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

CASA Part 91 - I despair - there is no mention of reducing costs

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

CASA Part 91 - I despair - there is no mention of reducing costs

Old 21st Aug 2015, 03:52
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
CASA Part 91 - I despair - there is no mention of reducing costs

One of my sins back in the days of the CAA was to start the regulatory reform program under Ron Cooper. Many will know the plan was to, “simply remove every unnecessary cost so we can have a viable aviation system”.

Just recently the Executive Manager, Standards Division of CASA, Mr Peter Boyd, sent out an email in relation to Part 91. There is no mention anywhere in the email of reducing cost – in fact, here is the relevant wording:

"Part 91 has been developed as part of CASA’s regulation reform program, which aims to enhance aviation safety, address known risks and maintain the reputation of Australia’s aviation industry as one of the safest in the world. Specifically, Part 91 aims to address feedback from the aviation community that the current general operating and flight rules are considered difficult to interpret and comply with”.
Can anyone explain why Mr Boyd makes no mention of reducing unnecessary costs? Is there a chance he has been told by the Minister that he is not allowed to mention this? Or possibly by Mr Mrdak, the Head of the Department?

From what I can make out, Part 91 is similar to Part 61 – it is going to result in quite staggering cost increases to the industry.
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 05:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick,
Could you post the whole letter from you and the CASA reply, I am certain many will be most interested.

I have been trying to work out, with any accuracy, how many new strict liability offenses, or offenses with reverse onus of proof, Part 91 creates.

The not very accurate answer, so far, is "lots".

"The industry" certainly did not request a whole raft of new offenses of any kind, and it is far from clear just what safety issues Part 91 addresses, or could have addressed in a far more simple way, and, dare I say, in a way that complies with Government rule making policy, where "regulations" are the last resort, not the first, and minimizing cost is "mandatory".

CASA really hates the idea of cost/benefit justified rule making, with it, large slabs of regulation would never see the light of day.

Tootle pip!!

Last edited by LeadSled; 22nd Aug 2015 at 04:48. Reason: typo
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 05:27
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/w.../feedback-casa
"CASA is Australia's aviation safety regulator and is not responsible for the commercial performance of the aviation industry."
We don't want them responsible! but we don't want them to hinder and actively seek to destroy either.


And this is very interesting:
DAS DIRECTIVE - 01/2015
Development and application of risk-based and cost-effective aviation safety regulations.
https://www.casa.gov.au/search/das%20directive
Link doesn't work for you either? Hmmmmm.
Has the Iron Ring intercepted the DAS directive! Probably because of para 2 on page 3, talking about cost and other burdens on industry.


Lucky the RAAA (the other one) grabbed it first:
http://www.raaa.com.au/industry/_pdf...ve-01-2015.pdf


or just google
das directive - 01/2015
thunderbird five is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 07:25
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,653
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Can anyone explain why Mr Boyd makes no mention of reducing unnecessary costs? ...
You already know the answer.

Mr Boyd gets paid the same, decade after decade, whether or not the regulations reduce unnecessary costs.

Mr Boyd's pocket is very happy for the the regulatory reform program to drag on forever. Ideally for him, we'll soon reach a point at which the whingers in the aviation community are driven out or silenced by insolvency or frustration, and thereafter the program can continue without the unnecessary distraction of consultation with and complaints from the aviation community.

Imagine how many pages of regulations and offences can be created in the next 20 years! Imagine how much safer everyone will feel!
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 08:07
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I have been trying to work out, with any accuracy, how many new strict liability offenses, or offenses with reverse onus of proof, Part 91 creates."

There you go Leadie, I hear Wodger Wabbit from the Sydney region is positively salivating at how many businesses he can shut down, how many jobs he can destroy, how many lives and livelihoods he holds in his hands.

They say people get drunk on power, he must be completely Non-compos Mentos!!

