[Peetwo]

Amended CASR 101 D-DAY finally arrives -  

New UAV regulations, a lawyers banquet -

Reference - 'Closing the safety loop' thread:

CAsA & ATsB out of the loop on RPA/UAV safety -

Remember this??

Australia leads the way in drone regulation
21 September 2016 Lara Bullock

New drone regulations, to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority next week, will impact lawyers in a wide array of practice areas, including insurance, intellectual property and privacy.

The regulator for the use of aircraft in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), has developed new drone regulations, which will take effect on 29 September...

 

Of hungry lawyers.

There has been much media coverage in recent days in the lead up to today's official promulgation of amended UAV/RPA CASR Part 101...

1st example via the ABC:

New drone laws 'could lead to mid-air collisions', pilots and air traffic controllers warn
By political reporter Alexandra Beech
Updated yesterday at 1:49pmWed 28 Sep 2016, 1:49pm

Photo: The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

Pilots and air traffic controllers have called for new regulations over the use of drones to be scrapped, warning they could lead to catastrophic mid-air collisions.
The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms.

The changes will come into effect from tomorrow.

Under the new legislation, small commercial drone operators would not have to pay the current $1,400 in regulatory fees and landholders could operate drones of up to 25 kilograms on their properties without the need for approvals.

Aviation special counsel for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Joseph Wheeler, said the move towards deregulation would significantly increase the risk of a crash between a drone and a plane or a helicopter.

Photo: Aviation Lawyer Joseph Wheeler warns that drone deregulation would "raise collision risk". (ABC News: David McMeekin)

He called on the Senate to disallow the legislation at its next sitting and flagged a possible High Court appeal if the laws were not amended.

"If we had greater safeguards to enforce the regulations when things go wrong, that would go a long way towards ensuring with the injuries that inevitably would happen, the ability for people on the ground who are injured to access compensation," he said.

"At the moment, someone could be injured by a drone on the ground with no ability to identify the owner of that drone.

"They have absolutely no capacity to access any insurance or access any compensation for their losses."

'Potential of impact fire' with drone

Australian Federation of Air Pilots president David Booth said rogue drones flying near Australia's airports were a growing concern.

"Sydney Airport in the last four weeks have shut down their airspace or had issues with their airspace on two occasions," Captain Booth said.

"I've been airborne at 12,000 feet over the Hawkesbury River to have air traffic control tell me, flying a 737: 'Hazard alert, unidentified drone flight level 120 in your vicinity'.

"I'll tell you right now, it's not a nice feeling knowing that this drone is in your airspace."

Captain Booth said drones could cause a huge amount of damage if they hit a helicopter's tail rotor or flew into a plane's engine.

"Birds are soft, they might destroy the engine, but with a drone there is the potential of impact fire and they're reinforced with kevlar composite," he said.

"Two kilos at 250 kilometres an hour, or potentially 400 kilometres an hour — there's a lot of energy in that impact."

Drone wars: The definition dogfight

What exactly is a drone? It is a deceptively simple question with a highly contentious answer, writes Mark Corcoran.

But Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said there was a system in place to mitigate the risks.

"We looked at the risks from the various size of drones and we worked out that the safety risks of these very small drones can be managed through a set of standard operating conditions, a notification system and by marking the drones with an identification number," Mr Gibson said.

"It's certainly not a drone free-for-all."

Mr Gibson said penalties of up to $9,000 could be issued for breaches of the regulations.
CASA said there was also a requirement for operators to complete an online notification process so the authority had a record of operators' details.

Next example gets, an obviously Murky prepared, comment from the NFI miniscule Dazzling Dazza's office and a simply hilarious ( ) comment from CASA mouthpiece Pinocchio Gobson: 

• September 28 2016 - 6:38PM
  

'It may be catastrophic': Pilots issue stark warning over relaxed drone laws

• [/url]Michael Koziol
  
  

The Turnbull government has rejected a call from pilots to overturn a relaxation of regulations on unmanned drones, despite warnings they risk catastrophic collisions with commercial aircraft and helicopters.

The liberalised laws, set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, allow anyone to fly lightweight, remotely-controlled drones without a licence - even for commercial purposes - in a bid to "cut red tape".
   

Video duration01:24

[url=http://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:;]New drone rules to cut red tape

Drone flying will become a bit easier from 29th September as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority relaxes the rules, but could that bring new dangers?

Such operators would still need to abide by rules such as keeping the drone below an altitude of 120 metres, within their line of sight and a minimum of 5.5 kilometres away from major airports.

But the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, led by Virgin Australia captain David Booth, has warned the relaxed system is too permissive and will encourage unlicensed drone operators to "fly anywhere".

Sky battles: A drone flies over Bondi Icebergs. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

"These rogue drone operators, they're ambitious," Mr Booth said. "They get their drone and they say to themselves, clearly: 'How high will this thing go'?"

Even small drones under two kilograms, to which the new regulations apply, can reach heights of up to 4000 feet and interfere with commercial flight paths.

Mr Booth said ingestion of a small drone into a jet engine could lead to engine failure or even fire, while collision with a helicopter propeller "may well be catastrophic".

But a spokeswoman for Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government would not disallow the regulations and said existing penalties of up to $9000 were sufficient.

Flying a drone at a park in Dover Heights in Sydney. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

In no way do the new regulations alter, amend or water down existing operating rules," she said. "Any claim that these changes will encourage 'rogue' drone operations is unfounded."

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the safety risks posed by very small drones "could be managed" and stressed there were no changes to existing rules about where drones could fly.

"It's certainly not a drone free-for-all," he said. He conceded pilots' concerns were legitimate but noted the same dangers existed under the status quo.

"We've got to balance that with cutting the red tape, cutting the regulatory costs so people can easily get into the drone industry if that's what they choose to do," Mr Gibson said.

As well as a recreational activity, drones are used by Australian businesses in conducting difficult and remote activities, including on mines, bridges and farms.

The CASA changes would also assist farmers to fly drones up to 25 kilograms on their own properties without the need for a commercial licence.

But the increasing presence of drones in our skies means a heightened risk of interference with commercial aircraft operations.

Airservices Australia confirmed there had been three drone-related incidents in Sydney airspace in recent weeks. Last Monday, a large drone was spotted by an incoming pilot within 100 metres of the aircraft, prompting authorities to shut down runway 16R for an hour and divert incoming planes to another runway.

Mr Booth, a 737 captain, also told of having to divert his plane while over the Hawkesbury river. "It's not a nice feeling knowing that this drone is in your airspace," he said.
In Canberra on Wednesday, Mr Booth led a delegation including Civil Air Australia and Australian Certified UAV Operators who demanded the government disallow the regulations when Parliament resumes.

Joseph Wheeler, aviation special counsel at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said the groups would consider a High Court challenge if the laws were not scrapped.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Amended CASR 101 D-DAY finally arrives -  

New UAV regulations, a lawyers banquet -

Reference - 'Closing the safety loop' thread:

CAsA & ATsB out of the loop on RPA/UAV safety -

Remember this??

Australia leads the way in drone regulation
21 September 2016 Lara Bullock

New drone regulations, to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority next week, will impact lawyers in a wide array of practice areas, including insurance, intellectual property and privacy.

The regulator for the use of aircraft in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), has developed new drone regulations, which will take effect on 29 September...

 

Of hungry lawyers.

There has been much media coverage in recent days in the lead up to today's official promulgation of amended UAV/RPA CASR Part 101...

1st example via the ABC:

New drone laws 'could lead to mid-air collisions', pilots and air traffic controllers warn
By political reporter Alexandra Beech
Updated yesterday at 1:49pmWed 28 Sep 2016, 1:49pm

Photo: The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

Pilots and air traffic controllers have called for new regulations over the use of drones to be scrapped, warning they could lead to catastrophic mid-air collisions.
The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms.

The changes will come into effect from tomorrow.

Under the new legislation, small commercial drone operators would not have to pay the current $1,400 in regulatory fees and landholders could operate drones of up to 25 kilograms on their properties without the need for approvals.

Aviation special counsel for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Joseph Wheeler, said the move towards deregulation would significantly increase the risk of a crash between a drone and a plane or a helicopter.

Photo: Aviation Lawyer Joseph Wheeler warns that drone deregulation would "raise collision risk". (ABC News: David McMeekin)

He called on the Senate to disallow the legislation at its next sitting and flagged a possible High Court appeal if the laws were not amended.

"If we had greater safeguards to enforce the regulations when things go wrong, that would go a long way towards ensuring with the injuries that inevitably would happen, the ability for people on the ground who are injured to access compensation," he said.

"At the moment, someone could be injured by a drone on the ground with no ability to identify the owner of that drone.

"They have absolutely no capacity to access any insurance or access any compensation for their losses."

'Potential of impact fire' with drone

Australian Federation of Air Pilots president David Booth said rogue drones flying near Australia's airports were a growing concern.

"Sydney Airport in the last four weeks have shut down their airspace or had issues with their airspace on two occasions," Captain Booth said.

"I've been airborne at 12,000 feet over the Hawkesbury River to have air traffic control tell me, flying a 737: 'Hazard alert, unidentified drone flight level 120 in your vicinity'.

"I'll tell you right now, it's not a nice feeling knowing that this drone is in your airspace."

Captain Booth said drones could cause a huge amount of damage if they hit a helicopter's tail rotor or flew into a plane's engine.

"Birds are soft, they might destroy the engine, but with a drone there is the potential of impact fire and they're reinforced with kevlar composite," he said.

"Two kilos at 250 kilometres an hour, or potentially 400 kilometres an hour — there's a lot of energy in that impact."

Drone wars: The definition dogfight

What exactly is a drone? It is a deceptively simple question with a highly contentious answer, writes Mark Corcoran.

But Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said there was a system in place to mitigate the risks.

"We looked at the risks from the various size of drones and we worked out that the safety risks of these very small drones can be managed through a set of standard operating conditions, a notification system and by marking the drones with an identification number," Mr Gibson said.

"It's certainly not a drone free-for-all."

Mr Gibson said penalties of up to $9,000 could be issued for breaches of the regulations.
CASA said there was also a requirement for operators to complete an online notification process so the authority had a record of operators' details.

Next example gets, an obviously Murky prepared, comment from the NFI miniscule Dazzling Dazza's office and a simply hilarious ( ) comment from CASA mouthpiece Pinocchio Gobson: 

• September 28 2016 - 6:38PM
  

'It may be catastrophic': Pilots issue stark warning over relaxed drone laws

• [/url]Michael Koziol
  
  

The Turnbull government has rejected a call from pilots to overturn a relaxation of regulations on unmanned drones, despite warnings they risk catastrophic collisions with commercial aircraft and helicopters.

