Civil Aviation Bill 2019 - We’re Saved!
Thread Starter
Civil Aviation Bill 2019 - We’re Saved!
Don’t fall for it, Dick!
The Bill is here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...gml%2Edocument)
If it does get passed in its present terms, it will do one thing and one thing only. It will add this to the end of section 9A, with my holding:
Subsection (1) would continue to say, with my holding:
It doesn’t matter what wonderful things you add to 9A, if they are all subject to subsection (1). It is subsection (1) that is trotted out by CASA to justify whatever damage CASA wants to inflict. You could add a subsection (4) that says CASA must simplify the regulatory structure, but if it, too, were “subject to subsection (1)” there will remain the ‘out’: “This complexity is in the interests of the safety of air navigation (just because CASA says so), and that’s the most important consideration.”
Note also that in any event the new subsection applies only to developing and promulgating standards but not to, for example, the making of an instrument imposing conditions on pilots’ licences effectively banning them from conducting community service flights.
And what is the difference between an “economic” impact and a “cost” impact?
What about the social impact of, for example, strangling community service flights? Or the social impact of strangling Australia’s capacity to train sufficient pilots to meet local demand?
It is in my view the usual political stunt leading up to an election.
Please don’t fall for it, Dick.
The Bill is here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...gml%2Edocument)
If it does get passed in its present terms, it will do one thing and one thing only. It will add this to the end of section 9A, with my holding:
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
Note also that in any event the new subsection applies only to developing and promulgating standards but not to, for example, the making of an instrument imposing conditions on pilots’ licences effectively banning them from conducting community service flights.
And what is the difference between an “economic” impact and a “cost” impact?
What about the social impact of, for example, strangling community service flights? Or the social impact of strangling Australia’s capacity to train sufficient pilots to meet local demand?
It is in my view the usual political stunt leading up to an election.
Please don’t fall for it, Dick.
I can assure you, Dick has not fallen for it, he is absolutely ropeable ----- because NOTHING has effectively changed.
As for any "consultation" ---- this in no way even goes close to what was agreed by Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese, with Dick's help.
In my opinion, McCormack has been as thoroughly captured by the "Department" and CASA as any Minister ever has.
This is the "reform" you have when you are not having reform.
Tootle pip!!
PS: This the first reading, if this ever see the light of day after the election, I will be most surprised.
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Feb 2019 at 09:28. Reason: PS added
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
The Voo Doo doctors fingerprints methinks.
But you have to admire their deviance, get you coming, get you going. Never shake hands with a CAsA dude. If you do make sure you count your fingers after.
The Voo Doo doctors fingerprints methinks.
But you have to admire their deviance, get you coming, get you going. Never shake hands with a CAsA dude. If you do make sure you count your fingers after.
Hahaha, CASA in the future "As per Section 3A and B, we have considered the impact...and don't care, as such we will continue to operate as we always have". This will be part of a new template when advising of new changes.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Victoria
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less Words More Accountability
It's difficult to see how a change to the Act will make any difference to the quality of CASA's decision making when the requirements to 'consult' and to take into account 'cost' and to make decisions based on 'risk' are already documented.
CASA's Rule Making Principles and Obligations, last modified in August 2017, clearly state that CASA must work in cooperation with the aviation community to maintain and enhance aviation safety.... CASA is committed to ensuring that regulatory changes are justified on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder participation in aviation and its capacity for growth..... The principles outlined in the DAS Directive are reflected in CASA's standards development activities, which are transparent, inclusive and consistently applied.
CASA's Regulatory Philosophy (updated 2018) already states (2) Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost. (3) CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making. (5) CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively. (6) CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders - including what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand, and what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out.
Mark Skidmore DAS Directive: Development and Application of Risk-Based and Cost-Effective Aviation Safety Regulations (revised January 2016) reaffirms CASA's commitment to ensure that regulatory changes are justified on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder participation in aviation and its capacity for growth. Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary.... Recognising that international standards and practices vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address identified safety risks in the most cost-effective manner.... CASA must consult appropriately with industry in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear, timely and effective.... the safety of air navigation is the most important consideration for CASA in performing its functions and exercising its powers.... CASA must always have regard to all relevant considerations when exercising discretionary powers, including the cost.
In its decision regarding Community Service Flights, CASA failed to show that valid and appropriate means of evaluating risk were adopted. Two known incidents did not validate CASA's outcome. There was no logical, coherent argument to show convincingly that changes to minimum standards were required or justified. Rather than writing more words into an Act which will be consistently over-ridden by the primacy of 'the safety of air navigation', of more import for legitimate outcomes would be a requirement that CASA must provide an evidence-based safety case for proposed changes and must demonstrate that proposed changes are proportionate to any risk.
