|
The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
From the Proof Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 05, pages 124/5, at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S8083.pdf
Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever? Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process. I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues. Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister? Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister. In other words, the Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever. And there was me thinking Mr Byron was more manager than politician. |
Creampuff
As we have previously postulated, BB is either the Messiah, or just a naughty boy. If he can sustain his tenure till the end of 2006, he will be a very wealthy Messiah or naughty boy. The timelines are interesting, Howard and Anderson will control the senate come midyear, when it will then be effectively hobbled, and the Senate Estimates Committee will come under control of the Government (Minister). The opposition is running out of time to capitalise on their soon to expire advantage in the senate. "Yes Minister" is the game. Regulatory reform, CASA reform, Safety programs are not the driving agenda, personal survival and personal gain are the issues at stake and we are compelled to watch, powerless, from the sidelines. As for BB, whilst there is very little evidence of managerial skill, his political acumen can be seen as quite astute. |
"We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months."
And the Select Committee accepted that ludicrous double speak??? :{ |
I think Mr Byron, like his predecessor, is clever enough to know that regulatory ‘reform’ is one dead cat that’s best left moldering in the ‘pending’ tray. This question and answer (at page 124) occurred just before the passage quoted above:
Senator MARK BISHOP … When did the regulatory reform program begin and when was it originally scheduled to conclude? Mr Byron—The regulatory reform program commenced—and I might need to take advice from Mr Gemmell, who was in CASA at the time—in about 2002. Mr Gemmell—The regulatory reform program in various guises has been going for many years. The last formal kick-off for the current program was 1999. It was reviewed in 2001, a review done by me—in fact, I was newly joined to CASA—and we set ourselves a target of completing it by December 2003. Mr Byron joined as CEO on 1 December 2003, and it was at that point it was refocused from the time to the quality. At least we’ve managed to quadruple the size of the rules in the interim. Q: What do you get when you cross a dead cat with a camel? A: Australia’s civil aviation rules! |
Fair suck of the sauce bottle guys.:*
"We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months." decode = we'll have a timetable in a cuppla months.:cool: I think they got the message. In any event why should we be surprised that is taking a little while to get the whole trainset back on the rails. Refocus from quantity to quality AND where the emphasis for the application of resources needs to be applied :ok:takes time to do properly. A rational continuation of the revised reform process can't take place until the management and people issues are resolved and there has been a fair bit of that lately. Early 2006 in my understanding was always the new aiming point. I would substitute a Walrus for the Camel:E which would then explain why the people involved in the process got bored to death along the way.:E |
I hope you are correct, Gaunty.
However, after watching successive ‘deadlines’ (if one can dignify them with that name) for the completion of the ‘new’ rules come and go, year after year, you’ll forgive me if I don’t share your optimism. Why do you think Mr Byron’s language during the hearing shifted from clear and concise to the unintelligible political goobledegook quoted above? He doesn’t share your optimism, either. It’s taken nearly 10 years to build the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose in that hangar on the corner of Northbourne and Barry. No one’s going to redesign and rebuild it in one year. If they do, it’s going to be one ugly, inefficient bird. |
CP
He probably also can't turn water into wine, feed the multitude with a fish and loaf of bread or raise Lazarus. Maybe he can yet perform a miracle, albeit via sleight of hand or clever rhetoric. Perhaps you're right, after all, maybe he is not the Messiah, just a well paid naughty boy. Drifting back through the years of non performance makes interesting (but boring) reading. At least we haven't seen changes in letterheads and department names on a regular basis for a long time, in that era they were seen to be doing something, even if it was nothing. |
albeit via sleight of hand or clever rhetoric He doesn’t share your optimism, either. Optimism and a plan? maybe that's all we've got at the moment until the organic change is accomplished and the Spruce Goose is moved out of the hangar. I don't think the long term solution is any secret but there are only so many hours in a day and he needs all the constructive support we can give him. To suggest that he is the last shot in the locker may be a bit alarmist and not the least bit fair to BG and the many fine public servants in support. I don't think B1 ever thinks of himself as a Messiah and whatever they are paying probably isn't enough given the responsibility and the pizzling he gets from the Greek chorus. B2 has the Public Service experience skills to back him up. They are both good people besides. Why dont we try something really radical and assume that they are going to be succesful and support them, wherever it is possible and at every turn.:ok: |
I share your concern Creampuff for the following reasons.