The liberalised laws, set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, allow anyone to fly lightweight, remotely-controlled drones without a licence - even for commercial purposes - in a bid to "cut red tape".
   

Video duration01:24

New drone rules to cut red tape

Drone flying will become a bit easier from 29th September as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority relaxes the rules, but could that bring new dangers?

Such operators would still need to abide by rules such as keeping the drone below an altitude of 120 metres, within their line of sight and a minimum of 5.5 kilometres away from major airports.

But the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, led by Virgin Australia captain David Booth, has warned the relaxed system is too permissive and will encourage unlicensed drone operators to "fly anywhere".

Sky battles: A drone flies over Bondi Icebergs. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

"These rogue drone operators, they're ambitious," Mr Booth said. "They get their drone and they say to themselves, clearly: 'How high will this thing go'?"

Even small drones under two kilograms, to which the new regulations apply, can reach heights of up to 4000 feet and interfere with commercial flight paths.

Mr Booth said ingestion of a small drone into a jet engine could lead to engine failure or even fire, while collision with a helicopter propeller "may well be catastrophic".

But a spokeswoman for Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government would not disallow the regulations and said existing penalties of up to $9000 were sufficient.

Flying a drone at a park in Dover Heights in Sydney. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

In no way do the new regulations alter, amend or water down existing operating rules," she said. "Any claim that these changes will encourage 'rogue' drone operations is unfounded."

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the safety risks posed by very small drones "could be managed" and stressed there were no changes to existing rules about where drones could fly.

"It's certainly not a drone free-for-all," he said. He conceded pilots' concerns were legitimate but noted the same dangers existed under the status quo.

"We've got to balance that with cutting the red tape, cutting the regulatory costs so people can easily get into the drone industry if that's what they choose to do," Mr Gibson said.

As well as a recreational activity, drones are used by Australian businesses in conducting difficult and remote activities, including on mines, bridges and farms.

The CASA changes would also assist farmers to fly drones up to 25 kilograms on their own properties without the need for a commercial licence.

But the increasing presence of drones in our skies means a heightened risk of interference with commercial aircraft operations.

Airservices Australia confirmed there had been three drone-related incidents in Sydney airspace in recent weeks. Last Monday, a large drone was spotted by an incoming pilot within 100 metres of the aircraft, prompting authorities to shut down runway 16R for an hour and divert incoming planes to another runway.

Mr Booth, a 737 captain, also told of having to divert his plane while over the Hawkesbury river. "It's not a nice feeling knowing that this drone is in your airspace," he said.
In Canberra on Wednesday, Mr Booth led a delegation including Civil Air Australia and Australian Certified UAV Operators who demanded the government disallow the regulations when Parliament resumes.

Joseph Wheeler, aviation special counsel at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said the groups would consider a High Court challenge if the laws were not scrapped.

Update: Joseph Wheeler via the Oz today

Relaxing drone regulations makes national skies more dangerous

• Joseph Wheeler
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 30, 2016
  

[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/relaxing-drone-regulations-makes-national-skies-more-dangerous/news-story/e373fb9085db62e0ebb1122d5d898555#comments]
Australia’s position in aviation safety has officially taken one step — some would say several steps — backwards in the past 24 hours through amendments to relax drone regulations.

These changes mean almost anyone can enter the world of commercial drone operation as long as they stay within certain airspace boundaries and heights, and avoid “controlled” aerodromes, but how will they appreciate the restrictions and comply with them when there is no training required?

Aviators and those who practically and silently assure the safety of Australian air passengers each and every day, whether they be domestic or international, are fed up.

It is one thing to cheekily fly a little above the 400-foot (legal maximum height) ceiling in one’s own back yard, where the danger remains isolated to your own property and family. It is quite another to power up your vehicle to push upwards of 4000ft above ground level a few kilometres along the approach path to the runways of Australia’s major international airports in cloud.

Make no mistake: these things are happening now, and they have been on an alarmingly more frequent basis since the Civil Aviation Safety Authority promulgated the drone amendment regulations in March that came into effect yesterday. Put simply, it seems as if certain operators, who never intended to follow rules, decided that the new CASA legislation was their ticket to a kind of freedom of the skies that is wholly incompatible with common sense and safety.

The problem with opening up commercial drone operations of even “very small” (under 2kg) drones is that without appropriate forethought and an understanding of why drone operators misuse drones, one cannot instil the requisite level of social responsibility into them.

Rigorous standards of risk mitigation are ingrained into operators through aviation training. In short, certified remote pilots come to respect their abilities and their own and their vehicles’ shortcomings and practical limitations, and are equipped to prevent accidents.

The untrained child who can now make pocket money on the internet doing video pranks and dares with dangerous equipment that has the capacity to bring down your average Melbourne to Sydney flight does not. It takes good law and education to foster that.

Decision-makers in the Senate have been briefed on all sides of this policy question and there remain four sitting days for a stand to be made by way of disallowance to repeal this problematic legislation before too many take advantage of its leniency and the confusing and illogical patchwork of non-legally binding guidance material that has sprung up in the past few weeks to try to explain the inadequate law.

Can you read a VTC chart, identify an RA3 area using ERSA or identify exclusion zones for the HLS instrument approach for YWST? The CASA guidance implies you should, but there is no legal requirement that you be trained to know those terms.

Therefore, CASA has no way of figuring out if your failure to gain such aeronautical knowledge presents a danger until your shiny new Christmas present drone strays into dangerous airspace trafficked by professional pilots and causes a safety issue.

Now, in the week this law comes into force, even more organisations have come forward to stand in support of Australia’s foundational commercial drone operators association, Australian Certified UAV Operators, in rolling back the laws.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Australia’s largest professional pilot association and union, together with Civil Air Australia, Australia’s professional association and union of air traffic controllers, have stood side-by-side in denouncing the new laws and in supporting their repeal because of the way they jeopardise safety.

Members of both organisations are aware of frightening unexpected encounters with drones and civil passenger jets and helicopters in Australia.

When they talk, we should listen. Enough is enough.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of International Aerospace Law & Policy Group, aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and special counsel (aviation) to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. He acts for Australian Certified UAV Operators in its pursuit of disallowance.

[Peetwo]

Why U NO speak English?

The latest KC & AMROBA newsletter (like the above meme) offering revolves around the common theme of why it is we have voluminous, convoluted, poorly worded & impossible to understand regulations and the detrimental 'knock on' effects this has to industry:

..Correctly worded regulations and standards are clear and concise, i.e. understandable. Sadly, what has been produced over the last decade has raised more confusion than clarity and one of the main reasons is the failure to adopt and use international terminology and definitions. Instead, we have poorly worded regulations and standards very unique to Australia...

---

However, CASA converted this international standard (specialised services) into the need for "specialist". Qualified persons are not "specialists". e.g. CAR30 "qualified persons".

Regulations, Manual of Standards and advisory material impose this "uniquely" CASA approach on our industry because international terminology was purposely ignored...

...CASA is now involved with industrial matters. What was the safety case used to apply a unique and potentially costly "job classifications" on industry? How come CASA have become the experts in determining what maintenance tasks, which qualified persons have been performing safely for decades, are now to be treated as "specialist" tasks? CASA admits it does not have the expertise, this provision confirms it.

This use of improper terminology has already seen industrial issues raised in Parliament about the need for "specialists" that did not exist before the creation of CASRs and demonstrates the mindset of those instructing regulation drafters.

Australian industries have been multi-skilling to improve efficiency, productivity and innovation by nurturing an employee’s talent so the employee feels they are being used to improve the performance of the workplace. The adoption of "specialist" is a retrograde step that is damaging the industrial benefits that have been attained over the last couple of decades by governments and unions working to upskill the workforce...

---

Another misunderstanding: Instead of adopting the ICAO standards that states a maintenance release is a "certification" in a document. The CASA applied standard requires a certificate to be issued instead of a certification to be made in records.

The only conclusion that industry can come to is that those in CASA do not, or did not, understand the ramifications of poorly worded regulations and standards especially when only half the foreign system is adopted.

 
Reference part 4 latest AMROBA newsletter: Volume 13 Issue 10 (October 1016)

Come on Wingnut you know KC speaks in plain English... Get rid of the witch doctor, employ Mike Smith ASAP to reform CASA; adopt either of the NZed or US plain English (easy to read & understand) regulations, then stand back and watch the accolades roll in for yourself, Murky and the minister, as the industry flourishes and contributes greatly to 'jobs, growth' and the Aussie GDP -

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Why U NO speak English?

The latest KC & AMROBA newsletter (like the above meme) offering revolves around the common theme of why it is we have voluminous, convoluted, poorly worded & impossible to understand regulations and the detrimental 'knock on' effects this has to industry:

..Correctly worded regulations and standards are clear and concise, i.e. understandable. Sadly, what has been produced over the last decade has raised more confusion than clarity and one of the main reasons is the failure to adopt and use international terminology and definitions. Instead, we have poorly worded regulations and standards very unique to Australia...

---

However, CASA converted this international standard (specialised services) into the need for "specialist". Qualified persons are not "specialists". e.g. CAR30 "qualified persons".

Regulations, Manual of Standards and advisory material impose this "uniquely" CASA approach on our industry because international terminology was purposely ignored...

...CASA is now involved with industrial matters. What was the safety case used to apply a unique and potentially costly "job classifications" on industry? How come CASA have become the experts in determining what maintenance tasks, which qualified persons have been performing safely for decades, are now to be treated as "specialist" tasks? CASA admits it does not have the expertise, this provision confirms it.

This use of improper terminology has already seen industrial issues raised in Parliament about the need for "specialists" that did not exist before the creation of CASRs and demonstrates the mindset of those instructing regulation drafters.

Australian industries have been multi-skilling to improve efficiency, productivity and innovation by nurturing an employee’s talent so the employee feels they are being used to improve the performance of the workplace. The adoption of "specialist" is a retrograde step that is damaging the industrial benefits that have been attained over the last couple of decades by governments and unions working to upskill the workforce...

---

Another misunderstanding: Instead of adopting the ICAO standards that states a maintenance release is a "certification" in a document. The CASA applied standard requires a certificate to be issued instead of a certification to be made in records.

The only conclusion that industry can come to is that those in CASA do not, or did not, understand the ramifications of poorly worded regulations and standards especially when only half the foreign system is adopted.

