Australia will go to EASA – Not FAA – as EASA is Closer to ICAO
Thread Starter
Australia will go to EASA – Not FAA – as EASA is Closer to ICAO
I have recently been told that the reason we are moving towards European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”) standards rather than FAA is that EASA is closer to ICAO. Can you believe it!
The only obligation Australia has in relation to ICAO is to notify if we have a difference. In fact, follow ICAO too closely and you will send your aviation industry to ruin.
ICAO rules are set up by literally the worst bureaucrats in the world – their own countries have been able to get rid of them to sit on ICAO boards. They typically have no business sense at all, no idea of costs and they dream up more and more expensive ways of regulating and oppressing aviation.
I was recently told the reason we can’t go and follow FAA regulations as New Zealand do is because the FAA regulations have lots of differences with ICAO. Of course they have! The Americans aren’t stupid. It looks to me as if the aviation industry’s viability is going to get a lot worse in the next few years. I don’t see any light on the horizon at all.
What do others think?
The only obligation Australia has in relation to ICAO is to notify if we have a difference. In fact, follow ICAO too closely and you will send your aviation industry to ruin.
ICAO rules are set up by literally the worst bureaucrats in the world – their own countries have been able to get rid of them to sit on ICAO boards. They typically have no business sense at all, no idea of costs and they dream up more and more expensive ways of regulating and oppressing aviation.
I was recently told the reason we can’t go and follow FAA regulations as New Zealand do is because the FAA regulations have lots of differences with ICAO. Of course they have! The Americans aren’t stupid. It looks to me as if the aviation industry’s viability is going to get a lot worse in the next few years. I don’t see any light on the horizon at all.
What do others think?
The EASA regulations are too complex, convoluted and costly. Even EASA recognises this and they are running a programme to try and unwind some of their regulations.
We had a policy of generally following the FAA regulations (remind where most of our aircraft are made again?). Now its EASA. Why? When was the change? Was there consultation / was the change made transparently?
Is it just that CASA thought they had seen as much of the US as there was to see and they needed a new travel destination??
We had a policy of generally following the FAA regulations (remind where most of our aircraft are made again?). Now its EASA. Why? When was the change? Was there consultation / was the change made transparently?
Is it just that CASA thought they had seen as much of the US as there was to see and they needed a new travel destination??
Having operated under Kiwi regs all I can say is that they are a breath of fresh air.
You can download a PDF for each applicable part, and actually read and understand them. Compliance is therefore available to all..........
As for Mr McCormick stating that the NZ rules "would not suit our legislation", I take that to be an admission that CASA would prefer to blunder on with poor legislation than fix the problem.
I have had only a brief exposure to EASA regs, and they appear to be a reflection of all that is wrong with the EU. Way too many cooks, all trying to put an oar in the soup to stir it.
You can download a PDF for each applicable part, and actually read and understand them. Compliance is therefore available to all..........
As for Mr McCormick stating that the NZ rules "would not suit our legislation", I take that to be an admission that CASA would prefer to blunder on with poor legislation than fix the problem.
I have had only a brief exposure to EASA regs, and they appear to be a reflection of all that is wrong with the EU. Way too many cooks, all trying to put an oar in the soup to stir it.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA rules are a complete and utter disaster for GA in Europe, and a very expensive exercise for RPT.
Is Europe any safer than the US? Nope......So why inflict an extra cost burden on your industry for no safety benefit?
As the Europeans have discovered and are frantically on a rewrite program to try and resurrect their GA industry.
If anyone thinks Australia's version of EASA regulations are even close to actual EASA they are deluding themselves.
So why are we adopting uniquely Australian rules modeled on a failed system that inflict a MASSIVE cost burden on our industry with no safety benefit?
The Guvmint really needs to make up its mind, do they want an aviation industry or not?..
If NOT then say so, and we can all get on with doing something else and let the foreigners in to look after our domestic air transport, on foreign registers of course, airfares would halve and the VOTERS would be ecstatic.
If you DO want an Australian industry then for gods sake do what the Kiwis did, get rid of the scumbags that inhabit fort fumble, rewrite the act, and adopt Kiwi regulations. It may be too late for GA, but you might just save our RPT operators.
Is Europe any safer than the US? Nope......So why inflict an extra cost burden on your industry for no safety benefit?
As the Europeans have discovered and are frantically on a rewrite program to try and resurrect their GA industry.
If anyone thinks Australia's version of EASA regulations are even close to actual EASA they are deluding themselves.
