[Kharon]

On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

 
Pythagoras' Theorem: .......................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: ..................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ......................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: ........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ..................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ......7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: ...26,911 words
Part 61  REFORM............................................Have a guess....you know you want to...... .
 
Steam on, later perhaps id the 145 MoS survives.  61 Next.

[Peetwo]

On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

 
Pythagoras' Theorem: .......................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: ..................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ......................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: ........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ..................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ......7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: ...26,911 words
Part 61  REFORM............................................Have a guess....you know you want to...... .
 
Steam on, later perhaps id the 145 MoS survives.  61 Next.

CAsA hasn’t turned thirty yet?

This one post was looking a bit lonesome, so I thought I'd liven it up with another point of comparison on Part 61, courtesy of Stan the Man...    

Canadian CAR,s  Part 400 is the equivalent to Australian CAsR Part 61  -  Canadian equals  115 pages covering both English and French vs Aus circa 2200 is it any wonder that Australia is such a safe aviation nation compared to Canada.  The URL for the total of all the Canadian CARs is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-96-433.pdf   For those willing to wade through the whole document approx. 1,000 pages or 500 if you consider one language the relevant Section 400 is from Pg 283 to 398.


Another example would be Aruba (Caribbean) also ICAO compliant with less than 100 pages. We certainly lead the world.

Ps. Reminds me of my then young son, about 6 or 7 in his first ski competition in Switzerland where he took a wrong turn and finished last (in a blizzard) but was called out first at the presentation. It wasn’t until he turned thirty that I had the heart to tell him. (we were looking at some old slides) CAsA hasn’t turned thirty yet?
 

While we are on the basket case (more like container load.. ) that is our regs, one of the other problems with ill thought out, undecipherable regulations, now rears it's ugly head in Part66...

Courtesy Hitch Oz Flying - AMROBA comments on Part 66 in practice:

A Beech A36 Bonanza in the maintenance hangar. (Steve Hitchen)



Part 66 Training not up to Scratch: AMROBA
10 Aug 2015

The Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has blamed Part 66 Maintenance Training Organisations (MTO) for the poor hand skills of trainees coming into the aircraft maintenance industry.

Candidates for licensing are divided between those trained at Part 66 MTOs, and those trained at state-approved Registered Training Organisations, such as TAFE colleges.

According to AMROBA's Ken Cannane, the system of CASA Part 66 MTOs is too theoretical, meaning apprentice engineers are reaching the workforce without the necessary skills to perform even some basic maintenance for which CASA has qualified them.

"Those attending State RTOs seem to get better hand-skills than those attending CASA MTOs that lack hand-skill training," he told Australian Flying.

"The CASA training approach to support Part 66 licences has seen once-large apprentice training RTOs, such as Kangan-Batman in Victoria, Milperra TAFE in NSW and Queensland Institute of Engineering, closing.

"They no longer provide apprentice or CASA Part 66 licencing training. It has been a disaster – low practical skill training."

Part of the issue seems to be one of government funding. Part 66 effectively changed the RTO courses from training for a working environment to training to obtain a licence. As government funding is not available for licence training, many of the RTOs elected to shut down their aircraft maintenance programs, leaving the bulk of the training to MTOs.

"CASA's training is all about knowledge and [has] little practical skill training," Cannane laments.

Larger maintenance companies are often forced to further train people who are theoretically qualified, but the cost of doing so is prohibitive for smaller maintenance, repair and overhaul companies.

"Before a person (apprentice) performs maintenance tasks on an aircraft or aircraft component, the person should have the practical skills to perform the particular task," Cannane reckons.

"An employer cannot let a person learn basic skills on a customer’s aircraft or component.

"Customers expect quality workmanship."

  
So yet another cost impost to industry through crappy, bloated regulations that require a law degree to decipher - FFS!

Here's an idea, let's have a reg burning protest in front of Aviation House...



Then we can get stuck into the shelfware in the basement...



I know..I know back in my box..
  

[Kharon]

A ghost at the banquet.

Been watching this thread since kick off; impoverished for lack content.  The much heralded, long awaited reform process has simply died aborning.

It is quite clear now that even with the best will and efforts of many, there will be no meaningful reform, particularly of CASA.  Every now and then a small thrill ripples through the industry; Jeff Boyd and the board are going to do something – result zero change.  Every now and then there is a catspaw of breeze from the winds of change from a RRAT committee – result zero change.  Dick Smith and the Oz (‘Iggins) start barking at the moon, days of press – result zero change.   Skidmore ambles about the place “listening” and offering meaningless platitudes – result zero change.

Is the industry screaming blue bloody murder? Demanding change now ? The only answer is NO.  Why? Well that is an easy one to answer, the stakes are high, the retribution awful and the cost of the game is hardly worth the candle; when you know the deck is marked.

No matter; Plonker Shidmore will have it all sorted by 2030; I can’t wait.  (I should live that long).

MACBETH (seeing the GHOST)

Avaunt, and quit my sight! Let the earth hide thee.
Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold.
Thou hast no speculation in those eyes
Which thou dost glare with!

Edit - addendum: I just noticed on the UP there is a barking match starting up – rumbles of No confidence and reminders that 66, 61, 145 and CAO 48.1 have all been passed into the volumes of legal requirements; they are now going to spend days drafting protests against 91 and the dreadful 135; Bollocks.  Industry should ram the rules down the CASA collective throat’s; or other suitable orifice and demand the reforms promised.  Waste of time, ink and effort trying to persuade CASA to Duck off.  More time, more cost and more wasted effort.

Shame, shame, shame....

[Peetwo]

A ghost at the banquet.

Been watching this thread since kick off; impoverished for lack content.  The much heralded, long awaited reform process has simply died aborning.