CASA has been spruking about quality improvements for ages now, yet the basis for their processes is way out of date, flawed and provides little in the way of sound infrastructure on which to base contemporary quality improvements and measurements. The RRP became a political hot potato with DS. What a shame! I hope the RRP commences again soon and with the needed high level CASA and government support. It should be a top priority that if done correctly, will facilitate future improvements to Australian aviation. CASA will continue to just muddle along while the organization relies on outdated regs. The organization's rhetoric on quality will be just that - rhetoric - unless there are changes to the regs. |
Rather like an AOC holder being given sixteen years so far (1989 to 2005) to revise and submit it's Operations Manual!
If CASA had an AOC it would surely be long since suspended! Gaunty, stop being an optimist. There many more "careers to retirement" in this project yet!! And, Creamie, from what little I've seen of the reform process, we have many more years of debate on the meaning of the new CAR's which appear to make no more sense than many existing CAR's - such as CAR 206(1)(c). :} |
On a lighter note:
One of my favourite programmes on TV right now is "No going back" a terrific docco style show that follows the fortunes of couples who sell up their busy city life and buy say a formerly grand 15th Century European Chateaux to turn into a modern guest house. Invariably the house had "good bones" The job is always harder than they could posibly have imagined. The deeper they look the more evidence they find of botched repairs and el cheapo add ons. More often than not thay have to tear out the previous renos altogether. It always takes longer and costs more than they had budgeted, however carefully. The local bureacracy drives em nuts until they work out it actually works however odd the ways may be and how they can make it work for them. The locals always have the real answers that often go against theirs and external experts opinion all they have to do is ask. There is always a point at which they nearly give up to the "I told you so's". They almost invariably get there, after a lot of very hard hard work, a heap of encouragement, courage and persisitence, some timetable and planning adjustments and usually a bit more cash. Sound familiar. I'll betcha B1 and B2 watch the same show:ok: if only for inspiration from the people in it.:D :cool: |
On a similar subject, I have just seen the various "Matrix" that GA flying schools are required to follow less knuckles are rapped by CASA surveillance FOI on audits.
I might have misunderstood the principles of these "matrix" but the days seem to be over when you took your ab-initio student flying on one fine day and taught him several sequences in the one period if he showed the aptitude. For instance: A natural student could easily cover straight and level, climbing and descending, maybe a circuit joining and even a go at a take off. All in an hour on a nice day. But the new rules say your ops manual must show a Lesson Plan for each individual sequence which in turn must have numerous levels of competency. And I believe that no longer can the instructor tick the competency boxes but must describe each level of competency reached. So unless the Ops Manual Lesson Plan includes each individual exercise in the one period (which it won't because the instructor wouldn't know until he got airborne how good the student is), I understand that after completing (say) straight and level, the lesson is ended and you must go home to land as the Lesson Plan does not permit flexibility of choice to include other allied exercises. The cost to the student of learning to fly via Lesson Plan matrix policy is going to be horrendous. All of the above info I got from an instructor at a flying school as that is how he sees it. Is he right? |
Have you had a quick scan of the draft MOS for Part 61 yet? See: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/draftmos061_v3.pdf
It’s 1171 pages long. I hope flying training organisations have shelves strong enough to take this amount of simplification. |
Certificate IV "Train the Trainer" gobbledigook:mad:
|
http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2005/05-03-16.htm
CASA Media Release - Wednesday, 16 March 2005 Safety outcomes the top priority New aviation regulations must focus on safety outcomes rather than being excessively prescriptive. This principle for the development of new air safety rules has been laid down by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s chief executive officer, Bruce Byron. Mr Byron told an aviation law conference today that safety outcomes were generally more important than the methods used achieve compliance with regulations. “We want to get our regulations back to a clear safety focus,” Mr Byron said. “Where possible I want the rules to spell out the outcome to be achieved and not be excessively prescriptive. “The regulations should then be supported by an advisory method of compliance. “In other words, if you adopt this method you will satisfy the regulatory requirement (and satisfy CASA). But other methods may well produce the required outcome and may therefore be an acceptable means of compliance.” Mr Byron told the Aviation Law Association of Australia and New Zealand that some people in the aviation industry had doubts about the way CASA had conducted consultation while developing new regulations. He said these doubts centred on whether everyone had been given enough time to consider the large volume of proposed new rules being released and whether CASA had seriously considered suggestions put forward by the aviation industry. “Some said it was just ‘lip-service’ and CASA would implement the regulations in the way that it wanted. “It is almost irrelevant whether the concerns had any substance or not. Perception plays a big part in attitude formation in the aviation world and I suppose in most fields of human interaction. “There was a perception among a sufficiently significant group of players that there were problems with the way the regulatory development process was going.” Mr Byron said for these reasons he had issued directives that effectively put the regulatory reform processes on hold and set new principles for rules development. (My bolding) The speech can be read at: http://casa.gov.au/corporat/ceo/05-03-16.htm Media contact: Peter Gibson mobile 0419 296 446 Ref: 0509 Two Dogs |
I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is that the time required to clean up this regulatory train smash will be much, much longer than Mr Byron's likely incumbency as CEO. His replacement in a few years' time will, no doubt, have a different idea of what needs to be done, and this never-ending story will continue.
