CASA Legislation Must Be Fixed First
 

I see an ever increasing amount of whinging that CASA has reverted to days similar to those of the old Department during the “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom”. There seem to be constant complaints that there appears to be a gradual increase in regulation and, therefore, in cost.

As I point out in the attached letter to the Minister (see HERE), this is because CASA staff are simply following the legislation as it has been set by Parliament.

Unless we can have a brave Minister to amend the Act so it reflects what happens in reality, I am afraid general aviation is going to be “runed”.

Dick.

If it takes twenty six years and $250 million plus - so far - to "fix" the Regulations, how many decades and fortunes will it cost if CASA is let anywhere near the Act and other civil aviation legislation? :sad:

There is also a valid argument generally that excessive regulation can be detrimental to safety.

A tangy outcome
 

Too late Dick, it already has been :ugh:
I believe the next step in the journey for aviation reform will be as per the below clip. What other options are left for the IOS to do??

I am not suggesting CASA amend the Act. Would never happen. It's up to a progressive Minister to do it. Will need lots of support from the industry. I won't hold my breath!

I suspect Minister Truss will be as proactive, dynamic and progressive as his predecessors, Ministers Anthony Albanese and John Anderson?

But I'm with you - rational, sane regulation to preserve a practical and acceptable level of air safety.

Will be...or has been?
 

Unfortunately, its probably already too late.

I've been doing some GA flying in NZ recently.

In comparison, General Aviation in this country is ALREADY ruined.

PG

Truss is too busy feathering his nest and formulating his retirement plans to be bothered with silly aviation matters. But the reality is that the system is close to imploding so at some stage in the near future they will be left with no choice but to face the beast head on. The verdict is in, it was in long ago. The recent inquiries plus the current review is all the evidence they need to commence immediate change. Rolling McComick and 'hard questioning' Dolan is not enough. Does Australia really need a downgrade in its safety rating to wake up the muppets at the wheel?

Mr Truss, wash your hands clean now, appoint Senator Fawcett as Junior Minister for aviation and let him get on with the job. Minister, you can then blame all and sundry - the current aviation climate, a changing industry, previous Labor shenanigans, hell even blame El Niño and climate change if you must, but now is the time for action. Fawcett is the right man for the job, with the right support and actual transparent oversight of aviation I am certain things could be turned around for the better. But the clock is ticking.

Dick,

I am not sure your (our) vision fits with that of government, the concept of increased light aircraft density within our skies probably sends a chill up a politicians spine. They believe aviating is, and needs to be a complex and sophisticated process and that the concept of increased participation by anyone less than the most bright and dedicated will be fraught with menace.

What is a politicians vision for the future?

If the steady tick tock of history is anything to go by it certainly doesn't fit with the image our forebears had. Did they ever espouse a utopian vision of the populous crammed head to toe within high density cities or 350m2 suburban blocks. While the natural environment is clear felled for food and fibre production to every last corner and the oceans denuded, all to cater to a globally swelling population. While all this is encouraged by successive government as economic growth. A growth which is as non negotiable as air is to breathing and an ever increasing population is fuel to the engine.

No Siree....my granddad never told it to me like that. :eek:

Government will undoubtedly poo poo such cynisism but it is hard to hear the words they speak for the noise of their actions.

Nicely paved streets named after trees with efficient feeder routes from our "off the plan housing" direct to our offices, in fact do away with the car to many parking and infrastructure issues, an efficient public transport system, and the masses can pay for it.

Dreams of unfettered flight are simply dreams of folly, if your are lucky the current government might tell you what they doing or about to do, but I doubt it.

As always money solves most problems, consider yourself blessed.

.........regulatory reform you say........well here you go.......25 years......yes, well it was tricky, expensive too.......so what would you like us to do next?.........

:ugh::ugh:

Dick

Nothing will change until CASA Officers are made personally liable for their actions.

If personal liability was in place pulling AoCs at 4.59pm on a Friday wod be a thing of the past.

Companies would have redress financially if CASAs actions were deemed inappropriate.

Also a simpler appeals system NOT the AAT would go a long way to assisting the industry.

But the above is just a dream

the fix, disband CASA immediately, ask the USofA for a copy of the FAA regs, paste over the FAA parts with CAA (civil aviation association), problem solved. :ok:

You left a couple of Mr Truss’s proactive, dynamic and progressive predecessors off the list, tail wheel.

One of Mr Truss’s predecessors was none other than Mr Truss, who first seved as Minister for Transport and Regional Services in between John Anderson and Mark Vaile. (Mr Vaile also had two goes, the first before John Anderson.)

Yes Creampuff. They were all proactive, dynamic and progressive Ministers, totally committed to fostering and expanding aviation in Australia.

I was simply singling out those who really excelled as Minister for Transport in recent years, in the hope Minister Truss can strive to achieve the same benefits for the aviation industry and Australian air travellers.

