Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform
The Regulatory Reform Program Will Drift Along Forever - Part II
From the Proof Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005, pages 124/5, at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S8083.pdf
[My bolding]
According to Table C of CASA’s Cost Recovery Impact Statement (available here: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...final_2013.pdf) the estimated costs of “Safety Standards” “Development” for FY 12-13 was $18,077,908.
A conservative estimate of the cost, so far, of the regulatory reform program is $200 million.
A rough estimate of the pages of regulations produced in the last 20 years is 2,000.
That’s about $100,000 per page.
Safety improvements arising from 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Efficiency improvements for industry arising from the 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Clarity achieved? Quite the opposite.
When will it end? Given the rate of ‘progress’ so far and the list of ‘active’ projects still to be completed, never.
The regulatory reform program will drift around forever.
This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.
[A plea to potential posters: Please don’t post material that will get this thread locked.]
Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
According to Table C of CASA’s Cost Recovery Impact Statement (available here: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...final_2013.pdf) the estimated costs of “Safety Standards” “Development” for FY 12-13 was $18,077,908.
A conservative estimate of the cost, so far, of the regulatory reform program is $200 million.
A rough estimate of the pages of regulations produced in the last 20 years is 2,000.
That’s about $100,000 per page.
Safety improvements arising from 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Efficiency improvements for industry arising from the 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Clarity achieved? Quite the opposite.
When will it end? Given the rate of ‘progress’ so far and the list of ‘active’ projects still to be completed, never.
The regulatory reform program will drift around forever.
This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.
[A plea to potential posters: Please don’t post material that will get this thread locked.]
Last edited by Creampuff; 6th Aug 2013 at 08:08.
'Creamy' such things as this are a self feeding machine, there cannot be an end to it otherwise it defeats the original purpose.
Hope the thread lasts but I don't like yr chances.
Wmk2
Hope the thread lasts but I don't like yr chances.
Wmk2
Byron said....
he wanted the rules to be 'right' and have 'quality' Typo...?? because what we actually get is QUANTITY. CASR pt 61....592 pages !!!!! 
There have been other examples posted on pp that show the goobledegook and incomprehensibility of some/most of the reg avalanche.
CP you have a typo as well....
"This Frankenstein must be put out of OUR misery"
The bureaurats are certainly not miserable about on-going endless 'troughing"
All their wordy junk has kept Oz extremely safe from falling aeroplanes or havnt you noticed?
There have been other examples posted on pp that show the goobledegook and incomprehensibility of some/most of the reg avalanche.
CP you have a typo as well....
"This Frankenstein must be put out of OUR misery"
The bureaurats are certainly not miserable about on-going endless 'troughing"
All their wordy junk has kept Oz extremely safe from falling aeroplanes or havnt you noticed?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fairly simple, Wally et al:
As long as people refrain from:
1. Posting in riddles, sea shanties and other spruiks of fantasy that seem to dominate these kind of threads, and;
2. Engaging in direct slander and character assassination (see the post by the owner at the top of both our forums);
the thread will remain.
Find it difficult to respect our wishes (on behalf of the owner)? Find somewhere else to peddle your cause, or expect action from the mod team
As long as people refrain from:
1. Posting in riddles, sea shanties and other spruiks of fantasy that seem to dominate these kind of threads, and;
2. Engaging in direct slander and character assassination (see the post by the owner at the top of both our forums);
the thread will remain.
Find it difficult to respect our wishes (on behalf of the owner)? Find somewhere else to peddle your cause, or expect action from the mod team
Last edited by Tidbinbilla; 6th Aug 2013 at 08:54.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I've said this just recently in another thread, but...
Creampuff,
Excellent post. The last bit of the quote in your bold could have been lifted from Sir Humphries from 'Yes Prime Minister'.
But....
How will change be effected? B!tc#!ng about it on line here? I don't see that making much difference?
As pointed out on another thread, there is a 'contact the director' link on the casa website (which I have used). I suspect that will be given as much heed as the guy asking for spare change out the front of the casa building in Canberra.
I guess it's a start though.
But, what is the answer? How do the people that these (over) regulations affect the most, bring about a change?
Seriously!
Excellent post. The last bit of the quote in your bold could have been lifted from Sir Humphries from 'Yes Prime Minister'.
But....
How will change be effected? B!tc#!ng about it on line here? I don't see that making much difference?
As pointed out on another thread, there is a 'contact the director' link on the casa website (which I have used). I suspect that will be given as much heed as the guy asking for spare change out the front of the casa building in Canberra.
