CASA OAR Review
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA OAR Review
In case some of you are not aware of this review - details below - Note submissions by Fri 20 Nov.
OAR Review
The Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in his Statement of Expectations of April 2015 required CASA to “review the operations and functions of the OAR”. The review has commenced and will provide a draft report to the Airspace Policy Group (APG) in 2016. To assist the review feedback is sought from the aviation community. The review summary including a detailed list of questions can be found at Consultation Communique review. The review team will acknowledge and attribute all submissions although anonymity may be granted if requested. Submissions should be sent to CASA by Friday 20 November 2015 by email to: [email protected]. Please use the words ‘OAR review’ in the subject line of emails.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in his Statement of Expectations of April 2015 required CASA to “review the operations and functions of the OAR”. The review has commenced and will provide a draft report to the Airspace Policy Group (APG) in 2016. To assist the review feedback is sought from the aviation community. The review summary including a detailed list of questions can be found at Consultation Communique review. The review team will acknowledge and attribute all submissions although anonymity may be granted if requested. Submissions should be sent to CASA by Friday 20 November 2015 by email to: [email protected]. Please use the words ‘OAR review’ in the subject line of emails.
CASA is the national airspace regulator, and they manage that via their Office of Airspace Regulation.
Amongst other things, it is CASA OAR who decide what class of airspace is appropriate in areas and what level of air traffic service is required at particular aerodromes, and issue directives accordingly. It is they who declare by legal instruments most of the airspace types in DAH.
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...page/about-oar
With my last dealings with their Operations side they didn't seem to have anyone with any civil experience in airspace design, airspace management or ATC experience, just ex-RAAF ATC of quite some time back.
Amongst other things, it is CASA OAR who decide what class of airspace is appropriate in areas and what level of air traffic service is required at particular aerodromes, and issue directives accordingly. It is they who declare by legal instruments most of the airspace types in DAH.
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...page/about-oar
With my last dealings with their Operations side they didn't seem to have anyone with any civil experience in airspace design, airspace management or ATC experience, just ex-RAAF ATC of quite some time back.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...if that is the case then there is no chance of having a genuine review aimed at reducing the ridiculous amount of military restricted areas surrounding some of the major aerodromes in this country then. It's getting to the point that it is a genuine safety issue
Trouble in paradise?
Interesting article in The Australian newspaper by award winning aviation writer, Steve Creedy, The Australian, issue Fri 4 Dec ’15 (Aviation Section). Thanks Steve and best of luck in your new job! We will miss you. Rob Rich – AHIA.
Regional airline groups furious over CASA reforms
The aviation regulator came under renewed attack this week as members of regional airspace councils revealed they had written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to express their anger at the lack of consultation by the authority’s Office of Airspace Review.
The letter, signed by the members or conveners of Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPACs) around Australia, came as some industry groups expressed scepticism about a restructuring announcement last week by Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore.
Noting they were members of industry’s longest established consultative forums, RAPAC representatives signing the letter said they had sent it because they did not believe a critical response submitted directly to the OAR “would ever see the light of day’’.
The RAPACs are particularly concerned about changes that mean aircraft operating into uncharted airports where there is no discrete common traffic advisory frequency must now use the VHF area frequency also used by en-route air traffic controllers to talk to airlines flying at high levels.
They worry about the potential added frequency congestion and jamming on the area VHF due to broadcasts from a large number of non-charted aerodromes underneath commercial aircraft flight paths and have also expressed concerns about procedures under the amendment.
The letter accused the OAR of attempting to frustrate attempts to discuss the issue at some state RAPACs and of trying to limit the influence of the consultative groups. It said the concerns of RAPAC members remained unaddressed.
“Over the last 18 months a serious gulf of mistrust has developed between the RAPACs and management of the OAR due firstly, to a reluctance by OAR management to consult with stakeholders and, secondly, an attempt, regarded by many as deceitful, to limit the scope of the RAPACs,’’ it said.
“Lack of consultation for at least the past 15 months the RAPACs have made many attempts to convey to CASA through the OAR, their concerns about three unintended consequences of a change in communications in G airspace via Aeronautical Information Package amendment number 75 which was made, apparently, without any stakeholder consultation.’’
