[Kharon]

PL – “To put it succinctly, the problem is whether you introduce all of the changes at once or piece by piece.”

To put it in a nutshell – or nut sell – it has always been thus.  The problem existed 25 – or 30 years ago when they started; this, as has every thing else remains unchanged.  The endless make work – bring a new regulation, then spend the next decade ‘tweaking’ the original flawed work.

PL – “[It is] fair to say that all of the participants from industry were sceptical’. Etc.

It’s a race to the bottom – the new broom of cleanliness cannot beat the rot of reduced participation and investment in the industry.  

Brave Peter, three stultifying days, in the belly of the beast.  Well done – but did you come away with a positive feeling that the dreadful maintenance rules are being changed; or, that the untenable Part 61 is going to make sense in our life times; or, that Part 135 is a bloody good thing for GA.  Perhaps there is a move to de-criminalise, any good news on that?  Did you hear anything about drafting regulations in a less complicated manner?  Did you get the good word that regulations were to be made less complex, less subjective, less prescriptive and less open to abuse by officers ‘on a mission’.

No Sir, you did not – or you would have said so, to be greeted by the cheers of industry.  

Thanks for the update Peter, I’ll be smiling all day now. So very happy that the regulations are being attended to and that the Forsyth review for an overhaul of the outfit that created the regulatory debacle has been shuffled off to the pencil cupboard.   The first call was and remains the government supported Forsyth recommendation for a REFORM OF THE REGULATOR – first and foremost.  

The problem lays within the belly of the beast, not the rules which govern industry life.  Aleck being one of the main causes of discomfort to the beast.

Selah. 

[Peetwo]

While the Skidmore ASRR reform charade continues, the rest of the aviation world is getting on with the business of regulating industry under a 'performance based' philosophy.

Reference from AMROBA's latest newsletter highlights this strange dichotomy, where today even EASA has seen the light...

5. CASRs have not been a success


It is now general agreement that benefits have not been attained from the CASRs and the drafting style has created confusion. When reform started by creating the CAA, government and the CAA promised a reduction in red tape. Over the years, aviation has become the most regulated industry in Australia. Only the tax system has more requirements.

The reason is that reforms means development to public servants – this has happened in many sectors of the public service so aviation should not think we are alone. Governments have judged themselves on the amount of legislative and regulative requirements they have imposed on the Australian society. What it has demonstrated is the model currently used to reform needs a complete overhaul.

If reform, not development, is to become the principle then the Board of CASA must set the policy to start a new reform process and change to performance based regulations like the CAA(UK) has done. Even EASA has admitted they created unworkable requirements.

General aviation engineering (design, manufacture and maintenance) has suffered under the draconian requirements that have been made and are proposed to be made.

Flight operations, pilots are now feeling the same effect as maintenance has experienced.
Time to stop and start rebuilding aviation using a whole-of-government approach to comply with international treaties and support general aviation and the airlines.

And in case you think KC is making it up about EASA, here is a AHIA copy (Jan - March '15 e-newsletter) of a David Learmonth article:

Why is CASA not using the same sheet of EASA’s music?

Flight International, Edition 3-9 March 2015, page 29 has an interesting report by Regulation Reporter, David Learmonth. David’s article is titled:


‘EASA mends the rules with tighter focus on outcomes’

The executive director at Europe's safety agency has overseen a wholesale shift in mindset. If a regulator dismantles its rule making doctorate it is a sign things are changing, and at EASA and they are!

Executive director Patrick Ky took over the EASA top job in September 2013, and a year later he closed the rulemaking department. "If you have a rulemaking directorate," he explains, "the director is judged by how many rules he makes, or how many existing rules he 'improves'."

The result, he says, is ever-fatter rule books, the content of which nobody could possibly retain, and the complexity of which becomes "impossible to work with".

When he first arrived, Ky says, he gathered his troops and told them to reduce the existing rules down to the absolute essentials, so they could all see what was really necessary.

EASA retains its power to make rules, Ky confirms, but the way the need for rules is assessed, and the way that they are made and framed, is now different. The rulemaking process now starts with a risk assessment to determine whether a rule is needed at all, and if so what it needs to address. Only then is it framed.

Finally, the rate of technological progress is such that prescriptive rules involving equipment can rapidly become outdated, so the future, says Ky, is performance - based rulemaking (PBR), with prescriptive rules only where they are essential. Mostly the latter would define capabilities and responsibilities. PBR means that the required outcome of the rule is specified, and the means by which that outcome is achieved is not the main issue. This method has been foreshadowed for years by the approval of rulings on an "equivalent safety" basis, which allows flexibility in the means by which a safety objective could be achieved.

Rule makers still work at EASA, but within one of the four directorates: strategy and safety management, certification, flight standards, and resources and support.

"Rule makers now only work six months at HQ” Ky explains. "Then they are sent out on inspections so they can see what it's like to have to put EASA rules into practice."

But Ky, a noted simplifier, has actually created a new directorate: strategy and safety management, headed by Luc Tytgat, formerly the director of the pan-European Single Sky Directorate at Eurocontrol. Why?

Ky explains: "If we are to go to PBR, we have to establish what the risk is, and to prioritise our resources and action. Luc's task is to notice what is happening out there, to recognise risk and determine where action might be needed." There are areas crying out for attention, Ky says, and ground handling, where - in simple numbers - there are more safety incidents than in any other phase of an aircraft's operation, is one of them. And in general aviation, it has started down the long path of working with the sector towards replacing regulation that was effectively commercial-aviation-light with industry-specific guidelines.

Long-serving certification director Norbert Lohl was on 1 March replaced by Trevor Woods, who previously worked on flight standards. Lohl says it was tough in the early days, building a relationship with sceptical national aviation authorities. They were essential, because EASA was so under-resourced that it had to contract out a high proportion of new tasks to the national authorities. About 20 of the tasks still are contracted out.

Woods points out how much is happening on the operations side, especially in human factors and training. EASA is preparing to drive operators towards the application of safety management systems within training departments, and towards the principle of alternative training and qualification programmes, instead of prescriptive syllabus-based recurrent training, plus the application of competency-based training.

Aircraft manufacturers must now provide operational suitability data to prove their cockpit interfaces work. Airlines will be expected to follow the manufacturers' manuals on type rating training more closely. And work is being done to improve the effectiveness of simulators.

EASA is not blind to the fact that pilots frequently seem to be unable to cope with the unexpected, Woods emphasises, and it is looking for ways of dealing with this. (Our thanks to David for use of his excellent report).

FFS!   Wake up miniscule, Malcolm-in-the-middle...anyone??
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

From Paul Phelan, courtesy Proaviation..

Tidying up


Leave a reply

 
CASA has set up a 26-person “special taskforce” to work full-time on finding solutions to identified issues with the new licensing suite of regulations – Parts 61, 64, 141 and 142.
Director Mark Skidmore says the taskforce is working closely with a new advisory panel comprising member organisations of The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, (TAAAF) as well as delegates from the airline and mustering sectors, flight training schools and the tertiary education sector.

The move follows Mr Skidmore’s launch in September of CASA’s new regulatory philosophy which is now in effect – a new ten-point policy guideline detailing how the regulator intends to comply with the laws governing its regulatory activities, says a spokesman:

“The Regulatory Philosophy was promulgated by the Director and endorsed by the CASA Board, in keeping with the Government’s Response to the ASRR and Minister’s Statement of Expectations, the latter of which is addressed to the Board as a notice, under subsection 12(1) of the Civil Aviation Act, of the Minister’s views on the appropriate strategic direction for CASA. Subsection 12(2) of the Act requires the Board to act in accordance with such a notice. Consistent with the requirements of the law, The Director is obliged to manage CASA ‘subject to the directions of, and in accordance with the policies determined by, the Board.”

The above references to the Act are:
(1) The Minister may give the Board written directions as to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers.

But:
(2) Directions as to the performance of its regulatory function shall be only of a general nature.

However the Act  at Section 9(1)© commits CASA to “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards,” the absence of which was the most widely criticised deficiency identified by the respondents to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. Asked whether the Task Force would be bound by the new policies, CASA says: “As a body established by the CEO/DAS, and to the extent one or more of the principles set out in the Regulatory Philosophy are applicable to the work of the Taskforce, it is expected that the Taskforce will perform its functions in a manner consistent with those principles.”

Examples are plentiful, but this specimen is as appropriate, clear and concise as they get:

142.045  Legislative instruments—Part 142 operators

For paragraph 98(5A)(a) of the Act, CASA may issue a legislative instrument to prescribe the following:

a) type ratings for paragraph (d) and subparagraph (g)(i) of the definition of Part 142 flight training in subregulation 142.015(2);
b) matters for paragraph 142.340(1)(v).

Feeling safer now?

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

wren 460 off the UP :

How serious is Mr. Skidmore?

