Regulatory Reform? Not A Hope In Hell!
PNG civil aviation regulations were based on the old Australian ANR/CARs. I understand Australia provided the funding for the PNG Government to implement the New Zealand Regulations.
Correct, it was the "Balus" project.
We paid Ambidji ( ex-CAA people, mostly, and headed by Doug Roser) to put the NZ Regs in place in PNG, because it was decided that the then Australian regs. were no longer useable.
And that was not even the current mega-shambolic CASA regulations.
Two NZ CAA chaps were hire to bring a CD with them, the NZ to PNG changes were minimal, and as to changes in principle, nil.
For example, if you have a CAA NZ AOC Exposition compliance list, you would find just a handful of references that were different in PNG, but nothing of significance.
Don't forget, the NZ based rules are now in place in many more nations than just PNG and around the Pacific.
But we know better.
Simplification is really complicated.
Having considerable experience in the matter, my comment to your above is bollox. It is the CASA "iron ring" that has been running the show, we all know the results.
The iron ring doesn't want it to happen, so its not!
Even the one period when we got some real change and reform, in the past five years CASA have been winding that back, Part 21 is now a shambles, "CAR 35" engineers have ceased to exist No Part 183), and effectively CASA have re-instituted "first of type" procedures, with all the associated costs -- just to mention but two of many matters that have hugely increased costs for industry, and arguable reduced safety standards.
CASA have also made great strides in neutering the intent of the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty, we couldn't possibly allow any of the benefits of the NZ reform to flow through to Australia --- a matter on where CASA is in vehement agreement with several unions, surprise, surprise.
As to the roadshows, what can CASA possibly learn, that is not already in the ASRR (Forsyth) report, and about 20 previous reports over the last 20 or so years??
The answer is NOTHING, showing pious concern is a "feelgood" exercise that is a waste of time and money, CASA is very good at both.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie, I was not supporting casa. I agree with all that they don't want change.
We have had all of the inquiries needed. We know what needs doing. But what do we get another round of 'listening' to industry.
We have had all of the inquiries needed. We know what needs doing. But what do we get another round of 'listening' to industry.
Thread Starter
You will need to stand aviation party candidates in every seat in the country. It matters not if it is "The Cessna Party" or "The F18 Enthusiasts party".
Unless you grab them by the electoral balls, nothing will happen until the inevitable major aircraft crash and even them, the factory wii recommend crash,
Unless you grab them by the electoral balls, nothing will happen until the inevitable major aircraft crash and even them, the factory wii recommend crash,
What would you suggest the industry should do to ferment change? or is it your opinion that what we have is all okay and requires no change?
I have also seen the rather bizarre suggestion of civil disobedience and trying to get the media onside. The problem will not be fixed from the bottom up if those at the top are unwilling and more importantly not required to change. I don't disagree with the suggestion to adopt the NZ reg process but I go back to the statement above and the one earlier. Those with the power to change are not interested and those with the interest to change do not have the power.
I have yet to see a coordinated, coherent group of concerned aviators do anything other than tap out their righteous anger on a computer.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny, as regards your post #1 (2), I can't see the point. It's just more of the same - an illusion of 'consulting,' if you like, accompanied by a preordained agenda. Nothing more than 'window-dressing' IMHO.
I knew some really good and dedicated people with all the right motives when it came to representing GA. I cannot say that I agreed with everything they put, but they put their points in a considered, restrained and professional manner in the myriad of meetings that I attended over the years as a military representative.
They gave up heaps of personal time (their own personal time) to prepare and present GA's case in various forums and got scant attention for all their efforts.
Leady drives me absolutely mad sometimes (NAS), but he was nothing other than a gentleman, and a professional, in all those meetings. The only time I ever had an altercation was with an AFAP rep when I said that we'd go with US CTAF (wider NAS stuff excluded) if CASA so mandated.
The point?? GA has gone to these 'community forums' over and over in good faith and got bloody nowhere.
Personally, and I'm way out of it in retirement, I'd boycott the damn things and leave CASA to the iced-vovos and stale coffee in an empty hall talking to themselves. I'd then ask X, the Minister, and the local rep, why nobody turned up.
Leady, you might have been difficult, but you had respect from this end.
I knew some really good and dedicated people with all the right motives when it came to representing GA. I cannot say that I agreed with everything they put, but they put their points in a considered, restrained and professional manner in the myriad of meetings that I attended over the years as a military representative.
