Who really cares?
CaptainMidnight, not getting worked up. But I'd still like to know what was the point in the post at all other than having a go at Dick?
As most people have said, at least Dick tries to do whatever he can for what he thinks is right and will be good for Aviation and I personally don't think fujii coming on here and trying to put him down is in anyones interest at all and that's how it reads to me. Either the post itself is Ironic in having no point or Hypocritical in trying to say Dick should stop and then pointing out that fujii has his right to an opinion too.
Jonkster I think has really hit the nail on the head though, CASA need to have their mandate changed towards one of not just safety but fostering aviation.
As most people have said, at least Dick tries to do whatever he can for what he thinks is right and will be good for Aviation and I personally don't think fujii coming on here and trying to put him down is in anyones interest at all and that's how it reads to me. Either the post itself is Ironic in having no point or Hypocritical in trying to say Dick should stop and then pointing out that fujii has his right to an opinion too.
Jonkster I think has really hit the nail on the head though, CASA need to have their mandate changed towards one of not just safety but fostering aviation.
Fujii. In the 1980s most pilots were happy with the system .
Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.
No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!
I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.
So far about half way there!
CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance
Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.
No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!
I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.
So far about half way there!
CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fujii. In the 1980s most pilots were happy with the system .
Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.
No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!
I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.
So far about half way there!
CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance
Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.
No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!
I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.
So far about half way there!
CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance
Cheers,
Don.
Jonkster. You are correct. The current act states that safety must be the most important consideration.
It makes no mention re maximising the number of Australians who benefit from this safety.
Of course CASA is intermittent in complying. In the case of small airline aircraft to country towns it has clearly put affordability and the market place in front of safety.
The act forces them to live a lie. Would be demoralising.
It makes no mention re maximising the number of Australians who benefit from this safety.
Of course CASA is intermittent in complying. In the case of small airline aircraft to country towns it has clearly put affordability and the market place in front of safety.
The act forces them to live a lie. Would be demoralising.
Don. The prime reasons for the problem is the half wind back that put the frequency boundaries back on the charts.
The CASA people have been trying to get that to work.
It worked well when the frequencies were advisory and operated by Flight Service. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get to work where ATC are actually controlling IFR airline aircraft on the same frequency.
We actually operated the system without the frequency boundaries for three months and it was starting to work well.
We need to try that again in my view. It’s so much simpler and works so well in other countries.
And Don. I don’t object to you or others “ having a go at me “. As long as you hold your views honestly I have no problems.
The CASA people have been trying to get that to work.
It worked well when the frequencies were advisory and operated by Flight Service. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get to work where ATC are actually controlling IFR airline aircraft on the same frequency.
We actually operated the system without the frequency boundaries for three months and it was starting to work well.
We need to try that again in my view. It’s so much simpler and works so well in other countries.
And Don. I don’t object to you or others “ having a go at me “. As long as you hold your views honestly I have no problems.
Fujii. In the 1980s most pilots were happy with the system .
Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.
No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!
I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.
So far about half way there!
CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance
Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.
No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!
I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.
So far about half way there!
CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance
Because I was never able to finish the changes.
My prime proposal was to reform the regulations to remove every unnecessary cost.
That’s what I started Ron Cooper on and we saved the industry tens of millions. This was then changed to not looking at the lowest cost and most affordable way to do something to the opposite. Take the most expensive and therefore “ safest”
The airspace was just one part of the whole vision. Maximise the safety benefits of radar at the lowest possible cost. We will never know how many, if any , lives have been saved.
Also harmonise where possible with the leading aviation countries so we can be the flight training powerhouse of the world.
We don’t even have a simple system for climbing through E when VMC exists.
My prime proposal was to reform the regulations to remove every unnecessary cost.
That’s what I started Ron Cooper on and we saved the industry tens of millions. This was then changed to not looking at the lowest cost and most affordable way to do something to the opposite. Take the most expensive and therefore “ safest”
The airspace was just one part of the whole vision. Maximise the safety benefits of radar at the lowest possible cost. We will never know how many, if any , lives have been saved.