---

Reading his latest missive, November issue, a couple of points:-

“Pilots with a current licence only need to undertake an aviation English language proficiency assessment if they want to use their Australian licence overseas. However, a current aviation assessment is needed before applying for any flight test for a private, commercial, air transport or multi-crew pilot licence. People needing to find a language assessor should talk to their local flight training school.”

I would have thought that one’s language ability would be quite adequately dealt with during training and licence testing.

Wonder what extra costs are involved and how does CASA approve language assessors?

What is the practice in the US and NZ?

Is this another example of unnecessary and costly micro management ?

In regard to the last part of Mr Skidmore’s report, entitled
"Fatigue forum praised for practical answers”, reading this is most confusing.

"Fatigue forum praised for practical answers"

More than 80 people from 22 aviation organisations and CASA came together in Melbourne at a special forum in November 2015 to achieve a mutual understanding of fatigue risk management systems. Presenters with experience in the development and operation of specific aspects of a fatigue risk management system provided practical, best-practice advice. There were many opportunities for everyone to ask questions of both the presenters and CASA, triggering useful discussions. Feedback from those who attended was very positive. There was support for the format, the standard of presenters, the quality of information and the opportunities to get practical answers to questions. CASA would like to thank everyone who participated including: Dr David Powell, senior lecturer and specialist in Aviation Medicine with the University of Otago in New Zealand and previously the chief medical officer at Air New Zealand; Mal Christie of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Jenny Allcock of the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator; Adam Fletcher and Richard Yates of Integrated Safety Support; Ben Cook of Human and Systems Excellence; Greg Fallow of the New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association and Captain James Boland of Express Freighters Australia. There was very strong support for another fatigue risk management forum to be held in 2016.

&..

More than 40 people representing 22 aviation organisations attended a special fatigue risk management systems forum in November 2015. The aim of the forum was to ensure there is a mutual understanding between CASA and aviation organisations of the requirements and expected outcomes to be achieved prior to being approved for a trial of a fatigue risk management system. To achieve this mutual understanding 30 inspectors and staff from CASA took part in the forum held in Melbourne. Presenters with experience in the development and running or specific aspects of a fatigue risk management system provided practical, best-practice examples of what works. There were many opportunities for everyone to ask questions of both the presenters and CASA, triggering useful discussions. Feedback from those who attended was very positive. There was support for the format, the standard of presenters, the quality of information and the opportunities to get practical answers to questions. CASA would like to thank Dr David Powell, senior lecturer and specialist in Aviation Medicine with the University of Otago in New Zealand previously the Chief Medical Officer at Air New Zealand, where he led the FRMS for 15 years; Mal Christie of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Jenny Allcock of ONRSR; Adam Fletcher and Richard Yates of Integrated Safety Support; Ben Cook of Human and Systems Excellence; Greg Fallow of NZ ALPA and Captain James Boland of Express Freighters Australia. There has been very strong support for another fatigue risk management forum to be held in 2016."

It would seem that there were two forums held recently in Melbourne.

One with more than thirty FOIs and other CASA staff; one with 40 attendees and one with 80 attendees are reported.

Both meetings (or was it only one meeting with a massaged message inadvertently posted together with the first draft) surely not at the same time. Will the real forum please stand up?

Wonder what the overall cost was? Would anyone from CASA be able to put a dollar cost on this or these forums? Were any of Mr. Skidmore's 26 member "Tiger Team" who are working full time to correct the hopelessly compromised Part 61 regs in attendance?

What details and costs about accomodation and meals can we be given?

No doubt many being flown in from Canberra and further afield.

It seems that a lovely time was had by all and of course they’ll all be back next year to have a wonderful conference all about the next tranche of changing regulations. Much more enjoyable than working for a living, our fuel levies bringing happiness and satisfaction to our masters.

Meanwhile back in the real world of what’s left of GA, it is gasping for air, struggling to pay the bills and struggling at the task of coping with a new suite of regs that will see many more aviation businesses close their doors.

What’s it all about? Not a single example or detail about any practical outcome in Mr. Skidmore's pat on back communique from the 'fatigue forum(s)'.

Bureaucracy unlimited, huge pay packets, lifestyle, ego and power might explain life on another planet. Meanwhile not a real reform in sight, fiddling with unworkable regs and granting exemptions is not reform, the situation is out of control.

Reform will not be simply returning to old regimes, the industry must demand policies to advance GA in growth, the need is immediate and urgent.

Independent instructors and LAMES like USA, moratorium on compulsory SIDs, car type PPL medicals like sport category. Change to the Act to include industry health.

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Siegfried and Skates and their famous tiger show

Good to see Ben Cooks name on the attendee list. At least someone who knows their shit was there!

P2 said;

"Wonder what the overall cost was? Would anyone from CASA be able to put a dollar cost on this or these forums? Were any of Mr. Skidmore's 26 member "Tiger Team" who are working full time to correct the hopelessly compromised Part 61 regs in attendance?"

P2, out of curiosity, and I'm just spit-balling here, how does one pull 26 staff out of their respective roles, pretty much overnight, and have them work on a new project without their old roles suffering as a result? Think about it - 26 full time tigers have been taken from their cages and out in the one den. CAsA certainly must be over staffed to have the luxury of pulling out 26 employees from jobs they were already committed to, don't you think?
The 'tigers' wouldn't be cleaners, ground staff, clerks, snake catchers or pot plant maintainers, surely? The 26 must have come from fairly important areas? And what is happening in their old areas of expertise, staff shortages as a result?  

Mythical indeed. And all bollocks.

"Safe tiger taming for all"

[Peetwo]

P666 -

Good to see Ben Cooks name on the attendee list. At least someone who knows their shit was there!

 Plus his former offsider Mal Christie. Ironic isn't it two former CASA HF experts who were lambasted & ridiculed by McComic & CO (over two Special Audit Reports that were critical of CASA's oversight of Jetstar & PelAir), yet here we have the Skidmore regime thanking them - yep strange world we live in
P666 -

P2, out of curiosity, and I'm just spit-balling here, how does one pull 26 staff out of their respective roles, pretty much overnight, and have them work on a new project without their old roles suffering as a result? Think about it - 26 full time tigers have been taken from their cages and out in the one den. CAsA certainly must be over staffed to have the luxury of pulling out 26 employees from jobs they were already committed to, don't you think?

The 'tigers' wouldn't be cleaners, ground staff, clerks, snake catchers or pot plant maintainers, surely? The 26 must have come from fairly important areas? And what is happening in their old areas of expertise, staff shortages as a result?

Good points but does it matter because apparently the combined wisdom of the TT26 is not wasting time and righting the heavily ladened Part61 ship:

Part61 & the fourth tier. 

Here we go again - UFB! 

Possibly the first direct action that can be attributed to the CFI Wodger (WAP) led tiger team, has made an addition of another couple of thousand words (& 12 pages) to Part 61..

26 November 2015


Alternative ways for pilots to meet multi-crew cooperation training requirements
An exemption has now been published which provides alternative ways for some pilots to meet the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61.

From 1 September 2015, pilots who want to conduct multi-crew operations for the first time must complete a course of training in multi-crew cooperation and have a multi-crew type rating. CASA has listened to the views of the aviation community and recognises that these requirements are not necessary for pilots who have already completed acceptable training elsewhere.

As a result, the new exemption will recognise the following as meeting the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61.

• Completion of a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) approved multi-crew cooperation training course.
  
• An EASA multi-crew type rating.
  
• Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 50 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, regular public transport operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 82.3 or 82.5.
  
• Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 100 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, charter operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under CAO 82.1 and successful completion of two operator proficiency checks which included assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.
  
• Any other experience and qualifications acceptable to CASA.
  
  

Application process

Pilots who are applying for an air transport pilot licence and want to have alternative multi-crew cooperation training recognised will need to include evidence with their licence application form when they submit it to CASA. These pilots are also encouraged to provide this evidence to the flight examiner who is conducting their flight test, for verification.

Pilots who want to conduct multi-crew operations but are not applying for an air transport pilot licence flight test need to provide their evidence to their Head of Flying Operations, who must be satisfied that the pilot complies with the exemption provisions.

Providing evidence

If you are seeking recognition of an EASA approved multi-crew cooperation training course you will need to provide a copy of your course completion certificate issued by an EASA approved training provider, and a copy of the EASA approval held by the approved training provider which shows that the approval is current.

For an EASA multi-crew type rating you will need to provide a copy of your EASA flight crew licence endorsed with the multi-crew type rating, and logbook evidence showing you have exercised the privileges of the rating.

If you hold an Australian Defence Force multi-crew pilot qualification you will need to provide a certified copy of your Australian Defence Force qualification which shows you have completed an operational conversion training course for an aircraft that is required to be operated by two pilots.

