GA Self Regulation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA Self Regulation
I just wanted to know what the general reaction is to GA slef regulation in Australia?
Cheifly:
Cheers.
(Sorry if there si a thread on this, I searched and couldn't find one.)
Cheifly:
- Can you see it happening?
- Is it a good idea?
- Any other thoughts or opinons on it.
Cheers.
(Sorry if there si a thread on this, I searched and couldn't find one.)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see it happening for the private sector of GA. However, I don't think the punters would be too happy with a self-regulated commercial sector. Besides I think the government will always require regulatory oversight of the commercial sector if only to have someone to blame when something goes wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello William
Firstly I will give you my serious answers;
1. Unlikely but possible,
CASA is always looking for ways to reduce its costs, maybe they see this a viable method. If so then it may well get a go. I know that there has been murmors about certian sections of GA going this way for a few years now.
2. I do not think it would be a good idea,
The regulatory body (CASA) has enough problems controlling some parts (persons) within GA as it is. Even though there are many respected people out there who could take on the task of administering and controlling GA, there are twice as many who will take advantage of it.
3. GA as whole, I don't belive it would work. BUT parts of GA may well be able to run as "Self regulated". For instance Flying training and Engineering services may well be able to be self regulated along the lines of thier own professional associations.
The real problem is that the term "GA" simply covers too broad a spectrum of aviation. Just to list a few:
Flying Instruction/training
Commercial Airwork operators (fire spotters/bombers, crop spraying, etc)
Private airwork operators (photo, sales etc)
Charter operators
Private company operations (company jet)
Closed charter (FIFO, mining, etc)
Engineering (Maint. and design/EO, etc)
Really I could not imagine a FIFO operator using 30/50 seat regional turbo props bieng treated any different from RPT (Transport) operations, but the fiights are technicaly Charter and therefore GA.
Who would run "GA Self Regulation" as I have said before there are some good guys out there, but could you imagine just one of the dodgey brothers getting in there. Please don't say thats not likely, just have a look at some of the guys who have made it onto CASA pannels and boards over the last few years.
richo
Firstly I will give you my serious answers;
1. Unlikely but possible,
CASA is always looking for ways to reduce its costs, maybe they see this a viable method. If so then it may well get a go. I know that there has been murmors about certian sections of GA going this way for a few years now.
2. I do not think it would be a good idea,
The regulatory body (CASA) has enough problems controlling some parts (persons) within GA as it is. Even though there are many respected people out there who could take on the task of administering and controlling GA, there are twice as many who will take advantage of it.
3. GA as whole, I don't belive it would work. BUT parts of GA may well be able to run as "Self regulated". For instance Flying training and Engineering services may well be able to be self regulated along the lines of thier own professional associations.
The real problem is that the term "GA" simply covers too broad a spectrum of aviation. Just to list a few:
Flying Instruction/training
Commercial Airwork operators (fire spotters/bombers, crop spraying, etc)
Private airwork operators (photo, sales etc)
Charter operators
Private company operations (company jet)
Closed charter (FIFO, mining, etc)
Engineering (Maint. and design/EO, etc)
Really I could not imagine a FIFO operator using 30/50 seat regional turbo props bieng treated any different from RPT (Transport) operations, but the fiights are technicaly Charter and therefore GA.
Who would run "GA Self Regulation" as I have said before there are some good guys out there, but could you imagine just one of the dodgey brothers getting in there. Please don't say thats not likely, just have a look at some of the guys who have made it onto CASA pannels and boards over the last few years.
richo
William my young friend. Read Section 9 from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 - then tell me how CASA can make GA self regulating?
It would be akin to putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. Or pilots in charge of a brewery!
Having said that, CASA has already "delegated" it's responsibility for ultra light aircraft and parachuting operations, so I guess it will find a way to "delegate" it's safety regulatory responsibilities for general aviation?
In the future, CASA will shrink to a very profitable single Cashier's Desk somewhere in Canberra, which will collect all the medical and ASIC fees, whilst efficiency and service continue to decline.
Bit like hitting rock bottom and continuing to dig!
-------------------------------------------------------------
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
by means that include the following:
(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;
(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.
(2) CASA also has the following safety related functions:
(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:
(i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and compliance with relevant legislation;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.
(3) CASA also has the following functions:
(a) co operating with the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation in relation to investigations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 that relate to aircraft;
(b) any functions conferred on CASA under the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, or under a corresponding law of a State or Territory;
(c) any functions conferred on CASA under the Air Navigation Act 1920;
(ca) entering into 83 bis agreements on behalf of Australia;
(cb) any functions conferred on CASA under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004;
(d) any other functions prescribed by the regulations, being functions relating to any matters referred to in this section;
(e) promoting the development of Australia’s civil aviation safety capabilities, skills and services, for the benefit of the Australian community and for export;
(f) providing consultancy and management services relating to any of the matters referred to in this section, both within and outside Australian territory;
(g) any functions incidental to any of the functions specified in this section.
