Australian Regulations
Thread Starter
Australian Regulations
Hi there,
I have recently started operating under the Australian regs and find the mix of rules and regs to be a bit confusing.
I have noticed that there are some real experts on prune on this subject and was wondering if any of you had time to post a short history of how the System came to be how it is. The history of the regulatory review, what the system used to look like ( CAR’s, CASR’s , AIP, civil aviation act etc) and when it started to become messy.
The reason I’m hoping someone has the time to do this is I want to understand the system better rather than just rote learning individual rules and requirements. I want to have a clear picture of the hierarchy of the system.
Thanks in advance if any of you can help.
Cheers,
QandA
I have recently started operating under the Australian regs and find the mix of rules and regs to be a bit confusing.
I have noticed that there are some real experts on prune on this subject and was wondering if any of you had time to post a short history of how the System came to be how it is. The history of the regulatory review, what the system used to look like ( CAR’s, CASR’s , AIP, civil aviation act etc) and when it started to become messy.
The reason I’m hoping someone has the time to do this is I want to understand the system better rather than just rote learning individual rules and requirements. I want to have a clear picture of the hierarchy of the system.
Thanks in advance if any of you can help.
Cheers,
QandA
I have recently started operating under the Australian regs and find the mix of rules and regs to be a bit confusing.
I want to understand the system better rather than just rote learning individual rules and requirements.
..'hierarchy of the system'... Mmm.... Not sure there is such a thing in the "Great Blancmange of CAsA" and the Oz regulatory mish-mash.
Be advised that the suite of Regulations, Instruments, Exemptions and 'Expositions' in this country are the most convoluted, complex and contradictory in the known world.
The K.I.S.S. principle of simplicity and plain english, went out the window about 30+ years ago, and the rise and rise of a loony self-serving bureaucrazy, that has become a law unto itself, has now just about got GA so bogged down with BS, its on its knees.
When folk are busy trying to earn a living, individuals cannot fight the continual battle of bureaucarts inserting themselves into the 'minuatae'? of (your) aviation life..micro-managing the sh*t out of everything you do..
And if you do fight back, and criticise...then you WILL be targeted.
Just remember ..every aviator in Oz is either a terrorist with/without an ASIC card, or a strict liability criminal that will be soon caught out on something/ anything...however minor ...and in many cases, having SFA to to with real world safety, either.
www.boatpoint...yacht sales is the place to go
Be advised that the suite of Regulations, Instruments, Exemptions and 'Expositions' in this country are the most convoluted, complex and contradictory in the known world.
The K.I.S.S. principle of simplicity and plain english, went out the window about 30+ years ago, and the rise and rise of a loony self-serving bureaucrazy, that has become a law unto itself, has now just about got GA so bogged down with BS, its on its knees.
When folk are busy trying to earn a living, individuals cannot fight the continual battle of bureaucarts inserting themselves into the 'minuatae'? of (your) aviation life..micro-managing the sh*t out of everything you do..
And if you do fight back, and criticise...then you WILL be targeted.
Just remember ..every aviator in Oz is either a terrorist with/without an ASIC card, or a strict liability criminal that will be soon caught out on something/ anything...however minor ...and in many cases, having SFA to to with real world safety, either.
www.boatpoint...yacht sales is the place to go
73qanda,
As stated by the then head of CASA legal branch: "Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
You are not supposed to understand it.
You also have to understand the difference between "Rule of Law" and "Rule by Law".
With rule by law, it means that the law is so complex and contradictory that "law" means whatever the bureaucrat administering it says it means, and if you think otherwise, spend huge amounts of money at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to get a non-binding answer.
Tootle pip!!
PS: A good mate who is generally well informed tells me that (including internal CASA "policy" and "interpretation" documents) Part 61 alone is close to 9000 pages, makes the ATO look like wimps.
As stated by the then head of CASA legal branch: "Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
You are not supposed to understand it.
You also have to understand the difference between "Rule of Law" and "Rule by Law".
With rule by law, it means that the law is so complex and contradictory that "law" means whatever the bureaucrat administering it says it means, and if you think otherwise, spend huge amounts of money at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to get a non-binding answer.
Tootle pip!!