 
Reference part 4 latest AMROBA newsletter: Volume 13 Issue 10 (October 1016)

Come on Wingnut you know KC speaks in plain English... Get rid of the witch doctor, employ Mike Smith ASAP to reform CASA; adopt either of the NZed or US plain English (easy to read & understand) regulations, then stand back and watch the accolades roll in for yourself, Murky and the minister, as the industry flourishes and contributes greatly to 'jobs, growth' and the Aussie GDP -

Dr Voodoo & Wodger on the fine art of spinning BS on RRP -


The following puff piece by FF almost perfectly highlights how completely out of touch with reality Dr Hoo-doo-yoo-doo-as-I-say and Wodger-week-as-piss is when it comes to first  World aviation regulation

Caution: BYOB will be required - }

How does anyone in their right mind expect us to believe in a witchdoctor who brought us over 4000 notified differences to ICAO SARPs and 100's of thousands of extra prescriptive pages of totally unreadable regulations for the better part of 3 decades? - UDB!


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

On bollocks headlines & RED TAPE -

Kharon headlined the SBG two weeks ago with - Government reduces aircraft noise. - and wrote...

"..Of all the government manufactured headlines this week the glorious truth is accurately, for once, reflected in the headline..."

...he then went onto say...

"..This outlandish protest is based on the scurrilous notion that complaints are down only because the aviation sector is not flying - moribund: stifled by government red tape, costs, draconian rules and mass embuggerance. This, as the minister will happily tell you, is just a few tendentious bloggers making trouble. Rejoice Australia, the future of aviation is in good hands.

Then, to add the gravy, in one of the most shamelessly manipulated [/b]headlines of all times, the minister has announced that the ‘burden’ on aviation has been dramatically reduced – No doubt heads will roll for placing the minister in such an embarrassing position. For there is not a scrap of real reduction in the whole package..."  

And HERE & HERE Kharon went on to highlight the absurdity of the situation where industry is being slowly suffocated by so much red tape, all for little or no safety improvement:

..Flight risk mitigation has not changed much; improvements brought about by accident and incident are, by and large, embraced by industry.  But for every single improvement to in flight risk mitigation the ‘regulations’ have grown, on my current values, at a rate of 16 to one. That’s 16 ‘new’ rules from every accident which brought operational change. A classic example is the Civil Aviation Regulations; go back 30 years and find the ‘Regs’; then look at the ‘regulations as they stand today. It’s nuts, out of control and being promoted as a safety improvement.  I may yet get an I-pad with a direct link to a lawyer; can I accept this landing clearance – the jet ahead looks a bit too close to me? Will a ‘go-around’ cost me my job?  Flying ain’t that dangerous; it’s back on the ground where the real risks are found...

Continuing along the same 'Nanny State' theme but on a more generalised level, I noted the following article from the Oz:

Rising tide of red tape ‘a threat’, says IPA
Joe Kelly
The Australian
12:00AM January 2, 2017

Malcolm Turnbull’s government passed 4094 pages of legislation through the parliament last year, and the Institute of Public Affairs wants action to curb more costly red tape.
The conservative think tank’s research shows that the 4094 pages of legislation passed in 2016 — in 102 acts of parliament — was significantly down on the parliament’s effort in the previous year when 6453 pages were passed in 177 acts.

However, IPA policy director Simon Breheny told The Australian that less legislation was passed in election years and he noted the unusual length of the eight-week 2016 federal campaign.

“Each year the Australian parliament adds more red tape to the already enormous amount of regulation that strangles business and chips away at individual autonomy by passing thousands of new pages of legislation,” he said.

“Red tape costs the Australian economy $176 billion each year. $176bn is equivalent to 11 per cent of our GDP.

“That’s a larger proportion of the economy than the entire Australian mining industry, which generates 7 per cent of GDP.”

The IPA’s figures bear out a steady increase in the volume of legislation passed by parliaments since 1901 — a year in which only 21 acts were passed, coming to a total of 358 pages.

By 1930, this had risen to 78 acts of parliament although they were contained in just 233 pages. Even in 1950, the parliament passed only 281 pages of legislation in 80 acts.
The real increase occurred throughout the 1970s, with 1860 pages being passed in 1980 and 2747 pages being passed in 1985.

In 1990, 3029 pages of legislation were passed while, in 1991, this had risen to 6905 in 216 acts of parliament. Figures staying at about this level over the past 25 years.

The two years in which parliament passed the most pages of legislation were during the Gillard government in 2012, when 8150 pages were passed, and during the Howard government in 1999 when 8866 pages of legislation were passed.

Tony Abbott came to power in 2013 with a promise to cut red tape by $1bn a year and instituted a twice-yearly parliamentary red tape repeal day which the Turnbull government scrapped last year.

In 2013, there was a drop in the volume of legislation passed with 5069 pages being passed and a further drop in 2014 when 4607 pages were passed. This was followed by an increase in 2015 to 6453 pages.

Mr Breheny yesterday said the agenda of US president-elect Donald Trump to take an axe to red tape should be applauded and sent a good example to Australia.

  
There was also a comment from Rohan, which was almost an article within the article, that IMO could be a contender for the 1st 2017 QOTM... :

Rohan

Parliament could start with the tax act. Let's just simplify that. Isn't that greater than 13,000 pages? Who on earth could comply with or even enforce such an unwieldy document.

The public service love more regulation, Labor and the Greens love to centralise and issue commands, all of this requires more and more public servants.

We've become a culture of "tick a box" on a form and it's okay, irrespective as to whether the work is actually done.

When I was a child in the '60s we didn't have all of this regulation and things actually got done!

For all the political correctness and the virtue signalling people seem to be less tolerant of others and have very poor manners when dealing with one another. For all the advances with all the regulation and box ticking everyone seems to have less respect for each other and there is more violence. 

People worked hard at building Australia and that wealth didn't come from government but from the people themselves. Governments can't create wealth, they can only create the environment where wealth and job creation flourishes. 

The goat's cheese latte sipping circle may have good intentions but they don't understand human nature.

By overwhelming people with meaningless make work, suppressing what we can say think and do, they've attempted to turn us into dependent infants. We see our youngsters unable to read, write or add up, but they can tell us bewildered oldies that there are more than two genders. 

The "elites" with their undermining of education system have dumbed everything down enough that university graduates have no understanding of history and that communism/ socialism has been a massive failure for ordinary citizens where ever it's been practised. The more the government spends and over regulates the less innovation and wealth creation occurs. Many people don't understand that for Governments to spend money, it either taxes its citizens and / or borrows against the future. This lack of understanding that wealth can only be created by the private sector is a failing of our education system.

SA is a prime example of ideology trumping commonsense (with it's energy policy, a hospital that has cost billions and is yet to open). Without the support of the rest of Australia, SA would be as bankrupt as Greece. 

SA is followed closely by Victoria with the pursuit of an energy policy that will lead to less wealth and employment - again ideology overriding commonsense, the denigration and undermining of their volunteer fire service by a heavily regulated professional service, where the unions can override management is just going to end in tears. 

Now QLD are talking about going down the same path despite the evidence of SA's problems. QLD has been "growing" its economy by employing more public servants. None of this creates wealth, to justify their positions these people will just generate more red tape and meaningless regulations and engage in "make work".

While I'm not suggesting open slather, the less regulation and oppression the more individuals step up and have a go.  This is how employment and wealth are created.

The difficulty with our current crop of politicians is that they haven't developed a plan and a narrative to go with the plan of how they intend to turn things around, part of this I believe is that most of the current crop don't understand the long term damage to our society and economy of what's happening now. Paul Keating and John Howard were masters at imparting their ideas to us, irrespective as to whether you agreed with them or not, we understood what they intended.

The current PM is I believe way out of his depth, talking about innovation and agility is meaningless unless the government actually purchases from locals. This would be more useful than the government grants that handed out on some "tick a box" government formula. The alternative (BS & Labor) I believe have policies that are an outright danger to the country's future. The PM's failure to take the fight against Labor and the CFMEU shows a lack of "ticker" and a real lack of concern for the private sector and taxpayers.

Governments have never been good at picking "winners", rather than renewable energy maybe we should be setting a goal for "clean energy" then allow the market to develop based upon private enterprise and innovation.  

As Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine scariest words in the English language", "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

 
Yes IMO a choccy frog to Rohan...

OK thread drift over, back to the 2016-17 Summer series of - "Yes miniscule, you have NFI"

MTF...P2

Ps. This bit..

 "..twice-yearly parliamentary red tape repeal day which the Turnbull government scrapped last year..."

..I didn't know that - Err why Malcolm?

[Sandy Reith]

I suppose the answer to Peetwo's question "why scrap the twice yearly red tape repeal day"? brings us to consider two facts:-

1.  No one noticed that it had died.
2.  There was no political willpower to to make it happen in the first place, so it was never going to be an honest attempt.

ScoMo is off to London on the taxpayer, his excuse is to see how the Poms do affordable housing, not joking. Don't mind that land use is actually in the jurisdiction of State governments, or that the Poms invented the enterprise strangling system of land use zoning. But to SMs trip plans, a bit smarter way to lock in junket money before the fact, probably after watching Sussan's failed attempt at justifying her tripping to the Gold Coast after the fact. They all do it, well almost all. This endemic behavior is of course well known to the bureaucracy who simply follow suit, honesty takes a back seat.

The Commonwealth monopoly corporates, CASA just one example, hell bent on accumulating more power, higher salaries, more regs, more enquiries, more consultants (former colleagues or employees). More lobbyists needed because increasingly nothing happens unless ticked off by government, read the bureaucracy. Ministers hide behind the corporates mistakenly believing they cost government less money. The whole idea is to deflect criticism by denying responsibility. It truly is a poor state of affairs and there are no real improvements in the offing, sorry to say.

[Peetwo]

For & on behalf of Sandy -

Sandy provides yet another example of why the RRP and the possible resurrection of the GA industry still remains very much mythical...

An open email.

Dear Jeff and CASA Board Members, 

I've just been reading this latest from Aviation House, thanks to Stan for the alert.

As a former Chief Flying Instructor with licence testing approvals, I must protest at this grossly verbose advisory circular. As you are well aware General Aviation is going down the drain at a rate of knots. Furthermore instructors are already rehearsed and well versed to impart  everything that is covered in this circular in a sensible and understandable manner consistent with each student's needs. Nearly all is common sense and adding to the already thousands of pages of regulations and advisories is counter productive in every way including safety.

All this Smart Alec nonsense (Maurino 2005!) is exactly what is driving people away from GA. 

Here is a copy below of a very small portion of this fanciful and time wasting AC for which, with respect, you and the Board are responsible, unless you do not have the power to stop such an obvious waste of time and money, not to mention snowing the industry, in which case you and the Board need to approach the Minister with view to either doing away with the Board altogether or getting the power that you need for responsible management.

I'm sorry to be blunt but getting around the industry it is with dismay to see the lack of experienced personnel, hundreds of flying schools and maintenance organisations gone out of business, the aircraft not flying, and the collapse of aircraft values and pilot numbers. 

The industry is dying by a thousand cuts due to the worst, most onerous, voluminous and contradictory strict liability criminal sanctioned regulatory regime in the world compared to all other developed GA nations. 

