.
AHIA members are constantly asking their executive why the cost of regulation is increasing at such an uncomfortable rate due to our nation’s alignment with the EASA system; a past political decision now so unpopular with Australian aviation community. Maybe the solution has always been on our doorstep? Industry comments state a need for a less complicated, less verbose and plain English regulatory system; which has been jointly developed by a regulator sensitive to industry needs.
Despite CASA’s media reports to the contrary; there has been little consultation with the helicopter industry. This unfortunate fact was confirmed when another version of both the CASR Part 61 Instrument and Manual of Standards was released only several days prior to the implementation date on 1 September 2014.
Rob Rich
AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator for
E: [email protected]
We are doing our best to pin costs and handle hiccups. Some hiccups in the aeroplane world overflow into the rotorcraft operations. Heard a developing story today - problem with getting a Cessna Caravan endorsement - will be a problem for parachutist operators; according to our sources.
Colin (Chairperson -Part 61 Review Team) is running a check to see if we are heading into this problem. Will advise when more known - and of course how much will it cost to resolve the issue.
AHIA queries CASA’s lack of cost benefit analysis for CASR Part 61 after receipt of US data.
A recent NTSB report shows a US civilian accident rate of only 3.94 accidents per 100,000 hours. (A very good result). By comparison, the ATSB Transport Safety Report of October 2013 states our rate is 10.8 accidents per 100,000 hours. Put simply, the FAA operators have an accident rate that is 2.74 times less than our CASA rotorcraft industry.
The AHIA is vigorously pursuing a study of extra expenses appearing as the CASR Part 61 Suite is being rolled out; our work is being slowed due to the number of exemptions, concessions and extra transition time needed to facilitate introduction of the new rules. The AHIA estimates on aircrew testing, ATO and FTE study (and looming shortages) will be a shock to many; especially when heavy multi-engine helicopters segment is looked at more closely.
AHIA members are constantly asking their executive why the cost of regulation is increasing at such an uncomfortable rate due to our nation’s alignment with the EASA system; a past political decision now so unpopular with Australian aviation community. Maybe the solution has always been on our doorstep? Industry comments state a need for a less complicated, less verbose and plain English regulatory system; which has been jointly developed by a regulator sensitive to industry needs.
Despite CASA’s media reports to the contrary; there has been little consultation with the helicopter industry. This unfortunate fact was confirmed when another version of both the CASR Part 61 Instrument and Manual of Standards was released only several days prior to the implementation date on 1 September 2014.
Rob Rich
AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator for
E: [email protected]
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ziggy support.
Ziggy,
Happy to protest if that what it takes! At the end of the day it all comes down to Truss. Act of Grace payments can be approved by a Minister.
It's interesting that Truss was the only person ,in opposition, to the Senate AAI! Why on earth would he do that in opposition? Well, when the Chairman of PEL-AIR is an old mate, do favours come around? Also let's go back to Albo dumping money on REX!
So how much influence has Sharp had on things? How do PEL-AIR get away with such blindingly obvious facts presented here, and in the Senate AAI and ASRR get off free? Actually, "the Board has taken steps to prevent it happening again". DJ was never trained in FRMS, nor the use of emergency exists. The ATSB and Minuscule ignore this!
My verdict: Corruption!
So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.
Happy to protest if that what it takes! At the end of the day it all comes down to Truss. Act of Grace payments can be approved by a Minister.
It's interesting that Truss was the only person ,in opposition, to the Senate AAI! Why on earth would he do that in opposition? Well, when the Chairman of PEL-AIR is an old mate, do favours come around? Also let's go back to Albo dumping money on REX!
So how much influence has Sharp had on things? How do PEL-AIR get away with such blindingly obvious facts presented here, and in the Senate AAI and ASRR get off free? Actually, "the Board has taken steps to prevent it happening again". DJ was never trained in FRMS, nor the use of emergency exists. The ATSB and Minuscule ignore this!
My verdict: Corruption!
So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.
Last edited by Jinglie; 17th Sep 2014 at 14:48.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jinglie: So much for democracy. I've been working in Eastern European countries who are so ahead of Oz, its a joke. This is 3rd world regulation, IMO.
The reason we aligned with EASA is to maximise the number of European business trips for our regulators.
Aligning with the NZ/FAA regulations merely gets you to Auckland or Wellington, not Paris or Brussels.
Same reason the Army, Navy and Air force always buys foreign kit.
Aligning with the NZ/FAA regulations merely gets you to Auckland or Wellington, not Paris or Brussels.
Same reason the Army, Navy and Air force always buys foreign kit.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, good point. Who wants a trip to Oklahoma. Problem is they started aligning with the FAA then switched to EASA half way through.
I like you thought adopting NZ rules was a practical way of integrating with FAA and EASA rules. But big egos and big trips !
I like you thought adopting NZ rules was a practical way of integrating with FAA and EASA rules. But big egos and big trips !
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human factors audit 2009.
As requested – HF 2009 – OCR version. The link is to Zippyshare; only click the red DOWNLOAD NOW (top right corner) button to avoid spam and unwanted links.
P18. a.k.a. Blind Freddy...
P18. a.k.a. Blind Freddy...