I despair - RAAus Chair Michael Monck doesn't support changing the Act
Thread Starter
I despair - RAAus Chair Michael Monck doesn't support changing the Act
In an article in the September/October 2018 issue of Australian Flying headed “Monck on changing the Act” it states that he is not supporting my proposed change to the Act.
That is, the change to remove the “lie” in the Act’s wording that "CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration." (By the way, the September/October 2018 issue of Australian Flying is of the best issues that has ever come out – it would have taken a lot of hard work. Congratulations to everyone involved.)
Michael says:
In fact removing the lie doesn’t make the act dual purpose. It simply means that it tells the truth. That is, in many cases cost is the limiting factor, not safety.
Yes, the FAA had the words "foster and promote aviation" and the bureaucrats used that to claim that the reason an airline crashed is that they were fostering and promoting someone that was not safe. What a con.
The agreement I had with Anthony Albanese and Barnaby Joyce was really simple. It made it clear that no longer could the CASA bureaucracy hide behind the lie that safety is the most important consideration.
I could understand RA-Aus wanting to keep CASA on side at the present time. However even if I were one of the many at CASA that wanted to fix some of the problems, I would be supporting the change of the Act to tell the truth.
It is interesting that when I was Chairman of both CAA and CASA, some of the most important changes I tried to bring in to reduce costs were actually opposed by those in the industry who thought they benefited by keeping CASA bureaucrats on side. I tried to explain to these people that by actually reducing costs and getting more people flying that the industry would be able to boom again and everyone would benefit. Unfortunately I didn’t succeed.
That is, the change to remove the “lie” in the Act’s wording that "CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration." (By the way, the September/October 2018 issue of Australian Flying is of the best issues that has ever come out – it would have taken a lot of hard work. Congratulations to everyone involved.)
Michael says:
“… I think by making the Act dual purpose, I think we are opening ourselves up to trouble like we saw in the US…”
Yes, the FAA had the words "foster and promote aviation" and the bureaucrats used that to claim that the reason an airline crashed is that they were fostering and promoting someone that was not safe. What a con.
The agreement I had with Anthony Albanese and Barnaby Joyce was really simple. It made it clear that no longer could the CASA bureaucracy hide behind the lie that safety is the most important consideration.
I could understand RA-Aus wanting to keep CASA on side at the present time. However even if I were one of the many at CASA that wanted to fix some of the problems, I would be supporting the change of the Act to tell the truth.
It is interesting that when I was Chairman of both CAA and CASA, some of the most important changes I tried to bring in to reduce costs were actually opposed by those in the industry who thought they benefited by keeping CASA bureaucrats on side. I tried to explain to these people that by actually reducing costs and getting more people flying that the industry would be able to boom again and everyone would benefit. Unfortunately I didn’t succeed.
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, do you think theyre worried that by rocking the boat they might find themselves with more scrutiny from CASA and ATSB? From my limited understanding of the way it works for RAAus, I can certainly see the appeal of avoiding more of CASAs red tape - a lot of RAAus planes don't have enough useful load to carry the requisite paperwork.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here Dick. Safety "is" the first priority. That said, it is and always has been "safety at a price" we will never remove human frailty and so accidents will continue to occur. It comes down to we either do or we do not do, That involves risk assessment and management. The key is to identify what can be done with a higher degree of safety without incurring cost. Sadly identifying those things, usually come about as a result of an event.
Thread Starter
Xeptu, if ‘safety “is” the first priority’, why has CASA decided that the tower at Wagga does not have to be manned by air traffic controllers? Surely if safety was the first priority the tower would be manned. I bet the only reason it isn’t manned is that cost in this situation is the first priority. That is, the cost would affect the viability of operations at Wagga.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking that there is not a shred of evidence that the tens of thousands of pages
of Australian regulations have had the slightest impact on improved safety.
There is however ample evidence that the tens of thousands of pages of regulations has
had a major impact on the costs associated with committing aviation in Australia and
therefore the viability of the very industry the regulations are purported to regulate.
Balance between safety and cost, has not been very well managed in Australia, in fact it has
been an unmitigated disaster as clearly illustrated by the continued decline in participation.
Being the big "R" regulator has demonstrably failed as an approach to lifting safety standards.
It has been very effective in the decline of the industry along with all the rest of the perfect
storm of costly impositions imposed by various Government thought bubbles over the past
twenty years or so.
They may have seemed a good idea at the time, and done with good intentions, but failed
miserably to foresee how vested interest could subvert the original intent in pursuit of the Holy Dollar.