It is quite clear now that even with the best will and efforts of many, there will be no meaningful reform, particularly of CASA.  Every now and then a small thrill ripples through the industry; Jeff Boyd and the board are going to do something – result zero change.  Every now and then there is a catspaw of breeze from the winds of change from a RRAT committee – result zero change.  Dick Smith and the Oz (‘Iggins) start barking at the moon, days of press – result zero change.   Skidmore ambles about the place “listening” and offering meaningless platitudes – result zero change.

Is the industry screaming blue bloody murder? Demanding change now ? The only answer is NO.  Why? Well that is an easy one to answer, the stakes are high, the retribution awful and the cost of the game is hardly worth the candle; when you know the deck is marked.

No matter; Plonker Shidmore will have it all sorted by 2030; I can’t wait.  (I should live that long).

MACBETH (seeing the GHOST)

Avaunt, and quit my sight! Let the earth hide thee.
Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold.
Thou hast no speculation in those eyes
Which thou dost glare with!

Edit - addendum: I just noticed on the UP there is a barking match starting up – rumbles of No confidence and reminders that 66, 61, 145 and CAO 48.1 have all been passed into the volumes of legal requirements; they are now going to spend days drafting protests against 91 and the dreadful 135; Bollocks.  Industry should ram the rules down the CASA collective throat’s; or other suitable orifice and demand the reforms promised.  Waste of time, ink and effort trying to persuade CASA to Duck off.  More time, more cost and more wasted effort.

Shame, shame, shame....

Shame is right, like a bunch of old, fat, apathetic, Lemmings playing bingo while sitting on a treadmill watching as the un-survivable precipice inevitably approaches; FFS - don't plonkers like Horatio realise that exemptions & one off back room deals will only delay the inevitable...

Here is Frank's worthy & colourful post off the UP - although I do feel it is all a case of 'too little too late' : 

A MOTION: Confidence or incompetence?

---

Skidmore had time before taking up his position to be fully briefed on the situation at CAsA. This included a plethora of Senate inquiries, the ASRR, Pel-Air, Part 61, the Regulatory Reform Program, the entire Industry in a state of lacking any confidence in The Regulator and the incumbent's arrogance at Fort Fumble.

The Forsyth Review has NOT been addressed and this should have been the simplest and quickest item on his agenda to garner some Industry support. Marc D Stoop, (AOPA President) also notes this in his latest report.

It is rapidly becoming apparent that he has no intention of doing anything except mouth platitudes and call for further input. Either this, or he is being instructed to do nothing and is therefor not in control of his or our destiny.

The Regulatory Review process is evidence of either a planned obstruction of a once vibrant industry, or those in charge of the revision are incompetent.

It appears to be an exercise in wasting taxpayers time and money. The costs with time eclipsing the money if an audit of failed industry economic input is taken into account.

I am now of the opinion it is incompetence and our problem resolution is simply to advise the fare paying passengers their air travel safety is being compromised by incompetence.

There are hundreds of examples and all one needs to do is find a common thread without recourse to individual claims.

I believe that common theme, be it in the courts, the AAT or by individual FOI or engineering oversight, vexatious intervention or other is...
INCOMPETENCE.

Skidmore will perish unless he addresses this claim in it's infancy and good luck to him with that. I can only support a vote of no confidence in him if he doesn't immediately address the existing vote of no confidence by the industry in The Regulator of which he is head.

The CASA Board need to know where industry stands on this matter.

Supporting a vote of no confidence is probably the most desirable way to take this out of the hands of Minister Truss who appears to have gone missing in action. My suggestion to The Moderators is to Poll this motion. The results either way will put to bed industry opinion.

Hmm..good stuff Frank

However I still think a Fahrenheit 451 type protest...

"Don that PBE 'cause the regs are burning"



..with a chorus..."We won't sleep until the regs are burning" (to Midnight Oil - "Beds are burning")..would be are far more effective show of no-confidence in CASA & the indecipherable, 1000s of pages of bullshit regs...    

MTF...P2   
    

[Peetwo]

The following is a lengthy but very relevant post to this thread...

Courtesy Paul Phelan & ProAviation - A twenty-five year disgrace

..The failure of CASA’s regulatory review program (RRP) to deliver on expectations has many contributory factors, and an understanding of its sad history is going to be essential if the program is to be prevented from evolving from a stalled project into a high-cost self-perpetuating industry.


Failure? Yes, failure. You only have to compare all the promotional material, statements of expectations, ministerial and CEO directions, guidelines and debate that came with the RRP’s inception.

To refresh the reader’s memory the expectations variously included:

• outcome-based rather than prescriptive regulation, which is the basis of aviation regulation in all other aviation-significant democracies;
  
• alignment with overseas regulatory structures so that Australia could achieve true bilateral agreements with the leading overseas aviation authorities;
  
• ‘plain English’ rules that are easy to understand, administer and enforce;
  
• the elimination of wasteful and un-necessary administration, including evaluations of cost benefit and safety relevance of proposed regulations;
  
• compliance in rulemaking with Australian law, government guidelines; international (ICAO) standards; and
  
• two-tier regulation to replace the existing multi-layer regulation comprising the Civil Aviation Act, Regulations and Orders, policy documents, individual rulings and permissions, exemptions and other instruments.
  
