Forsyth Review - Dead In The Water.
Thread Starter
Forsyth Review - Dead In The Water.
With the appointment of a new Minister responsible for aviation and a forthcoming Federal election, I think we can give the Forsyth review, and its conclusions and recommendations in toto, the last rights.
The bureaucrats have won. They have waited out the starry eyed idealists who thought that truth is followed by justice and equity. The passage of time gradually washes away the hard edged conclusions and recommendations of the Forsyth Review. To put that another way Forsyth is old news. There is a different Minister in Canberra now and CASA is positioning itself as a new beast. Of course that is all smoke and mirrors. Cultural change is notoriously hard at best.. In due course the same bureaucrats will wreak their revenge on those who were unwise enough to make submissions to the review.
The next question is what will be CASAs next move to complete the embuggerance of everything but military and large commercial RPT aviation? My guess from trying to read the part 91 rules is that these will finish off GA since virtually any incident, let alone accident, has been criminalised.
The net result of that will be the impossibility of developing a genuine safety culture anywhere in GA in favour of developing a backside covering culture instead. The result of that is going to be higher accident and incident rates since "learning from mistakes" becomes impossible in a punitive culture.
The bureaucrats have won. They have waited out the starry eyed idealists who thought that truth is followed by justice and equity. The passage of time gradually washes away the hard edged conclusions and recommendations of the Forsyth Review. To put that another way Forsyth is old news. There is a different Minister in Canberra now and CASA is positioning itself as a new beast. Of course that is all smoke and mirrors. Cultural change is notoriously hard at best.. In due course the same bureaucrats will wreak their revenge on those who were unwise enough to make submissions to the review.
The next question is what will be CASAs next move to complete the embuggerance of everything but military and large commercial RPT aviation? My guess from trying to read the part 91 rules is that these will finish off GA since virtually any incident, let alone accident, has been criminalised.
The net result of that will be the impossibility of developing a genuine safety culture anywhere in GA in favour of developing a backside covering culture instead. The result of that is going to be higher accident and incident rates since "learning from mistakes" becomes impossible in a punitive culture.
The net result of that will be the impossibility of developing a genuine safety culture anywhere in GA in favour of developing a backside covering culture instead. The result of that is going to be higher accident and incident rates since "learning from mistakes" becomes impossible in a punitive culture.
Already happening.
In around 2000, our GA accident rate was around double the US.
In figures published quite recently, it is now treble the US, a great outcome for the L-A-W/We are policemen/Capital R Regulation approach of CASA.
This as well as the economic disaster CASA has visited on ALL sections of aviation.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 times the accident rate in OZ compared to the USA?
According to the NTSB report, the US GA accident rate for 2013 was just over 60/ million flight hours. For the period 2004-2013 the rate was more or less level (2004 rate approx the same as the 2013 rate).
In Australia, the ATSB report shows the following (apologies, I am not able to insert the table in any better manner):
"Table 10: All general aviation occurrences (VH- and foreign registered aircraft), 2005 to
2014
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Number of aircraft involved
Incidents 1,546 1,654 1,597 1,608 1,795 1,552 1,503 1,407 1,399 1,256
Serious incidents 57 70 93 103 95 132 137 159 186 118
Serious injury accidents 4 8 7 16 8 15 14 17 6 15
Fatal accidents 16 19 12 22 16 13 16 20 15 11
Total accidents 118 91 117 126 117 127 116 112 90 149
Number of people involved
Serious injuries 5 13 9 23 10 19 23 20 8 20
Fatalities 21 34 21 34 16 16 28 29 24 17
Rate of aircraft involved
Accidents per million departures 52.2 50.3 65.3 64.4 63.6 63.7 62.3 63.4 49.5 N/A
Fatal accidents per million
departures 7.1 10.5 6.7 11.2 8.7 6.5 8.6 11.3 8.2 N/A
Accidents per million hours 100.9 80.2 96.7 100.4 93.3 101.8 97 101.5 78 N/A
Fatal accidents per million hours 13.7 16.7 9.9 17.5 12.8 10.4 13.4 18.1 13 N/A"
Due to differing definitions (somewhat) between the NTSB and the ATSB, this is as close a comparison as I could find. Perhaps someone else can do better as I do not claim to be a statistician.
Does not look like OZ has an accident rate 3 times that of the USA though.
