[Sandy Reith]

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.

(in part, ie reduced)

Having been around long enough, that is having commenced my General Aviation career in 1968 and set up firstly as a charter operator (joy flights and occasional travel flights) with a bare Commercial Licence, I can attest to the veracity and logic of Karon’s argument.

I obtained a Commercial Pilot’s Licence which logically allowed me to offer my flying abilities to the public on the basis that I had the necessary skills. A small manual of about 12 pages was sufficient to be granted a Charter Licence. There were no fees involved, no Chief Pilot interview, no premises required, no library needed to be evident and any VH registered aircraft could be utilised. After two or three years a flying school was added with little fuss.

That regulatory environment allowed me to start a business and introduce thousands of first time passengers to flying, and serve as aerial transport for all sorts of people with all sorts of special needs. Not to mention to be part of a community, raise a family, buy property, and employ many junior pilots, several of whom went on into the airlines.
Luckily for me I was able to retire as as the paperwork mountain grew higher and the associated fees were imposed in concert.

In latter years a decree was issued that we had to write, in our own words, how we would comply with each and every regulation. This is when the rot really set in, this was undoubtedly the progenitor of the “Exposition.”

I mulled over this extraordinary imposition, reasoning to myself that by logic the whole adult population should be required to write a similar treatise of how they will comply with the criminal code in toto. I still think this is a fair question, a question that goes to the supreme nonsense of a bureaucratic requirement that seeks to perfect by mental enslavement.

I more or less decided that I would not be party to this CASA piece of debasement, I would not kow tow, I would not waste my time. For about three years I stalled on this, then as I needed to rewrite my then much larger set of operating manuals (shelfware), I employed an outside contractor for the task. He produced the new manual and a “compliance” statement booklet which listed each regulation with, line by line, a statement that read “Management acknowledges it’s responsibilities in relation to this regulation.”

Rather like having to write lines at school for some discovered misdemeanour.
No doubt some bright spark with legal training had realised that they couldn’t enforce anything different. Too bad that probably a couple of thousand Chief Pilots who did not know this in the first place, as they toiled nights, unpaid, for weeks on end, wrote up ‘how they would comply’ stories that no one would ever actually read, on each an every regulation.

The whole charade of bureaucratic regulatory perfection is more elaborate than ever and the shrinking industry of General Aviation is testament to the fact.

Without political influence real reform is practically impossible.

[thorn bird]

General Aviation is a very diverse industry, scattered around the countryside each little division jealously guarding its own little bailiwick. Until recently we were operating under regulations heavily influenced by authoritative  "British" traditions dating back to before the second world war.

Some forty years ago a consensus was reached that the regulations in the modern era were not fit for purpose and were sorely in need of updating.

After much consultation it was decided to make a start on regulatory reform, basing new regulations upon a tested and mature rule set from undoubtably the most successful and safest aviation country in the world.

The US FAR's are far from perfect, no regulation suite can be, but it was agreed, despite some fervent opposition within the ranks of the regulator, that alignment with US rules was the way to go.
A beginning was made, however progress was at a snails pace, hamstrung by opponents within the regulator.

All the while those diverse divided little businesses scattered about the country blissfully went on with their business ignoring the growing plague that was about to descend on their industry.

Australians are a fairly laid back bunch and tend to take their freedoms for granted.

The GA industry can at times be its own worse enemy. Very vocal when a threat is made to their own little fiefdom, but blind to the "Big Picture".

They were and still are, to a large extent ambivalent to the storm gathering momentum, which will ultimately threaten to wipe out their whole industry : the signs were there. As the years passed subtle un- challenged changes to the program passed without comment. The game of thrones being played out within the regulator saw the naysayers   gaining ascendancy.

Things may have been a lot different if the industry as a whole had not been so apathetic and divided.

In the US people are far more aware and protective of their rights and freedoms, any attempt by bureaucracy to impinge on those will attract fervent opposition. They recognise that numbers mean power politically, so they actively support the associations that represent them and those associations actively support each other when common interests are threatened. None so much as those who represent aviation.

Our political class must also accept some responsibility for what is happening. They are the ones we elect to temper the excesses of the bureaucrats. Admittedly aviation is a highly technical business but industry was available for a "second opinion" if asked. Simply rubber stamping what you don't understand is tantamount to negligence at worst, laziness at best.

With the naysayers in control of CAsA regulatory reform has developed into a thirty year half billion dollar "make Work" factory and stealthily divesting themselves of any liability or scrutiny by hiding behind a Myth of safety.

The staggering growth in the volumes of regulation facilitated their metamorphosis from a service provider into a compliance authority to police their own regulations creating a whole new empire within an empire. True reform has gone by the wayside.

CAsA has turned inwards oblivious to the industry and it's well-being. Basically they couldn't care less.

[P7_TOM]

There is an important element I think “K” and Sandy have missed. I could use the term the blind leading the blind; redoubled. While getting the manual accepted – not approved mind you – but ‘accepted’; the individuals responsible for that ‘acceptance’ are mostly as legally blind as the bloke who wrote it. The hundreds and hundreds of minor manuscript amendments demanded by the FOI assigned are; as often as not – incorrect; even capable of misdirection. The FOI’s are probably more of a danger to operational safety than ice or storms. A little knowledge, attitude, half baked ‘legal’ training and the notion that a lobotomised FOI is always correct, in the mix are a dangerous thing. Particularly when combined with the fact that at the end stages of an acceptance – you’d just about write anything into the manuscript to be done with it. These tales are legendary, founded in absolute truth with volumes of evidence detailing FOI stupidity or worse, personal preferences. This before they begin to interfere with the Flight Manual requirements.

Some of the CASA interpretations of what a FM means are literally illegal garbage; yet they are tolerated and ‘stepped’ around. Take the Part B of an OM you will see, as often as not, huge swathes of the AFM regurgitated there; pages and pages and pages. All of which could be replaced with a simple statement “the company will operate the aircraft in compliance with the AFM. End of, unless the company have ‘specific’ requirements (technical).

All of this leads to mega problems when a court or an inquiry is happening. The judiciary (or whoever) do not have the technical expertise; or, operational savvy to see past the alleged ‘CASA expert’ and can read ‘the law’. Makes it really hard to present a sensible response – primarily because your expensive lawyer has even less idea of what you rely on as a defence than the blessed judge does. But court still trumps the AAAT- every time – if you can afford it. (different matter).

Any official inquiry into the antics and pronouncements of CASA FOI on operational matters would reveal – beyond any reasonable doubt – that at GA level and probably, though to a lesser degree, at airline level some of the bizarre ‘demands’ made to suit an uninformed, inexperienced shite for an ‘amendment’ to company operating manuals; which is ‘accepted’ : then ignored as being neither of intrinsic, operational or practical value. Until the next opinionated fool decides that the amendment was ‘wrong’ and must be changed – immediately. Reading ain’t a strong point of some of these buffoons; let alone comprehension – operational sanity beyond their grasp. And will someone for Ducks sake tell me what engineering or enforcement types know about ‘operating’ aircraft? I’d love to know. SDA is the right answer; but you knew that. Do not suffer an FOI who is ‘below’ your paygrade – for you will regret it.

A CASA FOI should, as they used to, be able to provide the benefit of their operational expertise and collective experience to guide and ensure safety first, operational practicality second and ‘black letter law’ – as they interpret it, a last consideration.

Remove CASA discretion and remove the liability; reduce the word count and; for pities sake – hire in some professionals; who know their business. Bar Room Barristers need not apply; those who cannot make a living from flying need not apply; and narcissistic rejects with an ‘agenda’ need not apply. It would be helpful, in the extreme, if a CASA new hire had actually held the qualifications equal to the operating Chief pilots they supervise and took some lessons in plain English writing; balm, for the poor slobs driving airframes.

If you must write a manual - tread carefully – less said – soonest mended; for you write your own epitaph.

BRB indaba soon: we are going to try and solve ‘a puzzle’ – the Glen Buckley sponsored chess game. There are some intriguing elements like, for example the sudden disappearance of one David Jones from Buckley’s game board. It leads to all manner of questions – like who pulled the first CMT crew off the job and why? Like why is Crawford at the root of three cases of embuggerance and who’s man is he? It will be an ‘interesting’ session with some perennial favourites featuring in starring roles. Like St Commodes and his swift, in almost indecent haste in responding to Buckley and sending in no less a person than Peter White to oversight matters. There is no way the Saint would do that – not voluntarily. Then there is the questions about the ‘delays’ involved. All speculation, all for the sake of a puzzle; but good fun nonetheless. MTF is more than likely……..

My small campaign to drown notions of fair, open governance continues - unabated. “Yes; one for the road is a good idea.” - “Unless some has brought their darts.?” “Oh good man! – game on………..

[thorn bird]

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

There seems to be one common element and one or two very long serving individuals that feature large in the CAsA metamorphosis.

What seems to me to be the start of the big R regulator began with the rise of the legal department within the hierarchy of CAsA back in the Illich era when Eastern block Stasi trained lawyers were introduced into the equation . These people came from a background of totalitarian Socialist states where the rule of law was not decided by who we imagine are impartial judges in the western world but by the governing elite.

