Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quote my previous post:
If you can accept that, then the question becomes where to draw the line.
Dick, I think that is what you are actually about... your views on airspace and mandatory ADSB have always been about where to draw the line (and with respect to ADSB, "when" to draw the line, as a cost vs risk equation).
I think perhaps where you need to be heading with this is not just cost vs risk, it's cost vs risk vs benefit.
That is, it should be a three-way analysis, not just a two-way analysis. The third being the benefit to aviation, the economy, and society in general. That is the bit that CASA seems to miss. That's the bit that the FAA seems to get.
Substitute the word "safety" in place of "risk" if you like, it matters little. I dislike the word "safety" because it implies black or white (safe or unsafe), and as you know there is no such thing. It's actually all about risk, unless you are trying to sell something.
Dick, I think that is what you are actually about... your views on airspace and mandatory ADSB have always been about where to draw the line (and with respect to ADSB, "when" to draw the line, as a cost vs risk equation).
I think perhaps where you need to be heading with this is not just cost vs risk, it's cost vs risk vs benefit.
That is, it should be a three-way analysis, not just a two-way analysis. The third being the benefit to aviation, the economy, and society in general. That is the bit that CASA seems to miss. That's the bit that the FAA seems to get.
Substitute the word "safety" in place of "risk" if you like, it matters little. I dislike the word "safety" because it implies black or white (safe or unsafe), and as you know there is no such thing. It's actually all about risk, unless you are trying to sell something.
Safety is considered. Twin-engined aircraft must operate to more onerous requirements than four-engined aircraft, so that the overall risk is considered acceptable. CASA do not say that 4 engines are safer than 2 engines, they say that 2 engines operated like this are considered as safe as 4 engines operated like that. They have made safety win over costs by insisting that the "less" safe operate differently. If they didn't care, twins could do what they want.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different spin on the topic of safety as regulated by CASA.
It has now become normal for Engineering managament to have zero aircraft maintenance experience or knowledge. This is approved by CASA. Once these non aviation people are approved to hold a responsible position they also then self regulate.
From my First hand knowledge decades of safety learnt from experience/mistakes/knowledge have all been thrown out the window with these people. For example they will have a satisfactory knowledge of EDTO as taught in a 2 hour course, and as can be read on paper in the MOE, yet will still try to find ways to spin the wording to ask an engineer to get an aircraft in the air when they don’t have a lifetime of aircraft experience to stop them walking into schoolboy errors due to ignorance, and the fact that holding a masters in aviation management means they choose to ignore hundreds of years of experience from people under them.
A big part of maintaining an EDTO approval is the maintenance section yet CASA project their audits in advance and it is now the norm for The same management to present a company pre audit checklist to be carried out within the facility prior to each advertised CASA audit to ensure a pass.
I guess what I am trying to say is EDTO is mainly about maintaining the aircraft to those standards, followed by the correct operation of the machine in the air.
A bigger concern should be that these aircraft are flown by the pilots, carrying unwitting passengers, with these types of unqualified people in charge and approved to be such by CASA. The equivalent would be having a chief pilot with not a single flying hour under their belt.
It is all good whilst people with experience can stand up and say no to these under qualified management. In 20 years with the millennial thought processes firmly in place there will be very few people in the industry with traditional safety first training still in the industry. Perhaps a spike in the graph will show up.
It has now become normal for Engineering managament to have zero aircraft maintenance experience or knowledge. This is approved by CASA. Once these non aviation people are approved to hold a responsible position they also then self regulate.
From my First hand knowledge decades of safety learnt from experience/mistakes/knowledge have all been thrown out the window with these people. For example they will have a satisfactory knowledge of EDTO as taught in a 2 hour course, and as can be read on paper in the MOE, yet will still try to find ways to spin the wording to ask an engineer to get an aircraft in the air when they don’t have a lifetime of aircraft experience to stop them walking into schoolboy errors due to ignorance, and the fact that holding a masters in aviation management means they choose to ignore hundreds of years of experience from people under them.
A big part of maintaining an EDTO approval is the maintenance section yet CASA project their audits in advance and it is now the norm for The same management to present a company pre audit checklist to be carried out within the facility prior to each advertised CASA audit to ensure a pass.
I guess what I am trying to say is EDTO is mainly about maintaining the aircraft to those standards, followed by the correct operation of the machine in the air.
A bigger concern should be that these aircraft are flown by the pilots, carrying unwitting passengers, with these types of unqualified people in charge and approved to be such by CASA. The equivalent would be having a chief pilot with not a single flying hour under their belt.
It is all good whilst people with experience can stand up and say no to these under qualified management. In 20 years with the millennial thought processes firmly in place there will be very few people in the industry with traditional safety first training still in the industry. Perhaps a spike in the graph will show up.
It has now become normal for Engineering managament to have zero aircraft maintenance experience or knowledge. This is approved by CASA. Once these non aviation people are approved to hold a responsible position they also then self regulate.
