Considering the almost non existence of acknowledgement that Australia does, in fact, have the remnants of an aviation industry, eagerly anticipating yet another roll of soft white paper being offered and the slim chances of sensible attention to the regulatory suite; its probably not worth wasting the band width on another Ministerial thread. Even so, there is a rump parked in the big chair, and you never know – some small progress may be made – in our life time; once the work plans are eventually complete and the platitudes are sent out. Not much chance of Albo dropping the fuel levy he imposed to bail CASA out of the ICAO puddle though; 89 million was all he wanted; then the tax would be lifted. Perhaps La King can make some polite inquiry as to why the tax has never been lifted and what the Hell CASA did/do with 89 millions. Me, myself and I would most certainly like to know.
Toot – Toot.
Miniscule's minion Binskin preaches to the converted at SafeSkies video talkfest?? 
Via Su_Spence central HQ: Ref -
https://www.casa.gov.au/video-release-pg...conference
Quote:![[Image: board-chair-mark-binskin.jpg?h=f4ceda32&itok=ZjX-IuQO]](https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/article_page_thumbnail/public/2022-10/board-chair-mark-binskin.jpg?h=f4ceda32&itok=ZjX-IuQO)
Hats off to P. G. Taylor
It’s easy for every generation to think it’s the one bearing the brunt of sweeping technological change and charting new courses into undiscovered territory.
Yet, when Sir Patrick Gordon Taylor died in 1966, he and his generation had seen enormous technological strides that took the aerospace industry from that historic first flight by the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk to the Boeing 707.
Military jets had broken the sound barrier — The Lockheed SR-71 ‘Blackbird”, by 1966, had already shown in flight testing that it could top Mach 3 — construction was underway on the Concorde prototypes, and the US was preparing the massive Saturn V rockets that would take humanity to the moon.
It was a far cry from the Sopwith Pup scouts that Taylor flew at the start of his career as the Australian airman and his contemporaries set the stage for the impressive technological breakthroughs that followed.
The skies were basically uncluttered when Taylor travelled to Britain to join the Royal Flying Corps, where he was awarded the Military Cross and promoted to Captain.
They would become busier over the next decade as he studied engineering and navigation, worked for England’s de Havilland Aircraft Company, operated a seaplane in Sydney and flew as a captain for Australian National Airlines.
As aviation progressed in the 1930s, he continued to make his mark as the second pilot and navigator for Sir Charles Kingsford Smith’s 1933 and 1934 flights between Australia and New Zealand in the Southern Cross, and with Charles Ulm for two flights between Australia and England in 1933.
In 1934, Smithy and Taylor completed the first Australia-US flight in the Lady Southern Cross, but it was on a flight a year later between Australia and New Zealand for the King George V jubilee airmail attempt that Taylor became a legend.
The Southern Cross was half-way to New Zealand when the centre engine’s exhaust manifold broke off and severely damaged the starboard propellor.
The engine was shut down, the cargo jettisoned, and the plane turned back to Australia.
But it wasn’t long before oil pressure on the port engine began to fall alarmingly.
As his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography notes, Taylor reacted heroically.
He went outside and edged his way along the strut to collect oil from the disabled starboard engine in a thermos flask so it could be transferred to the port engine - repeating the process six times with the help of wireless operator John Stannage.
It’s a safe bet that going outside to change the oil during flight was never a recommended maintenance procedure – nor am I sure where we would look to include it into in the current CASA Regulation suite!
But it was an innovative solution and it worked - the aircraft landed safely in Mascot.
P. G. Taylor was awarded the Empire Gallantry Medal, which later became the George Cross, and went on to operate more pioneering flights, including the first flight across the Indian Ocean from Port Hedland to Kenya, a survey flight from Bermuda to Sydney and a mission from Australia to Chile.
He continued to win many awards and wrote eight books as an accomplished author.
During his career, Taylor experienced huge technological leaps as he progressed from the Sopwith Pup and a Gipsy Moth seaplane, to Catalinas and a Sandringham 7 flying boat.
But it was not just the technology that made those early years of aviation exciting — it was what pioneers such as Taylor, Smithy and Ulm did with it, and how they were allowed to spread their wings.
People were allowed to experiment in all sorts of ways and that was how the industry progressed so quickly.
The importance of experimentation hasn’t diminished.
The future is not just about technology, it’s about people, about attitudes and about the need to innovate.
We’re approaching an era that could arguably see as much change as there was in the first 50 years of aviation.
New technologies are emerging in areas such as propulsion, aircraft design, artificial intelligence, communications and manufacturing.
This is requiring all of us to be broader in our thinking and more flexible in our outlook.
And CASA wants to work with industry and the broader aviation community to bring these new technologies forward.
The Challenge of Change
Aviation is the lifeblood of this country, particularly for regional and remote areas, and I believe that new technology will help expand that role.
Nonetheless, the explosion of aviation innovation that we are currently seeing makes it doubly important that participants prepare for change.
That applies to everyone in the sector, from sports and recreational pilots to major airlines, air navigation service providers and – yes - regulators.
At CASA, we’re keen to see a wide-ranging, co-operative approach.
When P.G. Taylor took to the skies, aviation was an emerging industry entering a domain that was empty, except for the birds.
Today we have emerging technologies entering a complex domain that already hosts an established industry.
It will not be possible for the new kids on the runway to blast through without accepting the fact that they have to integrate with the industry as it exists today.
Embracing the future does not mean we forget the “here and now” — there will need to be, as there was in Taylor’s time, an approach where legacy operations co-exist with the new.
CASA will continue to support the traditional aviation sectors, as well as promote a rational way forward.
However, existing operators must also understand the need for flexibility and the need to share the skies with new technologies such as uncrewed drones and air taxis.
We need to make sure we have a culture across industry, CASA and government that is open-minded in how we address challenges and is willing to embrace collaboration.
It will sometimes be the case that a particular sector will not get the answer it wants.
But rather than sniping from the sidelines, that sector will need to be flexible and embrace the path that leads to the best overall outcome for the aviation community and, ultimately, this country.
Industry will need to come together to put considered positions to CASA and the government, and I expect various associations to play a huge part in putting forward a collective view to help our work.
I would also urge those groups to put any baggage they may continue to carry behind them: in short, look forward and don’t dwell on the past.
CASA will need to do the same.
The alternative to embracing change does not bear contemplating.
As General Eric Shineski, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former US Army Chief of Staff, once said: ‘If you don’t like change, you’ll like irrelevance even less’.
CASA is backing innovation
The headline acts in the aviation revolution have already been identified as remotely piloted aircraft systems and advanced air mobility.
But there are others.
CASA has a reputation for being at the forefront of drone regulation and we also intend to be in the vanguard when it comes to other areas.
Commercial drone registrations in Australia continue to grow and increased 8.6 percent last financial year to come within a whisker of 30,000.
That was an increase of almost 2400 registered commercial drones in 2021-22 alone.
Not only did the numbers grow but so did the technology.
Drones are becoming more capable and moving steadily towards the day when they operate alongside conventional aircraft, fully integrated into shared airspace.
This is hardly surprising given their usefulness in activities ranging from logistics, mining, agriculture and defence; to entertainment, marine research, policing and mapping.
A study by Deloitte Access Economic estimates drones will contribute $1.5 billion to the economy by 2025, and this is expected to increase to $14.5 billion by 2040.
I’m pleased to say that Australia has a drone manufacturing industry, and that CASA is working to help it get global recognition.
For the first time in our aviation history, we are working with the US Federal Aviation Administration and a local company – in this case Swoop Aero - on joint type and production certification of Swoop Aero’s latest aircraft, The Kite.
The Kite application will be the first production certificate issued by CASA for an RPAS, and the first time we have collaborated with the FAA on a joint RPAS type certification project.
We also expect this kind of collaborative activity to hold us in good stead for future AAM initial airworthiness work.
But there’s plenty of other action in the drone sector.
The Loyal Wingman, Australia’s first domestically designed and built combat drone, shows that we have the expertise to be up there with the best in the world.
This high-powered collaboration between the RAAF and Boeing (and a number of Australian companies) is seen as a pathfinder in terms of the use of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence in smart human-machine interfaces.
Sydney-based Carbonix has developed a cutting-edge drone, in conjunction with Ausgrid, that offers a new level of aerial surveying capability.
It has the ability to fly 8-10 hours, carry a 7-kilogram payload and has satellite connectivity.
Innovative Australian research includes a move by South Australian scientists to reverse engineer the visual systems of hoverflies to detect the acoustic signature of drones from up to four kilometres away.
The research involving the University of South Australia, Flinders University and defence company Midspar Systems uses a biologically inspired signal processing system to give a 50 per cent better detection rate than existing technology.
It is also the first time a map of an insect vision system has been applied to acoustic data.
