Who benefited from the Forsyth Review?
 

It’s now 7 years since the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (Forsyth Review).

It made a number of recommendations and I’m wondering if anyone has any views in relation to who benefited (in the airline sector or general aviation) from the recommendations and the action that was taken – or not taken.

My presentation to the Forsyth Review was in relation to the Civil Aviation Act, particularly how the phrase “CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” results in the industry being destroyed. It is simply not possible in all cases to put the interests of safety in front of cost.

It is needless to say that none of my submission found its way into the Forsyth Review.

David Forsyth later mentioned to me that he was told by the Department that he was not to look at “the economic side of aviation” and he considered my views impinged on that restriction.

Dick, It was a total whitewash to cover up/justify CASA's actions and agendas. Why would you have expected any other result? Particularly as you have inside knowledge of the Aviation Halls of Doom.

Safety is always the first objective in aviation, it's the foundation of everything we do. After that comes efficiency etc. ICAO homepage puts safety as the first objective:

https://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx

That being said, everytime a change is made, people are looking at the lowest (cheapest) possible solution, and start there.... then upgrade it until risk is eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level (there's always a risk). Once you get there you have a solution that is both safe and low cost.
Noone slaps class A airspace over everything and erects control towers at even the smallest airport if not needed... cause the safety benefit would be none and it'll be expesive as hell.

NO JMMORIC, you are absolutely flat wrong. "Safety' is an unobtainable absolute. That is the trick CASA uses to justify its existence. What you really mean is the safety of Aviation COMPARED TO OTHER RISKS WE EXPERIENCE EVERY DAY.

...And that is by definition capable of mathematical analysis, which CASA resolutely refuses to do, because such analysis, while common overseas, would expose the Australian regulatory regime as rotten, expensive and counterproductive, to the detriment of the Australian economy, real aviation safety metrics and quality of life..

DOC 10004 - first line - "Safety is a top priority in aviation".

https://www.icao.int/publications/Do...s/10004_en.pdf

Definitions:
Safety - The state in which risks associated with aviation activities, related to, or in direct support of the operation of aircraft, are reduced and controlled to an acceptable level.

There's nothing unobtainable about safety. So according to whom am I wrong? CASA or you?

DOC 10004 - second sentence (still the first line):
(Emphasis mine).

So the plan you quote NEVER, EVER achieves an obtainable goal. That seems to meet the definition of "unobtainable" to me.

There you go. Dick’s last sentences #1 says it all. How obtuse.

Bureaucrats not wanting a Review to review critical aspects of the regulatory disease that has infected and almost killed off aviation in this country.

CAsA is the sole reason why Oz is a sick shadow of the vibrant US GA and Pvt aviation scene.

As for ‘safety’ it’s a very useful word for CAsA because anything, and I mean anything, can be done and justified in the name of safety.

Eg..Angel Flight crashes The jerks in the CASA knee responses ..’to make those flights ‘safer’ had nothing to do with the accident causes.

What is the difference between CAsA and Antarctica ? Not much... CAsA is a bigger “snow job” but the glacial pace of change is quicker in Antarctica.

Thus does aviation in this country wither in the bureaucratic freeze
At a huge cost to individuals and the nation.

2c

So did the Forsyth review result in anything positive for the Australian aviation industry ?

Is the answer a resounding “NO”

What do you think Dick? This is what the man himself said about the state of aviation in Australia:

Have a look at what his expectations were about the CASA-industry relationship and then I think you can answer your own question fairly confidently but I suspect you already knew that.

Okay, fair enough... I hate the mudthrowing and right now we are. It's an undeniable fact that a 0 casualty/accident state cannot be reached, which DOC 10004 also states, but we want to minimize it.

Furthermore:
Do keep in mind the first line:
On top of that we also have a vision:
So we have a vision (the perfect unobtainable one), which covers commercial aviation, an objective and a purpose... and then still goals, targets and indicators.
Just the idea of opening the the option of establishing a goal, and not directly stating it shall be 0 casualties/accidents, is directly pointing towards we can never reach our vision.... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our hardest.

But if you really want to dive into safety management etc., then you have DOC 5863 where they are talking about "Safety risk tolerability" in 2.2.5, followed by setting up an example of a matrix etc.

https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/5863.pdf

Is the vision obtainable? No, probably not.... should we strive towards it? Yes... Do we accept some risk? Yes, but we will mitigate them to an acceptable level.

JMMoric, you are preaching to the converted. We know what the metrics are. What is acceptable is defined. The risk management tools are well known and have been available for at least 50 years. CASA doesnt use the documents or processes of which you speak.

The problem is that the Department, and its puppet CASA, refuse to use these analytics in favor of voodoo safety prescriptions to the point where nobody cares about safety any more. They just care about compliance.

To put that another way, CASA is perceived by many to just make safety shyte up.

......and whats worse, some allegedly don't even care about compliance because :

a) it is almost impossible to be compliant, and

b) compliance as nothing to do with safety any more.

I am sorry, I wasn't aware of that.

Hi Dick,

The 'short' answer to your question......(In My Humble Opinion).....

Was Mr Forsyth.. !!! .

(Eternally Grateful still..............Tks.....)

One cannot guarantee 100% safety in any industry, but you can make it as safe as reasonably practical. That is the job of safety managers and the like.

A decade or two ago, the chairman of a well-known airline asked the safety manager to guarantee that they would not have any accidents. His reply cannot be repeated here, however it showed that many board members (and other senior managers) of aviation companies have little or no knowledge of safety and how it is managed. They don't want any holes in the ground but their willingness to cover safety in their budget/s is at best sometimes not appropriate.

No it doesn't. It says:
Note, A core value, not THE core value, which means there are other equally weighty or competing values.
ICAO says their core is:
Bureaucracy is their core function. That's why they only have "Strategic Objectives" rather than actually do anything.

But surely there must have been one tiny minute change that Forsyth brought in that gave someone in the industry at least a minuscule advantage?

Or was the review a total waste of money?

Dick stop being obtuse. You know very well how the system works. Forsyth had no power or authority to actually implement change. Like the many reviews and Senate Inquiries before the Forsyth review have shown, the only authority to actually change anything is the Government of the day. Mr Forsyth issued 37 recommendations. A lot of them were about improving the CASA-industry relationship which you would be as qualified as anyone here to comment on as to whether that has changed/improved gone backwards. Just tell us what your point is.

Nailed it, LL.

For all your experience Dick, you still haven't learnt how governments 'work'.

(And as an aside, I think some in this thread are conflating the purposes of ICAO with the purposes of the Chicago Convention. The latter created the former, but goes far beyond just doing that.)