Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Civil Aviation Act change – good or bad?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Civil Aviation Act change – good or bad?

Old 18th Jul 2019, 06:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,164
Civil Aviation Act change – good or bad?

As everyone knows, Michael McCormack refused to change the Civil Aviation Act so it reflected the fact that there are times when cost is the most important consideration, not safety improvement.

The amendment to the Act is now going through Parliament and it states:
“(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 individual, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) Take into account the differing risk associated with different industry sectors.”
Here is the question. Does anyone know if 9A (1) “…CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” has precedence over 9A(3), stating that CASA has to consider the cost impact?

Surely the statement of 9A(1) is an absolute statement. That is, safety is the most important consideration. Most important? Over what? Well, cost of course. So by the look of it we are getting absolutely nowhere with this amendment.

What are the facts?

An important line of the Barnaby Joyce/Anthony Albanese agreement is the following wording:
“The need for more people to benefit from civil aviation.”
Note that is not covered at all. I have spoken to people at CASA - they think that is nothing to do with their bailiwick so that is why they resist stating that.

Of course, without that statement, it simply means the system can be made safer and safer, and more and more expensive, with fewer people participating – which is exactly what is happening with GA.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 18th Jul 2019 at 07:04.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 09:27
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,388
The complexity and machinations to do with CASA are getting beyond me, and, I suspect, beyond resolution by the Department and CASA itself. At some point it will become obvious at Cabinet level that a complete overhaul will be required.

That “point” will be an event of some sort that brings aviation safety into the public consciousness. Hopefully that will occur in a relatively benign way - like failing an FAA audit, or an unflattering comparison with other regulators and not in a catastrophic accident.

I wonder if a prescient Minister might forestall such a situation and quietly put a process in place to reform the Act, the regulations - by adopting the FAA/NZ model, and of course restructuring the regulator to separate its various functions.

This, as I have said before, would require a very smart task force led by someone from PM&C.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 12:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 713
9A(1) has precedence over (3) but the latter must be considered. In the event they conflict, (1) has the chequered flag.

A tiny step forward but will very much depend on the way in which it is interpreted by the bureaucrats.
kaz3g is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 23:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 378
interpreted by the bureaucrats.
I bet your boots any "interpretation" will favour only one outcome and it won't be anything favourable to our industry.

CC
Checklist Charlie is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 06:58
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,206
A Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission is the only way for the Aviation Industry to lay it out for all to see.
CAsA is the greatest,'con', ...a dysfunctional, immoral, unethical and criminal wastage of colossal amounts of taxpayers dollars... for what?
Total embuggerance of a vital industry. The Lucky Country , my arsk !
Decades of re-writes and "reform", ...its all about THEIR jobs ... thinking up new ideas , more penalties, more useless twaddle, thus ensuring less participants , and less aviation.
It may become obvious to Cabinet when GA collapses but dont hold yr breath.
CAsA is a scandal. But who's listening in the 'halls of power'
Free range CASA is its own Soviet.
To our detriment.
aroa is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 07:07
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,164

Kaz
They will always conflict

As we go as far as we can in being able to improve safety , costs and affordability will become the limiting factor.

As I have said - get out of GA before you lose everything.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 19th Jul 2019 at 10:17.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 07:22
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 114
Legislation will never change bureaucracy. Haven't we learned they are above the law yet?
Manwell is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 01:19
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 205
Is Dick Smith conflicted?

Take the last line of his opening post:

......I have spoken to people at CASA - they think that is nothing to do with their bailiwick so that is why they resist stating that.

Of course, without that statement, it simply means the system can be made safer and safer, and more and more expensive, with fewer people participating – which is exactly what is happening with GA.


By just the sixth post, Mr Smith comes back on to extol his dictum of salvation:

As I have said - get out of GA before you lose everything

So, CASA's responsibility for the part they play in the contraction of Australian GA - Bad! Dick Smith's responsibility for the part he plays in the contraction of Australian GA - Good?

The fact remains, the end game for CASA and Dick Smith are the same.

Picture a battlefield, the enemy approaching from all sides and far from beaten, the troops rally to receive General Smith's strategy........... 'the time for surrender is approaching, we must discuss our plans with the utmost of vigour, and whilst our force remains formidable and many among you show great strength in your desire to prevail, you must get out of the battlefield before you lose everything'. General Smith turns to his officers....'may I have the Geneva Convention, I don't think this enemy is playing according to the rules of engagement. This is causing our demise. Have the troops surrender and protest the Geneva Convention congruently". Ah yes, General Smith concluded, a successful surrender campaign will take time, but I have influence. I must have influence?

General Smith turned to his batman.....'I shall be remembered!' The batman spat on his boots. (oh, and continued polishing)







Nulli Secundus is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 08:46
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,164
I have not an any time said or even suggested that I am doing something that is “good” when I advise people to get out before they lose everything.