I guess it's a start though.
But, what is the answer? How do the people that these (over) regulations affect the most, bring about a change?
Seriously!
Field an independent Senate candidate in QLD and NSW (biggest Aviation states) for the Hangar Party.
How many people are employed in Aviation in these two states?
...enough to get one senator up in each?
How many people are employed in Aviation in these two states?
...enough to get one senator up in each?
HL is on the money: Elect and lobby independents. 
The Laborial party machines have demonstrated their respective lack of willingness to do anything meaningful.
The Laborial party machines have demonstrated their respective lack of willingness to do anything meaningful.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Map it out for us
And the purpose of this thread is???
Creampuff, you always post facts that we already know - Reg reform has taken almost 25 years, has cost $200 million, will never be completed and requires neutering. Fair enough. But we already know all this.
Whenever somebody posts a suggested fix, reasonable argument, something out of left field, or heavens above something that contains riddles they are either shut down, torn asunder or ridiculed. Fair enough.
Why don't you tell us how you would suggest fixing this CAsA regulatory reform issue as well as the ATsB? It's a genuine question, not a piss take and with no strings attached. Something like a 20 or 30 step plan or more if need be, detailed and workable (and without riddles). Because a number of us have tried many angles over the years and to date have achieved very little, acknowledged.
Your work may also assist the independent Senators considering some of them are proving to be the only ones who give a rats testicle about aviation matters that don't pertain to business class seating and chairmans lounge priveledges.
004/Oleo
P.S
I have tried very very hard to 'self moderate' my comment and refrain from emotive language, riddles, direct insults at CAsA personnel or basically speak my mind fully. It doesn't fit within the context of who I am, but out of respect for this thread I will continue to show restraint.
Creampuff, you always post facts that we already know - Reg reform has taken almost 25 years, has cost $200 million, will never be completed and requires neutering. Fair enough. But we already know all this.
Whenever somebody posts a suggested fix, reasonable argument, something out of left field, or heavens above something that contains riddles they are either shut down, torn asunder or ridiculed. Fair enough.
Why don't you tell us how you would suggest fixing this CAsA regulatory reform issue as well as the ATsB? It's a genuine question, not a piss take and with no strings attached. Something like a 20 or 30 step plan or more if need be, detailed and workable (and without riddles). Because a number of us have tried many angles over the years and to date have achieved very little, acknowledged.
Your work may also assist the independent Senators considering some of them are proving to be the only ones who give a rats testicle about aviation matters that don't pertain to business class seating and chairmans lounge priveledges.
004/Oleo
P.S
I have tried very very hard to 'self moderate' my comment and refrain from emotive language, riddles, direct insults at CAsA personnel or basically speak my mind fully. It doesn't fit within the context of who I am, but out of respect for this thread I will continue to show restraint.
Last edited by 004wercras; 6th Aug 2013 at 12:48.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One or two senators...
Well, I'd vote for them.
But I only see that doing a fraction of what needs be done...? Any senators that support aviation need a very public cause to hang their hat on.
As Creampuff quoted in the original post, a senator (Mark Bishop), asked a direct question with very little room for interpretation or ambiguity, and got a load of political double speak about scheduling a meeting to get a plan to tell them about their plan, and that won't happen for a few months?!
When truckies don't like how things are being thrust upon them, bam, road blockade of Parliament House, go slow, news coverage, 60 minutes cover story etc etc.
Nurses down tools (bedpans?) for a stop work meeting and it gets the first 5 minutes of nightly news on all channels, and they get change effected.
Now, I'm well aware that pilots haven't had the best of luck with large scale industrial action (pilots strike, qantas grounding) but something more needs to happen to make an essentially unaccountable, unelected public servant, change this dogs breakfast of regulation into something simple pilots can understand!
I can see the AFAP pilot jobs website of the future if this continues -
I dunno... Maybe I'm just dreaming... 
But I only see that doing a fraction of what needs be done...? Any senators that support aviation need a very public cause to hang their hat on.
As Creampuff quoted in the original post, a senator (Mark Bishop), asked a direct question with very little room for interpretation or ambiguity, and got a load of political double speak about scheduling a meeting to get a plan to tell them about their plan, and that won't happen for a few months?!
When truckies don't like how things are being thrust upon them, bam, road blockade of Parliament House, go slow, news coverage, 60 minutes cover story etc etc.