(4) In performing the function under paragraph (3)(f), CASA may, under a contract with a foreign country or with an agency of a foreign country, provide services for that country or agency in relation to the regulation of the safety of air navigation or any other matter in which CASA has expertise. Those services may include conducting safety regulation in relation to foreign registered aircraft under the law of a foreign country.
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.
It would be akin to putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. Or pilots in charge of a brewery!
Having said that, CASA has already "delegated" it's responsibility for ultra light aircraft and parachuting operations, so I guess it will find a way to "delegate" it's safety regulatory responsibilities for general aviation?
In the future, CASA will shrink to a very profitable single Cashier's Desk somewhere in Canberra, which will collect all the medical and ASIC fees, whilst efficiency and service continue to decline.
Bit like hitting rock bottom and continuing to dig!
-------------------------------------------------------------
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
by means that include the following:
(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;
(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.
(2) CASA also has the following safety related functions:
(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:
(i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and compliance with relevant legislation;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.
(3) CASA also has the following functions:
(a) co operating with the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation in relation to investigations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 that relate to aircraft;
(b) any functions conferred on CASA under the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, or under a corresponding law of a State or Territory;
(c) any functions conferred on CASA under the Air Navigation Act 1920;
(ca) entering into 83 bis agreements on behalf of Australia;
(cb) any functions conferred on CASA under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004;
(d) any other functions prescribed by the regulations, being functions relating to any matters referred to in this section;
(e) promoting the development of Australia’s civil aviation safety capabilities, skills and services, for the benefit of the Australian community and for export;
(f) providing consultancy and management services relating to any of the matters referred to in this section, both within and outside Australian territory;
(g) any functions incidental to any of the functions specified in this section.
(4) In performing the function under paragraph (3)(f), CASA may, under a contract with a foreign country or with an agency of a foreign country, provide services for that country or agency in relation to the regulation of the safety of air navigation or any other matter in which CASA has expertise. Those services may include conducting safety regulation in relation to foreign registered aircraft under the law of a foreign country.
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.
From the various threads regarding experience with rogue parachute operations, and lack of regulatory action by the self regulator, it would appear that the idea of self regulation of GA is unsafe and impracticable.
In my humble opinion, all it would take is for a rogue operator to threaten to take the association (RAA for example) all the way to the Supreme Court, and the RAA would have to back off.
I am under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that there are enough nutcase psychopath operators around to threaten to do this on a regular basis and I don't think a voluntary not for profit organisation has either the procedural and administrative skills or deep enough pockets to finance the court challenges and occasional wins by the rogue element.
As any lawyer will tell you, threatening to take away someone's livlihood by administrative action, is regarded as an extremely serious matter requiring very high standards of proof and forensically correct procedural actions (natural justice, equity, etc. etc.). I'm not sure even any evidence provided by a GA inspector who was not a public servant would stand up in court. In addition I fail to see how they could gather evidence and maintain privacy since they would not be subject to either the Public Service Act nor the official secrets act.
To put it another way, unless a GA organisation has pockets as deep as CASA's, or can flick litigation to CASA, I fail to see how any form of self regulation could be enforced.
P.S I have a niggling suspicion in the back of my mind that GA represents a very small percentage of CASA's operating costs but a very large percentage of its litigation budget (I don't see RPT pilots being hauled through the courts).
To put it another way, what is the RAA going to do when someone tells it; "she'll be right! Now F**@ off or I'll have the law on yer?"
In my humble opinion, all it would take is for a rogue operator to threaten to take the association (RAA for example) all the way to the Supreme Court, and the RAA would have to back off.
I am under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that there are enough nutcase psychopath operators around to threaten to do this on a regular basis and I don't think a voluntary not for profit organisation has either the procedural and administrative skills or deep enough pockets to finance the court challenges and occasional wins by the rogue element.
As any lawyer will tell you, threatening to take away someone's livlihood by administrative action, is regarded as an extremely serious matter requiring very high standards of proof and forensically correct procedural actions (natural justice, equity, etc. etc.). I'm not sure even any evidence provided by a GA inspector who was not a public servant would stand up in court. In addition I fail to see how they could gather evidence and maintain privacy since they would not be subject to either the Public Service Act nor the official secrets act.
To put it another way, unless a GA organisation has pockets as deep as CASA's, or can flick litigation to CASA, I fail to see how any form of self regulation could be enforced.
