[Peetwo]

To the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Mr Mc Cormack.


I write to you in your role as the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development, and as the person responsible for aviation safety in Australia.

My name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). I am writing to you on important matters of aviation safety, allegations of misuse of public funds within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and allegations of unconscionable conduct displayed by at least 5 individuals within CASA. The conduct of those individuals compromises aviation safety, compromises regulatory compliance, and compromises people’s livelihoods. I have been involved in the flight training sector for 25 years, the last 15 years as the owner of a flight training organisation. CASA records will clearly support my contention that my operations have been well intentioned, safe, and compliant. I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in my field, and I am qualified to make the statements that I make.

I stand fully behind everything I say. My assertions can be supported by well documented evidence. I understand that I am fully accountable for the statements that I make, they are being made in the interests of aviation safety, they must be responded to.

Although I am initiating this correspondence as an individual business owner, and drawing only on my own personal experience, I am confident my experiences will be shared by the entire General Aviation (GA) sector of the Industry. For those not familiar with the term “GA”, it includes almost all flying in Australia that is not airline flying, and GA flying is predominantly conducted in propeller driven aircraft. i.e. carrying freight and passengers in smaller aircraft, flying training, community flights, agricultural work, private flying etc. It also includes all the maintenance organisations, spare parts, refuellers and admin personnel that work in that industry sector supporting those safe operations.

My allegations are substantive and not limited to the following.

Breaches of obligations under the PGPA Act to use public resources responsibly 

The aviation industry has a legislative program introduced by CASA referred to as Part 61/141/142. It was introduced a decade behind schedule, and is universally acknowledged as an absolute and complete failure. That component alone is estimated to have cost every Australian family $100. It is only one component of a much larger and mismanaged regulatory reform program that has cost both the taxpayer and industry an unacceptable amount, and this matter continues to escalate at an alarming rate. This issue must be addressed.

It can be demonstrated that CASA consistently choose the more costly option, when a more effective solution is available. In my own organisation, CASA have made decisions that have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and taxpayers substantially more, when a simple well-intentioned conversation would have achieved the same outcome. I have many well documented examples. My experiences are not unique.

CASAs failure to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. This failure impacts on safety. 

Critical to my assertions is an understanding that the Civil Aviation Act states the very first function of CASA as: “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards”.

There is no doubt that CASA have totally and completely failed against this core function, and industry will unilaterally support that statement. I strongly encourage the Government to do a random sample of 50 rural based, and 50 city-based GA businesses. You will find that in excess of 90% of respondents will support my contention that CASA have failed. If 90% of road users felt the road rules were so disjointed that they couldn’t understand them, we would have a major safety issue on our roads.

In the interests of aviation safety, and jobs, CASA must deliver rules and regulations that are clear and concise. For a clear demonstration of this significant issue. Ask someone from CASA to verbally answer this question, what activities can be delivered as an independent instructor? Then ask them to demonstrate how they arrived at that answer as they step you through the associated legislation. It is so complicated that it is truly akin to fraud. It’s simply not fair to deliver rules to a sector if the intended recipients cannot understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. It is actually incumbent on CASA to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards. That failure directly impacts on safety. 

Personnel within CASA displaying” unconscionable conduct”

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website states criteria to determine unconscionable conduct. Those criteria include;

• The relative bargaining strength of the Parties.
  
  
• Whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker Party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger Party
  
  
• Whether the weaker party could understand the documentation being used.
  
  
• The use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party.
  
  
• The requirements of applicable industry codes. (i.e. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, requirements of the Civil Aviation Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations, requirements of Administrative Law, CASAs Enforcement Manual and section 2 of the Australian Public Service Commission website.
  
  
• The willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
  
  
• The extent to which Parties acted in good faith.
  

From my own personal experience, I believe I can clearly demonstrate that 5 personnel within the Aviation Group of CASA headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford, have made decisions that demonstrate unconscionable conduct i.e. reasonable people making decisions primarily on aviation safety could not reasonably arrive at the same decisions as these individuals. This conduct has substantially impacted on me and my business. Previous approaches to your office have not been responded to, so I am simultaneously releasing this correspondence to other persons, including but not limited to, the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Honourable Catherine King MP. As this is a matter of aviation safety, and includes allegations of misconduct within CASA, I would call on bipartisan political support to work towards a solution that improves aviation safety across the GA industry, improves regulatory compliance, supports business, and encourages jobs in rural areas.

I am also advising that I make myself fully available to any media form, that is prepared to pursue this matter. It is a matter of aviation safety, and breaches of the PGPA Act, and inappropriate conduct in a Government Department, all of which impact on every Australian. My only request is that CASA be given the full right of reply to any allegations I make in the media.

These matters are significant. I have made repeated attempts to meet with the Board of CASA over the last 6 months, and all requests have been completely ignored. I have sent correspondence to your office on two occasions, and that correspondence has also been ignored. I feel I have no other option available to me, other than going public.

The purpose of this letter is to ensure I am given an opportunity to meet with yourself, or a nominee from your Department. I would like to attend that meeting and provide documentary support of all my claims. I respectfully request that the Honourable Catherine King, or her nominee be given the opportunity to attend that meeting. I would also call on two industry body representatives to attend in an observer role only. They would not have input into the meeting. My sincere hope is that you will attend to this matter as it deserves. At this stage I am requesting the opportunity to be heard. Failing that opportunity being provided to me, I will be forced to escalate the matter in the interests of aviation safety within the General Aviation sector.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley, CEO- APTA

[P7_TOM]

Just thinking out loud, in my addled old way; how ‘the minister’ would like to have an out of the blue increase in the ‘operating bill’ for his ‘business’ of which between 30 to 40% was solely down to compliance with silly law? I’d also like to see the response to the enforcement of hiring another 3 or even four crew to ensure his personal  strict compliance with every tiny word of the rules governing a sitting member. Those rules are manifold and complex and yet there is no ‘active’ surveillance to ensure that ‘the minister’ is in absolute black letter compliance 24/7; there is no ‘audit’ and most certainly ‘the minister’ is not bound to ‘strict liability’. Can you imagine the uproar it would create?

But, let’s get some perspective here – when a ‘minister’ buggers it up and cost the nation an arm and a leg (millions); the support network kicks in and; more often than not, the worst case is ‘sacked’. When an aviation ‘crime’ is committed, or even if not  (easily done) the wolves are at the door; baying for blood; closing down operations and prosecuting through ‘strict liability’ some poor sod who forgot to take his spectacles along for the flight. A hefty fine - if lucky and a criminal record, plus costs for - fighting a stacked deck.

How would the minister respond to say his ‘hairdressing’ investment shop on the main street of Wagga (run by the mistress) being held in limbo for ‘approval’ for five or six months – after receiving ‘approval to open and being in operation for 18 months; and, he could not get an answer why from the town council?  There’d be hell to pay is what.

Bloody silly comparison? Well, no it ain’t, not in size, scale or moral it ain’t. As the man once said – a boil on your arse don’t bother me as much as one on mine. (Israeli pilot told me that - adapt to purpose as required).

The Buckley story is a disgrace and it shames both a government and an opposition who ‘need’ desperately, to get this country going forward.

D’ya know I’m not sure I can drown these little notions of fair play, equity, honesty, transparency, respect and the rule of law. Not sure at all- but I do intend to try.

“Same again here thanks – and keep your blasted thumb out of the glass".

[Kharon]

Meanwhile - beneath the Iceberg.

Non aviation folk (Muggles - ) particularly in Australia are well accustomed to ‘over regulation’; so it’s no surprise when aviation starts screaming about the same. Most folk would just point to their industry ‘manuals’, shrug and say ‘you are not Robinson Crusoe mate; look at this pile of guff”. This is a fair call; however, the thing that those who ‘rubber stamp’ aviation law fail to understand is just how ‘badly’ formed the underpinning for those regulations is. I intend to bang on about this, so bail out now if not interested. I might add this opinion is a summary (thumb nail in tar) of many hours of BRB discussion and PAIN research. Are you sitting comfortably – then I’ll begin.

The two posts by TB (above) introduce a sketch of just two examples. Part 61 is an appalling load of clap-trap; the following comparison between Australia 91, the USA and NZ versions are an easily understood example of differences between ‘professional/collaborative/practical‘ law and the Australian ‘gobbledygook’ version. The how; and, the why  this is so is the subject topic.

TB – “The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of “amateurish regulatory framing.”

“Amateurish Regulatory Framing” jumps off the page and it is here, at the grass roots we must begin our journey in the not too plush offices of the Down Under Charter Kompany – trading as Duck Air (DA). The directors of DA have bought a new company – registered and badged up – nice and legal.(tick). Developed a business plan (tick) Thrown some money into a bank account (tick) Opened an office (tick) identified their aircraft (tick) now then: What’s next. Well, the will need a licence to operate – to wit – an Air Operators Certificate (AOC). To do this they must first engage a Chief Pilot (CP) A.K.A. the donkey on which the tail may be pinned. To this unfortunate falls the task of gaining the AOC; first step – produce a grandiosely titled ‘Exposition’ which is a flash expression for an Operation Manual (OM). Here begins a nightmare journey through the swamps and dark places of Sleepy Hollow.

Potted version – sincere apologies to the ‘experts’. ‘Tis but a twiddle to spark a light for the dim candle, not yet lit.

To begin with, nearly every CP on this planet has not ever had any ‘legal’ training, let alone completed a law degree. The CP may well be and most probably is an experienced pilot familiar with Air Law; and, in an operational sense have a good grasp of the requirements. So far, so good. So armed with quill, ink and candle the CP sits down to begin drafting ‘the Manual’. I’ll labour this point because it is important. It is not enough to simply state ‘we will comply with part XXX’. The ‘manual’ must define ‘how’ compliance will be achieved. Try an experiment – if you can bear it ( I have and the results were both hilarious and terrifying). Get half a dozen pilots to write a section of an OM related to a topic of choice – pick one. Turn ‘em loose, give ‘em a week, then collect every scrap of paper they’ve written – from the first to the last attempt. The pattern will be similar; the first attempt a sketch, the second will be ‘wordy’ using all manner of legalese, long winded and fanciful. The third, and possibly the last iteration will be so convoluted and confounded as to beggar imagination.

Therein, lays one of the many base line problems DUCK faces. It is from this basic problem that most of the current buggers muddle, we call ‘the Reg’s’ stems. Take part 61 as the quintessential example of an amateurs wet dream; their own inexperienced notions and attempts to impress writ large. This rule set has little bearing on providing safe, competent, properly trained pilots but did achieve the desired effect of ‘self promotion’. This, stand alone is not a good thing but when it hit the legal boys desks; like Topsy it grew to monster proportions. Then it all goes to yet another legal department to be drafted (as per instructions) into ‘law’. Then, like grass through a goose, the parliament approves the 'expert' thesis without question and the whole shemozzle is foisted onto the flying school industry. So the cycle begins the CP of DUCK now begins to expand the expansion; without any legal training to assist in actually understanding what the legal fraternity can do with one sentence, let alone thousands of pages. So the case against DUCK is aided and abetted by good intention, practical application and lay interpretation.

That is the problem aviation faces; the analysis of ‘why’ there must be a rule; followed by the manner in which that rule is presented; supporting reasoning for the rule being required and a clear understanding ‘how’ that rule is to be applied is lost in the thousands of pages produced to provide ‘safe prosecution’ – out of court, as far away from the rule of law as possible.

When you begin to understand the fundamental flaws in the system and the damage those flaws produce; perhaps the reason many cry out for real reform of CASA and the regulations will become clear (ish). An added bonus would be some form of accountability and control of the CASA; for at the moment there is none, there not even anyone in the parliament who will take the time; or even have enough knowledge of matters aeronautical to realise that their casual ‘rubber stamping’ of gobbledygook has almost destroyed an industry.


Toot – toot..

Reproduced in the vain hope that someone, somewhere will get the message, get off their arse and actually 'do something' .

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile - beneath the Iceberg.