CASA's Rule Making Principles and Obligations, last modified in August 2017, clearly state that CASA must work in cooperation with the aviation community to maintain and enhance aviation safety.... CASA is committed to ensuring that regulatory changes are justified on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder participation in aviation and its capacity for growth..... The principles outlined in the DAS Directive are reflected in CASA's standards development activities, which are transparent, inclusive and consistently applied.
CASA's Regulatory Philosophy (updated 2018) already states (2) Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost. (3) CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making. (5) CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively. (6) CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders - including what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand, and what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out.
Mark Skidmore DAS Directive: Development and Application of Risk-Based and Cost-Effective Aviation Safety Regulations (revised January 2016) reaffirms CASA's commitment to ensure that regulatory changes are justified on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder participation in aviation and its capacity for growth. Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary.... Recognising that international standards and practices vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address identified safety risks in the most cost-effective manner.... CASA must consult appropriately with industry in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear, timely and effective.... the safety of air navigation is the most important consideration for CASA in performing its functions and exercising its powers.... CASA must always have regard to all relevant considerations when exercising discretionary powers, including the cost.
In its decision regarding Community Service Flights, CASA failed to show that valid and appropriate means of evaluating risk were adopted. Two known incidents did not validate CASA's outcome. There was no logical, coherent argument to show convincingly that changes to minimum standards were required or justified. Rather than writing more words into an Act which will be consistently over-ridden by the primacy of 'the safety of air navigation', of more import for legitimate outcomes would be a requirement that CASA must provide an evidence-based safety case for proposed changes and must demonstrate that proposed changes are proportionate to any risk.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Canberra
Age: 50
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared with the current section 9A
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.
the addition of
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
i would read as a positive. Small perhaps but positive none the less and heading in the right direction.
Instead of introducing a new regulation, and not having to care a whit what it costs businesses or owners, they MUST consider these as part of developing its proposals.
In legislation lingo, the word MUST is quite powerful.
As with all things, time will tell how effective this is
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.
the addition of
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
i would read as a positive. Small perhaps but positive none the less and heading in the right direction.
Instead of introducing a new regulation, and not having to care a whit what it costs businesses or owners, they MUST consider these as part of developing its proposals.
In legislation lingo, the word MUST is quite powerful.
As with all things, time will tell how effective this is
Folks,
In view of the apparent lack of interest in this thread (let's face it, authoritative calls for fundamental changes to the Act have only been around for more than twenty years) I hereby propose:
Lead Sled's Theory of pprune General Relativity:
The level of fire, fury, disputation, controversy or just general interest in a topic is inversely proportional to its actual importance to the aviation sector.
Discuss.
Tootle pip!!
In view of the apparent lack of interest in this thread (let's face it, authoritative calls for fundamental changes to the Act have only been around for more than twenty years) I hereby propose:
Lead Sled's Theory of pprune General Relativity:
The level of fire, fury, disputation, controversy or just general interest in a topic is inversely proportional to its actual importance to the aviation sector.
Discuss.
Tootle pip!!
(3) d is a license to destroy GA. ‘ risks associated with different industry sectors ” is code for one regulation for Qantas and a swingingly brutal version of the same regulation for GA.
What is needed is a clear commandment to employ evidence based risk management principles as laid down by ICAO in all regulatory decisions.
What is needed is a clear commandment to employ evidence based risk management principles as laid down by ICAO in all regulatory decisions.
Thread Starter
Fixed it for you, fly inverted:
CASA claims to take those matters into consideration NOW. But CASA also claims, and will continue to be able to claim if the Bill becomes law, THAT THOSE MATTERS ARE OVERRIDDEN BY THE OVERARCHING OBLIGATION TO TREAT THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION AS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
(Leaddie is in my view correct in predicting that the Bill will go nowhere. The genius of the tactics being used is that in the unlikely event that the Bill progresses, it will change nothing if it becomes law.)
Instead of introducing a new regulation, and not having to care a whit what it costs businesses or owners, they MUST, SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (1), consider these as part of developing its proposals.
In legislation lingo, the word MUST is quite powerful, BUT IS COMPLETELY UNDERMINED WHEN IT’S SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (1).
In legislation lingo, the word MUST is quite powerful, BUT IS COMPLETELY UNDERMINED WHEN IT’S SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (1).
(Leaddie is in my view correct in predicting that the Bill will go nowhere. The genius of the tactics being used is that in the unlikely event that the Bill progresses, it will change nothing if it becomes law.)
Thread Starter
Here’s what the law says in the USA in US Title 49-TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE VII-AVIATION PROGRAMS PART A-AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY subpart i-general CHAPTER 401-GENERAL PROVISIONS (here: [USC10] 49 USC 40104: Promotion of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce)
(a) Developing Civil Aeronautics and Safety of Air Commerce.-
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall encourage the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce in and outside the United States. In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator shall take action that the Administrator considers necessary to establish, within available resources, a program to distribute civil aviation information in each region served by the Administration. The program shall provide, on request, informational material and expertise on civil aviation to State and local school administrators, college and university officials, and officers of other interested organizations.