The overarching and chronic problem here is that the political cycle is simply too short, and its influences simply too self-interested, for the regulatory reform process to be commenced, managed objectively and in the public interest, then completed, before the use-by date of the person in charge of the process. |
There’s good news and bad news
The good news is that they’re going to try putting someone competent and qualified in charge of regulatory development, to see if that works:
CASA LEGAL SERVICES GROUP Manager Regulatory Development … manage and co-ordinate CASA’s regulatory development process… … Qualifications Applicants will be expected to hold tertiary qualifications in law or equivalent qualifications … The bad news is that the shimmering mirage of finalisation just moved a little further away in the desert of regulatory ‘reform’. At least a few weeks, and probably months, to work out who’s going to take on the job of resuscitating the dead cat, at least another few months for the new appointee to conduct a review to work out how dead the cat really is, and at least another few months to work out a strategy for spiriting the carcass into someone else’s ‘in’ tray. Meanwhile, the CEO of CASA has said that CASA is “not that far away” from completing a “review” of Part 91. New “draft” rules for maintenance “should” be completed by year-end and new draft rules for operations “should” be completed by “early” 2006. Keep trudging lads – I can see water just over the next sand dune! |
Yes CASA need more Lawyers. OLC Empire building again?
|
All of the amateurs have had a dabble, col. Might as well give a turn to someone who knows what they’re doing.
It's just back to the future, of course. Alas, too late methinks. |
What are we actually supposed to be doing?
Oh dear. Nine months after it was made, CASA is still trying to work out what CEO Directive 16/2004 actually means. (copy here:
http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/ceo/...ir016_2004.pdf) Hmmmm. What to do ….. What to do …… I know: let's have some training! Here are some extracts from the notes of the Standard Consultative Committee meeting held on 18 May 2005 (copy here: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_scc_19notes.pdf) … 4.2 Rowena also noted that a training day for participants involved in the CEO Directive 16/2004 review was foreshadowed at the 16 March SCC meeting. Rowena said that the scope of this training was narrowed down from the prospective 300+ participants to approximately 40 CASA staff. The focus of the information session will be on safety risk assessment and outcome-based regulation with the aim being to enable a unified view of these issues. Rowena suggested the training would also be extended to the chair of the SCC, the aviation industry Sub-Committee co-chairs and one or two other key personnel to be nominated by the Sub-Committee co-chairs. Rowena stated the outcome of the training day will be captured on a CD so that it can be broadcast widely and used as further information/training to CEO Directive 16 participants. Rowena said the training date is provisionally scheduled for Thursday 2 June 2005 in Canberra. The SCC considered the training day should proceed with priority, and recommended that an overview of the training be provided at the next SCC meeting in August. Later comment: The training date has been re-set to 5 July 2005 due to unavailability of presenters. 4.3 Rowena noted that work on applying CEO Directive 16/2004 to the maintenance suite of CASRs is temporarily suspended until after the training day has been conducted. … |
Scene 21 - The commandos act another resolution
REG: Right. Now, uh, item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Uh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this. FRANCIS: Yeah. Thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months. REG: Twelve months? FRANCIS: Yeah, twelve months. And, let's face it. As empires go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it! COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear! LORETTA: I agree. It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now. COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear! REG: You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier! FRANCIS: So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere! COMMANDOS: Right! LORETTA: I agree. This is a complete waste of time. [door slams; enter Judith] JUDITH: They've arrested Brian! REG: What? COMMANDOS: What? JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him! REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion! COMMANDO #1: Yeah. JUDITH: What?! COMMANDO #2: Immediate. COMMANDO #1: Right. LORETTA: New motion? REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action-- FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken. REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it... JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, let's go now! REG: Yeah. Yeah. JUDITH: Please! REG: Right. Right. FRANCIS: Fine. REG: In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith-- LORETTA: Ah, not so fast, Reg. JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh! [Judith exits; door slams] REG: Hm. Hm. FRANCIS: Oh, dear. REG: Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists. LORETTA: What? FRANCIS: [whistling] REG: Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you? |
Curse you Creamy;) , I have got this delicious site of totally useless tid-bits of Monty stuff and I can't get it to link a picture.....damn damn damn. Look Judith there's the fall of the roman empire!