Non aviation folk (Muggles - ) particularly in Australia are well accustomed to ‘over regulation’; so it’s no surprise when aviation starts screaming about the same. Most folk would just point to their industry ‘manuals’, shrug and say ‘you are not Robinson Crusoe mate; look at this pile of guff”. This is a fair call; however, the thing that those who ‘rubber stamp’ aviation law fail to understand is just how ‘badly’ formed the underpinning for those regulations is. I intend to bang on about this, so bail out now if not interested. I might add this opinion is a summary (thumb nail in tar) of many hours of BRB discussion and PAIN research. Are you sitting comfortably – then I’ll begin.

The two posts by TB (above) introduce a sketch of just two examples. Part 61 is an appalling load of clap-trap; the following comparison between Australia 91, the USA and NZ versions are an easily understood example of differences between ‘professional/collaborative/practical‘ law and the Australian ‘gobbledygook’ version. The how; and, the why  this is so is the subject topic.

TB – “The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of “amateurish regulatory framing.”

“Amateurish Regulatory Framing” jumps off the page and it is here, at the grass roots we must begin our journey in the not too plush offices of the Down Under Charter Kompany – trading as Duck Air (DA). The directors of DA have bought a new company – registered and badged up – nice and legal.(tick). Developed a business plan (tick) Thrown some money into a bank account (tick) Opened an office (tick) identified their aircraft (tick) now then: What’s next. Well, the will need a licence to operate – to wit – an Air Operators Certificate (AOC). To do this they must first engage a Chief Pilot (CP) A.K.A. the donkey on which the tail may be pinned. To this unfortunate falls the task of gaining the AOC; first step – produce a grandiosely titled ‘Exposition’ which is a flash expression for an Operation Manual (OM). Here begins a nightmare journey through the swamps and dark places of Sleepy Hollow.

Potted version – sincere apologies to the ‘experts’. ‘Tis but a twiddle to spark a light for the dim candle, not yet lit.

To begin with, nearly every CP on this planet has not ever had any ‘legal’ training, let alone completed a law degree. The CP may well be and most probably is an experienced pilot familiar with Air Law; and, in an operational sense have a good grasp of the requirements. So far, so good. So armed with quill, ink and candle the CP sits down to begin drafting ‘the Manual’. I’ll labour this point because it is important. It is not enough to simply state ‘we will comply with part XXX’. The ‘manual’ must define ‘how’ compliance will be achieved. Try an experiment – if you can bear it ( I have and the results were both hilarious and terrifying). Get half a dozen pilots to write a section of an OM related to a topic of choice – pick one. Turn ‘em loose, give ‘em a week, then collect every scrap of paper they’ve written – from the first to the last attempt. The pattern will be similar; the first attempt a sketch, the second will be ‘wordy’ using all manner of legalese, long winded and fanciful. The third, and possibly the last iteration will be so convoluted and confounded as to beggar imagination.

Therein, lays one of the many base line problems DUCK faces. It is from this basic problem that most of the current buggers muddle, we call ‘the Reg’s’ stems. Take part 61 as the quintessential example of an amateurs wet dream; their own inexperienced notions and attempts to impress writ large. This rule set has little bearing on providing safe, competent, properly trained pilots but did achieve the desired effect of ‘self promotion’. This, stand alone is not a good thing but when it hit the legal boys desks; like Topsy it grew to monster proportions. Then it all goes to yet another legal department to be drafted (as per instructions) into ‘law’. Then, like grass through a goose, the parliament approves the 'expert' thesis without question and the whole shemozzle is foisted onto the flying school industry. So the cycle begins the CP of DUCK now begins to expand the expansion; without any legal training to assist in actually understanding what the legal fraternity can do with one sentence, let alone thousands of pages. So the case against DUCK is aided and abetted by good intention, practical application and lay interpretation.

That is the problem aviation faces; the analysis of ‘why’ there must be a rule; followed by the manner in which that rule is presented; supporting reasoning for the rule being required and a clear understanding ‘how’ that rule is to be applied is lost in the thousands of pages produced to provide ‘safe prosecution’ – out of court, as far away from the rule of law as possible.

When you begin to understand the fundamental flaws in the system and the damage those flaws produce; perhaps the reason many cry out for real reform of CASA and the regulations will become clear (ish). An added bonus would be some form of accountability and control of the CASA; for at the moment there is none, there not even anyone in the parliament who will take the time; or even have enough knowledge of matters aeronautical to realise that their casual ‘rubber stamping’ of gobbledygook has almost destroyed an industry.


Toot – toot..

Reproduced in the vain hope that someone, somewhere will get the message,  get off their arse and actually 'do something' .

And further to the above...  

Sandy comment to - Via the Oz:   

PM’s bid to curb union power, fire up business

SIMON BENSON
NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

RICHARD FERGUSON
REPORTER
@RichAFerguson

12:00AM JUNE 24, 2019




Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

Scott Morrison will launch a ­renewed offensive on union militancy as an economic imperative while calling on Australian workers to help refuel the economy by spending their tax cuts of up to $1080 amid central bank warnings of slowing growth.

In his first domestic speech since the election, the Prime Minister will today intensify pressure on Labor leader Anthony Albanese ahead of a shadow cabinet meeting expected to thrash out Labor’s position on whether to back the $158 billion tax package.

It comes as former union boss and co-architect of the modern economy Bill Kelty rejected Labor’s tax agenda and backed the Coalition’s move to lower the top rates of personal income tax while calling on both sides to tackle further reform, including broadening the tax base.

“I support much, much lower personal income tax rates and marginal rates across the board, including the top. A top marginal rate of 50 per cent is just crazy,” he told The Australian.

Further calls from within Labor circles to accept the government’s mandate came yesterday from another former union boss and Labor cabinet minister, Martin Ferguson, who said the issue had been debated for a year and had now been decided by voters.

Addressing the WA business chamber today, Mr Morrison will reveal he asked his new ­Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter to conduct a fresh review of the system to examine barriers to economic gains.

The Prime Minister has also ­issued a second challenge to Labor to also pass stalled workplace reforms dealing with union corruption and industrial militancy which Mr Morrison has said he would make a priority when parliament returns.

With the Reserve Bank warning fiscal stimulus is needed on top of monetary policy, Mr Morrison has also flagged a second wave of deregulation to accelerate investment and fuel jobs growth. “Our job post-election is now very clear — to get Australians off the economic sidelines and on the field again,” Mr Morrison will say according a draft of his first domestic address since the election.

“First, how we will get things moving by lowering taxes, sharpening the incentives to work and invest, and get infrastructure projects under way.

“Secondly, provoking the ‘animal spirits’ in our economy by ­removing regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to businesses investing and creating more jobs.

“And thirdly, boosting the economy’s long-term growth ­potential by unlocking greater economic dynamism and productivity by lifting our skills capabilities and driving uptake of new digital technologies to promote innovation and competition in our financial system.”

Labor Treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers yesterday softened his language ahead of today’s shadow cabinet meeting, claiming there would be more “internal consultation” before a decision was made. But he said with parliament not due to return until next week, there was “no rush”.

The Australian, however, has been told by several senior Labor MPs that they were expecting a position would be set today following intensifying pressure from backbench MPs who claim they were being left with the task of ­explaining to constituents why Labor was rejecting tax cuts.

Mr Morrison will say in his speech: “Labor’s high-taxing ­agenda has now been rejected at two successive elections. The fact Labor are having to be dragged kicking and screaming, putting up one excuse and ruse after another, shows they simply don’t understand that when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.

“Our proposed tax relief doesn’t just have a strong political mandate. It has a compelling policy rationale.”

Mr Morrison will say investment crucial to growth also needs to be protected “from the impact of militant unions”.

The union/Labor dynamic of today, in the wake of the Setka scandal, was a “very far cry from the balanced relationship of the Hawke-Crean-Kelty alliance of the past,” Mr Morrison says.

“When we’re back in parliament next week, another of our priorities is to introduce laws to give greater powers to deal with registered organisations and officials who regularly break the law, prohibit officials who are not fit and proper persons from holding office, and stop the rorting of worker entitlement funds.”

Mr Kelty, who was the co-­architect of the Hawke-Keating government’s 1980s economic ­accord as ACTU secretary, told The Australian that neither side of politics was tackling real tax reform but supported the government’s agenda of driving down income tax rates.

“We have to look back at the Hawke-Keating tax reforms and even the Howard reforms. We need a broader base of taxation,” he said. “There has to be a tax system for the future and draw a line under the two systems. You can either have much, much lower personal income taxes or the concessions — capital gains tax, negative gearing. The government’s plan is not tax reform … it advantages some groups and disadvantages others. Labor’s plan before the election was not real tax reform either.

“Both parties are taking the right steps … I think there needs to be proper consideration of this (tax package by Labor) and we need to actually reform the tax system completely.”

Mr Ferguson, a former ACTU president, called on his own party to move out of the way of the ­Coalition’s tax plans.

The government wants the tax package passed by July 4 to deliver the maximum benefits of $1080 under its first stage.

Now the chair of Tourism ­Accommodation Australia, Mr Ferguson said more than one million workers in the tourism and hospitality sectors would receive immediate tax relief.

“For Australia’s accommodation and tourism businesses to secure growth from increased domestic spending, it is critical that Australians are able to keep more of their own money,” he said.

“Passing the whole of the government’s tax cuts will help everyone — from the businesses who rely on people feeling confident to spend more, right through to the hundreds of thousands workers in the hotel industry who will receive immediate income tax relief.

“We have had a long and comprehensive national debate about the proposed income tax cuts, including a federal election where the government was returned to office with an increased majority. It is now time for the parliament to pass the necessary legislation.”

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, speaking from Berlin where he is in negotiations over a EU free-trade agreement, continued his attack on Labor’s refusal to so far support the bill.

“It is very important for Jim Chalmers to understand that we won’t split the bill giving effect to our plan,” he said.
“Our first priority is tax cuts for low-income earners, but Australia needs our entire plan ­legislated.”

Sandy in reply:

Alexander

12 HOURS AGO

“Secondly, provoking the ‘animal spirits’ in our economy by ­removing regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to businesses investing and creating more jobs.“

This will cut no ice with the few thousands left in the General Aviation (GA) industry which has been devastated by years of Parliamentary neglect while the independent corporate regulator has run amuck with the worst, most expensive and unworkable rules rewrite, still not finished after 32 years. 

The National Party has had the Ministerial portfolio throughout the many years of Coalition Government but those ministers abrogated their responsibilities and allowed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to feather it’s own nest without regard to the reasonable aspirations of aviation minded Australians. Thus the loss of hundreds of flying schools and maintenance businesses and the importing of airline pilots. CASA has imposed swinging operational fees for all sorts of unnecessary permissions and whole miserable bureaucratic paraphernalia is supported by Parliament. 

Parliament having rubber stamped the wholesale migration of what used to be (appropriately) civil aviation law into the criminal code with strict liability and huge penalties for even the slightest and most innocuous infringements, many of which supposed criminal acts don’t ever rate a mention in the most mature and successful GA industry, that of the USA where increasingly Australians are heading for their flying training. 

Incumbent since the demise of Barnaby Joyce, Minister for Transport Michael MacCormack talks but does nothing. ScoMo and the Libs have no way to force reform for fear of upsetting their socialist partner, the Nationals. 

Plus this week's SBG via the blog: In Xanadu did Kubla Khan

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

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.

[Peetwo]

REX set to embarrass the miniscule - 

Via the Sundy Telly:

Calls to ground REX fleet amid claims staff are too scared to raise safety concerns

Engineers say bush airline REX should be stripped of its licence to maintain planes — effectively grounding the fleet — because staff are too scared to raise serious safety concerns.

Aircraft engineers are ­accusing bush airline Regional Express of intimidating its staff and discouraging them from reporting serious mechanical defects, demanding its fleet be grounded over fears for passenger safety.

A 17-page document filed by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges a “culture of fear” within Regional Express (REX), claiming management is intimidating maintenance crews out of reporting defects.



The ALAEA has asked CASA to revoke REX’s authority to service its own jets, effectively grounding the fleet.

The complaint, filed to CASA on May 27, alleges “serious breaches of safety obligations … Coercion, intimidation and bullying of employees has reached a point where employees are reticent to report aircraft defects, including major defects, for fear of recrimination,” the complaint said.

