|
Senate to launch 2-year enquiry into CASA & GA
Welcome news. Senator Susan McDonald should be encouraged regarding her recent form towards scrutinising facets of Australian aviation.
The public submissions will make for some interesting reading (again). https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/senate-to-launch-two-year-inquiry-into-casa-and-ga |
If true and the terms of reference don’t hobble it, this could be interesting. |
|
Here we go again, the merry-go-round is being fired up now watch the little horses go up & down never actually going anywhere! |
Will this end up the same as before with every question taken away on notice, no answers provided immediately to give them time to let PR tools carefully craft their answers so as to come out looking rosy without revealing that the people in charge actually don't have a clue or even worse do and just don't give a crap?
|
Submitting a factual, well-articulated response will likely have greater influence than complaining about the regulator on a public forum. Those who have been in this game a good while should consider submitting their views on the sad state of affairs. |
Actually Ixi, those at the top of CAsA do have a clue of what evil they do, and have done. Their main worry is that maybe, just maybe ,one day it will all unravel. And the truth will out.
Trouble is most of them /the Iron Ring' /Aleck , Carmody / Gibson et al, have had what I call 'Proctological Readjustments'. an operation that swaps the mouth for the anus, so they can talk lies'n'sh*t. Which they do....in spades full.! To speed things up this "2 year enquiry" should be NOW an immediate JUDICIAL INQUIRY, with all aviation folk involved asked to supply details and docs and/or testify in person at a hearing, and let it all hang out. The buggery done by this outrageous 'agency' casa knows no bounds. And some CAsA people should be in jail. As other people have also said ..the experiment with a independent agency, without governance, Government oversight, morality or integrity as FAILED. And miserably. The destruction of a vital industry is a national scandal. In 2 years that may not be much in the way of GA left. |
Maybe start with asking if the objectives of the Flight Crew Licencing reforms as promised were met? To quote in part the undertaking given to the Govt by Casa; “Conclusion In developing the proposals CASA is not introducing a new regulatory regime, but is simply refining the existing requirements. The options, while making some changes to existing requirements, do not introduce any substantial new imposts on the aviation industry and in fact, will alleviate and simplify a significant number of current requirements.” https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...9-358947eec395 |
Some valuable submissions made thus far, get them in folks! I’m currently preparing mine.
https://www.aph.gov.au/sitecore/cont...on/Submissions |
The more submissions the better. While you can make constructive criticisms and comments for change , ie FAA regs, DONT forget to list the embuggerances inflicted on either yr operation or yourself.
And name those CAsA personnel who have been unhelpful, useless, obstructive, negligent, lacked duty of care, and in some cases downright criminal. The Oz unique trainload of reg ****e is bad enough, but there is a rotten culture right through the place and it goes right to the top. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. How right with CAsA that is. |
While I do not know the lady who is involved I have to be guided by this description of her (my bold highlight):
"Susan Eileen McDonald is an Australian politician who was elected as a Senator for Queensland at the 2019 federal election. She is a member of the Liberal National Party of Queensland and sits with the National Party in federal parliament." Having lived through the Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland, lately witnessed the "sports rorts" by the National Party Deputy leader, and experienced life in CASA under a National Party Minister, what possible good can come out of an inquiry by the National Party into the National Party? I believe she has good intentions, however she is not going to be allowed to embarrass the party or their coalition partners. I would encourage anyone with a grievance to remain well hidden for fear of them becoming a target. |
Perhaps shallow thinking Mr Approach?
Do you not wonder why a Federal LNP Parliamentarian sitting with the Nationals would call a two year inquiry into CASA and GA which, regardless of outcome, can only harm and embarrass her own Party Leader and those who preceded him right back to 1997? There is some hope this may be the real deal? One would hope this time the Deputy Prime Minister is called to account. Those who contribute to the Inquiry probably have nothing to fear. |
Originally Posted by Mr Approach
(Post 10686349)
I believe she has good intentions, however she is not going to be allowed to embarrass the party or their coalition partners. I would encourage anyone with a grievance to remain well hidden for fear of them becoming a target.
|
In 1998 The Australian Parliament introduced The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, providing a basis for, among other things, implementation of the Regulatory Framework Reform Program.
