[Peetwo]

Good weather for Ducks? - 

On the subject of Ducks and industry some references...  

The shoving of ducks, thereof.

TB – “I often ponder what and who was the catalyst that set in train the shift in CAsA from being a service provider to the authoritative pseudo policing force it has become today. There is also the question of why?”

That is a question the wise owls and I may add, some of the CASA ‘white hats’ (those left standing) have been pondering for a long while now.

TB – “I have been told the catalyst that turned CAsA’s attention inwards was the change in the law that took away their immunity from prosecution meaning that the entity of CAsA or anyone employed by them could be sued, collectively or individually. That must have been a terrifying prospect for any public servant where any advice or collaboration with industry could risk them being hauled before a court.”

Gee Whizz – that is a well supported point of view. Many of the BRB ‘wise owls’ advocate that a removal of discretion from the rules would support the removal of CASA liability. I know: that is a very simplistic (nutshell) description of the solution; but in principal that seems to be ‘the solution’. Except:-

The notion of bringing in the ‘CASA’ hole in the Swiss cheese seems to have been ‘corrupted’ and utilised as an excuse to form a service to industry into an untouchable ‘power base’. One which will not, nor cannot be challenged. From this philosophy endless power and a bottomless pit of public money has, progressively, been given with CASA able to manipulate the system into the unchecked, unbalanced monstrosity we see today. This is bad enough; but to put the final nail in the coffin – opposites don’t attract in this case. The selective process used to ensure the ‘right stuff’ is hired has aided and abetted ‘the system’. Some first class folk have ‘signed on’ to the CASA pay list, only to leave within a short time – returned to industry. I’ve always believed that it is those people who should be chatting with the Senate committee; through immunity and any ‘confidentiality’ agreement ‘waived’. For the truth of it is, that those not ‘happy’ in the service of CASA are those who should be talked to – those who simply could not stick it. Then again, we all know how whistle-blowers wind up.

The obsession with hiring ‘law enforcement’ types rather than ‘operational’ types further supports the notion that the protection of CASA from liability or responsibility is the foremost reason for a ‘private’ police force. Nothing wrong with Coppers – but – they think differently: there is a rule – there is a breach – handing over to the legal eagles, with evidence – next task. End of. It is a lot easier for them with ‘strict liability’ and about a hundred way to Christmas for every sentence of ‘the rules’ to be broken – unintentionally – but that don’t signify. Legal at 100 KpH – in breach at 101 KpH. Fish, barrel and shooting – easy money.

This of course leads to the notion that essentially all aviation folk are criminals who have not been caught – yet. This leads to more untrammelled power, bigger budgets and the myth, like all good stories keep growing. This, in turn takes a load off the ministers who, like most folks, don’t have a clue about a specialised industry. Naturally they will rely on their very own experts; pass their laws and pay what is asked – to keep Australia’s reputation as a world class aviation citizen. Our airlines and services do that – despite our CASA being acknowledged, world wide, as one of the worst.

This clearly demonstrated through this year's series of proving runs – Angel Flight, Bruce Rhoades, Glen Buckley and others – the cynical part being that the Essendon DFO accident slips out of sight and out of mind. Nowhere near good enough – is it.

Aye well; I’ve only wasted a few minutes, a scrap of electricity and a tiny fraction of bandwidth.

Toot – FWIW – toot (again).

Conniptions and Kittens.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,"

I don’t imagine for a moment that old mate  Kipling would understand the CASA ‘mentality’. Back in his day, there was, no doubt about it – wrong’uns – but they had to mind their P&Q’s, for the punishment was severe for those who overstepped the bounds. Not so today when it’s the ‘wrong-un’s’ who write, interpret, manipulate and enforce ‘their’ version of what is deemed (by their lights) to be right and wrong. That which probably is fair and reasonable can be and often is twisted to suit the purpose. Civil Aviation Regulation 206 being a classic example.

It is, even in the beginning, not a very good law. The spirit and intent was honourable enough; but, it has caused many a headache over the decades, particularly when ‘non legal’ folk (on both sides) decide that ‘they’ have the right of it.

CAR 206 was primarily invoked to protect the ‘two airline’ system. In it’s infancy airline transport operators needed all the help they could get, big country, few people etc. Not much has really changed, we still only have two ‘big’ operators. But what of the rest?

