“Safety of Air Navigation as the Most Important Consideration” - Mark Skidmore
 

I realise this is probably discussed in some other thread, but I can’t find it at the moment.

CASA Director, Mark Skidmore, has made it clear that he is going to follow the Australian Government’s policy of giving primacy to safety as the “first principle” where he states in the recent CASA Briefing (January 2015) that he regards “the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration”.

Many will know that for over twenty years I have objected to this as it’s simply not possible.

The most important consideration over what?

If it means the most important consideration over cost, the only person flying will be James Packer – and he wouldn’t even be able to afford to do so. I have asked a number of Ministers for Transport to change that part of the Act so it says words to the effect, “the most important considerations being safety and participation levels in aviation”. Of course, the bureaucrats have stopped this at every move. You wouldn’t want to actually reflect in the Act what happens in practice, would you?

Remember, the Act states quite clearly the most important consideration is safety - then refers briefly to the environment - thereby allowing the bureaucrats to stop any harmonisation with lower cost, internationally-proven rules.

One thing I have found with my two terms in Canberra was the total lack of ethics and the dishonesty in the system. Yes, the bureaucrats know that if the most important consideration was just safety, no-one would be flying. However, they insist the wording stays so it can be used to stop any real reform that they may object to.

Hitch has made some other similar and sensible comments in The Last Minute Hitch article dated 23rd January 2015 – see here

Did you also notice the total absence of the word "accountable":

The good old affordable safety issue
Working wonders in recreational aviation.

Oz. I suppose you believe in "un affordable " safety.

To have any credibility at all on this site you should explain how un affordable safety could work.

You are correct.

Second most powerful lobby group in the USA after the NRA is the U.S. AOPA!

That's the prime reason GA is so much better off their!

Unaffordable safety is less safe than affordable safety because when it's unaffordable it doesn't necessarily stop the activity. "Methods" are found to restore affordability.

Wish you and Boyd had had more success in taking over the useless CASA fawning Aussie AOPA mob we have here today.

I don't think it would matter who was at the helm of AOPA Australia, trying to get pilots in Australia to work together is like trying to herd cats. I am forever reminded of this scene in Monty Python's "The Life Of Brian" when it comes to aviation.....from about 3.25 on

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDVsprWRCQ

Credibility on an anonymous web site....that's what been missing in my life.

What is your concept of unaffordable safety DS? Then I will tell you if I believe in it. What I don't believe in is pilots who take up the airwaves complaining about their belief the red carpet should be rolled out for them.

And my comments on RA are not my own, they come from a report that DR Rob Lee had a bit to do with.

That's just the point. I don't have a concept of un affordable safety as there is no such thing.

Safety has always been limited by what those paying for it can afford.

It is just a fact of life. Its a pity you and a few others don't appear to understand this.

I don't know what ozbiggles does in aviation but he seems to be one of the blue elephant paper brigade.
you meet them everywhere.
they don't show any real engineering sense, couldn't give you an estimation of the flight loads in a component but believe that by following the rules and carrying insurance they can engage in the stupidest of practises with impunity.
you know ....leave little squares of blue paper everywhere and the elephants will stay away.

I think what sticks in the throats of the CAsA bods is that deep down they know that Dick Smith is correct.
If you want actually safe aviation then that can only be achieved with responsible people applying actual engineering understanding to the challenge of flying machines through the air.

Engineering understanding is an enormous black hole in aviation.
If you look at the homebuilding environment just about all the stupidity can be seen to arise from a lack of any fundamental engineering understanding.

"Certification" actually works to prevent competent aviation.
it locks knowledge away from the participants and confines it to selected authorised persons who then find that they can't make a go of the industry and it all dies.

maintaining an environment of "Certification" and the small cadre of "authorised persons" is the empire at the heart of CAsA. what a sad empire it all is. all it ever seems to achieve is a less and less viable industry.

If a person actually applies engineering nouse to flying an aeroplane, but doesn't follow the blue paper route with reams of "auditable documentation" then despite them aviating safely they face threats of years in prison. an absurd situation.

The aviation regulations in Australia have at their heart some really stupid concepts.
From where I sit in aviation, and with 42 years between where I am now and when I started, the rules and regulations are getting stupider and stupider because the fundamental errors at the heart of CAsA's world view have never been corrected.

To paraphrase the welshman. 'If I wanted to get to where you wanted to go I wouldn't start from here.'
CAsA, if you want to achieve safe aviation you won't achieve it the way you are going.

Dick Smith is human. undoubtedly he has made mistakes or had things he has said taken out of context, or misunderstood. but Dick Smith is correct in saying that this isn't the way to safely approach or regulate aviation.

you're as thick as two short planks at times Australia.

Air Vice Mashall (retired) Mark Skidmore hasn't impressed me one iota so far.

W8

Agree with you Dick, Mark Skidmore might just have ruled a line under his skill level.

Why does it even need to be stated by a Safety Authority?
Do they all have to run around with a piece of wool tied round a finger to remember?

This is a parallel to the Corporate world where companies spend a quarter of a million on Vision and Mission Statements, bolt them on to the office wall and forget all about them.

