[Peetwo]

Back to the Future on non-standardisation and non-compliance with ICAO SARPs!! -   

Reference PG 9 (28/03/2021) of this thread:

The DARD and continued non-compliance with ICAO?? -   

Quote from this week's SBG: https://auntypru.com/sbg-21-03-21-of-kings-in-castles/

...As recently as this week, there was a serious, deep and meaningful pow-wow held between the department and some serious industry players (top draw not the usual riff-raff). It seems the new head of ‘the department’ is not only a straight shooter with brains, but his team are of the same calibre. Not to embarrass anyone, I won’t mention names, but will say that the seriously experienced crew from industry had nothing but praise for the folk from DoIT. Can you imagine how good it feels to have something positive to say about that department; it is a rare and welcome treat. There were some pretty hard heads at that sit-down; not ones to gripe or grumble, but seriously involved. The facts related to ‘the Act’ and the current situation and the simple remedies for that insupportable situation were not only well received, but, brilliantly – they were understood...

...Australia used to be a world leader don’t ya know; reduced now to almost an international pariah through non compliance, idiotic rule sets, a dodgy Act and a mindset which beggars logical, rational minds. Is there yet hope for a urgent reset of the ethos? Reform, regeneration and a return to sanity?... 

I have it on good authority that in the course of the mentioned (above) meeting there was much discussion about international aviation regulatory standardisation, international treaties and our non-conformance with ICAO SARPs (Standards and Recommended Practices).

This inquisition from the Dept is due in large part of their being made aware of many horror stories from the Department's international counterparts, when it comes to dealing with our aviation safety administrator, in the areas of aeronautical trade, commerce and aircraft certification.

This brings me to the reason why the likes of McDermott Aviation (plus others that trade internationally) were present at that meeting - remember this?

Back to our aviation safety bureaucracy's propensity for obfuscating and taking the piss out of ICAO, the Department only need refer to the previous Department Seceretary Dr Kennedy's answer to RRAT Estimates QON in 2018: ref - https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...Letter.pdf

---

Which of course brings me to the point of bringing back to life this thread, for the benefit of the DARD here are some historical morsels I've dug up from the back of the AP stables...         

ICAO notified differences & the 'snowball effect'

Murky & his minions - A bureaucratic dictatorship?

Obfuscation of ICAO - A how to?

Barry O, Mr McFixit and the ICAO snowjob

Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of ICAO

Hmm...and there's plenty more where that came from...

Plus from PG 10 of the Mount NCN thread:

"The first task for these new leaders is to develop and promulgate a new Aviation Safety Program that at least looks to the future and is written in support of the Convention." Amen...........

For a while now, most of the best advice, common sense and very sound logic provided in assistance to government departments, in relation to whats' left of the aviation industry has been provided by AMROBA.

The simple, plain English statement above, in a nutshell identifies and provides solution to almost every single anchor preventing the aviation industry from moving forward.

The blatant abuse and manipulation of the 'convention' has produced the worlds largest, most incomprehensible, undemocratic 'rule' set. Volumes and volumes of the stuff - arranged to ensure that no matter what - the administration have complete control of industry and can, on a whim or a 'say-so' ensure 'safe conviction'. The ways in which 'law' has been used to create a 'fear' of challenging the administration has been demonstrated many times, to the disgust and bemusement of many senior legal; counsel and Judges.

Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention; that is enshrined within the Constitution (51.1 from memory - stand corrected). The 'administration' is authorised to 'administer' an ICAO compliant regulatory suite - nothing else - just that. The spirit, intent and purpose of the Chicago convention has been twisted and warped into a hideous parody of that. This done through manipulation and 'differences'. What have we now - 4000 odd registered differences. These 'differences' are not of the "we say tomato - you tomayto" type. The majority reflect a cynical, even sinister manipulation which empowers CASA while denying industry any means of defence. Strict Liability being just one of many aberrations cunningly disguised as 'safety'.