In 2017 a REX flight from Albury to Sydney nearly ended in catastrophe when a 100kg propeller landed metres from southwest Sydney homes.

An investigation identified a fatigue crack as the cause.

“The apparent discouragement of reporting of maintenance defects has created a circumstance where an ­unknown number of serious defects may have not been ­reported and aircraft have ­operated with a serious and imminent risk to air safety,” the complaint alleges.

REX, which operates 57 aircraft across 60 regional routes, did not respond to questions.



CASA said it was “in the process of reviewing the original allegations and the corresponding responses. It is not appropriate to make any more comments at this time,” a spokesman said.

A CASA source said acting on the engineers’ call to strip REX of its “approved maintenance organisation” would stop it flying and leave thousands of regional travellers stranded, potentially creating a political embarrassment.

“The document’s come out and upper management (at CASA) are circling the wagons and trying to manage the fallout,” the source said.



A second source familiar with the investigation des­cribed the culture at REX as “manifestly dangerous”.

“People won’t report stuff,” the second source said. “I won’t fly REX any more — I’ll either go QantasLink or I’ll walk.”

An ALAEA spokesman ­declined to comment on the complaint because most of the incidents cited are still subject to industrial action.

In one case mentioned in the complaint, an engineer was disciplined for finding corrosion to a propeller shaft during a routine check, resulting in a delay to the flight.

The engineer was allegedly told he wasn’t supposed to check that part of the aircraft during the inspection that day.

According to the complaint, corrosion had been one of ­several contributing factors to the 2017 propeller fall.

“The … actions of REX management when further corrosion was … found on the propeller shaft of an operating aircraft give rise to a serious and imminent risk to air safety,” the complaint said.

---

And from the 9 News: https://www.9news.com.au/national/nation...a81a067a59

Hmm...could be an interesting week ahead for our useless NFI miniscule...  

Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge ?- 


From the Airports thread this AM: Magic; stuff that makes you go Uhmmm!

K said: "..The duckling building was and remains a serious safety hazard; it is a significant part of the ‘investigation’ and it’s being located where it is remains a major part of the investigation into the Essendon accident. How can it possibly be ‘removed’ and treated as a ‘separate’ stand alone element, before the final report is released?

Post report – fair enough – let’s have a look at the  why and how’s this thing was allowed to park within the boundaries of an active runway and why the ‘documents’ failed to notify aircrew of the hazard or a reduced runway safety zone. The encroachment of buildings into operational airspace is a major concern and worthy of it’s own enquiry – but, the DFO at Essendon is part of the causal chain and it MUST be treated as such, not snapped off and put on the wait-a-bit shelf, marked ‘do later’..."

A possible explanation to this disturbing disconnection lies in the "K" statement that followed...

"..Hood working his own brand of magic – yet again; to delay, distract, defer and protect his masters by prostituting the once proud ATSB..."

But why would Hood so obviously compromise the independence and veracity of the ongoing investigation? Well perhaps because the BJ affair has created a perfect political and ministerial vacuum in which Hoody can weave his top-cover magic without being challenged or afforded any Government oversight from the distracted minister's office?

Remember that 6D Chester as the former miniscule for non-aviation managed to convince the Chair Barry O and the committee to defer their - Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions] - Inquiry till 19 March 2018 and the inquiry completion is now dependent on those findings:

1.17 The committee recognizes that the findings and recommendations of the
investigations into this tragedy, and the work of NASAG, may have implications for
the bill. It takes the view that sufficient time should be provided to allow the
investigations to proceed and for the committee to then properly consider their
findings.

1.18 Therefore, the committee recommends that its inquiry on the bill be extended
to allow consideration of the investigations and any other relevant aviation regulation
developments.

  
Q/ Does this indicate that by definition the Senate Inquiry will now be deferred for yet another year while the committee waits for the ATSB to conclude their investigation - within an investigation? This is also convenient for Chester, as time (and probably an election) will dim all memory of yet another inconvenient tragic air crash disaster... 

Which brings me to another possible internal Nationals (& Albo) advantage in the current political vacuum being created by the BJ affair... 

Remember; that certain factions of the Nats (& Albo) have much to lose if the PelAir cover-up shenanigans were ever to be exposed to the full light of day. I also note that the favourite heir apparent for the Nationals throne, if BJ is rolled, is none other than that useless NFI member for Wagga Michael McCormack.

Now read and absorb the following historical post and take note of the reference to Mr McCormack:       

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Damned if you do and Embuggered if you don’t.

What sort of a shambles are CASA imposing on this industry?  Fair dinkum – fired if you don’t cooperate with management; jailed if you do and get caught by CASA.  No one to talk to; so you drag in the Union; then you get called a ‘dobber’ and become Robinson Crusoe.

LAME’s are and will continue to be the ‘muscle and sinew’ of safety. Through dirty hands and cold hands at 0300 o’clock; through care and understanding of their charges. Pilots are only allowed to ‘borrow’ the Chief engineers charges, with the stipulation that they are returned in good order and defects carefully noted (along with an explanation, in detail), of how you (idiot pilot) managed to break it.

Maintenance in Australia is a really tough gig now; the rules are making life a big enough shit fight for our LAME’s (refuse to call ‘em mechanics) with the evil eye watching to make sure Screwdriver 14 was used – not 13 for a criminal record and a fine. Bit it is beyond the pale when management insist that #13 is used – under threat of dismissal. Talk about between a rock and hard place.

Go hard boys; make sure the pilots back you – it’s them flying the ‘known’ defects around after all -

[Peetwo]

Fort Fumble & REX: "Nothing to see here - move along." 

The "he said...she said" wars seem set to continue on REX imbroglio, via the Oz yesterday:

CASA inspectors due at Rex depot amid safety concerns

ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

5:15PM JULY 3, 2019



CASA inspectors will visit the Rex airlines depot at Wagga Wagga tomorrow to collect more information. REX airline aeroplanes, planes, crew, refuelling and catering seen from Gate 10 of the Adelaide Airport. Regional Express is an Australian airline based in Mascot, New South Wales. It operates scheduled regional services. (AAP/Emma Brasier)

Safety concerns about aircraft maintenance at Regional Express will see inspectors sent to the airlines’ depot at Wagga Wagga tomorrow to collect more information.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said the inspectors would make observations at the maintenance depot, following on from a 17-page complaint made by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.

“We’ve got the original allegations, and we’ve got Rex’s response to those, now we’ll go in and take a look for ourselves and then we’ll decide if we need any additional information,” Mr Gibson said.

CASA only recently completed a safety audit of Rex — the fifth in 17 months.

Mr Gibson said additional checks were not uncommon following an incident or accident. In Rex’s case, the trigger was the in-flight loss of a propeller from a Saab 340B aircraft in March, 2017.

The incident was attributed to fatigue cracks that were not detected during maintenance because the engine manufacturer did not provide specific inspection procedures for such an issue.

Rex deputy chairman John Sharp said all of the audits undertaken by CASA had found safety standards were being maintained to a high level.

“We would purport it’s among the best in the world,” Mr Sharp said, adding that the airline carried 1.3 million passengers last year on 76,000 flights.

The ALAEA complaint, received by CASA on May 27, accused Rex of pressuring employees not to report major defects on aircraft if it meant flights were disrupted.

Of several examples provided, one alleged an engineer was disciplined when he wrote a defect report about shaft corrosion on a propeller of a Saab 340 aircraft.

The letter of complaint suggested Rex came down hard on the worker, because he was not supposed to be looking at the propeller shaft while carrying out routine line maintenance.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Part II (REX): "Nothing to see here - move along."   

The "he said...she said" wars seem set to continue on REX imbroglio, via the Oz yesterday:

CASA inspectors due at Rex depot amid safety concerns

ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

5:15PM JULY 3, 2019



CASA inspectors will visit the Rex airlines depot at Wagga Wagga tomorrow to collect more information. REX airline aeroplanes, planes, crew, refuelling and catering seen from Gate 10 of the Adelaide Airport. Regional Express is an Australian airline based in Mascot, New South Wales. It operates scheduled regional services. (AAP/Emma Brasier)

Of several examples provided, one alleged an engineer was disciplined when he wrote a defect report about shaft corrosion on a propeller of a Saab 340 aircraft.

The letter of complaint suggested Rex came down hard on the worker, because he was not supposed to be looking at the propeller shaft while carrying out routine line maintenance.

Daily Telly/ NewsCorp  expose: 




Video ref link: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n...a47e6b6b87

Regional Express safety concerns examined



Regional Express will find out next week if its maintenance standards meet with the regulator’s approval, following an inspection by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Three inspectors visited the airline’s maintenance depot in Wagga Wagga yesterday following on from a 17-page letter of complaint made to CASA by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.

The complaint raised concerns about a poor safety culture at Rex, and claimed employees were discouraged from reporting aircraft defects if it caused flight delays or cancellations.

Rex was given the opportunity to respond to the complaint before CASA made the decision to carry out an inspection.

This week Rex deputy chairman John Sharp dismissed the letter as coming from a “disgruntled employee” and said if CASA had any serious concerns it would have grounded the ­airline.

“The fact they haven’t tells you they haven’t got a concern,” Mr Sharp said.

“We all have people who are unhappy (in the workplace), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have a poor safety culture. It just means somebody is not happy and that’s the world.”

He said he had confidence that CASA would get to the bottom of the issue.

“No matter what you think about them, they are the ones who are responsible for providing fact-based evidence,” Mr Sharp said.

Rex has received a high level of attention from CASA since March 2017, when a propeller fell off one of the airline’s SAAB 340Bs in flight, southwest of Sydney airport.

Since then, 12 audits or surveillance operations have been conducted on Rex, more than any other regional airline.

A CASA spokesman said the inspectors who visited the maintenance depot would write up their observations, which would then be assessed by a panel.

The “disgruntled employee” Rex inadvertently named in a media release this week remained employed by the airline, Mr Sharp said.

“We’re obviously upset about this, we think it’s grossly unfair, other than the fact it’s false,” he said.

Daily Telegraph editorial: Video raises concerns about REX plane safety

Video footage showing rust on the prop shaft of a REX aircraft is concerning in itself, but the broader issue of airline safety is something that requires our attention.

As any potential property buyer knows, a house inspection is vital before any offers are made.

Even with a seemingly pristine property, such inspections may turn up small yet telling signs of future drama.

But at least with most houses there is little worry of any flaws actually being dangerous to occupants. Expensive to repair, perhaps, but not physically threatening in any way.

Obviously, maintenance issues become more crucial when you’re thousands of metres above the earth’s surface. Any fault in an aircraft is a very serious matter indeed.



This is why Australian aviation authorities are so vigilant in inspecting and approving aircraft for flight. Our safety regimes are a major reason why Australia has such an enviable record for airline safety.

Those safety regimes may require an update. The Daily Telegraph reveals a concerning image of rust on the propeller shaft of a Saab plane operated by the Regional Express (otherwise known as REX) airline.

The same aircraft, registered VH-RXN, yesterday flew from Kangaroo Island to Adelaide.

Apparent rust on the prop shaft may be part of broader problems with the airline.

The vigilant engineer who found and filmed the prop shaft corrosion has not reported the problem to his airline bosses because he fears being punished.

This is an issue with which air safety experts are painfully familiar. “We have a real problem with REX because our members cannot report faults without them going after the employee,” Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association technical officer Stephen Re told The Daily Telegraph.



After reviewing The Daily Telegraph’s footage, the technical officer confirmed: “This is clearly a Regional Express aircraft with worrying evidence of corrosion on the prop shaft.”

For its part, REX strongly denies any problems with either the airline’s safety procedures or its employee culture.

“REX believes that our Safety Management System, including our safety culture, is second to none in Australia,” a REX spokesman said yesterday.

The spokesman pointed blame at a lone disgruntled staff member expressing “his personal industrial grievances”.

Investigations continue. Beyond safety concerns, a broader probe could be required.

REX rust video is just plane scary

Regional Express John Sharp has spoken out today to insist his airline is safe and to encourage customers to stick with “the last man standing” among airlines servicing the bush.