He's one person who really does get their rocks off destroying lives, dreams and ambitions and completely unaccountable, thanks to the Murky Macavellian.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 08:25
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,416
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
GA Mass extinction event looming

From what I am seeing and hearing, from every corner of the industry in almost every corner of the nation, GA is on its knees.

I am predicting that 50% of GA operators active at 01 July 2014 will be gone before the end of calendar 2016.

I cannot see a single glint of light on the horizon, no upturn in economic activity, no substantive change in policy direction that provides an ounce of hope.

Part 141 will do for the small flying schools, Part 135 will kill off the Charter operators, and CAO 48.1 will knock off most of the wounded.

IT'S NOT JUST AVIATION.

It is every sector of Australian business and Australian life - regulated to death.

Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 08:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick - you are obviously very passionate about the subject of costs in GA and the need for regulatory reform. Would you ever consider attempting to fill a senior role at CASA again or even a parliamentary one?

If you could break it down as simply as possible what do you see as the most important steps that CASA should take to increase the viability of GA across Australia?
ruddegar is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 11:57
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
One can only speculate as to what would happen if RAA, GA, SAAA, APF, AOPA and AFAP combined as a single united force to take on CASA and their regulations.

I will continue dreaming ...

Want a job Dick? Here is your next challenge.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 12:34
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BAO
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Giday Dick

Ahh- the Australian Royal 'I' syndrome........., and associated 'Empire' construction process.

May have it wrong- but it does look like it............, to me.

- Issue jurisdiction Capture/& Control, hence 'Meal Ticket' value not only to oneself, but family and associated others as well....... (may, also be used as 'leverage' down-line).

Rgds
S28- BE
Section28- BE is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 15:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Aimlessly wandering
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From what I can see most GA pilots and operators have become so overwhelmed by the vast new tranches of regulations that they are adopting the attitude of "Catch me if you can". The priority has shifted from complying with regulations to seeming to comply while trying to run a viable business

I studied for a pilot license, not a law degree. While CASA scream safety, new regs do not alter my stick and rudder abilities. I am no more, or less, safe today than I was yesterday.

So how safe is it when you have over regulated to the point no one cares anymore?
50 50 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 22:46
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
I studied for a pilot license, not a law degree. While CASA scream safety, new regs do not alter my stick and rudder abilities. I am no more, or less, safe today than I was yesterday.
Good point 50 50 and ignoring the rule books and going flying is a current pastime. The big problem is that passing a chief pilot interview is suddenly a huge hurdle, getting an ops manual written for a new AOC a virtual impossibility and the pool of pilots with the interest, qualifications and sheer determination to meet CP requirements is fast dwindling. Getting a startup engineering business underway now costs more than the business would be worth and all of this for what?

The new rules are obviously to shrink the industry. Has anyone got any data on new AOC issues? Anyone know of any new engineering businesses getting approved? It would be interesting to compare these two items with info from say a decade ago. Anyone fancy getting another mortgage to fund a new flying school? You would be brave or stupid or both.

Sadly where I live even trying for a flight review is a high cost, big travel ordeal that is off putting to the average PPL. Sure, if you own your own uninsured aeroplane it is a rule that could be ignored for a time but at what risk?
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 00:43
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,495
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Im thinking of writing to the media under my real name, suggesting, with only a little tongue in cheek, that since Australia no longer manufactures cars, we can dispense totally with the expense associated with Australian design rules.

Not only that, why do we have "Australian Standards" for things such as Motorcycle safety helmets? Surely Europe and America have done ten times the testing we have.

Aviation regulation is a case in point, why do we employ people to write "Australian Aviation Regulations" when there is at least One perfectly good set available for free at zero cost? ANd that set (FAA regs) has been developed and tested to a level we could never hope to attain ourselves. Is the air in Australia different? Almost all Australian aircraft are imported and they are designed to FAA standards, so why reinvent the wheel?

Surely it is time to put these regulatory Oxygen Thieves out of work?

Absent a major political campaign these bastards are going to kill general, sport and recreational aviation stone dead.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 02:02
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ruddy. Any success I have received in life has come from employing capable people and motivating them to perform.