Secondary airlines (for wont of better) such as Rex also benefit from the protection offered; which is fair enough. It takes time and costs a shed load of money to provide paying passengers with the equivalent level of ‘safety’ expected from an ‘airline’ system.

So you can see the CASA problem; it is politically and operationally unacceptable to have half baked, fly-by-night operations carting the unsuspecting public about the country side. So the operations CASA licence need a level of, let’s call it ‘oversight’ to assure the public that travel by air, on a commercial basis is as safe and legally compliant as it can be. The insurance fellah’s demand this and the travelling public expect it. All this fair enough and pretty much accepted as world wide practice.

Down stream from the ‘big guns’ are the charter (air taxi) operators. For these operators there were, in the beginning a choice of two philosophies available to CASA. One, being the difficult ‘approval’ process’ with high costs, delays, endless words in manuals. The other, (which IMO would have been a better choice) was easier entry and approval with heavy surveillance and CASA involvement in development of ‘standards’ and practices (enter the twin daemons ‘discretion’ and ‘liability’). The thing which (IMO) bothers CASA (and industry) the most is the idea that an operation is beyond their control.

The holder of an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and the operations conducted are tightly controlled. Let me try to explain; let’s visit the offices of DUCK air Services. One day a fellah walks in to see the boss; he wants to buy an aircraft for his own use, but needs to offset the operating costs – in short, he wants the aircraft put to work. This can be and often is done, quite legally and safely. DUCK applies to have the aircraft type included in their certification; jump through the CASA hoops and, with luck, time patience and money – the aircraft becomes available for use. Not an easy process – but it can be and is done – quite often.

What would give the Chief pilot (DUCK AS) conniptions and cause CASA to have kittens is if the boss said (or worse, failed to mention) that Joe Bloggs, two towns over was running commercial operations with his own aircraft, cast and crew under the DUCK banner and simply paying a fee for the ‘use’ of the DUCK certification. Borrowed or hired AOC?

Rather than solve the chicken and egg problem, throw 206 in the bin where it belongs and adopt some modern rule sets which resolve the problem, CASA have persisted with DIY rule making and made a royal pig’s ear of the thing. Proof of this is clear and visible in parts 61, 141 and 142. The same ‘thesis’ exploration and PhD clap trap is about to create more headache and heartbreak through part 135.

What (IMO) CASA cannot let go of is the ‘mystique’ of law and the academic wrangling over the minutia, which allows the knaves to twist the written word and parlay it into criminal charges on a whim; or a mission; or a personal grudge. For thirty years we have been waiting for reformed, sensible rules with which we can willingly comply. God’s only know the real cost in dollars; it begs the question. Did we get value for money?

The ‘practical’ problems for CASA are as simple and as old as the aviation game itself. The real aviation nations, close by, NZ, PNG and half the Pacific Islands resolved these issues many moons ago. Simple rules for simple problems open the gates for investment; ease of market entry promotes competition; good surveillance and audit keep the buggers honest; and, a regulator you can actually talk matters aeronautical through with would be a gift from the Gods – or a minister with half a brain. Alas……we remain well and truly………


Toot – toot.

White hats, Black hats and Swans.

P2 – “Hmm...perhaps a whistle-blower or two is what we need, that and a Minister prepared to do his job - FDS!

She was poor, but she was honest,
Victim of the squire's whim:
First he loved her, then he left her,
And she lost her honest name.


The article raises many questions, some very subtle, which, more than likely will get lost in the political perception and in the distractions created to maintain public confidence: particularly in the tourism area. Enter the Swans. No matter how deep, dark or dangerous the political waters may be, the government must be seen to be effortlessly gliding over the surface, calm, serene and in complete control – no matter how frantically they are paddling beneath the surface.

But, in fairness, what can the ‘minister’ actually do apart from keep the lid on it all and call in ‘expert’ advice. There’s the rub. Who will be the ‘expert’ advice? What will be the outcome of an inquiry? What will be done with the results tabled? I believe we in Australia have had a couple of cracks at solving similar problems over the past three decades, without actually getting to the radical cause of our problems. The Kiwi’s had better luck when good sense prevailed and they started with a clean sheet, new regulations and a revamped front row. A sparkling success story; so where has the wheel come off.

See him in the House of Commons,
Making laws to put down crime,
While the victim of his passions
Trails her way through mud and slime.