And no – I can’t visualise how that reverse engineering is actually carried out!
The Wing Project, a subsidiary of Google parent Alphabet, recently expanded its drone deliveries through a partnership with Coles after we gave it permission last year to perform the world’s first rooftop operations.
It is pledging to deliver groceries to people within minutes from a hub stocked with 250 of the supermarket chain’s top-selling items.
CASA recognises that, in addition to safety, the regulation of drones must balance issues such as privacy, noise, accessibility to airspace and technological change.
I note that not all of these are in CASA’s domain, but we are committed to continuing to work closely with, and support this sector as it continues to expand.
AAM
The game is also afoot in the advanced air mobility sector and there are exciting developments in electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft, or eVTOLs.
There are many companies around the world, including some of the big aerospace manufacturers, involved in this area as excitement builds about what the media has dubbed ‘air taxis.’
Earlier this year, the World eVTOL Aircraft Directory announced it had catalogued 300 models of eVTOL aircraft, compared to less than a dozen when it launched in 2017.
We can’t afford to watch and wait in this area.
Some companies are already signing agreements with Australian operators, most notably the Embraer offshoot - Eve.
An arrangement with BAE Systems unveiled at the Farnborough Airshow in July saw Eve’s potential eVTOL backlog hit 2,060, claimed as the biggest in the AAM industry.
However, it may not be the first eVTOL company to achieve certification.
It’s presently anticipated that Joby Aviation, which is well progressed in the US certification process, will be ready to start operations in the US in 2025.
We don’t know whether Joby intends to start in Australia that year, but we’re working around that possibility.
Our expectation is that Eve and Europe’s Volocopter will not be too far behind it.
Nor is all of the action overseas.
Australia’s AMSL Aero is in the research and development phase of an eVTOL aircraft and is in discussions with CASA about a type certificate.
This is exactly the sort of innovation we need to encourage.
One area that will be particularly complex will be AAM and drone landing sites, or vertiports – the trendy name for eVTOL landing areas.
Recently, a UK company called Urban-Airport launched a proof-of-concept vertiport called “Air One” in the English city of Coventry.
The doughnut-like building is designed to be deployed across multiple locations as a hub for aircraft such as eVTOL air taxis and drones operating across areas ranging from delivery to disaster management.
We have identified the need to do more work around the standards and regulations that might be required for ‘vertiports’.
The International Civil Aviation Organization is also looking at criteria for the design, construction and use of vertiports.
However, we believe CASA will need to provide guidance on vertiports to operators and planning authorities well ahead of ICAO’s timeframe of applying standards in mid-2027.
CASA has a dedicated vertiport team with extensive aerodrome experience already working on this.
Our team is looking at policy matters such as the extent to which vertiport and heliport standards can be harmonised and potential overlap with RPAS landing sites.
The need for engineers
While eVTOL and RPAS grab the headlines, there are other “under the cowling” developments that will have significant impact on Australian aviation.
A conventional aircraft retrofitted with electric engines may not look as exquisite as a shiny, sleek eVTOL, but it’s something being explored here by Rex and Queensland’s Skytrans Airlines.
Rex is looking at retrofitting some of its Saabs with electric motors supported by a combination of batteries and hydrogen.
Meanwhile, Skytrans is looking at trialling a hydrogen-electric propulsion system installed on a Beechcraft 1900D.
This underlines my previous point that we need to be able to consider various options, and remain flexible, if we are going to get the most out of advances in technology.
Just like we are seeing in the car industry, we can expect a change to electric propulsion across all areas of aviation.
Our Board met this year in Adelaide and we had the chance to see a Pipistrel electric aircraft.
As an ex-fast jet pilot used to the internal organs vibrating from an afterburning engine, it was a unique experience standing next to this little aircraft as it was running – but it is a sign of the future!
The Pipistrel is where Tesla cars were a few years ago and there are not a lot of them around now.
But wait a few years and as the technology advances, so will the accessibility of small electric aircraft.
There is an obvious flow-on effect of this, particularly when it comes to maintenance.
We need engineers of all stripes — which is one of the reasons CASA offers scholarships in this area — but we will soon be needing people with a different skillset.
Technicians with the skills to maintain and repair airframes, propulsion systems, and avionics will be essential in taking our industry into the future.
We also need to be looking at who will train these engineers and what skills they will need to master.
Green hydrogen is another area that is gaining momentum and one in which sundrenched Australia has an advantage.
What was dismissed as a viable aviation fuel not so long ago because of its low volumetric energy density, is now under consideration in terms of electric fuel cells, and even as a fuel in its own right.
For long-haul flights, however, international airlines are telling us sustainable aviation fuels are the only alternative in the medium term.
However, unlike the current system involving a limited number of refineries shipping fossil fuels at increasing expense around the world, sustainable aviation fuels lend themselves to a decentralised production system, with smaller plants spread globally.
Again, Australia has a chance to develop industries and expertise.
And again, being innovative and broader in our thinking will pay off.
Connectivity and computers
It was once the speed and manoeuvrability of a fighter that defined its superiority - and that still plays a part.
But equally important is the technology it has on board and how it fits into a network.
In short, we no longer look at a military aircraft as an individual platform but as part of a system.
This has also been happening in the civilian world with the spread of the Internet of Things, improvements in digital communication and increases in computer power.
Rolls-Royce, for example, has for some time been monitoring and recording how its aircraft engines are performing around the world.
The company’s Engine Health Management system allows the transfer of data from an engine on an aircraft to an operational centre on the ground.
The latest version is capable of measuring thousands of parameters, and the engine can respond to requests to focus on a particular part, or parameter, sending back hundreds of hours of information in response to the request.
Advantages of the system include predictive maintenance that allows components to be replaced before they fail, as well as a wealth of data to inform product development and risk management.
The downside of this is that we know there are state actors and organised criminals who would dearly like to co-opt this technology for their own nefarious ends.
So cybersecurity is going to be an important part of the new aviation landscape, just as it now plays a role in our day-to-day lives.
And yes, with it comes more questions than answers at the moment.
How we produce parts for aircraft is also changing.
Airframe manufacturers, and even engine makers are already using “additive manufacturing” and 3D printers to produce some components.
Additive manufacturing allows extremely complex components to be made with minimal waste, as they are needed, and where they are needed.
We expect this process to keep expanding across the industry, and this will pose interesting questions for regulators.
CASA and change
So where does CASA sit in this cornucopia of change?
How are we backing the innovators?
We were one of the first regulators to recognise the importance of drones, and we are determined to remain in the vanguard when it comes to future developments.
Work is underway across the Australian Government to ensure there’s a coordinated approach to emerging aviation technology.
We’re collaborating closely with fellow agencies — for example, we’re talking to Airservices Australia about airspace management — to ensure our thinking is aligned.
And we are talking to fellow regulatory agencies around the world to ensure standards are aligned and that we minimise regulatory work to avoid unnecessary burdens and, importantly, increased cost to industry.
The US Federal Aviation Administration and the UK Civil Aviation Authority recently announced an agreement to discuss AAM regulatory matters, especially centred on the proposed deployment of Joby operations into the UK.
CASA is looking to do the same, and our talks with regulators include those in the UK, US and New Zealand as we work to ensure AAM achieves the high safety standards expected by the public.
Locally, we signed a memorandum of understanding with our portfolio Department, Airservices Australia and the State Government of Victoria to support advanced air mobility.
This will see us work closely with all parties to the MoU to develop an aligned regulatory environment that supports growth and innovation in the advanced air mobility sector.
Internally, we are working across the organisation on these issues and looking at how we handle the initial, small-scale deployment of AAM.
A challenge for CASA, and our colleagues at Airservices, is to design, implement and operate airspace that can give everyone fair access to the skies.
Again, this is a global issue and we are working with our international counterparts.
There needs to be agreement on how the traditional and emerging sectors of the industry will work together: crewed and uncrewed, as well as conventional aircraft, and those utilising new power sources such as electricity and hydrogen.
Airspace is another area where industry associations can come together and put forward a considered and collective position to help this complex work.
The RPAS and Advanced Air Mobility Regulatory Roadmap
At the heart of our future is our recently released RPAS and Advanced Air Mobility Strategic Regulatory Roadmap.
This outlines our approach for safely integrating RPAS and AAM technologies into Australia’s airspace alongside traditional aviation, and looks at a future regulatory system.
We wanted to provide a plan that outlined the long-term vision for the Australian RPAS and advanced air mobility regulatory regime, and the integration of these technologies into the civil aviation system.
Also notable was the industry collaboration that went into putting it together.
And I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who was involved.
Our approach was a change from previous consultations, where CASA has tended to develop policy - and then consult with industry on implementation through Technical Working Groups.
In this case, we wanted to consult with industry stakeholders early in the policy-making stage.
That consultation involved an intense effort involving 73 professionals across the industry.
