The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

Old 20th Aug 2013, 08:37
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And it will give nobody any pleasure in saying "I told you so".

Lets hope it never happens despite the signs.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2013, 01:28
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AHIA IOS membership paid up!

From today's Australian:

Red tape has chopper schools flying blind FOLLOWING the demise of the Helicopter Association of Australasia in 2008, there has been little collective effort from industry in reviewing draft legislation.


Proposed changes have been steadily flowing out from CASA for industry comment. As a result, the helicopter industry "has dropped the ball" by not providing CASA with meaningful feedback during the past notice of proposed rule making processes. Some of these draft NPRM papers are now law; to change the legislation now requires parliament's approval - a slow process.

The industry having no collective representation to provide feedback on the new European Aviation Safety Agency rules provided the catalyst to form the Australian Helicopter Industry Association in November last year.
AHIA president Peter Crook quickly noted the concerns of key players in the industry about proposed regulatory changes. Some had given up and said the changes to new EASA legislation were overwhelming due to the verbose and legal nature of the documentation.

AHIA's greatest concern is civil aviation safety regulation part 61 (flight crew licensing) and the relevant manuals of standards (MOS). CASR 61 is 511 pages long, supporting MOS is 707 pages and explanatory notes bring the total to 1299 pages about training - not the usual after-hours review project.

Mr Crook was told the 33 active flying schools would have trouble transiting to the new system, which starts on December 4.

It has been suggested the country may lose one third of its schools; not a good situation as a shortage of pilots and instructors is looming.

To complicate matters, the training legislation overlaps with pending changes to commercial operations, in particular passenger-carrying flights.

Further, CASR part 141 and 142 rules governing the structure of flying schools will require an overhaul of training (course design); the need for more advanced training aircraft; and the complex re-qualifying of flight instructors, testing officers and examiners.

Some schools operating under CASR 141 legislation will not need an AOC; which means minimum supervision by the regulator, despite having to provide an "exposition" for CASA's approval.

The main concern is the need to provide 10 hours of basic instrument training in the commercial helicopter pilot course.

This new standard requires industry to requalify staff and obtain new aircraft and approved simulators. To quickly meet CASA deadlines for comment on the MOS for CASR part 61, Mr Crook asked AHIA vice-president Mark Scrymgeour to form a working group to collect industry's comments for CASA. Mr Scrymgeour enlisted help from leading chief flying instructors and started a series of conference calls and use of a web-based facility to avoid duplication of effort as each member of his team could see what the others were doing.

Mr Crook recently remarked on the enormous effort made by the volunteer working group and commended Mr Scrymgeour for leading the team consisting of Ray Cronin, Kestrel Aviation Mangalore, Colin Clarke, Heliwest Toowoomba; Graeme Gillies, Blue Tongue Helicopters; Brett Newman, Professional Helicopter Services, Michael van der Zypp and The Helicopter Group.

In my opinion, CASA legislators have put the cart before the horse. Normally MOS are sorted out before the overarching legislation is made law.

The working group is struggling with the mismatch between CASR 61 and the MOS. Further confusion exists due to problems with regulations for integrated and non-integrated flying schools, which now have vast differences in training requirements.

Mr Scrymgeour said the review was raising more questions than answers; and CASA regional offices differed with the interpretation of the difficult-to-read legislation.

This makes the work of the AHIA Australia-wide team difficult as the members are also being confused by well-meaning local regulators, who are also having problems with understanding the intent of the new rules.
Most schools are unable to calculate the costs of compliance.

The promised time-based transition process is flawed and unworkable in its present form. The extra costs will be substantial and may push the helicopter industry into a situation where the present 10 per cent annual growth reverts to a depression. Many ask what is the case for safety versus cost?

Rob Rich is secretary of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association.
Rotorheads join the ranks of the IOS!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2013, 03:10
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed Sarcs, those pesky whirlybirds are a pain in the ass.
Who needs them? Why have them? All they do is contribute to the growth in 'ills of society'! And heaven forbid the operator if they take a photo from onboard the noisy craft, that is totally unacceptable. Besides, it is only a helicopter, that's not a real mans toy, just ask Commandant Skull, to hell with small turbine or rotary powered boxes on skids, only the big tin (and Qantas) count!