Two people rose out of that era within CAsA who are still solidly imbedded there today. They are founding members of the “Iron Ring” and allegedly heavily influence the CAsA philosophy and direction.

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

That immunity still exists today in the US for the FAA which may explain why they have so much more respectful inter-reaction and collaboration with their industry, and why CAsA slammed its doors to the industry and became an enforcer of the law rather than a service provider.

My father used to say, “If you want to get a deal over the line, keep the lawyers away from it for as long as possible”, which is probably a very true statement. Its quite apparent in the way CAsA goes about its business and in the regulations they write that the legal fraternity heavily influences every facet of its existence and processes.

All inter-reaction with industry is very carefully orchestrated to ensure no liability can be attributed to CAsA. As a senior CAsA FOI once said publically “We are not here to give advice, we only enforce the regulations”.
Is it unsurprising that the industry to try and protect itself as much as possible closed its doors to CAsA.

What a sad state of affairs

The why of the whole affair I can only hypothesis, but one thing is glaringly apparent, Safety is not in the race and the wellbeing of the industry comes a very poor last.

When will government wake up to the fact that its regulator is at war with its industry. The tumbrels roll out to the execution block as the barricades go up, will it take blood on the streets before political action is taken.

[Kharon]

The shoving of ducks, thereof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toot – FWIW – toot (again).

[thorn bird]

CAsA describes itself as an independent statutory authority. But what does that mean?
A quick reference to the dictionary reveals:

INDEPENDANT
adjective
1 free from outside control; not subject to another's authority:

Well for sure this definition applies. CAsA is beholden to nobody but itself. Neither its minister, the parliament, the whole of the industry, nor the people of Australia. It is a completely self interested entity.  

STATUTORY
adjective
2 required, permitted, or enacted by statute

Another truth. CAsA is empowered by the parliament via a parliamentary Act, to make the laws and enforce the laws pertaining to aviation as IT see's fit. It s only caveat being it must only consider "Safety" as its primary goal.

      SAFETY
      noun
      1 [mass noun] the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury:
     they should leave for their own safety. A lot of sensible participants in Aviation in Australia are leaving to escape
     CAsA. Billions of dollars worth of investment gone to foreign climes.        
     
     Who saves the rest of industry from the threat of CAsA?

Absolute Safety is an impossible goal, there is always risk. Unfortunately the before mentioned ACT gives no mention as to what Safety is, that is left to CAsA to determine. CAsA has determined its role is the Salvation of the populace of Australia from the criminal enterprise of committing aviation.

      SALVATION | salˈveɪʃ(ə)n |
      noun [mass noun]
      1 preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss: they try to sell it to us as economic salvation.
     
     CAsA tries to sell us a motto of "Safe Skies for All". Economics don't signify.  Who provides Industry with  
     with salvation from CAsA's myopic, boondoggle industry destroying regulations?

      •  (one's salvation) a source or means of being saved from harm, ruin, or loss: his only salvation was to outfly
        The enemy.

AUTHORITY

noun (plural authorities)
1 [mass noun] the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: he had absolute authority over his subordinates | a rebellion against those in authority.

Yep, CAsA has the power alright and boy do they make an art form of the orders, tens of thousands of pages of them to a point where it's impossible realistically to comply with them. Make decisions? They interfere in every facet of the industry, except for the larger organisations, from the office furniture, to the colour of the wall paper in the ladies Dunny, even down to the content of commercial, in confidence, contracts.

• [often with infinitive] the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another: military forces have the legal authority to arrest drug traffickers.

Yup, CAsA acts without scrutiny in its own specified way. Delegation is a known CAsA modus operandi for absolving themselves of liability for anything.

• official permission; sanction: the money was spent without parliamentary authority.

Well CAsA do spend a lot of taxpayers money without scrutiny.

2 (often authorities) a person or organization having political or administrative power and control: health authorities issued a worldwide alert.

CAsA certainly has been given unfetted power by the political Elite and control they do, massively, successfully decimating an industry in the process.

3 [mass noun] the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something: he has the natural authority of one who is used to being obeyed.

"Commanding manner"? more like sociopathic lunacy I would suggest in CAsA's case.
Other than within their own ranks who recognises any "Knowledge" of the commercial aspects of aviation in CAsA?
"Natural Authority" nope, pretty much everyone I come into contact with in the industry has nothing but contempt for them.

[Peetwo]

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

ScoMo's RTR promise - light on the horizon or empty rhetoric...   

And further to Sandy's Oz article catch - from Stevie E, via the Mandarin ...  

Red tape crackdown renewed: Morrison prefers ‘animal spirits’ to endangered animals

By Stephen Easton

Monday June 24, 2019



Prime Minister Scott Morrison has reinforced his intention to remove “regulatory and bureaucratic barriers” that increase costs for companies, closely guided by common complaints about government agencies from business people.

The PM told the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry he believed “the much-needed animal spirits in our economy” were being held back by regulations like environmental protection laws as well as public service regulatory processes, in a speech on Monday.

Following up his victorious address to Australian Public Service leaders asking them to help the government reduce “congestion” in their departments, Morrison said he was building on the policy of “cutting red tape” and light-touch regulation that began under his predecessor Tony Abbott.

“Removing what governments identify as excessive or outdated regulation is one thing. Whether we are really focusing on the barriers that matter to business in getting investments and projects off the ground is another,” the PM said.

Morrison has assigned responsibility for the Coalition’s return to red tape to his assistant minister Ben Morton and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who was also Abbott’s red-tape lieutenant. There would be “a renewed focus on regulatory reform but from a different angle” so public servants would look at the regulatory experience from the perspective of particular kinds of investment or business.

“Rather than setting targets for departments or government agencies, we’ll be asking the wider question from the perspective of a business looking, say, to open a mine, commercialise a new biomedical innovation, or even start a home-based, family business,” the PM said.

“By focusing on regulation from the viewpoint of business, we will identify the regulations and bureaucratic processes that impose the largest costs on key sectors of the economy and the biggest hurdles to letting those investments flow.”

He repeated his previous criticism of the WA Environmental Protection Agency for its implementation of new greenhouse gas regulations for major projects, which also drew the state government’s ire, and said some federal regulators were also unnecessarily impeding investors in similar ways.

Another local example for the WA business people was the increase in regulatory requirements for mining in the state, over a timeframe of over half a century to exaggerate the point.

Morrison noted that in the mid-1960s, “the late Sir Arvi Parbo took the Kambalda nickel mine near Kalgoorlie from discovery to operation in 18 months” while the Roy Hill iron ore mine in Port Hedland had required “around 4,000 approvals” and took about 10 years to get running.

“There is a clear need to improve approvals timeframes and reduce regulatory costs, but in many cases regulators are making things worse,” the PM said. “Look at the WA Environment Protection Authority and the uncertainty it has created over new emissions requirements for the resources sector. Business will also make valid criticisms of many Commonwealth agencies and departments.”

Later, a medical analogy served to explain the new plan to remove and reduce federal regulations. Speaking to the business group, Morrison focused almost entirely on the costs to business and made no attempt to defend the importance of government regulations in general, given they create level playing fields and aim to protect the community, or the fact that business rightly wears the cost of compliance.

“Step one is to get a picture of the regulatory anatomies that apply to key sectoral investments. Step two is to identify the blockages. Step three is to remove them, like cholesterol in the arteries.”

Morrison inspired by Trump’s small-government policies

While Donald Trump’s performance in government is not universally considered inspirational by leaders of other nations, Morrison appears to find plenty to admire in the Republican President’s small-government policies.

He enthused that while he also wanted to cut taxes, like the US President, “it was actually the Trump administration’s commitment to cutting red tape and transforming the regulatory mindset of the bureaucracy that delivered their first wave of improvement in their economy” in his view.

“You can be assured I have begun this term by making it clear to our public service chiefs that I am expecting a new mindset when it comes to getting investments off the drawing board,” he added.

In a segue to the Coalition’s industrial relations policy, Morrison confirmed that unions are the one type of organisation he would like to subject to a greater regulatory burden.

According to the PM, his government now “believes in cooperative workplaces” and Christian Porter will be looking for “impediments to shared gains for employers and employees” in his new capacity as Industrial Relations Minister.

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

To follow on from the above post this comment made interesting reading from the Australian newspaper.

Cut red tape and keep investment in the black

DANIEL WILD

12:00AM JUNE 25, 2019 COMMENTS

Scott Morrison’s vision to cut red tape will allow more Australians to reach their potential and for the Australian economy to flourish.

In an address to the Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia yesterday, the Prime Minister highlighted the need to “bust regulatory congestion” to remove “obstacles to business investment”.

His announcement that Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Ben Morton will lead a review of red tape is an excellent first step. This move, along with Josh Frydenberg’s commitment to driving productivity growth, is the beginning of an ambitious third-term agenda for the Coalition.

It is right for the government to focus on regulatory reform and cutting red tape.

Red tape is the biggest barrier to economic opportunity and prosperity in Australia. Research by the Institute of Public Affairs estimates red tape reduces economic output by $176 billion a year, the equivalent to 10 per cent of gross domestic product. This makes red tape Australia’s biggest industry.

