|
Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Media Statement 14 November 2013 Aviation Safety Regulation Review DEPUTY Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today announced an independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia. “This announcement delivers on one of the key commitments outlined in the Coalition’s 2013 Policy for Aviation,” Mr Truss said. “Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety – among the best in the world – which has been built on a strong regulatory system, forged over many years.” In launching the review, Mr Truss said aviation activity is expected to double in the next twenty years. The industry is a vital part of our economy and we must ensure it is supported by a regulatory system that delivers the highest levels of safety. “Now is the right time to reassess how our safety regulatory system is placed in dealing with this dynamic and evolving sector. The independent review reinforces the Government’s commitment to maintaining safety as the highest priority in aviation. “The review will be strategic in nature. It is about whether we are on the right track to meet future challenges and respond to growing demand in aviation.” The review is to be undertaken by a panel of leading aviation safety experts and will benchmark Australia’s safety regulation against other leading countries. Mr David Forsyth AM, will Chair the review panel. Mr Forsyth is a prominent figure in Australian aviation. He is the chair of Safeskies Australia, former chair of Airservices Australia and has over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business. Mr Forsyth will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, former Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and former Director General of the International Business Aviation Council, and by Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, former safety adviser to Qantas and former United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority board member. The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers. Mr Truss has appointed Phillip Reiss to take particular responsibility to ensure that the concerns of general aviation and regional operators are well aired. Mr Truss indicated his confidence that the breadth and depth of expertise secured to conduct this review will ensure that a comprehensive and balanced perspective is reflected in the panel’s findings. Over the coming months, the review panel will undertake extensive industry and public consultation. Further details, including how to make a submission, will be available from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr<http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr>. The review panel will provide its report to the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2014. The Terms of Reference for the review and information about the review panel members follow at Attachments A and B. Attachment A Aviation Safety Regulation Review Terms of Reference Objectives The principal objectives of the review are to investigate: • the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety; • the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure); • the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); • the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and • any other safety related matters. Outcomes The report of the review will: • examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and other agencies as appropriate; • outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure; • examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB; • examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry; • review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry; • examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business; • provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and • provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review. Consultation The review will seek the views of the CASA Board and senior management and staff, and the ATSB Commission and senior management and staff in developing its advice to Government on the review’s objectives, and consult closely with: - international, domestic, regional, general aviation, sport and recreational aircraft and maintenance operators and organisations; - federal, regional and local airport operators; - other relevant Government agencies including Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, the Department of Defence and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC); and - other industry and public stakeholders. Background Australia’s aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (covering the operations of CASA), the Air Services Act 1995 (covering the operations of Airservices) and Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (covering the operations of the ATSB). In addition the establishment of an Aviation Safety Regulatory Development Taskforce in March 2010, comprising dedicated resources from CASA and OPC, was specifically aimed at helping expedite the completion of the regulatory drafting work for an aviation safety regulatory reform programme. The current regulatory reform programme involves completion of three main regulatory suites covering aircraft maintenance, aircraft operations and flight crew licensing. The maintenance and licensing suites are largely completed with the operations suite scheduled to be completed next year. The aviation industry and CASA are in the process of implementing the maintenance and licensing regulatory changes already made and in which significant investment in improved systems, training and education is completed or under way. Work on updated regulations for areas affecting general aviation such as amendments to Civil Aviation Safety Regulations - Part 42 (Continuing Airworthiness - amendments for charter and aerial work), Part 132 (Limited Category Aircraft Operations - Warbirds), Part 138 (Aerial Work Operations) and for sport and recreational aviation (Parts 103, 105 and 149) are scheduled to be progressed in the next twelve months. Earlier this year a Senate report into Aviation Accident Investigations highlighted a range of issues with the regulation and governance of aviation safety within Australia. It is therefore timely to consider future aviation safety structures and regulatory development approaches and processes in Australia by evaluating the effectiveness of the current approach, looking at international experience and possible options for future improvements and