Regional Express John Sharp has spoken out today to insist his airline is safe and to encourage customers to stick with “the last man standing” among airlines servicing the bush.

Mr Sharp spoke out after The Daily Telegraph published a video showing un-investigated corrosion on Rex Saab plane propeller shaft that an engineer had filmed but been too concerned about management repercussions.

The exclusive footage showed the rust on the prop shaft of the Saab plane, registration number VH-RXN, which on Thursday flew from Kangaroo Island to Adelaide.



“That plane was having a B check in our hanger in Adelaide yesterday after 1000 hours flying. I am looking at a photo of that very part and it is bright and shiny, almost new,” he said.

Mr Sharp said the brown marks that had concerned the engineer had been “wiped off with solvent”.

But Stephen Re, technical officer for The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, said: “It is great that the part could be cleaned but the concern is that the engineer did not want to report it.

“The part needed to be looked at.”



Mr Sharp denied an engineer had been disciplined over an earlier incident when he spotted corrosion on an engine prop shaft during a routine walk around check of an aircraft. In that instance the corrosion was checked and the engine taken out of service.

He said the engineer was not disciplined. “We would describe it as an appropriate response to a person not following procedures,” he said. “He has suffered no penalty in pay and is still working for us.”

Mr Sharp said the airline actively encouraged employees to report areas of concern. “In the last two years the number of these reports made by engineers has increased by more than 10 per cent.

“If we had a culture of fear and of retaliation, of punishment and disciplining people for making these reports, that wouldn’t be the case.

He said the union was “weaponising safety” as part of a campaign against the airline which was “killing us”.

“We are the last man standing among regional airlines. People need to know that we are safe,” he said.

He said CASA is the “judge and jury” and had inspectors at the airlines Wagga Wagga maintenance depot today. “If they were concerned they would ground us,” he said.



Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said the video “will be looked at very carefully and closely”.

Two years ago a REX flight from Albury to Sydney was forced to make an emergency landing after a 100kg propeller sheared off and landed just metres from homes in southwest Sydney. A fatigue crack in the shaft was identified as the cause.

A report on the findings of the inspectors is not expected for several days.

MTF? - Hmm..sounds like it! P2 

[Peetwo]

Part III (CASA): "Nothing to see here - move along." 

And so we get it confirmed - Fort Fumble to the rescue, via the Oz   : 

Rex safety allegations rejected after CASA probe



CASA has cleared Rex of safety concerns. Picture: AAP
ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

9:05AM JULY 8, 2019
10 COMMENTS

Allegations of a “poor safety culture” at Regional Express Airlines have been found to be baseless following an investigation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The regulator confirmed it had “no current issues with Rex” after examining a detailed complaint lodged by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association in late May.

Among the allegations made in the complaint was that engineers were being discouraged from reporting major defects on aircraft.

As part of the investigation, CASA sent three inspectors to Rex’s maintenance depot at Wagga Wagga to observe procedures and interview engineers.

A statement issued by CASA said management and staff were cooperative and responsive to the audit team’s requests and questions.

“All of them said that they felt confident in reporting maintenance errors or defects and they indicated Rex operated according to “just culture” principles,” the statement said.

In response, Rex welcomed CASA’s statement and condemned media outlets for publicising the licensed aircraft engineers’ concerns.

“Not only could such disgraceful acts be capable of seriously damaging Rex but it could also result in, if Rex had been forced to cease flying, many remote and regional communities permanently losing air services that are critical to their socio-economic needs,” said a statement from Rex.

Last Monday the regional carrier paused trading in shares to respond to concerns about maintenance procedures.

Last week’s “mini-audit” was the 13th conducted by CASA on Rex since March 2017, when one of the airlines’ Saab 340B aircraft lost a propeller mid-flight.

Fatigue cracks were found to have caused the propeller to fall off but an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation said there were no specific instructions to look for such a fault.

So there we have it once again, Sharpie does his job i.e. 1) Ropes in the miniscule by filling his head with scary details - like think of all those regional communities that will be left stranded with out an airservice etc..etc.





2) The miniscule commands a meeting with St Commode (the patron Saint of Aviation Safety); who subsequently promises to have it all sorted within days - which he does see article above...





3) Everyone is happy and the MOAS trough has been topped up for at least the next six months...  

   

Basically what we have just witnessed is another classic example of ministerial and regulator capture by a powerful industry stakeholder.

AP relevant references:

Pel-Air: A coverup: a litany of lies? - Version III

[b]How things have changed? NOT! [/b]

[b]M&M Post [b]#25[/url][/b][/b]

[b][b][b][url=http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=37&pid=8480#pid8480]FalconAir vs PelAir - Part II.[/b][/b][/b]

[b][b][b] Times up for Pel_air MkII[/b][/b][/b]

It could be that this whole short lived saga was nothing more than a storm in a teacup but what concerns me is that there was no media/industry rebuttal to this statement?

"..Last week’s “mini-audit” was the 13th conducted by CASA on Rex since March 2017, when one of the airlines’ Saab 340B aircraft lost a propeller mid-flight.."

Despite the loss of propeller accident, 13 audits by the regulator in a little over 2 years is significant -  

Hmm...wouldn't mind having a read of the findings of those audits...

On the subject of capture, as a passing strange coincidence I came across a fascinating web archived ASRR submission from a Mr A Emmerson: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...b_2014.pdf

This is a paper concerning :

The philosophy of government control of aviation
the history of Government control in Australia

CAA as a Government business enterprise,

the capture and competence of the CAA

technical authority and leadership on the part of managers in CASA

unsafe cognitive dissonance in the industry,

the arrangements for engineering investigation of the safety of types of aircraft registered in Australia,

organizational separation of the ATSB from the CASA .and

responsibility for regulations relevant to the ditching of Westwind aeroplane at Norfolk Island, and to
overseas maintenance of Australian aircraft.

I was formerly a Chief Airworthiness Engineer in the Civil Aviation Authority, and a member of the Air
Navigation Commission’s Airworthiness Panel. I am a graduate of the University of Sydney in Aeronautical
Engineering, the RAAF Academy, RAAF Basic Flying Training School, and the RAAF Staff College. I have
been elected as Associate Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management and an Associate Fellow of the
Royal Aeronautical Society. I have 30 years experience in airworthiness control, especially of aging aircraft,
and including numerous accident investigations.

I have made this submission because, with all due respect to the Director and his staff, I strongly suspect that
several basic principles of achieving safety in aviation have gone missing in action. CASA appears to be
entrenching policies that were forced upon the “captured” CAA in times of financial stringency, and yet
corporate management appears to be gold plated. ATSB continues to be ineffective and administrative
separation of ATSB from CASA, and CASA from the AGPS, are taken for granted. Is CASA to become little
more than a client of the European Airworthiness Authority, the FAA or, manufacturers, and incapable of
independent thought and action.

   And Emmerson on regulatory capture refer from bottom of page 9:

Capture

Regulatory practice changed in 1987/88. Instead of designating a body of officials, the Parliament appointed a body corporate to perform the aviation safety functions. BASI was identified as the “watch dog” which was to keep the new body on the straight narrow. The immediate convenience to the Government was that aviation safety funding came “off Budget”, and a whipping boy was created to shield the Minister by absorbing the complaints of the industry. The body corporate, the CAA, was to be funded by the proceeds of providing “regulatory services” to the industry. Most importantly, though it was not seen that way at the time, Australian Government Public Service norms for personnel establishments, classification, salaries and appointments were set aside. Those norms in fact act as safeguards. Removing them rendered the CAA susceptible to capture. Although a very senior and relevantly experienced public servant was made the Chairman of the CAA board, and another, the CEO and General Manager of the Authority, with the right to hire and fire staff, within two years, following the death of the Chairman of the Board, Board member R.H. Smith had become Chairman, the CEO and his deputy had involuntarily “resigned”, and Mr Smith’s nominee had become CEO. The Authority had been captured...

In relevance to the REX saga, under heading "Investigation of major defects" from bottom of page 25 to the page 33 conclusion should be essential reading...

MTF..P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Read McDonaught's latest Statement of Expectation here..

[Peetwo]

McDonaught signs off on another 2 years of MOAS purgatory - 

Read McDonaught's latest Statement of Expectation here..

Dated              4 July 2019

Michael McCormack

Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development

1.        Overview

This instrument is the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 15 July 2019 to 30 June 2021.

This instrument commences on 15 July 2019 and expires at the end of 30 June 2021 as if it had been repealed by another instrument.

This instrument puts in place a new Statement of Expectations (SOE) which serves as a notice to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act).

This new SOE formalises the Government’s expectations concerning the operations and performance of CASA.

CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Act, the Airspace Act 2007 and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as well as other relevant legislation.

I also expect that the conduct and values of CASA’s Board and staff should be consistent with that of the Australian Public Service.



2.        Governance

I expect that the Board and the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) will continue to work to enable the effective operation of CASA as the national aviation safety regulator.

I expect CASA to be a world-best-practice aviation safety regulator.

I expect the Board be responsible for the matters set out in the Act, including in particular, CASA’s strategic direction, risk management and corporate planning.

I expect the Board to ensure that CASA makes progress on its strategic priorities, including the key aviation initiatives outlined in this statement.

I also expect the Board to continue to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and industry.

Subject to the Act, I expect the DAS, as the Chief Executive Officer of CASA, to continue to be responsible for managing the operations of CASA, its organisational capacity, and the exercise of its statutory functions. This includes the development and implementation of regulation, executive-decision making, and all day-to-day operational, financial, personnel and administrative activities.

I expect the Board to keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan and this SOE.



3.        Regulatory Approach

I expect CASA will continue its regulatory approach, in accordance with its regulatory philosophy, with:

(a)   a focus on aviation safety as the highest priority;

(b)   consideration of the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes; and

©   a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors.



4.        Key Aviation Initiatives

I expect CASA, in conducting its responsibilities as the aviation safety regulator, will focus on the following key aviation initiatives:

(a)      finalise the remaining new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and ensure effective implementation and transition arrangements are applied.

(b)     continue effective engagement with industry in the lead up to the implementation of the flight operations suite of regulations, including on the issue of passenger limitations under Part 135 and on the development of associated regulatory and guidance material.

©      support Airservices Australia in the implementation of the new civil-military air traffic management system, also known as OneSKY, with timely approval and certification activities, in addition to the continuing regulatory oversight of Australia’s existing air traffic management system.

(d)     continue to respond to emerging risks related to drones, including the implementation of a registration and accreditation scheme and working collaboratively with my Department and Airservices Australia on an approach to the safe and efficient airspace integration of unmanned vehicles that complements the Government’s broader approach to this sector.

(e)      provide regulatory oversight for major aerodrome infrastructure projects, including Western Sydney Airport and significant new runway projects, as well as providing authoritative and timely advice to me and my Department on other airport developments, to assist me in complying with the statutory requirements of the Airports Act 1996, and regulations made under it.

(f)      work with my Department and Airservices Australia on modernising airspace management, including, as the regulator, leading the development of a national strategic airspace plan which articulates a regulatory narrative on controlled airspace.

(g)     work with Geoscience Australia and Airservices Australia to progress safe and timely implementation of satellite based augmentation systems in the air traffic management environment.

(h)     assist the Australian Space Agency in forming their regulatory framework for high powered rockets and provide timely approvals and advice for operation under their regulations to ensure safe integrations into the air traffic management environment.

(i)       continue to share safety information consistently with the Safety Information Policy Statement agreed with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

(j)       maintain international and regional aviation safety engagement through effective engagement in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and strategic support of aviation safety initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region.

(k)     continue to ensure CASA’s training and recruitment strategies provide the organisation with the skills and expertise to meet the current and emerging challenges in aviation safety regulation.



5.        Stakeholder Engagement

I expect CASA will continue to:

(a)      undertake effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.

(b)     communicate clearly and regularly with relevant Government agencies, industry and other key stakeholders regarding CASA’s activities and functions.

©      work closely with my Department and other Government agencies, including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety advice to the Government, the aviation industry and the community.


Also via the Oz:

Agencies ordered to prioritise safety



A new statement of expectations has been issued to Australia’s aviation agencies with the key message that “safety is the federal government’s absolute number one priority”.

Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have been ­provided with the statement formalising the government’s expectations concerning operation and performance.

Deputy Prime Minister ­Michael McCormack said the government was proud of a safety record that had placed Australia in the top six of International Civil Aviation Organisation member states.

“This is all about ensuring our agencies remain world leaders by preserving and enhancing their skills, knowledge and functions over the coming term of government,” Mr McCormack said.

The statement follows the reintroduction to parliament last week of changes to the Civil Aviation Act that seek to take into account the cost of regulation while maintaining the primacy of safety. Pilots have raised concerns about the amendments, fearing they will lead to a watering down of safety standards in favour of profits.

Mr McCormack said the government was very conscious of the challenges faced by small business around the country and the “need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden”. “It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is safe, dynamic and sustainable with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks,” he said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...3a81f6c186

And so it goes round and round, the never ending spin cycle of a totally inept, totally captured minister signing off another 2 years of bureaucratic inflicted mystique of aviation safety purgatory, on an industry already struggling to survive against thousands upon thousands of pages of barely decipherable, criminal code strict liability regulations - FDS!   

All this crap about aviation safety being the highest priority and yet there the DFO sits...

Great to see the ‘Public Interest’ being served by this new proposal at Essendon. Lots more opportunity for shopping. Lots more opportunity for residential development.  Lots more opportunity for short term real estate development with a good ROI.  Bugger aviation and the critical role it plays in our economy.  They can fly from somewhere else.  


Methinks the long term plan is to close down the airfield altogether using the ‘death-by-a-thousand-cuts’ method big developers have honed to perfection with tacit government approval.  It goes something like this:  ‘hey mate, stick in the application, no worries.  We’ll take care of it..  it’ll go through the normal approvals process using the flawed ‘affordable risk’ methodology we’ve been using for years without consequence.  Don’t worry about all that international shit.  We give lip service to that so it looks as if we are meeting that standard when nothing could be....well, you know.  Then when you find there’s reduced air traffic you can put an argument for further reductions in width and length and we’ll go with that because, clearly, aviation is giving you a poor ROI...we can’t have that, can we?  We can’t stifle the market place!  And Bob’s your father’s brother. Oh, and about that donation for a good cause........!

Of course this is a purely fictional account of what might happen bearing no resemblance to those living or dead!  

 In the interim the public and fliers are at risk and not just along the sides of runways but at the ends where there ARE NO PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES courtesy NASF which is not interested in looking after the public at end of runways for established airfields.  Nup, you’re on your own.  School kids, local residents count for nothing.  Just an affordable payout should things go pear-shaped.  Tells us something about the value governments puts on human life.  The message, for those of you who’ve missed it, is humans are a commodity with a certain value, and that value is the price of doing business.  How much are you worth!

https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...4#pid10424

Meanwhile back at the Fort, the Avery and the OnePIE trough, it is business as usual...

      

Via the Senate Budget Estimates webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

Before reading the following ATSB AQON on Sen Rex's QON on Angel Flight, keep this in mind from the Emmerson ASRR submission: 

...Regulatory practice changed in 1987/88. Instead of designating a body of officials, the Parliament appointed a body corporate to perform the aviation safety functions. BASI was identified as the “watch dog” which was to keep the new body on the straight narrow. The immediate convenience to the Government was that aviation safety funding came “off Budget”, and a whipping boy was created to shield the Minister by absorbing the complaints of the industry...  

ATSB AQON:

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 April 2019

—
Senator PATRICK: I'm being really specific. I really would like an answer to this.
Have you talked to a number of Angel Flight pilots-if so, how many-in respect of
pressures that might be put on them relating to community service flights?
Mr Hood: We have talked to Angel Flight pilots. I'd have to take on notice how many.
Answer —
Over the course of the investigation (AO-2017-169), the ATSB interviewed a number
of pilots with varying backgrounds. The ATSB can provide a number after
completion of its investigation.

P2 comment: Is that code for 'there were no pilots interviewed' but by the time the final report comes out (???) there will be...

---

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 April 2019

—
Senator PATRICK: I will leave it at that. Can I ask Mr Hood to take a question on
notice? Let's assume your report comes out in about a month.
Mr Hood: My understanding is that an extensive submission was received only late
last week. Usually it would take us around a month to incorporate any changes that
might need to be made in the final report. Then it goes to the commission for public
approval to release. I would say that the second week of May would be the earliest. It
would be around the 18th, I think-
Senator PATRICK: When are our questions on notice due back?
CHAIR: The date is 23 May or 22 May.
Senator PATRICK: Can I ask-and you'll have an option, if you haven't released the
report at that stage, to advance any public interest immunity that you need to-
Mr Hood: Sorry, Senator, I've missed the question.
Senator PATRICK: I haven't come to the question. I'm just saying that you'll have the
opportunity to advance a public interest immunity if your report hasn't been published
and the answers need to come back before that. Go through the current regulation
before the Senate and simply indicate whether any of the terms or provisions would
have changed the outcome of the Mount Gambier accident?
Mr Hood: Senator, we'll take on notice to have a look at what we can do in that
regard.
Answer —
The ATSB is unable to provide comment as to whether the proposed regulatory
provisions would have changed the outcome. The ATSB notes the regime introduced
by CASA is intended to address broader risks identified by CASA. Questions with
respect to how the regime addresses those risks are a matter for CASA.

P2 comment: In other words the CASA Iron Ring have told the Hooded Canary to butt out which kind of negates any pretense for the ATSB being an effective 'watch dog' - more like a lap dog I would say...

Next is a copy of correspondence (pdf pg 27 - HERE ) from the then acting DAS/CEO St Commode to Harfwit, which would seem to indicate Airservices told CASA to boil their bum on the regulator's expected timelines for the establishment of ARFFS for Proserpine etc..etc   

 

Hmm...and that was 2.5 years ago and we are still waiting on the MOS Part 139H amendments. Kind of gives you an insight into who is rooting who and who is paying and guess what it has nothing to do with aviation safety - OneSKY rules OK!...

 


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

McDonaught signs off on another 2 years of MOAS purgatory - 

Read McDonaught's latest Statement of Expectation here..

Dated              4 July 2019

Michael McCormack

Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development

1.        Overview

This instrument is the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 15 July 2019 to 30 June 2021.

This instrument commences on 15 July 2019 and expires at the end of 30 June 2021 as if it had been repealed by another instrument.

This instrument puts in place a new Statement of Expectations (SOE) which serves as a notice to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act).

This new SOE formalises the Government’s expectations concerning the operations and performance of CASA.

CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Act, the Airspace Act 2007 and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as well as other relevant legislation.

I also expect that the conduct and values of CASA’s Board and staff should be consistent with that of the Australian Public Service.



2.        Governance

I expect that the Board and the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) will continue to work to enable the effective operation of CASA as the national aviation safety regulator.

I expect CASA to be a world-best-practice aviation safety regulator.

I expect the Board be responsible for the matters set out in the Act, including in particular, CASA’s strategic direction, risk management and corporate planning.

I expect the Board to ensure that CASA makes progress on its strategic priorities, including the key aviation initiatives outlined in this statement.

I also expect the Board to continue to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and industry.

Subject to the Act, I expect the DAS, as the Chief Executive Officer of CASA, to continue to be responsible for managing the operations of CASA, its organisational capacity, and the exercise of its statutory functions. This includes the development and implementation of regulation, executive-decision making, and all day-to-day operational, financial, personnel and administrative activities.

I expect the Board to keep the Secretary of my Department and me fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan and this SOE.



3.        Regulatory Approach

I expect CASA will continue its regulatory approach, in accordance with its regulatory philosophy, with:

(a)   a focus on aviation safety as the highest priority;

(b)   consideration of the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes; and

©   a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors.



4.        Key Aviation Initiatives

I expect CASA, in conducting its responsibilities as the aviation safety regulator, will focus on the following key aviation initiatives:

(a)      finalise the remaining new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and ensure effective implementation and transition arrangements are applied.

(b)     continue effective engagement with industry in the lead up to the implementation of the flight operations suite of regulations, including on the issue of passenger limitations under Part 135 and on the development of associated regulatory and guidance material.

©      support Airservices Australia in the implementation of the new civil-military air traffic management system, also known as OneSKY, with timely approval and certification activities, in addition to the continuing regulatory oversight of Australia’s existing air traffic management system.

(d)     continue to respond to emerging risks related to drones, including the implementation of a registration and accreditation scheme and working collaboratively with my Department and Airservices Australia on an approach to the safe and efficient airspace integration of unmanned vehicles that complements the Government’s broader approach to this sector.

(e)      provide regulatory oversight for major aerodrome infrastructure projects, including Western Sydney Airport and significant new runway projects, as well as providing authoritative and timely advice to me and my Department on other airport developments, to assist me in complying with the statutory requirements of the Airports Act 1996, and regulations made under it.

(f)      work with my Department and Airservices Australia on modernising airspace management, including, as the regulator, leading the development of a national strategic airspace plan which articulates a regulatory narrative on controlled airspace.

(g)     work with Geoscience Australia and Airservices Australia to progress safe and timely implementation of satellite based augmentation systems in the air traffic management environment.

(h)     assist the Australian Space Agency in forming their regulatory framework for high powered rockets and provide timely approvals and advice for operation under their regulations to ensure safe integrations into the air traffic management environment.

(i)       continue to share safety information consistently with the Safety Information Policy Statement agreed with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

(j)       maintain international and regional aviation safety engagement through effective engagement in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and strategic support of aviation safety initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region.

(k)     continue to ensure CASA’s training and recruitment strategies provide the organisation with the skills and expertise to meet the current and emerging challenges in aviation safety regulation.



5.        Stakeholder Engagement

I expect CASA will continue to:

(a)      undertake effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry to create a collaborative relationship based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.

(b)     communicate clearly and regularly with relevant Government agencies, industry and other key stakeholders regarding CASA’s activities and functions.

©      work closely with my Department and other Government agencies, including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety advice to the Government, the aviation industry and the community.


Also via the Oz:

Agencies ordered to prioritise safety



A new statement of expectations has been issued to Australia’s aviation agencies with the key message that “safety is the federal government’s absolute number one priority”.

Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have been ­provided with the statement formalising the government’s expectations concerning operation and performance.

Deputy Prime Minister ­Michael McCormack said the government was proud of a safety record that had placed Australia in the top six of International Civil Aviation Organisation member states.

“This is all about ensuring our agencies remain world leaders by preserving and enhancing their skills, knowledge and functions over the coming term of government,” Mr McCormack said.

The statement follows the reintroduction to parliament last week of changes to the Civil Aviation Act that seek to take into account the cost of regulation while maintaining the primacy of safety. Pilots have raised concerns about the amendments, fearing they will lead to a watering down of safety standards in favour of profits.

Mr McCormack said the government was very conscious of the challenges faced by small business around the country and the “need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden”. “It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is safe, dynamic and sustainable with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks,” he said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...3a81f6c186

And so it goes round and round, the never ending spin cycle of a totally inept, totally captured minister signing off another 2 years of bureaucratic inflicted mystique of aviation safety purgatory, on an industry already struggling to survive against thousands upon thousands of pages of barely decipherable, criminal code strict liability regulations - FDS!   

All this crap about aviation safety being the highest priority and yet there the DFO sits...

Great to see the ‘Public Interest’ being served by this new proposal at Essendon. Lots more opportunity for shopping. Lots more opportunity for residential development.  Lots more opportunity for short term real estate development with a good ROI.  Bugger aviation and the critical role it plays in our economy.  They can fly from somewhere else.  


Methinks the long term plan is to close down the airfield altogether using the ‘death-by-a-thousand-cuts’ method big developers have honed to perfection with tacit government approval.  It goes something like this:  ‘hey mate, stick in the application, no worries.  We’ll take care of it..  it’ll go through the normal approvals process using the flawed ‘affordable risk’ methodology we’ve been using for years without consequence.  Don’t worry about all that international shit.  We give lip service to that so it looks as if we are meeting that standard when nothing could be....well, you know.  Then when you find there’s reduced air traffic you can put an argument for further reductions in width and length and we’ll go with that because, clearly, aviation is giving you a poor ROI...we can’t have that, can we?  We can’t stifle the market place!  And Bob’s your father’s brother. Oh, and about that donation for a good cause........!

