Surely someone does due diligence on the job before accepting it? That's the nature of the task and you should be fully aware of the issues industry has with CASA from the outset. Presumably Pip Spence knew what she was getting into?

One would think so. But in the alien universe of Cantbeera, for bureaurats its all about moving up the food chain level for a bigger ice cream cone. Don’t have to know JS about or had any experience in Aviation, think of the remuneration.

Legislation problem
 

Going back to what might cure the CASA disaster, AOTW is of course correct to call for reforms as points 1. and 2. but unfortunately a 34 year history of worse and worse is proof that the model of an independent Commonwealth corporate instead of Department with responsible Minister at its head cannot work. The Westminster system is a system of government that has stood the test of time. If someone can show a better model then fine let’s see it. Not to say we can’t improve but the only sensible way forward is to grow from what we know works.

Surely it’s abundantly clear by now that lack of political direction and a free for all CASA make work program, complete with a catch all ‘safety above all’ excuse for the most stupendous, complex and unworkable rules can’t be changed from within. Too much money in salaries for one thing and the vague Statement of Expectations as an almost useless document of guidance.

Yes, Sandy, it certainly has not worked. I just wonder even if there was a direct minister / department setup, they'd be capable of digging into the veils of secrecy and bull**** to properly purge the place and set up something that works. Seems like any time an enquiry or controversy comes along, there's a lot of talk and then it just goes back to ops normal. That's why I think a tenacious informed director who won't accept being lied to is a must. Don't know if such a person exists though.

Expectations
 

It’s very important for us to have a common and principal request to government, that is, that we ask government to assume control of the administration of Australia’s aviation regulation.

We must have ‘expectations’ of a far improved system and it’s only through a Minister with a Department can this happen. To make that happen there will have to be an Act of Parliament.

Talk of some super hero who takes charge of CASA, changes the ‘culture,’ and makes the sweeping changes that we all wish to see is wishful thinking.

The only way to change ‘culture,’ whatever that means to different people, is to change the rules. As the old adage has it, grab them…handcuffs?.. and their hearts and minds will follow. You don’t go along to to any bureaucracy and say “please be nice” and think all will be well. The settings of power through our democratic institutions have taken a few hundred years to evolve and we’ve nothing better to date, this is a learned system that works by accounting for human nature.

We have to work at it. My thinking is we need to engage, to a much greater degree, with our MPs who are paid to represent us, the constituents. Ask them questions such as do you support reform for General Aviation? Protest at unreasonable medical examination requirements, etc. I speak to mine whenever presented with an opportunity and write reasonably often.

What would change in the Act, though? Section 9A already requires consideration of economic impact etc, and is (rightly in my view) subject to the requirement that safety of air navigation is the most important aspect. I doubt you'd get that written much differently no matter who was pushing the agenda.

The real problem is getting those broad statements of intent, which are really what law is as far as I can tell, translated into stuff that really works for the aviating public and industry. By all means, if a minister can make that happen, bring it on, but I can't see it happening when no minister can really be expected to give too much attention to anything that's not going to directly keep them and their party in the job.

That's why I talk about someone closer to the coal face with integrity being needed (and I use the term somewhat loosely of course seeing as they're not really down in the weeds). I reckon Mark Skidmore should have been way more publicly vocal and active. None of the others in recent times have had the background or inclination to do anything of value, but rather have been content to take the money and talk themselves up.

AOTW: Imagine the State X highway patrol was given the function of setting clear and concise road transport safety standards and given the power to set the speed limit. A section of the legislation creating this hypothetical highway patrol says that in performing its functions and exercising its powers: “The safety of road transport is the most important consideration.”

What would you expect to happen to speed limits?

The legislature in this hypothetical wakes up one day and decides it is concerned that ever-reducing speed limits are having an effect that is disproportionate to the reduction in the road toll. As a solution, the legislature changes the State X highway patrol Act so that the economic consequences of the transport safety standards set by the highway patrol, and the speed limits it sets, are a relevant consideration. But the safety of road transport remains the most important consideration.