bearing in mind the commitment of the Australian Government to reduce the burden of regulation on the economy. It is also timely to look at which areas should be priorities for future regulatory development to meet continued growth in aviation demand. Review Membership and Timing The review panel will comprise Mr David Forsyth (chair), Mr Don Spruston and Mr Roger Whitefield. The panel will be assisted by a Secretariat established within Infrastructure, and will be supported as required by specialist advisers. The review will report to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in May 2014. Attachment B Aviation Safety Regulation Review – Panel Members Mr David Forsyth AM (Australia) – Review Panel Chair Mr Forsyth has extensive experience in aviation engineering and management. A professional engineer and a Member of the Order of Australia, he has held executive and board positions across the industry, government, not-for-profit and academic sectors in Australia. Mr Forsyth currently works as an independent consultant to the aviation industry and has served on a number of Boards, including as Chair of Airservices Australia, Chair of the Safeskies Conference, Vice President of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (SE Section) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division. He previously worked for Qantas for over 30 years in technical and management roles including: Manager of the Melbourne Maintenance Base; General Manager, Regional Airlines; and Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations. Mr Forsyth holds a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering (Hons) and a Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering Developments from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and has completed the Stanford University Executive Program. A Councillor of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Australian division since 2004, he is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the UNSW School of Aviation. Mr Don Spruston (Canada) – Review Panel Member Mr Spruston has wide-ranging experience in oversight and regulation of the aviation sector with the Canadian Government. He has also been extensively involved in the development and implementation of criteria for reviewing aviation safety regulatory performance as part of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). Formerly Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, Mr Spruston was until recently, the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) based in ICAO headquarters in Montreal, Canada. He has previously held senior positions with Transport Canada including Director General of Aircraft Services, and Regional Director of Air Navigation Services in the Pacific Region. Mr Spruston holds a Bachelor of Science from the Royal Military College of Canada and has an Airline Transport Pilot Licence. Mr Roger Whitefield (United Kingdom) – Review Panel Member Mr Whitefield has held senior positions in both regulatory and operational roles within the aviation industry – he was previously a commercial pilot for over 30 years. For the past 10 years he has been a board member of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) during a period of significant structural and governance reform of the Authority. He is a member of the International Safety Review Team which most recently conducted an independent safety review of Air France following their loss of an A330 aircraft. He is also Chair of Air Safety Support International (a UK Government company charged with helping deliver aviation safety oversight for British overseas territories). A Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Mr Whitefield spent a number of years as an external advisor to the Qantas Safety Review Board. Mr Whitefield has had 39 years’ experience working for UK airlines as a pilot, airline captain and in executive roles, including as Head of Safety and Head of Corporate Safety and Quality with British Airways. [ENDS] Media Contact: Brett Heffernan on (02) 6277 7680 or 0467 650 020 or [email protected]> |
Peace for our time!
|
Is that a piece of paper in your hand Mr Chamberlain?
I do like the potential of this bit: Outcomes The report of the review will: <snip> • outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure; <snip> • examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry; • review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry; • examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business; • provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and • provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review. |
Finally they’re having a review.
Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government. And then it will be aviation Nirvana. Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap. I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish. |
Life, as a goldfish.
A review next year eh, well what's to be done then?. Do we all sit and sweat it out over the keyboard, writing and editing; then rewriting. Bore our nearest and dearest witless asking them to read a masterpiece they can't comprehend. Then when it's finally done; wave a tearful, fond farewell to the paperwork as it disappears into the belly of the beast expecting it to make a difference, secretly knowing that within a 12 month it will be treated as every other submission made; redundant from birth.
Control over outcome is what's needed if this expensive inquiry is to get home, the opposition is entrenched, established, have all the levers and know how to pull them. There is little point taking off if you don't intend to arrive at your destination. To get there you can't just do the take off and expect the aircraft to arrive in one piece and land without some driving from you (metaphorically speaking). Anything other than a determined, concerted, coordinated push for change, seen through to the end will be doomed to failure. Failure will mean creatures like Wodger delivering plagiarised speeches at the RAeS meetings, bald eagles writing more dodgy letters, trained attack dogs patrolling your hanger, see the inutile promoted, the dubious rewarded and your confidential REPCON a signed confession, this process will allow more first class junkets to exotic ports for long lazy holidays with your current squeeze. You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again). Selah. |
I wouldn’t sweat it.
The report of the ‘Review’ has already been drafted. |
casa and atsb just do not get it!!!!!!!!!