In spite of all the reviews, confabs, talkfests, Tiger Teams and your Board and eight hundred plus employees, the CASA wasting of an entire industry continues.

Should I call this "my formative assessment?" See below.

Regards,

Sandy Reith 

Some editing in bold and my comments added in italics

"TEACHING AND ASSESSING NON-TECHNICAL SKILLS FOR SINGLE-PILOT OPERATIONS
1.2 Definitions
Terms that have specific meaning within this AC are defined in the table below.
Term
Airmanship
Airspace cleared procedure
Behavioural markers Error
Flight environment
Formative assessment
Human factors
Judgement Leadership
Manage(ment) Non-technical skills  Ok which is it? what is ment by the brackets?

Definition
The consistent use of good judgement and well developed skills to accomplish flight objectives (International Civil Aviation Organization definition).
A procedure that is performed before all turns and manoeuvres. A commonly used technique for this procedure is:
when turning left, 'clear right, clear ahead, clear left-turning left'; or
when turning right, 'clear left, clear ahead, clear right-turning right'
If an object is closing and remains on a line of constant bearing (stays at the same point on the windscreen), a collision will occur if avoiding action is not taken.
A short, precise statement describing a single non-technical skill or competency. They are observable behaviours that contribute to competent or not yet competent performance within a work environment. Pass or fail when working?
‘Actions or inactions by the pilot that lead to deviations from organisational or pilot intentions or expectations’ (Maurino, 2005). When undetected, unmanaged or mismanaged, errors may lead to undesired aircraft states.  Oh no, you don't mean crash do you?
The environment internal and external to the aircraft that may affect the outcome of the flight.

The aircraft’s internal environment can include, but is not limited to, aircraft attitude and performance, instruments, observations, flight controls, equipment, warning and alerting devices, cockpit physical and interpersonal climate and conditions, does this mean use more deodorant?  crew members, aircraft position, procedures, publications, checklists and automation. Gosh you don't say! 
The external environment may include, but is not limited to, airspace, meteorological conditions, terrain, really?   obstacles, the regulatory framework, other stakeholders and operating culture. 
 We'll put 'regulatory framework' in the obstacles department 

Formative evaluation monitors learning progress during instruction and provides continuous feedback to both trainee and instructor concerning learning success and failures. Ah, formative evaluation instead of teaching...that's the secret that we dummies didn't know, gee whiz these new pilots are so lucky!

The minimisation of human error and its consequences by optimising the relationship within systems between people, activities and equipment.   Wow, another amazing revelation!

An opinion formed after analysis of relevant information. This is given by the AC as the definition of judgement, although one might be forgiven for forming an opinion about irrelevant information.

The ability of the pilot in command to induce the trainee member(s) to use their skills and knowledge to pursue a defined objective.  For example fly the aeroplane?

To plan, direct and control an operation or situation.

Specific human factors competencies, such as lookout, situation awareness, decision making, workload management and communications."

 
Here is a link for the AC to which Sandy refers:

AC 61-08
Description: 

Teaching and assessing non-technical skills for single-pilot operations

Download ac_61_08.pdf (332.26 KB)

Date modified:
11/01/2017

[Sandy Reith]

I was reminded of listening to an ABC radio report, say about 25 year ago, about a new and revolutionary way of teaching developed by CASA..........................competency based training!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!!!!!!!!! Revelation, nirvana beckons with this revolutionary way of training. All those wasted years that we incompetents had been training our students..........
Yes CASA our savior, or false prophet? Do we need a semi religious almighty to lead us to the promised land? I think not, the hierarchical model of community organisation is confounded by reality. Free people are equal and need few laws, simple rules like road rules can apply in flying to the great benefit of all.

[Sandy Reith]

Also, why are we so backward? Parliament elected to control civil aviation with an independent corporate body whose prime purpose is safety. This ethereal quality is touted as above all human considerations such as measured risk.

Stay at home do not drive your car, it's safer. Do not swim in the sea, its safer. Do not go boating, stay st home and watch government approved content, its safer. Do not water board, fly in balloons, do not walk across roads, do not ride a push bike, do not get up off the coach to walk to bed, you might trip and break a leg. Do not drive a tractor, ride a quad bike, or walk down the street for fear of a runaway vehicle and you be skidaddled. No sailing, hill climbing, running or sport activities. All much more dangerous than sitting or lying at home in front of TV.

[Gobbledock]

Sandy Sandy Sandy! Indeed, a comprehensive and robust list of "don't do's" that Big Brother for some reason is so concerned about when it comes to our welfare? Strange isn't it? However the Guv'mint left a couple of things off that list mate;

- Do not rort taxpayer funds
- Do not engage in corruption or       malfeasance
- Do not root your secretary during overseas 'study' trips,
- Do not get all of your family plum jobs on six figure salaries within Guv'mint
- Do not go and 'consult' for a corporate company that you 'favoured' whilst you were a Minsiter and now they are 'legally' paying you off because you have retired
- Do not lie
- Do not spin
- Do not obsfucate
- Do not backstab
- Do not conspire
- Do not break promises
- Do not admit liability or accountability
- Do not write laws that favour yourself above the rest of society
- Do not give yourself the highest superannuation, salaries, and perks in the land
- Do not pretend that you are honourable when really you are just a lowlife piece of shit
- Do not pork barrel
- Do not lobby
- Do not bully and be vengeful
- Do not accept generous gifts including money, jewellery, antiques, tickets, Realestate and handjobs
- Do not accept free vehicles and a driver
- Do not harbour sociopathic tendencies
- Do not accept overseas postings on $300,000 per year when in fact it is just a paid holiday reward for a few years for all of your years of raping the taxpayer trough and achieving SFA
- Do not do whatever you want whenever you want knowing that you will not be touched by the law........FOR STARTERS

Hugs and kisses
Gobbledock

[Peetwo]

Words of wisdom on broken (nearly 30 year) RRP - *via KC & AMROBA

Perhaps the following should be forwarded to not only miniscule Chester and M&M's department but also to every member of Parliament, as a briefing and historical reference on the imposts imposed on industry by a bloated and cumbersome aviation safety bureaucracy for nearly 3 decades:

2. Lessons Learnt - We Need “Regulatory Reform” not continuing “Regulatory Development” (Reduce Regulatory Impost/Red Tape)

In business, if you do not change with the times, then you will not be successful. In aviation, an argument can be made that the organisations that most need to adapt to changing times are government department/agencies. Since they are complex and highly structured, it is difficult for them to respond to change in a timely manner.

The negative impact of failure to respond is not immediately felt within government departments/agencies and the urgency to act quickly is often absent or non-existent. Public sectors are more sheltered and isolated from private industry changing conditions so creates a need for them to be more innovative ways and means to anticipate and respond to change more quickly and more effectively.

Our non-airline aviation sectors identified their preference to internationally align aviation engineering (design, manufacturing and maintenance) with the FAR system as far back as the mid 1990s. The inability of a public service sector to demonstrate any innovation or response to the needs of these sectors clearly shows that, in aviation, unique conservativeness and lack of response continues to prevent industry to expand and create jobs.

The negative impact of failure to respond is often not felt immediately within these organisations. Therefore the urgency to act quickly is often absent or recognised too late. Since public sector groups are more sheltered and isolated from the changing environment, there is a pressing need for them to seek more innovative ways and means to anticipate and respond to change more quickly and more effectively. They need to enhance their capability to learn, unlearn and relearn so as to become more effective learning organisations.

There is also a misconception that the public sectors, because they are the people to action changes and time frames that are expected by the citizens that are affected by the lack of changes. In many cases businesses and jobs are affected by the inaction of the public services. Today’s participation rate in the non-airline sectors is less than what existed when concepts were changed with the introduction of CAA and changes to GA, including aerialwork.

1988 Changes: No lessons have been learnt when government transitioned from Air Navigation Regulations/Air Navigation Orders to Civil Aviation Regulations/Civil Aviation Orders in 1990. This major change applied AOC/Organisational approval to individual approvals in aerialwork that started the decline of general aviation and introduced a pilot shortage in Australia. The loss of instructors reduced pilot training and subsequent AMO closures increased. Loss of jobs all round. Failed policy??????

Individual Flight Instructors exist in the FAA system and train around 70% of all pilots in the USA. The introduction of the CAA also saw the downturn of many small AOCs as large AOC conditions were applied. The “Supplemental” airline system that was operating was also shelved. Less ports are serviced today. Failed policy????

CASA is great at creating regulatory monopolies without competition. The Individual Flight Instructor, without additional overheads, would compete with flight training organisations. As expected, there were many more training organisations in existence when the independent flight instructor existed. They simply attracted more pilots, more flying and more LAMEs/AMOs.

The same applies in maintenance. There is no need for an approved AMO in certain circumstances, such as, but not limited to:

(1) Flight training organisations employing a LAME,
(2) Aerialwork operator (AOC because of environmental reasons) employing LAME,
(3) Private owner employing a LAME.

An AMO is required when it is a business providing maintenance services commercially.

Finally a 'nail in head' statement from part III of the latest AMROBA newsletter:

Fundamentally, CASA still has not changed from a regulatory development organisation bent on creating more regulations and red tape. Both LNP & ALP have/had policies that should result in "regulatory reform".


"Regulatory Reform" should have an outcome that reduces regulatory requirements and red tape. We continue to hope CASA implements reform.

As usual, excellent stuff KC and the obligatory choccy frog voucher is in the mail...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

In a parallel hemisphere: The search for regulatory consistency.

How often do you hear the gripe, that our uniquely Australian civil aviation regs, are so biblically monumental and convoluted that they leave themselves open to (mis-)interpretation by individual CASA FOIs & AWIs...

Well apparently this is also a common industry complaint in good old USA. The following JDA Journal article reports on the system now in place to tackle the problem of FAR consistency... :

FAR Consistency now has a process; will the Field follow the RCCB pronouncements?


Posted By: Joe Del Balzo March 30, 2017

FAA Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB)

Will the 7,000 who apply the FARs follow its directives?

Do the math—there are about 3,500 pages in 14 CFR devoted to FAA regulations; there are thousands more documents which help interpret those rules (Orders, Handbooks, ACs, FSIMS, etc.); then recognize that there are about 7,000 people who are regularly called on to apply those safety rules to specific certificate holders.




The FARs govern the compliance of:

• Large Part 121 carriers that fly between a fairly fixed set of cities in a range of weather (Artic cold, tropical moisture, mountainous terrain, etc.) with Boeing’s/Airbus’ most technically advanced aircraft as well as far less sophisticated airplanes).
  
• Smaller Part 125 airlines which rarely operate at the same airports.
  
• Part 135 charter aircraft that launch on demand with a fleet subject to change.
  