The lesson from the US under President Donald Trump is that cutting red tape and lowering taxes lead to an economic boom, and not just in terms of profits to businesses.

Since Trump came to office in January 2017, the unemployment rate has dropped to 3.6 per cent; the lowest rate since 1967; ­unemployment for minorities reached its lowest levels ever recorded; the unemployment rate for women has fallen to 3.1 per cent, which is the lowest since 1953; 422,000 jobs have been added in the manufacturing sector; and private sector business invest­ment has increased from 17 per cent to 18.1 per cent of GDP.

This has led to the US labour market gradually tightening, which has placed upward pressure on wages and put workers in a stronger bargaining position.

The centrepiece of the reduction of red tape in the US has been a one-in-two-out approach, where two regulations are eliminated for every one introduced. Last year, 12 regulations were repealed for each new regulation introduced, resulting in a $US23bn reduction to regulatory costs.

The result is that in Trump’s first full year as president in 2017, total pages of legislation passed dropped by 36 per cent.

This is the largest reduction since records began in 1936.

In Australia, red tape affects every sector of the economy, from multi-billion-dollar projects in the resources sector to small shops on the local high street. The Roy Hill iron ore mine in the Pilbara in Western Australia, for example, required 4967 licences, permits and conditions for the pre-construction phase alone; and a contravention order was recently issued by a local council in NSW to a small food shop whose bottle of hand soap in the bathroom was less than 50 per cent full.

These examples demonstrate why business investment in Australia is just 11.8 per cent of GDP, which is lower than during the business-hostile Whitlam years. Low rates of business investment truncate the nation’s capital stock, which reduces productivity growth, and holds down real wages growth in the private sector.

As well as dragging down productivity and wages, red tape is pushing up the cost of living.

IPA research last year found that consumer prices in sectors with heavy government intervention have risen far faster than sectors with minimal intervention.

Across 20 years from 1997 to 2017, the cost of housing increased by 330 per cent, childcare by 310 per cent and electricity by 215 per cent.

But cutting red tape is not just an economic issue. It is a profound moral issue: red tape is disempowering. It prevents Australians from starting their own business, winning a pay rise and following their dreams.

Every hour spent on complying with red tape is an hour less dedicated to business expansion, in the community or helping the kids with their homework.

It is inherently undignified for an entrepreneur, a farmer, a prospector or a small-business owner to seek the permission of bureaucrats to start or expand a business or take on a new project that will employ more people and create greater opportunities. The disposition of a risk-averse bureaucracy will always clash with the entrepreneurial flair of hardworking Australians who are willing to take a risk, often putting their family home on the line, for the betterment of our nation. What have ­bureaucrats and regulators ever risked for Australia?

The exciting policy agenda of the Morrison government to cut red tape, along with reforming industrial relations and cutting income taxes, will help reverse the decline of small business, boost investment and allow the Australian middle class to prosper.

Daniel Wild is director of research with the Institute of Public Affairs.

Daniel Wild

Contributor

QUOTE:

"It is right for the government to focus on regulatory reform and cutting red tape.

Red tape is the biggest barrier to economic opportunity and prosperity in Australia. Research by the Institute of Public Affairs estimates red tape reduces economic output by $176 billion a year, the equivalent to 10 per cent of gross domestic product. This makes red tape Australia’s biggest industry."

General Aviation in Australia, considering how small it is as an industry, compared say with the US, attracts a rather disproportionate amount of red tape. With a page count running to over thirty thousand pages of regulation, with tens of thousands more in the pipeline one must wonder just why a tiny industry needs that amount of bureaucratic largess to control it.

By comparison the USA regulations run to around one thousand pages total, New Zealand much the same.
The GA Industry in the USA is still small in comparison with the other power houses of the USA's industrial complex, but nevertheless contributes billions to their GDP.

There is ample evidence that red tape is strangling the the life blood from the GA industry in Australia, being so small, it is particularly sensitive to price pressures from compliance with over-enthusiastic over-regulation.

Australia's Regulator CAsA, regulates from a whole of Aviation perspective. That is it regulates the regular Public Transport sector as well as all the other aspects that make up the whole Aviation Industry. The RPT side is by far the biggest sector of the whole industry. They have a captive market, devoid of any real competition. The regulations apply to them all, so the playing field is level for them all. Economy of scale means compliance costs can be more easily absorbed, a few bucks on a ticket price don't signify to their customers, though we are seeing a certain amount of push back from some regional areas where ticket prices are almost double that a comparable ticket would cost in the US. There is also the fact that regional towns who used to receive air services no longer do. Providing such a services is just not cost effective given the huge costs of gaining an Air operators certificate to do so, along with the attendant massive costs of maintaining it, even before capital is expended on a suitable aircraft to do it in.

To be fair CAsA is following the ethos developed in Europe where EASA promulgated a one size fits all approach to regulation. The folly of this approach lead General Aviation businesses in Europe to almost disappear except for corporate, who promptly registered their aircraft in tax havens outside Europe and carried on as usual without oversight.

For EASA the penny finally dropped and they are frantically writing new regulations that are inclusive of General Aviation. CAsA unfortunately are slow to keep up, a new tranche of regulations under their "reform" banner will force the commercial side of GA into the untenable position of having to operate as an airline with all the attendant costs tacked on. This will be the end game for general aviation in Australia as it was in Europe.

In Australia aviation and its regulation is a bureaucrats wet dream.

They have an airline industry which largely, thanks to advances in technology is inherently safe and it can be left to regulate itself.

On the GA side, a diverse, fractious, scattered industry, financially fragile, with little ability to politically mobilise to oppose impositions placed upon it, nor garner much attention from lazy unsympathetic media, except on the rare occasions an aviation incident or accident can be sensationalised into terrifying headlines, which feeds the publics perspective, heavily promoted by the regulator, that aviation is inherently unsafe.

A politically imposed ethos that safety must be its only consideration, thus creating a never ending make work program of Regulatory Reform.

A highly technical industry which few outsiders understand and can therefore be easily bamboozled with bureaucratic spin.

The Myth of safety is a very powerful tool to frighten off any political interference or oversight.

CAsA has promoted this Myth as the reason it must promulgate rafts of regulation to control an industry which is inherently safe despite anything that they do. CASA promotes they must regulate to protect Australia's reputation as a world leader in Aviation safety, which is another Myth. Australia is in fact no safer than any other ICAO compliant nation, around the world from my experience CAsA is a bit of a joke.

There was absolutely NO need for CAsA to expend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money on its make work reform program. New Zealand reformed their aviation regulations by copying the best most balanced in the world the US FAR's. Their success has lead to a healthy, vibrant, growing and safe GA industry, their regulations considered so balanced and effective that virtually the whole pacific region has embraced them.It cost New Zealand less than five million dollars and a couple of years to produce them. Australia has spent almost thirty years and half a BILLION dollars to destroy a whole industry. WHY?  

If Australia's regulations are so safe, who in the world has adopted them?

In truth CAsA's reform program has not and will not provide the nivana of safety that CAsA extolls.

Its a MYTH.

[Choppagirl]

Inset pic reference links: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10542201 &

Choppagirl (Rossair crash) - Mythical reform post #109 & Catch Up or Ketchup? 

Here's an example of just how screwed up our reg's are.

91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command

Australia – 351 words

(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

© if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;

(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:

(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and

(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

© the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;

(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

USA - 94 words

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

© Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

New Zealand - 96 words

91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command

Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:

(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and

(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.

Author's note

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelfware"; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.

The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.

In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of amateurish regulatory framing

It is interesting to note, in light of the recent criticism of CASA legislation, that there was no response to a link I posted regarding legislation passed which exempts holders of flight instructor ratings from being required to occupy a control seat in certain situations. Having recently reviewed the legislation again I think I might know why.

The legislation in question is here

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...rol%20seat.

This legislation was passed after the Rossair tragedy in which a CASA inspector occupied a jump seat for the purposes of passing the Chief Pilot to be able to perform check and training on the Cessna Conquest 441. At the same time, and prior to qualification, the Chief Pilot was also checking an inductee pilot who occupied the left-hand seat. This inductee pilot was type-rated on the Conquest however he had very little recent experience, albeit he had almost 15,000 hours flying experience.

As most of you will be aware the flight crashed approximately one minute after take-off, whilst simulating an engine failure after take-off manoeuvre, with the resultant loss of all three pilots.

I have a CPL(H) and am currently studying for a law degree, however when I read the explanatory passage noted at point 4 of the legislation, I found it to be so grammatically incorrect and long-winded that I had to pick apart each point in order to understand what was meant. The paragraph in question states:

4.  Exemption
        (1)     The holder of an authorisation mentioned in an item in column 1 of Table 1 is exempt from compliance with subregulation 61.065 (1) of CASR to the extent that the subregulation requires the holder to occupy a flight control seat to be authorised under the provision mentioned in column 2 of the table for the item to conduct an activity mentioned in column 3 of the table for the item.

 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that this legislation makes it legal for a CASA inspector to occupy a jump seat in the situations referred to in Column 3. This is effectively passing legislation which retrospectively makes it ok for the events which occurred during the Rossair accident.
Could it be that we have here a situation akin to the Emperor’s New Clothes? No one is prepared to say that they find the legislation difficult to understand for fear of appearing stupid??? I certainly felt stupid when I had to read it several times in order to ascertain the meaning.