As a result of reviews of aviation regulation between 1988 and 1991, the Civil Aviation Authority began, in 1993, a program of redrafting the legislative structure of safety regulations. Since its establishment in 1995, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has continued the process of rewriting the entire safety regulations and associated advisory documentation. This process currently also reflects the Government's requirement, expressed in its policy statement Soaring into tomorrow,(1) that aviation regulations should be simple, straightforward and internationally harmonised. Within CASA, this project has been entitled the Regulatory Framework Program. The present legislative framework is being reviewed with the objective of replacing the current Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders with new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. The principles underlying the new regulations require that they: - are harmonised internationally with the US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and the European Joint Aviation Regulations (JARs) - are clear, concise and understandable - have a safety outcome approach - are enforceable - avoid over-regulation, and - are consistent with the role of CASA. This drawn out process has left me bewildered by the length of time taken and the spaghetti of regulations that have resulted. I found the original CARs/CAOs that the new system replaces (well will replace real soon) was far more concise and easy to follow. There are people here with a better grasp of the history of regulatory reform and history of regulation, perhaps submissions outlining this process and the ongoing uncertainty and impact on operators of this process would be of benefit. You can look up the CASA Annual Reports from 1999 to today and search for "Regulatory Reform Program". It is constantly referenced in the reports. I quickly extracted some bits from many of these showing the progress of the reforms to regulation that were intended to provide the industry with a set of regulations that would be: clear, concise and understandable, avoid over-regulation and have a safety outcome approach. 2000-2001 CASA has been undertaking a major programme of regulatory reform since 1996. The Regulatory Reform Programme involves comprehensively reviewing existing regulatory documentation against a set of criteria that reflect the objective of ensuring our aviation standards are appropriate, clear, concise and aligned with international practice. Under the programme,CASA is progressively consolidating the 1988 CARs and the CAOs into a single set of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) with major Parts addressing different aspects of aviation operations. CASA’s Regulatory Reform Programme has been re-focused and is on target to deliver a world standard aviation safety regulation regime. During the year the Regulatory Reform Programme was reviewed and, in consultation with industry, a target date of December 2003 was set for the rewrite of the regulations. We are well on track to achieving this goal. Over the past four years, CASA has brought a major program of regulatory reform near to completion with a comprehensive rewrite of aviation safety regulations. The reforms will underpin enhanced aviation safety with Australian standards that are clearer, more concise, unambiguous and better aligned with international practice. ... The Regulatory Reform Program, a major initiative to re-write the bulk of Australian aviation regulations, remains essentially on track for completion by December 2003. he current Regulatory Reform Program (RRP), begun in 1999, is CASA’s vehicle for achieving a quantum improvement in the quality of Australia’s civil aviation safety standards. Following a review of progress in 2001, the program was scheduled for completion on 31 December 2003.2 This timetable was based on achieving the substance of reform without an unduly protracted change process. While ambitious, the timetable was intended to address industry expectations about an end to the extra demands of consultation and to restore regulatory certainty as soon as possible.In 2003–04, six CASR Parts were made, bringing the program total to 30 out of a planned 58. Substantial progress was also made in developing regulatory packages for the remaining CASR Parts. However, it became apparent that the December 2003 deadline could not be met without sacrifi cing the quality objective and the Minister asked that CASA review the timetable. CASA is now taking whatever time is necessary to refine the remaining Parts in further consultation with the industry. It is also looking again at how closely the rules target established safety risks and will make a real difference to safety outcomes. ... CASA has been under considerable pressure, including from members of the aviation industry, to finalise the Regulatory Reform Program. I firmly believe, however, that if we are to achieve CASA’s goal of ‘safety through clarity’, the objective must be to get the rules right rather than completed quickly. As the Minister urged in his Charter Letter, we must take care not to squander the unique opportunity we have to achieve a world’s best practice regulatory system. ... CASA’s intention is that the bulk of the Regulatory Reform Program will be completed during 2004-05. Rules