By all accounts he is working very hard to equal the achievements of Messrs Albanese and Anderson.

For a start, to template our regs on EASA will guarantee the demise of aviation. The FAA regs are far easier to implement, far more user friendly and...dare I say it...proven.

"The FAA regs are far easier to implement, far more user friendly and...dare I say it...proven."

Yup, which was why those clever Kiwi's used them as a template for their reg's,
which is why their airline is ...dare I say it.... making a "profit" while our airlines make a.....errr, and their GA industry is thriving and our GA industry is errr...
Well we shouldn't complain, Australia is headed for a 100% safety record in aviation, not even the Americans can boast that, mind you they actually fly aircraft over there....lunatics!

Folks,
Poor stupid Mongolia, (actually a very go ahead country with a rocketing GNP) without the "facts" known to CASA, (see. Mr. McCormick in Hansard) has adopted the NZ rules.

We all remember, don't we, that the poor bleeding Australian taxpayers paid for the PNG Balus program, which installed the NZ regs. in PNG, because the Australian rules were no longer considered useable. Needless to say, the PASO uses NZ rules.

It looks like several of the CIS states and a couple of Caribbean states will follow,

Rather puts Mr. McCormick's public statements about the NZ rules in perspective, doesn't it.

Tootle pip!!

Dick, first of all thanks for writing that letter :ok: secondly, do you reckon there's any chance of change?

Creamie and I discussed the solution last Saturday, it does require a firm, almost dictator like stance by someone with the ability to pull it off.

Plus some legislation changed to allow the alternative to work.

If I could explain that in legal terms, like I can things in Newtons and PSI etc I would.

Over to you Creamie:ok:

Jack. I am not sure however I am convinced that if the Act is not changed no real cost reductions can take place.

I will advise when I get an answer from the Minister. If it's a typical missive with bureaucratic mumbo jumbo the industry is doomed .

How about a bit of self-regulation? After all there's a lot of self-interest at stake with aviating, unlike many other commercial and recreational activities.

There's enough accepted practice out there to show everyone how it's done and a dose of unlimited legal liability would also concentrate the mind...

I think the first issue has got to be to get the lawyers off the board and get a broad range of people with aviation experience. THE AMSA board looks like a good model. An enlightened board and a diligent CEO could make a significant difference in a small number of years by simply picking off the relatively small number of recurring complaints.

The proper way to do it, is to throw it all out and start again. The vast majority of aircraft (airline & GA) are made in the US. Nearly all avioinics are made in the US. Most maintenance schedules are devised in the US. Most of aviation legislation around the world is based on the 1944 Chicago (US again) convention. It would seem to make sense to use the FAA regulations as a starting point.

20 years ago when the Victorian Gas utilities were privatised it was all done by the law firm Freehills as a outsourced deal with the Victorian Government. It was regarded as the benchmark for privatisation. We hear a lot about issues with the electricity privatisation, but I can't recall anything negative about gas.

So, the other option would be to create a couple more millionaires at law firms and outsource the whole job. It would probably be overall 1/4 the cost of having CASA in house lawyers do it and 4 times faster. The hard part for public servants is that large chunks need to be simply deleted. We are regulating things with legislation that do not need to be regulated at all.

If an in-house lawyer costs $100 an hour, a law firm will charge $600 for the same level of professional.

A good Victorian Legal Aid lawyer can represent someone in the Magistrates Court at a cost of a couple of hundred bucks. A private lawyer might charge $5,000 for the same work.

Law firms are sales-focused and driven by budgets. Once they find a good trough to plant their noses in, you can't pry they out with a crow bar. They will "gouge". "gold plate" and "fully service" until the well is dry.

Are you telling me the CASA in house lawyers haven't been doing this for the last 10 years????

Happy to pay 6x the hourly cost if they do it 10x faster. The advantage of outsourcing is that it has a defined deliverable and end date. The problem we have with the current CASA approach to regulatory reform is that it is grinding on forever.

The disadvantage is that it's still a bureaucrat making these definitions

I suggest people give the Minister, Warren Truss, a go! I think we might just be pleasantly surprised where this Minister might take us. One thing is certain, it can't be down because the industry is already at the bottom and you'd need a drilling platform to go any lower!

He’s already been given a ‘go’. He’s now on his second.

On what basis do you have any confidence that he’ll do anything different this time around, given that there exist already:

- recommendations of a report endorsed by Mr Truss’s Coalition colleagues, and
- overwhelming evidence and justification for Mr Truss to take action,

but Mr Truss has already made a deliberate decision not to take action?

(If you consider announcing an inquiry to amount to ‘action’, I’d commend the Yes Minister series to you. :ok:)

Akro,

be a lot cheaper mate, to pay the Kiwi's a few million bucks, totally repeal our cluster..k reg's and install theirs. Sack the top ten % of the CAsA hierarchy, for deliberately squandering public money. We the pilloried and will possibly jail a Pollie for a few thousand on hookers, this lot got through a quarter of a billion.