Also harmonise where possible with the leading aviation countries so we can be the flight training powerhouse of the world.
We don’t even have a simple system for climbing through E when VMC exists.
It worked well when the frequencies were advisory and operated by Flight Service. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get to work where ATC are actually controlling IFR airline aircraft on the same frequency.
ATC have been managing the traffic, airspace and frequencies ever since. If there was an issue, they'd complain. They have never been shy about doing that over the years.
Move on. There are more important things to work on to revive GA than airspace.
We will never know how many, if any , lives have been saved.
That's the trouble. That's why it would never have stood up to any cost/benefit analysis. No one knows how much it cost, and there is no way to measure the benefit.
The airspace was just one part of the whole vision.
Flew down to Gundaroo yesterday from Terry Hills.
Have been doing this for over 20 years.
Operated VFR and religiously monitored all the ATC area frequencies. Many of the aircraft I heard was in the Gippsland area in Victoria.
In the 20 years I have never heard another aircraft that required me to reply or make a self announcement. Then again most of the other aircraft on the frequencies were not giving position reports so I do not know where they were.
This is clearly a crazy “ cry wolf “ system. Concrete minds attempting to cling to the past.
Have been doing this for over 20 years.
Operated VFR and religiously monitored all the ATC area frequencies. Many of the aircraft I heard was in the Gippsland area in Victoria.
In the 20 years I have never heard another aircraft that required me to reply or make a self announcement. Then again most of the other aircraft on the frequencies were not giving position reports so I do not know where they were.
This is clearly a crazy “ cry wolf “ system. Concrete minds attempting to cling to the past.
Traffic. It saved money by getting the existing ATCs to provide the service on the airspace below.
Or are you suggesting that this plan was changed and additional ATCs were employed to provide the radar service at the lower level?
And it’s obvious that using the existing radar coverage improved safety .
Or are you suggesting that this plan was changed and additional ATCs were employed to provide the radar service at the lower level?
And it’s obvious that using the existing radar coverage improved safety .
Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d7f952e5683d4d
Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform
Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform
The Abbott government’s air *safety tsar has called for reform of “unnecessary” red tape stymieing aviation, urging a more “collaborative” approach by the “hard-line, bureaucratic” regulator.
David Forsyth, who chaired a 2013-14 review into air safety regulation, said needless red tape was still imposed across all areas of Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation, four years after his *report was delivered.
“Australia has quite a lot of unique regulations, unnecessarily so,” Mr Forsyth said. “It would be a good thing for Australia if we harmonised our regulations with overseas, particularly with the two big regulatory bodies around the world: the Federal Aviation Administration in the US and the European agency.
“We shouldn’t try to reinvent the wheel all the time and have something different and unique … because we don’t need to.”
Mr Forsyth said “unique” *requirements existed “across the whole suite” of CASA regulation.
“(That is) operations, flying training, maintenance, air traffic control, the airports,” he said.
A ratio of one flight attendant to 36 passengers was applied, *despite standards in the US and Europe specifying one to 50.
Restrictive licensing made it difficult to hire maintenance engineers from overseas and created overly burdensome costs.
Pilot training had recently been subject to extra layers of red tape, including requiring pilots wanting to renew licences to do separate tests for each form of aircraft they flew rather than one test on the aircraft type mostly flown. Pilots with overseas qualifi*cations seeking to work in Australia were also put through further needless training or tests.
Mr Forsyth, a former Airservices Australia chairman, Royal Flying Doctor Service vice-president and Qantas senior executive, credited new CASA chief executive Shane Carmody with beginning to address some unjustified regu*lations.
However, he believed CASA was a large bureaucracy *resistant to change.
CASA yesterday rejected the criticism, saying it had “worked closely and collaboratively” with Mr Forsyth to “consider and *address all of the actions from the government’s response to the recommendations of the review”.