The relationship further deteriorated in August when CASA was accused of trying to revise the RAPAC terms of reference without prior notice to members.
The letter said an email sent to 11 industry conveners allowed just 16 days for comment and claimed that the role of the groups would be unchanged.
“This immediately raised suspicion and, on close inspection, it was discovered that the above statement was incorrect and that proposal, in fact, had changed the RAPAC role considerably,’’ it said. “In summary therefore, it would be difficult to imagine a management less suited to an open constructive and effective stakeholder relationship than the current leadership of the OAR.’’
The RAPAC concerns come as CASA is heading towards a restructure and is grappling with rising anger about the need to fix flawed regulatory reforms. It also faces criticism about the pace at which it has adopted recommendations by the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth.
The restructure is due to take place by the middle of next year and will collapse six existing operational groups into three under the broader headings of stakeholder engagement, aviation and sustainability.
In addition to the restructure, Mr Skidmore recently announced the appointment of a 26-member task force to work fulltime on addressing problems with rule changes and set up an advisory panel, due to meet on December 16, representing key aviation groups.
The restructure announcement was cautiously welcomed by industry but there was criticism about the lack of detail.
Australian Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook said the association welcomed the restructure “subject to there being tangible and workable outcomes’’. The AHIA has told members to withdraw applications for new training credentials under the new system until problems are fixed.
“Because of the slow pace of the Regulatory Reform process, confidence in CASA is at a very low level,’’ Mr Crook said. “Over the past two years the AHIA and other Associations, individually and collectively via The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, have identified the major issues and concerns of the industry. We have given reasons why these concerns exist and offered potential solutions."
"Little or no action has been taken on these suggestions.’’
Mr Crook said the Part 61 taskforce needed to act quickly and issues addressed as a matter of urgency.
Another critic of CASA reform, The Aerial Application Association of Australia, also welcomed the restructure as a good idea but noted CASA’s problems continued.
“Poor execution — including Friday’s announcement that included no detail — poor planning and seeking to fix problems that don’t exist by imposing costs that can’t be afforded are not the way forward,’’ AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst said. “CASA continues to confuse words with actions.’’
Mr Hurst questioned how the Part 61 taskforce would differ from previous ineffectual efforts to fix the disputed rules and said the industry needed urgent exemptions before Christmas. There was also no movement on “discredited” flight and duty times rules or any effort to fix the damage caused to maintenance training in Australia, which he said had contributed to the closure of three apprenticeship training organisations.
“The great danger CASA is now facing — board, senior management and staff — is that a restructure will become code for delay and that the few Forsyth report recommendations being half-heartedly ticked off will be allowed to wither on the vine,’’ he said. “CASA needs real energy, leadership and action more now than ever before in recent years.”
Several aviation organisations are preparing for the next federal election and Mr Truss on Wednesday released an update of the government’s response to the Forsyth review in which he urged industry to work with CASA.
A CASA spokesman said issues raised at RAPACs that did not directly relate to airspace or airways procedures were always directed to the relevant areas in the authority for review and appropriate action. He said RAPACs were informed of the results but many issues were referred to other forums to get the view of the broader aviation community.
The spokesman also signalled that Mr Skidmore would start a review of all CASA’s consultative mechanisms to ensure they were effective and efficient.
End quote.
Regional airline groups furious over CASA reforms
The aviation regulator came under renewed attack this week as members of regional airspace councils revealed they had written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to express their anger at the lack of consultation by the authority’s Office of Airspace Review.
The letter, signed by the members or conveners of Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPACs) around Australia, came as some industry groups expressed scepticism about a restructuring announcement last week by Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore.
Noting they were members of industry’s longest established consultative forums, RAPAC representatives signing the letter said they had sent it because they did not believe a critical response submitted directly to the OAR “would ever see the light of day’’.
The RAPACs are particularly concerned about changes that mean aircraft operating into uncharted airports where there is no discrete common traffic advisory frequency must now use the VHF area frequency also used by en-route air traffic controllers to talk to airlines flying at high levels.