for the sake of rules is not an acceptable outcome of reform. It is also extremely important for the new regulatory regime to be easy to understand and work within. Complex rules without good reason are not acceptable. This means new rules need to focus on the safety outcomes we are seeking to achieve and must be developed within a simple two-tier framework of the Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. CASA is committed to completing the Regulatory Reform Program, which will provide new rules in response to industry changes. This will require continuing resource investment by CASA and the industry, but reform will enable the industry to position itself well for the future. CASA is progressively combining and updating the requirements currently set out in the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders into new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations under its regulatory reform programme Parliamentary scrutiny CASA’s operations underwent intense scrutiny by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport through its Inquiry into the Administration of CASA and Related Matters. The inquiry received 61 submissions from the aviation industry, individuals and CASA, and held public hearings for two days in July 2008. In its report the committee made a number of recommendations, including: ... bringing the regulatory reform program to a conclusion as quickly as possible Many of the aviation safety regulations have been reviewed and revised, and that process will continue into 2010–11. The Aviation White Paper presented CASA with some significant regulatory reform challenges, including a requirement to complete the reform in 2011. ‘Regulatory reform’ is partly a misnomer—we currently have an effective set of regulations in place, but we are enhancing, modernising and refining them. To date, approximately one-half of the 60 proposed CASR Parts have been made and implemented. The remaining half, however, form the core of our aviation safety regulatory program, comprising the Maintenance suite, Operational suite, and Flight Crew Licensing suite. The Sport and Recreational Aviation suite of CASRs are also yet to be finalised and implemented. 2010-2011 In 2010–11 there was particularly strong performance in advancing the regulatory reform program; continuing to implement the objectives stated in the 2009 National Aviation Policy White Paper, Flight Path to the Future, and in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010; CASA Corporate plan 2009-2012 to complete the Regulatory Reform Program in a timely manner Finalising the remainder of the CASA Regulatory Reform Program by December 2011 Result Priority was assigned to the passenger-carrying regulations, which have involved an intensive and extensive body of drafting work. The aerial work, sport and recreation, and other outstanding CASR Parts will be finalised in 2012. 2011-2012 The year covered by this report saw material progress in the delivery of the regulatory reform program CASA Corporate plan 2011-2014 Complete the Regulatory Reform Program in a timely manner 2013-2014 Developing new aviation safety regulations, taking account of best international practice and aligning Australian requirements with relevant overseas practices. Measure Working in conjunction with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) to finalise the outstanding parts of the operations regulations (by June 2014) Work will continue on the development and implementation of the regulatory reform program, which includes transitioning the governance of flying training organisations, multi-crew training, checking organisations and design organisations to the new regulations. There was a new level of communication and transparency to complete the aviation regulatory reform program. A detailed timetable covering 20 regulatory change projects to be undertaken over the next three years was published after extensive consultation with aviation representative groups and individuals from all sectors of the aviation community. The Regulatory Reform drafting, incorporating the classification of operations, a three tier structure where possible and meeting the Government’s requirements for new and amended regulations, will be completed by December 2015 Regulatory reform and progress achieved in key areas CASA’s Board is working closely with the organisation to drive a practical approach to regulation. We have set some ambitious targets for the release of all outstanding regulations, and we will meet them by working to a deadline with defined deliverables and being transparent by making the regulatory reform timeline public. We are challenging ourselves to release regulations that are reasonable and relevant. CASA will continue to focus on new regulations and instruments adhering to Commonwealth legal drafting practices and avoiding inconsistencies with other pieces of relevant legislation. Rules will continue to be prepared in accordance with a three-tier regulatory structure and using easy to understand language. CASA is committed to the remaining reform program regulations drafted for public and industry consultation by the end of 2018. Regulation reform program: Significant progress was made on CASA’s regulation reform program. CASR Part 149 – Approved Self Administering Aviation Organisations