For pilots operating under Civil Aviation Order 82.3 or 82.5 in multi-crew regular public transport operations, you will need to provide a copy of your flight crew licence showing your multi-crew type rating, and logbook evidence showing that you have operated an aircraft in multi-crew operations for an Australian air operator’s certificate holder who conducts regular public transport operations.

For pilots operating under Civil Aviation Order 82.1 in multi-crew charter operations, you will need to provide a copy of your flight crew licence showing your multi-crew type rating, logbook evidence showing that you have at least 100 hours experience operating a multi-crew certificated aircraft in multi-crew operations for an Australian air operator’s certificate holder who conducts charter operations, and evidence that you have successfully completed two operator proficiency checks which included the assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.

If you don’t meet the above criteria but believe you qualify for the exemption on the basis of alternative experience, you should contact CASA to discuss your individual circumstances.

View the exemption on the ComLaw website.

 

Can't comment - head in bucket
        

[Sandy Reith]

Siegfried and Skates and their famous tiger show

Good to see Ben Cooks name on the attendee list. At least someone who knows their shit was there!

P2 said;

"Wonder what the overall cost was? Would anyone from CASA be able to put a dollar cost on this or these forums? Were any of Mr. Skidmore's 26 member "Tiger Team" who are working full time to correct the hopelessly compromised Part 61 regs in attendance?"

P2, out of curiosity, and I'm just spit-balling here, how does one pull 26 staff out of their respective roles, pretty much overnight, and have them work on a new project without their old roles suffering as a result? Think about it - 26 full time tigers have been taken from their cages and out in the one den. CAsA certainly must be over staffed to have the luxury of pulling out 26 employees from jobs they were already committed to, don't you think?
The 'tigers' wouldn't be cleaners, ground staff, clerks, snake catchers or pot plant maintainers, surely? The 26 must have come from fairly important areas? And what is happening in their old areas of expertise, staff shortages as a result?  

Mythical indeed. And all bollocks.

"Safe tiger taming for all"

Dear Gobbledock, you forget that the now CEO of CASA, we are slowly moving away from the embarrassing and pretentious Director (Conductor?) of Air Safety title, that there are some 850 employees to chose from. Even though they are working like mad, just as hard as those out there in private enterprise, lucky they had that fatigue management course to fall back on, but there are still a few who are not away on sabbaticals, ICAO, safety seminars or doing the rounds like ramp checks at Avalon to find a dedicated few Tigers.

[Sandy Reith]

wren 460 off the UP :

How serious is Mr. Skidmore?

---

Reading his latest missive, November issue, a couple of points:-

“Pilots with a current licence only need to undertake an aviation English language proficiency assessment if they want to use their Australian licence overseas. However, a current aviation assessment is needed before applying for any flight test for a private, commercial, air transport or multi-crew pilot licence. People needing to find a language assessor should talk to their local flight training school.”

I would have thought that one’s language ability would be quite adequately dealt with during training and licence testing.

Wonder what extra costs are involved and how does CASA approve language assessors?

What is the practice in the US and NZ?

Is this another example of unnecessary and costly micro management ?

In regard to the last part of Mr Skidmore’s report, entitled
"Fatigue forum praised for practical answers”, reading this is most confusing.

"Fatigue forum praised for practical answers"

More than 80 people from 22 aviation organisations and CASA came together in Melbourne at a special forum in November 2015 to achieve a mutual understanding of fatigue risk management systems. Presenters with experience in the development and operation of specific aspects of a fatigue risk management system provided practical, best-practice advice. There were many opportunities for everyone to ask questions of both the presenters and CASA, triggering useful discussions. Feedback from those who attended was very positive. There was support for the format, the standard of presenters, the quality of information and the opportunities to get practical answers to questions. CASA would like to thank everyone who participated including: Dr David Powell, senior lecturer and specialist in Aviation Medicine with the University of Otago in New Zealand and previously the chief medical officer at Air New Zealand; Mal Christie of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Jenny Allcock of the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator; Adam Fletcher and Richard Yates of Integrated Safety Support; Ben Cook of Human and Systems Excellence; Greg Fallow of the New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association and Captain James Boland of Express Freighters Australia. There was very strong support for another fatigue risk management forum to be held in 2016.

&..

More than 40 people representing 22 aviation organisations attended a special fatigue risk management systems forum in November 2015. The aim of the forum was to ensure there is a mutual understanding between CASA and aviation organisations of the requirements and expected outcomes to be achieved prior to being approved for a trial of a fatigue risk management system. To achieve this mutual understanding 30 inspectors and staff from CASA took part in the forum held in Melbourne. Presenters with experience in the development and running or specific aspects of a fatigue risk management system provided practical, best-practice examples of what works. There were many opportunities for everyone to ask questions of both the presenters and CASA, triggering useful discussions. Feedback from those who attended was very positive. There was support for the format, the standard of presenters, the quality of information and the opportunities to get practical answers to questions. CASA would like to thank Dr David Powell, senior lecturer and specialist in Aviation Medicine with the University of Otago in New Zealand previously the Chief Medical Officer at Air New Zealand, where he led the FRMS for 15 years; Mal Christie of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Jenny Allcock of ONRSR; Adam Fletcher and Richard Yates of Integrated Safety Support; Ben Cook of Human and Systems Excellence; Greg Fallow of NZ ALPA and Captain James Boland of Express Freighters Australia. There has been very strong support for another fatigue risk management forum to be held in 2016."

It would seem that there were two forums held recently in Melbourne.

One with more than thirty FOIs and other CASA staff; one with 40 attendees and one with 80 attendees are reported.

Both meetings (or was it only one meeting with a massaged message inadvertently posted together with the first draft) surely not at the same time. Will the real forum please stand up?

Wonder what the overall cost was? Would anyone from CASA be able to put a dollar cost on this or these forums? Were any of Mr. Skidmore's 26 member "Tiger Team" who are working full time to correct the hopelessly compromised Part 61 regs in attendance?

What details and costs about accomodation and meals can we be given?

No doubt many being flown in from Canberra and further afield.

It seems that a lovely time was had by all and of course they’ll all be back next year to have a wonderful conference all about the next tranche of changing regulations. Much more enjoyable than working for a living, our fuel levies bringing happiness and satisfaction to our masters.

Meanwhile back in the real world of what’s left of GA, it is gasping for air, struggling to pay the bills and struggling at the task of coping with a new suite of regs that will see many more aviation businesses close their doors.

What’s it all about? Not a single example or detail about any practical outcome in Mr. Skidmore's pat on back communique from the 'fatigue forum(s)'.

Bureaucracy unlimited, huge pay packets, lifestyle, ego and power might explain life on another planet. Meanwhile not a real reform in sight, fiddling with unworkable regs and granting exemptions is not reform, the situation is out of control.

Reform will not be simply returning to old regimes, the industry must demand policies to advance GA in growth, the need is immediate and urgent.

Independent instructors and LAMES like USA, moratorium on compulsory SIDs, car type PPL medicals like sport category. Change to the Act to include industry health.

MTF..P2

On the CASA website the inadvertent double entry all about the wonderful and practical seminar has been corrected, that is that the more acceptable version is now appearing by itself. Yes a stupid error but instructive of how CASA, and Mr. Skidmore, who could not have read the original, and how he regards the dissemination of information to the public. Spin it any way and just lip service. Those in the 'not sure' camp regarding the PPRune Skidmore poll take notice. 

[Kharon]

Why so serious son?

Honestly Wren (bad troll imitation following).  - You are writing on a thread entitled “Mythical reform”.  By implication and extension – reform must not only be mythical, but be seen to be mythical.  It’s no good you coming on here and sprouting facts – it’s a myth; you are supposed to be embellishing it, not buggering about with truth and fact.

Now remember – only feel good, happy clappy thoughts and tiger tales from now on.

Well, the nerve of the man – ducking up a good fairy story with cold hard facts.

Shame on you Wren…(actually, it’s harder to write a good troll piece than you would imagine – ain’t that strange – Oh well).....

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

 The RRP will drift along forever -

Yesterday in Parliament the biggest list (typically) of legislative instruments to be tabled was to come from CASA in its administration of the totally dysfunctional Civil Aviation Act 1988...