PS: A good mate who is generally well informed tells me that (including internal CASA "policy" and "interpretation" documents) Part 61 alone is close to 9000 pages, makes the ATO look like wimps.
73qanda
You’ve triggered a response thus far by an unhelpful few, and a handful on this forum have the mantra that Oz aviation is going to Hell in a handbasket, and the CASA are responsible for all evils including bad breath and violating poodles.
Hopefully others in the training environment will contact you with more helpful information.
For a start, as to the hierarchy of Australian legislation and where changes are being made, wade through this:
http://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page...ty-legislation
You’ve triggered a response thus far by an unhelpful few, and a handful on this forum have the mantra that Oz aviation is going to Hell in a handbasket, and the CASA are responsible for all evils including bad breath and violating poodles.
Hopefully others in the training environment will contact you with more helpful information.
For a start, as to the hierarchy of Australian legislation and where changes are being made, wade through this:
http://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page...ty-legislation
Well, I do know that certain CAsA persons DO violate the Law.....poodles, too. !
That doesnt surprise me in the least. There are some legal pedophiles and professional BS artists well ensconced in the Fort , so in terms of the truth...anything goes..
That doesnt surprise me in the least. There are some legal pedophiles and professional BS artists well ensconced in the Fort , so in terms of the truth...anything goes..
The first time I became aware of concerns about the nature of aviation regulation in Australia was in 1966, with Minister's annual report to parliament, raising the possibility of effectively adopting the FARs, due to the shortcomings of the Australia approach since 1920. Only later did I become aware of the history of litigation, up to and including the High Court.
The first time I became aware of the concept of "inadvertent criminal" as a result of complex, convoluted and contradictory aviation regulation was the first "Lane" Report in about 1986 or so. It has occurred many times since.
There have been more inquiries, Royal Commissions and what have you into CASA and its predecessors than any other Commonwealth instrumentality, and in every one, the difficulties cause by complex, convoluted and contradictory regulation has featured.
That the costs of attempted compliance with Australian regulation has decimated large swathes of the Australian aviation industry is beyond doubt, and not just for GA.
Very little heavy maintenance of large aircraft is done in Australia any longer, and before you shout "cheap Asian labor", convince me the Lufthansa Tecnik in Germany is a haven for cheap Asian labor, or that Qantas has built the largest hangar at Los Angeles International because of "cheap Asian labor". Indeed, it is the nature of and compliance with CASA "rules" that vastly increase the labor costs in heavy maintenance in Australia, to the degree that even smaller jet aircraft and some turbo-props are going back to USA for scheduled maintenance, because the savings far outweigh the ferry costs. And the maintenance is to ICAO (not Australian unique) standards.
AMROBA is in no doubt that CASA "regulation/regulations" is the cause of the demise of so many small aviation maintenance outfits, because they can't afford the cost of "compliance" with a vast overarching demand for "paperwork" that has nothing to do with actually hands on work, and precious little to do with the god of air safety. Indeed a good case can be made that it is detrimental to air safety outcomes, and Australian maintenance regulation certainly do not ensure airworthy aircraft, in terms of the standards to which aircraft are certified.
Formal Government statistics (BITRE by its current name etc.) support industry figure for the shrinkage of GA, CASA is clearly not the only problem, but it is at the top of the list, and many of the other problems are consequential, not "primary" causes. ie: Loss of availability of fuel has followed loss of demand because of grounded aircraft, not the other way around.
Your "unhelpful few" in fact represent the majority view of Australian aviation "so called safety" regulation.
Tootle pip!!
There you go - instead of your first post, to guide the OP you could have said all this outlining the history and machinations, then like I did point to the legislative architecture of Act > Regs > etc. 
Hi 73.
The system of aviation safety regulation in Australia was originally based on the system of maritime safety regulation in Australia. Indeed, things like the ‘rules of the air’ - who gives way to whom in the air, what side to overtake on and the colours of aircraft Nav lights originate from the maritime collision regulations.
The system of maritime safety regulation in Australia was and continues to be, in essence, implemented through the Navigation Act and subordinate legislation under that Act, in the form of Navigation Regulations and Marine Orders. So, when aviation became a ‘thing’, the Commonwealth naturally passed the Air Navigation Act and authorised the making of subordinate legislation under that Act, in the form of Air Navigation Regulations and Air Navigation Orders. Flying machines and floating machines are just flying machines and floating machines.