  

In its background discussion on the regulatory reform program (RRP) the ASRR Panel estimated that “it will take at least another five years to complete.” That timeframe of course, would depend on when the reform process actually starts. But even then, the ASRR warns that as of right now we cannot expect the program’s founding goals to be attained:
“The final product of regulatory reform will not meet the aviation community’s needs and will not be consistent with the ICAO principles for plain language, easily understood, safety rules. Nor will the final regulations be harmonised with those of any foreign jurisdiction. The 25-plus year history of regulatory reform has been consuming the industry, and distracting the aviation community from the objective of managing safety in its operations. On this basis, the Panel concludes that continuing along the current path is not in the interests of aviation safety in Australia and that a new approach must be developed for regulatory reform.”

One of the first cracks to appear in the program’s structure was, and still is, the perception among our regulators that neither the Australian aviation industry nor CASA was sufficiently “mature” to operate under the concept of “outcome-based” regulation.

Just when the imperative of modernised rule-making is taking hold in other aviation-prominent nations and in our own Productivity Commission’s red tape reduction program, Australia is setting new records with word and page counts set to challenge the Bible (807,361 according to Google), and creating untold hundreds of new strict liability offences.

Whatever “maturity” is supposed to mean in that context, and whatever the specialist professional qualifications claimed by those espousing it may be, the creed has long been used to support the opinion that we unsophisticated colonials could only fly safely under a detailed prescriptive “criminal law” regulatory environment – probably similar to what prevailed among the first settlers but fortunately minus the floggings.

Players in the consultative committee game report the “immaturity” view as having been frequently expressed by various officials including the CASA lawyers who were or still are involved with the RRP.

Of course it’s utter rot, and reveals apparent ignorance of the historical fact that aviation as we know it began evolving all over the world in the first  two decades of the 20th century, with ongoing interaction and alignment between most States, and is therefore equally “mature” as arre all but the most dysfunctional of emerging nations...

Cheers, beers & MTF..P2  

[Gobbledock]

The astute Phelan;

"In its background discussion on the regulatory reform program (RRP) the ASRR Panel estimated that “it will take at least another five years to complete.” That timeframe of course, would depend on when the reform process actually starts. But even then, the ASRR warns that as of right now we cannot expect the program’s founding goals to be attained".

By the time the reg reform program is actually completed one of Prince Williams kids will be King Of England, 4 more Police Academy films will have been made, and the Boeing 787 will be 80 years old and only two of them will exist and they will be in museums along with other old relics such as turbine engines and ICAO!

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Just as a matter of interest shits and giggles I downloaded a copy of another country's Part 61 and Part 91.  I reckon I could reform the regs in about 3 weeks.  2 weeks, if I do overtime..
Time to convert pdf format to word - about 5 minutes.
Time to replace all references to the other country with "Australia" or "Australian" as applicable - about 5 minutes.
Time to proof-read - about an hour....depending on the length of the regulation.
Time to sit back and feel really chuffed - about 20 minutes.
So roughly 90 minutes per reg.  And none of this "strict liability" crap.  Who should I send it to??  

[Kharon]

See here, we have yet another reason to demand change.  The idle Wannabe wants 20 minutes of feeling well chuffed time, for doing about 20 minutes work a day. No wonder we’re going to hell in a hard-cart… … …….

Phelan did a great review of 91 as part of a submission to the ASRR, it’s long but worth the time -HERE – one of the many very good submissions made, now laying in a basement awaiting the shedder.  I wonder how may tons of paper have been wasted by industry conscientiously writing free, expert advice to a department which can’t understand it and treats the same with contempt.

Toot toot.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

See here, we have yet another reason to demand change.  The idle Wannabe wants 20 minutes of feeling well chuffed time, for doing about 20 minutes work a day. No wonder we’re going to hell in a hard-cart… … …….

What can I say.....I was once a public servant...(*not* in aviation, I hasten to add..)  

[Gobbledock]

The good Captain said;

Just as a matter of interest shits and giggles I downloaded a copy of another country's Part 61 and Part 91. I reckon I could reform the regs in about 3 weeks. 2 weeks, if I do overtime..
Time to convert pdf format to word - about 5 minutes.
Time to replace all references to the other country with "Australia" or "Australian" as applicable - about 5 minutes.
Time to proof-read - about an hour....depending on the length of the regulation.
Time to sit back and feel really chuffed - about 20 minutes.
So roughly 90 minutes per reg. And none of this "strict liability" crap. Who should I send it to??

Absolute gold!! Reminds me more of my Consulting days!!!!

[Kharon]

Yup; solid gold GD – thing that really gets my panties bunched is that back in the day; many of those in the ‘public service’ were actually good value, solid folk who knew the ropes, where the bells were and how to blow the whistles (so to speak).  It only really began to change with Mick Toller, a little ‘attitude’ was identified, but it was the exception, rather than the rule, at least at the lowly levels I mixed in.  Lockhart and the perverted Miller report seemed to kick it all off and some of the Seaview findings seemed to cement the ‘absolutely no liability’ attitude.

But what the hell; I’d pay Wannabe a days pay fix up 61; another for 91 and a bonus if he took 135 on over the weekend; yes he can have his 20 minutes chuffed time per rule, and a Choc frog, on account of being one the few who actually achieved anything to feel good about.

Yuk, yuk, yak.

[Gobbledock]

The keeper of the river Styx said;

"thing that really gets my panties bunched is that back in the day; many of those in the ‘public service’ were actually good value, solid folk who knew the ropes, where the bells were and how to blow the whistles (so to speak)".

Oh my Lordy, and weren't they good days!! The likes of Mike Smith, the Alan Strays, even a touch of Kym Bills, and even some more good folk before and around their time. Yep, experts in their fields, good at plying their respective trades with a dash of ethics, compassion and balls thrown in! Aagh the trip down memory lane is fun, and these memories are almost as pleasant as my recollection when as a 14 year old I touched a furry muff for the first time, and my other fond memory of the time when Clinton McKenzie of CASA fame retracted his Bonanza's undercarriage while on the ground!!! Too much fun too much fun.