The process recognised that much of what is happening today is so new, and is evolving so quickly, that no single organisation can solve the complex issues that need to be addressed.
No-one is pretending the changes will be easy, and we will also have to adapt in regulatory areas that go beyond airspace design, such as licensing, operational certificates and flight rules.
But again, it comes back to everybody in the industry working together as we move into the future.
Another interesting facet of the plan is something called a ‘regulatory sandbox’.
Just as PG Taylor and his contemporaries had the freedom to experiment, the regulatory sandbox is about inviting industry to work with CASA to test and come up with novel products, services and concepts.
However, a difference from those early derring-do days is that they will be able to do this is in an environment that is flexible and safe.
Hopefully, this means it will not involve going out on the wing to change the oil!
But, at its core, is that we want Australians to do what they have always done: innovate.
We are a smart people drawn from all over the world and we have always punched above our weight when it comes to thinking up new ideas.
Which is one of the reasons we set up the Future Strategies Task Force.
The Future Strategies Taskforce aimed to identify the major activities that CASA should be undertaking to get ready for emerging technologies that are farther into the future.
It looked at seven broad topic areas: airspace, RPAS, advanced air mobility, evolved conventional operations, landing sites issues, enabling capabilities and high-altitude operations.
CASA is now working on more detailed business planning for some of the near-future technologies and considering next steps for technologies farther into the future.
And we aim to have a high level public document detailing these priorities out by the end of this year.
Keeping it simple
We are conscious that the regulatory environment can be quite complex – in fact that is an understatement!
I don’t know how many of you are familiar with The Book of Heroic Failures by Stephen Pile.
One of the entries is a Portuguese-English dictionary compiled by Pedro Carlino, a man who, unfortunately, had little or no command of either language.
Among the phrases Mr Carlino suggested tourists might find useful were such classics as “Exculpate me by your brother’s’, ‘dress your hairs’ and “she make the prude” as well as a useful section on “idiotisms and proverbs”.
Interpretation is a tricky exercise as anybody attempting to translate complex legal or bureaucratic jargon knows.
Which is why CASA is producing Plain English Guides, or PEGs – and yes, the Plain English Guide does get an acronym.
We see these guides as important safety tools that make it easier to understand the rules and regulations.
The PEGs cover issues such as the general operating and flight rules, the operation of small drones weighing no more than 2 kilograms, and fatigue management.
Also written in plain English is our popular Visual Flight Rules Guide, and more PEGs are on their way.
While this is a move to make our regulations more accessible, I think it will also be important in helping us all to navigate a changing aviation environment.
Clarity is a knife that can cut through confusion, misinterpretation and apprehension.
If only Mr Calino understood.
Safety is still our middle name
Increased accessibility is a good segue to bring us back to the present, and look at what CASA is doing today.
Safety is always the priority for CASA, and we are conducting research and analysis into the rate of serious incidents as we continue with our pilot education programs.
These include our podcasts, Flight Safety Australia articles, and our nationwide aviation safety seminars highlighting issues such as handling bad weather and avoiding flying beyond your personal limits.
We have just launched our latest campaign, ‘Your Safety is in Your Hands’, and it is tracking well.
Backed by other government agencies and aviation industry groups, the campaign consists of 4 main safety focus areas based on a review of Australian Transport Safety Bureau occurrence data.
We kicked off the campaign with a focus on non-controlled aerodromes, while future safety topics will examine forecasting and navigating weather, flight planning and using controlled aerodromes.
We have also recently announced that we are launching a new scholarship for safety managers.
Safety managers play an important role in maintaining the level of safety that members of the travelling public, regulators and the industry have come to expect.
The aim is to assist those involved in this key position to increase their knowledge and skills through professional development.
We will provide three scholarships, of up to $5000 each, to people with a minimum of two years’ experience in the industry.
Recipients will need to demonstrate a commitment to aviation safety, initiative and a high standard of aptitude and safety culture.
You can find out more information on the CASA website.
Changing within
It’s been a busy year for CASA as we emerged from COVID lockdown, launched our General Aviation Workplan, bedded down our flight operations suite, and transitioned almost all previously certified aerodromes to a new regime.
The GA Workplan is a priority for CASA – both for the Board and management — that aims to contain costs and reduce regulatory burden, while maintaining Australia’s high safety standards.
It draws together regulatory initiatives stretching into next year, and aims to help people in General Aviation understand when, why and how regulatory changes will come into effect.
We’ve committed to reporting on our progress and explaining if, and when, milestones aren’t met.
While we are making every endeavour to deliver to the committed timeframe, it’s a fact of life that sometimes plans get delayed – when that happens, we want to be upfront with people.
And where we experience problems, we will seek to address them and keep industry informed.
We also want to make sure industry is part of the regulatory process and, as I mentioned with the RPAS and AAM strategic roadmap, we have continued to consult on key changes.
This is important, and something we do at various stages of policy development — in the early stages of development, and again when we take that policy and your feedback and start writing the regulations.
When we put something out for consultation it is not set in stone, but it is a result of hard work by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, the technical working groups and, often, input from broader industry.
The aim is to make sure we have it right and to avoid unintended consequences.
We also want to understand the impact of our proposals on operators – big and small.
I said at the start of the year that I wanted CASA to be a regulator that is respected and trusted by those we regulate.
The four pillars of that push are transparency, collaboration, a focus on the aviation community and a commitment to making a difference to safety.
We are not just looking at the efficacy of what we do, but also the cost and the impact on the industry and individual operators.
However, this doesn’t mean we will be able to be everyone’s friend.
We are still the regulator, and we are committed to ensuring the safety of the millions of Australians who are returning to the skies, and who put their trust in us.
We are also dedicated to ensuring that the Australian aviation system maintains its global reputation as one of the world’s safest.
But I want operators and aviation organisations to understand why we have made decisions.
It may sometimes be the case that people do not like what we do, but we intend to make sure that they understand why we do it.
A key to this is improving communications with the aviation community and being consistent in what we say, and how we do it.
We want to provide you with a clear understanding of where we are going and, importantly, why we are going there.
If we decide not to proceed with an initiative, or put something on ‘hold’, we want to be clear on why we changed our approach and what we plan to do next.
We also want to understand how our actions may affect you and what you will need to do to meet our requirements.
At the same time, we are moving to break down the silos within CASA so that everybody in the organisation works together and the experience of dealing with us is more consistent.
Conclusion
It has been a year since I took on this role, and during that time the Board and management have made a point of talking with industry, the broader aviation community and CASA staff during our Board meetings, which in 2022 have been held in Canberra, Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and, shortly, in Perth.
I have also enjoyed joining CASA executives on visits to regional locations such as Wagga, Armidale and Tamworth.
This helps us understand the issues, both internally and externally, as we look at change outside the organisation - as well as within.
But I have confidence that CASA is up to the task.
We want to be on the front foot when it comes to changes in aviation, as we also continue to change ourselves.
We know that we have to think broadly, embrace innovation and be flexible.
In short, we want to be part of the solution.
We want to work with industry and the broader aviation community, and we want various sectors of industry to work together as we face the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Greater regulatory clarity will also come as we get to see, in more detail, what emerging aviation technologies look like, and we get a better sense of the various ways in which it will be used.
Collaborating to bring technological and regulatory certainty, along with community engagement, will be key to having technologies operating safely in the shortest feasible timeframe.
We, the collective aviation community, have a large ask in front of us.
I look forward to working with all of you as we enter some interesting times.
Thank you
For LMH's summary on Binskin and his 4 pillar bollocks - see
HERE...
MTF...P2
Bullshit. Look at what CASA has done to Glen Buckley. Look at the backsliding on medical reform. Pick up a manual of standards; read all the micro management. Then pick up the legislation and read what they (CASA) will do to you if you don’t follow them exactly.
Even their own “Plain English” guide carries this disclaimer:
“ We are committed to providing you with accurate, consistent and clear information to help you understand your obligations. The information contained in this guide was correct at the time of publication but is subject to change without notice. If you rely in good faith on information appearing in this guide that turns out to be incorrect, we will consider any resultant non-compliance with the legislative requirements in accordance with the ‘just culture’ principles set out in CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy in determining what action, if any, we take. ”
That’s charity for you. CASA don’t even know if what they advise us to do is legal - such is the state of (over) regulation, but out of the goodness of their little hearts, they will perhaps be lenient if you follow CASA rules to their ludicrous ends and you lick enough backsides.