When questioned about the legality of the situation shortly after the accident, CASA’s response was that it was always done that way. I believe this is not good enough and pushing through this legislation seems to me to be a classic arse-covering exercise. Once again, CASA are ensuring that the finger cannot be pointed at them and the word 'accountability' is missing from their vocabulary.

[Peetwo]

Mythical reform: Part 138 yet another train wreck?

From CASA web pages on Part 138:

CASR Part 138 - Aerial work operations

Part 138 of CASR consolidates the requirements affecting aerial work operations that apply in addition to or in substitution for those required under Part 91. It also establishes the general standards for aerial work for both rotorcraft and aeroplanes.

Part 138 reflects CASA's policy that traditional aerial work operations will be classified, authorised and managed on the basis of the safety risk management of the activity being undertaken.

---

CASR Part 138 - History

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulations 2018
Regulation made 6 December 2018
20 December 2018

---

Plus:


Project OS 10/26 - CASR Part 138 - Aerial work operations

CASR Part 138 is a re-establishment of the requirement for a dedicated set of operational regulations for aerial work operations. This project was born out of the consultation processes for the amalgamated CASR Part 133A and 133B project, where CASA and the industry recognised as a result of extensive changes and progress in the use of rotorcraft and aeroplanes in such activities that specific regulations would be required for this sector.

Objective

The Part will bring together requirements affecting aerial work operations that apply in addition to or in substitution for those required under Part 91 and will also establish the general standards for aerial work for both rotorcraft and aeroplanes. Further, Part 138 will reflect CASA's policy which envisages traditional aerial work operations will be required to be classified, authorised and managed on the basis of the safety risk management of the activity being undertaken.

 Which brings me to this tweet from AAAA CEO Phil Hurst yesterday:

Phil Hurst
@PhilHurst62

I suppose there are worse places to work...  in town for another CASA meeting to try and fix the CASR Part 138 trainwreck... #aviation

---

Followed by this reply - 

Fibre-Tech Australia
@fibretechaus·
8h
Replying to
@PhilHurst62

Interesting Phil who’s taking the lead and providing certified lifting equipment to AS/ISO standards.
And internal external restraint.

Also related was this recent post from Sandy:

Criticism of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in regard to the implementation of new Part 138 dealing with charter flights is correct. 

CASA was tasked with a total rewrite of the rules over thirty years ago and last year, wrongly, boasted that it had completed this task. Around fifteen years ago, by CASA’s own figures, it had spent more than $200 million in an incredible make work process that continues today unabated. This is the modus operandi of a body that has no other direction or incentive because successive governments have abandoned responsibility for the proper administration of civil aviation in Australia, hence the three parts demise of what was once a strong and growing General Aviation (GA) industry.  

To date the total rules rewrite spend is unknown but thought to be closer to $500 million. New Zealand managed to rewrite their rules in a short time for around $5 million and their rules are largely fit for purpose and therefore they have a prosperous GA industry. 

CASA’s claim that changed community standards of safety demand new rules is spurious. The new licencing rules of Part 61, which, in conjunction with years of increased paperwork, CASA’s permission fee gouging and Parts 141/142 (new rules for flying schools) have destroyed hundreds of flying schools and their associated charter services. There was no community demand for changed standards and I defy CASA to procure such evidence that supports it’s fallacious contention. There’s no doubt that we all look for improvements which come with knowledge, prosperity and growth.  Now with the ubiquitous ability to communicate risk and reward, which can be readily assessed, our freedoms should be enhanced, not truncated by a self serving bureaucracy. 

CASA’s predations on GA are counterproductive to safety. Examples are the loss of experienced instructors and the mish mash of training rules between the low weight category and mainstream GA which bear directly on the recent problems of Soar Aviation, related pending class action and a plethora of similar cases festering in the background. 

In the regions and country areas the almost complete loss of light aircraft charter has led to under-the-lap private charters in a less regulated environment. Similarly for aircraft maintenance, the ever changing rules, unnecessary and expensive maintenance  imposts (eg., Cessna Special Inspections) and disincentives for the training of maintenance apprenticeships all conspire against safety. Inevitably making operations completely devoid of any official oversight more attractive at the margins. 

Where flying charter or private category is not available or too expensive then long and dangerous road trips may be the only alternative, provided the road is passable. 

This is the reality of GA in Australia, a scene of death by a thousand regulatory cuts and the loss thousands of jobs and hundreds of GA businesses, and, incredibly, the need to import airline pilots. Not to mention such debacles as the Mildura Airport saga, a manifestation of a thoroughly failed Commonwealth airports policy that made no provision for freehold availability, the obvious cornerstone for any successful businesses which are necessarily tied to a physical location. 

Not one more government inquiry into any facet of GA, such as the latest Senate Estimates variety, in a very long, almost continuous make work program of Government Industries, will make one iota of difference to this shameful state of affairs. The last great and hopeful example, the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (Forsyth Report) commenced in 2014 has seemingly sunk without trace. Thousands of hours of both paid and voluntary work, submissions and the salaries and fees of the officials employed, virtually all wasted. 

Parliamentary action is the only possible means to regrow this important segment of Australian life. Engaging with our MPs should be regarded as a duty, to inform, persuade and to encourage root and branch reform.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Alphabets/BRB/IOS verdict is? - #ADOPT_FAR_NOW!     

To begin a reference to 'Journals of the Senate' from the 1st parliamentary sitting day of last week:

Civil Aviation Act 1988— Civil Aviation Regulations 1988— CASA 490/05 Amendment Instrument 2021 (No. 2)—CASA 51/21 [F2021L01096]—Replacement explanatory statement. Designation of Airspace for Broadcast Requirements – Locations with Surveillance Flight Information Service—CASA 50/21 [F2021L01100]— Replacement explanatory statement. Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—The Canungra Cup and Canungra Classic Instrument 2021—CASA EX124/21 [F2021L01413]. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998— ATPL Flight Test Standards (Satellite-based Navigation) Exemption 2021— CASA EX98/21 [F2021L01229]. Blow-Off Valve—AD/VIPER/4 Amdt 1 [F2021L01405]. CASR Subpart 99.B DAMP Requirements for Foreign Air Transport AOC Holders Exemption 2021—CASA EX16/21 [F2021L00149]—Replacement explanatory statement. Exhaust Cone Assembly—AD/VIPER/5 Amdt 1 [F2021L01409]. Flight Crew Licensing (Further Miscellaneous Exemptions) Amendment Instrument 2021—CASA EX119/21 [F2021L01360]. Flight Operations Regulations – SMS, HFP&NTS and T&C Systems – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX87/21 [F2021L01398]. Implementation of DAMPs (Provision of Safety-Sensitive Aviation Activities by Non-DAMP Organisations) Instrument 2021—CASA EX112/21 [F2021L01342]. Internal Energy Absorbing Ring—AD/AL 250/64 Amdt 4 [F2021L01408]. Northern Rivers Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club Incorporated – Broadcasting Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX123/21 [F2021L01420]. Part 60 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2021 (No. 1) [F2021L01303]. Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX81/21 [F2021L01396]. Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX82/21 [F2021L01406]. Part 121 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX83/21 [F2021L01399].
Part 133 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX84/21 [F2021L01404]. Part 135, Subpart 121.Z and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX85/21 [F2021L01410]. Part 138 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2021—CASA EX86/21 [F2021L01394]. Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/BAL/9 Amdt 1—CASA ADCX 007/21 [F2021L01278]. Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/EC 120/14 Amdt 1—CASA ADCX 008/21 [F2021L01353]. Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/ECUREUIL/114—CASA ADCX 009/21 [F2021L01424]. Second Stage Turbine Wheel—AD/AL 250/66 Amdt 3 [F2021L01403].

Just imagine the amount of resources/taxpayer & industry money go into administering such a list of accumulated legislative instruments since parliament last sat? - UDB! 



Next a point of comparison by KC on Oz v US ICAO Annex 8 notified differences: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...rences.pdf

Again imagine how much money etc. is wasted trying desperately to obfuscate our ( 7 December 1944 treaty signed) international obligations for international compliance with the ICAO SARPs?



Then I took a look at (Dr A's pride and joy) CASR Part 149 and compared it to the CAA NZ Part 149 (because there is no equivalent under the FAR):

CAA NZ Part 149:  https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...dation.pdf (15 pages)

CASA Part 149: 

1. Legislative instrument: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...bb405f1a4e (36 pages)

2. Explanatory statement: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...0f79af6048 (30 pages)

3. Part 149 MOS: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01800 (32 pages)

Next ALAEA's RRAT submission, with a focus on Part 43: Part 43 the next Part 61 regulatory behemoth?

Then related commentary, via the AP email chains...  

Folks,

With the talk of whether/if/should/can we "adopt" the FARs, it seems I need to remind people that, in 1998, we "adopted by reference" FARs 23-35, that is the Australian equivalent just said, in effect, CASR 23 -- see FAR 23, etc.

Of course, over the years, CASA have screwed it up.