Well done CP, you indeed have been busy!!
How many other Prune watchers from the dark side helped you?? |
Albo
CP, I agree. I watched Albo's speech and was almost sick! Laughable the extent of the lies!! It is a national disgrace!
|
The speech.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:03): Labor welcomes the minister's statement and the announcement of a further review into the regulation of aviation safety. As the minister said, this country has an enviable record of aviation safety, the result of governments of either political persuasion taking a nonpartisan approach to this issue, as is entirely appropriate. During the period in which the current minister was the shadow minister, when it came to safety and security issues they were dealt with in a manner above politics, and I intend to adopt exactly the same approach. It is absolutely critical that safety not be an issue which becomes part of the political contest. It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead. All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government. We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation. I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues. I think this plan has got it right by looking forward and making sure that it looks at the strategic framework and the balance that must be there between appropriate safety, regulation and costs. The minister referred to that and I would agree with that. I would say this, though: there should be no compromise in terms of safety being the absolute priority—something I am sure that the minister agrees with. I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel. About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector. I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience. In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes. That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified. In conclusion, the aviation sector injects some $7 billion into the Australian economy each year. Australia has an enviable record of aviation safety, but we should not be complacent at any time. We need to ensure that we keep our personnel appropriately trained and skilled and be prepared to provide proper resourcing. In 2010, I was very proud that Labor announced an additional $90 million in funding over four years to provide CASA with long-term funding stability. That was not an easy process to get through our cabinet, but people recognised that this was a priority. I would say to the minister that it is important that the resourcing from government to these organisations in charge of safety and security also be kept up. This extra assistance that we provided has allowed the authority to better meet the demands of a growing and ever more complex domestic and international industry. The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians. I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May. I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support. |
Post of the year award.
Jinglie #9 –"It is a national disgrace!" I'll stick my neck out and say that the Sarcs post more clearly defines, in one page the need for reform than all the bloody awful polly chatter, CASA waffle and ATSB probability statements ever printed. Nicely played Sarcs, please accept my vote for the post of the year award. Bravo....:D....Indeed, well done Sirrah......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif |
Ahhhhh, children. The message here is in the fine print:"The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers". I would also add that there will undoubtedly be some "administrative support".
Now folks, remember little Sunfish waxing lyrical about the good folk at Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet? Guess who will have written the terms of reference, press release, selected the members, written the letters of appointment and most importantly written the brief to Cabinet that got the Elephant stamp?? Anyone? anyone? To put it another way, a young (30-ish) honours economics phD has just been invited to run a stake through the heart of CASA and its perverted "safety" argument in return for a Deputy Secretaries slot at Transport and who knows what other transport related appointment afterwards? You may never know her name until a year or Two after the ruins have been cleared and her role on the secretariat of the review is revealed in her resume. Of course if she doesn't succeed she won't be an up and comer in PM&C afterwards. |
More information needed, however oblique it is.
It's no good saying I told you so when it happens. So protect your reputation now. :suspect: |
Albo boasteth the mosteth...
:mad:..."I commissioned SIGNIFICANT REFORM by having properly planned white and green papers"
The White paper was Kleenex SuperSoft material passing over GA in two paras that said nothing. All we got out of his years was "ops normal" and WORSE :mad::mad: Still, being an inveterate liar is par for the course for the likes of Albo. As far as aviation goes he doesnt know his arsk from his albo !! The Golden Dog Turd Award of the year I'd say.:D |
"There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost"
Notice these words in the ex ministers speech. Quite a breakthrough I would say. Now we need to change the Act to reflect reality At the present time under 9A - functions -it states. - " CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration" This means more important than cost and is clearly not complied with. Does anyone have some better suggested wording? |
PMC, Golden Turds, wording and Witchdoctory.
Sunny, I always enjoy your posts and it is good to see you back. (Although some Casasexuals and some members of the AOPA cheer squad won't be happy). You are a bit of a tease though, dropping that little nugget into the mix about your 'friend' in the PMC. Anyway, I am sure you will fill in the gaps for us in stages, but I think Miss PMC will need more than a stake to kill the CAsA beast, perhaps she needs a thermonuclear device, but even then it is hard to eradicate cockroaches. Plus she will be measuring up her phd against others in CAsA with phd's, so if anything it could provide some fun. I suggest she brush up on voodoo and aviation mystique if she really wants to slay the beast.