And furthermore Binskin, do you know what a felony conviction will get you? For a start, no visas so no overseas travel. You are no longer a “fit and proper person” for a whole range of state licences. Those you may have will either be revoked immediately or not renewed. Forget about an aviation industry career. If you have relationship, child custody or divorce issues, your criminal conviction will be used against you. Whole swathes of employment are now forbidden to you. Any potential employer will look elsewhere once she knows there is “a file” on you; Landlords and lenders will run away from you. You cannot stand for elected office - ever. As for a government job, sorry. If you work in the private sector perhaps as a professional - accountant, lawyer, doctor, engineer, guess what a felony conviction will do to your career? ….And all this for making an error in paperwork, or a procedural blunder. Axe murderers get a better deal. It’s no use trying to explain like John Quadrio, people will just walk away.
Guess, given the state of regulation, how easy it is to be #$%#@ over by CASA, especially given the evidence and multiple allegations that CASA staff are know nothing, lying, sacks of the proverbial. That combined with the ambiguous, micro managing rules ensure that ANY pilot or operator can be prosecuted at any time for what would either be nothing or a misdemeanor overseas.
Tthe evidence for all this is in the FORSYTH REVIEW, or freely available from anyone who has witnessed what happens to someone so afflicted. Look at poor Glen Buckley for a start.
And another thing … CASA’S safety campaign “your safety is in your hands “ is laughable considering CASA’S over prescriptive micro management and authoritarian style of enforcement. “Your safety is in your hands “ really? What about the ten thousand pages of rules backed up by draconian punishment? There is a concentration camp motto that sums it up, but I won’t repeat that here.
Remove aviation offences from the criminal code. Adopt the FAA rules. Reform aviation medical regulation. Harmonise with international standards so that our industry can prosper. Stop the assault on local aerodromes by local and state government. Make it possible for the sector to invest, grow and create jobs instead of slowly strangling it.
Wombat correct, note the insults, “sniping” and “sidelines.”
Binskin:- “But rather than sniping from the sidelines, that sector will need to be flexible and embrace the path that leads to the best overall outcome for the aviation community and, ultimately, this country.”
Is Mr. Binskin ignorant that, firstly, the “sidelines” as he puts it is in reality the vast majority of the working General Aviation community?
Do the “sidelines” include the 3000 signatories to the Change.org petition requesting government to “save General Aviation Aviation from bureaucratic destruction?” Not to mention the volumes of accompanying statements containing the considered thoughts of hundreds of GA professionals?
Do the “sidelines” include the following?:-
Glen Buckley (just one of numerous outstanding examples).
AOPA Australia, and including all that have participated in its several GA conferences.
The dedicated GA personnel who provided 269 submissions to the 2014 Government’s Forsyth inquiry.
AMROBA and its indefatigable management that continues to produce detailed and constructive policy reports in the hope that a future CASA Board, CASA CEO or Minister might one day begin to make the reforms that should be made now in the National interest.
Perhaps the 611 respondents to the AVMED consultation invitation, the vast majority asking for reform of this broken, unnecessary and expensive current administration of the medical certification process.
Do the “sidelines” include the Senators Sterle, McDonald, Patrick and others who have criticised CASA?
Or maybe the Board has noted the politely muted guffaws, shaking of heads and incredulous gaping mouths from over the Ditch and further across the Pacific from numbers of overseas GA participants. Cast them as snipers too?
In conclusion, completely overlooking the many thousands of voluntary hours of carefully constructed advice for desperately needed reform, Mr. Binskin asks us, in so many words, not to complain. Rather like an exhortation, “The beatings will lessen if you stay quiet.”
Mr. Binskin, Chair Of CASA.
“ I would also urge those groups to put any baggage they may continue to carry behind them: in short, look forward and don’t dwell on the past.”
Don’t dwell on the past?
1. There shouldn’t be a time limit on matters of injustice (e.g. Glen Buckley) or walking away from the existential problems of General Aviation that are being faced every day in Australia due to the inability of CASA to make the necessary reforms. Neither any Minister nor CASA Board, since Gareth Evans created the independent regulator in 1988, has had the intestinal fortitude to cause the reforms that should be made in the National interest.
2. “The baggage,” as Mr. Binskin puts it, cannot be “put behind them” because the baggage is part of the Australia’s law. Our aviation regulations are stringent, incredibly complex and sometimes contradictory provisions which have been inappropriately migrated into the criminal code with strict liability for ease of prosecution.
We wish we could leave that ‘baggage’ behind. Imagine suffering a conviction for the ‘crime’ of a private pilot not entering a flight in their log book and then trying for a visa to travel overseas. No problem for USA pilots because there’s no sanction whatever for such omission. Why? because it’s of no importance and should never have been incorporated as a misdemeanour or crime in the first place. Just one example.
Medical reform, independent instructors and AMROBA engineering reforms should be immediate priorities being Board requirements of CASA for swift implementation. The Board then should recommend abolishment of CASA and aviation administration to be placed in a Department of Government and adoption of NZ or USA regulations. Would this Board do that? Not in a million years, so we wait for a Government to act. It might be a long wait but it’s the only viable and workable long term policy position.
Here’s a thought. Instead of preaching while the GA foundations crumble, maybe you might consider how a vibrant network of regional airports might contribute to disaster resilience………or keep selling them as well as destroying GA.
https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/Murr...ience.aspx
And another thing……. The tone of the Chairman’s utterances suggests very, very strongly that internal combustion, piston engined GA and RA forms of aviation are about to be branded “Legacy technology”.
Branding something technology as “legacy” is an old tactic by oily mouthed “change management” snakes in nice suits.
Labelling a technology as “legacy” is code for:
- ignoring the appeals for change by the now labelled legatees. After all, piston engined traditional GA is yesterdays technology. There is no point in investing time and money in it.
- Consigning experts in the legacy technology to the retirement bin.
- pushing your young, best and brightest staff and all your investment time and money into the shiny new technology. You may not yet know if it is viable, profitable, scaleable, safe or practical but hey! It’s fun! No one can be held accountable because the technology is too new! There are new conferences to attend!
- archiving all your dirty laundry because your faults are in the past and don’t matter in this bright new hydrogen based, internet hub enabled, great new world!
How do I know this? Been through it in the IT industry.
I watched thirty programmers being told by our Directors that because they were experts in COBOL, a “legacy” computer language, there was no place for them in our company’s future. Object Oriented Computer languages were to take over. They were then told that they were too old to be retrained in this exciting new technology - that was only for young (good looking) people who had the necessary flexibility of mind. There would be no further promotions or training for the legacy people who would not be replaced if they left. They were on the human scrap heap declared our Directors.
The room full of fifty somethings accepted all this without a murmur, they had heard it before.
The company adopted Object oriented programming which was very new, sexy and full of promise They also decided to use Digital Equipments new computers with the new alpha CPU. It was all new, fun and very expensive. The divested themselves of COBOL and Unix talent.
The new OOP languages and new computers proved to be slow, difficult to modify, not scaleable and definitely not of the required industrial strength quality for real time processing. Digital equipment went belly up so their hardware became obsolete. They couldn’t deliver to their customers and the company was sold.
The “legacy” COBOL programmers? They all became freelance consultants and made fortunes out of ensuring all those legacy COBOL programs - the ones that drive the banks, retail and reservation systems were year 2000 compliant. I know some who bought vineyards and yachts thanks to the “legacy” label.
It’s a safe bet that “legacy” aviation is going to be around for a long time to come.
Frustration of the Alphabets - A common theme??
Courtesy KC and the AMROBA band, via the AP email chains -
:
Quote:To all members,
The October Newsletter raises subjects that is the basis of why we have a shortage of engineering participation.
It does not explore the shortage caused by the lack of GA pilot training.
Red Tape reduction is a prime area that has to be addressed.
It is of concern that the Public Service, that includes CASA, DITRDC, DEWR, etc., etc., still don’t work together to reduce the duplication of regulation and red tape. Civil aviation maintenance training is such a sector where CASA and DEWR areas duplicate and add unnecessary costs. The introduction of CASR Part 66/147 created additional costs and basically abandoned the TAFE system after decades of cooperative concurrence.
The most interesting aspect is that Minister’s advisors, Departments and CASA can all agree on a pathway that can positively help resurrect civil aviation manufacturing and maintenance but getting the action needed to start the recovery plan seems insurmountable.
The hold-up is with the Public Service decision makers; they need to finalise the internal paperwork processes, that they create, to get aviation functioning again.
The October Newsletter covers a number of subjects. The aims:
- Global recognition of the Australian manufacturing and maintenance systems in their own right.
- Adopt a multi-Department/Agency approach to civil aviation manufacturing & maintenance.
- In other words, remove duplication.
Congrats to the Department/CASA for the recent re-election to the ICAO Council as a Level 1 NAA. Now we want to see them live up to the expectation of a Level 1 NAA.
Maintenance training must be controlled by DEWR through the TAFE college system and it must have the capability to provide short courses for the various training required for all levels of maintenance qualifications. E.g. cover non licence training for recreational owners to improve safety in Australia as well as to support apprenticeships in the aeroplane and helicopter industry. This must also include a pre-employment course, like NZ, to provide the practical skills that are not taught in secondary schooling any more.