The point of the ad was where a CPA can get you but from an aviation perspective it was absolutely horrifying.
Thread Starter
Derfred, I agree with the first two paragraphs of your post 57, but unfortunately your third paragraph really goes downhill. It says:
Yes, it probably “needs” to do that if it is going to comply with the Act, but in practice, clearly there are many cases when CASA does not decide the rules using safety as the most important consideration. There are times when it uses the marketplace as the most important consideration – as I have said in previous posts.
You state that “CASA is invested in affordable safety”, yet for some reason they like to deny this. Try to get someone within CASA to actually say the words “affordable safety.”
I think many have this belief that the Australian public are so stupid they can’t be informed as to the different levels of safety that are provided under the regulations. Of course these different levels depend on affordability. If we tried to have full FAR25 airline standard aircraft operating to Bourke, the cost of the air tickets would be too high and the service would stop.
You say an argument around ETOPS or EDTO is not a good test case in this particular matter. The reason we have these twin engine operations is not because CASA decided to make the decision, it is because the decision was made in Europe and the USA. Whether people at CASA wanted to differ was not the deciding factor. They simply had to harmonise with what the rest of the world was doing – or become a laughing stock.
I would imagine Boeing went to the FAA and said words to the effect, “We can get a lot more people flying if you would approve twin engine operation over remote areas, and we can make the aircraft acceptably safe.” The FAA no doubt saw the common sense logic in this. Fortunately, the FAA doesn’t have legislation which says that safety has to be “the most important consideration.” They realise there needs to be a balance between safety and participation levels.
That is what this thread is about. It is great to see that people are becoming better informed after just about every post.
If I worked for CASA I would be proud to say that there are a number of different levels of regulated safety based on the ethos of getting as many people as possible going by air travel which is safer than the road.
“CASA needs to decide the rules, using safety as the most important consideration …"
You state that “CASA is invested in affordable safety”, yet for some reason they like to deny this. Try to get someone within CASA to actually say the words “affordable safety.”
I think many have this belief that the Australian public are so stupid they can’t be informed as to the different levels of safety that are provided under the regulations. Of course these different levels depend on affordability. If we tried to have full FAR25 airline standard aircraft operating to Bourke, the cost of the air tickets would be too high and the service would stop.
You say an argument around ETOPS or EDTO is not a good test case in this particular matter. The reason we have these twin engine operations is not because CASA decided to make the decision, it is because the decision was made in Europe and the USA. Whether people at CASA wanted to differ was not the deciding factor. They simply had to harmonise with what the rest of the world was doing – or become a laughing stock.
I would imagine Boeing went to the FAA and said words to the effect, “We can get a lot more people flying if you would approve twin engine operation over remote areas, and we can make the aircraft acceptably safe.” The FAA no doubt saw the common sense logic in this. Fortunately, the FAA doesn’t have legislation which says that safety has to be “the most important consideration.” They realise there needs to be a balance between safety and participation levels.
That is what this thread is about. It is great to see that people are becoming better informed after just about every post.
If I worked for CASA I would be proud to say that there are a number of different levels of regulated safety based on the ethos of getting as many people as possible going by air travel which is safer than the road.
From the FAA website home page:
Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.
Our Values
Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.
Our Values
Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I know what you are saying. And it is an interesting question, and provided me with an interesting diversion for an hour or so.
But I don't think that s9A is as all-encompassing as it appears. It talks of a "most important consideration" which I think someone above mentioned does not mean "only consideration".
Also, the legislation should be read as a whole. I think s9A "colours" further sections of the legislation.
Some of the case law talks about
"In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal is mindful of the requirement in s 9A(1) of the CAA which dictates that a suitably cautious approach must be taken to assessing the risks posed to the safety of air navigation by ..."
and
"However, I am satisfied those provisions merely acknowledge the Parliament's intention that safety of air navigation has always been the principal end to be satisfied by the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and that end has now been expressed in clear words by the Parliament."
And policy that is not contradictory to legislation such as the one I lifted from the CASA website (and I assume there is a policy rather than a webpage) is relevant as well.
"In Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634, Brennan J observed that policy is a key factor in attaining consistency in decision making. Consistency is a desirable goal in administration, as the application of differing standards in the exercise of a power by administrators can only result in unfairness and a consequent lack of confidence in the executive. The AAT should therefore apply lawful policy unless to do so would work an injustice in the particular case or there are other cogent reasons for not doing so (2 ALD at 644-645). A similar view was expressed in Re Ruggeri and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALD 338 at350. "
So, I would argue that a policy talking about ALARP and s9A are not inconsistent. And if ALARP is OK, then ETOPS should be as well...
But I don't think that s9A is as all-encompassing as it appears. It talks of a "most important consideration" which I think someone above mentioned does not mean "only consideration".