Anyway, tis late in the afternoon and the last beams of sunlight are poking through the wooded forest that backs on to the Gobbbledocks property! Time to gather up the Beagles, the IPhone with some Black Sabbath uploaded, and the .22 and go for a stroll, breathe in the fresh air and hopefully take out a few wabbits as well.....c'mon my canine friends, time for some chippies and R&R....

[Cap'n Wannabe]

But what the hell; I’d pay Wannabe a days pay fix up 61; another for 91 and a bonus if he took 135 on over the weekend; yes he can have his 20 minutes chuffed time per rule, and a Choc frog, on account of being one the few who actually achieved anything to feel good about.

You can keep your day's pay...I'd happily do it for a Choc frog - and maybe a couple of timtams - if I thought it had half a chance of getting through.

[Kharon]

(Chuckle) you see GD – this is how it all starts; WB only been here five minutes, already had three choc frogs and now, got his beady eye on the bloody Tim Tams.  Now you’d think the little bugger would be happy enough to be given a small homework job (just fix those rules up Sunshine); but no.  Greed and ambition enter the equation; choc frogs and not just one TT (“and maybe a couple of Tim Tams”) our simple weekend task has been turned into a negotiated settlement, with strings.  The system rules… ….  

Speaking of matters related to Cuniculture; I hear a whisper that there’s been a bit of a cave in at the Sleepy Hollow warren; seems there is only room for a very reduced number so some have to go and stay with relatives or, shift for themselves in the wide world.  Seems too many wabbits demanded a cull.  Betchya a beer; they got rid of the healthy, new blood and kept the old, diseased breeding stock; the place will be full of cripples and mutants again within months.

Toot toot...

[thorn bird]

Thats the trouble with Wabbits.."They Breed!!"
Maybe the CSIRO could genetically engineer some Mixo that is fatal to Wabbits? as opposed to Rabbits which are cute cuddly things not inclined to turn around and bite you when you least expect it.

[Peetwo]

Oliver addresses Forsyth R14 - In principle??

14. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect. 

From off the CASA website today it would appear Oliver Skidmore Twist has been busy in recent days...
First Oliver's 10 philosophical (cough..cough ) regulatory commandments:

Regulatory Philosophy

Purpose
Consistent with CASA’s obligation to comply with the laws governing its regulatory activities, this statement of regulatory philosophy sets out the principles that guide and direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers.

Fidelity to these principles will be reflected in CASA’s regulatory policies and practices, and will extend to the fullest extent possible to all aspects of CASA’s engagement with the wider aviation community.

1. CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community

CASA is committed to maintaining the trust of the Australian aviation community and regaining that trust where it has been shaken or compromised. CASA is likewise committed to fostering mutual respect between itself and the aviation community in every aspect of our engagement with members of that community.

2. Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost

Although safety must always be CASA's 'most important consideration', this does not mean that safety is the only consideration CASA takes into account when performing its regulatory functions and exercising its regulatory powers. CASA is required to take all relevant considerations, including cost, into account.

Where reasonable alternative approaches to the fulfillment of a regulatory requirement-

• satisfy applicable legal requirements; and
  
• do not unacceptably compromise safety,
  
  

CASA will readily entertain such alternatives if they are proposed, and accept them in the absence of compelling reasons not to do so.

3. CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making

CASA will adopt a regulatory approach based on a sound assessment of the level of risk associated with particular aviation operations. In doing so, the highest safety priority will be afforded to passenger transport operations, and operations in which passengers and others exposed to higher levels of risk are not in a position to make informed judgements and effective decisions about the risks to which they are exposed.

4. CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations

Except where a difference to a standard specified in an Annex to the Chicago Convention has been properly notified to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) by Australia, CASA will strive to ensure its regulatory requirements, policies and practices:

• are consistent with ICAO standards; and
  
• harmonise with best international regulatory practice, having particular regard to aviation jurisdictions with features similar to Australia's.
  
  

Harmonisation does not necessarily mean replication, and where it is appropriate to do so, CASA's regulatory requirements, policies and practices should reflect considerations that are distinctive to the Australian aviation environment.

5. CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively

CASA will develop and implement appropriate, and appropriately inclusive, consultative and collaborative policies and practices with a view to:

• understanding the nature and practical implications of existing and potential aviation safety issues and problems;
  
• deciding whether, and if so the extent to which, CASA should be involved in addressing such issues and problems; and
  
• identifying the most appropriate contributions CASA can make to addressing such issues and problems, recognising that a regulatory response will not always necessarily be the most appropriate contribution.
  
  

Correspondingly appropriate consultative and collaborative policies and processes will be developed to guide and direct the way in which CASA carries out its distinctive responsibilities (regulatory and otherwise) in addressing the aviation safety issues and problems in respect of which CASA's responsibilities have been identified.

6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders

At every stage of the regulatory activities in which CASA engages-from contemplating the need to make a rule or impose a requirement, to the application of a rule or requirement-and to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, CASA will ensure that everyone whose rights, interests and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:

• what it is CASA proposes to do;
  
• why CASA is proposing to do so;
  
• what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
  
• what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out;
  
• what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be; and
  
• what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.
  
  

CASA will ensure that the information and advice it provides to the aviation community, generally and in individual cases, is:

• clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible;
  
• correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative;
  
• responsive to the questions or issues to hand; and
  
• timely.
  
  

7. CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility

CASA will consistently employ the same processes, and have regard to the same criteria, in all cases involving the consideration of particular facts and circumstances for the purposes of determining whether, and if so how, a regulatory requirement should be interpreted or applied in any given situation. In this way, everyone may be confident that they are receiving the same advice about the general meaning and application of any regulatory requirement.