They gave up heaps of personal time (their own personal time) to prepare and present GA's case in various forums and got scant attention for all their efforts.
Leady drives me absolutely mad sometimes (NAS), but he was nothing other than a gentleman, and a professional, in all those meetings. The only time I ever had an altercation was with an AFAP rep when I said that we'd go with US CTAF (wider NAS stuff excluded) if CASA so mandated.
The point?? GA has gone to these 'community forums' over and over in good faith and got bloody nowhere.
Personally, and I'm way out of it in retirement, I'd boycott the damn things and leave CASA to the iced-vovos and stale coffee in an empty hall talking to themselves. I'd then ask X, the Minister, and the local rep, why nobody turned up.
Leady, you might have been difficult, but you had respect from this end.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long until everything is under the CASR 1998? Would make my life much easier having that instead of having CAO, CAR, CASR which all have contradictory statements buried within.
How long?
It will be all finished at 5pm local on Wednesday 16 September 2015.
(You're kinda new to all this, aren't you....)
It will be all finished at 5pm local on Wednesday 16 September 2015.
(You're kinda new to all this, aren't you....)
Moderator
I think the answer TB is that they don't care whether it exists or not certainly at the GA end of the spectrum. As the salaries are not performance based there is no benchmark as to what makes a good CASA manager.
Whether CASA is a good regulator or not is another question entirely.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have yet to see a coordinated, coherent group of concerned aviators do anything other than tap out their righteous anger on a computer.
I was watching the news some time back, I forget exactly when, but there was a story about truck drivers protesting something about their industry.
What they all did was get in their trucks and they all drove down to Parliament house in Canberra. They didn't do anything illegal, but it certainly stopped traffic for miles around, got them some good coverage and furthered their cause. They banded together as one and created change for their industry with a tiny amount of civil disobedience.
Surely a mass fly-in at Canberra would create a similar amount of disturbance around the airport, maybe cause significant delays to politicians flights, get some media exposure etc.
If nothing else, it would be nice to the GA parking area at Canberra full again!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't usually write on this forum and I do not have any evidence to support the thread above. What I do know is this.
Major regulatory reform has been going in this country for literally 20 years with an incredible expenditure applied. This expenditure represents the most obscene incompetence at taxpayers expense. Yet the Senate Estimates committee do not have any realistic approach as to how to deal with the situation that has been before us for so long. Agencies are routinely summoned to the Senate Estimates to detail their reports. Usually this is the particular Commissioner, CEO and at most his off-sider. Yet the last U-Tube I looked at showed CASA with 10-15 people present probably more sitting in the background, NONE OF WHOM WERE ABLE TO COMPETENTLY answer the questions asked by the Senators without waffling, "refer that to my colleagues for a response," or "we will have to take that on notice Senator because we do not have that information to hand!!!!!" Words fail me. These people are being paid in the region of $180,000 plus to "not know." They even have a group of lawyers permanently employed in the organisation who are paid even more to "not know!" The current Australian documentation is in quite a mess and has been for ages. The number of "Instruments," Notices of Rule-Making and Exemptions is positively ridiculous. Why are these items not in the main-stream documentation? The problem now is the younger generation coming up the line, through no fault of their own actually don't know any different, because the "mess" is all that they have ever seen, so they think it is normal. It isn't normal. We are laughed out of town by overseas aviation agencies. We cannot even get our documentation to be all the same size and Airservices Australia are totally incapable of getting the ERSA into manageable sizes so that we are not carrying several States we do not need in our flight bag on every flight. The ERSA from my military days used to be a thin document that slid comfortable in the leg of your flight suit for when you needed it. It certainly doesn't now! Regulatory reform? The only realistic way we are going to get on top of this is completely disband CASA and raise a new section in the Department of Transport under the direct control of a Minister with a totally brand new staff recruited from NZ/UK/Canada and the USA. I am about to hand in my wings anyway and give it all away. I have had so many near misses with ultra-lights flying contrary to the circuit direction at CTAFs it is only a matter of time before a large aircraft is brought down or even I am brought down probably with a "pilot error" tag stuck on my headstone afterwards. I hope the Senate Estimates are able to work through that properly when it happens.