Anyway, the IOS welcomes her to its fraternity :ok: aroa, aroa, aroa. I like it, The Golden Dog Turd Award! How very aptly named, and I do say that Minister Albo most certainly deserves this award in all it's steaming glory! Three cheers for Albo. aroa, please send along with the award the love and greetings of the IOS :ok: Dick, you are a naughty naughty boy. Asking for 'suggested wording' on a thread that relates to CAsA := Are you trying to join the IOS? But I believe some form of wording that excludes safety is appropriate, but something that includes bullying, malfeasance, ineptitude and protecting governments ass above the travelling fare payers safety would be most appropriate as it reflects the present reality. I am happy to leave it to the robust wordsmiths among us to massage the English language in a way that describes CAsA's role. |
Curious – yet again.
Scary business this thinking lark; a man should never start it. Always amazes me, how little I know about the 'way' of matters which can affect so many are managed and how much faith and trust we must, of necessity, have in the folk responsible.
CP# 6 –"The report of the ‘Review’ has already been drafted." DS# 15 –"Now we need to change the Act to reflect reality" I know a couple of acts that are in desperate need of some serious attention; but that'll keep....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/evil.gif Good to see you back Sunny...:D |
Dick, it depends on the interpretation and implementation of the words;
At the present time under 9A - functions -it states. - " CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration" With regards affordable safety, words need to be used to reject current thinking of making it unaffordable for Industry to operate without fostering and promotion. Affordable safety is relative and should be all encompassing. Safe skies may be empty skies, but it can't continue on this track, or aviation as we know it will obviously cease to exist. As an aside, CASA have demonstrated on many an occasion that they are not fit to write the regulations, not fit to prosecute the regulations and not fit to administer penalties without AAT intervention. To this end if CASA wish to write the regulations, The Commonwealth Police should investigate and prosecute the offences and the DPP should administer the penalties. The Industry Complaints Commissioner should be abolished if CASA are paying the salary and the appeals process needs to be more balanced and affordable than that in the AAT. All appeal matters need to be Judiciary taxed to prevent CASA defending the indefensible to the last cent in the taxpayers purse. People have their livelihoods ruined without any recourse to a redress of wrongs perpetrated upon them with frivolous and vexatious charges. This is a two way street so intending Defendants need to have their ducks in a row. Someone smarted than me can probably work this rant into meaningful words. |
CASA is a detriment to GA.
CASA is a cost. They cost the industry money which could have otherwise be spent on grass roots safety.
Safe Skies for All?? Only when CASA has everyone OUT of the sky! However, if we want safe skies for all, those on the ground, potentially under the debris should pay towards their own safety. CASA should be funded from consolidated revenue and go back (again) full circle. Then we all have a say in CASA's performance too. Dismal and underhanded as it has been of late. FAA is in charge of safety and fostering the Aviation industry in the USA. We need that approach. Maybe repeal the Civil Aviation Act, sack CASA en-masse and contract Aviation safety and growth to the FAA. Time for another name change, CASA! |
Possible starting point for new CAsA governance?
It has probably been covered but the following needs to be included in the body of any charter, wording, statement or framework made by CAsA or the Government.