So why are we adopting uniquely Australian rules modeled on a failed system that inflict a MASSIVE cost burden on our industry with no safety benefit?
The Guvmint really needs to make up its mind, do they want an aviation industry or not?..
If NOT then say so, and we can all get on with doing something else and let the foreigners in to look after our domestic air transport, on foreign registers of course, airfares would halve and the VOTERS would be ecstatic.
If you DO want an Australian industry then for gods sake do what the Kiwis did, get rid of the scumbags that inhabit fort fumble, rewrite the act, and adopt Kiwi regulations. It may be too late for GA, but you might just save our RPT operators.
Last edited by thorn bird; 23rd Jun 2014 at 10:33.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when you think it couldn't get any worse
Dick, you have given me a good laugh! However now that I have stopped laughing I now start shaking my ageing old head in disbelief. If your source is correct Dick, I would love to know if your source also knows the identity of the 
who are pushing EASA? What a nightmare, and no great surprise. CAsA wouldn't know a worm farm from a pot plant. EASA is in comparison to the NZ regs, or even the FAA's. There is no 'perfect fit' for Australia, however NZ is the closest. And I agree with what someone else said, Montreal must be getting boring and Europe obviously holds a lot of potential troughs from which the Fort Fumble pigs simply can't resist! EASA would be an unworkable cess pool of legalese, confusion and totally inappropriate regulations, so I guess it isn't hard to see why Fort Fumble would like their regs. It would create a new 50 year regulatory reform program for CAsA to adapt to and adopt and implement those regs, plus it would create a new long term toy for the next generation of Witchdoctors and consultants to play with 
And Dick, you are correct mate, as much as I hate to say it ICAO are one of the most archaic, bureaucratic, disconnected group of philosophising old codgers to grace a single building. The aviation industry, bureaucracy, democracy and common sense is tailspinning into oblivion.
TICK TOCK
who are pushing EASA? What a nightmare, and no great surprise. CAsA wouldn't know a worm farm from a pot plant. EASA is in comparison to the NZ regs, or even the FAA's. There is no 'perfect fit' for Australia, however NZ is the closest. And I agree with what someone else said, Montreal must be getting boring and Europe obviously holds a lot of potential troughs from which the Fort Fumble pigs simply can't resist! EASA would be an unworkable cess pool of legalese, confusion and totally inappropriate regulations, so I guess it isn't hard to see why Fort Fumble would like their regs. It would create a new 50 year regulatory reform program for CAsA to adapt to and adopt and implement those regs, plus it would create a new long term toy for the next generation of Witchdoctors and consultants to play with And Dick, you are correct mate, as much as I hate to say it ICAO are one of the most archaic, bureaucratic, disconnected group of philosophising old codgers to grace a single building. The aviation industry, bureaucracy, democracy and common sense is tailspinning into oblivion.
TICK TOCK
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Dick, you are correct mate, as much as I hate to say it ICAO are one of the most archaic, bureaucratic, disconnected group of philosophising old codgers to grace a single building
......hang on, I forgot. The UN is ICAO's parent organisation. Figures. CASA would fit right in.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have recently been told that the reason we are moving towards European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”) standards rather than FAA is that EASA is closer to ICAO. Can you believe it!
Dick, the Swiss regulator has adopted EASA regulations. Their Part 145 just points you to the current EASA part.
Could CASA simply do the same with NZ, FAA or EASA where they agree no differences needed? Any areas needing tweaking could be handled quite easily by managing differences.
EASA and UK CAA are going through a red tape reduction exercise for GA.
Spoke to a UK CAA surveyor a while back and they are struggling to make sense of some EASA rules.
Funny how Montreal has fallen out of favour.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 23rd Jun 2014 at 12:41. Reason: autocorrect by iPhone needed correcting!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody think that after 20 years & 200 million dollars that there will be a backdown over these rules? Lawyers & CEO's DONOT admit mistakes no matter how blatantly obvious they are.
[QUOTE] ---have lots of differences with ICAO. /QUOTE]
Dick,
Just like Australia has, right now, the difference being that all the FAA differences, of which I have some knowledge, all have a very sensible basis, and sensible outcomes. In fact, in most cases, if you look closely, it is often the US interpretation, occasionally simplified, of the ICAO SARPs. The "non-compliance" is all too often in the minds of our Canberra/Brisbane aviation bureaucrats.
