Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

CASA Legislation Must Be Fixed First

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

CASA Legislation Must Be Fixed First

Old 6th Mar 2014, 02:25
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 49
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by Creampuff View Post
Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!
Does this meet Old Akro's requirement that 1/3 of the management should be new...?
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 02:42
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
No. It means there are a couple of new positions vacant for Coalition ‘friends’.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 04:40
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
At least Dick's consistent!

Over the Blue Mountains where old Max lives..

Safety red tape is crippling regional airlines: Dick Smith

SMALLER commuter planes are safer than travelling via road, but will never be as safe as larger aircraft and it’s a reality bureaucrats should face by lifting restrictive safety measures crippling the aviation industry, according to Dick Smith.


Mr Smith said currently the government and the aviation regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) do not understand the best way of having high safety levels in aviation was to have a profitable industry.


“You can always increase safety by spending more money, but then you end up with less people who can afford an air ticket,” he said.


“It’s a balance, but in aviation people don’t admit it’s a balance. They lie and, from the minister down, they’ll tell you that safety is in front of everything else.”

Mr Smith said he was pushing to have the act changed to show higher participation in aviation was necessary to retain a high safety level.
“Unless it does we’ll have less and less people flying and you won’t have any regional aviation at all,” he said.


Although Regional Express’s (Rex) profits have recently slumped, Mr Smith said there was no reason why country towns could not have a safe and viable air service with a profitable company.


“I think we can have higher levels of safety but with less waste, less money wasted on the regulative system,” he said.


“We’ll kill more Australians because they all be driving to Sydney they won’t be going by air and that’s criminal.”


As CASA chair in the 1990s he pushed for safety to be made affordable with a concentration on reducing costs.


He said it was tougher for regional aviators because there were less passengers, but the same safety expectations.


“If you’ve got 300 people in a 747 they can afford a higher level of safety than 15 people in a Saab,” he said.


“But what’s been happening is the do-gooders in the bureaucracy have been trying to make a Saab as safe as a 747 and you can only do that by increasing the air ticket by 10 times to get the same income as 300 people.”


Mr Smith said it was likely Brindabella Airlines could not afford to comply with the safety rules when the carrier’s fleet was grounded by CASA forcing the company into receivership.


“Flying in a small commuter plane is probably 30 times safer than going by road and flying in big airline aircraft would be 40 times safer,” he said.
“If you want to make the small commuter plane 40 times safer you’ll have no one flying.”


Mr Smith suggests the government should model its aviation safety requirements on the United States and does not believe spending less on safety puts people at risk.


“You can have very high levels of safety without the enormous costs and that’s what you have to be smart at doing,” he said.


Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.


“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.


“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”


Tribute to Max

He reached for the sky: Dick Smith leads tributes to Max Hazelton

MAX Hazelton is an endangered species - a true blue Aussie who’s made money and ran a successful business in the tough aviation industry, according to entrepreneur Dick Smith.



Mr Smith flew into Orange in his helicopter on Saturday to launch Denis Gregory’s book chronicling the Hazelton legacy at the aero centre bearing the aviation legend’s name.


The launch began fittingly with Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines as friends and admirers of Mr Hazelton took to the lectern to praise the aviation pioneer.


Mr Hazelton was typified as a survivor.


Not just from his famed crash near Oberon in 1954 where against the odds he trekked for six days out of rugged bushland to Cox’s River and later managed to recover his plane.


But also for building a successful and profitable business in the aviation industry.


Mr Smith said Mr Hazelton was one of few people who could fly well and had the business acumen to match.


“He did things that other people put in the hard basket ... he stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right"
He said he had recently flown over the site of Mr Hazelton’s 1954 crash and planned to take him back in a 4WD.


Mr Smith thanked Mr Hazelton for being one of few in the industry to support his reforms while he was the chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).


“We were able to change the rules so instead of Australia re-certifying aircraft [from overseas] we managed to pick seven leading aviation countries and we were able to accept their aircraft without modifications,” Mr Smith said.


“We’ve saved many, many lives because people have been able to fly in aviation from country towns compared to going by road which is far less safe.”


The Hazelton Story author Denis Gregory compared Mr Hazelton to the early explorers - charting the way for others to follow.


“He did things that other people put in the hard basket,” he said.
“He stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right.


“For me it wasn’t a matter of what to put in the book ... it was a matter of what to leave out, that was the hard part.”


'OUT AND ABOUT IN ORANGE' GALLERY: FORMER HAZELTON STAFF GATHER FOR DINNER


Among Mr Hazelton’s many legacies he was credited with convincing authorities to lift the ban on night flying to allow crop spraying in calmer conditions.


A story of a plane’s failed-landing gear being lassoed by two speeding cars on an airstrip exemplified his daring attitude.


Mr Hazelton said he was excited about the book’s launch.


He thanked all involved and congratulated the airline’s former employees for their achievements including pilots Ben Hazelton, Jonathan Hazelton and Andrew Flanagan who had “began their career as hangar rats” and were now pilots for Cathay Pacific, Virgin and Qantas.


“Virgin Airlines employs 50 ex-Hazelton pilots,” he said.


“It’s also a pleasure to see the flying continue with my son Toby, and now my granddaughter Georgie who has commenced her private pilot licence and grandson Lachie who is also about to start flying training at Orange Airport.”
Sarcs is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 10:20
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,861
CASA enjoy an exceptional reputation
Folks,

This, of course
could be equally true as a compliment or a condemnation.