If it were me, I’d think I’d start with the retired or resigned list. When the ‘new’ CAA kicked off they were (IMO) a first class act, a little pedantic in that way the Kiwi’s have, but straight as a die. As the original team and leadership faded, new blood was brought in, along with the virus. There is a particular ‘type’ of parasitic worm which infects government bodies; and, once established they colonise and slowly, but surely they multiply. The colony usually begins in a management corner and expands from there. This is no whimsy of mine. I can cite many proven examples of where a ‘manager’ has built a hand picked crew and gone on with impunity to wreak havoc or dispense favours as and whenever it pleased.

“He says the issues largely concern the behaviour of managers, especially those in the helicopter and health and safety units.”

Clearly, the Whistle-blower has knowledge of one such ‘bad apple’ but how many other departments are affected with the same rot. One may, with a little patience, see a clear pattern in the Australian system. There are places where the CASA crew and management are first class, constrained by law and process but nonetheless upright citizens who get things done – the right way. Then there are the others; but, they are a home land problem, not NZ’s.  

Standing on the bridge at midnight,
She says: "Farewell, blighted Love.'
There's a scream, a splash--Good Heavens!
What is she a-doing of?

But the CAA's director Graeme Harris has responded by saying it has "very robust" processes to deal with poor performance and complaints.

Once I hear the trite catchall ‘ROBUST” quoted, I cringe. The only part of the process which is ‘robust’ is defence of the minister and the top bureaucratic layers from public exposure of the rot within. Don’t know about NZ but in Oz we have things like the CASA ‘Ethics committee’ , which depending on who, what why and when will protect against any and all ‘complaints’ levelled. This is a thing a minister will never be allowed to witness, the public will never know and those accused of bastardy will either be ‘returned to industry’ under fell ‘confidentiality agreements’ and a guaranteed job; or, promoted and protected. Aye, the Swan on the lake looks peaceful and serene;

"It's the same the whole world over;
It's the poor that gets the blame,
It's the rich that gets the pleasure.
Isn't it a blooming shame?'

"Much of the senior management is simply distrusted by the people who work for them," the worker said.

Not a bad suggestion – unrealistic but sound. No minister will risk exposing the holes in the governmental safety cheese. They simply dare not, what with air safety being a sacred cow and all. Best to let the ‘experts’ deal with it and stay well clear. It’s an expensive but necessary protection racket. The only way to beat it is to dump a load of shit on the ministers desk, in broad daylight, with the media in attendance. Make it so high that it cannot be denied as anything else but what it is. Point out quietly, politely but forcefully that tye crap stops on his desk, on his watch.

"Get off your arse and do something about it. Seven people perished in a bad accident. We need to get to the bottom of it," Gameren said.

That approach will not cut the mustard. We have the Essendon King Air collision with a bloody big building built on a runway – guess what will change. No prize for correct answer.

Going to be entertaining watching how the Kiwi’s handle this little howd’yado. Watch the media first, see how long and hard they carry the ‘public safety interest’ story, before it becomes diluted and quietly cast by the wayside. Then all you have to do is wait for the inquiry, wait for the results and watch them passed over as merely ‘an opinion’. Good luck Kiwi’s, methinks you will need it.

Toot- toot...

Keeping on with this week's theme I note that AOPA Oz's SME Nick Christie is also aligning the Ducks, this time on the subject of Part 149 ...

IS PART 149 A DEAD DUCK?

AOPA Australia's NICHOLAS CHRISTIE offers his OPINION, after discovering that many of the organisations that CASA was hoping to drag into the new regulatory framework, might simply ditch the plan and leave CASA to work out what to do next.

Flying high on the priority list at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are plans that some in that organisation are hoping will be accepted graciously by the industry, without further ado. Changes to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (called Part 149) are being introduced in an apparent attempt to re-align to ICAO standards. But many key aviation bodies are starting to adopt a far less positive stance, that could see Part 149 meet its ultimate demise.



What is Part 149?

Currently, SAB’s (Sport Aviation Bodies) are in operation because they are exempted from certain Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR’s). It’s why organisations like the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) and the Australia Parachutists Federation (APF) have certain permissions from CASA. For example, the SAAA has a permission to provide for an ‘Authorised Person’ who can check your experimental aircraft for issuance of its Certificate of Airworthiness. And that sort of thing.

But slowly, CASA is moving to ‘Parts’ of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (1988) to replace the CAR’s and the supporting CAO’s (Civil Aviation Orders).