“These recommendations have either been completed, incorporated into ongoing activities or we have announced plans to take action on recommen*dations,” a spokesman said. “We are committed to ensuring that the intent of the recommen*dations is honoured and the benefits continue to be delivered to the aviation community.
“We look forward to working with industry as we move to finalise the last 10 parts of the civil aviation safety regulations, as well as other items of interest to industry, including changes to aviation medicine, low-level frequency use and finalising our review on the *fatigue rules.”
Mr Forsyth said there was also a distinct lack of political will to streamline red tape hurting all *levels of aviation — ministers were scared of streamlining regulation for fear of being blamed for any *accidents. Mr Forsyth and his review panel were, he said, “exceptionally disappointed” at years of inaction on the recommendations of their report.
The report found CASA’s “hard-line” approach “not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation”, with industry viewing regulations as “overly legalistic, difficult to understand and *focused on punitive outcomes”.
While Mr Carmody, appointed last June, had made “quite a bit of progress”, action on simplifying regulations was “still fairly slow” and Mr Forsyth feared gains would be lost when Mr Carmody inevitably left the position.
David Forsyth, who chaired a 2013-14 review into air safety regulation, said needless red tape was still imposed across all areas of Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation, four years after his *report was delivered.
“Australia has quite a lot of unique regulations, unnecessarily so,” Mr Forsyth said. “It would be a good thing for Australia if we harmonised our regulations with overseas, particularly with the two big regulatory bodies around the world: the Federal Aviation Administration in the US and the European agency.
“We shouldn’t try to reinvent the wheel all the time and have something different and unique … because we don’t need to.”
Mr Forsyth said “unique” *requirements existed “across the whole suite” of CASA regulation.
“(That is) operations, flying training, maintenance, air traffic control, the airports,” he said.
A ratio of one flight attendant to 36 passengers was applied, *despite standards in the US and Europe specifying one to 50.
Restrictive licensing made it difficult to hire maintenance engineers from overseas and created overly burdensome costs.
Pilot training had recently been subject to extra layers of red tape, including requiring pilots wanting to renew licences to do separate tests for each form of aircraft they flew rather than one test on the aircraft type mostly flown. Pilots with overseas qualifi*cations seeking to work in Australia were also put through further needless training or tests.
Mr Forsyth, a former Airservices Australia chairman, Royal Flying Doctor Service vice-president and Qantas senior executive, credited new CASA chief executive Shane Carmody with beginning to address some unjustified regu*lations.
However, he believed CASA was a large bureaucracy *resistant to change.
CASA yesterday rejected the criticism, saying it had “worked closely and collaboratively” with Mr Forsyth to “consider and *address all of the actions from the government’s response to the recommendations of the review”.
“These recommendations have either been completed, incorporated into ongoing activities or we have announced plans to take action on recommen*dations,” a spokesman said. “We are committed to ensuring that the intent of the recommen*dations is honoured and the benefits continue to be delivered to the aviation community.
“We look forward to working with industry as we move to finalise the last 10 parts of the civil aviation safety regulations, as well as other items of interest to industry, including changes to aviation medicine, low-level frequency use and finalising our review on the *fatigue rules.”
Mr Forsyth said there was also a distinct lack of political will to streamline red tape hurting all *levels of aviation — ministers were scared of streamlining regulation for fear of being blamed for any *accidents. Mr Forsyth and his review panel were, he said, “exceptionally disappointed” at years of inaction on the recommendations of their report.
The report found CASA’s “hard-line” approach “not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation”, with industry viewing regulations as “overly legalistic, difficult to understand and *focused on punitive outcomes”.
While Mr Carmody, appointed last June, had made “quite a bit of progress”, action on simplifying regulations was “still fairly slow” and Mr Forsyth feared gains would be lost when Mr Carmody inevitably left the position.
Traffic. It saved money by getting the existing ATCs to provide the service on the airspace below.
Or are you suggesting that this plan was changed and additional ATCs were employed to provide the radar service at the lower level?