As follows: · CAsA accepts the responsibility to act in a manner that is equal in fairness, quality and ethics in nature across all aspects of the aviation industry · CAsA accepts full accountability for the decisions, actions, policies, procedures and regulations it implements, introduces and mandates · CAsA accepts accountability for the actions of all its employees including inspectorate, management and administration staff · CAsA accepts both its moral and legal obligation to use taxpayer funding in a responsible, transparent and fair manner · CAsA accepts that the outcomes of internal/external investigations, audits, reviews and discussions into its activities be published publicly for the purpose of transparency and accountability · CAsA accepts the commitment to honour judicial recommendations by courts or law and/or coroners courts in all matters · CAsA accepts that it will honour recommendations that are produced from senate or other government inquiries, commissions or reports into its activities. CAsA also commits to responding in full to all questions, queries or request in a manner that is timely and transparent, and accepts to do so within a 30 day timeframe at maximum · CAsA accepts the formation of an independent ICC consisting of non CAsA employees or persons connected to the CAsA by way of consultancy or paid services. · CAsA accepts the decisions made by the AAT and agrees that it will not expend taxpayer funds fighting fair and equitable decisions made during the AAT process. CAsA further accepts that it will pay compensation to any person/individual who is inconvenienced, unduly treated, falsely accused or found innocent of false, non existent, incorrect or malicious charges · CAsA accepts its obligation to be a good corporate citizen by standardising process, policies and procedures network wide to ensure consistency and fairness across all sectors of the aviation industry It is absolute time that cronyism, payback, bullying or unjustifiable actions be removed from the authority once and for all. I am sure others with a more legal/statutory background have more to add or changes to make to the above, but you get my drift. No more excessive power, no more thumbing of the nose at industry and the government itself, no more misuse of taxpayer money for the sole purpose of payback and revenge. NO MORE HIDING FROM AND AVOIDING ACCOUNATBILTY. ACCOUNTABILTY HAS TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THIS ORGANISATION AT ALL LEVELS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES. |
Cactus, I don't know exactly who will be the PM&C person who will destroy CASA, but I know the modus operandi.
The plan will look something like this: Part 1: an economic analysis size and scope of the industry. That establishes the importance of Aviation to the country and its economy. Growth rates etc. potentials are included. Part 2: a benchmarking exercise against other regulators - this again involves a major set of metrics - performance indicators. If this is done properly, it will answer the question of whether we have a real problem or you are all a pack of whingers. ********At this point the review can reach its first conclusion: Do we have a problem? How important is it to fix it? That tells us about how much time and resources can be invested to fix things. part 3: the legislative framework Part 4:CaSAs performance in discharging its legislative responsibilities. Part 5: discussion and options for change. Part 6: recommendations. ..at least that is the structure I would start with, but others may know better. The key is that it all needs to be kept in dry as dust academic economic discussion. The Quadrios of this world will be disappointed I think. What has to be achieved is a change to the legislation to require CASA or its successor to take heed of fostering the industry - removing the "preventing aviation" option for discharging its responsibilities. Anyway that's my two cents. |
casa and atsb just do not get it!!!!!!!!!
I was watching some posts pop up today when the Senate Estimates were on, which give a "summary of the discussion"
Aviation and Airports questions in the Senate | Assistance to the Aviation Industry CASA in Senate estimates hearing McCormick tries to justify slowness | Assistance to the Aviation Industry ATSB grilled in the Senate by Heffernan, Fawcett and Xenophon | Assistance to the Aviation Industry and Senator Fawcett puts it all in place: Senator Fawcett ? Aviation?s place in Australia | Assistance to the Aviation Industry |
Request ATSB response to PelAir [Mrdac replies - "Take on Notice"] This nonsense is going from bad to worse. Mrdak's arrogance here is mind-blowing, and if after all this time he needs to take the request as a QON, then I'd suggest that the Minister (yes, YOU Mr Truss) is NOT doing his job and making sure that the mess which Albanese left IS actually being addressed, and that he needs invite Mrdak in RFN as the guest of honour to a bloody big arse-kicking party! Dolan and the other management clowns at the ATSB need invites too! :ugh::ugh: |
Gosh, all of that ‘grilling’ must have had the officials quaking in their boots. Yet they walked away (again) with their jobs. If only the government had the power to do something other than wave a rhetorical fist at these evil fiends.
So anyway, now that anyone with any sense has worked out that the new government is going to do as much as the old government about aviation regulation and accident investigation, where to next? Think hard. (For Sunfish: The children in PM&C are dealing with the important issues: “stopping the boats” (full of the people who keep Australia’s toilets clean and bins emptied); “axing the tax” (so that everyone’s power bill can go down but remain the same); and “doing this, that, and the other thing” (so that you’ll all finally be deliriously happy). Where to next? |
'Where to next' answered!