The  new leadership need do a little more than 'look' at returning to ICAO compliance and the convention. It should be a sworn pledge, to this nation - to return the administration and regulation of the aviation industry back to sanity.

Government may only take one of two pathways. Spend another decade and an army of lawyers to unscramble the existing rule set : or, adopt the NZ. PNG, USA rule set and see industry revitalised within a twelve month. But either way - ICAO compliance is what we signed up for in Chicago, not some mad home made manipulation supported by 4000 'differences'. No Sir, indeed we did not.

Toot - toot.

P2 addendum: CASA obligations to the Chicago Convention and ICAO SARPS

First from Part II section 11 of the CA Act:

11 Functions to be performed in accordance with international
agreements

CASA shall perform its functions in a manner consistent with the
obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention and any
other agreement between Australia and any other country or
countries relating to the safety of air navigation.

Next from Herbert D Ray's (slightly disjointed) submission to the ASRR:

Each submission displays how various matters are regulated by CASA’s FAR sterile
rules to contribute those rules to not being capable of administering and producing FAA
class one level aerospace products and only being capable of administering and
producing FAA class two level Australian aerospace products.

Our safety regulator has never being classed by the ICAO universal safety oversight
program (USOP) auditors as a ‘compliant ICAO treaty State and never being capable of
administering and producing FAA level one only level two rated aerospace products.

The submission to the ATSB displays how VH TWJ an MA18 Dromader that had a wing
failure near Ulladulla on the 24 Oct 2013 had been operating with illegal CASA 6600kg
auw CASA approved instructions certifying the operation of VH TWJ to operate by
2850lbs (1290kg) overweight to an ‘N’ registered Dromader in the US.

The CASA not FAA approved instructions are not recognized by the FAA which rates
the aircraft as a class two level aircraft that is not eligible to operate in US or any other
compliant ICAO treaty State airspace.

Each ICAO treaty State that has pledged to uphold the Chicago Convention international
treaty to internationalize their national civil aviation law to respond in concert with
international standards all have the objective regulating their national civil aviation law to
be capable of administering and producing FAA level one aerospace products.

ICAO treaty States are aware that only FAA level one rated aerospace products can
operate as an N registered aircraft or be installed on N registered aircraft and are
eligible to safely operate and navigate US and ICAO Treaty States airspace.

The ICAO treaty States are compliant ICAO Treaty States when they maintain the FAA
level 1 rating as a standard for aerospace products being eligible to safely operate and
navigate a States airspace.

An ICAO Treaty State audited by the ICAO universal safety oversight program rates a
State as being a ‘compliant ICAO Treaty State’ when its national civil aviation law can
administer and produces FAA level one rated Aerospace products.

Plus:

US rehabilitates Israeli air safety, a lesson for Australia
Ben Sandilands | Nov 02, 2012 8:05AM | EMAIL | PRINT

The US Federal Aviation Agency’s rehabilitation of Israel as a Level 1 state in relation to air safety ought to be read as the clearest of warnings to Australia to get its act together without delay.

If Australia is busted down to Level 2, which on the evidence, it should be, the consequences include the prohibition under US law of code shares between Australian flag carriers and those of America.

The managements of Qantas and Virgin Australia need to carefully consider what losing their respective code share deals with American Airlines and Delta would mean, and ask whether the craven acceptance of the dismal state of affairs in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia is worth the damage such a downgrade would inflict on their shareholders, employees and commercial reputations.

When Israel flouted its responsibilities and was busted for almost four years, it failed to lobby its way out of trouble, which was quite surprising. But as Wikileaks showed earlier this year, when Australia provisionally failed the necessary audits to retain Level 1 status, our lobbying efforts saved the day.

Since then matters if judged by recent events, have gone backwards in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia, and the risk of a safety downgrade and all of its commercial consequences should be treated (as it may already be in high places) as being severe and imminent.

This is the FAA statement concerning Israel, released overnight:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that Israel complies with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), based on the results of an October FAA review of Israel’s civil aviation authority.