Although I’m temporarily jumping forward to the present day, it’s worth doing so to note a couple of fundamental differences between the contexts of the two systems, which differences have resulted in what is now the most convoluted and complex aviation safety regulatory regime on the planet. (Don’t take my word for that: Talk to people who’ve flown in other countries. Print off the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Exemptions that aren’t done by Civil Aviation Order, Manuals of Standards and see if you can work out what it all means. The people who say the system of aviation safety regulation in Australia is not that bad are, almost invariably, people who have little-to-no experience in other countries or make money out of building and running the system and who, therefore, make money out of ever-more complexity.)
One of the fundamental differences is that the maritime safety regulator is bound to perform its functions in a manner consistent with Australia’s obligations under agreements with other countries. There are lots (and lots) of international conventions relating to maritime activities. SOLAS, STCW, MARPOL, Tonnage, COLREGS.... The aviation safety regulator is also bound to perform its functions in a manner consistent with the obligations of Australia under international agreements. However, the ICAO Convention is practically the only one relevant to aviation safety regulation. Further, and fundamentally importantly, the only obligation of Australia under ICAO is to notify of differences between SARPS and the domestic requirements in Australia. This is an open door for complicators and ‘safety’ zealots to come up with bright ideas to make aviation in Australia ‘safe’.
In short, the maritime safety regulator in Australia just gets on and does stuff in accordance with the international conventions whereas the aviation safety regulator in Australia spends its days cogitating over whether it knows better than what’s in ICAO SARPS. Lucrative for the cogitators; not so the regulated.
A related issue to the first is that the international conventions relevant to maritime activities specify pretty strict and limited circumstances in which exemptions may be granted. Exemptions are exceptional. However, exemptions are an essential part of the Heath Robertson contraption that is the Australian air safety regulatory regime. One of the most important questions that must be ascertained when flying in Australia is not so much “with what laws must I comply?” but rather “from what laws am I exempt?”
The second fundamental difference has its basis in human psychology and a well-known and entirely uncontroversial phenomenon called “cognitive bias”. There are many forms of cognitive bias, but one is the human propensity to overestimate the probabilities of awful events, resulting in damaging rather than beneficial mitigation of those risks. Air crashes are such events. Germanwings is the most awful of awful events.
Each accident results in ever-more complex rules and restrictions, even if there is no causal and cost-effective positive connection between the rules and restrictions and the risk, because humans perceive the probabilities of air accidents to be far higher than they objectively are, and accordingly clamour for or tolerate responses that are more costly than is justified by the objective risk, or worse, are counter-productive. For example, there will be no limit to the individual rights sacrificed in the name of prevention of another Germanwings. Every pilot will be, presumptively, suicidal, and any hint of a problem will be considered a potential disaster, just to be “safe”. And few if any pilots will be willing to raise any issue that might be construed as a mental health problem.
Anyway, back to the evolution of the aviation safety regulatory system...
It is important to bear in mind the difference between the safety regulation of aviation on the one hand and the economic and international relationship aspects of aviation on the other. In principle, anyone who meets the safety standards should be able to fly wherever they like. However, there are economic and diplomatic and other consequences of letting people fly wherever they like, carrying whatever cargo and passengers they like. So there is regulation of these aspects of aviation as well.
Because of this difference, the safety regulatory and air traffic/flight services provisions of the Air Navigation Act, Regulations and Orders were ‘split off’ to become the Civil Aviation Act and CARs and CAOs, effective 1988. The licensing of scheduled international air services to and from and within Australia remained (and remains) regulated by the Air Navigation Act for economic and international relations reasons, and the safety of aviation within Australia became regulated by the Civil Aviation Act and subordinate legislation under that Act. The Civil Aviation Authority was also created by that Act. Note that at this point the air traffic control/airservices function was also part of the Civil Aviation Authority.
Then followed a number of controversies (about which volumes could be written) that resulted in the CAA being ‘split’ into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia in 1995. The theory of this split was that CASA would focus only on safety regulation and Air Services would focus only on the provision of air navigation-related services. The practical reality has been different, but the reasons (about which volumes could also be written) are not necessary to delve into for your purposes.