They worry about the potential added frequency congestion and jamming on the area VHF due to broadcasts from a large number of non-charted aerodromes underneath commercial aircraft flight paths and have also expressed concerns about procedures under the amendment.
The letter accused the OAR of attempting to frustrate attempts to discuss the issue at some state RAPACs and of trying to limit the influence of the consultative groups. It said the concerns of RAPAC members remained unaddressed.
“Over the last 18 months a serious gulf of mistrust has developed between the RAPACs and management of the OAR due firstly, to a reluctance by OAR management to consult with stakeholders and, secondly, an attempt, regarded by many as deceitful, to limit the scope of the RAPACs,’’ it said.
“Lack of consultation for at least the past 15 months the RAPACs have made many attempts to convey to CASA through the OAR, their concerns about three unintended consequences of a change in communications in G airspace via Aeronautical Information Package amendment number 75 which was made, apparently, without any stakeholder consultation.’’
The relationship further deteriorated in August when CASA was accused of trying to revise the RAPAC terms of reference without prior notice to members.
The letter said an email sent to 11 industry conveners allowed just 16 days for comment and claimed that the role of the groups would be unchanged.
“This immediately raised suspicion and, on close inspection, it was discovered that the above statement was incorrect and that proposal, in fact, had changed the RAPAC role considerably,’’ it said. “In summary therefore, it would be difficult to imagine a management less suited to an open constructive and effective stakeholder relationship than the current leadership of the OAR.’’
The RAPAC concerns come as CASA is heading towards a restructure and is grappling with rising anger about the need to fix flawed regulatory reforms. It also faces criticism about the pace at which it has adopted recommendations by the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth.
The restructure is due to take place by the middle of next year and will collapse six existing operational groups into three under the broader headings of stakeholder engagement, aviation and sustainability.
In addition to the restructure, Mr Skidmore recently announced the appointment of a 26-member task force to work fulltime on addressing problems with rule changes and set up an advisory panel, due to meet on December 16, representing key aviation groups.
The restructure announcement was cautiously welcomed by industry but there was criticism about the lack of detail.
Australian Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook said the association welcomed the restructure “subject to there being tangible and workable outcomes’’. The AHIA has told members to withdraw applications for new training credentials under the new system until problems are fixed.
“Because of the slow pace of the Regulatory Reform process, confidence in CASA is at a very low level,’’ Mr Crook said. “Over the past two years the AHIA and other Associations, individually and collectively via The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, have identified the major issues and concerns of the industry. We have given reasons why these concerns exist and offered potential solutions."
"Little or no action has been taken on these suggestions.’’
Mr Crook said the Part 61 taskforce needed to act quickly and issues addressed as a matter of urgency.
Another critic of CASA reform, The Aerial Application Association of Australia, also welcomed the restructure as a good idea but noted CASA’s problems continued.
“Poor execution — including Friday’s announcement that included no detail — poor planning and seeking to fix problems that don’t exist by imposing costs that can’t be afforded are not the way forward,’’ AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst said. “CASA continues to confuse words with actions.’’
Mr Hurst questioned how the Part 61 taskforce would differ from previous ineffectual efforts to fix the disputed rules and said the industry needed urgent exemptions before Christmas. There was also no movement on “discredited” flight and duty times rules or any effort to fix the damage caused to maintenance training in Australia, which he said had contributed to the closure of three apprenticeship training organisations.
“The great danger CASA is now facing — board, senior management and staff — is that a restructure will become code for delay and that the few Forsyth report recommendations being half-heartedly ticked off will be allowed to wither on the vine,’’ he said. “CASA needs real energy, leadership and action more now than ever before in recent years.”
Several aviation organisations are preparing for the next federal election and Mr Truss on Wednesday released an update of the government’s response to the Forsyth review in which he urged industry to work with CASA.
A CASA spokesman said issues raised at RAPACs that did not directly relate to airspace or airways procedures were always directed to the relevant areas in the authority for review and appropriate action. He said RAPACs were informed of the results but many issues were referred to other forums to get the view of the broader aviation community.
The spokesman also signalled that Mr Skidmore would start a review of all CASA’s consultative mechanisms to ensure they were effective and efficient.
End quote.