Civil Aviation Act 1988—

Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Airworthiness and Other Matters—2015 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2015—Select Legislative Instrument 2015 No. 245 [F2015L01980].
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 66) Regulation 2015—Select Legislative Instrument 2015 No. 246 [F2015L01992].
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 129) Regulation 2015—Select Legislative Instrument 2015 No. 247 [F2015L01995].
Civil Aviation Order 20.18 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Authorisation and exemption—aircraft operating without ADS-B transmitting equipment and carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines)—CASA 08/16 [F2016L00067].
Civil Aviation Order 29.5 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Exemption, approval and permission—dropping of articles—CASA EX11/16 [F2016L00060].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2015 (No. 1) [F2015L02102].
Civil Aviation Order 100.16 (Administration and procedure—distribution and rejection of aircraft components and aircraft materials) Instrument 2015 [F2015L01955].
Direction—number of cabin attendants (Eastern Australia Airlines)—CASA 169/15 [F2015L02084].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Amendment of Exemptions—compliance with SIDs in the maintenance of Cessna aircraft—CASA EX220/15 [F2015L02099].
Amendment of instrument CASA 136/15— Approval— alternate means of compliance issued by a foreign State of Design for an airworthiness directive issued by the foreign State of Design—CASA 07/16 [F2016L00061].
Exemption—aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement—CASA EX226/15 [F2016L00026].
Exemption—aircraft operating without carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Balloon Flights Over Melbourne)—CASA EX15/16 [F2016L00065].
Exemption—aircraft operating without carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Global Ballooning Australia)—CASA EX13/16 [F2016L00068].
Exemption—aircraft operating without carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Goldrush Ballooning)—CASA EX12/16 [F2016L00062].
Exemption—aircraft operating without carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (National Jet Express)—CASA EX10/16 [F2016L00063].
Exemption—aircraft operating without carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Picture This Ballooning)—CASA EX14/16 [F2016L00058].
Exemption—display of markings and carriage of identification plates—CASA EX210/15 [F2015L02066].
Exemption—extended diversion time operation requirements (Nauru Airlines B737)—CASA EX223/15 [F2015L02134].
Exemption—extended diversion time operation requirements (Qantas B747 and A380)—CASA EX206/15 [F2015L01949].
Exemption—from certain prerequisites for an ATPL flight test—CASA EX222/15 [F2016L00015].
Exemption—from completion of an approved course of training in MCC—CASA EX225/15 [F2016L00034].
Exemption—from the flight instructor rating flight test—CASA EX218/15 [F2015L02115].
Exemption—from the PIRC—CASA EX215/15 [F2015L02096].
Exemption—from the spinning FAE—CASA EX214/15 [F2015L02097].
Exemption— GNSS-based RNAV 1 and RNAV 2 instead of RNP 1 and RNP 2— foreign registered aircraft—CASA EX06/16 [F2016L00059].
Exemption—GNSS requirements (Express Freighters Australia)—CASA EX09/16 [F2016L00052].
Exemption—Grade 3, 2 or 1 training endorsement (aeroplane) flight test—CASA EX219/15 [F2015L02117].
Exemption—maximum take-off weight requirements in aerial application operations—CASA EX217/15 [F2015L02110].
Exemption—minimum height and lateral separation for operations (Aerotech First Response)—CASA EX209/15 [F2015L01923].
Exemption—minimum height and lateral separation for operations (Aerotech NT)—CASA EX208/15 [F2015L01920].
Exemption—navigation and anti-collision lights—CASA EX211/15 [F2015L02091].
Exemption—operations by hang gliders in the Corryong Cup—CASA EX01/16 [F2016L00032].
Exemption—powered weight shift controlled aircraft—CASA EX191/15 [F2015L01928].
Exemption—requirement for grant of special certificate of airworthiness for a light sport aircraft (ICON A5)—CASA EX203/15 [F2016L00016].
Exemption—solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated at Launceston Aerodrome—CASA EX216/15 [F2016L00029].
Exemption—solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with the RAA at Jandakot Aerodrome—CASA EX05/16 [F2016L00051].
Exemption—temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment and GNSS equipment— Solomon Airlines—CASA EX212/15 [F2015L01956].
Manual of Standards Part 66 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) [F2016L00066].
Manual of Standards Parts 139, 171, 172 and 173 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) [F2016L00042].
Prescription of aircraft and rating—Agusta Westland AW169—CASA EX171/15 [F2015L02100].
Repeal— exemption— Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd— certification of maintenance—CASA EX197/15 [F2015L02079].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directives—
CASA ADCX 020/15 [F2015L01944].
CASA ADCX 001/16 [F2016L00064].

Hmm...Dick & Co should be interested in this:

Civil Aviation Order 20.18 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Authorisation and exemption—aircraft operating without ADS-B transmitting equipment and carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines)—CASA 08/16 [F2016L00067].

What further proof do you need that the RRP is entirely mythical...



MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Grand mama’s knitting.

Many (many) years and moons ago, on a visit to ‘Grands’ place I was sat by the fireplace, toasty warm, listening to the familiar sounds of the ‘last stables’ and the fire crackling.  One of the recent litter of kittens bounced in, looking for fun, or hunting practice, then froze; Grand’s knitting basket was open and a large part of what should be warm sweater was quietly minding it’s business – irresistible.   Long story short, eventually the ‘piece’ was slain and a loose end was dragged away as a trophy of the ‘kill’.  Like magic, the labour of many hours of disappeared as the whole thing unravelled before my eyes.

CASA’ s pathetic attempts to stuff the remnants back into the bag, hide the kitten and avoid ‘trouble’ remind me of that evening.  Their knitting is becoming unravelled at an alarming pace.  

One of the core reasons, 30 years ago, for regulatory reform was to remove the need for exemptions; for obvious reasons.  Not so obvious was the ‘intent’ to remove any call of favouritism or unfair advantage, with the attendant aroma of possible corruption.  So we spent the dough and set to work.  

The farcical Part 61 and the unmentionable 145 (amongst others) are proving to be the ‘loose end’.  ‘Gran’ only had one option; start again, but she at least was lucky, the wool was intact, ravelled but whole, only needing to be rolled up again (I got that job).  The fabric CASA has been working with has not been so fortunate; it’s ‘ducked’.  The knock-on effects, the endless, pointless contradiction, confusion, misuse, abuse of spirit, twisted intent and adventures at the extremes of law have turned the loop holes into hangman’s nooses, waiting to trap the unwary – on both sides.

We need a ‘working’ rule set, now would be good.  What we have is a dreadful hodge-podge which, until the ‘new rules’ started turning up, allowed industry to limp along, mostly in compliance; not any longer.  We have adopted rule sets and ‘philosophy’ from grown up aviation nations before; why can’t we do that again?  Even if we must have an ‘unique’ Australian rule set, there is little impediment and much to be gained by adopting the FAR or NZ suite as a temporary measure until another 30 years and 300 million have passed and someone, who knows what they are about, rewrites the Australian version within the constitution and tenets of good faith.  Hells bells, the cost of generating the last raft of ‘exemptions’ would have paid for the Kiwi set; and they thrashed us at cricket.  Sign of the times I reckon.  

Not quite a ramble, best pull up before I starts to ‘wander’.

Toot toot....

[Peetwo]

CAO48.1 - PFOAG Chair David Fawcett rethink perhaps?

The following is the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation Group statement off the PFGs webpage:

As legislators, we have a key role in keeping aviation both safe and viable as an industry and the friendship group will provide members a great opportunity to stay informed about the issues the industry is facing.

    
However the PFOAG members, which now includes the Minister for Transport, may have to reconsider their current strategy in applying their "key role".
The following is a quote from my post off the RAAA thread today:

RAAA News - Summer 2015/16

From the RAAA Summer newsletter in the LHS, Jim Davis opens up on the OTT CAO 48.1:

..However one area of great concern is CAO 48.1 which threatens to impose excessive cost and cause crippling disruption to industry without a commensurate safety gain. This legislation does not comply with CASA’s new regulatory philosophy.

CASA have gone to great lengths to publish their case but an analysis of the document ‘A Review of the case for change: Scientific Support for CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013’ shows an absence of hard evidence to justify the new rules. It is full of assumptions and scientific theory, much of it from other jurisdictions, but does not provide any real evidence of a systemic fatigue problem in the Australian context.

"..The closest it comes to offering any facts is when it references ATSB data. Here CASA make the extraordinary statement that ‘there have been approximately 65 incidents/accidents in the last 10 years in which human fatigue was identified as a factor (note: not a causal factor). A proportion of these occurrences have been in the Regular Public Transport (RPT) sector of the industry.’ This is manifestly absurd and hardly scientific analysis! The RAAA requested a copy of this data from CASA and when it was not forthcoming obtained the information by approaching the ATSB directly. After talking with the ATSB Chief Commissioner and Aviation Commissioner and having the data examined by industry experts no evidence of a systemic fatigue safety issue was found. .."

P2 comment: Hmm..that passage has some very disturbing similarities to the CVD Pilot's issue, especially when it comes to doctoring or ignoring empirical evidence that is contrary to the "Big R" regulator's subjective interest - now TFB (totally ducking believable) under OST    

Furthermore CASA have made no attempt to examine fatigue trends in the myriad amount of information contained in the SMS data bases of Australian passenger carrying air operators. They have disregarded the fact that mature operators in Australia have been successfully managing fatigue for decades.