Actus
In Australia, the ATSB report shows the following (apologies, I am not able to insert the table in any better manner):
"Table 10: All general aviation occurrences (VH- and foreign registered aircraft), 2005 to
2014
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Number of aircraft involved
Incidents 1,546 1,654 1,597 1,608 1,795 1,552 1,503 1,407 1,399 1,256
Serious incidents 57 70 93 103 95 132 137 159 186 118
Serious injury accidents 4 8 7 16 8 15 14 17 6 15
Fatal accidents 16 19 12 22 16 13 16 20 15 11
Total accidents 118 91 117 126 117 127 116 112 90 149
Number of people involved
Serious injuries 5 13 9 23 10 19 23 20 8 20
Fatalities 21 34 21 34 16 16 28 29 24 17
Rate of aircraft involved
Accidents per million departures 52.2 50.3 65.3 64.4 63.6 63.7 62.3 63.4 49.5 N/A
Fatal accidents per million
departures 7.1 10.5 6.7 11.2 8.7 6.5 8.6 11.3 8.2 N/A
Accidents per million hours 100.9 80.2 96.7 100.4 93.3 101.8 97 101.5 78 N/A
Fatal accidents per million hours 13.7 16.7 9.9 17.5 12.8 10.4 13.4 18.1 13 N/A"
Due to differing definitions (somewhat) between the NTSB and the ATSB, this is as close a comparison as I could find. Perhaps someone else can do better as I do not claim to be a statistician.
Does not look like OZ has an accident rate 3 times that of the USA though.
Actus
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, while there was a time I would have agreed with you about the Forsyth review having spent a few days inside the beast otherwise known as CASA and met some very earnest people there, I am now not so sure.
The impression I got was that they realise that the regulatory reform has gone off the rail and further, that their relationship with the industry is toxic. How to fix the situation is the rub.
I was there, along with several others, to discuss the risk matrix for Part 135 which is in gestation. In fact, long gestation which causes its own problems. Part 135 is essentially commercial light aircraft operations and will replace such things as "low capacity RPT" and "Charter".
I think it was Chou En Lai who was once asked what he thought about the outcome of the French Revolution of 1789. He replied that it was far too early to tell and that may well be the answer to whether CASA is going to change. There are certainly people within the organisation that want to change but whether they will prevail over the old guard, well its too early to tell.
The impression I got was that they realise that the regulatory reform has gone off the rail and further, that their relationship with the industry is toxic. How to fix the situation is the rub.
I was there, along with several others, to discuss the risk matrix for Part 135 which is in gestation. In fact, long gestation which causes its own problems. Part 135 is essentially commercial light aircraft operations and will replace such things as "low capacity RPT" and "Charter".
I think it was Chou En Lai who was once asked what he thought about the outcome of the French Revolution of 1789. He replied that it was far too early to tell and that may well be the answer to whether CASA is going to change. There are certainly people within the organisation that want to change but whether they will prevail over the old guard, well its too early to tell.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the appointment of a new Minister responsible for aviation and a forthcoming Federal election, I think we can give the Forsyth review, and its conclusions and recommendations in toto, the last rights.
The bureaucrats have won. They have waited out the starry eyed idealists who thought that truth is followed by justice and equity. The passage of time gradually washes away the hard edged conclusions and recommendations of the Forsyth Review. To put that another way Forsyth is old news. There is a different Minister in Canberra now and CASA is positioning itself as a new beast. Of course that is all smoke and mirrors. Cultural change is notoriously hard at best.. In due course the same bureaucrats will wreak their revenge on those who were unwise enough to make submissions to the review.
The next question is what will be CASAs next move to complete the embuggerance of everything but military and large commercial RPT aviation? My guess from trying to read the part 91 rules is that these will finish off GA since virtually any incident, let alone accident, has been criminalised.
The net result of that will be the impossibility of developing a genuine safety culture anywhere in GA in favour of developing a backside covering culture instead. The result of that is going to be higher accident and incident rates since "learning from mistakes" becomes impossible in a punitive culture.
The bureaucrats have won. They have waited out the starry eyed idealists who thought that truth is followed by justice and equity. The passage of time gradually washes away the hard edged conclusions and recommendations of the Forsyth Review. To put that another way Forsyth is old news. There is a different Minister in Canberra now and CASA is positioning itself as a new beast. Of course that is all smoke and mirrors. Cultural change is notoriously hard at best.. In due course the same bureaucrats will wreak their revenge on those who were unwise enough to make submissions to the review.