And it’s obvious that using the existing radar coverage improved safety .
Or are you suggesting that this plan was changed and additional ATCs were employed to provide the radar service at the lower level?
And it’s obvious that using the existing radar coverage improved safety .
- Higher paid ATC providing less service to GA.
- Initially, FSO's who wished and were capable were transferred and trained as ATC, so yes ultimately the higher paid job did have a numbers increase. I would hazard a guess that ATC numbers are higher now than they were in the 80's, but a lot of their internal structure has changed due to advances in technology, which would have happened anyway, so numbers have probably not increased commensurately over time.
- Completely unquantifiable. There was never any way of measuring it under your initial changes, and no way of measuring it in the system now. It is just a perception. It was/is possibly no more or less dangerous under either system.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU could dash hopes for UK to remain in aviation safety agency
Julia Fioretti
4 MIN READ
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Britain could be excluded from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after it quits the EU, raising the prospect of increased certification costs for airlines and manufacturers and dashing London’s hopes of keeping its membership.
FILE PHOTO - An aircraft makes its approach to Heathrow airport in London, Britain, October 30 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville
EASA ensures airlines respect safety rules and certifies aerospace products across the bloc, helping to bring down the costs of development and production within the industry. In addition, the EU has a bilateral agreement with the United States under which they accept each other’s certifications.
The EU is preparing its negotiating position for its future relationship with Britain and appears to be taking a hard line on aviation.
“UK membership of EASA is not possible,” the European Commission said in slides presented to member states last week which will inform its negotiating position for a transitional agreement and the future relationship with Britain.
The Commission sketched out a vision of the UK having an aviation agreement with the EU along the lines of those the bloc has with the United States and Canada.
Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something Britain has ruled out.
The British government, airlines, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have all called for Britain to remain a part of EASA once it quits the EU in March 2019, to ensure cooperation on safety continues and avoid increased certification costs.
Should the UK leave EASA, its manufacturers would have to pay for FAA certification to sell their products in the United States and maintenance facilities would have to pay to be certified as meeting FAA standards.
“It makes no sense to recreate a national regulator. At best, you replicate the vast majority of European regulation, and you’d have to do it over an extended period of time. At worst, you create unnecessary barriers,” CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines said in a speech in September.
If Britain is not allowed to remain a part of EASA, the CAA would have to take over its responsibilities in making sure airlines respect safety rules and manufacturers and maintenance companies meet standards, raising questions about whether it has the capacity to do that.
Airbus SE
89.56
AIR.PAPARIS STOCK EXCHANGE
+1.56(+1.77%)
AIR.PA
AIR.PA
Haines said the CAA was purposely not planning for that scenario “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.”
UK aerospace industry body ADS, which counts Airbus (AIR.PA) as a member, said last week it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over EASA’s current responsibilities.
In the slides, the Commission says there could be a bilateral aviation safety agreement with the UK where both sides have separate certification systems. If there is “reciprocal trust”, there could be a simplified certification process of products from the other side, but no mutual recognition.
The head of the U.S. FAA was in Brussels in December to call for clarity on the safety regime Britain would operate under post Brexit, saying it would be highly costly for manufacturers if Britain left EASA as the FAA would have to make its own findings, “manufacturer by manufacturer.”
“Seeking new aviation arrangements is a top priority and we aim to have the new arrangements in place before the day of exit,” said a spokesman for Britain’s Department for Transport.
Additional reporting by Alistair Smout in London and Victoria Bryan in Berlin; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
It would seem there is concerns in Euroland, about the severe costs imposed on industry where regulations across the globe are not in harmony.
One question that needs to be answered is, exactly who's regulations are Australian reg's in harmony with?
Australia with an ethos of all the rest of the world is wrong, only we are right, has cost us dearly. We forewent the opportunity to align with the US system in favour of IASA, then forewent that for our own hodge podge rule set that has demonstrably decimated our industry. New Zealand had the sense to align theirs with the safest in the world and are reaping the benefits, Kiwi regs now spread across the Pacific, in harmony with the biggest aviation industry on the planet.