Grab the noose, phone up the Chief Hangman Minnie, we got a job to do! Whirlybirds must go!!!

Last edited by 004wercras; 23rd Aug 2013 at 03:11.
004wercras is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 09:06
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From page 6 of Volume 02/ Issue 08 / September edition of Airwaves (here: http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/wp-...05013C09-2.pdf)
… However probably the biggest threat now facing the future of the regional aviation industry is one that should not be a threat at all. It is one that is not controlled by the vagaries of the European economy or the threat of international terrorism. It is in fact a process that should and could provide great opportunities for our industry, - that is the regulatory reform of the Australian Civil Aviation regulations.

This process has been going on for almost as long as I have worked in the industry. It has gone on for decades and cost millions of dollars. Some people have literally made a career out of drafting and redrafting the same regulation over and over again. It has gone through several incarnations under several different names of the industry regulator and even more Directors of the regulator. It had an American accent for a while before taking on a more European brogue. Now it would seem to be trying to develop an accent all of its own. This is an area where I believe one the biggest threats lies.

I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these 3 parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting in the middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
Hear! Hear! Mr Jeff Boyd.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 12:05
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Boyd, some toffee and an afternoon regulatory delight!

Seems Mr Boyd (Jeff that is, not Peter) has just joined the IOS! Welcome Jeff. Your membership card, NCN, and lounge access at the ICC is in the mail
How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations?
Hmmm, nice choice of words, particularly 'iron'. You see the 'iron ring' has indeed spent decades (almost 25 years) and millions (around $250 million which excludes pot plant maintenance and cab fares). And at this point in time the 'iron ring' remains firmly established within the bowels of Sleepy Hollow, and it has even done what any good Sith Lord has done and has been training apprentices, ones who are ready to come to the fore if ever the 'iron ring' is broken, yes the call for a regulatory Jihad goes out in which the IOS must be silenced.

Creamy, as you are well aware, Mr Boyd, like many others, has taken to licking the toffee off the toffee coated turd. He too has tasted what lies beneath that sweet coating, and nothing tastes worse than biting into a steaming brown chunk of CAsA. Hell some of us have been picking the peanuts out of our teeth for years

Anyway, its good to have a new member within the IOS. Mr Boyds stay will be memorable, and if he is lucky he may get to chat with Deputy PM Warrens Trust, and get to express his succinct concerns in person

Last edited by 004wercras; 15th Sep 2013 at 12:11.
004wercras is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2013, 00:46
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hear a rumour (and this is a rumour network) that Part 135 will not be introduced for at least another 5 years.

I heard this from a usually reliable source.



All aboard the gravy train??

(or is it Welcome to GA, the fantasyland where the regulations aren't clear, will continue to remain unclear, and may be interpreted in any one of a number of ways depending on the individual staff member consulted?)
outnabout is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2013, 13:12
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Folks,
It is self evident Part 135 in its present form (or anything like its present form) will destroy GA Charter --- it is as simple as that.

Just have a look at the minimum requirements for an "Air Transport Operation" airfield in Part 135 --- that alone eliminates a large proportion of what we do now.

Virtually none of the new and severe restrictions are based on a rational risk management approach to a genuine safety problem --- because CASA says they don't need to be.

As 400 and some probably know, the ultra simplistic -- even fundamentalist extremest ( the aviation Taliban??) -- approach to the interpretation of the Act, that accidents and incidents are required to be minimized, without regard to cost or impact on the sector, has given rise to this nonsense.

But never mind, even if Part 135 wasn't so bad, the new maintenance regulations (in draft for your entertainment and education --- see the CASA web site) are unaffordable in the extreme.

Somebody described them as "maintaining a C-172 like a jumbo" but it isn't like that (silly as that would be/is) but much worse.