Although the desirability (some said the necessity) for reform of the aviation safety regulatory regime had been discussed and agreed in the abstract and some work done before 1995, the split of the CAA into CASA and Airservices Australia, and the context in which that happened, provided impetus for a concerted effort to ‘reform’ and ‘simplify’ the aviation safety regulatory regime.
What was supposed to happen was that the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 were to be replaced by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, and that because the latter were going to be simple and outcomes-based there would be no need for CAOs or exemptions.
Over 20 years and a conservatively-estimated $200 million later, the outcome is a Heath Robinson contraption comprising the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Manuals of Standards and Exemptions that, along with directions and other instruments, is many times the size and complexity of what it was supposed to replace. Appallingly, the process is only about 30 to 40% complete. Even more appallingly, it’s never going to end. There is no longer the corporate competence to get it done - too many complicators and too few simplifiers involved.
Most appallingly, all of this has produced no causally measurable improvement in aviation safety that is justified by the price paid - not only in dollars for the ‘reform’ program itself but in the destruction of the aviation industry (though it must be acknowledged that ‘security’ over-kill and the sell-off of airports and aerodromes and their conversion into monopoly cash-cows and shopping centres have substantially contributed as well).
On the ‘hierarchy’, the Civil Aviation Act contains laws with which you must comply. That Act also contains a power to make subordinate legislation. The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 are subordinate legislation containing laws with which you must comply. The distribution of subject matters between the 1988 and 1998 regulations has no connection with any coherent criterion. It’s just the random consequence of where the regulatory ‘reform’ process is up to. Remember: It’s all supposed to end up in the 1998 regulations in 1998, no 2005, no 2012 no.... (As I said above, it’s never going to end.). Some Civil Aviation Orders impose conditions on AOCs and other are notifications of exercises of powers in the Act or regulations - for example, the CAO 95 series contains exemptions from compliance with the regulations. Manuals of Standards contain detail (lots of detail) about specific regulatory requirements in the regulations. Then there’s a bunch of ad hoc exemptions, directions, approvals etc.
On the specific question of the AIP, the AIP is simply a compendium of various separate bits of information and exercises of separate regulatory powers. For example, the AIP contains the outcome of decisions by CASA in the exercise of runway width powers and the power to decide that the circuit direction will be right hand rather than the default left at a particular aerodrome. It also contains runway diagrams and aerodrome data. Charts... Immigration requirements.... It’s supposed to be the ‘idiot’s guide to flying to, within and from Australia’. There is no obligation to comply with the AIP as such. Rather, where a specific provision of AIP reflects a law or the exercise of some regulatory power, failure to comply with that provision will be an offence against the related law or regulatory power.
(That’s why I occasionally say “so what” in response to someone saying “AIP para X says” or “Jepps para y” says. Ultimately, the ‘rule’ in AIP or Jepps someone is quoting is not a rule unless it reflects a law or the exercise of a statutory power. A recent real example was purported restrictions published in ERSA on the use of airspace around Mildura. The restrictions had no basis in law and were therefore removed.)
The system of aviation safety regulation in Australia was originally based on the system of maritime safety regulation in Australia. Indeed, things like the ‘rules of the air’ - who gives way to whom in the air, what side to overtake on and the colours of aircraft Nav lights originate from the maritime collision regulations.
The system of maritime safety regulation in Australia was and continues to be, in essence, implemented through the Navigation Act and subordinate legislation under that Act, in the form of Navigation Regulations and Marine Orders. So, when aviation became a ‘thing’, the Commonwealth naturally passed the Air Navigation Act and authorised the making of subordinate legislation under that Act, in the form of Air Navigation Regulations and Air Navigation Orders. Flying machines and floating machines are just flying machines and floating machines.
Although I’m temporarily jumping forward to the present day, it’s worth doing so to note a couple of fundamental differences between the contexts of the two systems, which differences have resulted in what is now the most convoluted and complex aviation safety regulatory regime on the planet. (Don’t take my word for that: Talk to people who’ve flown in other countries. Print off the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Exemptions that aren’t done by Civil Aviation Order, Manuals of Standards and see if you can work out what it all means. The people who say the system of aviation safety regulation in Australia is not that bad are, almost invariably, people who have little-to-no experience in other countries or make money out of building and running the system and who, therefore, make money out of ever-more complexity.)
