ABC RADIO - Tamworth Rally 2016
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC RADIO - Tamworth Rally 2016
Take a moment to listen to the ABC Radio coverage of the Tamworth Rally.
https://soundcloud.com/abcnsw/tamwor...iation-protest
https://soundcloud.com/abcnsw/tamwor...iation-protest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting listening.
Did I hear Jeff Boyd describe the implementation of ADSB prior to the USA as a "folly"?
Edit:
It gets more interesting... Jeff Boyd doesn't seem a fan of CASA's work from the last few years.
Did I hear Jeff Boyd describe the implementation of ADSB prior to the USA as a "folly"?
Edit:
It gets more interesting... Jeff Boyd doesn't seem a fan of CASA's work from the last few years.
Part of Jeff Boyd's speech at the 2012 RAAA Conference:
From an Article in Australian Aviation dated 7 December 2015:
...
There is also much ambiguity in these regulations with as many interpretations as there are CASA field offices. I believe this can be attributed to a lack of real guidance material for both CASA and industry. This guidance material should have preceded the rolling out of the regulations instead of CASA now playing catch up.
I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will ittake to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting inthe middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
From where I am writing this on the Eastern side of Australia I am actually closer in distance to New Zealand than I am to Perth. So I wonder why we are not doing as almost every other country in the Pacific, and some in South East Asia have done, and adopt the New Zealand regulations. Here are a set of rewritten ICAO compliant regulations, written for and by a country with aviation operations basically the same as us. I would doubt that there would be an area of operation that would not match ours. There is also the huge upside that their “new” regulations were implemented over a decade ago and have now reached a mature state.
For the critics who will say that I am over simplifying things, or that it would not be constitutionally possible to take up my suggestion, I remind them of a set of aviation regulations called EASA designed and implemented by a large and diverse group of countries all operating within the same geographical region.
Imagine the real benefits to our local aviation industry of having our entire region operating on the same set of regulations. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so I look forward to someone smarter than me telling me what that is, but in the meantime, whoever our next Federal Government Minister may be, I implore them to consider and research my Pacific Solution.
There is also much ambiguity in these regulations with as many interpretations as there are CASA field offices. I believe this can be attributed to a lack of real guidance material for both CASA and industry. This guidance material should have preceded the rolling out of the regulations instead of CASA now playing catch up.
I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will ittake to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting inthe middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.
From where I am writing this on the Eastern side of Australia I am actually closer in distance to New Zealand than I am to Perth. So I wonder why we are not doing as almost every other country in the Pacific, and some in South East Asia have done, and adopt the New Zealand regulations. Here are a set of rewritten ICAO compliant regulations, written for and by a country with aviation operations basically the same as us. I would doubt that there would be an area of operation that would not match ours. There is also the huge upside that their “new” regulations were implemented over a decade ago and have now reached a mature state.
For the critics who will say that I am over simplifying things, or that it would not be constitutionally possible to take up my suggestion, I remind them of a set of aviation regulations called EASA designed and implemented by a large and diverse group of countries all operating within the same geographical region.
Imagine the real benefits to our local aviation industry of having our entire region operating on the same set of regulations. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so I look forward to someone smarter than me telling me what that is, but in the meantime, whoever our next Federal Government Minister may be, I implore them to consider and research my Pacific Solution.
...
Boyd, who founded Brindabella Airlines and was also previously chairman of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA), acknowledged the implementation of CASA’s Part 61 licensing regulations has been a “debacle”.
...
Boyd said the Part 61 regulations were written up without adequate communication from industry and he lobbied against their introduction before he joined the CASA board.
“I was very much involved in it not being brought out when I was on the industry side,” Boyd said.
“We knew Part 61 was never going to work. It got put in a drawer for 12 months and instead of being reworked and rejigged unfortunately the very last day that our previous CEO was in the organisation he promulgated Part 61 as it was 12 months previously.
“The results have been horrendous for the organisation and for industry. It’s a debacle.”
Boyd, who founded Brindabella Airlines and was also previously chairman of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA), acknowledged the implementation of CASA’s Part 61 licensing regulations has been a “debacle”.
...
Boyd said the Part 61 regulations were written up without adequate communication from industry and he lobbied against their introduction before he joined the CASA board.