Where to next? However I would say in answer to your question, if I may, that 'where to next' will likely involve a trip to Montreal. Even though a white Xmas is just around the corner there will be high level ICAO meetings to be had, wiener measuring competitions to participate in, and of course some high level phd type discussions to be banded around and enjoyed by bearded coat wearing pipe smoking rudey poo's. Then there will be a regulatory seminar in Singapore, perhaps an aviation law charade in NZ, topped off by a visit to the CAAC and some sightseeing of the Great Wall, followed by a visit to a 'Chinese master in aviation meditation' where an intense session of regulation reform methodology will be ingested by those interested in solving the mystique of aviation and understanding what it mi mi mi means to travel to a plain (plane?) beyond reason. (I also believe petting a panda and making 'adult toys' out of bamboo shoots is also on the 'to do' list) Indeed Herr Creampuff, 'where to next' for CAsA and the ATSBeaker has never looked better! |
maybe you should approach it the way they sometimes do in thailand. :E
|
QON is the new black?
Well it certainly seems like The Heff has had a gutful of Fort Fumbles folly. The amount of QON's being rolled out by The Angry Man and Mrdak was unbelievable. Typical arrogant obsfucation and stalling tactics. I wonder if The Guinness Book of Records will accept submissions for the category 'Government department stalling tactics' and accept the tally of QON's collated from senate estimates and senate inquiries?
And what about bi bi bi Beakers performance? It was nothing short of embarrassing. That is one man completely out of his league. If ever an individual was meant to walk 'the green mile' it is him. Kim Bills and Alan Stray would be choking on their cereal watching Beakers performance. He was like a Pel Air aircraft off Norfolk - made a number of robust attempts to land smoothly but ditched and sunk. I am seriously hoping that yesterday was just a practise run, a warm up before the Senators cut loose! Will we see the outcome we all so dearly want and deserve to see? Dunno. But we will be entertained by the fireworks that lay in wait? I reckon so! I would say these Muppets should stock up on anusole wipes and salve because I suspect these clowns are going to receive a sideways pineapple :ok:, so it should be a good show. Checklist; 1) Beer 2) Popcorn 3) Comfy recliner chair 4) Body bags 5) Additional crate of pineapples 6) 2 boxes of Kleenex to wipe away the tears of laughter 7) Additional supply of pot plant fertiliser to ensure Pete isn't neglected during those long estimates sessions 8) Screaming Skull piñata for fun during the commercial breaks 9) 'Body language reference book'. This is always a good tool to keep handy and use as a reference guide to gauge the level, depth and consistency of the ****e dribbling from FF's mouths. (No extra pressure boys, but the IOS are watching closely :=) 10) QON counter clock for tracking the amount of QON's that those beneath the robust spotlight turn to in an effort to avoid answering questions and avoid telling facts and truth. 'Safe questioning for all' |
Creamy, you really are a 'trough half empty' kind of guy := The only glimmer of hope is professional lobbying of the people who will be non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014. |
This whole farce could make a good drinking game, I'll get the ball rolling,
1. Everytime CASA take a QON you take a shot |
You would be under the table in the first 5 minutes, based on the rapid fire "On Notice" requests yesterday!!
|
Originally Posted by Creampuff
So anyway, now that anyone with any sense has worked out that the new government is going to do as much as the old government about aviation regulation and accident investigation, where to next?
Neither side of politics particularly cares about aviation. |
I dont know that they dont care. probably more that they dont really understand much of it.
|
Wait until a QF A380 goes into Botany Bay, then they'll care and not before.
|
They’ll also pretend to care if the non-major party aligned Senators make their support of some government pet project contingent upon some trade-off in the aviation sector.
For example, just imagine if the non-major party aligned Senators asked to talk to Minister Truss and his National Party colleagues about the sale of GrainCorp to Archer Daniels Midland. The Minister would give the non-major party aligned Senators anything they wished in return for rejection or overturning of an FIRB approval to sell. ;) |
Interesting bit. Is push – coming to shove?
Estimates Hansard 18/11/13 P.77 PDF- P.73 Hansard. (My bold). Sorry the quotes are in BLUE - having some serious issues with format and spacing.