• Commuter air carriers which typically land/take off more on a daily basis than others.
  
• Manufacturers for airframes (commercial & GA), powerplants, avionics, etc.
  
• Repair stations.
  
• Cockpit and Cabin professionals.
  

The potential array of interpretations is by definition a massive scatter diagram. Some of the variation is attributed to statistical probabilities, but some differences derive from local practices, individual perspectives or a host of other external factors.

After years of complaints from every segment of aviation, GAO studies and other critiques, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, in which the FAA was directed to study the problem and it created Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). That group recommended that a Regulatory Consistency Communication Board should be established.

This Board is populated by representatives from Flight Standards, Aircraft Certification, and the Office of the Chief Counsel. Its mission is “to provide clarification to internal and external stakeholders on questions related to the application of regulations.” The RCCB is expected to assess, determine the root causes of, and provide recommendations to reduce inconsistent interpretation and application of regulations.

Peggy Gilligan, as one of her last acts and part of her legacy, signed Order 8000.70. To define the RCCB’s purpose, appropriate issues, participants, “working collaboratively,” issue submission, process timeframes, distribution of the RCCB determination and performance monitoring consumed 13 pages of single-spaced verbiage.

This is a diagram which defines how the RCCB will track the degree to which their guidance is followed in the field:


Industry responses included:

NATA

“NATA applauds the FAA’s release of the order putting forward the board’s purpose, responsibilities, and how stakeholders are to utilize it,” said John McGraw, director of regulatory affairs for NATA, which was a co-chair of the CRI-ARC. “[Lack of] consistent application of regulations and policy is something that has plagued the industry for a long time. We appreciate the agency’s work with stakeholders to operationalize the RCCB that will provide high level guidance to inspectors and industry on issues where there is difference of opinion in interpretation.”

NBAA

“We commend the FAA on the formation of the RCCB, which will be a welcome mechanism to help standardize agency responses and interpretations to regulations, particularly those coming from Flight Standards District Offices,” said David Norton, an aviation attorney and member of NBAA’s Domestic Operations Committee. Norton, who also served as the industry co-chair of the RVSM Process Enhancement Team, said that NBAA members will benefit from the RCCB, which operates under clear and comprehensive guidelines and under specific timelines.

Dr. Gerald Dillingham, GAO

At a March 23 hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Dr. Gerald Dillingham, director of physical infrastructure issues for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), reported on the FAA’s progress towards certification process reform and improvements to consistency in rulemaking interpretation…

While he was generally positive about the agency’s performance, Dillingham did note – based on industry feedback gathered by GAO – that he was reporting the completion of tasks and recommendations. It remains to be seen how those headquarters-level actions will translate into continuing improvement for certificate holders.

ARSA

“ARSA has played a key role in the FAA’s certification and consistency improvement efforts, including participation on the Consistency in Rulemaking Interpretation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (CRI ARC). The association will continue to work with the agency, and press it when necessary, to improve its mechanisms for overseeing the maintenance and manufacturing communities.”

As noted in previous reviews of the RCCB’s purpose and its real world application, the proof of this “pudding” will be demonstrated when the first Board decision is published.

WILL THE FIELD FOLLOW THE DIRECTIVE?

The process is well designed and the theory should stop the variability, but will the 7,000 who actually apply the FARs follow? 

That’s a major challenge for the New Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety. If the RCCB works, then the FARs will become standard.

  
Meanwhile in Dunceunda land -

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Long, complex post warning: but so very worth the time:::::

CEO DIRECTIVE – 01/2007
From CEO Bruce Byron to (then) Deputy CEO Shane Carmody, May 18 2007

DAS DIRECTIVE 01/2015
Directive from Director Mark Skidmore, May 29, 2015
This Directive replaces CEO Directive 016/2004, which is hereby repealed. It updates CASA’s Guiding Principles for the development of the regulatory framework and proposed aviation safety regulations This Directive reaffirms CASA’s commitment to ensure that regulatory changes are justified on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.
The aviation safety regulations must take into account CASA’s Classification of Civil Aviation Activities policy and the priority given under the policy to passenger-carrying activities It also extends the principles underlying this commitment to the application and administration of the regulations by CASA, to the fullest practicable extent consistent with the interests of safety.

Comment: This appears to be a major change, as it seems CASA still bows to the imperative of S.9A (2) of the Act as defined by John McCormick, who cancelled the “Classification of Operations” process after all the years of work on that controversial concept, on the basis of his interpretation of S.9A (2). Mr Skidmore’s version has not changed direction at all on this aspect..
Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be addressed adequately by non-regulatory means. Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be developed with a view to addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be addressed effectively by non-regulatory means alone

Comment: Neither of the above appears to go far enough. Any transparent process that delivers valid cost/benefit analysis must by definition contain a transparent cost/benefit justification and if the likely cost of regulation exceeds the cost of reduced risk, the regulations should not be implemented.
Each proposed regulation must be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety. Consistent with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and other Commonwealth laws and Government policies, every proposed regulation must be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety, having particular regard to the safety of passengers and other persons affected or likely to be affected by the activity involved.

Comment: Here’s S.9A (2) again — again with no cost/benefit justification.
If a regulation can be justified on safety risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources.. If a regulation can be justified on safety -risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources.

Identical wording in both Directives. However there is no evidence in any of the published legislation thus far, that the vital cost/benefit justification process has been observed and documented.
The regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder high levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

Comment: Chop logic* in both cases. Once you have decided that regulation is necessary, the compliance costs of the regulation, by definition, become “necessary” costs

*Chop logic: (of an argument): “Characterised by equivocation or by overly complex or specious argumentation, improperly reasoned.”
Where appropriate, the aviation safety regulations are to be aligned with the standards and practices of leading aviation countries, unless differences are required to address the Australian aviation environment and these differences can be justified on safety risk grounds. Aviation safety regulations should be aligned with the standards and practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization and leading aviation countries, unless differences are necessary to address particular features peculiar to the Australian aviation environment and those differences can be justified on safety-risk grounds.

Comment: Again, see previous comments re. cost/benefit. Reasons for the addition of the words “features peculiar to” the Australian aviation environment may be worthy of some research .
Recognising that international standards and practices vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address identified safety risks in the most cost-effective manner.Comment: If this were taken literally, it would be necessary to drop all the “EASA-like” nonsense and Part 61, just for a start.
Where appropriate, the aviation safety regulations are to be aligned with the standards and practices of leading aviation countries, unless differences are required to address the Australian aviation environment and these differences can be justified on safety risk grounds. Where it is appropriate to do so, aviation safety regulations are to be drafted to specify intended safety outcomes. Where known or likely safety risks cannot be addressed effectively utilising an outcome-based approach (in whole or in part), more prescriptive requirements will be specified.Comment: This appears to be a justification for “no change”, because outcome based regulation would require a whole new way of thinking. There is no evidence in the documentation thus far that CASA as a whole, or most of the CASA people, even have a basic understanding of what performance (outcome) based regulation means.
In developing aviation safety regulations, CASA must consult appropriately with industry in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear, timely and effective.
The aviation safety regulations must be drafted to be as clear and concise as possible. Subject to the applicable drafting requirements, CASA will strive to ensure aviation safety regulations are drafted as clearly and concisely as possible.Comment: Another cop-out to justify CASA’s “preferred drafting style.” Strict liability when it should not be imposed, and maximum allowable penalty points, to maximise the administrative fine penalties. CASA should be required to provide a reference to the “applicable drafting requirements.”Also the reference to “applicable drafting requirements fails to cite a documentary reference which details the “requirements.”
Wherever possible, the aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material. Where practicable, aviation safety regulations should be developed within a three -tier framework, comprising the Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and Manuals of Standards.Comment: Which is where we are now, and what a mess it is! What “the industry” has been calling for is in reality a fourth tier, to “explain” the first three!!!!!
Manuals of Standards (MOSs) are to be developed only where there is a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to specify standards that for the purpose of clarity and effective administration should not be contained in the regulations.The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution it makes to aviation safety.A MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information. (our emphasis) Supportive advisory and guidance materials, including other acceptable means of compliance with regulatory requirements, will be promulgated and disseminated in conjunction with new and amended regulations, having regard to the time when compliance with new or amended regulations will be required.Comment: This illustrates the confused thinking as to what an acceptable means of compliance is – if acceptable means of compliance are not already in the MOS. If the content of the MOS doesn’t represent acceptable means of compliance, there appears to be no reason for having a MOS

Byron Directive 1/2007 ends at this point. The following comments represent the remainder of Directive 1/2015 and our comments on these additions, which appear to emanate from CASA’s legal services office.

In accordance with the Civil Aviation Act, the safety of air navigation as [sic] the most important consideration for CASA in performing its functions and exercising its powers.

Comment: This is the same recurring theme which promotes the concept that S.9A (2) overrides everything else.

Consistent with that obligation, the principle of legality and the explicit requirements of the civil aviation legislation in any particular case, CASA must always have regard to all relevant considerations when exercising discretionary powers, including the cost and other burdens involved in the application of regulatory requirements.

Comment: It  in unclear what this means, but it appears to put forward that CASA should use what it thinks is the cheapest means of enforcement. This interpretation is consistent with CASA’s track record of bypassing due process wherever possible, preferring the well-worn path of making a subjective opinion-based decision that an individual is not a “fit and proper person” and grounding the person or company simply by suspending or cancelling the “approvals” upon which they rely to continue operating.

This cannot and does not mean that CASA must demonstrate that, in exercising its discretionary powers under the regulations in any given case, it has adopted or will adopt a course of action involving the lowest cost to, or least adverse impact on, the person or persons affected by that action.

Comment: Why should it not mean exactly that? The continuing absence of transparency and accountability in compliance/enforcement procedures must be high among the list of reasons for what the ASRR observes to be a breakdown of trust between industry and regulator.

What it does mean is that, where a person who is or will be affected by CASA’s exercise of discretionary powers under the regulations convincingly demonstrate, on evidence, that:

   the same safety outcome contemplated by the applicable regulatory requirement can be achieved on another, more cost-effective and/or otherwise less onerous basis;
   the person is able and willing to adopt and give meaningful effect to that alternative approach to compliance;
   the alternative approach proposed can be implemented fully and effectively in a timely fashion, having regard to the interests of safety;
   the adoption and implementation of such an alternative approach by CASA would not involve unreasonable additional oversight or administrative responsibilities on CASA’s part; and;
   no other persons would be adversely or unfairly affected by the adoption of that alternative approach,

CASA will entertain a reasonable proposal for the adoption of another approach and, in the absence of good reason not to do so, CASA will adopt such an alternative approach.

