Runway Changes Could Hamper Regional Aviation
When it suits we Aussies to do things differently to ICAO, we do so. The age 65 rule is one example.
Why not simply rewrite the runway codes for domestic airfields to make them fit the runways currently in use? Whack on some conservative limitations for crosswind and runway braking action, throw in a couple of mandatory recurrent simulator exercises for crews and the job would be done.
File a difference with ICAO. It's not as if we don't have half a century of acquired experience flying jets and turboprops from narrow runways. How many accidents in Australia can be attributed to narrow or substandard runways? Very few, and those that have occurred were likely due to a lack of pilot training. Or were the majority who flew to those airfields without incident just lucky all those years?
Any rule that permits an exemption is a Clayton's rule. Who can authorise an exemption? What are their qualifications that allow them to exempt something from the underpinning rule?
Exemptions for the few could be held to be discriminatory by the majority. When things go wrong for an operator working under an exemption everyone ducks for cover and the lawyers go into a feeding frenzy.
New Zealand rules would be a great improvement for their clarity; EXCEPT in regards to runway and airport requirements. NZ has fewer and better airports than we do. To get so many of our 'deficient' airports to the ICAO standard is not 'affordable safety'.
Why not simply rewrite the runway codes for domestic airfields to make them fit the runways currently in use? Whack on some conservative limitations for crosswind and runway braking action, throw in a couple of mandatory recurrent simulator exercises for crews and the job would be done.
File a difference with ICAO. It's not as if we don't have half a century of acquired experience flying jets and turboprops from narrow runways. How many accidents in Australia can be attributed to narrow or substandard runways? Very few, and those that have occurred were likely due to a lack of pilot training. Or were the majority who flew to those airfields without incident just lucky all those years?
Any rule that permits an exemption is a Clayton's rule. Who can authorise an exemption? What are their qualifications that allow them to exempt something from the underpinning rule?
Exemptions for the few could be held to be discriminatory by the majority. When things go wrong for an operator working under an exemption everyone ducks for cover and the lawyers go into a feeding frenzy.
New Zealand rules would be a great improvement for their clarity; EXCEPT in regards to runway and airport requirements. NZ has fewer and better airports than we do. To get so many of our 'deficient' airports to the ICAO standard is not 'affordable safety'.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 8th Mar 2014 at 20:47.
As I said before, I'm looking forward to Dick's and Leddies' take on this...
What are you expecting me to say??
This nonsense move ( essentially moving from using the FAA standards to ICAO standards) was mooted years ago, and I opposed it then, as having no cost/benefit justification.
Don't forget, filing a difference (which CASA does when it suits them) makes Australia compliant. And don't forget that the Convention applies to international air transport, the adoption of ICAO SARPS for domestic aviation is a matter for sovereign nations.
CASA pushes ICAO compliance when it suits them, and ignores ICAO compliance when it suits them, what suits the Australia aviation community gets scant consideration.
It doesn't surprise me now, remember Mr. McCormick's statement to the effect that it was very hard to write rules that worked, so, in future we could look forward to a much greater flow (flood, even) of Legislative Instruments.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 13th Mar 2014 at 14:26.
CASA pushes ICAO compliance when it suits them, and ignores ICAO compliance when it suits them…
Australia pushes ICAO compliance when it suits Australia … because the government wants to hide behind CASA’s ‘expert view’ rather than take responsibility for the consequences of making the necesary decisions.
Folks,
I note the amendment by Creamie, and acknowledge that is certainly an element, but I am a devotee of the suggestion:
" If you have to choose between a conspiracy and a cockup, go for the cockup every time, statistically you will be well ahead".
Tootle pip!!
I note the amendment by Creamie, and acknowledge that is certainly an element, but I am a devotee of the suggestion:
" If you have to choose between a conspiracy and a cockup, go for the cockup every time, statistically you will be well ahead".
Tootle pip!!
In the stock market this process is known as Churning - brokers push investors to buy and sell shares simply to earn a commssion.
I fail to understand why the majority of CASA activity should not be viewed as using exactly the same principle - justifying its existence and size by constantly changing the rules for no useful purpose other than to keep staff employed.
"Harmonization" appears to be the latest excuse for pointless activity. If harmonisation were such a godsend, why doesnt CASA start by adopting either the EASA or FAA regulations in their entirety?
How can it be that something that was "safe" yesterday is today declared to be "unsafe" today, and vice versa? Simply by the writing of a piece of paper?
On a technical level, how can it be that a runway standard designed for the worst European weather - freezing rain, Ice, snow, low cloud and high mountains in heavily populated areas have any relevance whatsoever to the operation of a desert airport like Coober Pedy?
To me, CASA is sounding more like "group therapy for congenital deviates", to borrow Len Deightons phrase.
I fail to understand why the majority of CASA activity should not be viewed as using exactly the same principle - justifying its existence and size by constantly changing the rules for no useful purpose other than to keep staff employed.
"Harmonization" appears to be the latest excuse for pointless activity. If harmonisation were such a godsend, why doesnt CASA start by adopting either the EASA or FAA regulations in their entirety?
How can it be that something that was "safe" yesterday is today declared to be "unsafe" today, and vice versa? Simply by the writing of a piece of paper?
On a technical level, how can it be that a runway standard designed for the worst European weather - freezing rain, Ice, snow, low cloud and high mountains in heavily populated areas have any relevance whatsoever to the operation of a desert airport like Coober Pedy?
To me, CASA is sounding more like "group therapy for congenital deviates", to borrow Len Deightons phrase.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 109 Likes
on
62 Posts
Sunfish; A well reasoned post Sir! You expressed the matter far better than I could ever hope to.
I have wondered for quite some time just why there is such a need to change the rules and regulations, but spend such a huge amount of (taxpayers) money over such a large period of time and still have no end in sight. Or see much progress for that matter.
I started flying in 1982 and the then ANO's and ANR's whilst being cumbersome, somewhat vague in places and, according to a Lawyer acquaintance of mine who once borrowed my set 'for a bit of a read'
had 'several direct contradictions in them, were not completely in 'legalese' and could be reasonably interpreted and understood.'
Indeed! As for the ICAO standards though, I once heard them described as 'the lowest common denominator.'
You expressed the matter far better than I could ever hope to.I have wondered for quite some time just why there is such a need to change the rules and regulations, but spend such a huge amount of (taxpayers) money over such a large period of time and still have no end in sight. Or see much progress for that matter.
I started flying in 1982 and the then ANO's and ANR's whilst being cumbersome, somewhat vague in places and, according to a Lawyer acquaintance of mine who once borrowed my set 'for a bit of a read'
had 'several direct contradictions in them, were not completely in 'legalese' and could be reasonably interpreted and understood.'
If harmonisation were such a godsend, why doesn't CASA start by adopting either the EASA or FAA regulations in their entirety?