The next question is what will be CASAs next move to complete the embuggerance of everything but military and large commercial RPT aviation? My guess from trying to read the part 91 rules is that these will finish off GA since virtually any incident, let alone accident, has been criminalised.
The net result of that will be the impossibility of developing a genuine safety culture anywhere in GA in favour of developing a backside covering culture instead. The result of that is going to be higher accident and incident rates since "learning from mistakes" becomes impossible in a punitive culture.
Did Mr Forsyth make any recommendations that we're going to save the industry money? If so what were they?
During Mr Forsyth's tenure as Chairman of AsA did he oversee any cost saving or competitive reforms?
During Mr Forsyth's tenure as Chairman of AsA did he oversee any cost saving or competitive reforms?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actus reus,
It still is higher through, quite significantly. Now add in lack of high mountains, much snow etc.
In any case the case is quite clear: Adopt FAA rules and methodology and save lives and damage.
It still is higher through, quite significantly. Now add in lack of high mountains, much snow etc.
In any case the case is quite clear: Adopt FAA rules and methodology and save lives and damage.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forsyth
Those are interesting questions Dick.
The TOR for the review stated:
Main focus of the review is on safety-in particular, 'The structures, effectiveness and processes of ALL (my bold)agencies involved in aviation safety'.
What about AsA? The ridiculous use of temporary inflight broadcast areas (a third world option; staffing issues?. I think Montevideo was the only other place in the world using this procedure at the time) that resulted in an unknown Indonesian aircraft 'appearing' in OZ airspace opposite direction, same level as an OZ airliner; breakdown of separation and loss of separation assurance events, runway issues in Darwin and other places, a controller (allegedly) drunk at the console in the Brisbane centre; refusal to agree to permit exemptions to be issued against ADSB having originally agreed to treat non compliant aircraft in the same manner as when RVSM was introduced (That is a cost as we well know); the debacle with Avalon airspace (Tiger Airways etc) and the list goes on.
So what did the Forsyth review say about all this? NOTHING! nada, fullstop.
I firmly believe that eventhough Mr Forsyth was the previous Chair of the AsA Board, he would have looked into AsA had he had additional time or some such.
Yeah?
The TOR for the review stated:
Main focus of the review is on safety-in particular, 'The structures, effectiveness and processes of ALL (my bold)agencies involved in aviation safety'.
What about AsA? The ridiculous use of temporary inflight broadcast areas (a third world option; staffing issues?. I think Montevideo was the only other place in the world using this procedure at the time) that resulted in an unknown Indonesian aircraft 'appearing' in OZ airspace opposite direction, same level as an OZ airliner; breakdown of separation and loss of separation assurance events, runway issues in Darwin and other places, a controller (allegedly) drunk at the console in the Brisbane centre; refusal to agree to permit exemptions to be issued against ADSB having originally agreed to treat non compliant aircraft in the same manner as when RVSM was introduced (That is a cost as we well know); the debacle with Avalon airspace (Tiger Airways etc) and the list goes on.
So what did the Forsyth review say about all this? NOTHING! nada, fullstop.
I firmly believe that eventhough Mr Forsyth was the previous Chair of the AsA Board, he would have looked into AsA had he had additional time or some such.
Yeah?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyrie,
I agree: the OZ rate is higher, by a margin, then the accident rate in the USA.
It is not three times higher in OZ as far as I can see and I do stand to be corrected.
Sunfish,
I guess we have to ask; who was the aviation advisor in Truss's office? Whoever it was, what were their understandings of this review and where it was to go?
We never got that part of the puzzle.
Looking closer at the report, I can see where Truss et al had trouble making either head or tail of some of this report.
E.g. Pick a recommendation at random and then read the commentary that led the Forsyth committee to make a recommendation in the first place and how did Forsyth expect his recommendation to be implemented?
There is little if any advice on this crucial, last point; how to implement.
I gave my challenge a go. At random:
Recommendation #34.
'CASA's Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee' (SCC).
But, at page 108, the committee states:
'The Panel reviewed the design of the SCC and and determined that it is fundamentally sound'
And at page 123:
'The current consultation program, centred on the SCC, is based on sound principles and is similar to the processes in other countries.'
The recommendation does not follow from the narrative. Academically when it comes to report writing, this is normally considered a 'crime'.
Now CASA and the industry may very well be 'fixing' the SCC but it is pretty easy to see that at first reading of Forsyth, the government and others would have struggled to make sense of the recommendation and would have been flummoxed as to how to progress it.