It must also be asked why the prescriptive rules contained in CAO 48.1 are more restrictive than the equivalent rules in Europe (EASA Subpart FTL) or the US (FAA Part 117) despite the fact that both those jurisdictions exist in a far greater fatigue inducing environment than we have in Australia. There is no justification for this unnecessary hindering of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

The cost impact of the prescriptive rules in CAO 48.1 is very real and will cost some RAAA members millions of dollars per annum. It will also render some current operations totally unviable. CASA may claim that a FRMS will possibly negate these totally impractical rules but there is no guarantee and it begs the question of why they have been imposed in the first place. It also does not address the fact that some smaller operators may not be able to handle the costly exercise of introducing and obtaining CASA approval of a FRMS.

While it is encouraging that CASA has responded to the Statement of Expectations from the Minister with its new regulatory philosophy as embodied in Directive 01/2105, it now appears to be faltering at the first hurdle. CAO 48.1 does pre-date the Directive but it is not effective until 1 May 2017. In the interests of transparency and fair play the RAAA strongly feels that Directive 01/2015 should be applied to CAO 48.1.

The RAAA has been pointing out the inconsistencies and significant problems with CAO 48.1 for regional operators for some years but CASA have steadfastly refused to make any meaningful changes. Sadly, at least in the case of CAO 48.1, the ‘Big R regulator’ is still with us.

  
Makes you wonder if Senator Fawcett & other government Senators made a ill considered decision to vote down Nick Xenophon's CAO 48.1 disallowance motion -

Because it was IMO a significant speech in the NX CAO 48.1 DM debate & perfectly highlights the conundrum that industry now faces with yet another RRP debacle, here is the Hansard nearly in full from Senator Fawcett's speech:

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (13:08): I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same. So the comment by the opposition that we have now changed our position is not correct, and I make that point before addressing the issue at hand in any more substance.


I commend Senator Xenophon for his interest in and commitment to the aviation industry in Australia. We have worked very collaboratively on a number of aspects around regulation and other things that affect the viability and safety of aviation. I again put on record my appreciation for the engagement of both the then minister and the current minister around this issue. I have not personally changed my position from when we were dealing with this in opposition for the reason that where this brings us to is safer then where we were. I acknowledge that there are still outstanding issues, as Senator Xenophon has highlighted. But, as he has also highlighted, some of those issues leave us in much the same position as we were in previously. The previous position may not have been ideal, but we are in no worse a position now. Given that in net terms there is an improvement, I think it is appropriate to adopt those changes. I will go through why I take that position in a little more detail.


I will talk firstly about the broad context of regulatory reform and then come in a little more detail to 48.1. The regulatory reform process, as anyone engaged with the aviation industry in Australia knows, has been long and drawn out to the point of being dysfunctional because of the length of time and the different strategic approaches that CASA has taken to the reform process, particularly when it comes to the engagement of industry. I have long been an advocate of the approach taken by the former director, Mr Byron. He argued that industry, as the current subject matter experts in a particular area of operation, are probably best placed to know what will work for them and their sector.


Despite the fact that there are some rogue operators in the aviation industry, whether they be people in workshops or people operating airlines or charter companies, the vast majority of operators have invested hugely, in personal terms and in terms of their shareholders. They have a huge incentive to make sure their operations are safe because, if they have an accident, gaining insurance or contracts—particularly if they are operating in a contract environment within the resources sector—becomes almost impossible. Once an airline has an accident, re-attracting customers is difficult. So people have a huge incentive to get it right. I am a great believer that industry should be leading in the development of both regulations and standards, in conjunction with the regulator, and that only if there is a safety case that the regulator can prove should the regulator discard the industry's position.


I am aware that CASA's point of view is that the drafting of 48.1 involved working groups with industry and scientific experts, but I would have to say that CASA's track record of engagement with industry has not been wholesome. On many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation. There are examples where it has worked well, but there are many where it has not. This is one area where we need to fundamentally reform the process, not only at the drafting stage but also, importantly—as Senator Xenophon has highlighted—once a regulation comes into force, because there is often very little appetite to revisit it for an extended period.


As we look at our regulatory reform process we see that not only does industry need to have a stronger voice up front in setting the regulations and the manual of standards that goes with them but also there needs to be a review mechanism where, if there are outstanding issues, there is an opportunity—a framework—for industry to have quick and effective remedy to them. Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1. I think the review that is being conducted by David Forsyth has terrific potential to reform how industry and the regulator engage. A key part of that—and we have seen that legislation has just been introduced in the parliament by the government—is reforming the role of the board so that we have people on the board with aviation experience.


That board's role really needs to be one of governance, as opposed to hands-off oversight, so that they are setting the strategic direction for the regulator. That strategy would go to the culture of the regulator, whether it is a big 'r' regulator—a policeman with a big stick—or further along the spectrum towards an educator and supporter. That balance in the middle needs to come through a strategic decision. So, regardless of who is the director of the regulator, we should see a consistent approach that industry can plan for and engage with—an approach that will keep the industry not only safe but viable in terms of the cost bases they have to meet. And there are many costs associated with changing or rejecting regulation.


That brings me to CAO 48.1 and this disallowance motion. As I have stated, overall it is safer, and in the areas where there are points of contention we are no worse off than we were. If we were worse off in significant areas then clearly there would be a case to reject the regulation. But, if we are no worse off and in other areas we are better off, then the travelling public and the industry are better served in finding a way to effectively and quickly review the regulation and modify those areas of concern...



..The position that I am taking on this—it is the government's position—is not to support the disallowance, but I am working with the minister's office. That is partly because many industry players, since the order was introduced in April 2013—with a transitional window to 2016—have already invested in changing how they work to meet the new regulations. And, as I have said, change does not come cheaply to industry players. Not only are we going a step backwards in safety if we adopt this disallowance but we are disadvantaging those industry players who have invested in adopting the new regulations. I am seeking to make sure that we have, in a very timely manner, the opportunity for the concerned parties in the industry—I know the Virgin Independent Pilots Association and the Qantas group have raised the concerns of, predominantly, long-haul pilots—to help select subject-matter experts who can form this independent panel to review the specific areas of concern. We would then have an independent umpire to bring a recommendation back to the minister so that he can work with the regulator to address those concerns in a timely manner.


Obviously, I cannot speak for the review being led by David Forsyth, nor the recommendations that they will bring forward, but, having met with many players from the maintenance, manufacturing, engineering and operations areas of the industry, I am aware that one of the critical things that we need is a system whereby industry can have a timely remedy to decisions of the regulator that have a material impact on their business and where the safety case is disputed by industry. Whilst, hopefully, the remedy for this will not necessarily be part of the broader regulatory reform and a change of structure, it may well be a test case of how that could work. That may then lead to ideas around how we adopt the broader regulatory system and provide an opportunity for industry to have that timely remedy.


The government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.

  
   

 In hindsight how's that working out for you Senator Fawcett??

On reading the RAAA Chair's rant on CAO 48.1, would it have made any difference to the way he voted I doubt it. However I wonder if DF would like to revisit certain parts (particularly the parts in bold) of that oratory??


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

A strange dichotomy -

In a relatively good news story for Skates, the proposed new rule set for drones has generally been endorsed by the affected industry stakeholders and has even received international praise as a model for other NAA's to adopt, including the FAA.

Commercial drones cut through red tape


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has announced the relaxation of rules for the commercial use of small airborne drones and other remotely piloted aircraft.

The Authority said commercial operators of the aircraft would no longer need to obtain a number of regulatory approvals, including an operator’s certificate and a remote pilot licence.

CASA said the move would cut regulatory costs for operators by thousands of dollars, save time and reduce paperwork.

It said the changes, to take effect in late September, would apply to remotely piloted aircraft with a 2kg maximum take-off weight used in commercial operations.

CASA relaxes rules for operators

CASA said operators would simply need to notify the Authority that they intended to use very small remotely piloted aircraft for commercial flights according to a set of standard operating conditions.

It said these mandatory conditions included flying only in day visual line of sight, below 120 m, keeping more than 30 m away from other people, flying more than 5.5 km from controlled aerodromes and not operating near emergency situations.

CASA said it would provide an easy-to-use online notification system.

It said the package of changes would also permit private landholders to carry out a range of activities on their own land without the need for approvals from CASA.

The Authority said these would include remotely piloted aircraft up to 25 kg in weight where no money was paid for flights.

Director of Aviation Safety at CASA, Mark Skidmore said the changes to the remotely piloted aircraft regulations maintained appropriate safety standards while cutting red tape.

“While safety must always come first, CASA’s aim is to lighten the regulatory requirements where we can,” Mr Skidmore said.

 

John Goglia via Forbes - Australia Adopts Micro Drone Rules; Why Can't US?  