Much like the guy in his tinny at the weekend GA is in part a hobby for many people, it also has
aspects of commercial enterprise, small businesses by and large, that provide essential services to the
community as a whole. The tragedy for GA is that politically there is no recognition of its value nor its
contribution to the nation, nor its potential if it were allowed to grow.
There was an interesting article in the "Weekend Australian" how over only a few months Australia's
space regulations had been completely reformed, removing much of the red tape that stifled its
development and how this opened the door to investment in the space industry and the benefits
that investment could bring.
Yet here GA sits after thirty years and hundreds of millions of dollars pissed up against the wall, stifled,
in rapid decline, an industry that could very easily, given the political will, rival space in its contribution
to the national economy.
The Americans have a vibrant, growing GA industry, they also have the safest. Why don't we swallow
our pride admit to ourselves we screwed up and copy the best.
of Australian regulations have had the slightest impact on improved safety.
There is however ample evidence that the tens of thousands of pages of regulations has
had a major impact on the costs associated with committing aviation in Australia and
therefore the viability of the very industry the regulations are purported to regulate.
Balance between safety and cost, has not been very well managed in Australia, in fact it has
been an unmitigated disaster as clearly illustrated by the continued decline in participation.
Being the big "R" regulator has demonstrably failed as an approach to lifting safety standards.
It has been very effective in the decline of the industry along with all the rest of the perfect
storm of costly impositions imposed by various Government thought bubbles over the past
twenty years or so.
They may have seemed a good idea at the time, and done with good intentions, but failed
miserably to foresee how vested interest could subvert the original intent in pursuit of the Holy Dollar.
Much like the guy in his tinny at the weekend GA is in part a hobby for many people, it also has
aspects of commercial enterprise, small businesses by and large, that provide essential services to the
community as a whole. The tragedy for GA is that politically there is no recognition of its value nor its
contribution to the nation, nor its potential if it were allowed to grow.
There was an interesting article in the "Weekend Australian" how over only a few months Australia's
space regulations had been completely reformed, removing much of the red tape that stifled its
development and how this opened the door to investment in the space industry and the benefits
that investment could bring.
Yet here GA sits after thirty years and hundreds of millions of dollars pissed up against the wall, stifled,
in rapid decline, an industry that could very easily, given the political will, rival space in its contribution
to the national economy.
The Americans have a vibrant, growing GA industry, they also have the safest. Why don't we swallow
our pride admit to ourselves we screwed up and copy the best.
Thread Starter
So clearly CASA does not comply with the act in regards to Wagga.
If safety was was the most important consideration they would require the tower be manned.
The only reason safety is not is not the most important consideration in this case is they have decided that cost is even more important.
If safety was was the most important consideration they would require the tower be manned.
The only reason safety is not is not the most important consideration in this case is they have decided that cost is even more important.
No it doesn't mean that at all Dick. The towers primary function is surface movement control, not so much airborne control. In order to justify a manned tower factors such as, number of simultaneous movements, how congested the movement area is, surface visibility to name a few, if those issues are no longer present then there is no need for a manned tower. Now I don't know if that's the case in wagga or not, but we can't simply say because you have taken it away it's less safe.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but we can't simply say because you have taken it away it's less safe." Mmmm, if thats how it works then it seems to me you could reverse the whole argument about safety and say that just because CASA are over regulating the s&*t out of everything doesn't mean it's more safe...just means it's over regulated. In fact the amount of over regulation is kind of a sadistic "work of art", so convoluted, with regulation upon regulation, masses of manuals, that nobody will ever be able to fully grasp...
The last aeronautical study of Wagga I recall indicated that the level of traffic did not justify any change to the airspace classification or level of ATS provided.
Typically aeronautical studies state their assessments include:
And the CASA ARASMM:
Which suggests safety is the CASA prime consideration in determining airspace classification and level of ATS, and the traffic @ WG doesn't currently justify a CA/GRS or ATC service .......
Typically aeronautical studies state their assessments include:
...the reviewed safety and incident data, consultation with stakeholders and reviewing of annual aircraft and passenger movement statistics.
The ARASMM translates the obligations of the Act, the Regulations and AAPS into activities that CASA will conduct, in order to satisfy those obligations of:
- . determining whether the current airspace classifications, in accordance with ICAO Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services, are appropriate
- . determining whether the types of services and facilities provided by air navigation service providers in relation to particular volumes of airspace are appropriate
- . identifying risk factors to determine whether there is safe, secure and efficient use of that airspace and equitable access for all users.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the copious amounts of legislation and necessary compliance faced by GA, if money was not an option in the pursuit of our regulator's ultimate safety goals, then to legally satisfy all parties of concern and mitigate any liabilities, our take-off clearances should be issued by the federal courts. Just lodge your flight plan 3 to 6 months in advance.