Our CASR 21, although based on FAR 21 --- ACTUALLY was less restrictive than FAR21 in many important respects --- of course, over the years those freedoms have been debased by CASA, and one important one, that up to 750KG, airworthiness compliance could be found by industry (not CASA) including to an industry consensus standard --- long before the ASTM/LSA in US, quietly disappeared. The draft Australian simplified design and certification standard was produced by RSJ (Bill) Whitney, long before, years before. the LSA or the more recent major changes to FAR 23

Who said words to the effect: "Those who forget history are bound to repeat it".

Next thing I expect to hear at estimates: "CASA is just anticipating Government policy on Climate Change by limiting non-essential aviation in Australia, in compliance with UN/IPCC COP26 guidelines".

Cheers,

BH

PS: I would further remind you that the Canadian GA Owner Maintenance C of A program had its genesis in an Australian program ( I probably still have a copy somewhere) that was picked up by the Canadians, but buried here -- Ken Cannane will well remember. If I remember correctly, it was Don Spruston who picked up the Australian proposal, took it back to CANADA and ran with it. As they say, the rest is history, to the immense benefit to the little end of town, Canadian aviation wise.

---

I recently read this from a CASA "Policy decision summary - Part 43 - maintenance of general aviation and aerial work aircraft":  Annex A to SOC 1812SS - 43 Policy decision summary - Part 43 - Maintenance of general aviation and aerial work aircraft (casa.gov.au)
 

In August 2018, CASA consulted with industry on which international rule set should be used as the basis for the new Australian regulations. Responses to that consultation showed a strong preference for a ruleset based on the US-FARs with minimal changes. This preference was  supported by the Part 43 Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).
 
CASA analysed the US-FARs and found that it would be a suitable regulatory system, with appropriate safety outcomes and adequate compatibility with the various other elements of the Australian regulatory framework. CASA then developed a detailed policy proposal that would integrate the relevant provisions of the US-FARs (primarily FAR Part 43 and some provisions of  FAR Parts 65 and 91) into the Australian regulatory system.

You couldn't make it up.  Some arseclown or circus of arseclowns in CASA presumed to "analyse the US-FARs" then come to the Earth-shattering conclusion that they are "a suitable regulatory system, with appropriate safety outcomes".   The FAA must have breathed a sigh of relief!   Imagine getting a thumbs up from an aviation super power like Australia and the CASA brains trust.

The process is busted.  It cannot be run CASA.   They don't have the horsepower or brainpower to do it.

I wrote to Pip Spence giving her 1 simple problem to solve and the way of solving it, and some arseclown named Walker wrote back to me making a bunch of statements about what the regulations and international law did and did not allow.   I wrote back and said - in effect - you have no clue what you're talking about.   I then wrote to Ms Spence and said I scored that effort and 'F' and that if all she was going to do was let other people respond without any critical analysis by her I would would stop wasting her and my time.   I received a response to the effect that she would look into it, and I'm waiting for her response.   

The solution is political.   The only way to get to that solution is to get Dick Smith to use his power properly (and not let himself to be duchessed again as he has repeatedly in the past).  I've tried to convince him, to no avail.  

NOTE:  I have no political affiliations or strong views.   All I know is that the mess we're in, in both 'safety' regulation and airport 'management', is primarily the consequence of bi-partisan abdication of responsibility.   

C

  
Finally "K" with the last word: A pathway to the FARs?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FAR AIM vs CASR etc..etc - 

Sandy via the UP... :US

App? Or simplified rules with index?


US:- $14.95 book with index. Start immediately with ins. rating.
Australia:- CASASTROPHE edited library $thousands in fees during negotiations for a Part 141/142 permit which might take months or years, maybe permissible eventually or not. One local senior instructor was required to put up $8000 to CASA just to commence the flying school permit process, but gave up after a couple of years.

The ‘US’ comment refers to the ability of an instructor to teach without having a Part 141/142 approved organisation. According to John King (John & Martha King Aviation, USA, and one time advisor to CASA) some 70% of USA pilots are trained outside of the 141/142 regime.

The Airman’s Information Manual (AIM) has an index.

I’m informed that that publication covers virtually all areas of regular flying ops., including training. Cost has increased to $15.99 last time I looked.

In terms of hope for reform there is none until the Minister takes charge. Prior to disbanding CASA and administering aviation through a Department of Government, the system of responsible and accountable government in the proven Westminster manner, he could issue a new detailed Statement of Expectations.

Evidence that the current administration is not salvageable, if not seen already, have a look at the video of the last RRAT Senate Committee hearing, the segment with Majorie Pagani of Angel Flight (AF) confronting CASA. You could conclude that CEO Pip Spence, one, had not been briefed, two, had not done her homework, three, J. Aleck is the de-facto CEO,

In regard to AF’s court case against CASA, and CASA’s RRAT evidence in session, of a safety case justification (nil) for new restrictions on AF (via Mr. Monahan), I don’t think you’d ever see more convincing and compelling reason to disband this completely dysfunctional entity. And thus commence regulatory reform.

Followed by:

Pinky the pilot

The following is a copy of a post I have made elsewhere, twice I think, but with respect I feel that it is worth putting up yet again.

Quote:

I made the following quoted post in another thread back on 30th September and I feel it is worth quoting here;
finestkind posted
Quote:
One of these was whilst training a chap who happened to be a Barrister ( with obviously too many spare neurons) and going through CAO, CAA and the ABC’s said Barrister made the comment “I can hardly decipher this sh*T. Quote

I replied;
Quote:
Precisely! A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once had a need to go through the old ANO and ANR documents (quite some years ago, obviously) and he made the observation that 'You need to have a legal background to even begin to understand some of this sh*t...'

He also pointed out several direct contradictions in the ANR's.

His parting comment was that they were obviously written by a Lawyer who specialised in legalese and pettifoggery!

---

Sandy Reith

Legal opinions

Pinky, well worth a repeat which reminds me of another lawyer’s (also pilot and a/c owner) opinion of the ever more all encompassing criminal code offences as invented by CASA.

Namely that practically anything of any real seriousness would be covered by common law irrespective of CASA’s dictats.

---

Pinky the pilot

practically anything of any real seriousness would be covered by common law irrespective of CASA’s dictats.

Aha!! Now, if perchance a situation ever arose where pertaining to an 'incident,' there appreared a conflict between common law and CASA's view, I wonder which will prevail?

I think I already know the answer; Common Law would prevail, but I have a grave suspicion that it wouldn't stop CASA trying to see that it didn't! And wasting huge amounts of Taxpayers money in doing so!

Cynical, who....me???

---

Arm out the window

I'm convinced you're spot on. The big and obvious problem is that it's not aviation reality being considered when these regs are drafted and made into law, it's a few people's idea of what 'should' be done, which in many instances is far from what's right and proper in any common sense world.

These people in my opinion are the at root of everything that's wrong with CASA now, and Sandy's photos of FAR vs CASR and the associated piles of waffle eloquently tell the story. Get angry, aviation community, and go direct to the DAS, CASA board director, ministers, senators and anyone else who you think can be of influence. This is bullshit, and should never have gotten to its current state of shambolic ridiculousness.

---

Sandy Reith

How to win friends and influence people

Arm Out is correct what has happened is just plain wrong, but it is Parliament that is responsible. Therefore with respect going directly to CASA and it’s Board might help at the margins in the short term but nothing more because the administrative model is wrong. The idea of administering by an independent Commonwealth corporate with monopoly power is like leaving everything to one’s auto pilot with the wrong coordinates entered. Mount Erebus.

I’d like to make the case for most of our effort being engagement with MPs and the media because only by action in the Parliament can we hope to achieve substantive reform.

In the hurley burly of politics, and a never ending myriad of issues competing for the attention of law makers, only perseverance and real effort can hope to cause change. Griping and gnashing of teeth that we are all prone to (outlets for frustration) is easy but does have an important role. That is by collectively thinking through the problems we are more likely to be unified in our approach to government and with more logical solutions.

Then the hard yakka is making appointments or other means e.g. attending or organising meetings, with purpose to engage with your federal MP and State Senators and media people. Having printed material to give them. All too often slinging off at politicians is an excuse not to follow up with the work of making best use of our elected representatives.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Its runs on the board that matter.

At the end of any competition - 'the winner' is usually the one with the highest 'score'. In the great battle for 'reform' there are many entrants, much rhetoric and many different approaches to task. But, at the end of the reform match the outfit which can actually point at a 'real' change, accomplished something of actual benefit to industry win the Choc Frogs.

A casual glance at the scoreboard shows that the 'reform' crew have made little in the way of positive progress. When you set aside the obvious reasons for this lacklustre effort (ferocious opposition) and take a hard look at why the score card is so one sided, the real reasons become apparent.

Credentials, credibility, acknowledged expertise, serious experience and a knowledge of 'system' operation win the reforms so desperately needed. For example - AMROBA -  ably led by K. Cannane Esq, has without fanfare, (or 10,000 wasted words) taken important steps toward reforming an essential section of the CASR; to wit, part 21. Commercially and operationally, this is a critical area and it is no small accomplishment, with the possibility of a knock on effect to other vital changes, so desperately needed.