Just days before the FAA is scheduled to announce recommendations from a micro drone task force (coincidentally, I’m sure, timed for April Fool’s day), Australia joins the US’s closest neighbors to the north and south in issuing simplified, risk-based regulations for commercial operations of micro UAS.  The weight-based categories adopted by the Australians, similar to those of Mexico and Canada, minimize the most burdensome commercial requirements (including pilot license requirements) for drones weighing 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) or less.  According to the preface to the rule changes, these changes are intended to provide “greater flexibility and responsiveness in a rapidly evolving area.”

The new rules, which become effective in September of this year, require commercial operators to notify the Civil Aviation Safety Authority – the equivalent of the FAA - rather than obtaining a time-consuming and expensive unmanned operator permit or drone operator license.  In order to take advantage of the micro drone rule, commercial operators would have to meet the same operational restrictions as hobby flyers:

1. Operate the drone within visual line-of-sight,
   
   
2. Operate at or below 400 feet above ground level by day,
   
   
3. Operate no closer than 30 meters (150 feet) from non-participating persons,
   
   
4. Not operate in restricted or prohibited airspace, populous areas or within 3 nautical miles of the movement area of a controlled airport,
   
   
5. Not operate over fire, police or other emergency operation without approval and
   
   
6. Operate only one drone at a time.
   
   

As I have written about in the past, different rules for hobby and commercial operators of micro UAS don’t make sense from a safety perspective.  I believe risk-based weight categories – including a micro drone category – with operational restrictions such as adopted by the Australians would afford a safe yet flexible approach to this rapidly changing, technological field.  In the US, it would legalize the thousands of operators who are flying 3 and 4 pound drones for compensation or for business purposes.  Legalizing these operations would allow these operators to come out of the shadows and operate openly without fear of FAA prosecution. 

    
Maybe because this is a rapidly growing industry sector with a multitude of possible innovative applications, like in agriculture for example - Farm drones clear red tape; or maybe it is because it is a reasonably new, developing rule set and therefore a relatively conflict (with industry) free zone, but it is fascinating the obvious different mindset and attitude to other sectors of the industry (see Oliver's latest in the CASA monthly missive - HERE)  
 
Couple of quotes:

Skidmore - CASA’s regulatory philosophy provides the opportunity for future regulations like CASR Part 102–commercial and large operations – to be risk based, graduated and proportionate, and able to consider reasonable alternative approaches in fulfilling regulatory requirements, as long as they do not compromise safety.
 
Goglia - "..Australia joins the US’s closest neighbours to the north and south in issuing simplified, risk-based regulations for commercial operations of micro UAS..." 

Skidmore - “While safety must always come first, CASA’s aim is to lighten the regulatory requirements where we can,”

Although the proof will obviously be in the pudding, there are some keywords that have now entered the regulator's vernacular, with at least their proposed regulation of RPAs (CASR Part 101 & 102), which should reflect positively on the Skates supposed adopted new regulatory philosophy for CASA.

However compare that to the AAAA 29 February 2016 submission to the proposed NPRM for CASR Part 138:

Summary

AAAA believes that significant additional work is required by CASA before the Part 138
proposed regulations will be fit for purpose and will not significantly damage the industry.

AAAA believes there is clearly a need for an independent review of the proposed Part 138, with special focus on the application of the Forsyth Report recommendations regarding regulatory development and the DAS Directive 01/2015.

AAAA fully supports the need for a Part 138 and also strongly supports the need for Part 138 to work together with Part 137 to provide a clear pathway for aerial work operations.

However, while the classification of operations approach in Part 138 is represented as a significant simplification, when the detailed definitions are considered, it is actually a more prescriptive approach than under current regulations.

While this is not an insurmountable issue and to some degree is inevitable in attempting to match operational rules to significantly different operations, the problem is largely compounded by the prescriptive rather than outcome-based approach in proposed regulations. This appears to be strongly indicative of CASA’s ‘old’ approach to regulating industry and is now inappropriate.

There is a considerable ‘missed opportunity’ in the proposed draft in that it does not deliver a broad simplification of aerial work operations.

The proposed rules also suffer from a lack of detail regarding supporting administrative
approaches, including the relationship between the classification of operations, the details of the Part 138 proposed certificate and accompanying operational specification, and the requirements for an operations manual.

AAAA is particularly concerned with the proposed consequential amendments to Part 137 which have not been consulted with AAAA, and the introduction of performance requirements for rotorcraft that are prescriptive, will have massive cost impacts for industry and do not appear to have been adequately considered in the regulatory development process.

With the proposed Part 138, CASA appears to be repeating many of the errors identified in the Forsyth Report.

&..sadly the following sounds very familiar : 

Key Issues


Lack of application of DAS Directive 01/2015



AAAA is deeply concerned with the lack of application of DAS Directive 01/2015 -

especially for rotary performance requirements.


The lack of a clearly articulated, written safety case, based on real accident and incident data as a starting point, is problematical for the general approach of Part 138 and especially the new proposal to include helicopter performance accountability and requirements.


AAAA is strongly of the view that the current Part 138 should be reviewed independently to ensure the application of DAS Directive 01/2015 to the rule set.

If such a review cannot identify clear safety cases or substantiate the cost of such a significant change such as the introduction of helicopter performance requirements, then those sections should be abolished.

..Many earlier discussions of various CASA Part 138 and Part 133 working groups identified the possibility of true simplification of the regulation of many aerial work operations (such as simple sling loads and survey) by the reliance on the licencing and competency provisions of Part 61 and the provision of an Acceptable Means of Compliance from CASA that would describe one way - but not the only way - that the operations could be conducted.


This approach was attractive to industry because it removed the need for each company to create their own approach to simple tasks, and thereby removed the need to include such simple operations in the Operations Manual and to have it approved by CASA at considerable cost and time delay.


Such a standardised and simplified approach had the potential to address a lot of the issues now incorporated into Part 138, but appears to have been unilaterally abandoned by CASA...

& finally.. Leopard & spots - Prescriptive vs OBR:

A comparison between the current Part 137 drafting style and that of the proposed Part 138 regulations makes it clear that CASA is not seeking to apply the less prescriptive style of regulations identified in the Forsyth Report and accepted by the Government as policy.


Part 138 seeks to impose a range of very prescriptive requirements onto operations. Again, this sits at odds with the Forsyth recommended approach to three tiers of regulation and an outcome based approach to rule-making.


A fundamental challenge for CASA remains and has been highlighted by the published work of the CASA Board and the DAS - CASA needs to stop being the ‘big R’ regulator and start working with industry towards simpler, more cost-effective regulations firmly based on real safety management.


At its simplest, this means CASA should reconsider regulations that seek to regulate activities that are already covered by other CASA regulations - including licencing and competency provisions - many of which are aerial work activities.


In detail, it means that the current Part 138 proposed regulations are too prescriptive and should be redrafted to be more outcome focussed.

Hmm...on second thoughts I think I can see why Oliver Skidmore-twist is quite comfortable flapping his gums and big noting himself on RPA regulation, there is no-one quite so formidable as a Phil Hurst or Ken Cannane to argue the toss with facts, history and experience - choc frog to Aerial App Phil


MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Truth or Dare for Oliver??

Director of Aviation Safety at CASA, Mark Skidmore said the changes to the remotely piloted aircraft regulations maintained appropriate safety standards while cutting red tape.

“While safety must always come first, CASA’s aim is to lighten the regulatory requirements where we can,” Mr Skidmore said.

Well in today's Oz Binger has found a bloke who wishes to challenge Oliver on the above statement because he doesn't agree :

Drone pro Andrew Chapman challenges CASA over safety regulations

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• April 8, 2016 12:00AM
  

Commercial drone operator ­Andrew Chapman has a simple dare for anyone from the nation’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority following its moves to deregulate the operation of drones weighing less than two kilograms.

“We challenge anyone who says a 2kg drone is harmless to stand in a field while we fly one into them at speed, or sit in a ­helicopter hovering nearby while we fly a 2kg drone into its rotor blades,” Mr Chapman, a ­director of commercial drone operator Australian UAV, told The Aus­tralian.

“We think CASA is setting a dangerous precedent by this relaxation of the regulations because it will only allow people to flout the current rules and cause serious damage to people or aircraft. So we want to challenge CASA and see them put their own safety on the line to prove that this isn’t a bad idea.”

Mr Chapman’s dare comes a week after CASA amended rules around drone use to exempt commercial operators of remotely ­piloted aircraft (RPA) weighing less than 2kg from requiring an Unmanned Aircraft Operators Certificate, which can cost thousands of dollars to acquire.

The amendments, which come into effect in September, will still require operators to obey standard flight rules, which are not to fly within 5.5km of an airport, not above 400 feet, not within 30m of buildings, railways or vehicles, and to always have visual line of sight of the drone.