The last aeronautical study of Wagga I recall indicated that the level of traffic did not justify any change to the airspace classification or level of ATS provided.
Typically aeronautical studies state their assessments include:
And the CASA ARASMM:
Which suggests safety is the CASA prime consideration in determining airspace classification and level of ATS, and the traffic @ WG doesn't currently justify a CA/GRS or ATC service .......
Typically aeronautical studies state their assessments include:
And the CASA ARASMM:
Which suggests safety is the CASA prime consideration in determining airspace classification and level of ATS, and the traffic @ WG doesn't currently justify a CA/GRS or ATC service .......
Someone coined the phrase Affordable Safety .....
Merged: Affordable Safety - Or Unaffordable Accident?
Someone coined the phrase Affordable Safety .....
I don't see much hysteria around here about ALARP, but mention "affordable safety" or Dick Smith and everyone loses their ****.
....and someone else coined the phrase "As low as reasonably practical" as the standard for Risk Management, which is saying exactly the same thing.
I don't see much hysteria around here about ALARP, but mention "affordable safety" or Dick Smith and everyone loses their ****.
I don't see much hysteria around here about ALARP, but mention "affordable safety" or Dick Smith and everyone loses their ****.
Well put.
The knee jerk reaction to almost anything Dick says is pathetic, particularly when it comes from those in the aviation sector.
Dick would be one of very few who have had/have absolutely nothing to gain, personally or financially, from beneficial (as opposed to disastrous and costly) aviation reform.
Tootle pip!!
Let me just get my head around this perplexing problem....
To man the tower at Wagga2 is unaffordable due to insufficient traffic. (not surprising in the fall off in GA and Pvt ops)
A mid air collision under those conditions is.. an accident due unaffordability.? Unavoidability more like.
Someone didnt see someone else
The tower is manned. There is a mid air collision ( as has happened at other towered,manned airports) is this an accident of affordability.? Someone didnt see someone else
Doesnt really make much difference to the victims either way.
A safety issue is not made safer by hurling big heaps of money at it
While most mid-airs occur around airports, some/many years ago the stats then said there was , on the basis of operational hours flown and the number of a/c in Oz, (then when GA was healthy)...the possibility of a collision once every 600 years. Now it must be about 700 years
Most fields around the country dont have towers, and it all seems to work pretty well that way.
Just make sure its not your year! Look, listen, see and separate.
To man the tower at Wagga2 is unaffordable due to insufficient traffic. (not surprising in the fall off in GA and Pvt ops)
A mid air collision under those conditions is.. an accident due unaffordability.? Unavoidability more like.
Someone didnt see someone else
The tower is manned. There is a mid air collision ( as has happened at other towered,manned airports) is this an accident of affordability.? Someone didnt see someone else
Doesnt really make much difference to the victims either way.
A safety issue is not made safer by hurling big heaps of money at it
While most mid-airs occur around airports, some/many years ago the stats then said there was , on the basis of operational hours flown and the number of a/c in Oz, (then when GA was healthy)...the possibility of a collision once every 600 years. Now it must be about 700 years
Most fields around the country dont have towers, and it all seems to work pretty well that way.
Just make sure its not your year! Look, listen, see and separate.
Folks,
It is interesting to include the views of a certain pilot's union, who insist that not only must the slightest demonstrated risk be mitigated, but CASA must deal with "perceptions of risk", even if there is no demonstrated or identified real risk.
This is, to my mind, the classic example of Lead Balloon's "cognitive bias" , where air safety risk's likelihood and consequences is vastly overstated, in this case to the degree that alleged risks that cannot be illustrated, that are admitted to be "perceptions of risk", must nevertheless be formally mitigated.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Needless to say, this union does NOT support benefit/cost justification of any aviation regulation, which undoubtedly makes the present Minister very happy.
It is interesting to include the views of a certain pilot's union, who insist that not only must the slightest demonstrated risk be mitigated, but CASA must deal with "perceptions of risk", even if there is no demonstrated or identified real risk.
This is, to my mind, the classic example of Lead Balloon's "cognitive bias" , where air safety risk's likelihood and consequences is vastly overstated, in this case to the degree that alleged risks that cannot be illustrated, that are admitted to be "perceptions of risk", must nevertheless be formally mitigated.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Needless to say, this union does NOT support benefit/cost justification of any aviation regulation, which undoubtedly makes the present Minister very happy.
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Aug 2018 at 08:15. Reason: PS aded.
I remember when Airservices decided to cut ATC numbers and close Jandakot Tower at 6pm and put in a CA/GRO. Not long after, someone landed on top of someone else.