Major regulatory reform has been going in this country for literally 20 years with an incredible expenditure applied. This expenditure represents the most obscene incompetence at taxpayers expense. Yet the Senate Estimates committee do not have any realistic approach as to how to deal with the situation that has been before us for so long. Agencies are routinely summoned to the Senate Estimates to detail their reports. Usually this is the particular Commissioner, CEO and at most his off-sider. Yet the last U-Tube I looked at showed CASA with 10-15 people present probably more sitting in the background, NONE OF WHOM WERE ABLE TO COMPETENTLY answer the questions asked by the Senators without waffling, "refer that to my colleagues for a response," or "we will have to take that on notice Senator because we do not have that information to hand!!!!!" Words fail me. These people are being paid in the region of $180,000 plus to "not know." They even have a group of lawyers permanently employed in the organisation who are paid even more to "not know!" The current Australian documentation is in quite a mess and has been for ages. The number of "Instruments," Notices of Rule-Making and Exemptions is positively ridiculous. Why are these items not in the main-stream documentation? The problem now is the younger generation coming up the line, through no fault of their own actually don't know any different, because the "mess" is all that they have ever seen, so they think it is normal. It isn't normal. We are laughed out of town by overseas aviation agencies. We cannot even get our documentation to be all the same size and Airservices Australia are totally incapable of getting the ERSA into manageable sizes so that we are not carrying several States we do not need in our flight bag on every flight. The ERSA from my military days used to be a thin document that slid comfortable in the leg of your flight suit for when you needed it. It certainly doesn't now! Regulatory reform? The only realistic way we are going to get on top of this is completely disband CASA and raise a new section in the Department of Transport under the direct control of a Minister with a totally brand new staff recruited from NZ/UK/Canada and the USA. I am about to hand in my wings anyway and give it all away. I have had so many near misses with ultra-lights flying contrary to the circuit direction at CTAFs it is only a matter of time before a large aircraft is brought down or even I am brought down probably with a "pilot error" tag stuck on my headstone afterwards. I hope the Senate Estimates are able to work through that properly when it happens.
I had to laugh when I read this. I had this exact conversation yesterday with similarly minded individuals. We were playing "If i were king for a day". We came to the same conclusion. We simply disband CASA effectively immediately, get someone from the FAA, NZ and Canada, cross out NZ regs as the title and write Australian regs and start afresh tonight at midnight. And it flows from there...
Cheers
CB
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is it will never happen without someone putting some very large balls on the line. There is too much pride in their own self worth, and vested interest in protecting the 100's of millions spent so far, to make any switch to the NZ or other systems palatable for them.
Could you imagine anyone in CASA having the ability to step up and basically say" You know what, we have wasted several hundred million of your money, are throwing it all out, and doing a cut and replace on some better regs from over the pond".
Sadly, will never happen, without political direction otherwise. They are so far vested into seeing it finish, they will pump more and more money into it.
Could you imagine anyone in CASA having the ability to step up and basically say" You know what, we have wasted several hundred million of your money, are throwing it all out, and doing a cut and replace on some better regs from over the pond".
Sadly, will never happen, without political direction otherwise. They are so far vested into seeing it finish, they will pump more and more money into it.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We simply disband CASA effectively immediately, get someone from the FAA, NZ and Canada, cross out NZ regs as the title and write Australian regs and start afresh tonight at midnight. And it flows from there...
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and admit that the whole thing is a f'up of epic proportions and start again. $350M is a very costly mistake but sooner or later someone has to draw a line under it and say that's it, no more. We blew over $1B on a public transport ticketing system in Victoria (that still doesn't work properly) with that attitude. Not to mention $640M to NOT build a road that Melbourne desperately needed.
As previous posters have pointed out though, when you have massive egos and vested interests involved, and no doubt plenty of politics as well, that's easier said than done. Still, if NZ can do it, why can't we..?
I look forward to the person GC was referring to with the very large set of balls, to rise from the pack and sort this mess out. Dreaming..? Probably.
Agree that no one from CASA will do it. It has to come from higher up, but sadly there doesn't seem to be anyone in the current crop with the will (or the set) needed.
As previous posters have pointed out though, when you have massive egos and vested interests involved, and no doubt plenty of politics as well, that's easier said than done. Still, if NZ can do it, why can't we..?
I look forward to the person GC was referring to with the very large set of balls, to rise from the pack and sort this mess out. Dreaming..? Probably.