Ken has set the bench mark for other 'would-be' advocates of reform and provides a pattern worth following. Bravo Ken, well done AMROBA, lets hope the ball keeps rolling toward common sense regulation, parity with the 'gold standard' and ICAO compliance. Nice one.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Part 43 the latest Fort Fumble regulatory reform clusterduck?? - 

Via CM's Part 43 thread, off the UP:

Clinton McKenzie

Key point 3: Please don’t introduce more undefined words that will create more uncertainty

The term “compensation or reward” appears five times in the draft MOS. As drafted, aircraft which carry a person (other than a crew member) for compensation or reward or are used to conduct flight training for compensation or reward are subject to 100 hourly inspections (as well as annual inspections) but other Part 43 aircraft are not: s 3.15(4). (There is specific provision for LSAs used in some ‘compensation or reward’ operations: s 3.05(1).)

There are numerous instances of the term “hire or reward” elsewhere in the Australian rules but, so far as I can tell, the draft Part 43 MOS is the only legislative instrument that uses “compensation or reward”. Neither the word “compensation” nor “reward” appears anywhere in FAR Part 43. The words used in FAR Part 91 – that is the FAR which determines whether an annual inspection or 100 hourly inspection, or both, are required for an aircraft subject of the FARs – the term “compensation or hire” is used.

One assumption of interpretation is that if different words are used, different meaning are intended. Each of the words “hire”, “compensation” and “reward” differs from the others. None of them is defined in the aviation safety rules in Australia.

Compensation is what people get for a sore back after been ‘tailended’ on the road. Is that the intended meaning for the purposes of the draft MOS? If a pilot’s mates pay for the fuel on their next outback flight in an aircraft of which the pilot is the registered operator, is the aircraft being used for “compensation” within the meaning of the draft MOS? If an instructor teaches student pilots for free, as a charitable act, is the warm inner glow the instructor gets from doing good a “reward” within the meaning of the draft MOS?

When some rules apply to aircraft operated “for compensation or reward” and others apply to aircraft operated “for hire or reward”, there will likely be unintended gaps or overlaps and there will certainly be doubt about the precise scope of any gaps or overlaps, absent protracted and expensive court and tribunal consideration and decisions. That outcome is precisely what the eye-wateringly expensive and never-ending regulatory reform program was supposed to avoid.

If someone made a sedulous decision to use the words “compensation or reward” instead of “compensation or hire” per the relevant FAR or “hire and reward” per the current rules in Australia, it would be very helpful if that person were to provide some explanation as to the reasons and understanding of the consequences. If it was not a sedulous decision, it would be very prudent for the words to be reconsidered in the context of the whole regulatory package. At the moment, there is nothing that I can find in the Part 43 ‘Plain English Guide’ about what CASA reckons the term ‘compensation or reward’ means in the draft MOS. (And while on the point of guidance material, I trust that CAAP 43B will be revised and updated when the CAR 43B is repealed and the new Part 43 commences, as the CAAP currently contains unsupported and potentially risky twaddle at paras 4.2.4 and 4.2.6.)

Comments in response - 

RVDT

Good old CASA - bringing you the clusterf..ck that no sane person elsewhere on the planet could dream up in a million years. Keeping Australia "unique" and they do it with a straight face as well to boot. Bless.

Ladies and Gentleman I present the wheel - 2022 version.

---

aroa

Nice ones, C Mac. I do hope you send a copy of all this toMiss Spent.
If she were to read through Part 43, which I doubt, she would/ should choke on her morning tea Ginger Nut Snap.

RVDT is right. CAsA really is the asylum divorced from normal reality.

How about this. The LAME brain can’t remember which part of the job sheet to sign off, said sheet being in the office 5 paces away. No, you must have a wheelie desk beside the job, so the LAME can turn around and sign off.

Oh no , that might cause confusion between jobs and job sheet. One must tether the wheelie desk to the helo or whatever is being jobbed. Just don’t trip over that tether and injure yourself.
Yes, the world is full of cretins out there in GA land, but wait , we are saved, CAsA are keeping Oz skies safe from falling aircraft parts and bodies.
Arent we lucky.

---

Sunfish

MOS 2.33 - You can lose the right to maintain your own aircraft for any reason, including alleged breaches of ANY aviation regulation or Airspace regulation. - not just those relating to maintenance. So for example, allegedly breach controlled airspace, now you can’t maintain the aircraft.

‘The legislation makes it a strict liability offence not to exactly comply with the MOS.

‘’By definition then, any defect, or incident or accident that is caused by imperfect maintenance involves a criminal act of strict liability.

---

Squawk7700

Don’t get so hung up on this whole strict liability thing. I was headed to court for a non-aviation strict liability offence next week, and I told the prosecutor there was no way in hell I was pleading guilty, so they dropped it like a hotcake.

CM in reply:

Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Don’t get so hung up on this whole strict liability thing. I was headed to court for a non-aviation strict liability offence next week, and I told the prosecutor there was no way in hell I was pleading guilty, so they dropped it like a hotcake.

But CASA can suspend or revoke your pilot’s licence or maintenance approval, or whatever, for contravention of a strict liability offence provision, without a court having ever found you committed the offence…

And you might be ‘cool, calm and collected’ facing the prospect of being prosecuted, but others are not, particularly when CASA has an uncanny propensity to drag things out for years...

Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
MOS 2.33 - You can lose the right to maintain your own aircraft for any reason, including alleged breaches of ANY aviation regulation or Airspace regulation. - not just those relating to maintenance. So for example, allegedly breach controlled airspace, now you can’t maintain the aircraft. ….

Typical overreach. Imagine if a licensed motor mechanic lost his or her mechanic’s licence and livelihood because they were fined for driving at 65 in a 60 zone.

And the inclusion of compliance and enforcement-related provisions in a MOS is a complete perversion of what a MOS is supposed to be. The clue is in the name...

Originally Posted by RVDT View Post
Good old CASA - bringing you the clusterf..ck that no sane person elsewhere on the planet could dream up in a million years. Keeping Australia "unique" and they do it with a straight face as well to boot. Bless.

Ladies and Gentleman I present the wheel - 2022 version.

In response to one of the questions in the CASA ‘review’ of aviation medical policy, I said the primary risk was that CASA would spend a lot of time and money reinventing the wheel but produce something that isn’t round.

Finally from Checklist Charlie...

This demonstrates exactly why I am so glad I no longer am beholding to the CAsA's of this world for my income and livelihood.

The greatest impediment to aviation safety is the Attorney Generals Department requirement that government legislation all be written the same way. Unfortunately it is written with so much gobblegook that it cannot be understood by mere mortals that do not hold a LLB.

Some oik has written lovely legislation that has no bearing on my ability to push/pull/twist a control column.

Fifty plus years ago I learned that there was only one "Law" I had to follow religiously, That is I must manage the relationship between Thrust, Drag, Weight and Lift. Everything else was very much secondary and superfluous if it didn't contribute to the effective management of those 4 forces.

CAsA has again demonstrated its lack of understanding of and irrelevance to aviation in general by producing such tripe.

Regulations are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men- Harry Broadhurst RAF to a yound Douglas Bader (I believe)

CC (Ret'd)

UDB! - 


MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Ramble warning:-

All of us - in Blunder Land....

"Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice “without pictures or conversations?”

So she was considering in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.

There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself, “Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be late!” (when she thought it over afterwards, it occurred to her that she ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed quite natural); but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.

"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again."

These days, whenever I get coerced into or obliged to read through (and sort) any of the 'stuff' CASA is shovelling out; my mind always turns to that last paragraph of Alice's tale of woe ":


"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again".

That one sentence, more than any other, is a reminder of 'what' exactly is within that particular rabbit hole; and, how will you emerge after the experience. I always thought that Alice should emerge, like so many of us do after a stint in the CASA rabbit warren,- with a case of the screaming memie's after the experience.

One sensible option to take before leaping blindly down any rabbit hole is to consult an expert - one with coal face time and if not legal training, then one who is 'familiar' with the workings of the strange world into which you have landed yourself. If you thought Alice's world was 'peculiar' - well, you ain't seen nothing yet. I asked an acknowledged expert to explain the proposed new (reformed) maintenance rule set; it took a morning's worth of patience on his part. Mind you, most of that time was used in total condemnation of the thing and those who dreamed it all up. The final words were - "read the FAR and see what you make of it". I did, and, despite an acknowledged ignorance of the 'finer' detail I did manage to arrive at a point where, if pushed, I could sort out the requirements imposed on most operations. One of the 'stand out' featured differences is the lack of built in 'complexity' within the FAR.