CASA is tasked to implement the Annexes Standards, so why do they consult on the details?
During my period of involvement with regulatory reform, the Annex Standards were taken as written to be complied with.
All industry were in agreement, it was how they were adopted – performance based or prescriptive regulations.
At the time, most industry opted for performance based but some in industry preferred prescriptive regulations.
AMROBA fully supports harmonisation with these Standards to open up the global civil aviation engineering markets to Australian manufacturers and maintainers.
When will they make it happen?
When will they ask themselves what benefit to safety does a regulation or red tape provide?
They should set a target of a 50% reduction in costs to industry.
Regards
![[Image: image003.jpg]](https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/image003.jpg)
And from BM AOPA Oz:
(11-01-2022, 07:01 AM)Kharon Wrote: [ -> ]Every once in a while.....
Master Morgan of the AOPA on occasion provides a video on the face-book platform which is well worth the time to watch and listen. The subject is pilot medicals and it is fairly well articulated; however, the really important message runs a little deeper. The message delivers an accurate overview of the way in which not only CASA standard operational practice works, it drags in the incredible waste of time and money spent working against industry efforts to have a sensible, practical, working system of administration and regulation fit for purpose.
_ HERE _ is the link; take the time to watch and 'hear' the underlying message.
&/or..
Well done Master Morgan; nicely played..
MTF...P2
La'King continues to 'net zero' GA industry into certain oblivion - 
Via the miniscule's media page:
Quote:Net Zero Unit to drive transport and infrastructure emissions reduction
A Net Zero Unit has been established in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts, to be led by Ian Porter.
The new unit will identify how the infrastructure portfolio can work across government and with industry to help achieve net zero and improve the resilience of our transport networks and supply chains in the face of increasing extreme weather events.
The unit will support the cross-portfolio Net Zero Taskforce that will advise the Government on ensuring regional Australians benefit from Australia’s transformation to a renewable energy superpower.
Mr Porter brings significant experience in climate change, energy and sustainability policy, as well as working across government, public service, consulting and the not-for-profit sector – including most recently heading up program delivery for Climateworks.
This builds on important initiatives already underway across the portfolio, including creating a Jet Zero Council to promote sustainable aviation fuels in this country and consulting on fuel efficiency standards for light vehicles to support the National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
This forms part of the Government’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
The unit will help advance the Government’s emissions commitments by connecting government agencies, industry and climate experts to translate the latest research into action, while ensuring climate expertise is embedded into policies and investments.
Quotes attributable to Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Catherine King:
“Achieving our Government’s emissions reduction targets on the path to net zero by 2050 will require concerted action to drive emissions lower across the transport sector.
“We are already helping to achieve this by increasing the uptake of electric vehicles, considering fuel efficiency standards, improving consumer information, promoting alternative aviation fuels and other technologies, and engaging with international partners to reduce shipping emissions.
“Ian Porter brings a wealth of experience that will support the new Net Zero Unit’s critical work to take our transport and infrastructure climate change policy, research and engagement to the next level.
“I look forward to continuing to work closely with my department as we facilitate a cleaner, greener era for Australia’s transport and infrastructure sectors.”
Plus via the Yaffa: https://www.australianflying.com.au/late...-zero-unit
More than $18 million for emerging aviation technology partnerships
The Australian Government has partnered with industry to ensure the take-up of emerging aviation technology in Australia, with more than $18 million awarded for 12 projects under the first round of the Emerging Aviation Technology Partnerships (EATP) program.
The EATP program commits $32.6 million to June 2024 to make Australian aviation more competitive, efficient and sustainable.
The remaining funding will be allocated as part of Round 2.
Grants supported under Round 1 of the program support a range of projects that include development into digital farming, boosting regional supply chains, connecting regional communities and growing manufacturing in emerging aviation technology.
Applications were assessed through an open and competitive grant process.
More information on the EATP can be found on the department’s website.
A list of successful projects can be found below.
Quote attributable to Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Catherine King:
“The Emerging Aviation Technology Partnerships Program will ensure our aviation sector remains at the forefront of innovation as it continues to develop and grow, particularly with the renewed focus on achieving net zero carbon emissions.
“This program will directly support regional communities in improving health services and connections, as well as enhancing the capabilities of Australian businesses in delivering new aviation operations with increased technical complexity.”
Quote attributable to Federal Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Carol Brown:
“The EATP program will boost employment in the aviation sector, as well as contribute to the digital transformation of Australian businesses by encouraging adoption of emerging aviation technologies to address community needs, particularly in regional Australia.
“The program also aims to identify and address regulatory and other barriers present within the sector.”
Funded projects – EATP Round 1:
Quote:AMSL Aero
Electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft manufacturing focusing on regulatory barriers and trials of air ambulance in regional NSW.
Praxis Labs
Develop structural solar surfaces for the wings of an upcoming fleet of Australian electric aircraft.
Hover UAV - SORA-Mate
Develop an online risk assessment tool for drone operators.
Central QLD University
Develop and trial a prototype drone system capable of AI driven weed detection and herbicide spraying (digital farming).
Wedgetail Aerospace Pty Ltd
Large Drone operations in regional Australia including pilot and maintenance qualifications, capability verification and validation.
Charles Darwin University
Trial of drone service delivery for health-related items between health centres, remote indigenous communities and very remote outstations in NT. The project will test and validate the effectiveness, efficiency, community acceptance and costs of integrating uncrewed aircraft into health supply chains.
Revolution Aerospace Pty Ltd
Research to support and conduct trials to deliver cargo in Whitsunday region using a variety of drones, delivery distances and delivery scenarios; trials to simulate air taxi operations in the Whitsunday region, and research to develop enhanced uncrewed traffic management services..
Field Master Systems Pty Ltd DFSS
Integrating thermal imaging into drones to detect feral pests.
Swinburne University of Technology (Air Hub)
Design and integrate a hydrogen fuel cell into a drone, with ground and flight testing.
Marlee Djinda Pty Ltd
Build, certify and integrate a drone with cameras and sensors to deliver a Landcare management program on the lands of the Kanpa community within the Ngaanyatjarra Aboriginal Land Council in Western Australia.
Swoop Aero Pty Ltd
Roll out a large-scale multi-role drone logistics network commencing in the Darling Downs south west region and expanding into south east QLD and northern NSW focusing on pathology and medical logistics.
XROTOR Pty Ltd
Development, testing and trialling of a new propeller design for both emerging and traditional aircraft with reduced noise impact and higher propulsion efficiency compared to traditional propellers.
Except for possibly the last funded project, it is very slim pickings for the traditional civil aviation industry...
MTF...P2
As I said in October. (17/10). Traditional piston engine GA is now regarded as a legacy technology. There will be no further work or investment in improving GA capability or efficiency, except to transition to electric propulsion.
Forget about changing AVmed or the training, maintenance and operation regulations because CASA will use the excuse that they relate only to legacy technologies, therefore there is limited return on investment.
CASA will instead concentrate its investment on a new suite of regulations for drones and E-aircraft. Everything else, including Glen Buckleys case and multiple Senate reviews will be discarded.
"Net Zero" - a big fat zero. No trust. No future. No return on investment. Just endless speculative prattling by the uninformed.
Question 1: how much energy is required by electric aircraft? Where and how will it be generated and how delivered?
Is miniscule La'King inflicted with AIOS?? -
![[Image: DqGZMEzU4AAP22L.jpg]](https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DqGZMEzU4AAP22L.jpg)
Ref:
https://auntypru.com/forum/-Accidents-Ov...74#pid2974
Via this week's SBG: -
Punched, bored or countersunk?
Quote:Air Services Australia – run by the Electric Blue Halfwit and his dodgy accountant mate are supposed to provide for the safety of the public, while being part of Air Traffic movement. Desperate to reduce the incredible debt incurred during the 'One Sky' fiasco, they have stripped down a once world class service to the regular public and private charter operations industry to a point where there are simply not enough ATCO bums at the consuls and heavy aircraft are not fully guaranteed separation, from take off to touch down, from 'all' possible collision risks. Not if, but when, a hull and passengers are lost, perhaps the minister could spare a few moments to consider sorting this abomination out; it is, after all part of her job description, pays the wages and despite the fine print, the media can and will lay the carcass at her door.
And ref via the BITN thread:
(12-31-2022, 08:31 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]Harfwit QON unaswered? ; & La'King in the dark on ATCO work sickie shortages?? -
Courtesy Matthew Denholm, via the Oz:
Quote:‘Air safety threatened by sickies, shortages’, say pilots
By MATTHEW DENHOLM
TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
@MatthewRDenholm
3:55AM DECEMBER 31, 2022
![[Image: 1361a1d807c23942fc54d2227789e7e9?width=1280]](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/1361a1d807c23942fc54d2227789e7e9?width=1280)
Australian and International Pilots Association president Tony Lucas, an experienced Qantas pilot, says switching controlled airspace to uncontrolled should occur only in emergencies.