One of the fundamental differences is that the maritime safety regulator is bound to perform its functions in a manner consistent with Australia’s obligations under agreements with other countries. There are lots (and lots) of international conventions relating to maritime activities. SOLAS, STCW, MARPOL, Tonnage, COLREGS.... The aviation safety regulator is also bound to perform its functions in a manner consistent with the obligations of Australia under international agreements. However, the ICAO Convention is practically the only one relevant to aviation safety regulation. Further, and fundamentally importantly, the only obligation of Australia under ICAO is to notify of differences between SARPS and the domestic requirements in Australia. This is an open door for complicators and ‘safety’ zealots to come up with bright ideas to make aviation in Australia ‘safe’.
In short, the maritime safety regulator in Australia just gets on and does stuff in accordance with the international conventions whereas the aviation safety regulator in Australia spends its days cogitating over whether it knows better than what’s in ICAO SARPS. Lucrative for the cogitators; not so the regulated.
A related issue to the first is that the international conventions relevant to maritime activities specify pretty strict and limited circumstances in which exemptions may be granted. Exemptions are exceptional. However, exemptions are an essential part of the Heath Robertson contraption that is the Australian air safety regulatory regime. One of the most important questions that must be ascertained when flying in Australia is not so much “with what laws must I comply?” but rather “from what laws am I exempt?”
The second fundamental difference has its basis in human psychology and a well-known and entirely uncontroversial phenomenon called “cognitive bias”. There are many forms of cognitive bias, but one is the human propensity to overestimate the probabilities of awful events, resulting in damaging rather than beneficial mitigation of those risks. Air crashes are such events. Germanwings is the most awful of awful events.
Each accident results in ever-more complex rules and restrictions, even if there is no causal and cost-effective positive connection between the rules and restrictions and the risk, because humans perceive the probabilities of air accidents to be far higher than they objectively are, and accordingly clamour for or tolerate responses that are more costly than is justified by the objective risk, or worse, are counter-productive. For example, there will be no limit to the individual rights sacrificed in the name of prevention of another Germanwings. Every pilot will be, presumptively, suicidal, and any hint of a problem will be considered a potential disaster, just to be “safe”. And few if any pilots will be willing to raise any issue that might be construed as a mental health problem.
Anyway, back to the evolution of the aviation safety regulatory system...
It is important to bear in mind the difference between the safety regulation of aviation on the one hand and the economic and international relationship aspects of aviation on the other. In principle, anyone who meets the safety standards should be able to fly wherever they like. However, there are economic and diplomatic and other consequences of letting people fly wherever they like, carrying whatever cargo and passengers they like. So there is regulation of these aspects of aviation as well.
Because of this difference, the safety regulatory and air traffic/flight services provisions of the Air Navigation Act, Regulations and Orders were ‘split off’ to become the Civil Aviation Act and CARs and CAOs, effective 1988. The licensing of scheduled international air services to and from and within Australia remained (and remains) regulated by the Air Navigation Act for economic and international relations reasons, and the safety of aviation within Australia became regulated by the Civil Aviation Act and subordinate legislation under that Act. The Civil Aviation Authority was also created by that Act. Note that at this point the air traffic control/airservices function was also part of the Civil Aviation Authority.
Then followed a number of controversies (about which volumes could be written) that resulted in the CAA being ‘split’ into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia in 1995. The theory of this split was that CASA would focus only on safety regulation and Air Services would focus only on the provision of air navigation-related services. The practical reality has been different, but the reasons (about which volumes could also be written) are not necessary to delve into for your purposes.
Although the desirability (some said the necessity) for reform of the aviation safety regulatory regime had been discussed and agreed in the abstract and some work done before 1995, the split of the CAA into CASA and Airservices Australia, and the context in which that happened, provided impetus for a concerted effort to ‘reform’ and ‘simplify’ the aviation safety regulatory regime.
What was supposed to happen was that the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 were to be replaced by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, and that because the latter were going to be simple and outcomes-based there would be no need for CAOs or exemptions.