Not that the GA maintenance rules apply to "air transport", if your C-172 is used for Part 135 operations, it's the full on Part 145 for you.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2013, 21:33
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Starting to dread reading this thread; the stark cynicism, blatant exploitation of the reform program is becoming clear. You wanted reform – well here it is, what – don't like it?, well tough titty. They know full well the package is a crock, they know full well that rejection and complaint will follow, they know full well that by sitting back and watching the fun any government will accept and support "the expert".

Gods help us everyone - (apologies to Dickens).
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2013, 09:41
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The RAAA view on reg reform!

From Proaviation.. A Bridge Too Far:
Jeff Boyd

By kind courtesy of Aviation Trader‘s Tony Shaw and of Jeff Boyd, we’re re-publishing Jeff’s recent Commentary on the regulatory scene, first published in Aviation Trader‘s September issue, for the benefit of those who haven’t yet seen it.

In my 33 years of working in the regional aviation industry I have seen the whole gamut of industry ups and downs.
I came into this industry at the end of the 1980’s boom. I worked through the recession that we had to have. I have seen the Aussie dollar get down to less than half of a US dollar and then rise to above parity, interest rates jump to crippling levels and now sink to record lows, and who would have ever believed we would be paying well over $2 a litre for aviation fuel. We have worked our way through industry skill shortages and along the way provided the major airlines free training for thousands of pilots and engineers.
Jeff Boyd addressing RAAA’s 2012 conference

We have paid for barbed wire fences around country airports, hardened cockpit doors for aircraft so small that they would bounce off the side of a building, and checked bag screening in places a terrorist would be hard pressed to find in an atlas.
We have enjoyed the work a healthy mining industry has bought us and we have worked hard to keep services to regional towns that don’t have the economic benefit of the mining industry.
But with all its highs and lows, overall for those who have worked hard and worked smart, the regional aviation industry has been a great business to be in.
For me it has taught me and taken me to places that as a young fellow growing up in the Western suburbs of Sydney I could have never imagined. It has provided economic security for myself and my family along with the hundreds of people who have come and gone from our employment over the years.
However probably the biggest threat now facing the future of the regional aviation industry is one that should not be a threat at all. It is one that is not controlled by the vagaries of the European economy or the threat of international terrorism. It is in fact a process that should and could provide great opportunities for our industry, – that is the regulatory reform of the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations.
This process has been going on for almost as long as I have worked in the industry. It has gone on for decades and cost millions of dollars. Some people have literally made a career out of drafting and redrafting the same regulation over and over again. It has gone through several incarnations under several different names of the industry regulator and even more Directors of the regulator. It had an American accent for a while before taking on a more European brogue. Now it would seem to be trying to develop an accent all of its own. This is an area where I believe one the biggest threats lies.
All along we have been told that our Australian regulations had to be rewritten because we needed to harmonise with the rest of the world and become ICAO compliant. I don’t believe that has happened as what I am seeing are Australian-specific rules and regulations being drafted. The new part 66 engineer’s licence for example is absolutely an Australian specific licence. Originally we were told, in fact I even saw it in CASA print, that we were going to get an EASA licence. What we actually ended up with is what CASA describe as an EASA style licence. Most engineers I speak to have found it completely confusing and it is not recognised anywhere else in the world.
CASA has just finished implementing the Part 145 and Part 42 maintenance regulations for RPT operations. This has been a massive task for many of our members, – just as massive I am sure for the people in CASA working to bring these regulations on line. These regulations were brought in on a time line that was too short and very difficult to meet. In fact most 145 and 42 approvals were only issued in the last couple of weeks and days before the cut off date. The pressure this line in the sand placed on many of our members was ridiculous. I believe the level of stress that was placed on both industry and CASA staff could have resulted in serious safety implications. It certainly caused a level of stress on individuals that I would consider harmful.
Now that we have these new maintenance regulations we have actually and unnecessarily divided our small Australian aircraft maintenance industry in two. This has had huge repercussions in the Regional Aviation industry where RPT and non RPT operations generally work side by side. We now have the situation where someone with a CAR30 approval cannot work or provide overhauled or repaired parts to a 145 organisation, however someone in another country automatically approved by CASA that does not necessarily have all of the processes and systems in place as required for an Australian Part 145 approval can do so. I feared when these regulations were proposed that some organisations would see the 145 process as too daunting and would walk away from the RPT industry. This has actually happened with many organisations deciding not to go 145 or worse, just closing down their services all together. I have spoken to several Australian RPT organisations who are now sourcing overhauled or repaired components from overseas instead of the Australian workshop they previously used.
There is also much ambiguity in these regulations with as many interpretations as there are CASA field offices. I believe this can be attributed to a lack of real guidance material for both CASA and industry. This guidance material should have preceded the rolling out of the regulations instead of CASA now playing catch up.
I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will ittake to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting inthe middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
From where I am writing this on the Eastern side of Australia I am actually closer in distance to New Zealand than I am to Perth. So I wonder why we are not doing as almost every other country in the Pacific, and some in South East Asia have done, and adopt the New Zealand regulations. Here are a set of rewritten ICAO compliant regulations, written for and by a country with aviation operations basically the same as us. I would doubt that there would be an area of operation that would not match ours. There is also the huge upside that their “new” regulations were implemented over a decade ago and have now reached a mature state.
For the critics who will say that I am over simplifying things, or that it would not be constitutionally possible to take up my suggestion, I remind them of a set of aviation regulations called EASA designed and implemented by a large and diverse group of countries all operating within the same geographical region.
Imagine the real benefits to our local aviation industry of having our entire region operating on the same set of regulations. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so I look forward to someone smarter than me telling me what that is, but in the meantime, whoever our next Federal Government Minister may be, I implore them to consider and research my Pacific Solution.
Jeff Boyd is current Chairman of The Regional Aviation Association of Australia, and also Managing Director of Kite Aviation. The RAAA is a not-for-profit organisation formed in 1980 to protect, represent and promote the combined interests of its regional airline members and regional aviation throughout Australia. The RAAA has 29 Ordinary Members (AOC holders) and 72 Associate/Affiliate Members. The RAAA’s AOC members directly employ over 2,500 Australians, many in regional areas and on an annual basis jointly turnover more than $1b. Its members also carry well in excess of 2 million passengers and move over 23 million kilograms of freight each year. More information including categories of membership can be found at RAAA: Regional Aviation Association of Australia.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2013, 10:33
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nobody has listened to me or a plethora of others beating the same drum, so perhaps one should use THIS as a catalyst for future advancement of what was once a vibrant industry but now destroyed by borderline sociopath "pissants" yielding unfettered power with no mandate to do so.