Some of Australia’s busiest regional airspace has been left uncontrolled, forcing pilots to “self-separate”, at least 340 times since June, often due to shortages of available, adequately trained air traffic controllers.
The Weekend Australian has obtained 340 “occurrence” reports since June, detailing how Airservices Australia has left normally controlled airspace uncontrolled for periods of sometimes hours or even days.
They reveal frequent resorting to tower closures or uncontrolled airspace across key Queensland regional areas Cairns, Rockhampton, Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast.
Also impacted is a range of regional and outer-city airports or airspace across most states, including Karratha and Broome in Western Australia, Avalon in Victoria, Bankstown, Byron and Albury in NSW, Launceston in Tasmania, Alice Springs in the Northern Territory and Parafield in South Australia.
Airservices Australia, which blames a 44 per cent jump in unplanned staff absences, chiefly due to illness, insists the practice, requiring pilots to monitor each other’s whereabouts, is safe.
However, some air traffic controllers and pilots argue it is courting disaster in busy areas, and should be used only in isolated emergencies, not as a routine means of dealing with staffing problems...
More courtesy Matt Denholm, via the Oz:
Quote:‘Unacceptable’: Sydney air control unit left without a manager 70 times, as Melbourne-based controllers ‘left in tears’
EXCLUSIVE
By MATTHEW DENHOLM
TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
@MatthewRDenholm
![[Image: ef89aa7d327e45d90151df91ac565556?width=1280]](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/ef89aa7d327e45d90151df91ac565556?width=1280)
The control tower at Sydney Airport. Picture: AAP/Peter Rae
Australia’s busiest airport is frequently operating without a manager in charge of air traffic control for arriving aircraft, due to staffing problems, leaked reports reveal.
Airservices Australia “safety related” reports show at least 70 instances from late July to late November last year of the unit controlling aircraft approaching Sydney Airport being left without a rostered manager.
The documents, obtained by The Australian, show the Sydney Terminal Control Unit for approaches being without a manager for periods ranging from hours to up to eight consecutive shifts.
Sources said the ongoing practice was linked to a shortage of experienced controllers after Airservices granted early retirement to 120 in the 12 months to June last year.
“It is concerning that the busiest airport in Australia operates without a traffic manager so often,” a controller said.
The traffic managers are essentially shift managers, consulting with other areas to organise runway selection, traffic flow and “metering” – restricting or increasing the number of arrivals to ensure safe processing of air traffic.
They are particularly relied on for air traffic outside the norm, such as helicopters and scenic flights that add complexity to control operations. They also handle emergency co-ordination and staff rotation to ensure controllers are not overloaded.
In the absence of a Sydney manager, it is understood the role goes to a supervisor in Melbourne air traffic control, but controllers said this was inappropriate.
“The person who then takes control of it is based in Melbourne and does not have the intimate knowledge of Sydney necessary to meter traffic appropriately,” a controller said.
“The traffic manager is usually a senior controller with a wealth of experience. Their workload can‘t easily be shared with controllers on console as it will distract from the primary task at hand.”
CEO of Skykraft, Michael Frater, says that their satellite can detect any aircraft that broadcasts its location as it's mandated globally that all aircraft carry transmitters that report their whereabouts to air traffic controllers. “All you need is to have a receiver within range of that transmitter so that information will be passed on to air traffic control,” Mr Frater told Sky News Australia. Skykraft and Airservices Australia will put 200 satellites into orbit over two years. The project aims to limit turbulence for travellers and enable planes to travel the most efficient route.
Safety reports repeatedly state “no Sydney traffic manager available”, “no Sydney traffic manager rostered”, “Sydney traffic manager position not staffed”.
One report expressed concern that the approach unit was operating not only without a manager, but also without a contingency response manager or revised risk assessment. Another states “no direct supervision was provided to the SYD TCU (Sydney Terminal Control Unit) as required”.
The Weekend Australian revealed some of Australia’s busiest regional airspace was left uncontrolled – forcing pilots to “self-separate” – at least 340 times since June, often due to shortages of available, adequately trained controllers.
The Australian has since obtained a safety incident report from December 23, detailing how two controllers, based in Melbourne, were “plugged in” to their consoles for up to six hours, with only one 15-minute break.
Sources said controllers were usually given longer breaks closer to every two hours, to ensure they retained the mental alertness vital for safe performance of their high-stakes work. The safety report said one controller “broke down in tears and was escorted from the ops room” after finally being “unplugged”; the other “was observed to be physically shaking”.
![[Image: fd1e74a4ecab8a0dfa77ae4d22363c8e]](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/fd1e74a4ecab8a0dfa77ae4d22363c8e)
Sydney airport experienced delays and cancelled flights after an evacuation of the airport's control tower due to a fire alarm. Picture: Liam Driver
It states the two controllers, and a third who worked 2½ hours with no break, had to contend with a “high workload and complexity” across the airspace they were controlling. This included thunderstorm-related deviations and pre-Christmas traffic.
An Airservices spokeswoman said safety was “never compromised” and there was no threat to the travelling public. “Airservices has experienced unplanned leave rates that are 44 per cent higher than normal primarily due to flu and Covid-19 infections,” she said.
“As you have reported, Airservices Australia requires about 800 air traffic controllers to fully staff its operations and employs more than 900 air traffic controllers – so there is no shortage. Claims that the retirement scheme … has created a shortage do not hold water.”
Contingency arrangements had “operated for decades in Australia without incident”.
“Air traffic control duty time is governed by a stringent fatigue management system and an enterprise agreement that ensures air traffic controllers are always fit for duty,” she said. However, controllers say there are inadequate numbers of controllers with the relevant ratings or experience to work the various types of airspace, and a shortage of trainers.
Hmm...the above got me thinking to a period almost 7 years ago where the question was asked:
TICK..TICK..TICK - What will it take? (also refer here:
On FOI requests & word weasel confections )
Here's Harfwit in his electric blue suit alongside his dodgy CFO:
And from the same period Dick Smith:
Hansard ref:
18/08/15 ASA Performance hearing:
TICK..TICK..TICK - Indeed, what will it take?? 
MTF...P2
Meanwhile after a 9 month (CASA induced) gestation a Bonza is born?? -
Via La'King miniscule webpages...
Quote:Bonza set for takeoff
The Australian Government welcomes the entry of a new airline into the Australian market, with Bonza today being granted its Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) following a rigorous assessment process.
This is a significant milestone for Australian aviation, marking the first new high-capacity entrant into the Australian market since the launch of Tiger Airways over 15 years ago.
With an initial base on the Sunshine Coast, Bonza will focus on regional routes that are currently underserviced.
AOCs are required by all airlines that fly scheduled passenger services in Australia. These certificates are issued following a thorough examination of an airline’s facilities, processes, appropriately trained personnel, and capacity to operate safely.
This ensures everyone boarding a plane in Australia can have confidence that they are travelling safely.
Quotes attributable to Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Catherine King:
“This is a welcome milestone for Bonza and for Australian aviation as the sector continues its recovery from the COVID pandemic.
“The entry of a new operator will boost competition in the Australian aviation sector, offering more choice to the travelling public, and putting downward pressure on fares.
“Australia has one of the safest aviation sectors in the world. I commend the staff at CASA and Bonza who have worked hard over many months to progress this certification and to ensure that Bonza meets the high safety standards required of all airlines operating in Australia.” -
Plus from the gushing Su_Spence...
Quote:Bonza cleared for take-off
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today issued an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) to new Australian airline Bonza after the carrier submitted final documents and successfully completed proving flights.
![[Image: bonza-media-release.jpg]](https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/bonza-media-release.jpg)
The AOC is the regulatory approval required by Bonza to fly scheduled passenger-carrying flights in Australia.
A specialist CASA team has been working with Bonza since it submitted its application last year, progressively assessing various components and providing feedback.
CASA Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer Pip Spence said Bonza went through a rigorous assessment and validation process to ensure it could operate safely.
'This is a significant milestone and we congratulate Bonza on achieving its air operator’s certificate,' Ms Spence said.
'The CASA and Bonza teams worked collaboratively throughout the application to ensure the airline’s operations met Australia’s high aviation safety standards.
'I would especially like to acknowledge Bonza’s willingness to work with us on this complex process.'
Ms Spence said the AOC process was designed to ensure that everyone boarding an aircraft in Australia could do so with confidence and the knowledge they were travelling safely.
'All commercial operators in Australia have to go through this process, which considers how the operator will meet the required safety standards,' she said.
'Our assessment includes a thorough examination of technical documentation as well as verification and testing.
