CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration
 

As we all know, the Civil Aviation Act clearly states that safety is a more important consideration than cost.

Over two decades ago I was involved in the start of the regulatory reform process to remove every unnecessary cost, however the wording of the Act contributed to this morphing into regulations that are some of the most expensive in the world with which to comply.

I recently re-read my address to the Royal Aeronautical Society (see here) in relation to an aviation safety rating.

Perhaps someone who works for CASA at the present time can contribute with a post in relation to this address. Do they agree with it, or do they believe that fundamental changes have taken place because of the statement “CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” so that my address is no longer accurate?

It is interesting – a copy of my address was given to all of the major media outlets at the time and created no controversy at all. I look forward to some healthy discussion.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/623654-civil-aviation-act-change-good-bad.htm

havent we been here before?

in other words, dick smith doesn’t believe safety is the most important consideration when it comes to aviation safety

What I “believe” is not the issue here.

Its a “ fact” that often the most important consideration is cost!

So why do the people in Canberra insist that the wording remains?

Glad to hear that you think "belief" is not the issue, but ironically, that's precisely the issue.
Over a career beginning in 1985 I've been fortunate enough to witness the changes that have taken place firsthand since the old days of the CAA.
In brief, your issue with the CAA at the time was that it was run by ex-RAAF pilots and that it was extremely conservative, which limited any real progress in the aviation industry. Like most others, the idea of user pays seemed like a good idea at the time, and it's only in hindsight that we can see how that concept was engineered to increase the bureaucracy and costs, while further restricting real progress.

After many years of contemplation, the best guiding principle to be found is the RAAF definition of Airmanship - The Safe and Efficient Operation of an Aircraft, both on the ground and in the air." Nice and simple, or so I thought…

Upon further consideration, it was realized that Safety and Efficiency were intentionally given equal priority, and the reason for that had to be because both are mutually beneficial. Logically, since we live in a finite world, with finite resources available to us, such as money, materials, time, energy, awareness, and patience, if any of them are wasted efficiency would be compromised, and if efficiency was compromised too much we’d eventually run out of a precious resource just when we needed it most – in an emergency. Therefore, it was deduced that for safety to be optimized, efficiency had to be optimized as well otherwise we’d be liable to waste energy and time doing things that did not demonstrably contribute to either.

This made it apparent that safety and efficiency must be balanced perfectly in order to ensure both are optimized. Wastage of anything, which can be simply described as “too much” of something, always produces an imbalance, which ends up destroying whatever it’s intended to produce. There are many other complicated academic safety theories but none work in practice without enormous additional resources being wasted. Ironically, knowing how to fly in balance without reference to instruments was a critical aspect of knowing how to “straighten up and fly right”, as old pilots used to say.

To further emphasize the importance of this point, consider some examples. If safety was emphasized too much, efficiency would be compromised, which would cost us more money and time, which would then ultimately compromise safety when money and time became short. Conversely, if efficiency was prioritized too much we’d be inviting an accident which would compromise both safety and efficiency as resources were wasted dealing with the ensuing drama.

Consequently, it should be apparent that safety must be balanced with efficiency by operators and regulators because we live in the real world, where belief is accepted as truth, and truth is distorted to suit an individual's belief. To answer your question though, it's obvious why CASA would insist that wording remains. Because safety is subjective - open to emotive belief, which allows a far greater scope for perpetuating the "belief system" that safety has become.

So the “ belief system” is sort of like a cult and members must comply or be removed?

You could call it a cult, or a religion in the literal definition of the word. Re-lig-ion means to repeat - to bind - the action of. The action of binding repeatedly to a doctrine, which is also known as a belief system. A belief system can also be a dogma if it's strictly applied and intolerant of questioning. That's why some "members" become alienated for expressing views that dare to reveal potentially fatal flaws in the story.

Car RAMROD, classic example of passive aggressiveness in a nasty uncalled for attack on Dick Smith.

CASA in its name it has "Safety" which is pure propaganda,
Its the public service for the Administration of Civilian Aviation
When I hear CASA, its similar to the word vomit.

Australia is one of the worst places in the world to be in aviation.
CASA's mad world is full of deception and fraud.
Take its part 61 and part 141, its an illusion of being parallel
to the FAA part 61 and part 141 which it is not.

CASA have ratings for items that don't even rate a log book endorsement in other countries.

Take a look at the licence conversion, US or Canadian licences or medicals are not recognized,
you need another flight test, another medical that avoids the use of common sense.

Then there are CASA's obscene medical requirements that are in excess of requirements
overseas, which are designed to be financially impossible as you get older.

CASA does indirectly was is prohibited directly.

Then there is their Telephone answering service.
"An Officer" blah blah blah...
Who the hell do they think they are? The @#$!! Police ?

They are not "officers" by any means. They are public servants.
Then there is the "penalty units" meaning they intend increasing the dollars
with a change in legislation because they raise their fees because they are
endlessly eliminating aviation business in Australia.

Enough to turn you off operating any aviation business
while CASA increasingly increase legislation and operating costs.

We can only expect more bad news come September when another
session of CASA propaganda will launch.

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"..................

Just sayin'.......

Didn't believe it then......Don't believe it now.....

Don’t believe it
 

True, only the gullible and uninformed, or perhaps those just ignorant through lack of deep interest, could possibly believe that sincerity of intention was behind such ad nauseum public relations pronouncements from such a completely discredited organisation.

Such statements about any intentions for real reforms in the aviation regulatory environment go to either the arrogance within the leadership of CASA, or an almost total, and unforgivable, lack of knowledge about the numerous previous statements, from 1989, all with exactly the same elements. Charitably one would opt for the latter explanation, but which ever way the disaster is viewed, the conclusion must be the same, finally Parliament is responsible.

Parliament abrogated it’s responsibility back in 1988 by creating an independent Commonwealth corporation to regulate and administer public policy for aviation. This muddle headed and experimental concept is based on the notion of governance by experts who are above politics and who will altruistically only govern in the best interests of the Nation, without personal ambition at the lowest cost in terms of their salaries and cost burdens to the aviation industry.

Similarly in 2009 the then Minister Anthony Albanese in his reading speech justified removing the ATSB out of his Ministerial responsibility because it’s functions should be “above politics.” This is one example, don’t worry, both sides of politics are guilty of this pernicious stupidity which runs against the democratic principle of representative government.

Until a Minister and Parliament resume authority, to make real and permanent reforms to grow aviation jobs, businesses and services throughout Australia, there’ll be no progress because the current model of governance will not work It is not because it is ‘broke,’ it was never fit for purpose in the first place.

One more muddled concept; User Pays.

The obvious purpose of public policy and administration by government is for the benefit, including the protection and prosperity, of all citizens. So who is the ‘user’?

Consider that if the business of General Aviation (GA) of the 70s and 80s had been allowed to grow in line with our prosperity and population increase, GA could easily have been twice it’s present size.

The money multiplier generated by a free enterprise aviation industry, unhampered by the extraordinary shackles (counterproductive to safety) constructed by the out of control regulator and rubber stamped by government, would far outweigh the permit fees being gouged by CASA, the monopoly provider of permissions. Not to mention CASA have invented numerous new ‘permissions’ to which are attached time wasting performances, unnecessary paperwork and swinging fees.

Ring write contact your Parliamentary representatives regularly requesting FAA regulations and Ministerial regulation of aviation through a Department of Government.

To fly is not a State given privilege but the right of a free citizen to pursue happiness, to live life.

Well said Sandy!

Sandy. You are correct! Especially when you compared the general population growth with the negative growth of Australian GA.

All very sad.