No wonder the yanks are so bad at aviation.
§40104. Promotion of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce
(a) Developing Civil Aeronautics and Safety of Air Commerce.-
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall encourage the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce in and outside the United States. In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator shall take action that the Administrator considers necessary to establish, within available resources, a program to distribute civil aviation information in each region served by the Administration. The program shall provide, on request, informational material and expertise on civil aviation to State and local school administrators, college and university officials, and officers of other interested organizations.
Thorny once again, has it right... 'when first we practice to deceive, With CAsA was it ever thus.
Some 'discrepant wording' in there from Smart Aleck and the Voodooo gang makes it a Claytons change as things are actually left 'as is' because (CAsA's idea of) "safety" must be paramount.
And that will be as always the overriding excuse for 'snow-jobbing' politicians, the industry and everybody else.
Continuation of GA and the safety of businesses to survive the avalanche of CAsA reg rubbish doesnt even come into it. Vale GA !
No wonder Dick is ropeable.! As we should all be
What can we do about it.?..push for Judicial Inquiry into the whole rotten edifice..the home of upper level corruption, cronyism and downright illegalities, and Law of their Rules. What a disaster the whole horrible place is.
Some 'discrepant wording' in there from Smart Aleck and the Voodooo gang makes it a Claytons change as things are actually left 'as is' because (CAsA's idea of) "safety" must be paramount.
And that will be as always the overriding excuse for 'snow-jobbing' politicians, the industry and everybody else.
Continuation of GA and the safety of businesses to survive the avalanche of CAsA reg rubbish doesnt even come into it. Vale GA !
No wonder Dick is ropeable.! As we should all be
What can we do about it.?..push for Judicial Inquiry into the whole rotten edifice..the home of upper level corruption, cronyism and downright illegalities, and Law of their Rules. What a disaster the whole horrible place is.
Folks,
In view of the apparent lack of interest in this thread (let's face it, authoritative calls for fundamental changes to the Act have only been around for more than twenty years) I hereby propose:
Lead Sled's Theory of pprune General Relativity:
The level of fire, fury, disputation, controversy or just general interest in a topic is inversely proportional to its actual importance to the aviation sector.
Discuss.
Tootle pip!!
In view of the apparent lack of interest in this thread (let's face it, authoritative calls for fundamental changes to the Act have only been around for more than twenty years) I hereby propose:
Lead Sled's Theory of pprune General Relativity:
The level of fire, fury, disputation, controversy or just general interest in a topic is inversely proportional to its actual importance to the aviation sector.
Discuss.
Tootle pip!!
.
the addition of
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
This is a step back, not even a step sideways.
On further consideration (and consultation with an old mate in Canberra) this change allows CASA to use COST/EFFECTIVENESS justification, as some you will, but most won't know, is nothing like cost/benefit ratio..
The effective mandating of GNSS navigation indirectly, by the ADS-B mandate requiring upgrade to C-145/146 GPS, was highly cost effective ---- it enabled Airservices huge savings in new equipment, and scrapping large numbers of navaids, with most of the cost of new equipment shifted to industry -- the new avionics required.
In short, with COST/EFFECTIVENESS, you pay the costs, somebody else (here AsA/Government) gets the benefit. Very effective for money swallowing maws in Canberra.
In total contrast to the operation of cost/benefit (really Benefit/Cost ratio) principles used by the likes of the Productivity Commission and the Office of Best Practice Regulation/OBPR --- and which CASA has always been able to sidestep, and still will sidestep, thanks the S.9A(1).
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
This:
Well said, JJ.
I understand, from watching Estimates on 22 Feb, that CASA is reconsidering of the ‘ban’ on the use of rotary wing aircraft in community service flights. But that raises the question: What was the basis of the ‘ban’ in the first place? I’m guessing it’s the same basis as time-based engine overhauls and so much of CASA’s other decisions: Intuition rather than evidence.
I wonder whether CASA will now revisit the requirement for time-based piston engine overhauls in charter operations. The evidence shows that the requirement results in charter passengers and others being exposed to risks that are easily avoidable. If CASA’s “mandate” is - as Mr Carmody said at Estimates on 22 February - to make certain these operations are as safe as possible, CASA shouldn’t be forcing operators to do something that increases risk.
But I wouldn’t be betting on that changing any time soon. I’m guessing there’ll be some sophistry dressed up in some high sounding empty rhetoric that includes “the safety of air navigation” to justify the status quo.