P.S I have a niggling suspicion in the back of my mind that GA represents a very small percentage of CASA's operating costs but a very large percentage of its litigation budget (I don't see RPT pilots being hauled through the courts).
To put it another way, what is the RAA going to do when someone tells it; "she'll be right! Now F**@ off or I'll have the law on yer?"
".....threatening to take away someone's livlihood by administrative action, is regarded as an extremely serious matter requiring very high standards of proof and forensically correct procedural actions (natural justice, equity, etc. etc.)."
Who are you referring to as it can't be CASA?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA can't regulate itself because of a suicidal mindset that makes everyone an "expert". The ones that have their act together do so because they see a future for their particular bend of flying and ignore political agendas.
As such GA can only "self administer" like RA-Aus, and others, who do so very successfully.
This only happens with government grants from departments, like Sport and Recreation done in the past, because of a notion that to accept cash from the aviation regulator puts that administration in a conflict of interest with that same regulator.
Some self administrating bodies do, I understand, receive cash from CASA for carrying out tasks that would otherwise be a function of full cost recovery.
Does "Airservices" recent reassignment ring any bells?
There is no such thing as "self regulation". CASA will always have that function.
As such GA can only "self administer" like RA-Aus, and others, who do so very successfully.
This only happens with government grants from departments, like Sport and Recreation done in the past, because of a notion that to accept cash from the aviation regulator puts that administration in a conflict of interest with that same regulator.
Some self administrating bodies do, I understand, receive cash from CASA for carrying out tasks that would otherwise be a function of full cost recovery.
Does "Airservices" recent reassignment ring any bells?
There is no such thing as "self regulation". CASA will always have that function.
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 27th Nov 2006 at 06:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the great insight. When I initially skimmed through the newsletter, I had doubts that it would have been a good idea.
I should have made myself clear though, what I meant by GA was just the private sector, in a Ra-Aus way... What all of you have said makes sense at least.
I should have made myself clear though, what I meant by GA was just the private sector, in a Ra-Aus way... What all of you have said makes sense at least.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Equatorial to North Pole
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally dont think its a good idea. There could be the ones doing the right thing but in my opinion, due to the high maintenace costs in aviation, most will push the limit unless they are being directly supervised...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self-regulating GA?! Which naive, isolated numbskull in CASA came up with this brilliant idea? I would have thought that before you can even proffer this concept out loud without being taken for a fool, you'd need some regulations that were practical, up to date, reflective of modern practices, sensible and easy to follow. Anyone in CASA still seriously thinking the Regulatory Reform process is achieving anything concrete? I won't be seeing any self-regulating GA in my lifetime and I still have a few decades in front of me. Maybe there is a hope if CASA is removed from the equation.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: western australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think CASA is on the wrong train of thought. Instead of pushing for self regulation and trying to shift more of the blame to pilots and operators they should be looking to simplify their mountain of regulations (and I don't mean by using trendy colour coded circle systems).
It would be a lot easier to follow the rules and keep your nose clean if there wasn't so much red tape to learn and stay current with (eg. do we really need hundreds of pages on duty and flight time restrictions for every type of operation known to man???). More clear cut regulations would also mean less loop holes for dodgy operators to use.
CASA if you are reading... NO to self regulation
YES to simplifying and removing red tape
It would be a lot easier to follow the rules and keep your nose clean if there wasn't so much red tape to learn and stay current with (eg. do we really need hundreds of pages on duty and flight time restrictions for every type of operation known to man???). More clear cut regulations would also mean less loop holes for dodgy operators to use.
CASA if you are reading... NO to self regulation
YES to simplifying and removing red tape
How many GA businesses are there to regulate?
I'm familiar with a self-regulatory body in another industry that has been proving quietly effective over the past decade and a bit. But its only dealing with around 1000 businesses a year.
It works on the principle of setting the poacher up as gamekeeper but with enough checks and balances to ensure natural justice is achieved.
It can affect the capacity of businesses to trade and has put over a dozen out of business in the past 8 years.
Despite this, no-one has ever taken it to court.
It operates in a co-regulatory environment with Government but to standards and with processes developed by the industry. It is therefore a lot more empathetic and flexible than a bureaucratic system.
If CASA is looking to pass off some of its functions, it would be worth looking at what might be achieved rather than dismissing the concept out of hand.
But I would be arguing for co-regulation rather than full self-regulation. At the least, it might lead to a reduction in red tape.
I'm familiar with a self-regulatory body in another industry that has been proving quietly effective over the past decade and a bit. But its only dealing with around 1000 businesses a year.