Israel is now upgraded to Category 1 from the Category 2 safety rating the country received from the FAA in December 2008. Israel’s civil aviation authority worked with the FAA on an action plan so that its safety oversight system fully complies with ICAO’s standards and practices. A Category 1 rating means the country’s civil aviation authority complies with ICAO standards.

A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping or inspection procedures With the International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Category 1 rating, Israeli air carriers can add flights and service to the United States and carry the code of U.S. carriers.

With the Category 2 rating, Israeli air carriers were allowed to maintain existing service to the United States, but could not establish new services As part of the FAA’s IASA program, the agency assesses the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that operate or have applied to fly to the United States and makes that information available to the public.

The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations In order to maintain a Category 1 rating, countries with air carriers that fly to the United States must adhere to the safety standards of ICAO, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.

This is the situation in Australia, in terse form: CASA is accused in multiple places, including under parliamentary privilege before the Senate, of conspiring with the ATSB, to withhold vital safety information contrary to the provisions of the Transport Safety Information Act of 2003 in order to protect the reputation of operator Pel-Air in relation to the ditching of one of Westwind jets off Norfolk Island in 2009, in the final report into the crash published by the ATSB on 30 August.

The ATSB has admitted that the report is not one it can be proud of, through its chief commissioner Martin Dolan, and the general manager, air safety investigations, Ian Sangston, deposed that he didn’t even know what safety questions had been asked of the survivors, but signed off on a report that did not even say whether the safety equipment on the jet worked. (It didn’t.)

AirServices Australia has recently lost at least two airliners in Australian controlled airspace, and in the case of the Virgin Australia 737 that it lost track of for most of the way between Sydney and Brisbane, lied about to the media, and has not addressed evidence that the notification of the incident to the ATSB was so inaccurate in the first instance that it had to be amended after the fact.

There are many more areas of administrative and competency failures, as regular readers of Plane Talking would be aware. The damage the situation in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia can do to life, property and the economic interests of this country are considerable. They are conveniently ignored in the general media and public life. The inconvenience that will arise without determined and urgent corrective action cannot be understated.

If anyone thinks these serious issues, as an original signatory to the 1944 Chicago (ICAO) Convention, of non-compliance with the ICAO SARPs has since been addressed, think again because it has actually gotten worse.

Courtesy of AMROBA, via the AP email chains:

CASA senior management refuse to promulgate EASA Part 66/147 AME class hours.

This also means the ICAO SARPs are not being met – not compliant with SARPs.

This is the real reason why the shortage has happened. 

We don’t have specific EASA helicopter or piston powered aeroplane courses.  After a decade and half since Part 66 introduced, we still haven’t seen EASA training course standards applied. Is there an unwitting bias against these sectors of aircraft maintenance.

Oh, how we would have like the B2L of EASA to enable a progressive licence.

We would also liked CASA to adopt the Group ratings associated with Part 66 licences. 

It is fairly simple, when Part 66/147 was introduced, CASA and ASQA should have worked together to implement an ASQA training that meets the CASR Part 66 modules. Why does CASA approve Part 146 MTOs? They have no CASA approved basic licence training courses. 

CASA is out of step with Australia’s trade training system within the NVET system. 

The latest Breaking News makes it clear to all. 

How will civil aviation helicopter and piston powered aeroplanes sectors ever get training back into the VET system so apprentices can be employed leading to a helicopter of piston powered aeroplane AME tradespersons can become a reality? 

We all agree that under the current management, there is little hope they will change.
 

When will government wake up that there is a critical shortage under the current regulatory system. 

Regards

---

&..


Sandy, 

I agree, this leadership of CASA has no understanding of Annexes SARPs and are captured by individual operator/organisations and non commercial sectors of aviation. 

The real issue is that the CASA Executive is not technically qualified to do the ICAO course:

Managing Compliance with ICAO SARPs 

It should be compulsory for all public service managers (Infrastructure & CASA) involved with regulation development andmonitoring to complete this basis course.