It will also be a requirement for operators to notify CASA of their identity and their proposed operations at least five days before flights begin. Penalties of up to $9000 may apply for a breach.

CASA said it amended the ­regulations to recognise the dif­ferent safety risks posed by different types and sizes of remotely piloted aircraft and that the rules were based on research showing small drones weighing between 100 grams and 2kg had low kinetic energy.

“When flown responsibly under standard operating conditions, these very low weight remotely piloted aircraft pose a relatively low risk of harming people or property on the ground,” said CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.

“The standard operating conditions means that remotely piloted aircraft operated in the very low weight category will not be able to be flown in large areas of Australia’s major cities due to the three nautical mile restriction around controlled aerodromes.”

But Mr Chapman said the changes would encourage a drastic increase of drone flights by ­unlicensed and uninsured operators with little knowledge of the rules that govern airspace and ­aviation safety.

“CASA’s own research paper from 2013 states that a 2kg RPA at 10m per second is predicted to cause skull fracture, even when impacting with its flat side. This research has a very conservative impact model and drones are typically flying much faster than 10m a second, so by their own research a skull fracture is very likely, if not a more serious injury,” Mr Chapman said.

“Trained and licensed operators know where they can and can’t fly, the dangers involved, and the risk to their licence if they bend or break the rules. So it is most likely these collisions will be with these sub-2kg aircraft flown by amateur operators.”

Mr Chapman said it was imperative that CASA reassess the amendments and lower the weight category for excluded remote piloted aircraft to 500 grams or maintain the requirement for a basic remote pilot licence.

He said this would ensure people flying drones weighing less than 2kg had basic training on aviation safety.

CASA said it would not be taking Mr Chapman up on his dare, saying “aviation safety is all about the identification and management of risks”.

“CASA has carefully studied the risks associated with remotely piloted aircraft operations and it is clear there are much lower risks associated with the operation of very small remotely piloted aircraft when they are operated in the standard RPA operating conditions,” Mr Gibson said.

“Thus it is appropriate to have a different level of safety regulations for sub-2kg category of remotely piloted aircraft. Larger remotely piloted aircraft pose higher risks so they attract different regulatory requirements.”

Given the recent history of CASA persecution of individuals who dare to debate the big "R" regulator on their nonsensical, virtually unusable rule set ,it could be said Mr Chapman is either extremely naïve or very brave..  
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Gobbledock would like to assist Mr Chapman with this test  

However, I would like to make Mr Skidmore drop his pants, and I will paint a bullseye on his lilly white ass. THEN we can fly Mr Chapmans 2 kg drone at the target and see what happens when we hit the 50 points circle!!!

"Safe mechanical buggery for all"

[ROTFLMAO. - "K".]   MTF....

[Peetwo]

Creampuff - "The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever."

CP first created that UP thread back in 2005 - see HERE:

From the Proof Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 05, pages 124/5, at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S8083.pdf

Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?

    
Further on in that thread on the 4 March 2005 CP said:

Have you had a quick scan of the draft MOS for Part 61 yet? See: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/draftmos061_v3.pdf

It’s 1171 pages long. I hope flying training organisations have shelves strong enough to take this amount of simplification. - Gold Creampuff

Little would he have known that it would take nearly a decade before Part 61 was to be finally released and that it continued to grow & grow & grow..  

In today's AOPA release of Project Eureka we get an idea of just how much Part 61 ended up growing and how much damage it is now inflicting on the GA industry :






MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

"Never a let a chance go by - Oh Lord!.."

It would seem that CASA have used the opportunity of Malcolm Turnbull's proroguing & subsequent special recall of parliament and all the political shenanigans/smokescreen involved to discretely table another 11 exemptions, 5 repeals of airworthiness directives, 3 AD amendments, plus a authorisation and a reg & MOS amendment:

Civil Aviation Act 1988—

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Authorisation and permission — helicopter winching operations—CASA 33/16 [F2016L00463].
Direction — flight time limitations for helicopter mustering operations—CASA 37/16 [F2016L00505].
Instructions — use of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)—CASA 27/16 [F2016L00475].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Engine Flameouts - Revised Operating Technique and Modifications—AD/B737/16 Amdt 4 [F2016L00389].
Exemption — CASR Subpart 99.B DAMP requirements for foreign aircraft AOC holders—CASA EX50/16 [F2016L00373].
Exemption — display of markings—CASA EX46/16 [F2016L00364].
Exemption — for seaplanes—CASA EX57/16 [F2016L00466].
Exemption — from certain prerequisites for an ATPL flight test—CASA EX222/15 [F2016L00015]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined airspace—CASA EX53/16 [F2016L00465].
Exemption — from the flight instructor rating flight test—CASA EX218/15 [F2015L02115]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from the PIRC—CASA EX215/15 [F2015L02096]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from the spinning FAE—CASA EX214/15 [F2015L02097]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — Grade 3, 2 or 1 training endorsement (aeroplane) flight test—CASA EX219/15 [F2015L02117]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — operating in vicinity of non-controlled aerodrome, VHF radio broadcasts and maintaining a listening watch—CASA EX60/16 [F2016L00491].
Exemption — requirement to obtain a pass in an instrument rating theory examination—CASA EX24/16 [F2016L00458].
Maintenance of Cockpit Voice Recording Systems—AD/REC/1 Amdt 4 [F2016L00369].
Manual of Standards Part 66 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 2) [F2016L00390].
Periodic Testing of ATC Transponders—AD/RAD/47 Amdt 4 [F2016L00368].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directives—
CASA ADCX 004/16 [F2016L00330].
CASA ADCX 005/16 [F2016L00362].
CASA ADCX 006/16 [F2016L00467].
CASA ADCX 007/16 [F2016L00391].
CASA ADCX 008/16 [F2016L00484].
Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003—Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation 2016 [F2016L00400].

    
Mate they can sure crank out the paperwork when they want to...
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

If 87% of industry is ‘exempt’ from the law; then (a) the law is nugatory and (b) pointless. Toss it out and start again, we’ve plenty of dollars and decades to waste. It’s a bloody farce; “Yes M’lud, we have robust rules, plenty of ‘em and yes, all bar a few are exempt from them; I rest my case”.

FCODL – Beg the Kiwi’s to visit and bring their wee books with ‘em; hell, we may even learn to play rugby again – bonus.

[Peetwo]

If 87% of industry is ‘exempt’ from the law; then (a) the law is nugatory and (b) pointless.  Toss it out and start again, we’ve plenty of dollars and decades to waste.  It’s a bloody farce; “Yes M’lud, we have robust rules, plenty of ‘em and yes, all bar a few are exempt from them; I rest my case”.

FCODL – Beg the Kiwi’s to visit and bring their wee books with ‘em; hell, we may even learn to play rugby again – bonus.

Dear Jeff Boyd there is no such thing as CAN'T -  

KC has been busy - AMROBA's latest newsletter a week early:
　
Volume 13 Issue 5 May — 2016  

　
1. Making the CASA Board Responsible for Aviation.

At the Tamworth Aviation Rally on May 6, it was highlighted that the CASA Board does not have full responsibility for aviation safety, progress and harmonisation with global standards so industry can provide many jobs. Until the Board has the power, Ministers will be held responsible for the state of this industry.  

2. Adoption of the USA GA Aviation Regulatory System.

The Rally left no doubt in the minds of DPM Barnaby Joyce, Minister Darren Chester and CASA Chairman Jeff Boyd that the GA community wants the whole GA regulatory system repealed and replaced by the US GA aviation regulatory system. Industry unanimously made it known to the Ministers that CASA cannot provide a sensible regulatory system that encourages growth in GA.

3. Harmonisation with the USA Aviation System for GA.

CASA will argue that you cannot adopt the FARs into the CASRs but that is not what is required. Industry wants the FARs to be promulgated, with minimum change agreed with industry, as Civil Aviation Act Sec. 9(1)© AVIATION SAFETY STANDARDS. Regulations can come later to require the use of those standards. There is no excuse, after 20 years, not to comply with the Act.

4. Simplified Process to Finish Regulatory Reform in 2 years

The Morris Report changed the Civil Aviation Act in 1995, the Act provided a simplified process to deliver a rule of law three tier systems under the Civil Aviation Act. No Manual of Standards are required, they should all be repealed once the FARs are adopted as Aviation Safety Standards.

Listen up CASA Chair Jeff Boyd for KC is about to articulate the clear & unanimous message from the 300+ GA stakeholders that were present at the Tamworth 6 May rally... :

2. Adoption of the USA Aviation Regulatory System.

The industry, around 300 at the Rally, left no doubt in the minds of DPM Barnaby Joyce, Minister Darren Chester and CASA Chairman Jeff Boyd that the GA community demands the current GA regulatory system be repealed and replaced by the US GA aviation regulatory system.