To explain - many, many, many years ago my boss was 'asked' by the then DCA to align a section of the Ops Manual to the latest 'Order' - being the lowest on the totem pole, I got the gig. Manfully did I toil; much midnight oil (and foolscap) was burned before I managed to produce a scrawled draft. I suffered the abuse of our wonder woman who did the typing and dropped it off to the 'Inspector'. "Sit" said he as he lit his pipe, I obliged. There followed a period of silence while 'the man' read it through. He then selected a red pencil and put a line across every page, put the pencil back in it's place and returned the paperwork to me. I looked askance at this cavalier treatment of my labours. "You have done well" he began "but, we ain't lawyers, nor are we dealing with those who are comfortable dealing with fine legal points of compliance". "Operationally, any rule needs to be refined to ensure that compliance is a default setting; so, your manual needs to take out the 'fluff' and provide crew with a means of compliance - not a potential breach through too many words and options which create a hanging noose for the unwary; you cannot beat the lawyers in the game of words, so don't try". "Ask yourself 'what' is this rule trying to do - in essence, over seven paragraphs". I thought for while and answered - "correct" said the man - "now go away and draft the piece along those lines". A week later I was offered coffee  and a well done; the typing lady even smiled and the short narrative presented and the new 'bit' was stuffed into the manual, never to be seen again. Which, IMO is only  right and proper.

The point - well it seems that much like my first attempt the simple 'point' of a rule should not be hidden, nor presented in a way which leaves the door open for unintended breach; more words, unnecessary complexity and fine points which can, and often are designed to favour the prosecution do little to enhance 'safety', indeed it could be argued that they are counterproductive and unfit for purpose.

In short, the FAR tell you what you cannot do; the CAR happily set out to tell you what you can do - maybe- (unless with legal advice) - except for - etc.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”

Aye well - Ramble over; twiddle complete, one last coffee before I see if the glue did it's job on yesterdays repair.....

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Part 43 presentation and Q&A x 2 - 

Via Youtube:

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

The CASA man says these are : "Flexible, outcome based arrangements"??????????????????????

How is that consistent with creating all maintenance related offenses under the criminal code and making  them strict liability offenses????????????????

Draw your own conclusions.

I also liked the 'graph" that labelled RPT maintenance operations as "settled policies". The truth is that CASA has NFI about modern RPT maintenance operations that in any case are dictated by Boeing and Airbus, nor does it have the capability to even surveille them, let alone analyse the results. Well, I guess you could call that settled.

[Kharon]

"Assurances of 'best efforts'."

Words used by a Snake oil salesman. With the road to Hell being paved with 'good-intentions'; the official directions assuring you that the 'best efforts' possible have been used to get you there. The fact that the map maker couldn't find a cat, in a cat house with a candle don't signify - he did his best - we assure you.

Master McKenzie's examination of some basic flaws in the latest 'best effort'- (with assurances) is well worth the time taken to read through (Choc Frog job) - and IMO he has only scraped the surface - HERE -. If you have the time, inclination and (importantly) the patience to listen to the circular waffle, excuses. platitudes, apologies and dissembling of the CASA representative, you finish up with strong sense  of being 'handled' by a slick salesman only interested in the commission a sale will bring. Assurance, without written, legally binding guarantee? - No thanks. 

Time, effort and lots of money being tipped into producing a unique version of the  existing, gold standard, world wide accepted FAA/NZ regulatory approach has, once again, provided yet another justification for continuing 'big spend' and rules which provide for easy prosecution, which is NOT an unintended consequence. 

If you remove the legal pony-pooh and claptrap; boil it down to basics it should be (at GA level) a simple, easily found one page epistle, framed by a chart, led by a question  section. Example:-Q 1) Aircraft type ? 2) Proposed scope of operation?

A - Cessna 182. - Private operation, available for private hire and cross hire to flight school for cross country training.

From the chart:-

Minimum insurance required.
Maintenance schedule requirement category 'C' -
Maintenance provider category D.
Documentation as per appendix 3.

Simple - if the aircraft falls into an operational 'category' - then the rules applicable to that type (s) of operation apply - cash and no bullshit the only acceptable means of compliance.

Step it out; it ain't rocket science - if our humble 182 was to be used for say - scheduled services - then the requirements must change - across the board - to suit the 'operations' conducted. Then all that the regulator need do is clearly define the minimum requirement for maintenance schedule; which licence (if any) that work can be done by and approved by; paperwork as requested and required.

If a simple, clearly defined system don't suit the CASA inflated budgetary needs; or is beyond the institutional IQ level, then why not simply adopt a system proven to work, at a gold standard level- world wide. 

I never thought to see the day when I felt any pity for CASA - but its fast approaching; indeed they are becoming pitiable at a rate of knots and almost beyond the help industry has tried, for three decades to provide.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

CM's version of 'Alice in Wonderland' (CASA 30+ year RRP): Chapter 138 - 

Another rabbit hole to Wonderland: “aerial work passenger”

The discussion about the LAT accident in WA got me thinking about the circumstances in which people other than crew would be permitted to be carried in the seats on board. (I realise that only crew were on board in this instance, but I’m interested in the current certification basis of the airframe and what it could be authorised to do in Australia. However, I stress that I have no knowledge of what certificates/authorisations/approvals/permissions etc were/are in place for the operation of LATs in Australia.)

Anyway, it was with some trepidation that I lifted the lid on CASR Part 138 and the Part 138 MOS. I’ve been traumatised by exposure to this stuff in the past.

CASR 138.305 says:

138.305 Carriage of passengers—general

(1) This regulation applies to the operator of an aircraft for an aerial work operation whether or not the operator holds an aerial work certificate authorising the operation.

(2) A person contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) the person is the operator, or the pilot in command, of an aircraft for a flight involving an aerial work operation; and

(b) a passenger is carried on the aircraft for the flight; and

© any of the following circumstances exist in relation to the flight:

(i) the passenger is not an aerial work passenger;

(ii) when the passenger is carried on the aircraft, the operator of the flight does not hold an aerial work certificate authorising the operation;

(iii) when the passenger is carried on the aircraft, the operator’s operations manual does not include procedures to ensure the safety of the passenger;

(iv) any requirements about carrying the passenger that are prescribed by the Part 138 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subparagraph are not met.

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

I accordingly focussed on the term “aerial work passenger”.

So, off to the CASR Dictionary. Part 1 of the CASR Dictionary says:

aerial work passenger means a person in a class of persons prescribed by the Part 138 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this definition.

So, off the Part 138 MOS. The Definitions Part of the Part 138 MOS has a definition of “aerial work passenger”. It says:

aerial work passenger has the meaning given by Part 1 of the CASR Dictionary.

Note An aerial work passenger is a specific subset of the general definition of passenger in the CASR dictionary. Only aerial work passengers may be carried in an aerial work operation and only on an aerial work certificate holder’s aircraft.

Whattha? Welcome, again, to Wonderland! I look to the CASR Dictionary to try to work out the meaning of a term in the offence provision (CASR 138.305), the CASR Dictionary points me to the Part 138 MOS but the Part 138 MOS definition tells me to go back to where I started.

Then I worked it out. It was the usual confusion caused by partial information which is misleading by omission. In this case, it’s the ‘Note’ under the definition in the MOS and what it does not say.
It starts by saying:

Note An aerial work passenger is a specific subset of the general definition of passenger in the CASR dictionary.

Good. That’s correct and helpful. It goes on to say:

Only aerial work passengers may be carried in an aerial work operation and only on an aerial work certificate holder’s aircraft.

That’s correct, too. There’s an offence if you carry an ‘ordinary’ passenger. But, we’re none the wiser as to what ‘aerial work passenger’ means and where exactly to find the answer.

The Note omits the most important snippet of information that would have helped solve the mystery intuitively. It could even have been expressed as a D&D clue. I’ve had a go at one at the end of this post.

I get it that there’s a legal reason for the prescription to be in the operative provisions, rather than the definitional provisions, of a MOS. But normal people don’t get that. These MOSs are supposed to be easy and intuitive reading for normal people and this one is the product of many years and many millions of dollars of effort. (And I should mention that CASR Part 138 has the second most silly section I have ever seen in Commonwealth legislation.)

On 20 November 2020, the then CEO of CASA proudly and forcefully said, to a Senate Committee, that:

[S]ignificant work … had reduced [the Part 138 MOS] from 200 pages to 75… and I then made that manual standards.

Mr Carmody omitted to add that the MOS he made back then had numerous Chapters and provisions marked as “Reserved”. Today, over two years later, there are still three Chapters marked “Reserved”.
Section 15.03 is marked “Reserved”. All of the substance of section 5.02 is marked “Reserved”. Meanwhile, it has grown fatter. While CASA is left to its own devices, it will grow fatter forever.

Mr Carmody made numerous, breathtaking statements during his evidence before the Senate Committee on 20 November 2020. I nearly fell off my chair when the stuff I’ve bolded was uttered:

[M]y focus was on completing the regulation suite. It's because my strong view is that we need to look at the entire regulation suite again, but we couldn't change horses midstream. We improved the way we do regulations, but we couldn't change it midstream. Within the context of that, reducing the regulatory burden is a clear element, but we needed to complete—

So we’ll keep riding the horse to a stupid place on the other side of whatever stream we’re in the middle of, then do a review so that we can spend a few decades riding off in some other, hopefully less stupid, direction (at someone else’s expense, of course).

He also made this statement:

The reg program is pretty much complete.

That was untrue then, it’s untrue now and all of the similar statements made by his predecessors were untrue too. Anyone with expertise in this kind of task knows that the last 20% of the work takes up about 80% of the time. The regulatory reform program is nowhere near complete, and will never be completed while CASA is left to its own devices.