It's time for a reckoning, but it won't come from Fort Fumble because it's infested with over paid narcissists without a conscience.

A pox on them all!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2013, 11:02
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
frank, I think you should tell us what you really think !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
T28D is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2013, 11:46
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
T28D:
frank, I think you should tell us what you really think !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll second that Frank...but add I love it and oh so true!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2013, 12:00
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This bloke summed most of our troubles;

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
While apathy rules within the industry the "stupid" rule supreme.

Any organization is only as strong as it's opposition is weak.

We are weak by definition.................
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2013, 01:59
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fort Fumble Part 145 stuff up cont/

The FF Part 145 debacle kind of reinforces Frank's last couple of posts ...and here's the latest update on consultation of proposed amendments...

Consultation Draft for proposed amendments to Part 145 Manual of Standards (MOS)

...it would appear that those concerned with these proposed amendments better get a wriggle on as you have less than 3 weeks to submit comments/concerns
Sarcs is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2013, 06:35
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CASA policy is that holders of licences issued by any Chinese NAA will be acceptable for authorisation by any Chinese AMO.
Folks,
Re. the last post and CASR 145 MOS ---- great stuff, CASA AU "policy" determining the "law" in PR China and its SARs.
Keep it up, CAAC/CAD/CAA will find this most helpful. A certain Mr. Li in Beijing will be particularly impressed.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2013, 02:53
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spare a thought for the yanks!

Slight thread drift but there is relevance

While we all have concerns for the total clusterf*#k that is the reg reform program (20+ years and counting!), spare a thought for the yanks at the moment as it appears that the Obama administration is playing politics with FAA and NTSB furlough of, Obama defined, non-essential staff:
Politics Behind FAA Closures?