This is the same request GA has been making to CASA and its predecessors for 30-40 years. Industry unanimously made it known to these Ministers that CASA cannot and has not provided a sensible regulatory system that encourages safety and maintains growth in GA. The experiment has failed. The experiment has destroyed a prosperous safe industry.

CASA has fought against adopting the FARs for far too long because they want to rewrite the FAA safety standards (FARs) as criminal regulations. There is absolutely no need for CASA legal to be involved with adopting the FARs as Aviation Safety Standards under the Act. The Act’s third tier is not being used. Promulgating the US GA regulatory system under the third tier in the Act will maintain a "rule of law" system.

ICAO: Adapting or adopting regulations from other States

"To meet their requirements for regulations, Contracting States always have the option of adopting another Contracting State’s regulations. Even though the unilateral adoption of another Contracting State’s regulations may have some advantages, such as enhanced exchange of operating crew and aircraft, it should be done only after ensuring that the regulations have been updated to include all ICAO Standards."

"Note. — The term "regulations" is used in a generic sense to include but is not limited to instructions, rules, edits, directives, sets of laws, requirements, policies, and orders."

"Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its registration mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuver of aircraft there in force. [rules + Aviation Safety Standards]

Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respect uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention."

Further, the Article states that: "Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable." &

"A better alternative would be to adapt the regulations to meet the aviation environment while still maintaining harmony with other States."

ICAO: The safe and orderly development of international civil aviation requires that all civil operations be conducted under internationally accepted minimum operating standards, procedures and practices. That States must collaborate to the highest degree to achieve standardization and harmonisation in regulations, rules, standards, procedures and practices is thus a requirement of the Convention (Articles 12 and 37.)

Implementation of International Standards and Recommended Practices by an ICAO Contracting State must normally be effected under the "rule of law" promulgated in that State. Thus, as a first step towards discharging its obligations and responsibilities, a State will require an enactment of a legislative framework referred to as the primary aviation legislation.

  
And further to that JB, in more clear & precise (non-weasel worded) Queen's English..

3. Harmonisation with the USA Aviation System for GA.

CASA will argue that you cannot adopt the FARs into the CASRs but that is not what is required. Industry wants the FARs to be promulgated, with minimum change agreed with industry, as Civil Aviation Act Sec. 9(1)© AVIATION SAFETY STANDARDS. Regulations can come later to require the use of those standards. There is no excuse, after 20 years, not to comply with the Act.

The main difference is that the FARs are mainly outcome based standards that place the responsibility with approved individuals.

Therefore there is no impediments to adopting the FAR standards as Aviation Safety Standards. The applicable industry committee could spend a day or so with CASA personnel and oversight any changes to remove US links, etc. to ensure standardisation is retained. Nobody trusts CASA to copy without change.

For example: Adoption of FAR Part 61 as Aviation Safety Standard Part 61 would return independent flight instructors etc. The loss of the independent flight instructor started the decline in general aviation. The following links is just 2 days work to initially convert FAR Part 61 to Aviation Safety Standard Part 61 under the Act.

Initial Conversion of FAR Part 61 to Aviation Safety Standard Part 61

The same would apply by adopting FAR Part 43 as Aviation Safety Standard Part 43

Initial Conversion of FAR Part 43 to Aviation Safety Standard Part 43

If these can be initially done in less than 2 days for each, then finalising each Part cannot take more than a week or two before promulgating as an Aviation Safety Standards.

The whole general aviation FAR Parts could be promulgated within 2 to 3 months even though the government is in caretaker mode. Post the election, CASA could then propose amendments to the CAR/CASRs, just like the Canadian system, to require people to meet and continue to comply with the Aviation Safety Standards. Any offences identified would be spelt out in the regulations NOT the Aviation Safety Standards.

Publishing as Aviation Safety Standards does not require them to be used until the regulations are amended but it does allow an extended period for discussion. The best example of the use of Civil Aviation Safety Standards is the Canadian Regulations and Standards.

CANADIAN AVIATION STANDARDS EXAMPLES

 421 - Flight Crew Permits, Licences and Ratings

 422 - Air Traffic Controller Licences and Ratings

 424 - Medical Requirements

 425 - Flight Training

 426 - Flight Training Units

 428 - Conduct of Flight Tests

Adopting the FARs as Civil Aviation Safety Regulations should use the Canadian regulation approach to empower the use of the FARs adopted as Aviation Safety Standards.

Finally JB here is your timeline:

4. Simplified Process to Finish Regulatory Reform in 2 years

The Morris Report changed the Civil Aviation Act in 1995, the Act provided a simplified process to provide a ‘rule of law’ with a three tier system under the Civil Aviation Act. No Manual of Standards under the Regulations are required, they should all be repealed once the FARs are adopted as Aviation Safety Standards under the Act.

We are basically at a stage where we need to save aviation – saving more sectors than just GA. A more simplified system is also needed for the major airlines to reduce costs.

GA also covers the engineering aspects (design, manufacture and maintenance). Adoption of the FARs as Aviation Safety Standards would also save the engineering sectors.

This simplified regulatory reform process, compliant with the current Civil Aviation Act, should have been implemented from 1995. If it had been used since 1995, GA would not have to be saved and would be in better shape today. The 5 stage three tier process:

1. Create Aviation Safety Standards (ASS)

a. Take each FAR Part associated with GA and promulgate as an ASS.

i. Act 9(1)© provides for the third tier – ASRR recommendation.

ii. No change to the converted FAR unless supported by industry.

iii. Harmonise totally US GA aviation system.

iv. FARs meets ICAO Standards, even with minor difference.

v. Minimum differences with NZ.

vi. Outcome be cost effective as well as clear and concise.

Timeline: Complete by December 2016

2. Consultation of proposed Aviation Safety Standards(ASS)

a. As each FAR is converted into ASS, it is promulgated on the CASA website.

i. Placing each ASS Part on the web enables each Part access for public consultation.

ii. At the completion of three months on the web, the applicable industry committee meets with CASA and agree or reject each submission and to document reasons.

iii. ASS will only be amended if it removes confusion and integration into the Australian legal framework.

iv. Promulgate finalised Aviation Safety Standards.

Timeline: Complete by mid 2017

3. Amend regulations to adopt Aviation Safety Standards

a. Starting at the end of the 1st quarter 2017, progressively amend the regulations.

i. Base the regulation on the Canadian regulatory style.

ii. The regulation would be the "head of power" for each ASS Part.

iii. Use Canadian regulations, minimal regulations referring to ASS to comply with ASRR recommendation.

iv. The regulation would be minimal – refer ASRR Report.

Timeline: Complete all regulatory changes by completion of 2017



4. Enforcement of ‘criminal’ offences

a. Proper criminal offences should be identified before applying an offence.

i. USA CFR Title 49 includes real aviation criminal offences:

1. Title 49 offences should be in the Civil Aviation Act or criminal code.

2. The criminal code covers offences like fraud, etc.

ii. Breaches of standards is not a criminal offence unless done deliberately.

iii. Breaches of standards can be controlled by administrative actions when refusal to comply with a standard.

Timeline: Complete by end of 2018

5. Transition post regulations being made

a. The most important process is not to lose one aviation participant.

i. When a regulation is made, it needs a 5 year transition period.

ii. The commencement date should be at least 6 months post making.

b. Conversion training by well-trained CASA staff

i. CASA staff must be well educated in the US system

ii. Field office staff should have assigned operators and organisations so they can work with them to understand the adopted US system.

c. Responsibility is on pilots, LAMEs and others in GA that current responsibilities are placed on operators and organisations.

i. US GA has an FBO system that must also be adopted.

ii. There may be differences re aircraft spraying.

1. USA utilises FBO system.

2. CASA has environment responsibilities under the Act.

3. May need to retain the AOC system.

d. Transition should totally remove the restrictions in the current system.

i. Higher personnel responsibilities.

ii. Performance standards.

iii. Safer industry – less regulations.

iv. Less CASA documentation to support

v. Cross reference to FAA support documentation.

Timeline: Complete transition by end of 2023

This 5 stage process should be seamless to the operation of aviation. It will provide reductions in overall costs.

The other important aspect is the regulatory saving provisions that must save all entities until at least 10 years post the completion of the transition period to enable CASA to pick up any that were left behind.

So Boyd clear as mud?? Okay get on with it mate; because this will be the management action plan adopted by the next government and in line with the TAAAF Aviation Policy 2016 mark my words. Or if your not up for it mate get off the pot; because as far as a desperate & angry industry is concerned. 

There is no such thing as CAN'T.
MTF...P2

[Caravan Capers]

Deck Chairs on the SS Titanic [casa] are shifting again:

The latest shows as:

Adam Anastasi:

Manager, Advisory, Commercial and Legislative Drafting
Legal Affairs, International Strategy and Regulatory Policy Branch
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Whatever that is??