When I again get a chance to do that again in Aviation - I will .

That award I was given on the Queens Birthday weekend for services to aviation reform really got me mad!

That's because it was so bloody dishonest. Most of the reforms I set out to do have been stopped and some even reversed.

So I can have a free conscience I am now committed to completing the reforms which will allow our GA industry to boom as it should do.

If that means getting into politics I will be forced to do that. But that will be a last resort as I am not a good enough actor .
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 05:20
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You should have refused the award then, Dick.

The honours system is entirely designed to reinforce the establishment and keep everything under control.
QDMQDMQDM is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 10:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aviation regulation is a case in point, why do we employ people to write "Australian Aviation Regulations" when there is at least One perfectly good set available for free at zero cost? ANd that set (FAA regs) has been developed and tested to a level we could never hope to attain ourselves. Is the air in Australia different? Almost all Australian aircraft are imported and they are designed to FAA standards, so why reinvent the wheel?
Sunfish. I understand Dick achieved this? There are rules regarding design part 21 but no unique design standards anymore. You can select either FAA or EASA. Why not go further adopt all FAA orEASA? Switzerland did.

Take your point on ANCAP as are they testing the same cars already tested by NCAP Europe? Sure ANCAP has been criticized by auto industry. You can add things like cycle helmets in too as there is a unique standard and volume of potential sales means they don't get into Australia as costs of testing are prohibitive.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 22nd Aug 2015 at 10:06. Reason: Fhghg
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 13:46
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
QDM

If you have watched my actions in the media since the award you will see that if it was to keep me under control it hasn't worked. Just the opposite. It has motivated me more than ever to get some worthwhile cost cutting reforms in.

I love our aviation industry. But it's fast getting where I will be one of the few who can afford it.

This is not acceptable .
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 14:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 70
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder how many pilots have experienced enough biennial flight reviews to know absolutely that they are a load of crap.
a very expensive load of crap.

I'll bet the number of pilots not doing them is a hell of a lot more than you would think.

I overheard a conversation a flying instructor was having with a pilot.
'c'mon you do the takeoff and landing and I'll take you for a biennial'
...
'no I'm not doing the takeoff or landing, I can't fly those things'
later I asked the pilot how he got on for biennials if the instructor couldn't fly the aeroplane.
dunno, I've never had one he whispered.

the sooner that self licking ice-cream that is CAsA join the same unemployment queue that EASA sent their idiots to the better.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 16:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,322
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick wrote:

"That award I was given on the Queens Birthday weekend for services to aviation reform really got me mad!"

I'll bet that it didn't.

"If that means getting into politics I will be forced to do that."

Please save us from ourselves.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 22:04
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Blighty & Germania.
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil WOT's a biannual ??

Are you CAA/FAA chapies talking about an RPV or UAV ??

Bian's are not required if you do a 6158 or CAA equivalent annual (6 monthly sim rides for hairline drivers).

88 extract:
I wonder how many pilots have experienced enough biennial flight reviews to know absolutely that they are a load of crap?

All the older ones and if you walk away it's a pass, "Tomato Andy" thought he was a real ace and the Germans have still not fired the Luffty chaps responsible for him not being able to jump ship without declaring for bankputcy.
skyship007 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 23:14
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,953
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
I wonder how many pilots have experienced enough biennial flight reviews to know absolutely that they are a load of crap.
I think it very much depends on who you do them with and your own attitude towards your own flying skills and knowledge.

A check ride of any kind is worthwhile even if you think you're fully up to speed on everything - having someone else putting you on the spot to deal with situations and emergencies is beneficial, you have to revisit your regs and handbooks to ensure you know them well enough, and it's a chance to get out and just get someone to critically look at your habit patterns and procedures with a view to improving them where needed.

Particularly for someone who spends almost all their flying time without supervision, I reckon they're essential.

If you're flying with instructors who can't do what they're asking you to do, go somewhere else!
Arm out the window is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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