I guess this sort of conundrum is common amongst politicians when they promise to do something when in Opposition (i.e. hold a comprehensive review into aviation safety); actually do it and then try and workout what the hell they can do with the report without upsetting OZ's safety record or the apple cart.
I agree: the OZ rate is higher, by a margin, then the accident rate in the USA.
It is not three times higher in OZ as far as I can see and I do stand to be corrected.
Sunfish,
I guess we have to ask; who was the aviation advisor in Truss's office? Whoever it was, what were their understandings of this review and where it was to go?
We never got that part of the puzzle.
Looking closer at the report, I can see where Truss et al had trouble making either head or tail of some of this report.
E.g. Pick a recommendation at random and then read the commentary that led the Forsyth committee to make a recommendation in the first place and how did Forsyth expect his recommendation to be implemented?
There is little if any advice on this crucial, last point; how to implement.
I gave my challenge a go. At random:
Recommendation #34.
'CASA's Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee' (SCC).
But, at page 108, the committee states:
'The Panel reviewed the design of the SCC and and determined that it is fundamentally sound'
And at page 123:
'The current consultation program, centred on the SCC, is based on sound principles and is similar to the processes in other countries.'
The recommendation does not follow from the narrative. Academically when it comes to report writing, this is normally considered a 'crime'.
Now CASA and the industry may very well be 'fixing' the SCC but it is pretty easy to see that at first reading of Forsyth, the government and others would have struggled to make sense of the recommendation and would have been flummoxed as to how to progress it.
I guess this sort of conundrum is common amongst politicians when they promise to do something when in Opposition (i.e. hold a comprehensive review into aviation safety); actually do it and then try and workout what the hell they can do with the report without upsetting OZ's safety record or the apple cart.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking through the arguments and counter arguments and the comments of the obvious CAsA spoilers, and one has to ponder where all this is going.
Forsyth is just one of the myriad of enquiries we have had over the years, all making recommendations for this or that, to what end?, and with what result?
Patently regulatory reform has been an extremely abject failure, meeting none of the governments directions or benchmarks, why was this allowed to occur? To reach what objective?
The so called Privatisation of our airports simply created a massive tax free monopoly for big banks and seen aviation infrastructure degenerate to third world standards, our airports consistently voted the worst most expensive in the world.
Who engineered this and why?
Do we not elect politicians to protect us from this sort of corruption?
Forsyth is just one of the myriad of enquiries we have had over the years, all making recommendations for this or that, to what end?, and with what result?
Patently regulatory reform has been an extremely abject failure, meeting none of the governments directions or benchmarks, why was this allowed to occur? To reach what objective?
The so called Privatisation of our airports simply created a massive tax free monopoly for big banks and seen aviation infrastructure degenerate to third world standards, our airports consistently voted the worst most expensive in the world.
Who engineered this and why?
Do we not elect politicians to protect us from this sort of corruption?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorn,
I could not agree more.
We need someone in Parliament to state, in sufficient detail to allow formal planning by all concerned, what the aviation landscape will look like in OZ when all these initiatives, financial (airport sales/city planning issues) and operational (regulatory reform etc) are progressed to the point where the government of the day decides to declare victory.
Presumably, this mayhem will have an end point?
We live in hope.
Lastly, this 'person' in Parliament needs a title.
How about 'Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary) for Aviation'?
We had a 'Minister for Cities' for a bit so 'weird' is in when it comes to Cabinet post and the outer ministry.
I could not agree more.
We need someone in Parliament to state, in sufficient detail to allow formal planning by all concerned, what the aviation landscape will look like in OZ when all these initiatives, financial (airport sales/city planning issues) and operational (regulatory reform etc) are progressed to the point where the government of the day decides to declare victory.
Presumably, this mayhem will have an end point?
We live in hope.
Lastly, this 'person' in Parliament needs a title.
How about 'Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary) for Aviation'?
We had a 'Minister for Cities' for a bit so 'weird' is in when it comes to Cabinet post and the outer ministry.
Thread Starter
To the optimists, good luck!
We are talking "cultural change" here. Anyone with any experience of trying to implement said change knows how hard it is.
Even if Boyd and Skidmore have the best will in the world, and they probably have, they have no hope of achieving anything other than window dressing without wielding a pair of very bloody axes - and this they cannot do.
I have written on this before on Pprune, my advice is that without cataclysmic upheaval at CASA nothing will change. My guess is that by the time Messrs Skidmore and Boyd realise that they have been played (if they ever do) and the axe is required, their time will be up.