From a speech, some years ago, from a very senior ICAO functionary (and all round good bloke) who is/was just about a close to being a household name in the aviation standards and safety business, and for those of you who might have heard the same speech, please don't pick me up on a minor misquote, it is the sentiment that counts.

" Australia has made a contribution to ICAO and aviation, out of all proportion to it place in the aviation world. In balance, aviation would be better off, if Australia had not done so".


Perhaps 'an exceptional reputation" should be interpreted in that light.


Tootle pip!!



Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Mar 2014 at 14:42.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 19:29
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,298
Dick Smith:

"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.


“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.


“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”

Small point. but if the Altimeter has to be removed to test it, then there is a good chance that testing it every Two years is actually less safe then every Five years. The reason? Infant mortality - stuffing up the reinstallation process.

The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."

Take a sample of altimeter tests at the Two year mark and calculate the failure rate and standard deviation. Do the same at the Five year mark and do the same. Now compare. I did this sort of tedious stuff at Ansett for a few years back in the 70's and relaxed a lot of inspection requirements as a result.

My untutored guess is that the FAA would have done this. I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.

Hope to see you and Ian at Arkaroola this winter.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 23:37
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."
In my opinion, this is where our regulators are letting us down - badly. How long has CASA and its predecessors being collecting accident data, incident data, REPCON's and a host of other reports. Yet, predominantly decision making is based on hypotheticals from meetings in air-conditioned offices in Canberra.

Where do we see a learning effect? Where is there signs of continuous improvement? Surely by now we can refine regulations and practices in an evidence based manner?
Old Akro is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 00:05
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 954
I think it's relevant to this discussion to mention at a recent CASA seminar when discussing combing RPT and charter AOCs the presenter said something along the lines of "Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207."

Most passengers I know don't expect the same level of safety in a light aircraft, in fact they are often expecting the light aircraft to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is! The presenter stressed CASA are doing their best to help AOC holders to make the transition as easy and cheaply as possible, whether that's true or not I will be very interested to see if charter accidents decrease over 5 years.

I doubt it will be significant.
mcgrath50 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 00:34
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,002
What makes Aviation safe here is two main things. Weather and hills. We really don't have bad weather or high hills. I worked higher than anywhere here in aust.
As for Easa it's shit. Lame lic now are crap. And reasons behind the change are floored as it's a hybrid system we now have. The industry has never been in a more dangerous position as where we are now. Sad but true. We not America and we not Europe we here alone doing our on thing. We weren't dangerous to the rest of the world. But for some reason we forced to bend for them. Our system may not have been prefect but there's Aren't ethier. But no we have to bend over and take it. Casa has a lot to answer for the quicker we have a royal commission into casa the better. My two cents worth.
yr right is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 01:11
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
I think it's relevant to this discussion to mention at a recent CASA seminar when discussing combing RPT and charter AOCs the presenter said something along the lines of "Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207."
According to the ATSB statistics here:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/435594...-067_final.pdf

Charter is already safer than low volume RPT.

Its interesting to do a benchmark against road safety. Australia has about 17 m vehicles. The ABS says they travel about 17 billion km per annum. A pretty good overall average speed is 50 km/h. This equates to 340 million hours. Last year 1188 people were killed on Australian roads. Or about 379 fatalities per million hours on the road. The equivalent charter figure is 4.2.

Why do we have such a double standard? Why isn't there any concern about making it as safe to get on a bus as a 207?
Old Akro is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 02:55
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207
But surely there’s somebody left in ‘Canberra’ – at least one person – who realises that it is impossible to achieve the same level of 'safety' on a 207 as a 747, no matter what people 'feel'.

A 207 was not built to Transport Category standards.

For example, a 747 climbs much more 'safely' than a 207, with one engine inoperative.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 04:26
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
And an airliner is easier to find in the event of an accident........oops!
Old Akro is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 07:38
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
A few year ago, my company lost a regular charter client because they had to put the charges up, largely to cover compliance costs.
The clients found it cheaper to airline to a port a few hours drive from where they wanted to go and cover that in rental cars. I heard a couple of their senior exec's were killed in a road accident on that journey.
Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??
thorn bird is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 08:44
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
you guys are so innocent.
In australia you only ever have a "safety case" if you want to justify a preconceived idea.

if we actually went to safety cases we would see the introduction of Canadian Owner maintenance ...introduced in canada on the basis of a safety case that showed that their preconceived ideas were false.

but hell that's not the CAsA way, the "we know safety" way.
guys just admit defeat.
stop bucking the safety mantra. it's a religion you know.
now all say after me safety....obey....safety....obey....safety.....obey

now that didn't hurt did it. obey, obey, obey, obey.

dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 07:19
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,861
Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??
Thorn Bird,

Of course, the answer is yes, and when FAA does proper cost benefit tradeoff studies, it included just such costs.

An example, some years ago, Cabin Crew unions were demanding that young children should have a seat allocated, with a safety seat for very young children/babies, and no sitting on parent's laps.

The FAA CBA showed that the cost, in lives and injuries, from car crashes, from families that would no longer would be able to travel by air, far outweighed any remote chance of a young child surviving an air crash, because they were sitting in a seat and not on mum's lap.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.