It works on the principle of setting the poacher up as gamekeeper but with enough checks and balances to ensure natural justice is achieved.
It can affect the capacity of businesses to trade and has put over a dozen out of business in the past 8 years.
Despite this, no-one has ever taken it to court.
It operates in a co-regulatory environment with Government but to standards and with processes developed by the industry. It is therefore a lot more empathetic and flexible than a bureaucratic system.
If CASA is looking to pass off some of its functions, it would be worth looking at what might be achieved rather than dismissing the concept out of hand.
But I would be arguing for co-regulation rather than full self-regulation. At the least, it might lead to a reduction in red tape.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate having to defend CASA on any matter, but obviously my last post went un-read.
CASA is charged through the tiers of Government to always be the REGULATOR.
Byron is not talking about self regulation. he is talking about self ADMINISTRATION, with, I think the trade off being amendments to the full cost recovery that we are burdened with now.
THERE IS NO DISCUSSIONS UNDER WAY WITH ANYBODY ABOUT SELF REGULATION THAT I AM AWARE OF.
Either concept for GA I am personally opposed to as it de-burdens CASA's responsibilities that they are being handsomely paid to perform, and if you think there will be a reduction in cost recovery that puts more cash in your pocket you are from a different planet.
CASA is charged through the tiers of Government to always be the REGULATOR.
Byron is not talking about self regulation. he is talking about self ADMINISTRATION, with, I think the trade off being amendments to the full cost recovery that we are burdened with now.
THERE IS NO DISCUSSIONS UNDER WAY WITH ANYBODY ABOUT SELF REGULATION THAT I AM AWARE OF.
Either concept for GA I am personally opposed to as it de-burdens CASA's responsibilities that they are being handsomely paid to perform, and if you think there will be a reduction in cost recovery that puts more cash in your pocket you are from a different planet.
I believe that the intention was to look at allowing Private ops to be self-regulated. I believe that there has been an organisation formed to that end.(anyone here from that group). info Here
As I understand it, there was never any intention of allowing Charter categories and up, to be self regulating at this stage. There has been serious
discussion about allowing Aerial Ag to be self regulating, as it has a very effective self funded body(AAAA) overseeing it (IMO), apart from CASA.
185.
As I understand it, there was never any intention of allowing Charter categories and up, to be self regulating at this stage. There has been serious
discussion about allowing Aerial Ag to be self regulating, as it has a very effective self funded body(AAAA) overseeing it (IMO), apart from CASA.
185.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last I heard was that Aerial Ag opted out of the idea because there was a cost to them based on their small membership which over-rode any benefits on the credit side from CASA.
I am also aware that they pay squillions in fuel excise mainly operating turbines and get bugga all back for that slug.
I am also aware that they pay squillions in fuel excise mainly operating turbines and get bugga all back for that slug.
Last I heard was that Aerial Ag opted out of the idea because there was a cost to them based on their small membership which over-rode any benefits on the credit side from CASA.
I am also aware that they pay squillions in fuel excise mainly operating turbines and get bugga all back for that slug.
I am also aware that they pay squillions in fuel excise mainly operating turbines and get bugga all back for that slug.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whu?
If it's only amatter of doing the paper work for CASA, and still paying squillions in fuel surcharges etc, then why would anyone bother? They can get a business administration firm to do that.
It will only apply to private flying anyway, and probably only small aeroplanes.
If it is completely redone so it's like SAAA, with their own very simple rules etc. then there is merit in the sugestion, as long as CASA come up with lots of money to pay for the work.
The real purpose of CASA is to protect the Govt from legal liability in aviation matters.
It will only apply to private flying anyway, and probably only small aeroplanes.
If it is completely redone so it's like SAAA, with their own very simple rules etc. then there is merit in the sugestion, as long as CASA come up with lots of money to pay for the work.
The real purpose of CASA is to protect the Govt from legal liability in aviation matters.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 55
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea, hell some of the Ag operators I've been around would be wonderful Self regulators. Did you do those hours? No. You? No. Good no need for any regulation here. Some of the cockies I know would be pretty happy with it too, that 152 could fly forever.
Seriously though, if it's as Bob said then removing the burden of Admin would benefit the costs and if it doesn't change safety who cares? That is if those cost savings are passed on to operators. We just need to close any possible loopholes the unscrupulous may nip into.
Seriously though, if it's as Bob said then removing the burden of Admin would benefit the costs and if it doesn't change safety who cares? That is if those cost savings are passed on to operators. We just need to close any possible loopholes the unscrupulous may nip into.
Last edited by Whiskey Oscar Golf; 28th Nov 2006 at 08:51. Reason: I was from another planet for a moment.