Comment: In ProAviation’s view, this is a conceptual mess, which when simplified, appears to be promoting the view that CASA can do whatever it likes. In numerous well-documented compliance/enforcement events, there is evidence which at least warrants an independent assessment; preferably by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Productivity Commission that many of CASA’s regulatory adventures tend to display more than one of the following features:

   An alleged infringement is identified. This may or may not be based on valid observations and assessments; or it may take the form of an incorrect assessment by a CASA official, assertions by a disgruntled former employee, a commercial competitor or a dissatisfied customer. (Naturally we acknowledge that there are instances where an actual infringement does exist.)
   On the basis of the allegations, often untested to any evidentiary standard, it appears the primary impetus becomes focused on freezing the certificate holder’s ability to continue earning revenue as an operator or wages as an employee. There are examples were adverse certificate action has been based on claimed “reason to believe” and initiated without written advice,
   Having cancelled or suspended the certificate, the regulator then uses “reason to believe” to support ongoing regulatory activity including exhaustive searches of records, apparently engineered delays, postponements of proceedings and/or failure to meet obligatory commitments to provide documents within specified time-frames. AAT appeals often prove pointless because the process has already caused irrevocable harm.
   An operator’s client base becomes aware that the certificate holder is under investigation for alleged breaches. This information commonly becomes widely circulated and the suspension/cancellation causes the cancellation or suspension of existing contracts with irreparable damage to the business. If the operator has government contracts (which many of them do) the news appears to travel even faster,

The commonest outcome of these sequences of events is the closure of the business with major disruption and distress to all employees or the departure from aviation by an individual by means which appear to avoid legal due process. The advantages of this conduct are reduced legal costs to CASA.

[Peetwo]

In a parallel hemisphere: Trump's 2 for 1? - Yes please..

Via JDA journal:

The Trump “Two deletes before adding a New Regulation” comes to the FAA & YOU MAY PROPOSE which §§ of the FARs should be terminated


Posted By: Sandy Murdock May 4, 2017

Trump’s “Two-for-One” Rule (EO 13771)

FAA requests recommendations on existing regulations that are good candidates
for repeal, replacement, or modification.

Perhaps you were aware of President Trump’s signing Executive Order 13771 on January 30, 2017, the action is referred to as the “two-for-one” rule. While the math seems relatively easy to compute, the interpretations required both interim guidance and then a memorandum, which in total provided another 10,000 words to implement the E.O.

Unfortunately, the White House verbiage does not invite the public to suggest your least favorite FAR; rather the guidance looks to eliminate rules which
i. “Lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
ii. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
iii. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
iv. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in EO 12866, as further amended.”

What is subject to being eliminated is broadly defined to include:

• Informal, formal, and negotiated rulemaking;
  
• Guidance and interpretative documents;
  
• Some actions related to international regulatory cooperation; and
  
• Information collection requests that repeal or streamline recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements. 
  

The office administering this E.O. is OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is consumed with econometrics of assessing costs versus benefits, not surprisingly will determine whether the “two-for-one” request meets the President’s directive. Its standard [are the incremental costs of the proposed rule are exceeded by the costs of the two rules to be eliminated; “an offset”] is clearly articulated by the following bureaucratese:

“The term ‘offset’ means at least two EO 13771 deregulatory actions have been taken per EO 13771 regulatory action and that the incremental cost of the EO 13771 regulatory action has been appropriately counterbalanced by incremental cost savings from EO 13771 deregulatory actions, consistent with the agency’s total incremental cost allowance.”

With crystal clear explanation, the FAA has issued its own request from the public for candidates for elimination—ARAC Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Aviation Regulations – New Task.

The ARAC assignment is defined as follows:

1. Evaluate the FAA’s regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to determine any and all regulations that should be repealed, replaced or modified. This evaluation will attempt to identify regulations that:

a. Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
b. Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
c. Impose costs that exceed benefits; or
d. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies.

For purposes of this evaluation, a regulation means any regulatory provision and could include a regulatory section (e.g., § 121.xxx), paragraph (e.g., § 121.xxx(y)), or subparagraph (e.g., § 121.xxx(y)(z)).

2. Provide a detailed explanation for recommending the repeal, replacement or modification of each regulation. This explanation will include any examples of why the regulation falls into one or more of the categories listed in paragraph 1.

3. Provide quantitative data on the costs and benefits of either repealing, replacing or modifying each regulation in the recommendation report.

4. Review the FAA’s current regulatory actions identified in the regulatory agenda, and provide feedback on the current program as appropriate.

5. Develop both an initial report and an addendum report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above. This data will be provided in two recommendation reports. In the first recommendation report, ARAC will provide a list of regulations that are considered to address the criteria of paragraph 1 of this tasking. A second addendum recommendation report will provide details to supplement the first submittal by ARAC to the FAA, and will provide the additional and detailed data as described in paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of this tasking.

a. The recommendation report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position.

b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement. 

It is highly likely that the Regional Airlines Association will submit, for example, its arguments about the Congressionally mandated pilot experience requirements. Another likely proposed deletion would come from AUVSI to delete all of the provisions of Parts 48 and 107 which they find an undue burden. Others will submit their favorite (not) §§ with the supporting economic analyses.

The process does not require or even invite the public to pair the proposed deletion with an expected addition.

The ARAC will review the docket’s comments and prioritize them. Curiously, this notice contemplates that the FAA will stockpile the targeted sections to be eliminated and to match them with future NPRMs as they are to be published.

If interested, the ARAC indicates that submissions must be submitted by June 1,2017 and sent to:

Nikeita Johnson

Management and Program Analyst

Federal Aviation Administration

Room 810

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C., 20591

Nikeita.Johnson@faa.gov

(202) 267-4977

 
This should be a fascinating docket to monitor, and we will!

 
Hmm...this bit - "...1. Evaluate the FAA’s regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to determine any and all regulations that should be repealed, replaced or modified. This evaluation will attempt to identify regulations that:


a. Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
b. Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
c. Impose costs that exceed benefits; or
d. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies..."
 
Well that would account for pretty much 99.9% of our cumbersome, totally non-harmonised suite of biblical regulations...
How about it Malcolm & Barnaby, can we please have a 2 for 1 executive government order and adopt the Kiwi regs ASAP...
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Yet another exemption for Part 61 -

Yesterday another couple of pages was added to the Biblical Part 61:

Notices for flight training organisations and ATOs
4 September 2017

Transition of certain 61.040 approval holders to flight examiner ratings
From September 2017, CASA will be transitioning a number of 61.040 approval holders to new flight examiner ratings and flight examiner endorsements.

The decision to transition individuals has been made to provide greater clarity and consistency for people who have essentially been conducting the functions of a flight examiner without the benefit of the new rating or title.

To support the transition process CASA has made a new exemption (CASA EX121/17).  The exemption reduces the requirements for the grant of the rating and endorsements, but a 61.040 approval holder must still meet any requirement specified in column 3 of table 61.1310 for the endorsement.  The exemption removes the requirement to complete the flight examiner training course, the flight test and the interview as long as you have completed a CASA conducted professional development program (PDP) and an examiner proficiency check (EPC).

The following will apply if the approval holder also holds a flight examiner rating or approved testing officer (ATO) delegation:

• If an approval holder already holds a flight examiner rating and has completed the PDP, their 61.040 approvals will be transferred to their flight examiner rating with additional endorsements at the time they complete their EPC.
  
• If they also hold an approved testing officer (ATO) delegation then they can apply for a flight examiner rating and relevant flight examiner endorsements for flight tests and proficiency checks which are not covered by their delegation. They can hold an ATO delegation and a flight examiner rating simultaneously although the privileges cannot be included on the delegation and the rating. Refer to the 13 April 2017 update 'Approved testing officer delegations extended for another year' on this page for more information about the extension of approved testing officer delegations and indemnity protection).
  

CASA has written to all affected 61.040 approval holders to advise them of the new arrangements.

If you have any questions about the transition, please email flighttesting@casa.gov.au.

View the exemption, (CASA EX121/17) on the Federal Register of Legislation website.

 
From my count that brings the exemption tally for Part 61 to twenty - see HERE - UDB!

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile in the Trump-a-sphere -

Courtesy of the WSJ, via the Kathryn's Report...

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2017
Federal Aviation Administration Panel Delivers Sweeping Recommendations on Deregulation: Report calls for revised structural tests, new alternatives for co-pilot experience

[size=undefined]


The Wall Street Journal
By Andy Pasztor
Updated Sept. 17, 2017 4:06 p.m. ET


A federal advisory committee’s sweeping deregulation proposals are roiling the world of airplane safety.

As part of President Donald Trump’s governmentwide drive targeting what he and aides call outdated or unnecessary restrictions, the panel of industry and labor representatives has delivered a report urging the Federal Aviation Administration to eliminate or roll back more than 50 longstanding air-safety rules.

Completed last week but not yet publicly released, the document recommends loosening controls over everything from pilot training to structural testing of new models. Several of the specifics are prompting opposition from some union groups, outside safety advocates and families of crash victims.

The panel, called the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, in a prior report identified hundreds of other regulations it said were ripe for repeal or modification, according to one person familiar with the details.

The agency’s initial response was noncommittal, stressing that the recommendations “do not mean any action will be taken to modify or eliminate existing rules.” A statement from a spokeswoman over the weekend also said the agency intends to carefully review each item and determine next steps by applying “the FAA’s prevailing criteria to maintain today’s historic level of aviation safety.”

The recommendations set the stage for debates in coming years over loosening or entirely doing away with some rules that are integral parts of the FAA’s safety program but haven’t been amended or, in many cases reassessed, for decades.

Some of the proposals involve obscure or relatively minor irritants, such as redundant paperwork, duplicate regulations and outdated requirements for ashtrays outside lavatories dating back to an era when smoking was allowed on airliners. But others focus on big-ticket regulatory mandates that entail major costs for industry, including the way plane makers and the FAA determine the structural integrity and fatigue tolerance of large airplane parts or sections.

The panel, among other things, urged more flexibility by substituting computer simulations and inspections of older aircraft for more-expensive ground tests. The savings “could be hundreds of millions of dollars” versus full-scale testing, according to the report.

Two other recommendations urge relying on engineering analysis, rather than primarily flight tests, to determine vibration characteristics or strength of certain parts.

Critics contend neither FAA nor industry experts are familiar enough yet with the long-term structural strength of certain composite structures to ensure the validity of such computer-based analysis.

The committee also is seeking to revise certain reporting rules, echoing unsuccessful efforts in the past by industry officials. One rule submitted for modification deals with data collection about engine reliability, in-flight shutdowns, oil loss and uncommanded power changes for twin-engine airliners authorized to fly extended routes over water or polar regions. The changes appears designed to reduce certain FAA reporting requirements for this category of aircraft -- as long as the problematic events occur during trips over land or shorter overwater flights.