|
So depressingly predictable:
Target dates [have been] re-established for operational CASR Parts to reflect ongoing CEO Directive 016/2004 safety risk/outcome process. Budding spin doctors should note the new euphemism for “delayed again”. E.g. “Passengers on flight AB23 please note that the departure time has again been re-established. It will now be departing at 7.25.” The target date for commencement of some of the ‘new’ rules is 1st quarter 2008, and it won’t be long before those dates are “re-established” again. And they’re still fooling around with the 1988 regulations (see for example the CAR 166 farce). Appropriate adjectives elude me. |
The "Principality" with 600 (or is it now 1,200) "Prince's" are just hanging out for a gold watch.
Is incompetence an adjective? |
creampuff
I have been lurking, watching, reading your posts and gaunty's job application. It was all very interesting, but please take care not to mix up the words 'lawyer' and 'know what they are doing' in the same sentence, it undermines your argument. Other than that, see you in MER for breakfast some day. |
Readers may recall the thread I started around this time last year to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the loss, on 2 October 1994, of VH-SVQ and all nine souls on board. In that thread I stated among other things:
The report of the $20 million Commission of Inquiry into the Relations between the Civil Aviation Authority and Seaview Air followed 2 years and later. The Minister for Transport at the time the report was handed down noted in Parliament: Honeymooners Leeca and Anthony Atkinson were setting out on the first day of their new life together. Reg and Pam Drayton were setting out on what was for them a second honeymoon; Stephen and Carol Lake and two of their five children, Judith and Benjamin, were setting off on a family holiday. The report paints a picture of the young pilot, Paul Sheil, as also being a victim of this unsafe organisation. These are the tragic consequences of wanton operators and an incompetent and timid regulator. They are not just statistics. That in respect of Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (relating to various forms of commercial operations, including regular public transport operations) urgent consideration be given to amending or replacing the Regulation to overcome the problems identified in the course of the Commission. According to sworn evidence by regulators, time and time again, in front of Senate Committees, the new classification of operations rules have always been 'in development' and 'just around the corner'. The current 'target date' is 4th quarter 2004. The CEO of CASA delivered a speech, entitled The CASA Safety Program - New Initiatives in a Time of Change at the 2005 Safeskies Conference on 27 October 2005. A transcript is available from the CASA website. In that speech the CEO said, among other things, that: Some New Initiatives Having described some of the principles that have guided the approach to change at CASA, it may be appropriate to say something of the individual changes. Regulation Development The making of safety regulations is one of our significant functions. In terms of lessons learned the history of regulatory development in CASA has not been one bathed in glory. There have been a number of programs aimed at regulatory reform over the near decade that CASA has been in existence. And each failed to deliver, for a variety of reasons. That represents quite an expenditure of resources for limited output, and that is unacceptable. The most recent attempt involved a ‘big bang’ approach aimed at getting the whole spread of regulations reviewed and re-launched as a package. This approach was understandable because many regulations are cross-linked, so to develop one suite without another related suite meant potential difficulty. But the result was a massive effort tying up substantial resources across CASA and severely limiting the availability of those resources to be directed to endeavours which arguably might have a more direct and immediate influence on safety. And regulations were being produced which were overly prescriptive, excessively complex and in many cases offered minimal contribution to safety. I wasn’t prepared to accept that. So the lesson here was that unless luck is on your side, a ‘big bang’ risks a subsequent implosion. The initiatives arising from that have included restructuring the way we do things to place the people working on regulatory development into the operational areas that work directly with the relevant industry sectors. Rather than trying to solve all the regulatory issues at once, we will be using small focussed teams to tackle individual regulatory packages, without ignoring the inter-relationship issue. We