If they really really want change at CASA, better confess to PM & C, they have experts (or did have) who know how to do it so well that the target bureaucrats don't even realise they have been beheaded until they try to twist their necks.
Nothing less than breaking up CASA and reassembling its components differently will fix it in my opinion.
We are talking "cultural change" here. Anyone with any experience of trying to implement said change knows how hard it is.
Even if Boyd and Skidmore have the best will in the world, and they probably have, they have no hope of achieving anything other than window dressing without wielding a pair of very bloody axes - and this they cannot do.
I have written on this before on Pprune, my advice is that without cataclysmic upheaval at CASA nothing will change. My guess is that by the time Messrs Skidmore and Boyd realise that they have been played (if they ever do) and the axe is required, their time will be up.
If they really really want change at CASA, better confess to PM & C, they have experts (or did have) who know how to do it so well that the target bureaucrats don't even realise they have been beheaded until they try to twist their necks.
Nothing less than breaking up CASA and reassembling its components differently will fix it in my opinion.
Moderator
"Optimists" Sunfish?
To the multitude of PPRuNe dreamers:
Has anything changed in the past two decades?
"Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes “infallible" DICK SMITH, August 1998.
"That's the way the system works. They think: "We are powerful and we are totally unaccountable." DICK SMITH, August 1998.
Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 05 - exactly TEN years ago - pages 124/5
It is 26 years and 5 months and something well north of $400 million since the regulatory re-write began. CASA misleads Parliament with impunity. They are masters of obfuscation.
Australia must be the only country in the World that has successfully converted a re-write of it's Civil Aviation Regulations into a retirement plan for bureaucrat?
Bureaucrat:
/ˈbjʊərəkrat/
noun
plural noun: bureaucrats
an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.
To the multitude of PPRuNe dreamers:
Has anything changed in the past two decades?
"Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes “infallible" DICK SMITH, August 1998.
"That's the way the system works. They think: "We are powerful and we are totally unaccountable." DICK SMITH, August 1998.
Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 05 - exactly TEN years ago - pages 124/5
Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Australia must be the only country in the World that has successfully converted a re-write of it's Civil Aviation Regulations into a retirement plan for bureaucrat?
Bureaucrat:
/ˈbjʊərəkrat/
noun
plural noun: bureaucrats
an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.
Comparing the accident numbers between the USA and OZ is a little hard. You have to take a few things into account and I did a detailed comparison to compare like for like a few years ago but there has been new data since then and I haven't repeated the exercise.
1. The LSA(not not the Part 103 ultralights) figures will be incorporated into the NTSB figures. The ATSB separates out the RAAUS numbers.
2. At one time one of the agencies was reporting fatalities vs fatal accidents. Ie if 4 people were killed in one accident one counted it as 4 while the other would count it as 1. I cant remember which way round it was and I think that in newer reports the reporting has been changed and they now align.
When I looked it wasn't the factor of 3 that is often quoted but there was still quite a difference with the USA being safer. What makes it all the more amazing is when you look at the things they are allowed to do that we either need additional training for or are prohibited.
eg. Night VFR without a separate rating, No rating required for formation flight, No extra training needed for low level flight. No requirement for an aerobatic rating.
Also amazing when you think about how often they land their little Cessna on runways covered with snow and ice and how if you are above 7,300 feet in Australia it is impossible to have a CFIT incident. Also add to it the fact that in the USA you dont need a clearance to fly VFR through class C (just be in contact with ATC) , dont need a transponder in class E, there is no requirement to wear a lifejacket on a single engine private flight. How come their accident rate isnt so much worse?
1. The LSA(not not the Part 103 ultralights) figures will be incorporated into the NTSB figures. The ATSB separates out the RAAUS numbers.
2. At one time one of the agencies was reporting fatalities vs fatal accidents. Ie if 4 people were killed in one accident one counted it as 4 while the other would count it as 1. I cant remember which way round it was and I think that in newer reports the reporting has been changed and they now align.
When I looked it wasn't the factor of 3 that is often quoted but there was still quite a difference with the USA being safer. What makes it all the more amazing is when you look at the things they are allowed to do that we either need additional training for or are prohibited.
eg. Night VFR without a separate rating, No rating required for formation flight, No extra training needed for low level flight. No requirement for an aerobatic rating.
