[Peetwo]

Blast from the past!! - 

From my Facebook page an AP blog post from August 2021 was recently resurfaced as a past memory, that IMO abundantly highlights how terminally moribund the aviation industry (other than the major airlines) remain with CASA overregulation and inept oversight from the disinterested and disengaged miniscule a' la King:

#SBG 8/08/21: “I’ll lug the guts into the neighbor room.” https://auntypru.com/sbg-8-08-21-ill-lug-the-guts-into.../

What a jolly good idea; I wonder, will our DPM follow the same course; or, will he allow the ghost to roam free, creating mischief and mayhem while all look away? Aye, whimsical enough to set teeth on edge, despite the clear message within. Yet the mischief is wrought, aided an abetted by the denizens of the Sleepy Hollow smoke and mirrors control room. Not even Dante could have envisioned such a Hell; Illich in leather costume, wielding the whip; his acolytes, sweat drenched, toiling to fuel the furnaces which generate the smoke to mask the ICAO mirrors. “Steady on – boy” P7’s sturdy voice interrupts the dream state – the spell broken; the tattered remnants of the Ministerial SOE lays on the workbench – reality arrives, with a thump, along side a glass of restorative Ale. Heigh-Ho; is the fool rambling again? Then, perhaps not.

“My Oberon! what visions have I seen!”― William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

I’d drifted off to sleep, reading (for my sins) the Act, part 12 to be exact. The reason – to establish whether or not a Ministers ‘Statement of Expectations’ (SoE) could be legally binding on the CASA. Much would depend on the argument counsel could put up; but, essentially the answer is in the affirmative. So with that in mind, an examination of previous SoE defined a format which basically provided enough wriggle room to allow the ‘Authority’ to do exactly as pleased it best. The latest weak wrist-ed effort signed by our unlamented McDonaught – 24 hours after he was unceremoniously dumped from office. Now, there may well be some ‘technical’ reason for this; or, CASA desperately wanted the latest easement signed off, hoping it would slide past the keepers and become the latest ‘get out of goal card’. Passed off as an insignificant document, well beneath ministerial notice or care. Stealing Barnaby’s thunder another small landmine. And so it is – unless BJ sets about drafting his own SoE, signs it and – importantly – makes it bloody well stick. We have some suggestions which really should be included; to wit:-

Back in 1998 we had adopted a ‘rules by reference’ policy, into law, which incorporated the ICAO compliant FAA rule set. Despite ‘tinkering’ around the edges to mask the fact; this is still alive and kicking. All we need do was follow the FAA rules and the upgrade of those ‘best’ regulations would have been ‘ours’ – at no cost. In short; the mechanisms and regulations are in place (slightly muffled) and remain freely available to allow Australia to adopt the gold standard FAA rules – even the improved NZ version, which the USA is adopting. This of course comes from mutual respect and commonality of ’cause’.

“The farther I travel, the less I wonder at anything: a few days reconcile one to a new spot, or an unseen custom; and men are so much the same everywhere, that one scarce perceives a change in situation.” ― Horace Walpole, The Letters of Horace Walpole.

It is well within the gift and authority for the DPM to ‘persuade’ the CASA to change tack and set course toward ICAO compliance (and sanity). Simply write it and sign it:- 1 CASA will define, within 90 days, a system which supports a change over to the NZ rules. 2 CASA will establish training for staff in understanding the NZ system and its rules. 3 The government will request assistance from the NZ CAA and FAA to facilitate the approval of revised operations manuals as compliant with the new rule set. Instant revitalisation of a moribund industry – no government money required – outside the current allotment. There will be howls of protest from the ‘establishment’ who have created the biggest, most expensive, counterproductive rule set in existence. The most noise from those who have, by stealth and ministerial disinterest, placed Australia beyond the pale of the modern aviation world, in some vainglorious attempt to make ICAO compliant with the Australian ‘dream-time’: perhaps?

“Vainglory, however, no matter how much medieval Christianity insisted it was a sin, is a motor of mankind, no more eradicable than sex.” ― Barbara W. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century

There’s a little more BJ could achieve; with a stroke of the pen – after his minions had redrafted the SoE to the ATSB releasing them from the devious, some say illegal, all say deceitful ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MoU) between CASA and the ATSB. Free the ATSB to be what it was before this hideous chimera emerged from the bowls of a deluded, dishonest, warped mind. Free the ATSB to fulfil it’s role as the arbiter of ‘safety’ through closed loop analysis of exactly what, why and how there was life lost.

“Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man. Any man who is afraid to have his doctrine investigated is not only a coward but a hypocrite.” ― Robert G. Ingersoll, Famous Speeches Complete

Which brings us to the latest, in a long weary Conga line of Senate ‘inquiry’ into matters aeronautical. There only seems to be two paths for the new minister to take on this. One is to ‘can’ that inquiry and start once more on the long, tedious circular pathway, only to, once more, begin again. McDolittle’s lightweight foray into Sleepy Hollow is discredited and tainted by political machinations. A scant 50 submissions define not only industry weariness with the never ending demand for ignored advice (supplied gratis) but a lack of faith in any meaningful outcome. We’ve been at this game for too long. If McDolittle wants to play on, then we suggest she dig out the recommendations made by a Senate inquiry and the Rev. Forsyth; rigorously apply them and ‘persuade’ the minister to include both Senate and ASSR recommendations as part of his own, not McDonaught’s very own, brand new SoE. That may, just, provide industry with ‘a candle in the window’.

A great flame follows a little spark. ― Dante Alighieri, Paradiso

Of course, my ramble is based on the hope that Joyce realises he has been ‘gazumped’ by the witless wannabe; the developers friend from Wagga Wagga. We can only hope that man is not BJ’s role model – gods help us if he is. You see, dear minister, the PM&C are worried about ‘the election’ – they don’t want an aviation scandal blowing up in their faces. There’s one in the offing and it’s a beauty – fair warning, but no quarter given; no clues bar those offered (think Choppers); not this time around – nope; no way.

Ref:http://www.casacorruption.com/safety/

“Lord, what fools these mortals be”― William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Anyway – The workshop is back to it’s usual state of amicable scruffiness; I’m making a ‘first’ for me; an old fashioned ‘cradle’ of the rocking variety. Customer arrived with the necessary ‘lumber’ – hard to come by stuff. Of course it is ‘in-the-rough’ so a solid day to cut, size and square it; but it is lovely stuff. It may seem, at first glance, to be a simple matter to make a box on ‘rockers’ – but it ain’t. Not if it all has to fit together at the end and be robust. For some strange, unfathomable reason, it seems to prefer being ‘made’ later in the day – early starts make the lumber ‘cranky’ while the evening light and lamp light seem to soothe the timber. Don’t ask me why – NDI – but it seems to work. But: I have a question for you. What does one say to an overgrown hearthrug, with amber eyes, looking at you with a boot in it’s mouth? “OK – drop my boot and away? Ayup; that did the trick – now if I could only find the t’uther – all would be well.

Selah.-.

  
Hmm...I note that the DK signed SOE is due to expire on the 30th June 2025. Here was CASA's 'Statement of Intent' that was created to address/obfuscate their obligations to that cut & paste version of what was then mostly BJ's SOE:

On 13 June 2023, the Minster for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government the Hon Catherine King MP, issued a Statement of Expectations to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the period 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025. The Statement of Expectations serves as a notice to the Board of the CASA under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and formalises the then Deputy Prime Minister’s expectations concerning the operations and performance of CASA.
CASA responded to the accountabilities in the Statement of Expectations on 28 August 2023 with a Statement of Intent 2023-25.

Overview

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will adhere to the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Airspace Act 2007, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and any other relevant legislation when performing its functions and exercising its powers. CASA will continue to operate in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner that is consistent with applicable Government policies.

CASA’s Board and staff will comply with CASA’s Values and Code of Conduct directive which is consistent with the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.

Governance

CASA will maintain better practice governance arrangements in the way it manages its operations and day-to-day operational, policy, financial, personnel and administrative activities, as detailed in the Government’s deregulation agenda and Regulator Performance Guide.

The Board and Chief Executive Officer/Director of Aviation Safety (CEO/DAS) will make decisions and act collegiately in accordance with their legislated responsibilities to ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, and complies with directions given by the Minister under section 12B of the Act. Accordingly, the CASA Board will set the strategic direction and take responsibility for risk management and corporate planning, and the CEO/DAS will manage CASA’s operations and organisational capacity, along with the performance of its statutory functions.