Nurses down tools (bedpans?) for a stop work meeting and it gets the first 5 minutes of nightly news on all channels, and they get change effected.
Now, I'm well aware that pilots haven't had the best of luck with large scale industrial action (pilots strike, qantas grounding) but something more needs to happen to make an essentially unaccountable, unelected public servant, change this dogs breakfast of regulation into something simple pilots can understand!
I can see the AFAP pilot jobs website of the future if this continues -
Pilot wanted.
MECIR
1000 multi
Masters degree in law with a 55% case win ratio
QC preferred
MECIR
1000 multi
Masters degree in law with a 55% case win ratio
QC preferred
What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.
The numbers that need to be calculated include off the top of my head:
Regulatory cost per aircraft.
Regulatory cost per:
- Aircraft hour flown
- Miles flown.
- per flight.
- per passenger km.
Representative aircraft operating costs per hour, preferably broken down by cost category
These need to be calculated per year, per decade, Also in long term moving averages.
The data needs to be referenced as to source.
Then there needs to be some discussion of the comparisons and results.
If Australia shows up well as an efficient regulator - well, you have just lost your argument about how bad the Australian system really is.
How do costs compare? That should tell you who is screwing who. We can then delve into how and why they are screwing you..
If, perchance, as some of you suspect, the data shows that CASA, ATSB, etc are bloated non performers, be prepared to discuss the following statement:
"We aren't really bloated, it's just that Australia is different".
"The data is wrong".
"Our costs include stuff that others don't".
"But we've already changed, your data is too old".
"It's not our fault, the Government made us do it this way".
I first did part of one of these for Econometrician Robin Hocking who was instrumental in destroying the Two airline domestic policy.
At Coopers and Lybrand I did this for Telecom (Telstras predecessor) that conclusively demonstrated how bloated that institution had become. The Board didn't like that result, unfortunately for me.
With a little bit of luck, ICAO will have done all the data collection for you, the International Telecommunication Union certainly had it by country when I "did" Telecom.
Unless and until you can produce these facts and a cogent argument for change, and the money it will save, you are wasting your time.
The numbers that need to be calculated include off the top of my head:
Regulatory cost per aircraft.
Regulatory cost per:
- Aircraft hour flown
- Miles flown.
- per flight.
- per passenger km.
Representative aircraft operating costs per hour, preferably broken down by cost category
These need to be calculated per year, per decade, Also in long term moving averages.
The data needs to be referenced as to source.
Then there needs to be some discussion of the comparisons and results.
If Australia shows up well as an efficient regulator - well, you have just lost your argument about how bad the Australian system really is.
How do costs compare? That should tell you who is screwing who. We can then delve into how and why they are screwing you..
If, perchance, as some of you suspect, the data shows that CASA, ATSB, etc are bloated non performers, be prepared to discuss the following statement:
"We aren't really bloated, it's just that Australia is different".
"The data is wrong".
"Our costs include stuff that others don't".
"But we've already changed, your data is too old".
"It's not our fault, the Government made us do it this way".
I first did part of one of these for Econometrician Robin Hocking who was instrumental in destroying the Two airline domestic policy.
At Coopers and Lybrand I did this for Telecom (Telstras predecessor) that conclusively demonstrated how bloated that institution had become. The Board didn't like that result, unfortunately for me.
With a little bit of luck, ICAO will have done all the data collection for you, the International Telecommunication Union certainly had it by country when I "did" Telecom.
Unless and until you can produce these facts and a cogent argument for change, and the money it will save, you are wasting your time.
Airservices Deliberately Avoids Benchmarking and Comparisons?
I note that Airservices are NOT a member of CANSO (Civil AIr Navigation Services Organisation) who have been benchmarking their performance against each other for years.
Since memberhsip and benchmarking would no doubt entail lots of visits to CANSO HQ in Holland, one has to wonder if the potential pain caused by joining the benchmarking exercise outweighed the joy inherent in all those overseas trips?
Link to 2012 benchmarking report:
http://www.canso.org/cms/streambin.a...=92AF6FDB-1EDB
list of participating members:
AAI (India)
Airports Authority of India
Airways New Zealand
Welcome to Airways - New Zealands Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)
DCAC (Cyprus)
????????? ???????????? ??? ?????