CHAIR: Have they announced the panel? Mr Mrdak: Yes, they have. The panel was announced last week. The minister made a statement to the House—a ministerial statement—and he announced the composition of the panel, which will be chaired by Mr David Forsyth from Australia. The panel is Mr Forsyth; Mr Don Spruston, former head of aviation safety in Canada; and Mr Roger Whitefield. Senator XENOPHON: Mr Mrdak, can you advise whether the panel will hold public hearings or private hearings or a combination of both? Will there be an opportunity for those who participated extensively in the Senate inquiry to also give evidence to this particular panel? Mr Mrdak: My understanding is that the intention of the panel is that they will seek public submissions and meetings with interested parties, to which there will be an open process. How they wish to take other information will be settled by the panel when they first meet and discuss— Senator XENOPHON: If this committee was minded to resolve to request a meeting with the panel, would they take that into account? Mr Mrdak: Yes, I would imagine so. Senator XENOPHON: If there is evidence given to the panel would it be covered by any form of privilege? That is very important. If it is not covered by privilege you may find that people are not prepared to come forward to give evidence. Mr Mrdak: Clearly, the panel will have to establish arrangements, particularly for taking evidence where people wish to protect certain confidential material. That is one of the areas the department will work— Senator XENOPHON: Confidentiality is difference from privilege, though. Mr Mrdak: I do not think a panel of this nature could offer privilege in the same way that the parliament can. CHAIR: Witnesses to this particular panel—and I am sure Dick Smith would like to make a presentation given that he is not on it—would want to know with confidence they would not be intimidated because of the evidence that they give, which is one of the protections of course which this committee offers. But there will be none of those protections, to the best of your knowledge? Mr Mrdak: We are now exploring the way in which we will provide protection of confidential material. I am sure the panel will be very concerned to ensure that there is protection of both material and evidence being provided to it—or certainly submissions being provided to it. But, clearly, a panel of this nature cannot provide something of the form of privilege in a way that you would understand it for a parliamentary committee. CHAIR: Would it be peculiar to provide privilege for that panel to appear before this committee so that there would be privilege? Mr Mrdak: That would be a matter that we would have to explore. CHAIR: Can I invite you to invite the panel to appear before this committee and give us the answer? We would like it to appear because, if we are going to do this properly without fear or favour, I think we would offer the opportunity of privilege. Mr Mrdak: I will seek some advice, Chair, in relation to how the panel may interact with the committee. CHAIR: We could start with a private briefing. Senator Sinodinos: Can I just caution on this. When the minister made his statement, I think he made it clear that this was looking at systemic and strategic issues. It was not meant to reopen every investigation that has occurred or to pursue individual grievances. CHAIR: That is all right, but there are systemic issues. Senator Sinodinos: I understand that, but as long as we all understand that it will be not so much focused on the specific but drawing out from the specific what general lessons there might be. It is not a forum to reopen individual investigations. Senator XENOPHON: But, Minister, with respect, the Senate unanimously handed down its findings, and they were scathing findings by any objective measure. It was a damning report of CASA and the ATSB—absolutely damning. No-one can criticise the methodology of the committee and the forensic work that the committee put into this. Insofar as there are a number of recommendations made based on what the committee found to be very serious failures in respect of the Pel-Air investigation, then surely that is relevant in looking at systemic failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB. Senator SINODINOS: I do not think we are talking at cross-purposes. I am just saying that this is not a forum to replay the whole of that investigation. Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but insofar as the Senate made a number of recommendations that were scathing of the ATSB and CASA— Senator SINODINOS: All of which is on the public record. Senator XENOPHON: from my point of view we do not want it swept under the carpet. There is a genuine concern by all members of this committee about airline safety in this country. CHAIR: There was some dramatic downgrade of the incident. Senator XENOPHON: That is right. CHAIR: What was it from? Senator XENOPHON: It went from being a safety issue identified as critical to being downgraded significantly. That is something that Senator Fawcett asked many questions about. There were issues about whether CASA and the ATSB colluded or not. That was raised. Can I remind the minister that the committee took such a serious view of this that it referred the evidence to the Federal Police for investigation into whether there was a breach of the TIA legislation. Senator SINODINOS: I think we are in furious agreement. Senator XENOPHON: I still do not know how the panel is going to do its job if it does not give privilege to people. Senator SINODINOS: Having listened to all of this, we will go away and get advice on how we can handle this in a way that means that— Senator XENOPHON: If you can. I'll have 10 bob on the Senators, keep the beggers honest.... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif |
WTF is Sinodinos doing on that panel? He was Howard's right hand man and the Libs really don't want to cause a stir. At least Heff, Xenophon give a Fck. :mad:
|
It's a worry.