What do you really believe the State X highway patrol will do differently? How is it that you think the State X highway patrol will measure the economic consequences of the reduced speed limits it sets and then decide whether those consequences are or are not worth paying in order to avoid a road death?

Standards enforcement is a regulatory process.

Standards setting is a political process: How much is society willing to pay in order to mitigate a risk? Although pollies would prefer to avoid responsibility for those decisions, by abdicating them to ‘someone else’, the outcome is an inexorable trend in only one direction. (That’s why the pollies eventually had little choice but to take back responsibility, from medical bureaucrats, the abdicated responsibility for the various ‘lockdown’ and isolation restrictions for Covid 19. The medical bureaucracy would be happy to dictate our living and travel arrangements and vaccinations indefinitely, in “the interests of medical safety”.)

The current Civil Aviation Act makes CASA responsible for political decisions that it is not competent to make, taking into consideration costs it is not competent to measure. That’s one of the primary reasons for the complex, convoluted and ever-growing dog’s breakfast of aviation regulations imposed in Australia.

Changing the legislation is part of the solution to the problem (assuming it to be a problem). Standards setting and speed limit decisions shouldn’t be CASA’s to make in the first place. The opinions of the regulator (assuming it has the technical competence) should be merely one consideration in those decisions.

I get your drift, Clinton. It would certainly be far better if CASA didn't effectively have the power to set standards and limits as they do now, even though the Governor General signs the CASRs into law and they are tabled in parliament, if I understand correctly.

That's where a big part of the problem lies - every lawmaker knows about speed limits and road rules, but very few of them would have a clue about the ramifications of various parts of CASRs. They just get waved in front of politicians' faces and accepted without a whimper, as far as I know.

If CASA wasn't the standard setter, wouldn't you have to create some other so-called expert body to do that part, thereby creating even more bureacracy and red tape? I fully agree CASA is dysfunctional, and taking the standard setting role away from it makes great sense in that context, but who then drafts the rules and confirms they are fit for purpose? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's as straighforward as road rules.

AOTW, its perfectly straight forward. Whoever writes the rules doesn't get to investigate apparent breaches, apply administrative penalties or recommend prosecution. At present CASA is judge, jury and executioner rolled into one. That must stop.
BTW there is also the question of rewriting the rules in plain English for example:

Quote:

---

ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 72

---

how CASA would write this:

ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 72

Giving way at an intersection (except a T‑intersection or roundabout)

(1) A driver of a vehicle must not enter or cross an intersection unless in accordance with clause (a) to (b).

(a) there are no traffic lights, and,

(i)) there are no stop signs, or

(ii) there are no stop lines, or

(iii) there are no give way signs, or

(iv) there are no give way lines, and

(v) there are no vehicles on the drivers right hand that would be required to alter speed or alter course to avoid the drivers vehicle.

(b) There are traffic lights and the appropriate traffic light is:

(i) Not red, or

(ii) Not yellow.
Penalty 50 penalty units.

An offence under this regulation is an offence of strict liability.

For the definition of an intersection see MOS page 4527

Part of the "problem" is that CASA is really CARA as it applies to regulation and not safety. I am advised that many organisations that have safety in their name actually do not promote safety.
Those of us that have been around for a while know that the regs etc are written to keep the AG's dept happy and in their required format regardless of the practicability of same. You would think that the phrase about strict liability could be covered off in some over riding introduction(?) and not take up space multiple times thru the body of the document.

triadic said:The notes at least should all be removed.

Drafting Direction No. 3.5 of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel says, with my underlining:One wonders how long it will take before the drafting brains trust finally also concedes that it’s not legally necessary to put a penalty at the foot of each and every offence provision that has the same penalty.

AOTW said:More should do their job and get a clue. Much damage is done behind the smokescreen created by the ‘mystique of aviation’.