Agree that no one from CASA will do it. It has to come from higher up, but sadly there doesn't seem to be anyone in the current crop with the will (or the set) needed.
Curious.
If you made a hard copy of the FAR and CASR with all their memoranda...how many pages in comparison? If you pulled two relevant regs from each unit. Which would be easier to understand?
Plop factor and comprehensible text should be the two biggest arguments against our version of regs. Even a simple country minister like Warren would understand that!
If you made a hard copy of the FAR and CASR with all their memoranda...how many pages in comparison? If you pulled two relevant regs from each unit. Which would be easier to understand?
Plop factor and comprehensible text should be the two biggest arguments against our version of regs. Even a simple country minister like Warren would understand that!
Thread Starter
gchriste:
No! No! No! You do not understand! The way the CASA executive team have set this up is so that it can Never finish!!!!!! The way the regulations are crafted sets up a perpetual employment machine.
This is why, for example, whole swathes of aviation, like experimental and the RAA live from day to day on "exemptions" that have a fixed shelf life - a Two year expiry date, by which time they must be "renewed" again! As we have seen, sometimes there is a Two or Three week delay in renewing the exemption that sees the entire sector stop flying.
From my own public service experience, I can advise you that "renewing" an exemption is not a trivial matter if the regulator does not want it to be. If I were doing it, I would start with a review of the assumptions, reasons and recommendations underlying the brief to management recommending the previous exemption, then I would test each against the evidence for and against that has accumulated in the previous Two years, then I would review how changes in current and future technology and regulations might impact the making of a new exemption, then I would write a discussion section on the impact of making a new exemption, then I would make my recommendation….
If I couldn't string that out into a years work then I'm a failure.
Furthermore there is the delicious narcissists game that is played every time: "will we renew your exemption? Maybe we will, maybe we won't." Watch your clients tie themselves in knots like the poor old SAAA did last time there maintenance exemption was delayed.
To put that another way: If you think that renewing an exemption is trivial, think again. this is just one example of the "make work" that goes on in CASA.
I say again: CASA is a perpetual regulation machine, they hate the very idea of finality - the distillation of the regulations in to clear concise plain English puts most of them out of a job.
Could you imagine anyone in CASA having the ability to step up and basically say" You know what, we have wasted several hundred million of your money, are throwing it all out, and doing a cut and replace on some better regs from over the pond".
Sadly, will never happen, without political direction otherwise. They are so far vested into seeing it finish, they will pump more and more money into it.
Sadly, will never happen, without political direction otherwise. They are so far vested into seeing it finish, they will pump more and more money into it.
No! No! No! You do not understand! The way the CASA executive team have set this up is so that it can Never finish!!!!!! The way the regulations are crafted sets up a perpetual employment machine.
This is why, for example, whole swathes of aviation, like experimental and the RAA live from day to day on "exemptions" that have a fixed shelf life - a Two year expiry date, by which time they must be "renewed" again! As we have seen, sometimes there is a Two or Three week delay in renewing the exemption that sees the entire sector stop flying.
From my own public service experience, I can advise you that "renewing" an exemption is not a trivial matter if the regulator does not want it to be. If I were doing it, I would start with a review of the assumptions, reasons and recommendations underlying the brief to management recommending the previous exemption, then I would test each against the evidence for and against that has accumulated in the previous Two years, then I would review how changes in current and future technology and regulations might impact the making of a new exemption, then I would write a discussion section on the impact of making a new exemption, then I would make my recommendation….
If I couldn't string that out into a years work then I'm a failure.
Furthermore there is the delicious narcissists game that is played every time: "will we renew your exemption? Maybe we will, maybe we won't." Watch your clients tie themselves in knots like the poor old SAAA did last time there maintenance exemption was delayed.
To put that another way: If you think that renewing an exemption is trivial, think again. this is just one example of the "make work" that goes on in CASA.
I say again: CASA is a perpetual regulation machine, they hate the very idea of finality - the distillation of the regulations in to clear concise plain English puts most of them out of a job.
Folks,
Missing in all this is the answer to the question: Is it the rules that are the problem?
There has always been a very authoritarian streak in Commonwealth regulation in Australia, not confined to aviation. However, because aviation is all about "aviation safety", which is right up there with "motherhood" as a No.1 GOOD THING in the eyes and opinions of something called "the general public", the "mystique of aviation safety" gives a little something special to those who work for "the regulator".