In addition, the panel reiterated calls by other FAA-chartered committees and industry-backed studies to find new alternatives to requiring most co-pilots to have 1,500 hours of flight time before they can be hired to fly passengers. A Senate bill extending the FAA’s overall authority, which expires at the end of the month, includes a similar provision.

According to the report, reducing the 1,500-hour minimum is essential to prevent pilot shortages from reducing commercial service commuter carriers are able to provide rural communities. Pilot unions and other groups strongly oppose dropping the 1,500 hour threshold, contending it would erode safety. The report notes that alternate “pathways” to hiring new co-pilots “would only be approved if they were proven to enhance safety.”

Commercial accident rates across the U.S. have been at record low levels for years, with the last deadly crash involving a scheduled domestic carrier occurring in 2009.

Yet by challenging certain traditional safeguards—and advocating changes tied to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in industry savings over the years—the report primarily reflects the desires of manufacturers, equipment suppliers, airlines and private aviation groups.

After months of internal deliberations with mixed results, FAA officials in April asked the panel to identify regulations that are outmoded, unnecessary or ineffective, “Inhibit job creation,” or “impose costs that exceed benefits.”

The Association of Flight Attendants, a union with more than 40,000 members, officially dissented from the latest report. It argued that the package of recommendations amounted to “a grab bag of unfiltered wish lists submitted by individual” interest groups participating in the process.

Original article can be found here ➤ https://www.wsj.com[/size]

 
"...The recommendations set the stage for debates in coming years over loosening or entirely doing away with some rules that are integral parts of the FAA’s safety program but haven’t been amended or, in many cases reassessed, for decades...."

Meanwhile in Dunceunda land we are still to complete a regulatory reform program that has cost the better part of half a billion dollars and has been dragging on for 3 decades - God save our industry because Darren won't...


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Root of all regs Part 91 - Up for IOS comment??

Via Oz Flying: 

---

CASR Part 91 contains the general operating rules for aircraft. (Steve Hitchen)

CASA calls for Part 91 Feedback
28 March 2018

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has opened consultation on the new drafts of CASR Part 91 and the Manual of Standards (MOS).

Part 91 covers the general operating and flight rules for aircraft, and is the foundation regulation that governs all aircraft operations.

The aim of the new part is to consolidate over 100 other documents into just two.

"Primarily, the existing rules will be retained and consolidated," CASA has stated. "However, there are a small number of new rules which are designed to enhance operational flexibility, enhance safety and increase compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards."

In opening the consultation, CASA has also acknowledged that CASR are complex and are not easy to read.

"We understand that our rules can be difficult to read," CASA says, "and our Aviation Safety Advisory Panel has told us we have more work to do to ensure clarity and simplicity. CASA will continue to look at ways to make the rules easier to read and understand before they are introduced."

The draft of CASR part 91 is over 100 pages long.

Feedback can be given via the CASA Consultation Hub before 29 April 2018.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...G5866zk.99

---

Some comments so far, via the PAIN email chain:

Via Stan: Always good for a laugh -  work creation in progress!!!!!
 

---

Proposed new general and operating flight rules - have your say

CASA is seeking your feedback on new draft regulations relating to general operating and flight rules which will form the foundation for all aviation operations.

The draft rules are Part 91 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) and its associated manual of standards (MOS). They replace more than one hundred documents—such as regulations, orders, supporting instruments and exemptions—combining them into just two documents.
Primarily, the existing rules will be retained and consolidated. However, there are a small number of new rules which are designed to enhance operational flexibility, enhance safety and increase compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards.

We are seeking feedback on the proposed changes through our Consultation Hub.

We understand that our rules can be difficult to read, and our Aviation Safety Advisory Panel has told us we have more work to do to ensure clarity and simplicity. CASA will continue to look at ways to make the rules easier to read and understand before they are introduced. But for now, we’ve tried to make it easier for you to have your say by highlighting the key issues that have changed.

The consultation will ask you questions on the proposed changes to Part 91 and MOS, but you don’t have to read the drafts in full. Each question will include the relevant section of the rules. Also, you can comment on as many or as few of these changes as you like, as well as provide general comments.

The consultation closes on 29 April 2018.

Want to know more? Register for our special webinar on proposed changes to the general operating and flight rules on 5 April, 6-7pm AEST.

Visit the CASA website.

Got a specific question? Email flightopsregs@casa.gov.au.

---

&..

Folks,

I have already had a look at some of the sections, in my opinion the "consultation requests" are quite misleading, and designed for one answer.

For example, the proposal to legislate an "approach ban".

There is no evidence that the long standing (and actually reasonable) "rules" should change, the change reasons are theoretical, not based on Australian experience, and given our doubtful to non-existent met information, will be very limiting, particularly if an AWIS has to be accepted as a valid report. --- particular almost non-existent low cloud being reported as 8/8 at low levels.

That is just one example.

Cheers,

---

...Thank you for your insights. For one, I see yet another of the never ending series, consultation ad nauseam;  I see with jaundiced eye. 


But it must be done even though usually a waste of time except we can use the information to cite as further proof of a make work salary factory that will never be finished rewriting the rules. 

Take the NZ or USA rules and be done with it? Not on your Nellie mate, would show to the world what a sick joke, the slow destruction of GA by Can’tberra, literally an out of control bureaucracy.

Out of control? An occasional Statement of Expectations written by CASA and Departmental minions mouthed dutifully by one of a continuous line of do nothing Ministers. CASA the independent Commonwealth body, supposedly governed by a Board that is noted for it’s invisibility. Board expenses alone? ...half a $million? probably much more?  A drop in the bucket.!

Sandy

---

And from the related UP thread...

Flying Ted - CASA Part 91 Survey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone completed the recent CASA survey? I noticed you can only give feedback if you are prepared to provide your personal details which I found somewhat odd.

There doesn't seem to be any option to find out what the questions are before you hand your details.

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/reg.../consultation/

---

thorn bird - Given the requirement to name yourself, and given CAsA's history of retaliatory action against anyone who criticises them, it would be brave person who answered truthfully, if they considered the draft was anything else but perfect.
which maybe proves the old bureaucratic rule, "never call an enquiry unless you know the result"and certainly will skew the result of their inquiry.

But a quick skim through it I thought on the surface it didn't seem too bad, although there are a lot of hangman nooses in it along with a lot of 50 penalty points for very minor offences. More detailed scrutiny is required me-thinks.
What I would dearly like to know is how much of our money they pissed up against the wall producing it.

Will it actually improve safety in any way? Would simply adopting the US or NZ rules saved us a heap of money? would adopting those rule sets produced a better outcome? Are we getting bang for our buck?

Leave it to you guys to debate.

---

LeadSled -

Quote:

----- on the surface it didn't seem too bad, although there are a lot of hangman nooses in it along with a lot of 50 penalty points for very minor offences
Thorn Bird,
That about sums it up, in my view there is huge scope for CASA to make life even more miserable.

Just for the hell of it, I took a squizz at Part 135, that is the doozy, as far as I can see it will put light charter out of business, such is the increase in paperwork. Airfield requirements will be one hell of a problem. It is not even clear to me that I can even still use a single engine piston at all, due forced landing field requirements.

One matter on which CASA HAS NOT consulted is on 135.135, passenger lists, strict liability 50pp.

The gender of each passenger must be recorded. I trust CASA will consult widely, including with the Australian Human Right Commission, to agree a definition of an an acceptable way for the operator/pilot to determine gender to the satisfaction of CASA.

The LBTIQUASSGF community will be watching.

Tootle pip!!

---

thorn bird -  "definition of and an acceptable way for the operator/pilot to determine gender to the satisfaction of CASA."

Thats an easy one Leadie,

How do you sex a chromosome?

Take down its genes.

I believe on Quaintasses application form they ask for your gender identity
there is a box on the list for not assigned.

---

LeadSled -

Quote:

I believe on Quaintasses application form they ask for your gender identity there is a box on the list for not assigned.

Thornbird,

On some CBA application forms, it has a list of six or so, the last one is "Prefer not to answer", how would you handle that for CASA at ~$10,800 a time, seeing as it is fully approved by the AHRC.

As harmonisation is all the go these days, CASA could harmonise with Transport Canada, which, as directed by overarching national legislation, has to recognise (as I recall) 23 genders, and in the best of CASA tradition, getting it wrong is a criminal offense.

Tootle pip!!

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

30+ years in the Aviation Hall of DOOM -

Extracts from Senate thread post - Oh the ironies are boundless:

The following is a Hansard copy of a nearly 22 year old speech, that the former Minister John Sharp made that go to the bona fides of my suggestion and clearly highlights how much of grasp he has of the deeply in ground cultural problems that the aviation safety administration and regulation continues to have to this day in Australia (some noteworthy parts in bold)..  : Tuesday, 25 June 1996

---

...One of the first principles of regulation should be that the regulators themselves are accountable for their actions. They should be congratulated when their efforts to maintain safe travel are properly, carefully and fairly carried out. They should also be accountable when their failure to do so leads to tragedy or when their failure to do so exposes the very people they are supposed to be protecting to danger...

..This government is determined to ensure that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will not repeat the errors of its predecessor. I personally have a great deal of commitment to this. I have made it clear to the Director of Aviation Safety that I expect his officers to be fully accountable for their actions. There is no place in the new CASA for officers who hide behind a cloak of intimidation and secrecy to avoid the consequences of their failure to carry out their duties to the highest standards...

...The coroner praised the Reason model of investigation and analysis utilised by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, yet counsel for the CAA spent a great deal of time and effort and taxpayers' money during the coronial inquest in seeking to discredit it. It is just that kind of self-interested defensive reaction—at the expense of the taxpayer and the industry—that must be shunned if the public is to have faith in the regulator.


It does not make sense for the regulator to spend more money in defending itself than the claims it was seeking to forestall would have amounted to. All that does is deny the victims' families their due compensation. There must be an open and honest culture, and that is still lacking in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. [b]This government expects its safety regulator to admit its errors when appropriate and to take remedial measures to reform its culture in order to make it properly responsive to its very weighty responsibilities...

...The new government has recognised that the regulatory framework has grown out of outdated regulations with various amendments over the years and that this needs a complete overhaul. This overhaul will be done with full industry participation and leadership. That overhaul will not be effective, however, without a complete and complementary change in the way CASA goes about its business...

...However, the greatest challenge will be for CASA itself to accept a new culture of accountability not only to me as the minister responsible but also to the parliament and ultimately to the people of Australia.[/b]

Two posts down we then had the revelation that Dick Smith had come...so close but no cigar... to actually getting support for a significant bi-partisan supported reform to the CA Act.