'The process examines whether the airline has the facilities, processes and appropriately trained personnel to comply with their operations manual.
'It involves conducting assessments of the carrier’s proposed operations, facilities, aircraft and the aerodromes to which they operate to ensure that they meet our safety requirements.
'Australia has one of the safest aviation industries in the world and travellers should be assured when they get on a Bonza aircraft that the operator has been assessed in detail to ensure it complies with the same safety requirements as other Australian airlines.'
More information about how CASA grants permission to new airline applicants is available on how we ensure safety with a new airline.
Meanwhile in
Sleepy Hollow the General Aviation industry continues to reel from an overbearing Big R regulator seemingly hell bent on destroying a once vibrant industry, while being ineffectively oversighted by possibly the most totally disengaged miniscule in the history of Civil Aviation in Australia...
MTF...P2
Rumour has it that the AOC cost Bonza a million bucks.
Wombat - “Rumour has it that the AOC cost Bonza a million bucks.”
AND........................... ??
Aside - Always intrigues me; the tax payer 'funds' CASA – if CASA do nothing substantial for a year it don't matter; they get paid for doing their job anyway. Without industry 'needs' for various approvals etc there would be no need for the huge staff and high cost. But, as they are there anyway, funded anyway - and industry needs the 'stuff' because 'they say so' why then is a 'fee-for-service' over the top of the existing funding demanded; just for doing what the tax payer funds them to do – i.e, administer to Civil Aviation. Always seemed somehow 'wrong' to me. Must be old age, booze and bad living 'dimming me senses'.
My legs are bent, my ears are grizzled my knees are old and knackered. Etc...
Albo's Great White Elephant Paper Mark II - FDS!
![[Image: white-elephant-in-the-sky2.jpg?w=800]](https://jasonholtzclaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/white-elephant-in-the-sky2.jpg?w=800)
Via the Dept website:
Quote:Aviation White Paper
The Aviation White Paper (the White Paper) will set the long-term policies to guide the next generation of growth and innovation in the aviation sector.
It will clearly articulate the Commonwealth Government’s policies on desired aviation outcomes in relation to safety, competitiveness, sustainability and efficiency to ensure the sector is appropriately positioned to deliver aviation services for the Australian public out to 2050.
The White Paper will examine issues across the aviation sector. This includes four specific areas identified by the Government when announcing the White Paper:
- how to maximise the aviation sector's contribution to achieving net zero carbon emissions, including through sustainable aviation fuel and emerging technologies
- the economic reforms needed to improve productivity across the sector, including addressing skills shortages, competition between airports and airlines, and charting a course out of the pandemic
- how to support and regenerate Australia's general aviation sector
- better mechanisms for consultation on and management of issues like aircraft noise, airport development planning and changing security requirements.
On 7 February 2023, the Government released the White Paper Terms of Reference.
In the 2022-23 Budget, the Government committed $7 million of funding to deliver the White Paper.
Want to be involved?
Interested individuals and organisations are invited to make initial submissions on any aspect of the Terms of Reference by 10 March 2023. Further consultations will occur on the Green Paper.
While submissions may be lodged electronically or by post, electronic lodgement is preferred. For accessibility reasons, please submit responses sent via email in a Word or RTF format. An additional PDF version may also be submitted.
All information (including name and address details) contained in submissions will be made available to the public on the Department's website unless you indicate that you would like all or part of your submission to remain in confidence.
Plus via the Oz:
Quote:Aviation white paper tackles consumer protection and access to services
![[Image: 2fac4b199d83f145937d995c2cc74352?width=1280]](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/2fac4b199d83f145937d995c2cc74352?width=1280)
Last year’s federal budget allocated $7m for the white paper, which was an election promise for the Albanese government. Picture: NCA NewsWire /Brenton Edwards
By ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider
12:00AM FEBRUARY 7, 2023
An aviation white paper intended to shape the industry’s future in Australia will examine consumer protections as well as the role of airlines and airports in supporting regional economies.
Last year’s federal budget allocated $7m for the white paper, which was an election promise for the Albanese government.
Nine months on, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King was to release the terms of reference for the document on Tuesday.
Ms King said the paper would help deliver long-term policy ¬directions for the aviation industry, which had suffered from a “lack of planning” under the previous government.
“A safe, efficient, sustainable and competitive aviation sector is critical to the economy and the standard of living of all Australians,” Ms King said.
“Aviation connects Australians with the world and communities to each other. It allows us to visit family and friends interstate and it provides a vital link to regions and remote Australia.”
The areas to be covered by the white paper included aviation’s role in economic development, trade and the visitor economy; the regeneration of the general aviation sector; and achieving the industry’s target of net zero carbon emissions.
Submissions were also being sought on appropriate consumer protections and access to services, and the changing nature of aircraft noise and how airports planned and consulted on that.
The deadline for submissions from individuals and organisations is March 10. Policy proposals based on the white paper’s findings will be released in a green paper later in the year.
A previous white paper released by the Rudd government in 2009 recommended the 49 per cent foreign ownership restriction on Qantas remain in place and laid the groundwork for increased security measures at airports.
About 300 submissions were received for the 216-page document, which was criticised by the general aviation community for ignoring their input and delivering little substance.
Last year, a Senate Committee led by Nationals senator Susan McDonald completed an inquiry into the future of the aviation sector in the context of the Covid pandemic.
The final report made nine recommendations, including preparation of a white paper on aviation workforce issues, such as the impacts of “job insecurity, wage decline and the erosion of safe work conditions”.
Future industry workforce skills and training requirements were included in the terms of ¬reference for Ms King’s white paper.
"Let's do the TIMEWARP AGAIN!" -
MTF...P2
DIRDTC - Aviation & Airports Estimates??
Via Youtube:
Hansard for this segment starts from 1400 -
HERE.
Quote:Senator CANAVAN: I want to start with—and I will come back to this later tonight with the relevant agencies. You might have seen some reports recently in the media that the radar system at the Rockhampton Airport is not exactly working to specifications. I'm asking that noting a clear conflict of interest from me: I'm a regular person who lands at the Rockhampton Airport. Is the department aware of these issues and has it been in discussions with, I presume, Airservices Australia about these deficiencies?
Ms Purvis-Smith : I might ask any colleagues if we've been in direct discussions about that particular issue. We're in discussions with the ASA on a regular basis. It is a matter for the ASA, though, rather than the department.
Senator CANAVAN: I get that, but this seems quite significant. Just to review, the article is about Rockhampton and Mackay airports. The Weekend Australian obtained detailed radar coverage logs—this was published on 11 February—which revealed 221 incidents of aircraft dropping off radars on approach to the two airports between July last year and January this year. Are you aware of these reports anywhere in the department?
Ms Purvis-Smith : I'm aware of some of the reports. I'm not sure if my colleague is. But I'm not aware that we've engaged directly on that with the ASA. That is definitely a matter for the ASA themselves.
Senator CANAVAN: I get that, but this seems pretty concerning. Mr Wood, are you aware of the reports?
Mr R Wood : I'm not aware of a specific report relating to Rockhampton or Mackay. I'm certainly aware of media commentary and of reports around service issues to do with Airservices Australia in some parts of the country, which we engage on, noting that the formal responsibility rests with Airservices and, to the extent that there are any safety issues, with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Senator CANAVAN: Just to be clear, you're not even aware of the reports of this?
Mr R Wood : I don't recall a specific report about it to do with Rockhampton.
Senator CANAVAN: It was on page 5 of the Australian on Saturday. Presumably you get a media monitoring service. The headline is 'Aircraft vanishing from second-rate radar'. The department's not even aware of this problem?
Mr R Wood : I didn't see the Australian on the weekend, no. It may well be in our media clips but I didn't—
Senator McKENZIE: The Australian is excluded. You only get the Guardian, do you?
Senator CANAVAN: Presumably your keyword searches would include Airservices Australia, radar, things like this. Wouldn't that article have been flagged?
Mr R Wood : I didn't read the newspaper clips on Saturday morning. I've been doing my Senate estimates preparation. That's one of the things I no doubt will see when I'm back in—
Senator CANAVAN: I am very shocked about this, to be honest. I mean, I'm not expecting you to trawl through the paper. How many people are in your branch, Mr Wood?
Mr R Wood : In the division we've got approximately 80 staff.
Senator CANAVAN: With 80 staff, I would have thought somebody—something mustn't be working very well when an article appears in a newspaper seeing 'second-rate radar' and there have been 221 incidents of aircraft dropping off the radar, and no-one of those 80 people thinks it's worth saying, 'Hey, maybe the FAS needs to know that this is an issue. Here's an article.' Do you think you need to go back and check your processes within the department? This seems a shocking lack of accountability. As we said earlier, this is a matter for Airservices Australia. I get that. But you are the department in charge of them. If there's a major issue popping up saying there's a safety concern, I would have thought you'd at least be alerted to it, rather than relying on a senator who has four staff, not 80.