Of course this is a purely fictional account of what might happen bearing no resemblance to those living or dead!  

 In the interim the public and fliers are at risk and not just along the sides of runways but at the ends where there ARE NO PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES courtesy NASF which is not interested in looking after the public at end of runways for established airfields.  Nup, you’re on your own.  School kids, local residents count for nothing.  Just an affordable payout should things go pear-shaped.  Tells us something about the value governments puts on human life.  The message, for those of you who’ve missed it, is humans are a commodity with a certain value, and that value is the price of doing business.  How much are you worth!

https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...4#pid10424

Meanwhile back at the Fort, the Avery and the OnePIE trough, it is business as usual...

      

Via the Senate Budget Estimates webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

Before reading the following ATSB AQON on Sen Rex's QON on Angel Flight, keep this in mind from the Emmerson ASRR submission: 

...Regulatory practice changed in 1987/88. Instead of designating a body of officials, the Parliament appointed a body corporate to perform the aviation safety functions. BASI was identified as the “watch dog” which was to keep the new body on the straight narrow. The immediate convenience to the Government was that aviation safety funding came “off Budget”, and a whipping boy was created to shield the Minister by absorbing the complaints of the industry...  

ATSB AQON:

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 April 2019

—
Senator PATRICK: I'm being really specific. I really would like an answer to this.
Have you talked to a number of Angel Flight pilots-if so, how many-in respect of
pressures that might be put on them relating to community service flights?
Mr Hood: We have talked to Angel Flight pilots. I'd have to take on notice how many.
Answer —
Over the course of the investigation (AO-2017-169), the ATSB interviewed a number
of pilots with varying backgrounds. The ATSB can provide a number after
completion of its investigation.

P2 comment: Is that code for 'there were no pilots interviewed' but by the time the final report comes out (???) there will be...

---

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 April 2019

—
Senator PATRICK: I will leave it at that. Can I ask Mr Hood to take a question on
notice? Let's assume your report comes out in about a month.
Mr Hood: My understanding is that an extensive submission was received only late
last week. Usually it would take us around a month to incorporate any changes that
might need to be made in the final report. Then it goes to the commission for public
approval to release. I would say that the second week of May would be the earliest. It
would be around the 18th, I think-
Senator PATRICK: When are our questions on notice due back?
CHAIR: The date is 23 May or 22 May.
Senator PATRICK: Can I ask-and you'll have an option, if you haven't released the
report at that stage, to advance any public interest immunity that you need to-
Mr Hood: Sorry, Senator, I've missed the question.
Senator PATRICK: I haven't come to the question. I'm just saying that you'll have the
opportunity to advance a public interest immunity if your report hasn't been published
and the answers need to come back before that. Go through the current regulation
before the Senate and simply indicate whether any of the terms or provisions would
have changed the outcome of the Mount Gambier accident?
Mr Hood: Senator, we'll take on notice to have a look at what we can do in that
regard.
Answer —
The ATSB is unable to provide comment as to whether the proposed regulatory
provisions would have changed the outcome. The ATSB notes the regime introduced
by CASA is intended to address broader risks identified by CASA. Questions with
respect to how the regime addresses those risks are a matter for CASA.

P2 comment: In other words the CASA Iron Ring have told the Hooded Canary to butt out which kind of negates any pretense for the ATSB being an effective 'watch dog' - more like a lap dog I would say...

Next is a copy of correspondence (pdf pg 27 - HERE ) from the then acting DAS/CEO St Commode to Harfwit, which would seem to indicate Airservices told CASA to boil their bum on the regulator's expected timelines for the establishment of ARFFS for Proserpine etc..etc   

 

Hmm...and that was 2.5 years ago and we are still waiting on the MOS Part 139H amendments. Kind of gives you an insight into who is rooting who and who is paying and guess what it has nothing to do with aviation safety - OneSKY rules OK!...

 

LMH nails it on WOFTAM SOE - 

"Sorry to contradict you, CASA, but that's the reality."

The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport today issued both CASA and Airservices with new Statements of Expectation (SOE). An SOE is a legislative instrument that lays out what the government of the day expects of them, hence the name. Theoretically, being legislation, it is a violation of federal law if SOEs are not complied with. But like all laws they are only as good as the determination to enforce them. The SOEs are being accompanied by bolstering statements of the government's intent to enforce, but keep in mind that most SOEs were written with the collaboration of the department to which they are issued. That sets up a situation where the SOE tends to include only those things that the agency wants to comply with anyway ... plus a few things the department wants in as PR that are written in language so grey that they are impossible to enforce. In CASA's SOE there is the ongoing statement about cost and impact. It's all very nice, but completely negated by the expectation that safety is primary. And who gets to decide what is and isn't safe? CASA. Consequently, there is virtually no way of forcing CASA to take cost into account, because they will always deploy the golden shield of safety to get their own way. Take Part 135 for example. If the department was serious they'd tell CASA to set a match to it. If adopted in its entirety, Part 135 will load significant costs on charter operators without any increase in safety. Sorry to contradict you, CASA, but that's the reality. Another: if the department was serious they would immediately instigate a parliamentary inquiry into why the regulatory reform program is still not complete after 31 years. It's not enough to expect; you need to make sure the consequences of not conforming are enforced. And that, Minister McCormack, is the aviation industry's Statement of Expectations to you.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...PxAiTaX.99

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Hitch your wagons and circle ‘em.

Hitch – “It's not enough to expect; you need to make sure the consequences of not conforming are enforced. And that, Minister McCormack, is the aviation industry's Statement of Expectations to you.”

Amen.  The neat nutshell Hitch published in Oz Flying sums up ‘the way things are’ explaining how the first and foremost safety’ concern is for that of the minister responsible; running a close second is the for safety of the CASA empire. The actual ‘safety’ of flight operations is, as it always was, the responsibility of the operator, which devolves into the responsibility and liability of the mutt driving the airframe. Almost any accident report you care to read graphically demonstrates this as fact. This is particularly true in recent times; maybe it’s time the minister learned a few home truths about what is real world ‘safety’. The problem with that is you have to have a minister who is ‘actively’ engaged in doing the job – properly. I don’t believe we have ever had a less effective, interested minister in a long, long line of glove puppets who are quite happy to pay (with tax payer money) for the outrageous protection racket not only CASA but ATSB and ASA provide on payment. So, the captive miniscule becomes the very first link in the safety chain, and the weakest. Isolated, cocooned and protected from the harsh realities; baffled, bamboozled and led about by the foreskin on a short leash by folks who despise and denigrate him behind his back, laughing, all the way to the bank.

One of the first questions any responsible minister should ask of CASA is “how will this rule improve real safety?” Not the fluff and arse covering stuff spoon fed at meal times, but down in the dirt, blood, shit, guts and heartbreak of an accident. I can say with some certainty that nothing CASA have produced, at great cost, has improved ‘safety’ one iota; I may even go so far as to say that many of the ‘regulations’ are actually detrimental. Why? Well, in terms an purblind politician may understand, the cost of implementing a thing like 135 must be met; unlike the CASA there is not an unlimited money pool, manpower and time to ponce about with endless, pointless paperwork; something has to be compromised. ‘Tuther side of the coin is the very, very real ‘lip-service only’ paid to ‘on paper compliance’ alongside of the utter contempt the latest load of regulatory bollocks generates.

If this particularly useless article, masquerading as minister, ever took his head out of his fundamental orifice long enough, he would see that both he and his ‘safety agencies’ are held in utter contempt by the majority of this industry.

Hitch – “Consequently, there is virtually no way of forcing CASA to take cost into account, because they will always deploy the golden shield of safety to get their own way. Take Part 135 for example. If the department was serious they'd tell CASA to set a match to it.”

The fraud perpetrated by CASA, with ministerial approval, using tax payer money is a national disgrace – problem is they are far too deeply trapped in their own mire to exit gracefully. Start again minister or duck off and let a more able man get it done. I hear the village idiot is seeking gainful employment; perhaps you could consider his resume. At least it’s honest.

Choc frog Hitch.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

REX solemn loyalty vow falls a foul of the Feds - 

It would seem that the beloved airline of the Nats REX (for all the wrong reasons) can't stay out of the news??

From Ironsider, via the Oz:

Rex letter to cadet pilots lands in court


July 17, 2019

Aviation


Legal action over a letter sent by Regional Express (Rex) airlines to prospective cadet pilots will finally be heard by the Federal Circuit Court today, five years after it was originally filed.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots applied to the court in September 2014 for penalty order­s against Rex after the airline sought to make cadet pilots agree to stay at cheap accommod­ation and remain with the company for at least seven years.

“For us at Rex, pure technical skills alone are not enough,” said the letter.

“We are looking for cadets who will acknowledge the privil­ege of this life-changing opportunity and commit to paying back to the company by being fiercely loyal and company-minded and by going above and beyond the call of duty especially in times of need by the company.”

The letter went on to highlight the example of cadets choosing to stay at a local motel rather than more basic accommodation during­ simulator training, at a cost to the company of an extra $100 a night.

“You should be aware that the Rex Group considers such cadets to be totally lacking in integrity and the Rex Group will not allow any pilot lacking in integrity to hold a command.”

Recipients were then asked to reply with a handwritten letter includ­ing a “solemn promise to give back to the company by volun­teering to undertake various­ activities and actions”.

According to the AFAP, the letter constituted “adverse act­ion, coercion and misrepre­sen­tation under the Fair Work Act, and should be retracted with Rex ordered­ to pay civil penalties”.

In response, Rex applied to the Federal Circuit Court to have the AFAP-brought action dismissed on the grounds the federation could not represent people who were not actual members.

When the application was rejected­, Rex appealed to a full bench of the Federal Court only to lose again, leaving the High Court as its last resort.

In its ruling in December 2017, the High Court upheld the ­Federal Court’s finding that an industr­ial organisation registered under the Fair Work Act was entitle­d to represent the interests of a person who was eligible for membership but was not a member­.

The matter has been set down for hearing in the Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne for three days from today before judge Karl Blake.

A spokeswoman for the AFAP said the federation was relieved the case was finally going to be heard.

Rex did not respond to questions from The Australian. The reg­ional carrier has faced intense scrutiny in recent weeks after engin­eers raised concerns with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority about a “poor safety culture”.

CASA has since cleared the airline after a two-day inspection of the airline’s Wagga Wagga maintenance depot.

And the follow up today:

Regional Express case pushed to next year



A long-awaited hearing in the Federal Circuit Court this week over a letter sent to prospective cadet pilots by Regional Express airlines faces further delays due to the poor health of a key witness.

The court was told on Wednesday that Rex chief operating officer Neville Howell would be unable to appear before the hearing due to sudden illness. As a result, judge Karl Blake rescheduled the matter to be heard in early February next year.

The case has been a long time getting to a hearing after being initiated by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots in September 2014. AFAP sought penalty orders against Rex over the letter, which allegedly constituted “adverse act­ion, coercion and misrepre­sen­tation under the Fair Work Act”.

Central to AFAP’s concerns was a demand that cadets provide a handwritten commitment to accept certain conditions, such as staying at cheap accommodation and working for the airline for at least seven years.

But Rex challenged AFAP’s eligibility to represent the cadets as they were not members, taking the case to the High Court without success. Rex has declined to comment because the matter is before the court.

Also still more REX news

Via Travel Weekly:

REX ADMITS REPUTATION “WILL NOT BE COMPLETELY REPAIRED” AS IT SEEKS PUNISHMENT FOR MEDIA




HUNTLEY MITCHELL

18 JUL 2019

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF REGIONAL EXPRESS (REX) HAS WARNED THE AIRLINE IS LOOKING TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THOSE MEDIA OUTLETS BEHIND THE REPORTING OF “TRUMPED-UP AND SENSATIONAL” ALLEGATIONS AGAINST IT.

In a statement to shareholders yesterday, John Sharp praised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for its work in helping Rex clear its name, after a number of media outlets reported that the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) filed a complaint against the Aussie airline.