Dutch-Caribbean
dc-ansp.org
Page 18 of 115
AENA (Spain)
http://www.aena.es
ANS Czech Republic
Air Navigation Service
DHMI (Turkey)
Devlet Hava Meydanlar? ??letmesi Genel Müdürlü?ü
EANS (Estonia)
Lennuliiklusteeninduse AS
AEROTHAI (Thailand)
Aeronautical Radio of Thailand LTD
ATNS (South Africa)
Air Traffic and Navigation Services - ATNS
Dubai Air Navigation Services
http://www.dubaiairnav.gov.ae
FAA ATO (USA)
FAA: Home
CANSO Global ANS Performance Report 2012 – Main Report
Finavia (Finland)
Etusivu ? Finavia
LFV (Sweden)
Välkommen till LFV - www.lfv.se
NATS (UK)
NATS | A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance
NAVIAIR (Denmark)
Naviair - FORSIDE
SENEAM (Mexico)
Servicios a la Navegacion en el Espacio Aereo Mexicano - SCT
1.1.
HungaroControl (Hungary)
HungaroControl
LGS (Latvia)
LGS - - Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme
NAV CANADA
NAV CANADA
ROMATSA (Romania)
ROMATSA
SMATSA (Serbia & Montenegro)
http://www.smatsa.rs
IAA (Ireland)
http://www.iaa.ie
LPS (Slovak Republic)
http://www.lps.sk
NAV Portugal
NAV
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd (Georgia)
Sakaeronavigatsia
Since memberhsip and benchmarking would no doubt entail lots of visits to CANSO HQ in Holland, one has to wonder if the potential pain caused by joining the benchmarking exercise outweighed the joy inherent in all those overseas trips?
Link to 2012 benchmarking report:
http://www.canso.org/cms/streambin.a...=92AF6FDB-1EDB
list of participating members:
AAI (India)
Airports Authority of India
Airways New Zealand
Welcome to Airways - New Zealands Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)
DCAC (Cyprus)
????????? ???????????? ??? ?????
Dutch-Caribbean
dc-ansp.org
Page 18 of 115
AENA (Spain)
http://www.aena.es
ANS Czech Republic
Air Navigation Service
DHMI (Turkey)
Devlet Hava Meydanlar? ??letmesi Genel Müdürlü?ü
EANS (Estonia)
Lennuliiklusteeninduse AS
AEROTHAI (Thailand)
Aeronautical Radio of Thailand LTD
ATNS (South Africa)
Air Traffic and Navigation Services - ATNS
Dubai Air Navigation Services
http://www.dubaiairnav.gov.ae
FAA ATO (USA)
FAA: Home
CANSO Global ANS Performance Report 2012 – Main Report
Finavia (Finland)
Etusivu ? Finavia
LFV (Sweden)
Välkommen till LFV - www.lfv.se
NATS (UK)
NATS | A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance
NAVIAIR (Denmark)
Naviair - FORSIDE
SENEAM (Mexico)
Servicios a la Navegacion en el Espacio Aereo Mexicano - SCT
1.1.
HungaroControl (Hungary)
HungaroControl
LGS (Latvia)
LGS - - Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme
NAV CANADA
NAV CANADA
ROMATSA (Romania)
ROMATSA
SMATSA (Serbia & Montenegro)
http://www.smatsa.rs
IAA (Ireland)
http://www.iaa.ie
LPS (Slovak Republic)
http://www.lps.sk
NAV Portugal
NAV
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd (Georgia)
Sakaeronavigatsia
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno Sunny, a simple page count aught to resolve the matter.....
It's not so much that the 'reform' has been costly or taken a while to get to critical mass. For mine, it's that there is no 'reform' to speak of; we seem to have the same old stuff, re hashed and larded with traps for the unwary. All that seems to have been done is to roll the CAO up into the CAR, warts and all, tighten the loop holes and launch.
I don't see simple, clearly defined outcome based resolution i.e. R101 - Don't run out of fuel. The onus is then on the company (individual) to produce a fuel policy within the prescribed minimums which ensures that silence will not prevail. The rules are basically simple enough.
What I find is that it's not the "rules" per se that cause the problems; but the application. It's a simple enough matter to write an operational policy for compliance; but the monster is revealed when some FOI or AWI has had a blue with the missus and decides that today, you are the anti Christ of aviation - then the fun begins; ask Quadrio, Butson or Kilen, they will explain your own elegant expression – Embuggerance in robust, basic Anglo Saxon.
Reform the regulator, the rules will surely follow.