Over 20 years and a conservatively-estimated $200 million later, the outcome is a Heath Robinson contraption comprising the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Manuals of Standards and Exemptions that, along with directions and other instruments, is many times the size and complexity of what it was supposed to replace. Appallingly, the process is only about 30 to 40% complete. Even more appallingly, it’s never going to end. There is no longer the corporate competence to get it done - too many complicators and too few simplifiers involved.
Most appallingly, all of this has produced no causally measurable improvement in aviation safety that is justified by the price paid - not only in dollars for the ‘reform’ program itself but in the destruction of the aviation industry (though it must be acknowledged that ‘security’ over-kill and the sell-off of airports and aerodromes and their conversion into monopoly cash-cows and shopping centres have substantially contributed as well).
On the ‘hierarchy’, the Civil Aviation Act contains laws with which you must comply. That Act also contains a power to make subordinate legislation. The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 are subordinate legislation containing laws with which you must comply. The distribution of subject matters between the 1988 and 1998 regulations has no connection with any coherent criterion. It’s just the random consequence of where the regulatory ‘reform’ process is up to. Remember: It’s all supposed to end up in the 1998 regulations in 1998, no 2005, no 2012 no.... (As I said above, it’s never going to end.). Some Civil Aviation Orders impose conditions on AOCs and other are notifications of exercises of powers in the Act or regulations - for example, the CAO 95 series contains exemptions from compliance with the regulations. Manuals of Standards contain detail (lots of detail) about specific regulatory requirements in the regulations. Then there’s a bunch of ad hoc exemptions, directions, approvals etc.
On the specific question of the AIP, the AIP is simply a compendium of various separate bits of information and exercises of separate regulatory powers. For example, the AIP contains the outcome of decisions by CASA in the exercise of runway width powers and the power to decide that the circuit direction will be right hand rather than the default left at a particular aerodrome. It also contains runway diagrams and aerodrome data. Charts... Immigration requirements.... It’s supposed to be the ‘idiot’s guide to flying to, within and from Australia’. There is no obligation to comply with the AIP as such. Rather, where a specific provision of AIP reflects a law or the exercise of some regulatory power, failure to comply with that provision will be an offence against the related law or regulatory power.
(That’s why I occasionally say “so what” in response to someone saying “AIP para X says” or “Jepps para y” says. Ultimately, the ‘rule’ in AIP or Jepps someone is quoting is not a rule unless it reflects a law or the exercise of a statutory power. A recent real example was purported restrictions published in ERSA on the use of airspace around Mildura. The restrictions had no basis in law and were therefore removed.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 26th Aug 2018 at 21:44. Reason: Fix typos.
Excellent.!
A copy should be sent to every politician in the land, with three Qs...
1 Please take the time read this...its very important. Its a classic case of how bureaucrats are burdening the backs of the citizens, and destroying an industry, to the great detriment of the nation. Do you understand this.?
2.Do you believe that a vibrant and profitable General Aviation industry is vital for rapid transportation across this continent which has huge isolated areas and remote communities.
3 If so,would you PUSH HARD with your political colleagues for a ROYAL COMMISSION or JUDICIAL INQUIRY into the Agency that has brought a vital industry on its knees.? And at a COLOSSAL cost to the Australian taxpayer, for NO result. It was no less safe to fly 30 years ago than it is today.
A copy should be sent to every politician in the land, with three Qs...
1 Please take the time read this...its very important. Its a classic case of how bureaucrats are burdening the backs of the citizens, and destroying an industry, to the great detriment of the nation. Do you understand this.?
2.Do you believe that a vibrant and profitable General Aviation industry is vital for rapid transportation across this continent which has huge isolated areas and remote communities.
3 If so,would you PUSH HARD with your political colleagues for a ROYAL COMMISSION or JUDICIAL INQUIRY into the Agency that has brought a vital industry on its knees.? And at a COLOSSAL cost to the Australian taxpayer, for NO result. It was no less safe to fly 30 years ago than it is today.
Thread Starter
I really do appreciate the info provided. Thank you very much for your time. I have operated under two different rule sets ( which were straight forward) and this will be my third. It is actually heartening to know that everyone else finds it such a dogs dinner as well 
The thread has provided me with exactly what I needed, a broad understanding of the mongrel I am grappling with.