Pre CAA/CASA, the Department’s globally recognised training school taught this to basic inspectors; so important in the engineering and maintenance fields as aircraft are global products maintained to global standards. 

Since the inception of an agency, the non-airline sectors have been targeted. 

Ken

And this afternoon from KC to all AMROBA members...

To all members,
 

Are we still recognised as a top 10 nation, compliant with Convention Annexes Standards & Recommended Practices?

Engineering no longer seems to have political or public service support as an industry that can go global as well as domestic.

Regulatory requirements are at least 15 years behind modern major civil aviation nations restricting all aspects, including job qualifications. 

2023-2024 Engineering Project Proposed. Ctrl Click link

We are proposing an engineering project to become fully harmonised with major civil aviation markets globally to reduce current administrative costs. Those manufacturing and maintenance services businesses that want to expand globally need a regulatory system that will enable global recognition to keep jobs in Australia.  Currently, this system prevents recognition.

Step 1.

The first hurdle that government must overcome is the inability of current departments and agencies to give effect to the Convention Annexes’ Standards and Recommended Practice (SARP). All public servants involved must have industry experience and must complete the ICAO’s training course  “Managing Compliance with ICAO SARPs” so all Department and CASA senior and middle managers can plan, manage and continuously monitor the implementation of continually upgraded Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPs). Upskill department/agency staff to ICAO standards for personnel employed by aviation authorities.

• This should ensure that Civil Aviation Act, Regulations and Standards give effect to the Convention Annexes SARPs.
  
• This should remove just about all the differences lodged by Australia with ICAO.
  
• By removing differences, bilateral/multilateral agreements enabling Australian manufactured products and approved organisations to be recognised by other nations.
  

Step 2.

Passing responsibility to develop regulations and standards to Agencies that administer these regulations and standards has not worked and has ended with Australia not being fully compliant with these Convention Annexes SARPs.   Only the Department is regulatory responsible to give effect to the Convention Annexes SARPs.  An international treaty with very specific standards and recommended practices.

Government must, to comply properly with the Air Navigation Act, reallocate all policy back to the portfolio department including the responsibility to submit new regulations, or amendments, that give effect to the SARPs, to the Minister for making.

• Agencies may make submissions to the department for change.
  
• The industry may make submissions to the department for change.
  
• Without compliance with SARPs, global participation is a mirage.
  

It is obvious when reviewing aviation regulations and standards that they do not give effect to the Convention’s Annexes as stated in the Air Navigation Act.

Air Navigation Act

26 Regulations

(1) The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act:

(a)     prescribing all matters which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act;

(b)    for the purpose of carrying out and giving effect to the Chicago Convention, as amended by the Protocols referred to in subsection 3A(2), any Annex to the Convention relating to international standards and recommended practices (being an Annex adopted in accordance with the Convention) and the Air Transit Agreement;

©     in relation to air navigation within a Territory or to or from a Territory;

(d)    in relation to air navigation, being regulations with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States; and

(e)     in relation to air navigation, being regulations with respect to any other matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws.

The loss of industry experienced experts from the public service management levels over the last 2 decades is a major reason why we dd not stay compliant with the Convention Annexes’ Standards and Recommended Practice. They once provided leadership but the industry has much higher skilled workforce today because of the technology they manage day by day.

From ICAO course link: https://igat.icao.int/ated/TrainingCatal...ourse/2411

Goal

This course aims to enable CAA senior and middle managers to plan, manage and continuously monitor the implementation of ICAO SARPs in their States.

See video here: https://www.icao.tv/videos/civil-aviatio...ers-course

Hmm...Shirley Betsy and Su_Spence could spot several of their Dep Secs and Execs the $1250 USD to complete a virtual course for a better understanding of our obligations to be as closely compliant with the ICAO SARPs...Shirley..err anyone?? 

MTF...P2