It's not so much that the 'reform' has been costly or taken a while to get to critical mass. For mine, it's that there is no 'reform' to speak of; we seem to have the same old stuff, re hashed and larded with traps for the unwary. All that seems to have been done is to roll the CAO up into the CAR, warts and all, tighten the loop holes and launch.
I don't see simple, clearly defined outcome based resolution i.e. R101 - Don't run out of fuel. The onus is then on the company (individual) to produce a fuel policy within the prescribed minimums which ensures that silence will not prevail. The rules are basically simple enough.
What I find is that it's not the "rules" per se that cause the problems; but the application. It's a simple enough matter to write an operational policy for compliance; but the monster is revealed when some FOI or AWI has had a blue with the missus and decides that today, you are the anti Christ of aviation - then the fun begins; ask Quadrio, Butson or Kilen, they will explain your own elegant expression – Embuggerance in robust, basic Anglo Saxon.
Reform the regulator, the rules will surely follow.
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Aug 2013 at 20:48. Reason: No Minnie, we are not ploughing through that lot - Kettle on ?
What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.
Why didn't we think of that during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review?? --- Hang on, I remember, we did!!
I still have copies of all the documents somewhere for Part 91, where we did (item by item) a comparison, side by side spreadsheet, of the equivalent sub-regulation from (from memory), as well as AU,NZ, CA,US,UK and ICAO.
Not surprisingly, beside quite a number of Australian regulations, some or all of the other countries' lists were a blank space.
One of the ones that sticks in my mind was the AU regulations/orders about dropping things from aircraft (you know the ones -- they put paid to Sunday morning flour bombing and streamer cutting competitions at the local aero club) AU -- about 9 pages of regulation and orders, most others countries, one or two paragraphs, plus advisory material.
The Review recommendation was a one paragraph regulation, outcome based, with advisory material as to how to comply.
9 pages of regulatory material reduces to about 30 easily understandable words.
Later, long after the PAP had gone, Bruce Byron actually produced a policy directive, binding on CASA staff, as to how all rules were to be justified -- based entirely on the principles used by the PAP/CASA Review --- which in themselves were nothing new, just lifted straight from the recommendations of the Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation handbook, the then Australia/NZ Standard for risk management, and other similar sources from Attorney-General, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, etc.
As I recall (it's no longer on the CASA web site) the first requirement of the Byron directive was to establish that there was an air safety problem that required a regulation (as opposed to less draconian methods of securing compliance). If that was established ( as opposed to something that was for administrative bureaucratic convenience -- a regulatory nono that CASA routinely ignores ) the next step was quantitative cost/benefit analysis (not cost/ effectiveness --- CASA can't tell the difference), including factoring the CASA claimed "benefits" for "proponent bias", which various Canberra based guidelines put at up to 50%, ie; the claimed financial/ societal etc. benefits of a measure are commonly overstated by up to 50%.
Unsurprisingly, by this stage, a large number of regulations were knocked out, to the distress of those in CASA who believe "regulation" is the only answer (as in the new proposals for SAR/EMS operations NPRM --- to be regulated to the greatest possible extent --- as RPT).
By this stage, draft regulations were starting to look remarkably like NZ or CA or FAA --- but simpler and easier to read.
One "person" in the the CASA Office of Legal Counsel actually put forward the proposition that "outcome based" rules, that were Government policy, would not work in Australian aviation, because, unlike NZ/CA/US/UK. neither CASA nor the Australia aviation industry were "mature enough" for anything other than highly detailed and absolutely prescriptive regulation.
As we well know now, all of the above drafts has been dropped --- it is even claimed now that such activities as risk justification and cost/benefit analysis are contrary to the Civil, Aviation Act 1988. Strangely, all the lawyers involved over the years, including several lawyers on the Board, including a Supreme Court Judge as Chairman, apparently missed what has apparently been so blindingly obvious to the present day CASA Board and management.
As for ATC, have a look at the Airspace Act, and particularly the first "airspace directive", signed off by Truss. Now emasculated under the present Government --- and look at the mess Airservices are in!
It is a very sad story, that has cost Australia far more than the $2-300M directly spent by CASA, we have lost a large segment of the industry, either gone offshore or just gone.
And here was Albo, just last week, at the CAPA conference, saying what a great place Australia is, to do aviation business, with all these beaut. country aerodromes where we could be training foreign students.
I wonder why the training industry didn't think of that --- Hang On!! , I remember, they did!!