was made in July 2018. It had been hoped that completion of this Part would take place earlier in 2018, but important policy-related developments requiring additional consideration and associated drafting adjustments contributed to a longer than expected delay. Develop and commence implementation of the final tranche of regulatory reform Result: The final tranche of regulatory reform – Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Parts 91, 103, 105, 119, 121, 131, 133, 135, 138 – has commenced. Public consultation for CASR Part 91 and the Part 91 Manual of Standards was completed in May 2018. Aviation Safety Advisory Panel technical working group meetings were conducted for CASR Parts 121, 133 and 135. CASR Part 119 was discussed at each of the three working group meetings. CASR Part 149 was made in July 2018. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority structures all regulations not yet made with the three-tier approach, and subsequently reviews all other Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts (in consultation with industry) to determine if they should be remade using the three-tier structure. Agreed in Principle The Government will support appropriate regulatory reforms in the future noting that there needs to be sufficient time for CASA and industry to transition to the changes, recognising this can often take several years.Rules will continue to be prepared in accordance with a three-tier regulatory structure. Subsequent reviews of other CASR Parts will determine if they need to be remade, noting that CASA, working with industry, has set out the immediate priorities for regulatory reform. Implementation is ongoing as drafting of the remaining parts of the regulatory reform program are progressed. CASA expects all remaining parts of the regulatory reform program to be drafted by the end of 2018, noting that transition periods and final rule application may extend beyond the date of regulations being made. As of 2020 the regulations now consist of all the documents at Current rules |
Brilliant!
|
Should I laugh or cry or both over all that.? Fantasmagorical ! Talk about the Cantberra Burble ! (no typo)
PR tosh ! Arent we lucky to have so many dedicated, experience aviation bureaucrats saving us all from falling to earth, wrongly with a train load of mostly incomprehensible regulation. CAsA was presented with a Classification of Operations Policy, adopted by the Minister and the Board in 1997 and with no 'follow thru' CAsA consigned it all to the dust bin after making a few intial noises re all the exciting changes to come.. End result of all that...SFA. ! But continuing years of the great and costly saga and an avalanche of bs for yhe industry. And all the while GA sliding down the gurgler. Having had a meeting (with others) with Senator McDonald, who is a pilot from the backblocks, she is very genuine in her endeavours. We can only wish her 'safe journey' in the dirty world of politics. She has demonstrated the strength of her convictions with the floor crossing re Angel Flight, and calling for this Inquiry. Way to go yet... we can only live in hope..this may be the time... Get that submission in. More wood, the bigger the fire. |
Originally Posted by Stickshift3000
(Post 10685847)
Some valuable submissions made thus far, get them in folks! I’m currently preparing mine.
https://www.aph.gov.au/sitecore/cont...on/Submissions jonkster Please submit your post in its entirety! UTR |
UTR, the content of the submission is more important than the grammar and syntax. I think all three submissions have raised valid points.
|
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10687229)
UTR, the content of the submission is more important than the grammar and syntax. I think all three submissions have raised valid points.
CASA aren’t responsible for ASIC and while it’s a pain and nonsensical , it’s not make or break for the industry need to focus on the regulatory‘reform’ process outcomes, the lack of a mandate to promote aviation, the issues of loss of facilities and the conflict of interest that CASA have as the writer and enforcer of the rules. |
Fair points.
|
One of many threads on this matter: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...+drift+forever
|
Originally Posted by tail wheel
(Post 10687918)
One of many threads on this matter: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...+drift+forever
|
In my opinion, the correct conclusion to the review is global: If the Australian Government can’t even get something as insignificant as aviation regulation right, then how can they be entrusted with getting anything else right?
That leads us inevitably to the American privatization model and the destruction of the Westminster style public service, of which CASA is a part. I don’t think anyone can argue that CASA performance has been anything other than a regulatory disaster. |
I was involved in the commencement of the reform programme.
The primary direction from the Board at the time was to concentrate on removing unnecessary cost. Can someone post the “Byron Directive” here? |
1996 to 1998 I wrote many letters to CASA querying the definition and seeking a determination of 'scheduled services'. Leroy Keith, then CASA Director, told me around 1998 that CASA recognized the deficiencies of CAR206 and it would be "rectified in months".