CASA will also ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances peculiar to an individual situation have been fully and fairly considered on their merits, and will provide advice about, or decide the outcome of, a particular matter governed by a regulatory requirement on that basis. In this way, everyone may be confident that, within a regulatory framework that consistently employs the same processes and assesses facts against the same criteria, their individual circumstances will be fully and fairly considered.

8. CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions

CASA embraces, and encourages the development throughout the aviation community of, a 'just culture', as an organisational culture in which people are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are . commensurate with their experience, qualifications and training, but where gross negligence, recklessness, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.

Requiring a person to undertake further training and, where necessary in the interests of safety, to refrain from exercising the privileges of a relevant authorisation pending the successful demonstration of competence where deficiencies have been identified, shall not be regarded as discipline or punishment.

Appropriate polices will be developed and implemented to ensure the integrity of this approach, and to guard against any inappropriate punitive action by CASA, or disciplinary action by a service provider, in a manner inconsistent with this principle.

9. CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice

CASA will seek optimal safety outcomes in the exercise of its regulatory powers. On that basis and to that end, CASA will ensure that its actions and responses are appropriate and proportional to the circumstances.

In the first instance, and in the absence of demonstrable safety-related reasons for doing otherwise:

• CASA will adopt an approach to regulatory compliance based on the encouragement of training and education, with a view to remedying identified shortcomings and correcting specified deficiencies.
  
• Where the interests of safety require that a person's aviation-related privileges need to be limited, curtailed or suspended pending the rectification of identified shortcomings or specified deficiencies (including the satisfactory demonstration of requisite levels of skill or competence), voluntary mechanisms to achieve those objectives will be developed and employed.
  
• Where it is necessary in the demonstrable interests of safety for CASA to exercise discretionary powers in order to achieve a specified safety-related outcome, CASA will employ the least intrusive and least disruptive means consistent with the achievement of that outcome.
  
• CASA will not utilise its discretionary powers to vary or suspend a civil aviation authorisation for punitive or disciplinary purposes, but only for purposes reasonably calculated to achieve specified safety-related objectives, including the protection of persons and property pending the satisfactory demonstration by the person whose privileges have been, or are to be, varied or suspended, that the shortcomings or deficiencies giving rise to CASA's action have been effectively addressed.
  
  

In determining whether and how to exercise its regulatory discretion in a particular matter, CASA will have regard to:

• the seriousness of the safety-related implications of the instance of noncompliance under scrutiny;
  
• mitigating or aggravating circumstances impacting on the appropriateness of the responsive regulatory action(s) contemplated;
  
• the history and background of the person whose acts or omissions are under scrutiny, in relation to that person's demonstrated ability and willingness to comply with regulatory requirements;
  
• the passage of time since the acts or omissions under scrutiny occurred, and when they were discovered by, or otherwise came to the attention of, CASA;
  
• the degree of responsibility of the individual(s) whose acts or omissions are under scrutiny;
  
• the effect on the wider aviation community (including the general public) and confidence in CASA’s administration of the civil aviation legislation in the interests of safety;
  
• the obsolescence or obscurity of the law;
  
• whether the a contemplated regulatory response would be perceived as counter-productive, for example, by bringing the civil aviation legislation or CASA into disrepute;
  
• the availability and efficacy of appropriate alternatives to a particular regulatory response;
  
• whether the consequences of the regulatory action contemplated would be unduly harsh or oppressive;
  
• whether the matter is one of considerable public concern;
  
• the actual or potential harm occasioned to an individual or the damage to property; and
  
• whether the person whose acts or omissions are under regulatory scrutiny is (or has been) willing to co-operate with CASA in the efforts to address the particular matter to hand and/or to address relevant safety-related issues more generally.
  
  

The applicability of and weight to be given to these and other factors will depend on the particular circumstances of each case.

Beyond its legal obligation to do so in most cases, in all cases in which CASA exercises discretion in determining whether, and if so to what extent, a requirement will be imposed on a person, except where the interests of safety prevent it or it is otherwise demonstrably impracticable to do so, CASA will afford persons affected, or likely to be affected, by a decision with an appropriate measure of procedural fairness and natural justice.

10. CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation

CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in the pursuit of punitive action against a person for alleged breaches of the civil aviation legislation. CASA will not pursue regulatory administrative action to vary, suspend or cancel a civil aviation authorisation for punitive purposes.

Again Oliver they are just your words, open to interpretation & with no legal head of power for your minions to comply with - for that to happen you will need to suggest to the Minister that there be an amendment to the Act

For example from our cousins across the ditch (courtesy AMROBA ASRR submission):

The objectives of the Minister under this Act are —

“(a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the

aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable

transport system; and

(b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil

aviation agreements are implemented.”

 vs

Australia: 3A Main object of this Act

“The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for

maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with

particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.”

And Oliver just to help you out here is an example from AMROBA of how possibly to re-word Section 3A of the Act..

Recommendation 2: Amend 3A to read similar to the NZ Objectives: e.g.

a) CASA to undertake the government's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of

achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable aviation system; and

(b) to ensure that Australia’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are

implemented.

This announcement by Oliver was covered by Oz Aviation & Oz Flying

CASA DAS Mark Skidmore has been charged with implementing the recommendations handed down in the Forsyth Report. (CASA)

Skidmore issues Ten-point Regulatory Philosophy
16 Sep 2015

CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore has issued a ten-point regulatory philosophy in line with one of the key recommendations of the Forsyth Report.

Released today, the philosophy contains principles that CASA says will be reflected in the way policies and practices are implemented within the aviation community.