will also be careful reviewing, in association with industry representatives, all new regulations to make sure that they are outcome based, are simple, and make a genuine contribution to safety. Maintaining the regulatory development focus, in the past we had an aversion to looking overseas for guidance. The line usually run was that the Australian aviation environment is special, and it was not feasible to pick up the regulatory structure of another aviation nation and apply it here. And in fairness there were limited options for suitable models. However, the newly formed European Aviation Safety Agency is taking a fresh approach to regulatory development, embracing a number of the rule-making priorities mentioned earlier, so we have established a small industry / CASA team to work with EASA on a trial program to test whether one particular set of their new rules may have some application here. This is something of a change for us, and a further recognition of the need to learn from past lessons. The lessons have been learnt before; the approach has been tried before. Adjectives continue to elude me. |
I'm in the wrong job!:hmm:
|
Creampuff
I'm not normally known for giving any latitude to CASA, however, I think you may be a little unjust on BB in your last post. The regulatory reform process is, I believe, something like a supertanker. To get it to change direction is a massive operation that takes time and distance and there is still a lot of resistance within CASA to being told to change. That said, I still think they may be better off adopting something like the FAA regulations and make as few changes as possible to suit Australia and our legal framework. I doubt that CASA has the expertise to complete the process and produce a satisfactory outcome. |
I doubt that CASA has the expertise to complete the process and produce a satisfactory outcome. CASA has the expertise to have completed the process 3 times over, in satisfaction of whatever differing criteria anyone wanted to choose. The real problem is that despite what its critics might think, the folks in CASA aren't stupid. The people in CASA know perfectly well when there's a policy decision to be made, and they know perfectly well that the people who are supposed to make those decisions are hoping that some other muggins will make them instead. The recent history of regulatory 'reform' is a litany of Ministers, Ministerial staffers and advisors, dabblers and others, who want someone else to make and take responsibility for their decisions. The people at the coal face in CASA aren't that dumb. They say: "Here are your options, here are the risks and benefits of each option, now you tell us which option you wish to take, because it is your decision." Ouch! That could mean that a CEO, or a staffer or some other politician might be held accountable for a decision! We can't have that now, can we. So, let's just drift around year after year, spouting motherhood statements, and hope that everyone stops noticing the obscene waste of time and money that's left in our wake. |
Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business
Here's the solution:
On 12 October 2005 the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a taskforce to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from Government regulation, to report on 31 January 2006. The taskforce has released an issues paper and request for submissions. One topic is recognition of foreign regulations, the relevant paragraph is reproduced below. "The Taskforce also seeks information on any areas in which Australian Government regulation duplicates international regulation. For example, are there any Australian licensing or vetting procedures for production processes, products or professionals that duplicate similar or equivalent licensing or vetting procedures conducted by foreign regulatory agencies?" Its taken so long to get parts 61, 91 & 183 up and running let's just grab the American ones and continue the debate once the've been implemented here. I especially like the American rule about aerobatics. |
Good news: The deadlines are "specific" this time!
The Proof Hansard of the hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 12 February 2006 reports, at page 96, that Mr Byron said:
I have also set specific deadlines and introduced a new approach to the management and delivery of the regulatory reform program. By all means please post the link. Links to Government and aviation general interest sites are no problem it is only an issue when they point to advertising, porno or personal agenda W Roger. Here's the link: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9095.pdf What's that joke about 'deadlines'? |
RRP deadline mentioned in media release.
This appeared a few days ago...