The D&D clue (which I consent to CASA adding to the notes in the Part 138 MOS, without attribution to me):

If it’s the meaning of ‘aerial work passenger’ ye seek, at the definition do not peek! If you really want to know, off to section 2.02 you go!

Hansard - see HERE - and video segment to which CM refers to IE 20 November 2020 GA Inquiry hearing:

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Mythical reform reaches 35 years and how many pages?? - 

In somewhat of a follow up to Creampuff's infamous UP thread: "The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever" , I note that there is a new thread that is creating a degree of interest...

Some posts off the UP thread: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...pages.html

flywatcher

How many pages

Just as a matter of interest, how many pages are in the new regs?

---

Lead Balloon

CASRs alone? According to the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments 5 minutes ago: 2,522 pages. But that’s growing.

Then add MOSs. They’re growing.

Of course we don’t count the 1988 regs or CAOs or exemptions because they’ll all be gone in 1998.

Original 1988 regulations? 148 pages. Add CAOs and other odds and sods and student pilots in the mid-1980s were confronted with about 250 pages of rules.

It’s amazing how much a couple of decades and a couple of billion dollars has bought Australian aviation in ‘simplification’ and ‘harmonisation’.

---

compressor stall

You forgot the CASA EX that are well buried in the CASA website not linked anywhere logical.

Took me 20 mins on casa,gov.au to relocate an EX I knew existed that modified something rather important on the CASRs.

---

john_tullamarine

I still longingly look back to the ANRs where

(a) the one booklet was about a half inch thick.

(b) it rarely changed

© we all could parrot off chapter and verse for a host of regulatory requirements - trying to do that now would be folly in the extreme

(d) the ANOs were comparatively easy to navigate and find stuff.

---

tail wheel

John

Despite the $quilions spent on the "Regulatory Reform", I seriously doubt, in practice, the new Regulations and Orders provide any greater safety than the pre 1988 documents. 35 years (so far) in the making!

I am reminded of the RRAT Committee inquiries of 18 years ago when Bruce Byron uttered these immortal words:

Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?

Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.

I suspect Mr Byron's response was plagiarised from the "Yes Minister" script.

---

john_tullamarine

If it weren't so tragic, it would be comedic. At least, with the Yes Minister stuff, you knew that they were having a go at the system.

---

runway16

The trouble with aviation regulations is that as fast as CASA draws up new regs some smart bunny works to get around them and thus the cycle of more new regs goes on.

CASA once said no more exemptions But from my reckoning CASA has to date issued more than 400 exemptions.

And for all the new regs by my count the accident rate has gone up rather than down.

---

tail wheel

runway16 It is a known fact that the more complex (and ambiguous) the regulation the easier it is to "find a way around" that regulation.

Compound that by the fact there are now anti competitive and non commercial regulations with no known safety benefit.

So much for our Australian civil aviation regulations, when the Australian Government assisted PNG financially to adopt a replica of the New Zealand Regulations!

Ever wondered why so many business jets in Australia are US (or foreign) registered? Or why the larger water bombers are US or Canadian registered?

Ever pondered the cost and time to modify a B737, B747, DC10 or C130 to a water bomber in Australia, operate Australian registered on an Australian AOC? It would be a lifetime project in frustration!

The hypocrisy in Australia can be beyond belief. I recall some years ago (post 1988) the owner of a Cessna 206 being honest sought a ferry permit to ferry the aircraft for maintenance without a prop spinner. CASA required flight testing and an EO before they would consider the request for a ferry permit!

Few realise that with the abolition of CAR203 the air services to approximately a hundred Australian remote and rural air communities became illegal, except in the NT where the then CASA DFOM had the common sense to approve those essential services. CASA then proceeded with an aggressive campaign to eliminate those "illegal" operators by any and all means, many of whom were long term small operators, committed to serving their communities.

We have a bureaucracy like no other........

---

Climb150

The US FAA Federal Aviation Regulations and Aeronautical Information Manual (FAR/AIM) is 1216 pages long.

That contains absolutely everything in one book. It's about the same size as a big novel. The USA is one of the most litigiousness countries on earth and they don't seem to need 3+ plus manuals with thousands of pages for their regs. All for $26 USD.

---

PiperCameron

The US FAA Federal Aviation Regulations and Aeronautical Information Manual (FAR/AIM) is 1216 pages long.

That contains absolutely everything in one book. It's about the same size as a big novel. The USA is one of the most litigiousness countries on earth and they don't seem to need 3+ plus manuals with thousands of pages for their regs. All for $26 USD.

But they don't have a Civil Aviation Safety Authority in the USA, do they? Since, according to CASA, there is nothing safer than an airplane parked in a hangar (preferably under continual maintenance/upgrade to meet the latest regs, thus keeping LAMEs in work), it seems the folks over there are more interested in enabling people to fly.

   
Finally I note that Leady has picked up on the last 2 parliamentary tabled CASA CASR legislative instruments, that I mentioned here: DLM 3 of 2023 etc.

Lead Balloon

Probably an order of magnitude exaggeration.

It's probably 'only' around 6,500, when you add to the CASRs: the Act, the CARs and the MOSs and the directions and exemptions (and the AIP ...)

Here's the latest snowflake on the tip of the iceberg of simplification:

Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—CASA 41/01 Repeal Instrument 2022—
CASA 50/22 [F2022L01584].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Civil
Aviation Orders (CAO 95 Series) Amendment and Repeal Instrument 2023
[F2023L00021].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Flight Operations—Parts 119 and 138)
Regulations 2022 [F2022L01612].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Amendment of CASA EX81/21 (Maximum Take-off Weight for Aerial
Application Operations) Instrument 2022—CASA EX 93/22
[F2022L01541].
Amendment of CASA EX82/21 – Instrument (No. 2) 2022—
CASA EX108/22 [F2022L01765].
Amendment of CASA EX83/21 – (Miscellaneous Revisions) Instrument
2022—CASA EX98/22 [F2022L01753].
Amendment of CASA EX84/21 (Miscellaneous Revisions) – Instrument
2022—CASA EX99/22 [F2022L01745].
Amendment of CASA EX85/21 (Miscellaneous Revisions) – Instrument
2022—CASA EX100/22 [F2022L01652].
Amendment of CASA EX86/21 (Miscellaneous Revisions) – Instrument
2022—CASA EX101/22 [F2022L01660].
Part 42 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2022 (No. 1)
[F2022L01708].
Part 121 – Single Pilot Aeroplane (MOPSC 10-13) Operations – Exemptions
Repeal, Remake, and Direction Instrument 2022—CASA EX97/22
[F2022L01558].
Part 137 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions
Instrument 2022—CASA EX 92/22 [F2022L01540].
Part 138 MOS Amendment Instrument 2022 (No. 1) [F2023L00004].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/F100/24—CASA ADCX 001/23
[F2023L00045].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/MAKILA/11—CASA ADCX 005/22
[F2022L01556].
The Corryong Cup Hang Gliding Competition Instrument 2023—CASA
EX02/23 [F2023L00017]—Rectified authorised version.
The Corryong Paragliding Open Instrument 2023—CASA EX07/23
[F2023L00057].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and Part 133 Manual of Standards—
Amendment of CASA 69/20 (Prescription and Approval of Certain Recognised
Foreign States) Instrument 2022—CASA 68/22 [F2022L01750]

Civil Aviation Act 1988—Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Amendment of CASA EX82/21 – Instrument 2023 (No. 1)—CASA EX14/23
[F2023L00131].
Amendment of CASA EX83/21 – Instrument 2023 (No. 1)—CASA EX15/23
[F2023L00126].
Amendment of CASA EX85/21 (Miscellaneous Revisions) – Instrument
2022—CASA EX100/22 [F2022L01652]—Replacement explanatory
statement.
Amendment of CASA EX86/21 – Instrument 2023 (No. 1)—CASA EX16/23
[F2023L00132].
Amendment of CASA EX87/21 – Instrument 2023 (No. 1)—CASA EX12/23
[F2023L00130].
CASR Subpart 99.B DAMP Requirements for Foreign Air Transport AOC
Holders Exemption 2023—CASA EX18/23 [F2023L00144].*
Class 1 Medical Certificate (Certain Flights by Holders of a Commercial Pilot
Licence or Air Transport Pilot Licence) Exemption 2023—CASA EX28/23
[F2023L00154].
Directions – TRAs and TDAs outside Australian Territory – Instrument
2023 (No. 1)—CASA 08/23 [F2023L00116].
Operations by Sport and Recreational Aircraft in Restricted Area R979A
(Australian International Airshow and Aerospace & Defence Exposition)
Exemption 2023—CASA EX23/23 [F2023L00137].
Part 145 Exposition (CAR Maintenance Activities) Exemption 2023—CASA
EX30/23 [F2023L00152].*
Pre-deployment Drug and Alcohol Testing Exemption 2023—CASA
EX17/23 [F2023L00149].*
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/A320/1—CASA ADCX 002/23
[F2023L00123].
The Bright Open Instrument 2023—CASA EX11/23 F2023L00097.

CASA is now amending amended exemptions because CASA stuffed up earlier amendments. I shit you not.

Remember: We were told that the new rules would be so good that exemptions would not be required.

MTF...P2