Thanks again.
The thread has provided me with exactly what I needed, a broad understanding of the mongrel I am grappling with.
Thanks again.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Balloon wrote:
Old mate works in this Power Station and sent this news report. Perhaps the Power Station safety management should replace CASA. The highlighting in the article is mine.
suffering a lost-time injury in more than two years has earned Gladstone Power Station recognition in a state award focused on safe workplaces.The power station has been named as one of four finalists in the Queensland Safe Work and Return to Work Awards 2018 for its improvement in safety performance.The site's all-injury frequency rate for employees and contractors is at its lowest point in five years.
The site was recognised after judges assessed 148 nominations across the state for the "most significant improvement to work health and safety performance" category.
"Employees were given greater access, involvement and training in safety processes."
"We are now aiming to maintain our fantastic safety record by keeping safety fresh and at the forefront of people's minds," he said.Changes to incident reporting, pre-task risk assessment, overhaul and contractor safety, workplace condition monitoring, signage and messaging were also key in GPS's safety improvement journey.The Safe Work and Return to Work Awards winners will be announced on Tuesday, October 2 in Brisbane.
Over 20 years and a conservatively-estimated $200 million later, the outcome is a Heath Robinson contraption comprising the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Manuals of Standards and Exemptions that, along with directions and other instruments, is many times the size and complexity of what it was supposed to replace. Appallingly, the process is only about 30 to 40% complete. Even more appallingly, it’s never going to end. There is no longer the corporate competence to get it done - too many complicators and too few simplifiers involved.
Most appallingly, all of this has produced no causally measurable improvement in aviation safety that is justified by the price paid
Most appallingly, all of this has produced no causally measurable improvement in aviation safety that is justified by the price paid
NOT
Human resources and safety manager Nigel Warrington put the improvement down to a shift from a "systems-driven" safety program to a more face-to-face approach.
"We wanted to create a positive safety culture that was owned by each and every one of our 250 employees and contractors, rather than being controlled and driven by management," Mr Warrington said.
Mr Warrington said they also empowered employees to stop what they were doing and to make it safe if something didn't seem right.
There is a helpful new term that aptly describes smart, modern Australia: "Ozfi_icked"
Think of anything in a capital city near you that has not been........
Think of anything in a capital city near you that has not been........
Last edited by ramble on; 26th Sep 2018 at 06:54.
I think the Kiwis have a better term that’s useable in polite company: Munted.
Hi 73.
The system of aviation safety regulation in Australia was originally based on the system of maritime safety regulation in Australia. Indeed, things like the ‘rules of the air’ ...(That’s why I occasionally say “so what” in response to someone saying “AIP para X says” or “Jepps para y” says. Ultimately, the ‘rule’ in AIP or Jepps someone is quoting is not a rule unless it reflects a law or the exercise of a statutory power. A recent real example was purported restrictions published in ERSA on the use of airspace around Mildura. The restrictions had no basis in law and were therefore removed.)
The system of aviation safety regulation in Australia was originally based on the system of maritime safety regulation in Australia. Indeed, things like the ‘rules of the air’ ...(That’s why I occasionally say “so what” in response to someone saying “AIP para X says” or “Jepps para y” says. Ultimately, the ‘rule’ in AIP or Jepps someone is quoting is not a rule unless it reflects a law or the exercise of a statutory power. A recent real example was purported restrictions published in ERSA on the use of airspace around Mildura. The restrictions had no basis in law and were therefore removed.)
Unfortunately I can't provide a complete answer to the OPs question. I was flying in the 1980s through to the end of the 90s, and I am just trying to get back into it. After an almost 20 year hiatus I can report back that the flight rules have become a major stumbling block for anyone trying to get back in. My experience on learning the rules back in the 80s was it was laborious, but seemed straight forward. Then while I was working in the aviation industry the regulatory framework seemed to take a sharp turn for the worse in the 1990s. Industry consultation is great, but the drawback is that there were a number of occasions where I couldn't remember if a particular rule remained, or that a proposed rule had been rejected, or had it been accepted? And if it had been accepted, which part or which version had been accepted, and had I updated my documentation correctly? In the 90s it seemed like there were so many changes it was impossible to mentally keep up with the changes. Change can be good, but it does come at a cost!