Regulatory reform program refined The framework for the development of Australia's aviation safety regulations is being refined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The framework will make it easier for the aviation industry to comply with the safety rules, as well as streamlining the process of updating regulations. At the heart of the new approach to regulatory development are two tiers of legislation, underpinned by supporting safety advisory material. The tiers of legislation are the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. CASA plans to support the legislation with material which will provide guidance to the aviation industry on how to comply with the regulations and Act. CASA's preference is to replace the current three tiers of legislation: the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders. The big advantages of this framework are that the supporting guidance material will be written in easy-to-follow technical language rather than legal language and there will be flexibility in how the aviation industry complies with the rules. CASA chief executive officer Bruce Byron says the approach is one used in other leading aviation nations and has a proven track record. “This means we can make the regulations shorter, with a clear focus on safety outcomes, while leaving the detail about compliance to the supporting material,” Mr Byron says. “The supporting material will consist of an Acceptable Means of Compliance, advisory circulars and other documentation as required.” CASA will also be establishing a simpler process for developing the new regulations, while maintaining a high level of consultation with the aviation industry. “We are forming small industry/CASA teams to develop the supporting material for each set of regulations. These teams will start with the safety outcomes we need to achieve and work out the best and most practical ways of delivering the safety results. “CASA will then review the relevant regulations to determine what changes need to be made.” During 2006 the maintenance suite of regulations will be finalised, along with rules relating to aerial work application and the sports aviation suite. The majority of the remaining rules will be completed next year. For more details on CASA's reform program for 2006-07 go to: www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/changes.htm |
I will repeat something I said a year ago, in this very thread (slightly amended text in bold):
It’s taken over 10 years to build the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose in that hangar on the corner of Northbourne and Barry. No one’s going to redesign and rebuild it in 22 months. If they do, it’s going to be one ugly, inefficient bird. |
Eeeeerm I recieved my February issue yesterday of Business & Commercial Aviation
Two fascinating articles. One a review of the MU2 which left more unsaid than said, and for which the FAA now requires amongst other things Part 121 training sytems but the more interesting one was the article about the FAA. Its called Caught in the Middle and accurately describes the problem that the operators and FAA have in uniform interpretation and application of the regs. The hazardous "work arounds" some operators have used and the problems the FAA have in that area. It is a mirror of the Australian experience where we have a widely dispersed aviation population and regulatory effort. For those who are in the habit of paying out on the regulator it should give them an understanding that the problem is not necessariloy with the regulator per se and for CASA some solace that they are not alone with this problem. If you are serious about understanding the issue and dont subscribe, either do or go buy it off the shelf. When I have a minute I'll try to summarise the dot points but buy it any way. They also refer to a previous article which appeared in the Aug 2005 issue, "Lighting the Dark side of Charter" which should be required reading or incoporated in the ops manual for operators and a tool for CASA in what to look for. |
Here's a link to Gaunty's article ( avery long one):
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/mu2_0206.xml |
Tacan400
Thanks mate now if we can only find but the more interesting one was the article about the FAA. ........ "Caught in the Middle" and the preceding....."Lighting the Dark side of Charter" Both of which give the lie to the allegedly "different" treatment we get from our regulator and the allegedly "diiferent" method of operation of our "charter" operators.:ok: I also recieved my AOPA mag yesterday, same old same old tirade against the Minister. I believe their President was summoned to his office the other day, would love to have been a fly on the wall, I hear it was not all sweetness and light. |
One not being a member and having no acces to the magazine, (but I may join one day), can you enlighten me on the details of the Minister's meeting as reported to members but not to the Infidel's
I am also curious which magazine edition you refer to, normally the Jan/ Feb edition has the election rules and timetable and nomination forms. If they are leaving this to March it is a bit tight for time. Are they soliciting nominations? |
Bob Murphie
At the risk of perpetuating thread drift. Magazine published before the Ministers meeting. No nomination or election material enclosed. My only point was to point out that the habit of habitual haranguing is not safely based on our regulator being any worse or any better than any other, they have a job to do, neither is it productive as we have seen over the years. Back to the topic. |
Yes there was a meeting, very amicable and productive.
This is just simply a LIE. (Not a word changed - just a few missed out - Rob) |
Take it to AGACF assylum please people.
To get the thread back on track, I note that there may be any number of excuses and analogous circumstances to explain why the regulatory reform progam is drifting along forever. Why not just be honest about that, rather than perpetrating a cruel and expensive hoax on the industry and taxpayer year after year? The Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme was implemented in a shorter time and with less money than this farce! The 'dambuster' bombs were designed, built and tested, and the crews were trained and successfully completed their mission, in a matter of weeks for Christ's sake. See you all back here at the end of 2006, for yet another depressingly predictable announcement. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.