The complaint alleged Rex had committed “serious breaches of safety obligations” which included “coercion, intimidation and bullying of employees” to a point where they were fearful of reporting aircraft defects.

However, a safety audit by CASA and subsequent formal report delivered this week found no issues with Rex’s safety practices.

“CASA should be highly commended for devoting considerable resources in ensuring that the audit report was published soon after the audit so that the public can be reassured quickly of the excellent safety standards of Rex,” Sharp said.

“Although the report by CASA has unequivocally vindicated Rex on all the baseless accusations, the damage to Rex’s reputation in the minds of some members of the public is great and will not be completely repaired, as the media will not be so enthusiastic in now reporting the truth as they have been in reporting trumped-up and sensational charges that help sell their publications.”

Sharp said the media outlets and other organisations behind this should be condemned for their “irresponsible and unconscionable actions that played on the highly emotive issue of aviation safety to further their personal agenda”.

“Rex will be seeking advice on the appropriate actions to be taken against these irresponsible parties to safeguard the integrity of aviation safety in Australia,” he said.

Hmm...me thinks that man Sharpie doth protest too much...


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Smoke – or Fire?

Easy enough to sympathise with REX outrage at the media; a PR problem for sure. Passenger numbers over the next few months will tell how much damage has been done – although I suspect not a lot. We shall see. The old question “would you let your loved ones travel on their aircraft” begs an answer. Knowing the aircraft and many of the flight crew, I don’t believe I would worry.

But: there are a couple of ‘worrying’ elements in the story. The quick, clean (spotless) audit series conducted by CASA being one. Clean paperwork is like the top surface of a mudguard; immaculate, polished to a fare-thee-well, impeccable. The underside of a mudguard is often a different story; that’s where the crud gathers and the rust settles in. Every aircraft in the air today will be carrying, in one form or another, ‘snags’. Small items which do not affect the overall serviceability of the aircraft at all. Many of these may be carried for an extended period of time to allow the aircraft to keep operating – all perfectly safe, totally legal and a universal practice. IMO the ‘quality’ and ‘safety culture’ of a company is demonstrated in the reduction and early cleaning up of these ‘snags’. Repetitive snags appearing on tech logs indicate a patch up, rather than a clean fix (unless it’s one of those ‘mystery gremlins which just won’t quit). But, I digress.

I ain’t suspicious of the airline, nor too concerned for ‘safety’. If I were to raise an eyebrow it would be over the speed and smoothness with which the Audit was conducted – in record time. We must just hope that undue influence was not brought to bear to keep the lid on a potential PR disaster. I’d hate to see REX have an accident following a ‘paper work’ audit, due to a ‘mechanical’ failure. The words Shit and Fan comes to mind.

Toot – toot…

[Peetwo]

G®-8 test case for miniscule change to the Act??



Just splice this together with the addition of this article by Ironsider, courtesy of the Oz...  

July 26, 2019

Aviation
Airvan grounding proves costly




Australian charter flight operators claim to have lost tens of thousands of dollars a day as a result of the grounding of an aircraft involved in Sweden’s deadliest crash in 30 years.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is expected to soon lift the temporary grounding of the GippsAero GA8 Airvan imposed last Saturday, after reports a wing detachment caused the July 14 crash that killed nine people.

Of the 228 GA8 Airvans currently in operation worldwide, 63 are registered in Australia, most of which ere used in commercial operations such as skydiving, scenic flights and charters.

Ben Wyndham from the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) said they were expecting a string of small business failures as a result of the week-long grounding.

“Some are facing losses in the vicinity of $20,000 a day,” Mr Wyndham said.

“These operators have done the right thing and invested in new Australian-built aeroplanes because they’re a capable machine. Unfortunately they have been let down by the Australian regulator who is being very liability gun shy.”

Although he accepted the need to initially ground the aircraft, Mr Wyndham said it was quickly apparent that the Swedish crash was not related to the Australian fleet of GA8 Airvans.

“It is my understanding that the service bulletin issued late last year (relating to the wing strut attach points) has not been complied with on that aeroplane,” he said. “The Australian fleet is compliant so CASA has grounded the entire fleet out of fear of liability.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said there was certainly some severe financial distress being experienced by operators of the Airvan.

But he said CASA was focused on getting the aircraft back in the air as soon as possible.

“They’re pursuing this with utmost vigour and they’ve got their best man available on the job,” Mr Higgins said.

A CASA spokesman said the break up of the GA8 in Sweden appeared “highly abnormal” and the risk to safety was not initially understood.

“CASA took a precautionary approach to ground the fleet for a short period of time to ascertain a better understanding and the extent of any risk to the world fleet. The suspension is a short term precaution,” he said.

“CASA based this safety decision on the best information available from the Swedish authorities at the time.”

A message to operators yesterday afternoon indicated an update to the temporary grounding directive would be issued “as soon as possible”

 
Which then flows onto this...

On P-Prune forum – HERE – some sensible commentary on the Swedish G8 accident has been posted. Thanks guys.

From the ‘Independent a little deeper coverage.

Sweden plane crash: Nine dead after aircraft carrying parachutists crashes into island

Nine people have been killed after the plane carrying them to carry out a parachute jump crashed into an island in eastern Sweden, local media reported on Sunday.

The plane left Umea airport shortly after 1.30pm, The Local reported, and sounded an alarm at 2.12pm, before crashing. Region Vasterbotten municipality spokeswoman Gabriella Bandling said: "I can confirm that all those aboard the plane have died".

Speaking to regional media, witnesses have claimed they could see parachutists attempting to jump out of the plane as it careened into the ground. Footage of the crash captured by a local 16-year-old showed the plane spiralling as it nosedived into Storsandskar, an island close to the airport.

Airport operators have claimed the plane was a GippsAero GA8 Airvan – a small aircraft popular with skydiving operations that is designed to carry eight people including the pilot. Local rescue service representative Conny Qvarfordt told local media “It's a parachute plane, and something seems to have happened just after take-off.”
 
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-c...st10518654

Update: Fort Fumble repeal grounding instrument?

Via the UP:

Cinders - Instrument has now been repealed. https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10527830

---

GippsAero GA8 return to air

Date of publication: 

25 July 2019 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has lifted a temporary suspension of GippsAero GA8 aircraft operations.

The temporary suspension of GA8 aircraft flights was put in place as a safety precaution following a recent fatal parachuting accident in Sweden.

Based on the limited information available immediately after the accident the sixty-three GA8 aircraft in Australia were grounded, as well as a number operating overseas. The suspension was in effect for five days.

The precautionary suspension was triggered by initial information from the investigation into the Swedish accident which showed the accident aircraft had broken up in flight.

CASA has now received further information that there is no evidence to indicate a potential unsafe condition associated with the aircraft and as such the GA8 aircraft type can be safely allowed to return to normal operations.

A CASA airworthiness engineer is currently observing the accident investigation in Sweden and this has proved to be very beneficial.

CASA will continue to monitor the investigation into the GA8 accident and will take appropriate action should any related safety issues become apparent in the future.

A safety assurance review of Australian parachute operations will also be conducted over coming months.

The parachuting accident happened on 14 July 2019 near Umeå in northern Sweden. None of the nine people on board the aircraft survived the accident.

The GA8 is manufactured in Australia by GippsAero, which is based in the Latrobe Valley. The GA8 is a single engine high wing aeroplane with fixed tricycle landing gear. In Australia the GA8 is used in a range of operations including charter, aerial work and parachuting.

And some comments:

Andy_RR

Could be the beginning of the end for GippsAero though. CASA has form when it comes to jerking industry's chain until it withers a la Jabiru/CAMit

Of course the winglets made in Port Melbs are also grounded so CASA should be feeling pleased with a job well done preventing any of this dangerous flying malarkey from taking place. Air safety starts and ends inside a locked hangar...

---

Horatio Leafblower

Personally I don't think 4 days suspension is the end of the world if the wing came off.

Asturias

There are a lot of business owners who would disagree with you. There was a great deal of evidence pointing to the cause, and a structural failure "just because" was not on the list. The grounding has caused incredible distress to the business owners and employees of the operators of these aircraft, not least because it was accompanied by so little information.

I asked CASA to eliminate what turned out to be the primary cause and their response was along the lines of "Of course we looked at that, you must think we're stupid, it was definitely something else". That our #1 theory has turned out to be the #1 cause says to me that the grounding was unnecessary and that there needs to be some jobs reviewed at Fort Fumble.

The Last Minute Hitch: 26 July 2019

Vale Mark Smith, Acts of parliament and the cost of a grounding, via the Yaffa:

what confidence can we have that the provisions of the Act will be enforced?

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 is back with the House of Reps. It got a good run in the Senate this week, with the Greens pushing the hairy old barrow of interfering with aviation safety as they sought to send the bill to a committee. The red seats mostly didn't agree. Victorian Senator Janet Rice put forward the theory that general aviation needs to be looked after, but we shouldn't be asking CASA to do it; rather, it was the job of parliament. Experience has taught me that fixing general aviation is not what parliaments do. Parliaments are there to bandy about legislation, not to actually do anything; that's the theoretical role of governments. And it is this government's stated position (supported by the ALP) that safety still gets the priority over the economics of regulation. Taking that into account, it's still very hard to see how amending the Act will help GA at all. Let me reinforce that the need to consider cost is already in a legislative document: the Statement of Expectations. If that is not being properly enforced, what confidence can we have that the provisions of the Act will be enforced?

A classic case emerged this week with CASA grounding all Airvan 8s after the parachuting accident in Sweden. The Swedish authorities expressed concerns that the aircraft may have broken up in the air, leading CASA to ground all GA8s for 15 days as a precaution. They lifted the ban five days later (kudos to them), but at what cost? When asked why they felt it was paramount to ground the GA8s when a recent spate of in-flight break-ups with C210s didn't draw that reaction, I was told "the difference is there is specific information available for the Cessna. At this stage there is only the general observation that the Airvan may have suffered an inflight failure." So we've grounded the aircraft type and caused economic strain based on a "general observation". Another general observation would show that in-flight break-ups are more likely to be caused by ageing fatigue, over-loading or misuse of the controls. The oldest Airvan 8 in the world has just turned 20; not old in a fleet with an average age nearing 40 and unlikely to be suffering from fatigue. Rapid elimination means that if the Swedish Airvan did break up in the air it is most likely an over-stress situation, something not likely to have an impact on every other GA8 in the world. With only one incident on the cards, what was it that made CASA think there was an issue that was an immediate threat to safety? It doesn't matter ... with safety as their priority, they may as well ground them all because the cost to the industry is of secondary concern to the regulator.

May your gauges always be in the green.

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...OeKIOKx.99

---

Plus a comment:

Ian Tucker • 2 hours ago

Agree with Hitch on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019. Although it is encouraging that it received bipartisan support in parliament, sadly CASA will no doubt continue it's belligerent and destructive actions against General Aviation. What mechanism is there to ensure that the CASA bureaucrats follow the expectations of parliament? Maybe a quesion for Minister McCormack.

Choccy frog again for Hitch...

"..Maybe a quesion for Minister McCormack..." - Hmm...excellent proposition IT makes...perhaps the miniscule could run it as a test case for his department's ICAO Annex 19 approved safety management system (SSP)?? - just saying...



 MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Another one for the McDonaught aviation shamelist - ASICs?? - 

Via Sandy & Aminta...

---

---

To whom it may concern:-

Policy damage to Australian General Aviation, security card and flying training considerations.

As a ten thousand hour professional General Aviation (GA) pilot, and having held Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) approvals for scheduled passenger services, charter and flying school, I have the background to assess the damage to GA from the imposition of the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC), and extreme bureaucratic overreach, through my fifty two years flying experience. 

The ASIC:
This was introduced as a method to combat the potential threat of a terrorist attack following the 9/11 aircraft highjack (Government also introduced another ID card known as an AVID, the use of which is, by reading the CASA website, extremely vague and with ambiguous explanations. Hence this card is unrecognised by airport operators and is of very limited use). 