Australian "translations" of the SARPs are just what you would expect from Australia, almost unrecognizable from the original. I sometimes wonder if CASA starts of by translating the official Chinese version of the Annexes etc., rather than starting with the English version.
There is another thread on this subject of differences, we are just about the world champions, we leave the FAA for dead.
I hope nobody is looking at CASR Parts 42/145, and using that as an example of "EASA", the Australian "EASA like" maintenance regulations are absolutely nothing like the EASA equivalent, or indeed, anything like the drafts produced by Bruce Byron's hand picked industry team.
Don't anybody forget, the Brussels based EEC government is the gold standard for churning out mountains of red tape, the reason a number of countries, principally the UK, are threatening to leave the EEC, if the avalanche of regulation is not only halted, but severely wound back.
PS: As a matter of interest, in the area of design standards, when you drill down deep into JAA/EASA documentation, it leads you back to the original US standards.
Dick,
Just like Australia has, right now, the difference being that all the FAA differences, of which I have some knowledge, all have a very sensible basis, and sensible outcomes. In fact, in most cases, if you look closely, it is often the US interpretation, occasionally simplified, of the ICAO SARPs. The "non-compliance" is all too often in the minds of our Canberra/Brisbane aviation bureaucrats.
Australian "translations" of the SARPs are just what you would expect from Australia, almost unrecognizable from the original. I sometimes wonder if CASA starts of by translating the official Chinese version of the Annexes etc., rather than starting with the English version.
There is another thread on this subject of differences, we are just about the world champions, we leave the FAA for dead.
I hope nobody is looking at CASR Parts 42/145, and using that as an example of "EASA", the Australian "EASA like" maintenance regulations are absolutely nothing like the EASA equivalent, or indeed, anything like the drafts produced by Bruce Byron's hand picked industry team.
Don't anybody forget, the Brussels based EEC government is the gold standard for churning out mountains of red tape, the reason a number of countries, principally the UK, are threatening to leave the EEC, if the avalanche of regulation is not only halted, but severely wound back.
PS: As a matter of interest, in the area of design standards, when you drill down deep into JAA/EASA documentation, it leads you back to the original US standards.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope nobody is looking at CASR Parts 42/145, and using that as an example of "EASA", the Australian "EASA like" maintenance regulations are absolutely nothing like the EASA equivalent, or indeed, anything like the drafts produced by Bruce Byron's hand picked industry team.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody think that after 20 years & 200 million dollars that there will be a backdown over these rules? Lawyers & CEO's DONOT admit mistakes no matter how blatantly obvious they are.
ers?What these fools don't get is this - They spend a quarter of a century and a quarter of a billion dollars trying to make something, from nothing, work. If these f
wits had introduced something 25 years ago that was lets say 80% effective, they could have (along with industry) massaged the other 20% to the point that we have a 100% regulatory effective system. Fools
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had an engineering system for licensing that altougj was not prefect at a stoke of a pen could have been changed to a system that now isn't worth the paper it written on. I have more things on my lic that I can't do than I can. When employing someone it's now what can you do but what can't you do. And still it's a sham. You get a letter and it says we given you this but we not sure if it's right. If you don't know how are we suppose too. This system is broken and requires an urgent fix to what we had. But that will never happen.
Can't fly with the eagles when your surrounded by dobbledocks.
Cheers
Can't fly with the eagles when your surrounded by dobbledocks.
Cheers
Any chance that will lead to an easier licence conversion? Or do we still have to start with BAK after doing 10,000 multicrew jet and turbo prop?
As for hard or easy of doing things of course we will go the hardest most complex way as we are Australia. World leaders and experts on everything, just ask us.
As for hard or easy of doing things of course we will go the hardest most complex way as we are Australia. World leaders and experts on everything, just ask us.
Jack old son, hate to depress you but it is now 25 years, $250 million and believed to be as high as $280 million. Aren't they a bunch of wers?
What these fools don't get is this - They spend a quarter of a century and a quarter of a billion dollars trying to make something, from nothing, work. If these fwits had introduced something 25 years ago that was lets say 80% effective, they could have (along with industry) massaged the other 20% to the point that we have a 100% regulatory effective system.
Fools
ers?What these fools don't get is this - They spend a quarter of a century and a quarter of a billion dollars trying to make something, from nothing, work. If these f
wits had introduced something 25 years ago that was lets say 80% effective, they could have (along with industry) massaged the other 20% to the point that we have a 100% regulatory effective system. Fools
It is indeed proof positive that only the deluded think that voting can make a change.