Maybe the problem starts with the name.

If you have a Civil Aviation Safety Authority, where is the Civil Aviation Operating and Development Authority?

Yes that actually is the issue. CASA are trying to control EVERYTHING in aviation rather than administering aviation.

It's utterly ridiculous that an aircraft can get a type certificate from the FAA then CASA wants you to 'prove' everything again, or pay more money to get an approval for this or that. Either it is has been tested and shown to work or it hasn't.

It's no wonder that basically every Biz Jet in Australia is N registered, you just buy the thing, do the training for the crew and you're on your way.
VH register it and you need a host approvals for things that come standard with the aircraft!!:ugh:

I think it was back in the 1970's when DCA bought a couple of Merlin twin engine turbo-props. I vaguely recall DCA wasn't satisfied with the FAA type certification of the Merlin and decided to undertake some landing trials using two of the DCA Flying Unit pilots. Neither were qualified test pilots. The end result was a Merlin on its guts at Wagga following a very heavy landing. :=

Folks,
It was not a matter of Australia not being satisfied with FAA (or any other) certification, we had our own certification rules, and every new type had to meet those rules, which often resulted in very expensive modifications, as well as the expense of "test flying" every new type.

The damage to the Merlin was extensive, with the main gear almost driven up through the wings, both engines almost broken out of their severely damaged mounts, plus an instant "droop snoot" nose ( fuselage buckled at the forward windscreen pillars, and buckled/torn/ruptured plating in the nose gear well).

That is why, in 1996, the first Howard Government set out to repeal all the Australian unique certification rules, and adopt the FAA rules for certification, but CASA have managed to subvert that intention, and have virtually re-created "first of type" certification.

One of the most stupid argument, that still comes up amongst some of the "iron ring" is that NOT having our own unique standards is "surrendering sovereignty", or, put another way, we should NOT have the same design standards as other countries, but maintain different standards for the sake of being different (and creating a lot of CASA jobs that the industry has to pay for).

For years, Australia maintained takeoff calculation methods that severely handicapped Australian carriers, mostly Qantas, compared to other carriers. By 1997, there had never been an incident where the "unique Australian rule" would have prevented the incident, and there has not been, since, but the hard core CASA battle tooth and nail to maintain this unique "standard".

Wrecking the Merlin (my memory says Mangalore) was not because the pilots were not "test pilots", it was because the aircraft was being flown to "Australian standards". In this case, the "standard" required a approx. 3 degree approach, stable at Vref, at 50 feet, close the throttles and maintain the attitude - no flare. As any of you who have flown Metro or Merlin (or many other aircraft) will know, a heavy landing is almost guaranteed under those circumstances.

A number of aircraft were wrecked "test flying to Australian standards". To this day a lovely little flying boat, a Riviera if my memory serves me correctly, lies at the bottom of Pittwater, thanks to the same damned fool nonsense as wrecked the Merlin.

Tootle pip!!

The Demise Of Aviation Industry In Australia Is Now A Lot Closer.
 

Skidmore has just proclaimed himself to be a fellow traveller who won't make waves or attempt to change the course of Aviation regulation in Australia. That can only be bad for the entire industry from Qantas all the way downwards for reasons I will explain below. Dick Smith is also right about the "affordable safety" although the use of that term is unfortunate. I will explain that as well.

Lets start with the Senate report; that catalogued the failures of aviation regulation and made the most serious charge possible against a public service anywhere of any kind: - a total lack of trust of the regulator by the industry, in other words a breakdown of any constructive relationship between regulator and regulated. Additional to this is the breakdown of trust with CASA's partners Air Services Australia and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who are joined by memorandums of understanding to CASA and cooperate in its malfeasance, as evidenced by the disgraceful ATSB report into the ditching of the Pel AIr aircraft.

In addition, thanks to Karen Caseys law suit, we now find that there appears to be a web of corruption involving political donations by Pel AIrs owners to political parties who then lent upon CASA and ATSB. This has all the features of what is termed Crony Capitalism - you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

The characteristic of Crony Capitalism is that rules are bent to suit your mates and the legislative preamble of the Aviation Act: "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents" is what facilitates this because "safety" is a nominative, it can mean anything you like it to mean. It is this sentence that facilitates the entirety of CASAs bastardisation of Australian Aviation - CASA is always chasing "safety" a willow the whisp which means that what CASA calls unsafe practices for one pilot or operator are perfectly reasonable for another.

The impact of Crony Capitalism is that investment in the industry diminishes since no investor can secure himself against sovereign risk - that the regulator is going to take agin you for some reason and destroy your investment and capital, as CASA has demonstrably done time and again. Lack of investment means lack of jobs and growth in the industry and overall, Australia suffers. Mark Skidmore has, by his own words, refused to redefine "safety" in practical terms and will thus allow the bastardisation and embuggerance of the industry to continue on his watch, no matter what his no doubt good intentions may be.