Mr R Wood : Of course, very few of these staff work directly on airspace related issues. That said, we do look at the clips and we engage regularly with Airservices. These are the sorts of things that may come up in our general engagement with Airservices.
Senator CANAVAN: Now that I've alerted you to it, I hope that someone does go back and try to get to the bottom of what the hell is going on.
UFB??
MTF...P2
This is exactly what to expect when the arms of government are hived off to monopoly government sponsored corporations or statutory bodies.
In other words the fundamental principle of responsible government has been disregarded. Ministers should be in charge of regular Departments in the proven Westminster model giving the voting public the most direct say and the motivation to governments to drive public acceptability.
In so many similar instances at these Estimates hearings the MP Committee members seem astonished at the lack of preparedness and knowledge of the bureaucrats. What they don’t appreciate is that the poor performance is actually the fault of Parliament for allowing, and continuing to allow without question, a system that breeds contempt for Members of Parliament.
The frustrations and exasperation of the various MPs must be seen in light of their continued support of the much vaunted but illogical concept of the ‘independent’ regulator. Our system of government in this respect is naive at best and chaotic at worst. I don’t see one politician who is articulating a principled resolution to the obvious problem.
miniscule a'la King - GWEP WOFTAM...cont/-
Via LMH:
The Last Minute Hitch: 17 February 2023
Hitch has now put up and replied to Sandy's post:
http://disq.us/p/2t6kq3v
Quote:Quote Hitch :- “So, right now I can't decide if gathering feedback on the terms of reference is a sign of transparency, or consultation overkill.” Consultation for terms of reference? Surely you jest, or maybe the Minister is having a laugh!
Well mate let’s have a look back nine years to the much vaunted Forsyth ‘consultation,’ forget all the predecessors of that inquiry. We made hundreds of submissions to Forsyth.
What happened? Ok for one we got SIDs that soaked Cessna owners $millions and depleted the fleet and bottle necked the maintenance sector. And then, wait for it, Part 61 to wreck the training sector, loss of hundreds of flying schools. Then CASA inexplicably quashed Glen Buckley’s umbrella flying school business that might have kept a number of smaller schools going. That is a salutary lesson for anyone attempting to deal with CASA.
Fast forward to Senator McDonald’s fizzled out inquiry, not to mention the 3000 replies to my Change.org including hundreds of comments, virtually the whole lot about all of the extreme and debilitating effects of a runaway regulator upon our much struggling General Aviation industry.
The monopoly corporate CASA created by Transport Minister Gareth Evans in 1988 to rid his Department of the administration of aviation is the root cause and no new inquiry will change the failed model of governance until Parliament places aviation into a Department of Government with a responsible Minister at its head.
The denial of Ministerial responsibility, undeniably a cornerstone of the Westminster system of democratic control, is at the heart of our problem. A problem that is counter to the National interest, aviation mobility is a crucial aspect of our strength from a security point of view, quite apart from the obvious utility of GA, employment and our general prosperity.
LMH reply:
Quote:SteveHitchen Mod to Sandy Reith
a day ago
Sandy. It gets greyer. Word out of the department is that I was correct in the first place and the consultation was supposed to be on the white paper, not the terms of reference, which were apparently "set in stone" before the minister's announcement. It looks like this is a case of the right hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
From Hansard:
Quote:Senator McKENZIE: This is an election commitment. The terms of reference has taken nine months. Is that usual for a white paper process?
Ms Purvis-Smith : I'm not sure. I don't have the history of white paper processes, unfortunately. The government went through their processes and agreed to terms of reference and released it recently, on 7 February I believe.
Senator McKENZIE: Who did they consult on the construction of the terms of reference?
Ms Purvis-Smith : We'd been working with the government on the terms of reference. It was an election commitment. It wasn't a separate consultation process on the terms of reference. The government decided on the terms of reference to be able to release it as the basis for consultation.
Senator McKENZIE: Okay—got you.
Mr Betts : And in terms of the time frame, the government decided that it wanted to release the white paper in mid-2024 and we worked back from there. So it's wrong to characterise it as seven months of delay. We are timing the process that we will follow in order to enable us to release the white paper in a predetermined time frame.
Senator McKENZIE: The terms of reference, then, were developed in the department. The terms of reference for the consultation, rather than having a discussion paper, were developed in the department and sent up to the minister's office?
Ms Purvis-Smith : It was in the department. We consulted with some other government agencies, including CASA. My colleague Ms Werner will be able to take you through that in more detail.
Ms Werner : The initial draft terms of reference was developed by the department based on the government's election commitment. The terms of reference was then shared across the Public Service with PM&C, Treasury, Finance, department of climate change, DFAT, Austrade, Home Affairs, department of industry and Defence, and with the portfolio agencies, Airservices, CASA and ATSB, for comment. The draft terms of reference were then provided to the minister, who then sought agreement to them from the Prime Minister.
Senator McKENZIE: Did CASA or Airservices Australia add anything to the terms of reference?
Ms Werner : Unfortunately, Senator, I don't have that level of detail with me.
Ms Purvis-Smith : We can take it on notice.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you.
Or from 09:30 here:
MTF...P2
Ms. Werner’s comments and information add to the shameful sham, namely the Government’s Aviation White Paper. She lists who was consulted about the ToR, that being a large proportion of GI (Government Industries). One glaring omission, that would be apparent to the least bright member of a kindergarten class, that being the aviation industry itself, in particular the General Aviation sector.
The naive notion that government can best be run by independent bureaucracies, be they statutory bodies, or monopoly Government corporations, must be countered.
The business of democratic government is not a football match with an umpire to uphold the rules of the game. The umpire’s adjudication may determine who takes the spoils of victory.
We elect Members of Parliament to govern in the best interests of all, not winner takes all. We expect a reasonable ’man in the street’ or ‘pub test’ element to prevail along with the Common Law and our free enterprise prosperity and way of life.
The only way, with all its faults of human nature, is via our elected representatives because they lose office if we are not satisfied. The bureaucracy, on the other hand, has a life of its own. The classic example is CASA, a law unto itself, purports to be akin to a commercial corporation and therefore pays commercial scales of pay being outside the standard PS rates. All the top people of these independent bodies are paid more than the Minister, some receive two and three times more than Ministerial rates of remuneration.
Sandy, GA is dead, deliberately strangled in red tape. Don't let the death rattles fool you. . RAA and the rest of the Alphabets will be strangled next. How many times must you idiots keep banging your heads against a brick wall???? I say "idiots" in a caring and sharing way because I fail to find a more appropriate name for people who expect the Government and public service to stop shitting in their mouths at every opportunity despite Thirty plus years of exactly that behaviour. I'm sorry but there is no other words for what the Government of the day, Department of Transport and their dark creatures CASA, ATSB and AsA have done to you
You have all earnestly, honestly and at great personal cost done your best when asked by Government to contribute to aviation policy and regulatory development in Australia through review after review, consultation after consultation, committee meeting after committee meeting and investigation after investigation and for what? The volume of regulation is actually INCREASING. The "just culture" is a joke - ask Glen Buckley. Avmed is a disaster - see the actual submissions and examples from DAMES, Mid air collisions proliferate and shonky operators like SOAR get to ply their trade with impunity, meanwhile anyone unlucky enough to draw the ire of the jackbooted thugs who run this administrative chamber of horrors risks being bankrupted and branded a felon for a smudged entry in a log book.
....And now you get the vapors because you weren't consulted over the terms of reference for the White Paper - the next load of shit being fermented right now for your delectation?
Don't you get it Sandy and the rest of you? They hate you, period. It's that nasty obverse of Australian egalitarianism - envy of anyone(except sporting heroes) who has anything they cant have or do things they cant do. The Government hates you because you represent a liability and you occupy desirable real estate, the Department hates you because you are a nuisance to themselves, the RPT crowd and Defence. CASA hates you because you represent a threat to their omnipotence and careers. There is NO ONE in Government who doesn't wish you would all go away.
Take the current mob; does anyone honestly think that a Labor Government competing for Green inner city votes is going to do anything at all that would increase investment, growth and job creation in a fossil fuel intensive industry like aviation? Not a hope in hell! Avgas sprays lead pollution all over the country and there are even inner city Greens who complain about the noise of ambulance helicopters, let alone the rest of the fleet.
Its plain as day what the white paper is going to do to GA - sacrifice it to St. Greta on the climate change altar while Adam Bandt and a host of property developers look on.
Meanwhile behind closed doors the bureaucrats must be laughing their heads off as its obvious that everyone gets the joke except pilots and engineers.
When I heard Binskins plea about water under the bridge, I thought of this:
https://youtu.be/MPMmC0UAnj0
Give up and forget reform. It isnt going to do anything to help you.