Also, the legislation should be read as a whole. I think s9A "colours" further sections of the legislation.
Some of the case law talks about
"In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal is mindful of the requirement in s 9A(1) of the CAA which dictates that a suitably cautious approach must be taken to assessing the risks posed to the safety of air navigation by ..."
and
"However, I am satisfied those provisions merely acknowledge the Parliament's intention that safety of air navigation has always been the principal end to be satisfied by the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and that end has now been expressed in clear words by the Parliament."
And policy that is not contradictory to legislation such as the one I lifted from the CASA website (and I assume there is a policy rather than a webpage) is relevant as well.
"In Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634, Brennan J observed that policy is a key factor in attaining consistency in decision making. Consistency is a desirable goal in administration, as the application of differing standards in the exercise of a power by administrators can only result in unfairness and a consequent lack of confidence in the executive. The AAT should therefore apply lawful policy unless to do so would work an injustice in the particular case or there are other cogent reasons for not doing so (2 ALD at 644-645). A similar view was expressed in Re Ruggeri and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALD 338 at350. "
So, I would argue that a policy talking about ALARP and s9A are not inconsistent. And if ALARP is OK, then ETOPS should be as well...
I understand what you are trying to do but posting what you believe to be rhetorical questions on this site are misplaced. Nothing will change in CASA until they are forced to change by political pressure.
Thread Starter
Plovett.
I think what is important is what happens in practice. Over the last decade CASA appears to have been responsible for a one way ratchet in increasing costs on GA.
The unique ADSB mandate is just one example. And also part 61.
I have been told many times by CASA people that they do not have any legislative requirement to promote a profitable industry or get more people flying so they can benefit from a safer form of travel.
Seems strange to me that you say they will have to be forced to change. Why would they not want to change and get more people flying.?
I think what is important is what happens in practice. Over the last decade CASA appears to have been responsible for a one way ratchet in increasing costs on GA.
The unique ADSB mandate is just one example. And also part 61.
I have been told many times by CASA people that they do not have any legislative requirement to promote a profitable industry or get more people flying so they can benefit from a safer form of travel.
Seems strange to me that you say they will have to be forced to change. Why would they not want to change and get more people flying.?
Michigan and PLovett: If you can find an AAT or Federal Court matter in which CASA does not argue that section 9A(1) justified and was the overriding consideration in the decision in question, please post the link/s.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your argument is about as sound as; why does your insurance company allow you to fly a JetRanger when there are twin engine helicopters? Is it because they just want you to die?
The insurance company makes an objective assessment of the probabilities of having to pay out, puts a price and margin on that risk, and off Dick goes in his JetRanger and insurance cover. That’s a commercially-driven decision, not a safety decision.
Dick’s point is that CASA makes equivalent decisions, but pretends they are determined by safety considerations.
For example, there is no safety basis for the classification of operations. Passengers boarding a charter flight on a 9 seat piston aircraft and passengers boarding an RPT flight on a twin jet have no idea about the absolute and comparative probabilities of each aircraft being involved in a fatal accident. Amazingly, if the passengers on the first aircraft happen to be a patient being medevacd, and her husband, the flight is acceptably ‘safe’ at aerial work standards, but not acceptably ‘safe’ if they are just ‘plain old passengers’.
The classification of operations scheme results in some people being less safe than others, based on cost and practical considerations. “Cost and practical considerations” is long-hand for “politics”.
Dick’s point is that CASA makes equivalent decisions, but pretends they are determined by safety considerations.
For example, there is no safety basis for the classification of operations. Passengers boarding a charter flight on a 9 seat piston aircraft and passengers boarding an RPT flight on a twin jet have no idea about the absolute and comparative probabilities of each aircraft being involved in a fatal accident. Amazingly, if the passengers on the first aircraft happen to be a patient being medevacd, and her husband, the flight is acceptably ‘safe’ at aerial work standards, but not acceptably ‘safe’ if they are just ‘plain old passengers’.
The classification of operations scheme results in some people being less safe than others, based on cost and practical considerations. “Cost and practical considerations” is long-hand for “politics”.
Thread Starter
B772. You are stating that a large capacity airline aircraft flew for over three hours as a single engined aircraft.
No doubt during that three hours there was a chance that the single engine could fail.
Can someone provide details on what that chance actually was ?
No doubt during that three hours there was a chance that the single engine could fail.
Can someone provide details on what that chance actually was ?
Dick, I think I have pointed out a couple of times what I believe, broadly, is the error of your interpretation of s9A. The argument you are making is one with a foundation in the correct interpretation of the Act. Might I suggest that rather than bouncing ideas off PPRUNE readers, many of whome have a good practical appreciation of affordable safety and risk management, that you speak to someone who is a specialist in statutory interpretation. That is a barrister, preferably one who works in this area of the law. I am sure that with your background and resources that would not be difficult to do.
Regards,
TM
Regards,
TM