Indeed, adopting the expression "the regulator" is quite recent, and has a certain physiological power frisson about it.
The Menzies "two airline policy" of the 1950s on, until Hawke abandoned it, made "the regulator" in Australia, by world standards, incredibly intrusive in all matters aviation, a huge reinforcement to what was an already well developed above mentioned authoritarian streak.
Unlike the US, where aviation regulation has always been a civil institution (an original Department of Commerce branch), civil aviation regulation in Australia started of as a branch of the military, and as we know, has never broken free of that legacy, either, the successive organisations showing a distinct preference for ex-military "officers", where nil civil aviation experience, indeed often a distinct antipathy for and disdain of "civies" no impediment to recruitment, and the "necessary" micro management of civil aviation.
The style and content of the aviation regulations is a symptom of the problem, they are a matter of CASA choice, and not, as so often claimed, "government policy".
"Strict liability", as we see it in civil aviation regulation, is a symptom of the problem, not a core problem. A core problem is that much that should be civil law is, by CASA choice, not Government policy, criminal law. It is CASA choice, not Government policy, that much that is law, should not be law at all, whether civil or criminal.
There must be a complete change of culture in the organisation, without that, it doesn't matter a hoot what the words on paper are, there will be no real change.
Tootle pip!!
Missing in all this is the answer to the question: Is it the rules that are the problem?
There has always been a very authoritarian streak in Commonwealth regulation in Australia, not confined to aviation. However, because aviation is all about "aviation safety", which is right up there with "motherhood" as a No.1 GOOD THING in the eyes and opinions of something called "the general public", the "mystique of aviation safety" gives a little something special to those who work for "the regulator".
Indeed, adopting the expression "the regulator" is quite recent, and has a certain physiological power frisson about it.
The Menzies "two airline policy" of the 1950s on, until Hawke abandoned it, made "the regulator" in Australia, by world standards, incredibly intrusive in all matters aviation, a huge reinforcement to what was an already well developed above mentioned authoritarian streak.
Unlike the US, where aviation regulation has always been a civil institution (an original Department of Commerce branch), civil aviation regulation in Australia started of as a branch of the military, and as we know, has never broken free of that legacy, either, the successive organisations showing a distinct preference for ex-military "officers", where nil civil aviation experience, indeed often a distinct antipathy for and disdain of "civies" no impediment to recruitment, and the "necessary" micro management of civil aviation.
The style and content of the aviation regulations is a symptom of the problem, they are a matter of CASA choice, and not, as so often claimed, "government policy".
"Strict liability", as we see it in civil aviation regulation, is a symptom of the problem, not a core problem. A core problem is that much that should be civil law is, by CASA choice, not Government policy, criminal law. It is CASA choice, not Government policy, that much that is law, should not be law at all, whether civil or criminal.
There must be a complete change of culture in the organisation, without that, it doesn't matter a hoot what the words on paper are, there will be no real change.
Tootle pip!!
LEADie is correct. Just reading up on Strict liability this morning, CASA's own blurb from legal service group in Flight Safety Aust Sept-Oct 2007 says:
‘If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability,............... blah blah blah....
So, in other words, if CASA, by their choice, puts into a reg. "this is an offence of strict liability" (whatever the words they use are) then job's done and dusted.
We don't seem the same language used in motor car road rules, or boats etc.
Aviators just want clear and concise regs, such as FAA:
"You may......................."
‘If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability,............... blah blah blah....
So, in other words, if CASA, by their choice, puts into a reg. "this is an offence of strict liability" (whatever the words they use are) then job's done and dusted.
We don't seem the same language used in motor car road rules, or boats etc.
Aviators just want clear and concise regs, such as FAA:
"You may......................."
Wrong.
CASA does it that way because governments let CASA and want CASA to do it that way.
CASA has the culture that governments want CASA to have.
The distinctions between the origins and evolution of the FAA and CASA are merely a manifestation of the origins and evolution of the governments of the USA and Australia, of which those agencies are a part.
Australians beg for more government. Americans arm themselves to stop the government.
CASA does it that way because governments let CASA and want CASA to do it that way.
CASA has the culture that governments want CASA to have.
The distinctions between the origins and evolution of the FAA and CASA are merely a manifestation of the origins and evolution of the governments of the USA and Australia, of which those agencies are a part.
Australians beg for more government. Americans arm themselves to stop the government.