Was safety compromised? are aircraft falling out of the sky all over the pacific?
One thing for sure is their compliance costs are a hell of a lot less than ours, perhaps our political masters should decide do they want an industry or not? If it stays as it is I don't think we can compete and survive.
Julia Fioretti
4 MIN READ
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Britain could be excluded from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after it quits the EU, raising the prospect of increased certification costs for airlines and manufacturers and dashing London’s hopes of keeping its membership.
FILE PHOTO - An aircraft makes its approach to Heathrow airport in London, Britain, October 30 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville
EASA ensures airlines respect safety rules and certifies aerospace products across the bloc, helping to bring down the costs of development and production within the industry. In addition, the EU has a bilateral agreement with the United States under which they accept each other’s certifications.
The EU is preparing its negotiating position for its future relationship with Britain and appears to be taking a hard line on aviation.
“UK membership of EASA is not possible,” the European Commission said in slides presented to member states last week which will inform its negotiating position for a transitional agreement and the future relationship with Britain.
The Commission sketched out a vision of the UK having an aviation agreement with the EU along the lines of those the bloc has with the United States and Canada.
Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something Britain has ruled out.
The British government, airlines, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have all called for Britain to remain a part of EASA once it quits the EU in March 2019, to ensure cooperation on safety continues and avoid increased certification costs.
Should the UK leave EASA, its manufacturers would have to pay for FAA certification to sell their products in the United States and maintenance facilities would have to pay to be certified as meeting FAA standards.
“It makes no sense to recreate a national regulator. At best, you replicate the vast majority of European regulation, and you’d have to do it over an extended period of time. At worst, you create unnecessary barriers,” CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines said in a speech in September.
If Britain is not allowed to remain a part of EASA, the CAA would have to take over its responsibilities in making sure airlines respect safety rules and manufacturers and maintenance companies meet standards, raising questions about whether it has the capacity to do that.
Airbus SE
89.56
AIR.PAPARIS STOCK EXCHANGE
+1.56(+1.77%)
AIR.PA
AIR.PA
Haines said the CAA was purposely not planning for that scenario “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.”
UK aerospace industry body ADS, which counts Airbus (AIR.PA) as a member, said last week it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over EASA’s current responsibilities.
In the slides, the Commission says there could be a bilateral aviation safety agreement with the UK where both sides have separate certification systems. If there is “reciprocal trust”, there could be a simplified certification process of products from the other side, but no mutual recognition.
The head of the U.S. FAA was in Brussels in December to call for clarity on the safety regime Britain would operate under post Brexit, saying it would be highly costly for manufacturers if Britain left EASA as the FAA would have to make its own findings, “manufacturer by manufacturer.”
“Seeking new aviation arrangements is a top priority and we aim to have the new arrangements in place before the day of exit,” said a spokesman for Britain’s Department for Transport.
Additional reporting by Alistair Smout in London and Victoria Bryan in Berlin; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
It would seem there is concerns in Euroland, about the severe costs imposed on industry where regulations across the globe are not in harmony.
One question that needs to be answered is, exactly who's regulations are Australian reg's in harmony with?
Australia with an ethos of all the rest of the world is wrong, only we are right, has cost us dearly. We forewent the opportunity to align with the US system in favour of IASA, then forewent that for our own hodge podge rule set that has demonstrably decimated our industry. New Zealand had the sense to align theirs with the safest in the world and are reaping the benefits, Kiwi regs now spread across the Pacific, in harmony with the biggest aviation industry on the planet.
Was safety compromised? are aircraft falling out of the sky all over the pacific?
One thing for sure is their compliance costs are a hell of a lot less than ours, perhaps our political masters should decide do they want an industry or not? If it stays as it is I don't think we can compete and survive.
Last edited by thorn bird; 28th Jan 2018 at 19:09.