In its decision regarding Community Service Flights, CASA failed to show that valid and appropriate means of evaluating risk were adopted. Two known incidents did not validate CASA's outcome. There was no logical, coherent argument to show convincingly that changes to minimum standards were required or justified. Rather than writing more words into an Act which will be consistently over-ridden by the primacy of 'the safety of air navigation', of more import for legitimate outcomes would be a requirement that CASA must provide an evidence-based safety case for proposed changes and must demonstrate that proposed changes are proportionate to any risk.
I understand, from watching Estimates on 22 Feb, that CASA is reconsidering of the ‘ban’ on the use of rotary wing aircraft in community service flights. But that raises the question: What was the basis of the ‘ban’ in the first place? I’m guessing it’s the same basis as time-based engine overhauls and so much of CASA’s other decisions: Intuition rather than evidence.
I wonder whether CASA will now revisit the requirement for time-based piston engine overhauls in charter operations. The evidence shows that the requirement results in charter passengers and others being exposed to risks that are easily avoidable. If CASA’s “mandate” is - as Mr Carmody said at Estimates on 22 February - to make certain these operations are as safe as possible, CASA shouldn’t be forcing operators to do something that increases risk.
But I wouldn’t be betting on that changing any time soon. I’m guessing there’ll be some sophistry dressed up in some high sounding empty rhetoric that includes “the safety of air navigation” to justify the status quo.
Could the ban on helicopters be led by the foreign owned commercial EMS helicopter operators
Thread Starter
Leaddie says, above, that you are ‘ropeable’ about the government’s proposed changes to the Civil Aviation Act.
Is that true? Why? What would you suggest PPRuNers do about it?
What is your position on the other changes to community service flight rules?
I am against the proposed changes.
I support the passengers being informed in writing the level of safety they are likely to achieve.
That is - in most cases higher than doing the same journey by road but not as high as travelling by Airline.
The Safety Brochure that was published by CASA when I was Chairman should be updated to cover these flights and made available.
I have no useful suggestions on how Pruners can have any measurable effect on CASA decisions. !
And I havnt fallen for the latest Aviation Bill Change.
I despair! Get out before you lose everything.
I support the passengers being informed in writing the level of safety they are likely to achieve.
That is - in most cases higher than doing the same journey by road but not as high as travelling by Airline.
The Safety Brochure that was published by CASA when I was Chairman should be updated to cover these flights and made available.
I have no useful suggestions on how Pruners can have any measurable effect on CASA decisions. !
And I havnt fallen for the latest Aviation Bill Change.
I despair! Get out before you lose everything.
Thread Starter
Correct me if I’m wrong, Dick, but what you seem to be suggesting that the only practicable option available to ordinary folk in GA is to ‘get out’.
No other options?
For whom would you suggest they vote? Or do you take the view that there is no electoral outcome that could make any difference to the regulation of aviation?
No other options?
For whom would you suggest they vote? Or do you take the view that there is no electoral outcome that could make any difference to the regulation of aviation?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record, Dick Smith has left out the really important stuff, the stuff that tells you his real position.
His real position is not that everyone get out of aviation! Granted, you wouldn't think so by what you've just read and that's because Dick Smith continues to omit his condition that you should only leave aviation if you're a struggling business in aviation.
For a long time it seemed a mass exodus from aviation was his view. Its not now, its only for the strugglers.
But even for the strugglers Dick Smith, how can they get out? Should they just walk away for no money? If so, does this not mean they do lose even more? Doesn't your advice now mean someone else must get in? Doesn't that then mean that person must now get out? And so on and so on.
Is it not correct to say your advice to the strugglers is in fact flawed and that you continually fail to disclose your true and full position on an industry wide basis and in so doing cause enormous harm and upset to the rest of the industry? Are you simply attempting to remain relevant, using what others have described here as headline grabbing, at the expense of industry participants working hard to gain say new members or additional business revenue?
Will you from here on commit to include this essential component within your advice, that being, your view is not industry wide but only applies to struggling aviation businesses?
His real position is not that everyone get out of aviation! Granted, you wouldn't think so by what you've just read and that's because Dick Smith continues to omit his condition that you should only leave aviation if you're a struggling business in aviation.
For a long time it seemed a mass exodus from aviation was his view. Its not now, its only for the strugglers.
But even for the strugglers Dick Smith, how can they get out? Should they just walk away for no money? If so, does this not mean they do lose even more? Doesn't your advice now mean someone else must get in? Doesn't that then mean that person must now get out? And so on and so on.
Is it not correct to say your advice to the strugglers is in fact flawed and that you continually fail to disclose your true and full position on an industry wide basis and in so doing cause enormous harm and upset to the rest of the industry? Are you simply attempting to remain relevant, using what others have described here as headline grabbing, at the expense of industry participants working hard to gain say new members or additional business revenue?
Will you from here on commit to include this essential component within your advice, that being, your view is not industry wide but only applies to struggling aviation businesses?