The relatively new ‘Part 149’ of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (1988) provides that a Sport Aviation Body (that could operate under previous exemptions) will be forced to apply to CASA for an ASAO Certificate; a CASA ‘license’ to operate as an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO). It means that if they don’t apply, or they are not granted a certificate, there will be ‘strict liability’ provisions on them if they attempt to perform an administration function. Or if they don’t comply with the provisions of their certificate, there’s trouble too. It’s a provision that has been forced onto the industry.

Part 149 is much more than a ‘gun to the head’ of Australia’s specialty Sport Aviation Bodies to apply for a simple certificate to operate. It also allows CASA to transfer the cost, legal liability and operational responsibility to self-administer under Part 149. The ASAO’s will also need to resource themselves to properly administer their members, under the watchful eye of CASA.

Rumblings of discontent

AOPA Australia has recently learned that many SAB’s are now starting to cool their jets; something they never really wanted in the first instance is now looking decidedly less attractive from a cost and risk perspective, and less likely to be implemented at all if everyone rejects the idea.

It’s mainly because CASA’s new legislative pearl of wisdom plans to hand over control to SAB’s to regulate their portion of the industry, and in doing so, dumps ‘strict legal liability’ onto them. That is to say, the organisation – and by implication the accountable manager(s) and safety manager(s) in these organisations – will be ultimately responsible arising from their actions or inactions.

Aviation bodies in Australia are rightly concerned that CASA has not outlined exactly what PART 149 means for them, and they have questions as to how much it will cost to ensure each body can comply with the provisions. They also want to know exactly how premiums for professional indemnity insurance will be funded. According to some of the SAB’s we spoke to, not only has there been no guidance, there is no money to assist either. It appears to be a loaded gun to the head of the SAB’s to comply with a provision that may see some or all of them meet their ultimate financial or legal demise in the future.

To add insult to injury, two of the bodies – the MAAA (Model Aeronautical Association of Australia) and the AWAL (Australian Warbirds Association Ltd) will not even get a shoe in; they’ve apparently been disallowed from the pathway offered for Part 149, by CASA.

The 53-page draft circular issued by CASA ‘Approved self-Administering Aviation Organisations’ outlines the requirements of the writing and approval of Part 149 Manual of Standards (MOS) that each organisation needs to submit, prior to their approval. It also outlines the limits and conditions imposed on ASAO’s, the number of ASAOs that can be issued certificates, their enforcement powers (and CASA’s ability to intervene), the ASAO’s requirement to share information with CASA, and other provisions.

But the organisations know that the reason that they exist is because they provide specialist services, expertise and do specialists tasks for their members and the industry. They are each unique and valuable to their members in their own right.

If CASA tries to impose a monopoly on the industry and allow just one SAB to cover all the necessary areas (like parachuting, gliding, experimental sport aircraft, rotorcraft, warbirds), it sends a message that they would be happy to accept a private-member company operating a monopoly in aviation. At best, it will open the door for accusations of the Government fostering a privately funded, anti-competitive environment. At worst, a massive class action or public legislative enquiry will see CASA seriously challenged.

The opportunity

RAAus appears to be bucking the emerging trend by completing the paperwork necessary to oblige CASA with their application for Part 149 approval. But if RAAus is certified, it will not be enough to allow CASA a credible attempt at the Part 149 project, because it needs multiple players to have any chance of being viable.

If the industry rejects Part 149 unanimously, it could set the scene for reform in the industry that would be ground-breaking. It could mean that the industry stands as one, identifying and eliminating the things that set each of these organisations apart, while pushing hard towards reform on things that bring them closer together.

To this end, the opportunity to reject Part 149 may provide the industry a moment to shine; to send a clear message to CASA while allowing the SAB’s to show a united front on things that really matter, like standardised medicals for all private pilots without regard to the registration numbers on the tail.

What we know is that CASA has renewed reasons to be concerned. While RAAus still appears (at least on the surface) to be driving down the slippery Part 149 highway, the others in the industry are now questioning – more than ever before – whether they should slam the brakes on the project now, or gently squeeze them and tell CASA to come to the table with a proposal that makes more sense.

This will be a test of the resolve of the industry to unite – and the coming months are going to be key. Let’s see if they will choose to lie down, or take a stand to change the course of aviation in Australia, for the better.

Hmm...see what I mean - 

Now where's the end of that Ducked tape? - MTF..P2