Then it was announced (can't remember the year) that we would be heading for a simpler 3 tiered system of documents The act->The regulations->The Information Publications. Now that all seemed wholesome and reasonable. But around that time I left the industry and took up a career elsewhere.
I come back to it this year only to find that the CAOs are still there; there are two lots of regulations; and I haven't got to the AIPs and below yet--it was taking so long that events overtook my little project. So, somehow, we seem to have actually gone in the diametric opposite direction regarding the regulatory framework. Now how has that come about? I don't know, but here are a few remarks I have heard from some very experienced pilots: they are stupid; they are incompetent; we were sleeping at the wheel; we have been lied to; it has been deliberate sabotage; insert other possibilities here.
A closing thought: I am baffled by the quality of the regulations. The worst thing I have seen is where I look in the definitions of a section only to find the definition saying something like, "see the use of 'this term' in clause xxx" Now I find that really strange. A definition is put in the definition section so that one can then read the clause and understand what the clause is about. How can a definition point you to the clause so that you can understand the term? In which case the term does not need to be defined and you would just look it up in an English dictionary. It does make you wonder 'what were they thinking?'
'What were they thinking.'
Not deeply enough to get to the real crux of the GA Industry issues, so they come up with flim-flam to fill in the desk time.
I think the number of pages and flood of words is all part of the Dr Discrepancy LSG Method..'baffle 'em with bullsh*t'.
Its all part of the Fort Fumble self-justification program to con politicians into thinking that CAsA alone can save the world from falling aeroplanes.
With a world record Jumbo load of existing paperwork,...still the occasional flying machine bites the dust
Was it ever thus...there will always be accidents on the roads and in the air (unfortunately) an no continually rising mountain of excessive rules will ever put a stop to it.
Governments can keep shovelling huge amounts of taxpayers dollars into Fort coffers...but since there is never any real 'risk analysis' or looking at 'cost-benefits', the charade continues down its merry path.
To the gross detriment of the Nation and GA.
Not deeply enough to get to the real crux of the GA Industry issues, so they come up with flim-flam to fill in the desk time.
I think the number of pages and flood of words is all part of the Dr Discrepancy LSG Method..'baffle 'em with bullsh*t'.
Its all part of the Fort Fumble self-justification program to con politicians into thinking that CAsA alone can save the world from falling aeroplanes.
With a world record Jumbo load of existing paperwork,...still the occasional flying machine bites the dust
Was it ever thus...there will always be accidents on the roads and in the air (unfortunately) an no continually rising mountain of excessive rules will ever put a stop to it.
Governments can keep shovelling huge amounts of taxpayers dollars into Fort coffers...but since there is never any real 'risk analysis' or looking at 'cost-benefits', the charade continues down its merry path.
To the gross detriment of the Nation and GA.
Then it was announced (can't remember the year) that we would be heading for a simpler 3 tiered system of documents The act->The regulations->The Information Publications. Now that all seemed wholesome and reasonable. But around that time I left the industry and took up a career elsewhere.
Back then there was optimism and a genuine belief that it could and would be done by the regulator. That was a naive belief, but a genuine belief nonetheless.
These days, almost everything said about the regulatory ‘reform’ program is an outright, bare-faced lie.
I come back to it this year only to find that the CAOs are still there; there are two lots of regulations; and I haven't got to the AIPs and below yet--it was taking so long that events overtook my little project.
So, somehow, we seem to have actually gone in the diametric opposite direction regarding the regulatory framework. Now how has that come about?
The solution in principle is for government to do its job. Alas, the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed the title ‘governments’ over the last couple of decades are now incapable of achieving much beyond their own self-interested internal power-struggles.
Australia is, indeed, a very luck country. Imagine how deep the **** Australia would be in if governments had to achieve anything important.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 28th Sep 2018 at 23:39. Reason: changed quiz to squiz
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the terms of reference. Most people believe that CASA represents: A Safety Authority for Civilian Aviation, where really it represents: An Aviation Authority for the Safety of Civil Servants.