Just stating the reality.

It it would be easier for me to say nothing.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 22:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 75
In the proposed amendment, subreg (3) kicks off with “subject to sub regulation (1)”. The proposed reg change explicity states that safety is the prevailing priority, over cost.

Conjecture - worst thing ever done was letting bureaucrats preside. They thrive best when casting a web of complexity choosing to act ultra conservatively as they reconcile their inexperience. How effective was the regulatory reform for Australia and apart from harmonisation, has the benefit outweighed the cost? I preferred the old way if I’m honest.
I wonder about how much of the detriment experienced in GA is attributable to restrictive regs and how much of it is due to other operational factors.


QuarterInchSocket is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 22:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by aroa View Post
A Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission is the only way for the Aviation Industry to lay it out for all to see.
CAsA is the greatest,'con', ...a dysfunctional, immoral, unethical and criminal wastage of colossal amounts of taxpayers dollars... for what?
Total embuggerance of a vital industry. The Lucky Country , my arsk !
Decades of re-writes and "reform", ...its all about THEIR jobs ... thinking up new ideas , more penalties, more useless twaddle, thus ensuring less participants , and less aviation.
It may become obvious to Cabinet when GA collapses but dont hold yr breath.
CAsA is a scandal. But who's listening in the 'halls of power'
Free range CASA is its own Soviet.
To our detriment.
………...you just described the whole Govt perfectly, we haven't got a chance!:-(
Australia is a new country in the scheme of things, we haven't learned a damned thing & never will!
machtuk is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 04:56
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 365
GA is terminal.

- CASA and the ICAO harmonisation (which really isn’t)
- loss of airfields. The once federally owned airports gifted to local councils are expected to make a return on asset. That’s like suggesting the local sporting fields will be profitable. The only way they’ll return a profit is when sold to developers for housing.
- lack of fuel facilities. A fuel company monopoly on AVGAS / AVTUR and not at all interested in supplying fuel to things smaller than a Dash 8.
- lack of flight training facilities, aside from a couple of mega outfits serving the airlines pilot supply
- lack of maintenance facilities. Similar issue as flying schools. Unworkable reg’s, lack of training providers and a shrinking GA scene.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 08:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 205
Dick Smith, the question posed is very clear.

The aviation community are not fools. You were not challenged on any private or public comments you may have made. The discussion centered on both your role and CASA's in the contraction of Australian GA.

Here it is again:
CASA's responsibility for the role it's played in the contraction of Australian GA - bad! Most would agree. And you Dick Smith, is your responsibility in the role you've played in the contraction of Australian GA good?

For the record and to date, questions such as these which encourage a substantiation of your positions and proposals, remain in need of answers. In the event that continues, is it not a fair judgement for anyone to view your public comments as primarily an exercise in self promotion?
Nulli Secundus is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 10:19
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,722
loss of airfields. The once federally owned airports gifted to local councils are expected to make a return on asset
I think you may be confused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ts_Corporation
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2019, 08:30
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
Icarus2001,
roundsounds is not confused, he is referring to ALOP airfields, not FAC properties.
The political history of the removal of limitations on ALOP deeds, those limitations being that the airfield must remain an airfield after local councils assumed control, is another long-standing disgrace, that can be aimed directly at senior management of DoTaRS at the time --- and a Minister who was conned.
Note: This was not CASA, but "the Department".
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2019, 10:58
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 954
Dick,

Are you saying if something is the safest course of action but not "cost effective" aviation shouldn't take that route?! Surely you see the folly of that in the aftermath of the 737 MAX debacle!
mcgrath50 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2019, 11:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,774
The safest course of action: Never fly.

Cost of never flying: Nil (if you apply the CASA measure).

I do hope you never fly, mcgrath50. Not flying is the safest course of action and the cost of not flying is nil.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2019, 11:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by mcgrath50 View Post
Dick,

Are you saying if something is the safest course of action but not "cost effective" aviation shouldn't take that route?! Surely you see the folly of that in the aftermath of the 737 MAX debacle!
No he isn't saying that!!!

Lets take your position to its end conclusion and the logic applies to every activity that we do... There is only one "safest" possible course of action all others are less safe, this is what the safest means. Despite all the effort we might put into design, maintenance, training, etc the only way that we can be sure that we have the safest outcome is to stop all aviation. Every other option is less safe than that this course of action. This logic applies to every other activity that we do. If we want the absolute "safest" option we would never do do anything!!!! If we have a law that mandates that only the safest option can be done then we can never legally do anything!!!!

Edit, beaten to it by lead Balloon.....
no_one is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2019, 00:56
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2019, 23:05
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
I'm no longer surprised that a proposed amendment signifying nothing generates so much sound and fury.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.