Dick Smith is right about "affordable safety" but seems to not understand what this means in practical terms, and the spineless jellyfish in ATSB who could have been the enablers in such a process are silent. The practical name for achieving "Safety" is "risk management". This discipline is at least Forty years old, I was taught it on my first job with an oil company. It involves the quantification of risk and the cost of accidents, followed by a determination of what it would cost to mitigate the risk followed by a straightforward cost benefit analysis.

Risk management is not rocket science, it is well understood. It is the basis for rule making by other regulators (notably the FAA). The ATSB can produce most of the statistics for its implementation off the top of its head and the industry has the rest. What it does require is for a Government to decide what an acceptable level of risk is for various classes of Aviation: "One in a Million"? "One in Twenty million"? Again there are international metrics for this stuff to guide us and most of the world, except Australia, benchmarks their aviation sectors against these metrics every year. Just redefine "Safety" in the preamble of the Act and everything else Dick Smith requires will follow.

However it now appears certain that nobody in Government on either side of politics has the guts to become accountable for anything, let alone aviation safety, and this provides a perfect opportunity for the parasites that are CASA, ATSB and AsA and their corrupt business partners to milk what is left of the industry for all they are worth to satisfy their bloated egos, lust for power and of course the money.

Need I add that the final outcome of this situation is to make the industry as a whole much less safe and ultimately lead to a series of catastrophic accidents?

Sunfish "Skidmore has just proclaimed himself to be a fellow traveller who won't make waves or attempt to change the course of Aviation regulation in Australia"

My heart sank when I read CASA's latest news letter. No new broom here!

And if memory serves me correctly, another on it's guts at Mt Hagen, courtesy of the then Director?

From an HS125 to a Cessna 185, I don't think there is much DCA/CAA/CASA haven't pranged over the years. The fact CASA no longer have a Flying Unit, is probably a large plus for Australian air safety.

Seems there is a lot being read into Mark Skidmore's, to me, quite reasonable-sounding words, to somehow twist it into a statement of his intention to do nothing!

Struth! Imagine having a regulator that aims to prevent accidents.

Presumably increased communication and consistency, reduced cost and complexity, I think it's fair to assume, although some will no doubt say the opposite.


One would almost hazard to suggest he has listened to complaints and wants his organisation to act to address them.

I could go on, but we can all read and interpret his words as we see fit.

I think saying he will require his staff to apply those guiding principles counts as a statement of intent to make them accountable, which at least is a start. He didn't use the words 'pineapple' or 'wheelbarrow' either, I note, which is quite telling.

How on Earth do you draw that conclusion from his statement? The level of negativity on display in this thread is bordering on unbelievable.

If you don't like what these guys do, fair enough, but there are two serious options available to you:

a) fight them tooth and nail until you bring them down, then replace the whole shooting match with something else (and presumably then whinge about that too), or

b) put prejudice aside and try to work within the system, whilst constructively pushing for change where it's warranted.

The Port Moresby Gliding Club.
 

Who can forget this;

A group of young enthusiasts
Met at a local pub
To talk about a common love
The Port Moresby Gliding Club.

Their membership was very low
The running costs were high,
They needed some dramatic act
To catch the public's eye.

"I've got a good idea" said one
"Been planning it all day,
I'll try it out tomorrow
When coming back from Lae."

The flight to Lae was wonderful
The aircraft right on track,
They had no reason to suspect
The drama coming back.

Their business done, they climbed aboard
One had a bulging bilum
The Captain chuckled to himself,
"The last ten miles will thrill 'em".

This trick will have no impact
If I fill her up with fuel,
I'll take enough for top of climb
And glide in from Mount Yule.

They flew along as smooth as silk
With not a single jolt,
But as they got to Galley Reach
Both donks groaned to a halt.

The Captain said "Thank Christ they've stopped
They make a dreadful din,
I'll now complete this exercise
And glide the begger in."

A glider is a lovely thing
You see them everywhere,
Some metal, others wood and glue
But never a KingAir!

With noses flat against the glass
The victims watched in horror,
And none of them had any doubt
They'd all be dead tomorra.

He held her on the centre line
He called the tower and said,
"For Christ's sake make me number one
I'm landing straight ahead."

He put it down right on the keys
and made sure he was clear,
Then smilingly he turned and said,
"I think we need a beer."

The Aero Club looks very nice
Looks like its just been painted,
But there was no-one to answer him
The bloody lot had fainted!

Wes turned and looked him in the eye
He said "Thank Christ that's ended!
It really won't surprise me
If your licence is suspended!

Those passengers we've got on board
Look like they're in a trance,
But now you must excuse me
'Cos I think I've shat my pants!"

When Joe Wal heard it on the 'phone
His hands flew to his head,
His eyes stood out like organ stops
"Damn me" was all he said.

But when heard the details
Of this history making flight,
His eyes lit up with interest
And he thought of it all night.

For Joe has always longed to fly
Although it made him dizzy,
But this bloke here could show him how
On days he wasn't busy.

So Joe signed up on the spot
They headed for the pub,
Now Joe's the latest member
Of the Moresby Gliding Club.

Sir Julius picked up his 'phone and heard
A voice known far and wide,
"This Grumman that arrives next month
- I wonder how that glides?"