“We now have a clear and concise set of principles that will guide all our actions,” Skidmore said.

“It is vitally important every CASA person understands these principles, how they apply to the work they do and the need to ensure they adhere to them in practice.

“These principles will guide and direct the making and implementation of regulations, safety education and support, the delivery of regulatory services, operational surveillance and enforcement, as well as our consultation and communications.

“Where necessary, CASA will develop new policies and procedures to give meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy.

“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community."

The philosophy is in response to Recommendation 14 of the Forysth Report, which stated "The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."

The ten basic principles are:

1. CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community
   
2. Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost
   
3. CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making
   
4. CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations
   
5. CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively
   
6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders
   
7. CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility
   
8. CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions
   
9. CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice
   
10. CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation
    
    

“I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities," Skidmore said.

“To regain trust, we must earn that trust. We look forward to the opportunity to do just that, and I invite the aviation community to use CASA’s regulatory philosophy as a benchmark against which our performance is measured."

The ten principles including explanatory text is available on the CASA website.

This bit...

“To regain trust, we must earn that trust. We look forward to the opportunity to do just that, and I invite the aviation community to use CASA’s regulatory philosophy as a benchmark against which our performance is measured."

...err FCOL no comment??   

[Peetwo]

Oliver addresses Forsyth R14 - In principle??

14. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect. 

From off the CASA website today it would appear Oliver Skidmore Twist has been busy in recent days...

Again Oliver they are just your words, open to interpretation & with no legal head of power for your minions to comply with - for that to happen you will need to suggest to the Minister that there be an amendment to the Act

For example from our cousins across the ditch (courtesy AMROBA ASRR submission):

The objectives of the Minister under this Act are —

“(a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the

aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable

transport system; and

(b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil

aviation agreements are implemented.”

 vs

Australia: 3A Main object of this Act

“The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for

maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with

particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.”

And Oliver just to help you out here is an example from AMROBA of how possibly to re-word Section 3A of
the Act..

Recommendation 2: Amend 3A to read similar to the NZ Objectives: e.g.

a) CASA to undertake the government's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of

achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable aviation system; and

(b) to ensure that Australia’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are

implemented.

This announcement by Oliver was covered by Oz Aviation & Oz Flying

In stark contrast to the above announcement with little to no fanfare whatsoever CASA central released a NPRM for the DRAFT Part 138...  :

NPRM 1519OS - Aerial work operations


Background

Proposed new rules for aerial work operations-to be contained in Part 138 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998-have now been released for public comment through NPRM 1519OS.

We want your feedback on the proposals, which will apply to people and operators who conduct aerial work activities in aeroplanes and rotorcraft including mustering, spotting and survey operations, media operations, external load operations, surveillance operations, marine pilot transfers (now reclassified as aerial work) and emergency service operations such as search and rescue, police and customs operations.

Part 138 is being developed as part of CASA’s regulation reform program, which aims to enhance aviation safety, address known risks and maintain the reputation of Australia’s aviation industry as one of the safest in the world. The main proposed changes in Part 138:

• consolidate all aeroplane and helicopter aerial work operations into a single rule set, with these operations conducted under a Part 138 certificate rather than an air operator’s certificate (noting the rules for aerial application operations are contained in Part 137 and the rules for medical transport operations will be moved to Parts 119, 133 and 135 as applicable)
  
• streamline the current 41 aerial work activities into three categories: external load operations, dispensing operations and task-specialist operations
  
• apply rotorcraft and aeroplane performance standards to certain aerial work operations as required, based on the assessed risk
  
• apply graduated training and checking standards to aerial work operations depending on the complexity of the operation
  
• define and specify when aerial work specialists and aerial work passengers can be carried.
  

The proposed new rules also allow for the continued use of night vision imaging systems in some aerial work situations, noting the standards for these operations are currently contained in Civil Aviation Order 82.6 and will be moved to the Part 91 MOS in the future.

Part 138 has been developed following extensive consultation with the aviation community over a number of years (more information about the consultation process can be found in the introduction to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

To have your say on the proposals, please respond online by 10 November 2015.
Detailed implementation and transition arrangements will be the subject of future work once the rules are finalised.

Documents
15 September 2015

• NPRM 1519OS (160KB)
  
• Annex A - Summary of responses to DP 1507OS and minutes of the Part 138 packaging meeting (124KB)
  
• Annex B - Draft Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulation 2015 (852KB)
  
• Annex C - Draft Part 138 Manual of Standards compilation (420KB)
  

 
...UFB ...just another lazy old 150 odd pages for some poor HOFO/CP to decipher from bullshit legalese to plain old Queen's English.

Hmm..could be a good opportunity to apply Oliver's 10 'in principle' commandments??

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

And Oliver just to help you out here is an example from AMROBA of how possibly to re-word Section 3A of
the Act..

Recommendation 2: Amend 3A to read similar to the NZ Objectives: e.g.

a) CASA to undertake the government's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of

achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable aviation system; and

(b) to ensure that Australia’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are

implemented.

NPRM 1519OS - Aerial work operations

Documents
15 September 2015

• NPRM 1519OS (160KB)
  
• Annex A - Summary of responses to DP 1507OS and minutes of the Part 138 packaging meeting (124KB)
  
• Annex B - Draft Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulation 2015 (852KB)
  
• Annex C - Draft Part 138 Manual of Standards compilation (420KB)
  

 
...UFB ...just another lazy old 150 odd pages for some poor HOFO/CP to decipher from bullshit legalese to plain old Queen's English.

Hmm..could be a good opportunity to apply Oliver's 10 'in principle' commandments??