---- but have been largely put out of business, with excessive costs and regulation, compared to competitor countries. CASA isn't the only offender here, there are plenty of other Australian government entities who have done their bit to help boost pilot training in NZ/US/CA/etc.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Aug 2013 at 09:15.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My $0.02c+GST worth.
Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi's. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the "American" label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?
Sounds silly I know, but how hard would it actually be to do, compared to the collective hardship we suffer now?
I once thought it was a silly idea, but the more I talk to smart people in industry the more it sounds like the right thing to do.
If I were king for a day.....they say.
Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi's. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the "American" label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?
Sounds silly I know, but how hard would it actually be to do, compared to the collective hardship we suffer now?
I once thought it was a silly idea, but the more I talk to smart people in industry the more it sounds like the right thing to do.
If I were king for a day.....they say.
Jaba,
Once again, I agree with you, including not just the "regulations". but a re-write of the Act along NZ lines, particularly S.14 of the NZ Act, Functions of the Minister.
Tootle pip!!
Once again, I agree with you, including not just the "regulations". but a re-write of the Act along NZ lines, particularly S.14 of the NZ Act, Functions of the Minister.
Tootle pip!!
If they must write the regs to cover all legal possibilities (I'm sifting through draft CASR 161 and its associated 'explanations' as we speak), why don't they produce straight-talking guidebooks or similar to go along with them?
Have a plain language 'what can and can't I do' guide for each main set of rules, with clear disclaimers along the lines of:
'this isn't the regs, it's just a guide, so check the real thing before you act.'
That way, you could be quickly and simply reminded of the basic requirements and directed to the appropriate legislation for further reading, rather than having to sift through miles of garble to ferret out the good gen.
I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good, but wouldn't it be great to have concise, clear guides coming from the source of the legislation explaining what they're on about?
Have a plain language 'what can and can't I do' guide for each main set of rules, with clear disclaimers along the lines of:
'this isn't the regs, it's just a guide, so check the real thing before you act.'
That way, you could be quickly and simply reminded of the basic requirements and directed to the appropriate legislation for further reading, rather than having to sift through miles of garble to ferret out the good gen.
I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good, but wouldn't it be great to have concise, clear guides coming from the source of the legislation explaining what they're on about?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, when Macair went tits up, the QLD government hit the panick button as to how they would service western Queensland routes that were serviced by the now defunct airline. The paperwork I have seen indicates that to cover this gap the Queensland government approached Skytrans and basically handed them the work. Fort Fumble was then asked to do a risk assessment on each port (desktop only due to time constraints) and I believe between 8 - 11 ports were fully assessed in less than one working week. (I am sure an FOI request would confirm all the dates, locations and details in a comprehensive transparent way. Perhaps all the pages will be there as well?) Anybody who is skilled in the methodology of conducting comprehensive risk assessments would know that up to 11 ports in under 5 working days, via desktop for an operator who wasn't flying there already, had different aircraft type and a host of other differences would know that this is a crock and an impossible task. Paperwork was filled out simply to provide an audit trail that the process had been undertaken prior to operation. A box ticking exercise and another display of FF jumping to attention when a minister or state government tells it to.
As for the Lockhart investigation, your comments are precise Sarcs. Alan Stray may have been at the ATsB at the time, but it is the events beyond his control that I refer to that I express dismay at. Alan certainly knew CAsA was a two bit shonky outfit not to be trusted, and subsequent inquiries have proven that. CAsA escaped a pineapple over Lockhart, and that fact was beyond Alan's power and influence range. After all, Alan was only a very small piece of a giant jigsaw. Even in that time period Messr Stray had internal politics knocking at his door. Honesty and integrity are not the favored approach when Ministers and bureaucracies are not painted in robust light.
As for the Lockhart investigation, your comments are precise Sarcs. Alan Stray may have been at the ATsB at the time, but it is the events beyond his control that I refer to that I express dismay at. Alan certainly knew CAsA was a two bit shonky outfit not to be trusted, and subsequent inquiries have proven that. CAsA escaped a pineapple over Lockhart, and that fact was beyond Alan's power and influence range. After all, Alan was only a very small piece of a giant jigsaw. Even in that time period Messr Stray had internal politics knocking at his door. Honesty and integrity are not the favored approach when Ministers and bureaucracies are not painted in robust light.
Last edited by 004wercras; 13th Aug 2013 at 03:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOTW
Don't know what you are on, but any reasonable look at the regs and particularly recently with the 100.5 debacle.
I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good
and particularly recently with the 100.5 debacle.