Also amazing when you think about how often they land their little Cessna on runways covered with snow and ice and how if you are above 7,300 feet in Australia it is impossible to have a CFIT incident. Also add to it the fact that in the USA you dont need a clearance to fly VFR through class C (just be in contact with ATC) , dont need a transponder in class E, there is no requirement to wear a lifejacket on a single engine private flight. How come their accident rate isnt so much worse?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How come their accident rate isnt so much worse?"
Because they regulate by education as opposed to Australia's regulate by prosecution.
You also have to account for the fact that in the FAA are a lot of very competent professional people as opposed to Australia's aeroclub amateurs, ex sky gods or career bureaucrats who become anointed as aviation "Experts" the minute they join CAsA.
The level of incompetence within CAsA is now at alarming levels, the intrusion by CAsA amateurs into every facet of operations that they have neither the experience, qualifications or competence to intrude into ( A public or privately funded Flight Safety course does not make you an expert) has lead to deaths and will lead to more as these people direct stuff they have no idea about.
Because they regulate by education as opposed to Australia's regulate by prosecution.
You also have to account for the fact that in the FAA are a lot of very competent professional people as opposed to Australia's aeroclub amateurs, ex sky gods or career bureaucrats who become anointed as aviation "Experts" the minute they join CAsA.
The level of incompetence within CAsA is now at alarming levels, the intrusion by CAsA amateurs into every facet of operations that they have neither the experience, qualifications or competence to intrude into ( A public or privately funded Flight Safety course does not make you an expert) has lead to deaths and will lead to more as these people direct stuff they have no idea about.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not asleep, it's really dead!
Without delving into side issues or wishing to be pedantic about TOR's, may I simply say The Forsyth Review was dead before it started. Those that submitted facts for review, including myself have been made to look like fools. More so those running the show have been taken for fools. As foolish as this sounds, I won't be fooled again and I doubt the aviation industry will be either. Truss and his head of bureau have ruined aviation, especially at grass roots level.
A pox on them all.
A pox on them all.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Forsyth review was initiated by Parliament, not CASA. So, unless CASA decides or is told to take its findings on board, they can ignore it if they wish.
Its terms of reference were to look at the relationship between the industry and CASA (and no-one else).
While it could make recommendations they were certainly not binding on CASA or the Government and nor was that its principle task.
There are changes afoot within CASA, just ask the 22 out of 70 managers who are about to loose their jobs. Are those job losses at the right level? I don't know but think probably not. They need to be a level higher to be truely effective.
There is a new mission statement (for want of a better description) within CASA as to how they are to manage the industry. Having read it, it is a statement with high intentions for a better future. Will it succeed? Lord only knows but on past performance one will not be holding one's breath.
I am no supporter of CASA unless there is clear evidence that the leopard has changed its spots. They have done a lot of damage through ignorance in the past. There is some evidence that some within the organisation are doing things differently. I will be very interested to see the result of the 3 workshops I attended on Part 135, paid for (airfares & accommodation) I might add, by CASA. It will certainly show whether there is a new broom.
Its terms of reference were to look at the relationship between the industry and CASA (and no-one else).
While it could make recommendations they were certainly not binding on CASA or the Government and nor was that its principle task.
There are changes afoot within CASA, just ask the 22 out of 70 managers who are about to loose their jobs. Are those job losses at the right level? I don't know but think probably not. They need to be a level higher to be truely effective.
There is a new mission statement (for want of a better description) within CASA as to how they are to manage the industry. Having read it, it is a statement with high intentions for a better future. Will it succeed? Lord only knows but on past performance one will not be holding one's breath.
I am no supporter of CASA unless there is clear evidence that the leopard has changed its spots. They have done a lot of damage through ignorance in the past. There is some evidence that some within the organisation are doing things differently. I will be very interested to see the result of the 3 workshops I attended on Part 135, paid for (airfares & accommodation) I might add, by CASA. It will certainly show whether there is a new broom.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Forsyth Review was initiated by Truss, (the government), to gazump the Senate Estimates that were wreaking havoc on CAsA. Having done so they then choose to ignore the results which will inventively bring about further Senate discussions. An orchestrated event by a senior public servant that kept his "master" at arms length from the real course of events until he retired.
Your Parliament and Taxpayer dollar at work.
What is the use of a review or inquisition or parliamentary questioning of a real or perceived problem if they are determined not to act on the recommendations??
Your Parliament and Taxpayer dollar at work.
What is the use of a review or inquisition or parliamentary questioning of a real or perceived problem if they are determined not to act on the recommendations??