In an update to my last, it would appear that OSM is getting the hang of this spin & bulldust campaign, cleverly designed & masked to obfuscate the Forsyth review and any real hope of reform.

From the regurgitator Creepy today, courtesy the Oz:

Aviation changes may be delayed, says CASA boss Mark Skidmore

Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore has flagged that rule changes the federal government wanted finalised this year are likely to be delayed because of industry feedback.  

Mr Skidmore also signalled his determination that staff at the regulator adopt the more consultative approach being advocated by upper management.

Industry groups have welcomed comments by Mr Skidmore that CASA will take on board industry concerns but some have expressed concern the message is not filtering down to some parts of the organisation.

In an email to staff, Mr Skidmore said he was aware some staff may be unclear about the regulator’s current priorities on developing and implementing remaining parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

These included suites of rules covering general aviation maintenance, passenger transport operations, aerial work and sport and recreation operations.

Mr Skidmore noted the government’s response to the Aviation Safety Review had called for the drafting of all new regulations to be completed this year but it had also said they should be subject to changes in “regulatory approach and appropriate con­sultation’’.

It also said CASA needed to ensure an effective communication and education process was put into place before these provisions started.

“As I have made clear previously, in so far as they relate to CASA, I am committed to ensuring we implement the government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review in an effective and timely manner,’’ he said in the email.

“Many of those recommendations have already been successfully implemented and a range of others are under way. Delivering on the government’s expectations is vital.

Consistent with that obligation, however, it is equally important to get the implementation of changes right. If it takes a little more time to implement successful and effective change, then I support such an approach.

“This principle applies to the finalisation of both the development and implementation of the new regulations.’’

Mr Skidmore said extensive consultation with the aviation industry had produced comments indicating operators found the volume of changes overwhelming and were struggling to find time to comment on them.

“While it is early days, and no decisions on how the regulatory change program will move forward will be made until the consultation is finished and the results analysed, it is clear CASA’s current approach is causing the aviation community significant difficulty,’’ he said.

“We need to finish this listening and discussion exercise before determining the next steps. If this creates some delay in the regulatory development and implementation process, I believe that would be time well spent to get the right outcomes for Australian aviation.’’

Mr Skidmore revealed earlier this month that he is allocating more resources to addressing issues raised by industry about flight crew licensing rules in Parts 61, 141 and 142.

He noted in his email that it was difficult to bring the aviation community with CASA on regulatory changes while it was still working on issues from previous changes.

“Regulatory development will be completed as quickly as is possible and implementation will be undertaken in an orderly and managed way, with a view to maximising safety benefits while minimising unnecessary burden on the aviation community,’’ he said.

..  

I also noticed that Oliver's bollox is slowly filtering out to the international aviation MSM, here is a couple of paras in the Aviation International News publication (AINonline):

CASA Publishes Regulatory Philosophy

 
by Robert P. Mark
 - September 20, 2015, 5:40 AM Mark Skidmore, the director of aviation safety for Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), last week released 10 guidelines of regulatory philosophy he believes should direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions. They include maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, remaining mindful of the primacy of air safety and CASA’s role in accounting for the cost of its recommendations, using risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision making and performing its functions consistent with Australia’s international commitments.

Skidmore’s list also said CASA will approach its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively and that the agency will communicate fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders; that CASA should fairly balance the need for consistency with its own need for flexibility; that the agency employ a just culture in its regulatory and related actions; that it demonstrate proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercise its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice; and that CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation.

However what really perked my interest off the AIN webpage was the 'related coverage' pages, which gives a very disturbing (7+ years) historical snapshot of the 25 year basket case, that is the Australian regulatory/administrative aviation safety reform:

Related Articles

September 29, 2011, 9:58 AM
AIN Blog: A Breath of Fresh Air From a Regulator

August 29, 2007, 11:52 AM
Australia Raises Service Fees

January 7, 2013, 2:15 PM
Australia Shuts Down Airline Over Safety Concerns

June 16, 2014, 1:20 PM
Australia Introduces Safety Regulation Reforms

June 3, 2013, 12:50 PM
Australian Senate Report Criticizes Aviation Agencies

A year out from the PelAir Senate Inquiry, if we did not have the benefit of hindsight, the first article would've been quite encouraging. However with hindsight we can only reflect, with black humour, that this was the prelude to the McComic embuggerance years..

AIN Blog: A Breath of Fresh Air From a Regulator

 
by Matt Thurber
 - September 29, 2011, 9:58 AM


   
The director of Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority pledges to listen to the agency's constituents. (Photo: Ohmega1982)

Although I get the impression that air safety in Australia is micromanaged, I admire John McCormick, director of aviation safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Maybe’s it’s because McCormick bluntly addresses CASA’s role and that he makes an effort to communicate regularly with CASA’s constituents. But it is also his willingness to confront change and consider new options.

In CASA’s latest monthly briefing, McCormick reminds Australian aviators “that CASA is not in partnership with the industry. CASA is an independent regulator and will remain so.

In my speech [to the Regional Aviation Association of Australia’s annual convention] I said what the industry should expect from CASA is not sympathy, but empathy. We will genuinely understand your views, your needs and your expectations. We may not always agree with you, but I guarantee we will listen to you, and that your concerns will be taken into account.”

This is a refreshing attitude. In the U.S., we think that the FAA should partner with the aviation industry and that the success or failure of aviation businesses depends a great deal on whether the FAA facilitates our missions. At the same time, we bemoan the FAA’s inability to adapt the regulatory framework to modern technology and to figure out how to improve safety using new and different techniques.