The U.S. government's shutdown clearly was triggered by House Republicans who are taking appropriations hostage in a last-ditch effort to hold off Obamacare. But some decisions on what government services are "non-essential" suggest the Obama administration is playing politics as well by making sure the pain is felt far and wide. Take the FAA's move to close its registration branch in Oklahoma City. The decision already is delaying deliveries of passenger jets, business jets and general aviation aircraft. Airbus was unable to deliver an A321 jet to JetBlue Airways on Oct. 1, and two U.S. Airways-bound A330-200s could soon be held up. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association says scheduled deliveries during the next two weeks of about 135 aircraft worth nearly $1.4 billion are at risk if the registration office remains closed.
The office was deemed essential during government shutdowns in the 1990s and continued to operate. So what has changed? "To declare the FAA registry non-essential flies in the face of logic," David Warner, a Seattle-based aviation attorney, tells Aviation Week. "But if you're trying to make the dispute as painful as possible for the American people, then yes, you close it."

Investigating air crashes also seems to be non-essential. The National Transportation Safety Board inspection team has furloughed all but three of its 135 workers. The board pulled back a team that was investigating the crash of a Cessna CJ2+ business jet last week at Santa Monica Airport in California. All four passengers on board were killed.

To the outsde world, America's vaunted democracy must not look very appealing

& this link: When Airworthiness Became Non-essential
Yes indeed the US democratic system seems bizarre sometimes but at least the Federal Government and it's agencies are very much held to account by the American people and the constraints of the Constitution/Bill of rights.

Hmm...there would probably be a number of posters on here that would jump for joy if the Govt decided to furlough all non-essential staff at Fort Fumble!

Q/ Could we define the FF executive as non-essential?
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2013, 00:53
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Part 61 draft..err comments anyone L&K CAsA (via T.W.I.T.T.E.R)!

First embuggered reg reform (draft consult proposal) that is addressed to the new Minister would appear to be Part 61:

Part 61 consult draft

Hmm...a bit bemused by the 140 character FF message though??: Again those concerned with the proposed amendments better get a wriggle on...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2013, 09:59
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sarcs and all,
Be very clear, this is not consultation about the horrendous Part 61, this is just a few of the errors and omissions being corrected.
Part 61 is already L.A.W. law, comes in to effect early December, a real sadists Christmas present.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 00:13
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
News.com: Regulators must improve:report

Leady:
Part 61 is already L.A.W. law, comes in to effect early December, a real sadists Christmas present.
Duly noted LS!
By the way in regards to the draconian Part 61 apparently there is 156 new criminal offences attached to the new reg..FFS!

Come across an interesting article on News.com that has significant relevance to this thread:
REGULATORS must make more effort to understand how regulation impacts small business.

Research the Productivity Commission has found small firms feel the burden of regulation more than larger businesses because a lack of staff, time and resources means they don't always understand and fulfil their obligations.

"A regulator's culture and attitude towards business can be as important as the content of the regulation itself," Commissioner Warren Mundy said in a statement on Wednesday.

"There is still significant scope for improvement in the way regulators engage with small business."

The report proposes a suite of changes which need to be implemented by all levels of government.

These include adopting communication practices with small business that focus on "brevity, clarity and accessibility of information".

Regulators should also be resourced to do their job effectively to avoid the shifting of direct and indirect costs onto business.

The commission found that regulators with effective risk-based engagement policies and procedures were more likely to be better resourced and to have senior leadership that invests in, and fosters, a business-focused culture among their staff.

"A stronger focus on risk was found to limit unnecessary intrusion on lower-risk small businesses, free up resources to improve frontline guidance and advice services, and enable them to more effectively address higher risks to communities," it says.

Government should require regulators to report back against a set of engagement principles to insure continuous improvement in regulatory performance.
A more understanding, transparent regulator...yeah right that will be the day!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 11:33
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Words, words and more words.
Aint these numpies fantastic at creating words!!
The indicators of performance are actions not words.
Words are used to justify and disguise corruption and if anyone is in any doubt that the aviation regulator is corrupt seriously needs some lessons in what corrupt behaviour looks like.
thorn bird is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.