..Businessman Dick Smith won approval last month from Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese for a rewrite of the Civil Aviation Act aimed at slashing crippling costs, but the prospect of a bipartisan deal crashed days later with Mr Joyce’s resignation from cabinet...

Which leaves us (AGAIN -  ) with waiting to see if the new DPM/miniscule has a pulse; or any kind of inkling to possibly pluck the ailing industry from the clutches of an aviation safety bureaucracy behemoth, seemingly hell bent on scorching from the earth all remnants of a once small but flourishing and essential GA industry...

 On this theme I note that Dick Smith is (AGAIN -  ) showing signs of exasperation and suspicion that we may have yet another in a long line of 'do nothing' miniscules...

Extracts from UP post:

Dick Smith - It’s not looking good. I remember I was hopeful Warren Truss would be better than John Anderson. But this was not so.


Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!

History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..

I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.

Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?

Which was followed by an excellent historical summary from jonkster : 

I may be wrong in some details and happy to stand corrected but my memory was CASA started a rewrite of the CAO/ANOs and CARs in the mid 1990s to simplify the regulatory framework.


The end result would reduce the then CARs, CAOs into a simple 2 tiered structure by rewriting it, so existing CAOs would be either turned into actual regulations (CARs) or advisory documents describing procedures that would acceptably comply with the CARs (CAAPs).

It sounded pretty sensible, would reduce the complexity and spaghetti nature of existing regulation making it all easier to understand, easier to comply with and verify compliance with and consequently make things safer and more efficient.

Again, as I recall the process was going to take some time as it was a big job - not a year or so but probably a few years but would progressively replace and simplify the existing regulations as it proceeded.

Again I may be wrong here but I understood NZ decided on a similar rewrite of their legislation but they started a few years earlier in the early 1990s.

It is now over 20 years later. NZ have had their rewritten model pretty much all in operation for nearly 20 years? (is that the case? I am not familiar with their history).

Meanwhile in Oz, the rewrite is still actively happening and progressively replacing the old system and is apparently close to being finished, the time-frame, much as it has been for 20 years - is in a year or two...

Now there are also CASRs as well as CARs and CAOs so instead of streamlining the regulations into a single document with an additional advisory document, we now have 3 sets of regulation documents and an advisory document and the new "simplified regulations" are more complicated, less consistent, more spaghetti like and more difficult to comply with than the system they were simplifying.

So the current state of play:

* A 2 decade time blowout.

* The apparent accomplishment of exactly the opposite of what was proposed.

* What must be an enormous amount of money and resources expended.

* A regulator that is deeply distrusted and disliked and mocked by the industry.

* A general aviation industry that is struggling to survive and is snowed under a growing mountain of regulations that they feel do little to enhance safety but find add significant costs and impose inappropriate and silly restrictions.

* The apparent loss of a safety culture that actively sought to understand the factors behind incidents and why safety might be compromised, replaced instead by a regulatory system that looks at ways of pursuing and attaching liability rather than identifying and mitigating systemic failures and weaknesses.

That successive ministers, (of all persuasions), for 2 decades have failed to address this other than by allowing the process to roll on directionless is a classic failure of leadership.

Surely such an ongoing, long standing debacle and such a failure to get the situation in hand would make great fodder for someone who wanted to embarrass a pollie or a government?

Which was slightly corrected and given more factually correct internal context from LeadSled:

I may be wrong in some details and happy to stand corrected but my memory was CASA started a rewrite of the CAO/ANOs and CARs in the mid 1990s to simplify the regulatory framework.

---

Jonkster,

You are partially correct, but you give to much credit to CASA.

The mid- 1990s changes came from the Howard Government aviation policy "Soaring into Tomorrow" and two successive Ministers, Sharp and Vaile who wouldn't be snowed by the public service,and their personally appointed industry Program Advisory Panel (PAP) for the "CASA Review".

There were two other things missing since, a reform minded CASA CEO/DAS who was ex FAA, and an excellent Secretary of the "Department", Alan Hawke.

The substantive output of the PAP/CASA Review was CASR Parts 21-35, and complete drafts of many other major sections, all in simple language --- that past muster with A-Gs etc.

The resistance from the ranks of CASA was ferocious, and as the Minister's moved on, Hawke moved to Defense etc., "the system" conspired to force the resignation of the DAS/CEO, Leroy Keith, convinced the incoming minister that the PAP was no longer required, all the regulations ready to be made were stopped in their tracks, and any real "reform" was dead, and you see what we have all these years later.

There were major reforms in Parts 21 to 35, resulting in the explosive growth of amateur building and the growth of AUF/RAOz, and huge expansion in the "warbirds" sector, all by removing (reforming) unnecessary restrictions.
At the other end of the scale, CASR 25 removed Australian unique restriction on airlines, especially Qantas, who had to compete internationally against airlines who were not subject to such restrictions.

A point not to be forgotten, the FARs by reference for 23 to 35 became CASR 23-35.

GET THAT ---- WE adopted a CHUNK OF US Title 14 CFR (aka FARs) Parts 23 to 35 as Australian law.

But, as we have seen, as soon as the IRON RING re-assumed control, all reform died, and with only the IRON RING in control, you see the atrocities we have today, like Parts 61/ 141/142, the "maintenance suit" including Part 142 and 66, and the forthcoming are just as bad or worse.

The very idea of having to operate a GA8 Airvan (or a C-207 or C-208 etc) to Part 121 HCRPT standards is ludicrous, as Part 135, itself a terrible document, finishes with five seats.

For my money, we should start with most of the NZ regs, which are the FARs cleaned up and greatly reduced in size. There are a few things NZ we should not do, but that could be easily sorted ---- by people who actually know what they are talking about, and not talking for sectional/union interests.

Tootle pip!!

And, in "adopting" the NZ rules, we need to reform the special provisions CASA has forced, that prevent the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty working as intended.

 
Followed by insightful comments from wren 460:

I agree with Jongster, and LeadSled’s detail is replete with the facts of the disgraceful administration and aviation rules rewrite these many years plus backward and extremely costly warfare against GA.


I would modify Jongster’s 20 year time line to 30 years, having the ‘benefit’ of watching the GA industry slowly die by a thousands cuts. The general decline, and sad loss of flying schools in particular, was well underway before Dick Smith had the position to make change, and during his tenure in my 50 years in GA the only time some sense appeared.

The new Minister has not had time to show us his colours, we can hope against hope...

...Jay Sata’s question; “Is it too late to make a noise in Canberra?”

Efforts should be redoubled because reforms of any scale will not happen otherwise. In politics, as in other fields, action occurs when the incentives are strong. Politicians react when they think there’s votes to be had. One recent classic example is the turn around by former Transport Minister Albanese. In his time he allowed CASA to grow by another couple of hundred personnel by instituting an additional fuel levy, planned to raise $89.9 million over four years. Now that its not his responsibility and Labor are salivating at the thought of taking government he thinks they will gain more votes than they will lose by agreeing to make a modest change to the Civil Aviation Act.

The medical reform measures being introduced by CASA CEO Mr. Carmody would not have seen the light of day without persistent bad publicity.

Again all the media attention, especially from the Oz (bless them) negative to CASA, and ATSB (made independent like CASA by Albo) would not be happening without noise.

Easter a time for lamenting what might have been; what transpired since; and what might become - anxious times indeed for some...


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

First and assuredly the last - CASR part 91.

Well, there are over 300 pages to plough through when you combine the Manual of Standards (MoS) and the Regulation (CASR)..You really cannot read one without ‘tuther, the sheer volume of information is daunting – unless you actually strip it down on the first read through to identify the parts applicable to the proposed operation. Commercial operators will do exactly that – then amend their ‘Exposition’ (Company Operations Manual) to accommodate the changes and ensure as far as possible ‘company’ compliance. Stepping away for a moment from pilot liability and subjective interpretation risk – in theory all should be well. The real risk in any legislation lays within the ability of both authority and operator to ‘interpret’ a rule set to suit a purpose.

There is much fuss being made by certain elements about ‘fuel’. I fail – utterly - to see why unless I include the CASA generated paranoia associated with ‘subjective’ black letter law application – but that aside – CASA have not done a bad job on the ‘fuel’ requirements. Back in the day everyone carried 45 minutes fixed reserve and 15% variable; subject to CASA (DCA) operational control. The latest offering of 30 minutes and 5% (contingency) represents an marked change. It throws more responsibility onto the pilot – with slim margins, the calculation need not only to be as accurate as possible, but ‘considered’ – weighed and measured. This is simply good airmanship translated into law, promoting situational awareness and focus on the possible problems which may be encountered – on the day – at the time.

There is nothing in the new regulation which insists you only carry a 5% variable reserve; although I object to the use of the words ‘trip’ and ‘contingency’. A variable reserve is an operational safeguard – contingency is exactly that – an additional amount tucked away for a ‘just–in-case’ – like at Darwin where it is a required consideration depending on the season and time of day. That said, I would like to think that the regulation will reinforce the notions of ‘planning and situational awareness’. It is far too easy for folk to ‘fill ‘er up, tap in the GPS and wander off relying on a rough estimate of fuel burn and the GPS to provide in flight data regarding wind aloft. This is particularly important when one considers the paucity of re fuel facilities at airports, especially ‘Avgas’. Used to be you could pull up almost anywhere, top up the tanks, get a coffee and wander off into the sunset – not any longer. So range and fuel required to get to the next fuel stop need careful consideration.

So much for ‘fuel’ the hysteria over being ramp checked and dragged into court for being one minute under the ‘fixed’ reserve is bollocks; for a start it is impossible to ‘prove’, in secundus CASA fail to mention at what point the ‘fixed reserve must be intact – 1500 foot above the aerodrome sounds reasonable – provided a landing is assured – even then how can they prove of disprove anything on a finite basis? Provided the planning is correct at the start of the flight and matters progressed normally, it would be a brave (read stupid) FOI who tried to prosecute a one or even five minute discrepancy in the FoB landing v the FoB at shutdown. Relax ladies – plan properly, keep those figures intact and present them at the ramp check. The worst it can do is demonstrate your responsible, aware attitude to operation. That cannot be a bad thing – can it.

Here endeth Part 91 discussion; it is a bog standard load of overwrought bollocks from CASA legal; refer FAA or CAANZ, or CAA UK even Singapore – but do not expect CASA to start doing things as professionally as you must, – now that would be a 50 choc frog penalty.

Toot toot.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Just a thought at the moment, K...

I have a mate who was a competition aerobatic pilot. In lightweight discussions with him about the fuel reforms, he pointed out to me that aerobatic pilots, when competing, carry sufficient fuel for their routine, and a bit for mum, dad and the kids. Not the 30 or 45 minutes fixed reserve mandated by CASA. They would, in fact, have to declare a MAYDAY when they're taxiing out to start their routine..
More discussions are to be had, I'm sure..