McCormick clearly delineates his agency’s territory and purpose. He then goes on to explain that CASA will examine some regulatory practices to see if they make sense. These include “proposed pilot licensing requirements, the need to hold an air operator’s certificate for certain kinds of operations and the obligation for smaller organizations to maintain drug and alcohol management plans.”

When was the last time the FAA ever looked over its rules and processes and decided that some didn’t make sense? In fact, the FAA consistently tightens the regulatory screws every time it decides to–in McCormick’s words–“examine regulatory practices.” And when the FAA does come up with what seems like a new way of regulating, it turns around and finds a way to take back what the new rules specifically allowed.

A case in point is the Light Sport Aviation (LSA) regulations, which created an entire new category of small aircraft and a lower barrier to entry for new pilots and new manufacturers. A key element of the LSA rules is that pilots need only have a valid drivers license to prove medical fitness to fly. Yet when the rules came out, and someone pointed out to the FAA that a regular pilot who is refused medical certification could still fly an LSA, the FAA backtracked and claimed that it didn’t mean that at all. Suddenly, and despite the fact that nowhere was this codified in the LSA rulemaking, any pilot rejected for a medical certificate was automatically denied the privilege of flying LSAs using his or her drivers license for medical qualification. (The fact that the FAA has no scientific proof of the benefits of medical certification is another story.)

Would CASA’s McCormick have done the same in Australia? I like to think that he and his team would have been more forthcoming and addressed that issue before the rules came out. But if not, maybe he would have issued a monthly briefing in which he reminded Australian aviators that he appreciates their concern and that CASA made a mistake and will rewrite the rules clearly and correctly.

    
This bit..
"..Would CASA’s McCormick have done the same in Australia? I like to think that he and his team would have been more forthcoming and addressed that issue before the rules came out. But if not, maybe he would have issued a monthly briefing in which he reminded Australian aviators that he appreciates their concern and that CASA made a mistake and will rewrite the rules clearly and correctly.."

..(besides making me feel violently ill.. ) I think Matt Thurber should refer to the  CVD pilots can fly – it's official. thread; or Creampuff with a ne-fairy-ous tale post; to see how far out of touch with reality his fluffy thought bubble on McComic truly was back then..

MTF..P2

[P7_TOM]

From AMROBA .

It is a major concern that regulatory reform has been happening in this industry for 30 odd years and what is being continually produced is bureaucratic, confusing and creating red tape and restrictions that is maintaining safety by restricting aviation outside the airline mentality. How many more reviews will it take and when will government amend the Act to give power to the findings of the reviews.  CASA wants to follow EASA because it keeps many of them in a job.

Without doubt, North America has the experience and regulatory systems for general aviation that should exist in Australia.
In the late 1990s CASA started to adopt the FAR system – a system that has now been modernised during 2000 and on, post the making of EASRs for certification and maintenance.

The FAR system has done what this government demands, removed administrative restrictions and devolved previous FAA functions to industry representatives.
They have been successful in reducing red tape and administrative functions.
They made major changes to FAR Parts 21 and 183 that affected certification and manufacturing in 2009 that would reduce CASA staff levels if adopted because the functions have been passed to industry representatives.  This enables the FAA to concentrate on regulatory oversight.

The FAA devolved these functions as, in their opinion, it enhances safety. “ENHANCES SAFETY”

This needs to happen NOW in Australia. Not next year or the year after.
Adopt the FARs for general aviation engineering. (design, maintenance & manufacturing)

If regulatory reform was done correctly, CASA staff levels would be less, industry would have more responsibility and lees red tape.

It is an embarrassment to government that action is not forthcoming in a time frame acceptable to industry.

The latest newsletter - HERE -covers this subject
 
Regards

Ken Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone:   (02) 97592715
Fax:       (02) 97592025
Mobile:   0408029329

Once again, Ken accurately reflects what industry thinks of the Skidmore glacial pace of change and associated antics.  The problems have been identified; the statements have been drafted; and yet there is not one, not one single, solitary indication that the managers and field operatives have heard anything about it.  

Respect, as any military officer knows full bloody well is earned, that stems from TRUST.

No one with a scintilla of grey matter could trust this mouthpiece of the word weasels; not him, nor his 'new' deputy, as leaked by 'Dougy'.   Aleck deputy DAS; how much worse could thing get? watch this space.

This is very encouraging stuff indeed and congratulations must go to the DAS Mark Skidmore and his deputy Jonathan Aleck.

[Peter Lovett]

Well I have just spent nearly a working week in the belly of the beast. 3 days to be precise in Aviation House participating in a workshop on the risks facing small aircraft operators. This was aimed primarily at Part 135 operators, those who will be in the future that is.

An introductory talk by Jonathan Aleck who is acting DAS at present which emphasised the "10 Commandments" referred to on page 1 of this thread. Lots of stressing that there is change afoot in CASA with a rather lawyers take on the Forsythe report, that it was prepared for the government and not CASA. I think my note at this stage was "CASA propaganda". However, I digress. It was a very interesting workshop and I met some very interesting CASA staff who expressed ideas I did not expect to hear from CASA.

I do now have a much better understanding of one of the major problems with regulatory reform in Australia. To put it succinctly, the problem is whether you introduce all of the changes at once or piece by piece. If the former you risk having a situation where nobody is across all of the new legislation (by that I mean the industry) and confusion can reign; if the latter then the new legislation has to mesh with the old stuff until such time as you can get rid of the old where you can then tidy up the new. Remember, the format of the new legislation cuts across the old so that what you are introducing does not exactly replace what you can take out of the old.

It is fair to say that all of the participants from industry were sceptical but by the end of the 3 days there was a feeling of some hope that there is a new broom slowly going through CASA but with acknowledged problems in some offices.