“I was very much involved in it not being brought out when I was on the industry side,” Boyd said.
“We knew Part 61 was never going to work. It got put in a drawer for 12 months and instead of being reworked and rejigged unfortunately the very last day that our previous CEO was in the organisation he promulgated Part 61 as it was 12 months previously.
“The results have been horrendous for the organisation and for industry. It’s a debacle.”
Part 61
Part 61 has been and still is a debacle.
When Part 61 was first mooted we were told/sold that it would be good for the industry in that all the various pilot licencing regs would be brought together in one user friendly easy to-go-to package.
We were also told that an intent was to get rid of all the various exemptions applied to the then current regs.
Can we put up 'Part 61. CASA' on Google to bring up the regs straight away. No
Have additional requirements been brought in the regs with the introduction of Part 61?
Yes.
Have exemptions been eliminated?
No.
I am advised that there are currently some 90 in the system and growing.
Then we had the situation where a few scant weeks before the planned introduction of Part 61 CASA advised that the introduction would be held over for a year 'because industry was not geared up for the introduction (of Part 61).
Industry? Should that have read CASA?
On top of that the Manual of Standards (MoS) was not ready and available for consumption until a few weeks before the introduction of Part 61.
The problems of the above can only be put at the feet of CASA.
With the introduction of Part 61 there have been numerous problems in the interpretation of the new regs. CASA staff have been on the back foot trying to get a handle on the rules and get back to industry. I am still waiting for a question or two to be answered. I do not expect a reply.
The CASA then proposed changing the basic operating rules in Part 91. Many people from industry rightly told CASA that it needed to get its house in order before it sailed into Part 91 and all the problems that would bring. CASA staff level was to be the same for both Part 61 and Part 91 queries. That means that staff would be knocked off their feet trying to answer Part 61 queries plus more from Part 91. If CASA could not answer all Part 61 queries how could it answer all the anticipated Part 91 queries?
Simply put it could not.
Putting on additional staff would not work as staff can take up to a year or more before they came on line. Besides, as I understand it, the public service has a government cap on head numbers.
In summary Part 61 was not totally thought through and all situations pre-sorted out before release.
What we really need is a statement in the CASA Charter, like that of the FAA, that says 'To Foster Aviation' instead of making rules that are not clear, need clarification, are hard to access, do not always make sense, have increased the financial burden on industry and even regulated some operators out of business.
When Part 61 was first mooted we were told/sold that it would be good for the industry in that all the various pilot licencing regs would be brought together in one user friendly easy to-go-to package.
We were also told that an intent was to get rid of all the various exemptions applied to the then current regs.
Can we put up 'Part 61. CASA' on Google to bring up the regs straight away. No
Have additional requirements been brought in the regs with the introduction of Part 61?
Yes.
Have exemptions been eliminated?
No.
I am advised that there are currently some 90 in the system and growing.
Then we had the situation where a few scant weeks before the planned introduction of Part 61 CASA advised that the introduction would be held over for a year 'because industry was not geared up for the introduction (of Part 61).
Industry? Should that have read CASA?
On top of that the Manual of Standards (MoS) was not ready and available for consumption until a few weeks before the introduction of Part 61.
The problems of the above can only be put at the feet of CASA.
With the introduction of Part 61 there have been numerous problems in the interpretation of the new regs. CASA staff have been on the back foot trying to get a handle on the rules and get back to industry. I am still waiting for a question or two to be answered. I do not expect a reply.
The CASA then proposed changing the basic operating rules in Part 91. Many people from industry rightly told CASA that it needed to get its house in order before it sailed into Part 91 and all the problems that would bring. CASA staff level was to be the same for both Part 61 and Part 91 queries. That means that staff would be knocked off their feet trying to answer Part 61 queries plus more from Part 91. If CASA could not answer all Part 61 queries how could it answer all the anticipated Part 91 queries?
Simply put it could not.
Putting on additional staff would not work as staff can take up to a year or more before they came on line. Besides, as I understand it, the public service has a government cap on head numbers.
In summary Part 61 was not totally thought through and all situations pre-sorted out before release.
What we really need is a statement in the CASA Charter, like that of the FAA, that says 'To Foster Aviation' instead of making rules that are not clear, need clarification, are hard to access, do not always make sense, have increased the financial burden on industry and even regulated some operators out of business.