Aviation Journalist Paul Phelan wrote in an Australian Aviation article dated around April or May 1999: Uzu Air's general manager wrote 13 letters to CASA and its predecessors, seeking clarification of the anomalies surrounding the carriage of individual paying passengers at fixed fares on subsidised remote area mail service flights. None were answered, and a CASA officer later told Uzu: "Officially they don't exist." |
Dick.....
See A twenty-five year disgrace | Pro Aviation And Sunny.... If the Australian Government can’t even get something as insignificant as aviation regulation right, then how can they be entrusted with getting anything else right? |
A couple more well articulated submissions:
https://www.aph.gov.au/sitecore/cont...on/Submissions |
A few more submissions at the above link.
No doubt more to follow. |
It's an interesting experience, testifying before a parliamentary committee. To anyone thinking of testifying, by all means do so. But first, carefully read the terms of reference, and address each in turn. Carefully read the guidelines. Do not use emotive language, just be factual. If called upon to testify, wear a nice suit, be highly respectful of the committee, don't get off the point, and keep the message simple and relevant. Prepare, prepare, and prepare; have facts to hand. If relevant, include factual comparisons with other counties. Cite your sources. Carefully check your submission for grammar, spelling, typos, presentation. Write a short summary of your points, and bring it with you. Give copies to the committee members. Thank them for the opportunity to testify.
I don't think an anonymous submission has as much impact as one that is signed. Remember: you want to be taken seriously. The committee wants to hear from responsible citizens. |
Originally Posted by cooperplace
(Post 10714576)
It's an interesting experience, testifying before a parliamentary committee ...
|
Originally Posted by triton140
(Post 10715443)
Interesting is hardly the word! Having spent two 3-hour sessions being grilled by a Senate committee, it is a gruelling experience. But as cooperplace says, facts and preparation are critical - also follow guidelines, there are traps for the unwary!
|
Coronavirus concerns will torpedo this review.
|
The Chairperson is now in hospital with the virus. I wouldn’t expect any hearings of the Committee any time soon.
Apparently the Parliament is still going to sit next week. Dopey. |
Enough Lead Balloon
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10716528)
The Chairperson is now in hospital with the virus. I wouldn’t expect any hearings of the Committee any time soon.
Apparently the Parliament is still going to sit next week. Dopey. |
Errrm, precisely whom am I bashing?
Do you expect the Committee to have a hearing soon? If so, when? Do you think it’s a good idea that all Federal parliamentarians get together in the same room next week? There’s more than a hundred of them. (Correction: I think they’ve agreed to ‘pair’ it down to 90. Still a risk.) |
LB:
Do you think it’s a good idea that all Federal parliamentarians get together in the same room next week? There’s more than a hundred of them. |
ENOUGH SUNFISH: STOP THE BASHING
|
Senoir management of CAsA wouldnt have the testicular fortitude to show up...especially now the word is out Carbody is doing a runner. And good riddance I say.
Unfortunately our present viral impasse has overtaken everything else ...so if GA was of no interest before it sure as hell aint now. Just wish our Sen. McDonald a speedy recovery and ongoing good health for the trial ahead...its no easy game in Parliament or Party to stick yr head up and rattle a chain with an Inquiry... especially one relating to CAsA. and how its buggered an industry. Makes all the Miniscules look negligent...as they have been. Been able to shrug off many past inquiriies has CAsA, and with the useless CEOs, non functioning Boreds, and a corrupt management, we now have what we have. A national disgrace. |
I just spent 20 minutes reading a bit of the CASA MOS about maintenance organisations.
My experience suggests that when maintenance and training schools close or go bankrupt due to Coronavirus, they will never reopen. The reason is that while it was possible for a business that is a going concern to invest in the huge amount of documentation and extra staff to meet the CASA requirements for something like part 145, I don’t think a greenfield startup, say a couple of enterprising LAMES in a disused hangar, have a hope in hell of satisfying the administrative requirements, let alone having the funds to hire anyone who does, let alone pay for CASA evaluation. When they go, they’re gone. They can’t be replaced. I speak as someone who ran a business during the last recession, for a while. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:49. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.