He said - She said.
(3) - "I expect CASA to perform its functions consistent with Australia’s international obligations where appropriate, including the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)."
I forget the pre history; easy enough to find if tedious but, in a nut shell, the DCA/CAA/CASA was formed to ensure Australia met it's obligations under the Chicago Convention; a large part of the allotted 'task' was to ensure Australian rules reflected the ICAO philosophy and be in compliance with the same. (E&OE) There has been great harm done to both the spirit and intent of the convention and ICAO. Any study you care to make comparing the ICAO 'compliant' (gold standard) rule set to the Australian legislation clearly defines the glaring liberties taken. The proof easily determined from 'operational data' - (bums on seats - aircraft working - pilot employment etc). The Joyce expectation (directive if you will) should - in theory - bring the Australian 'rules' and philosophy back to where a 'safe conviction rate' of 99% is reduced to world best practice. The FAA and NZ and the UK and PNG and many other nations demonstrate how effective a less draconian rule set is. 'He' said - sort this out - the reply will be yet a while coming. Pressure required - lots of, in Spades.
(4) - "CASA’s regulatory approach should be scalable to the size and complexity of each aviation activity and take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors and categories of operations."
Oh, be still my beating heart: the benefits of 'sector risk profile' are incalculable. Take a brief look at what Phil Hurst and his crew have achieved for proof of theory. Despite CASA's grandiose claims to be 'the' subject matter experts, time and time again we find that they are simply proven not to be. It is easy to determine (for example) the risks involved in say long line sling loads in places like PNG. Why, because the boys and girls who actually do this work (all day every day) can very clearly enunciate not only the 'risks' but how best to minimise those risks. The consensus of 'expert' advice may then be used to draft suitable regulation related to ensuring that the identified 'risk' is correctly managed and a sensible, practical sector risk profile defined in plain English so as to avoid any 'misunderstanding'. 'He' said take this path - the question is has CASA got anyone capable of sensible discussion with and comprehension of 'expert' advice in the various disciplines within the aviation lexicon. Short answer -NO.
(5) (e) provide regulatory oversight for major aerodrome infrastructure projects, including significant new runway projects, as well as providing authoritative and timely advice to me and the Department on matters related to leased federal airport developments.
Yeah? - BUT why not ALL airport developments? The picture is crystal clear; evidence out the whazoo - a lot of airports are now out of Federal jurisdiction; the need for a 'Code' such as the UK system or the excellent 'California code' relating to the build up of infrastructure on, or close to an aerodrome is a 'gold standard' - yet the DFO at Essendon still stands as testimony to governmental negligence. See the Moorabin submission, read it and weep for the safety of those under, or flying over close in buildings. One day - what 'He' said will return, like a ghost at a feast to haunt and unsettle.
"To tell the secrets of my prison house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,"
Aye well; we must await the 'She said' parts - gods alone know what is transpiring 'behind the veil' - away from the smoke, mirrors and Cool-Aide fountains. Perhaps the 'real' Mandarins can step up and, as Wombat remarks, - sort it all out one Sunday morning, before brunch. That would be lovely - yes please, one off will do nicely.
Toot - toot. (с добрым утром).
(3) - "I expect CASA to perform its functions consistent with Australia’s international obligations where appropriate, including the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)."
I forget the pre history; easy enough to find if tedious but, in a nut shell, the DCA/CAA/CASA was formed to ensure Australia met it's obligations under the Chicago Convention; a large part of the allotted 'task' was to ensure Australian rules reflected the ICAO philosophy and be in compliance with the same. (E&OE) There has been great harm done to both the spirit and intent of the convention and ICAO. Any study you care to make comparing the ICAO 'compliant' (gold standard) rule set to the Australian legislation clearly defines the glaring liberties taken. The proof easily determined from 'operational data' - (bums on seats - aircraft working - pilot employment etc). The Joyce expectation (directive if you will) should - in theory - bring the Australian 'rules' and philosophy back to where a 'safe conviction rate' of 99% is reduced to world best practice. The FAA and NZ and the UK and PNG and many other nations demonstrate how effective a less draconian rule set is. 'He' said - sort this out - the reply will be yet a while coming. Pressure required - lots of, in Spades.
(4) - "CASA’s regulatory approach should be scalable to the size and complexity of each aviation activity and take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors and categories of operations."
Oh, be still my beating heart: the benefits of 'sector risk profile' are incalculable. Take a brief look at what Phil Hurst and his crew have achieved for proof of theory. Despite CASA's grandiose claims to be 'the' subject matter experts, time and time again we find that they are simply proven not to be. It is easy to determine (for example) the risks involved in say long line sling loads in places like PNG. Why, because the boys and girls who actually do this work (all day every day) can very clearly enunciate not only the 'risks' but how best to minimise those risks. The consensus of 'expert' advice may then be used to draft suitable regulation related to ensuring that the identified 'risk' is correctly managed and a sensible, practical sector risk profile defined in plain English so as to avoid any 'misunderstanding'. 'He' said take this path - the question is has CASA got anyone capable of sensible discussion with and comprehension of 'expert' advice in the various disciplines within the aviation lexicon. Short answer -NO.
(5) (e) provide regulatory oversight for major aerodrome infrastructure projects, including significant new runway projects, as well as providing authoritative and timely advice to me and the Department on matters related to leased federal airport developments.
Yeah? - BUT why not ALL airport developments? The picture is crystal clear; evidence out the whazoo - a lot of airports are now out of Federal jurisdiction; the need for a 'Code' such as the UK system or the excellent 'California code' relating to the build up of infrastructure on, or close to an aerodrome is a 'gold standard' - yet the DFO at Essendon still stands as testimony to governmental negligence. See the Moorabin submission, read it and weep for the safety of those under, or flying over close in buildings. One day - what 'He' said will return, like a ghost at a feast to haunt and unsettle.
"To tell the secrets of my prison house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,"
Aye well; we must await the 'She said' parts - gods alone know what is transpiring 'behind the veil' - away from the smoke, mirrors and Cool-Aide fountains. Perhaps the 'real' Mandarins can step up and, as Wombat remarks, - sort it all out one Sunday morning, before brunch. That would be lovely - yes please, one off will do nicely.
Toot - toot. (с добрым утром).