Hi # 37 –"WTF is Sinodinos doing on that panel?" |
The Honourable Arthur Sinodinos AO, Assistant Treasurer, was not “on the panel”. He was there as a witness, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (who is a member of the House of Reps and therefore does not condescend to appear before a Committee comprising unrepresentative swill).
The Minister representing’s job was to do what his tweedle dum predecessor from Labor did: Defend CASA and ATSB. If you think about it, you’ll realise it’s all just theatrics. A bunch of Coalition Senators on the Committee are ‘outraged’ at the conduct of CASA and ATSB in relation to the Pel Air matter. Enter stage left a Coalition Minister and his senior officials from the Department with portfolio responsibility for CASA and ATSB, all saying ‘relax, it’s all under control’. If you took the names and dates out of Hansard, you would not be able to tell there had been a change of government. |
Creampuff;
An accurate assessment, which is what some of the players want to hear, but it's not what is needed to fix a broken "thing" (and I use "thing" for impact). I work on the theory of maintaining an irritant until someone starts to scratch. The IOS are quiet capable of throwing more flea's onto the dog yet and until the fat lady sings it isn't over. While CASA loom menacingly on the horizon, it pays to nip the problem in the bud and put the shoe on the other foot so we can clean the rot and make the place clean as a whistle. So at least it's something that is being done. The "thing" can only be attacked at a political level. Think about that. |
Frank
Hi Frank,
Just wondering if you could please edit your post. There simply are not enough mixed metaphors or cliches in there. Please insert some more and try harder next time. |
Wazza's IOS membership review pending??
Frank:
An accurate assessment, which is what some of the players want to hear, but it's not what is needed to fix a broken "thing" (and I use "thing" for impact). I work on the theory of maintaining an irritant until someone starts to scratch. The IOS are quiet capable of throwing more flea's onto the dog yet and until the fat lady sings it isn't over. While CASA loom menacingly on the horizon, it pays to nip the problem in the bud and put the shoe on the other foot so we can clean the rot and make the place clean as a whistle. By the way the semi-disgraced old bugger MP on the end of the railway track has submitted the following in support of his IOS membership submission :D: FNQ aviation industry urged to speak up THE Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review will give local aviation businesses the opportunity to expose CASA’s regulatory and procedural failures, says Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch. The Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, has recently released the review’s Terms of Reference. “I welcome the minister’s Review,” Mr Entsch said today. “The Terms of Reference outline how the panel will consult closely with general aviation, industry and public stakeholders. This will provide an opportunity for operators like Barrier Aviation – and others from around Australia who have contacted me – to provide information on the appalling way in which they have been treated by CASA officers. “The fact that they will be dealing with a panel of well-respected overseas experts should mean that at least they will get a fair hearing, unlike the blatant prejudice to which they’ve been subjected to date.” Mr Entsch has used Barrier Aviation for many years and the airline's suspension as a result of a drawn-out CASA inquiry has had a significant impact on charter availability around the Far North.(NB: accompanying text with the pic) Mr Entsch said the Government had a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business and this goal will be part of the review. “It’ll also examine the matters that were raised by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations. I know that a number of issues with our air safety regime were highlighted and there needs to be further consideration of those.” The review will examine how well Australia’s regulatory system is positioned to ensure we remain at the forefront of aviation safety globally. It will consider the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety, and the relationships and interactions of those agencies as they work together in one system. It will also consider the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process undertaken by CASA and it will benchmark our safety regulations and regulatory system against other leading countries. A period of public consultation will take place over coming months and the Panel will report its findings in May 2014. “I would absolutely encourage anyone who has had an issue with CASA procedures - and in particular their officers - to put in a submission,” Mr Entsch said. “In addition, if they have experienced repeated and unresolved problems with individuals within CASA, they can give evidence in Canberra and name them. Testimony will be subject to parliamentary privilege and cannot be intimidated by legal threats.” To view the full Terms of Reference, click here |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.