Two of the roles of the office of the Australian Small business Commissioner is to "represent small business issues to government" and "work with industry and government to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to small business matters."

Many states have state commissioners, the federal commissioners office was established last year and deals with federal matters. The definition of "small business" includes the majority of aviation charter companies.


Welcome to Small Business Commissioner | Small Business Commissioner

Mickjoebill

By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?

Am I reading this correctly?

Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.

Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?

Dick,
I think its a given that the act must be changed.

Dick;
Dick, as palpable as it may seem, the answer is quite simple - Because they don't have to. They have been enabled by successive Governments and given cart blanche, an open chequebook if you wish. They can re-write rules to suit themselves, they hold no personal accountability, have an open ended pot of taxpayer money to do with as they please, and operate from fortresses that are heavily guarded by politicians and political minders. Not even the Seal team that took out Bin laden could penetrate the protective sheath that ensures Fort Fumbles residents remain warm and cozy and maintain fat paunches fuelled by an endless array of troughs.
Dick, I think you will find the many of the IOS would support a change to the Act, however our trust and belief that the necessary changes would be made is sceptical and doubtful at best.

CASA and the Government do not want the Act changed as this would open them up to greater scrutiny, a level of accountability and add in layers of transparency. Can you imagine the uproar at Fort Fumble? Just imagine them all having to be honest and transparent!!!! Oh my.

Democracy and the so-called Westminster system in this country is nothing more than a party trick, a complete farce. Just look at how the Minister has buried the submissions made to an open inquiry!!

Dick......put your glasses on mate. We all think it is necessary.

Do a search and you will find I have been harping on about taking the FARs and doing a "Find-Replace" for years, or better still dissolve CASA completely and subcontract the whole operation, in its entirety to the kiwis and save a fortune, get a better result and the kiwis could do with the income.

Win - Win - Win.

I notice a number of folk here have started to say the same. We can't all be wrong.

absolutely incorrect dick.
most of us would like to see an end to the total safety smoke and mirrors act that has been the central theme of the core of casa.
they have relentlessly pursued a path of instilling fear and uncertainty in the minds of their overseers and have been snowing the parliament for decades.

we would like the entire show dismantled and replaced by something sensible.
the new zealand regs would be a good start.
the canadian regs would be my preference though because of the owner maintenance provisions.

people write on the ends of posts tick tock. I hope change occurs before the need to glock the buggers.

oh that you had been successful in changing the culture when you had the chance.

No disrespect intended here for Dick, but he stood very little chance of making the necessary changes, particularly when the Iron Circle found out that Dick was actually interested in making a change for the better. And yes, the foundations of the Iron Circle remained intact when Dick started at the CAA, and a new breed with additional members have since been trained and mentored to cohabit in the realm their forefathers left them.

Doubleyew and Jabba are correct - take out the wrecking ball and level it to the ground. But we warned, that would only take out CASA, not the bloated bureaucrats who have been the ones who keep electrically charging the Frankenstein.

I believe this is where Byron really struggled to get change. What are casa staff to do? Regulate to present rules or proposed rules without legal power. This is the real issue of never ending reg reform. Why did most of the safety systems people leave?

If you guys haven't read latest casa briefing have a read. Apparently all is well. Oh, don't spit coffee or wheetos at screen.

Typical!

Something that would actually do something that results in cultural change and Dick goes AWAL.

Wake Up! The posters of pprune are behind you....for a change:}

I've read (in Organisational development papers) that in order to make sustain cultural organisational change you need to change 1/3 of the management. This seems about right in my experience.

The trouble with government bodies like CASA is that we change the guy at the top; make it very hard for him to change the two levels below him but expect that changing one guy at the top will fix everything.

Without knowing any of the personalities involved, its pretty clear that CASA's problems start with the board. It needs a new board with more board members, more aviation experience, more regulatory body experience and more diverse experience and LESS LAWYERS (if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail).

In my experience in turnaround situations nearly all the people reporting to the CEO have to go. There might be one good guy, but they will be entrenched in the old ways. Its the third level which usually has some good guys frustrated by the two levels above them, but there will be some guys need to go at this level too.

What are the chances that any government will restructure a board, change CEO's then allow him to (one way or another) dismiss maybe 8 senior managers?

Meanwhile the hamster wheel does another lap.

Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!

I wonder if the CEO will be caught up in the responsibilities of a Director in a Government Qango, surely if it were a Company he would and thus he would be in a much more exacting position re: Governance.


Will this pull him into line ?

Again in English please? :confused:

Unfortunately, CAsA is a stat authority not a company, so not subject to Corps Act. So it's not a real Board, and he's not a real Director.

Pity, because Directors' responsibilities are extremely onerous, if seldom successfully enforced (due lawyers).