Irrespective of reputation, working history, the individual’s age, aircraft ownership or length of time of flying licence validity, all private and commercial pilots must have an ASIC in order to;  

1.  Apply for and gain their initial Pilot licence. 

2. To be able to legally access hundreds of ordinary airports that serve towns and cities Australia wide. 
These airports are where you find most of GA maintenance facilities and the few left flying schools which need to be accessed by pilots for compulsory recurring pilot reassessment (CASA requirements).

The ASIC is valid for only two years. 

Cost is $283. 

This does not include the recurring (biennial) cost of assembling various paperworks, including one’s birth certificate each time, then travelling to and from the limited number of designated centres to present one’s application in person. 

Considerations:-

1.  No similar requirement in the USA, home of 9/11.

2. The ASIC is an extreme measure with no known effectiveness. 

3. The cost is a severe disincentive to gaining and maintaining a flying licence, particularly for younger aspiring pilots. 

4.  Firearms licence and passports, 10 yrs. 

5.  No such ID for some other forms of transport, ie, a truck driver could take explosives into populated areas. 

6.  At each ASIC issue and renewal there is a Police check. Are we to assume that there is no continual surveillance of criminal or potentially criminal behaviour of pilots in between the two year period? Hopefully, there is a continual and coordinated exchange of information across all policing bodies. If so then one must ask why every two years for the ASIC police check? 

7.  Aircraft operators without a current ASIC are not allowed to fly into most airports for their aircraft maintenance or recurrent training.  In addition those towns miss out on other business that pilots and their passengers would bring to their towns. 

8.  If Government persists with the ASIC, at least an increase in the period of validity would be sensible. 
Why not increase the validity at each renewal? Perhaps institute a significant increase of timescale for aircraft owners and Commercial pilots, thus creating incentives for participation. 

9.  Compounding the problem, General Aviation is in severe decline due to CASA’s unworkable, very expensive, inappropriate and unfinished rewrite of the rules (31 years and counting). Rules which have been unwisely migrated into the criminal code, with proof of culpability being strict liability, thus no ameliorating circumstances for a defence, and a strong incentive not to report safety issues. 

There are criminal offences and heavy punishments for a number of matters that don’t even rate a mention in the safest and most efficient GA environment, that of the USA. 

10. Replacing the ASIC with a photo licence should be all that is required, to be displayed or kept on person. 

Photo comparison; flying school required manuals and approval process. USA - Australia.

USA, single blue book in front.....,......................... $14.95
Independent instructor approval process...............  None, no cost. 
Timescale......zero


Australia, all other books are CASA required manuals..... $900 for publications, plus in house authored manuals. 
Additional application and bureaucratic process fees to CASA that cost many thousands of dollars (including credible reports of over $50,000).
Timescale........months or years. 

Sandy Reith

---

..If you became a citizen and are a woman - before you got married - your citizenship certificate is not acceptable and you have to provide a marriage certificate - even though you have a passport in your married name - talk about the absurdity of the bureaucracy  - how do we blow up the whole system and start again.

My citizenship certificate is in my married name that I never used and have had a passport all my life as Aminta Hennessy - presumably I would have to provide a divorce certificate - hence I never renew my ASIC. The only thing the ASIC is good for is discounted coffee, meals and accommodation at airports.


?  Too bloody old and don't care any more about such ridiculous trivia.  In the USA I roam around on my US flying certificate as they call their licence.

AMINTA HENNESSY JP, OAM
President - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia

---

---

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Another one for the McDonaught aviation shamelist - ASICs?? - 

---

---

To whom it may concern:-

Policy damage to Australian General Aviation, security card and flying training considerations.

As a ten thousand hour professional General Aviation (GA) pilot, and having held Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) approvals for scheduled passenger services, charter and flying school, I have the background to assess the damage to GA from the imposition of the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC), and extreme bureaucratic overreach, through my fifty two years flying experience. 

The ASIC:
This was introduced as a method to combat the potential threat of a terrorist attack following the 9/11 aircraft highjack (Government also introduced another ID card known as an AVID, the use of which is, by reading the CASA website, extremely vague and with ambiguous explanations. Hence this card is unrecognised by airport operators and is of very limited use). 

Irrespective of reputation, working history, the individual’s age, aircraft ownership or length of time of flying licence validity, all private and commercial pilots must have an ASIC in order to;  

1.  Apply for and gain their initial Pilot licence. 

2. To be able to legally access hundreds of ordinary airports that serve towns and cities Australia wide. 
These airports are where you find most of GA maintenance facilities and the few left flying schools which need to be accessed by pilots for compulsory recurring pilot reassessment (CASA requirements).

The ASIC is valid for only two years. 

Cost is $283. 

This does not include the recurring (biennial) cost of assembling various paperworks, including one’s birth certificate each time, then travelling to and from the limited number of designated centres to present one’s application in person. 

Considerations:-

1.  No similar requirement in the USA, home of 9/11.

2. The ASIC is an extreme measure with no known effectiveness. 

3. The cost is a severe disincentive to gaining and maintaining a flying licence, particularly for younger aspiring pilots. 

4.  Firearms licence and passports, 10 yrs. 

5.  No such ID for some other forms of transport, ie, a truck driver could take explosives into populated areas. 

6.  At each ASIC issue and renewal there is a Police check. Are we to assume that there is no continual surveillance of criminal or potentially criminal behaviour of pilots in between the two year period? Hopefully, there is a continual and coordinated exchange of information across all policing bodies. If so then one must ask why every two years for the ASIC police check? 

7.  Aircraft operators without a current ASIC are not allowed to fly into most airports for their aircraft maintenance or recurrent training.  In addition those towns miss out on other business that pilots and their passengers would bring to their towns. 

8.  If Government persists with the ASIC, at least an increase in the period of validity would be sensible. 
Why not increase the validity at each renewal? Perhaps institute a significant increase of timescale for aircraft owners and Commercial pilots, thus creating incentives for participation. 

9.  Compounding the problem, General Aviation is in severe decline due to CASA’s unworkable, very expensive, inappropriate and unfinished rewrite of the rules (31 years and counting). Rules which have been unwisely migrated into the criminal code, with proof of culpability being strict liability, thus no ameliorating circumstances for a defence, and a strong incentive not to report safety issues. 

There are criminal offences and heavy punishments for a number of matters that don’t even rate a mention in the safest and most efficient GA environment, that of the USA. 

10. Replacing the ASIC with a photo licence should be all that is required, to be displayed or kept on person. 

Photo comparison; flying school required manuals and approval process. USA - Australia.

USA, single blue book in front.....,......................... $14.95
Independent instructor approval process...............  None, no cost. 
Timescale......zero


Australia, all other books are CASA required manuals..... $900 for publications, plus in house authored manuals. 
Additional application and bureaucratic process fees to CASA that cost many thousands of dollars (including credible reports of over $50,000).
Timescale........months or years. 

Sandy Reith

---

Via KC & RT in reply:

..Just impossible to change the culture. In 2001 internal discussion were being had to accept the pilot licence instead of an ASIC card.


Pity, all those that cared about the industry have left the bureaucracy since then.
 
Ken C

---

Under part 61 you cannot get a license or rating without a current medical. How is that relevant to demonstrating your competance under supervision?  In the same breath the examiner must also have a medical as compared to the US where a flight instructor or examiner does not need a medical if the student has one and has gone solo. Here in Australia they want it every which way.


What's more you cannot teach ground school without holding or previously held an instructor's rating. We have a gentleman in our office who spent over $150k getting his licenses and instructor rating only to fall ill just before completing the final flight instructor flight test. He  holds PPL and CPL and passed all the theory - including to be a flight instructor. So now because he has no medical, he cannot sit the flight test and he cannot teach the theory due to no instructor's rating, despite having passed all the theory components and therefore being qualified to teach it to others.

How is it possible this reform process has taken 30 years and yet the results are so woeful? It serves no safety benefit to put these restrictions in place. It just puts barriers in place which add cost and complexity.

Richard.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

McDonaught Aviation Shamelist numbers ?..? cont/-

CASA embuggerance of APTA & GB update - 

Via Glen Buckley, letter to CASA Chair: Dear Mr Anthony Mathews

..My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it. I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.

Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model. I resolutely stand by the fact that it

o Was well intentioned.
o Improved safety.
o Improved regulatory compliance.
o Created jobs.
o Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
o Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.

Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;

• Mr Jones.
• Mr Martin,
• Mr Nuttall, and
• Mr Lacy

initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning. The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable. My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.

Those actions and decisions

• Were in clear breach of almost every element of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.
• In breach of the PGPA Act which requires these personnel to use public funds and resources responsibly.
• Breach the requirements of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
• Were quite simply. Not well intentioned, and certainly not based on safety considerations.
• Bullying and Intimidating in their nature.
• Cannot be supported by any clear or concise legislation, and that is a requirement placed on CASA...(for more refer to above link)

And today...

To the  staff and students of Melbourne Flight Training,

It is with great sadness, that after 15 years of operating at Moorabbin Airport, and at short notice I have to announce the closure of MFT effective immediately.

Since October 2018, CASA initiated action against my business, that has cost the business many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and despite an enormous amount of effort, I have been unable to resolve this matter.  Importantly, the CASA action is not based on safety concerns, and there are no regulatory breaches.

CASA placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade, and after 9 months of CASA not resolving this matter, the impact has been significant.

As this decision has just been made, I am unable to provide more details at this stage.

I am off airport this morning, and will be on site at APTA after midday.

I will be working towards a prompt resolution to minimise the impact on staff and students.

Please standby for further details. I apologise for the uncertainty that this brings to all.

Thankyou for your support, understanding, and your patience.


Respectfully, Glen.

From Ironsider via the Oz:

Widow sues CASA over Tiger Moth pilot’s death




A Facebook image In memory of ‘Jimmy’ Rae.

• EXCLUSIVE
  ROBYN IRONSIDE
  AVIATION WRITER
  @ironsider
  
  
  
• 12:00AM JULY 31, 2019
  

The widow of a young pilot killed when his Tiger Moth broke up in-flight is suing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for approving the “safety critical” part of the aircraft that failed.

On December 16, 2013, pilot Alexander “Jimmy” Rae, 26, was flying with French tourist Taissia Umenc, 21, when the replacement tie rods snapped, causing a wing to detach and the plane to crash off Queensland’s South Stradbroke Island.

Described by Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators as a “safety critical” component, the metal tie rods connected the lower wings to the fuselage. The ATSB investigation found the rods snapped because of pre-existing fatigue cracking near the join with the left wing, causing the Tiger Moth to break up. It was also found that the rods, made of stainless steel instead of ­cadmium-plated steel like the original parts, were released into service without knowing how long they would last.

As a result, all tie rods manufactured by J&R Aerospace and approved by CASA were ordered to be removed from Tiger Moths and destroyed.

The ATSB also ordered other aircraft parts approved by CASA using the same method of assessment be reassessed.



The red de Havilland DH-82 crashed just eight minutes into their flight. Picture: Supplied

“Over 1000 parts were approved by (CASA) for Australian Parts Manufacturer Approval using a policy that accepted existing design approvals, without the authority confirming that important service factors such as service history and life limits, were appropriately considered,” said the ATSB’s final report on the December 2013 crash.

A coroner’s report also found that the fracture of the lateral tie rods caused the Tiger Moth’s wing to fail, resulting in the deaths of Rae and Umenc.

The report by coroner James McDougall said the design engineer responsible for the replacement tie rods was operating within a CASA-approved system that did not require an independent check. “It is noted that CASA’s policy at the time was to accept CAR 35 approvals without further detailed engineering assessment of the design,” the report said. “There was also a lack of records of CASA’s engineering assessment for those parts.”

A statement of claim prepared by Vector Legal partner John Dawson on behalf of Alice Rae and filed in the Victorian Supreme Court sought damages, interest and costs from CASA and J&R Aerospace.

The statement said CASA “owed the deceased a duty to take reasonable care in administering a regulatory frame­work for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of aviation with emphasis on preventing aviation accidents”.

CASA’s defence filed by Minter Ellison special counsel Leah Mooney said the regulator did not admit the allegations in Ms Rae’s statement of claim.

The matter is expected to be heard in the Victorian Supreme Court in September.

MTF...P2