CASA will promptly alert you and the Secretary of the Department of any event or issue that may materially impact CASA’s operations. CASA will also advise you of any submissions, major media releases or speeches and other information for which the Government is accountable to the Parliament.

The Board will continue to actively promote effective communication and engagement between CASA and its stakeholders. This will include hosting ‘meet the Board’ events to allow industry representatives to speak to the Board and CASA about important issues. A summary of matters discussed at each Board meeting will be published within 20 business days of the date of meeting.

In relation to both perceived and actual conflicts of interest, the Board has in place processes, including:

• a conflict of interest policy published on the CASA website
  
• declarations of Material Personal Interest, and
  
• a conflict-of-interest register
  

to manage both perceived and actual conflicts of interest and will continue to publish its procedures for the management of conflicts of interest on CASA’s website.

CASA will perform its functions consistent with Australia’s international obligations, including Australia’s obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).

CASA will work to support Government policy, particularly its deregulation agenda and act consistently with the principles of the Government’s Regulator Performance Guide. To do this, CASA will balance the benefits of reducing regulatory burden on the aviation sector while helping ensure the delivery of aviation safety and public interest outcomes.

In doing so, CASA will consider the economic and cost impact of the standards CASA sets, and the differing risks associated with different sectors of industry.

CASA will provide you with a corporate plan which sets out our performance metrics, and an annual performance statement which reports against these metrics.

An additional focus for the Board will be to ensure the culture of CASA reflects the Government’s expectations to support a safe and sustainable aviation sector.

Strategic direction and manner of performance

CASA will regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, in accordance with its legislative obligations and will perform its functions in accordance with all applicable legislative requirements.

CASA will manage resources in accordance with its financial position and workforce plan, following best practice principles and guidelines and its Board and staff will adhere to the Code of Conduct and CASA Values.

CASA will maintain its role as a world leader in aviation safety and will fulfill its commitments in the Asia-pacific region.

CASA will make publicly available through publication on the CASA website, its regulatory philosophy and implementation approach in accordance with that philosophy.

The table below sets out how CASA will address the expectations in relation to our regulatory approach, the Government’s key initiatives and our approach to stakeholder engagement and we will provide you with quarterly updates on progress focused on matters with clearly articulated deliverables.

View the Statement of Expectations for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025.

Finally, with all of the above in mind, reflect on this excellent UP post from 43inches in reply to CM's 'Mid-Air @ Caboolture' thread:

43inches

This is where Australian air law went wrong in the 1990s. CASA is not writing rules for 'Air Safety', they are writing rules for enforcement and deflecting liability, as a result of Seaview and other court cases that went against them. Proper rules written for safe operation are simple and concise, refer the Australian road rules, there are little over 200 rules for using the road, and more than 100 of those are simply dealing with where you can park. So that leaves a few very straight forward rules to learn and remember while you are driving, and people still get that wrong. Australian airlaw is now so convoluted it needs a MOS to interpret it on top of AIP, CAAPs, ERSA and a myriad of stuff I probably don't even know about. All that means that every day there is probably thousands of non compliant operations because the user simply does not know, or has no comprehension of the law involved. It's so convoluted that when there is an accident the police and coroner use road laws to prosecute, which then begs the question why bother having the rules?

Lead is spot on, how can an uncontrolled aerodrome operator be responsible for the air above it, and since there is no real definition of the dimension of the responsibility at what point is the aerodrome operator no longer responsible. A simple test is if I fly near a non-certified aerodrome at lower level due weather, in a non radio equipped aircraft, but the operator specifies all aircraft operating at x aerodrome must carry and use radio, am I required to carry and use a radio, since I'm not operating at said aerodrome, just overflying it? What if I have an electrical failure, or radio failure? Am I allowed to use the radio mandated aerodrome in an emergency, and then we are back to square one, that any aerodrome at any time "could" have a non radio aircraft in the mix. There's no way to communicate radio failure, especially electrical failure where the transponder is dead as well to other aircraft. And if you think redundancy will save you, well I know at least two twins, with dual alternators and batteries that have had complete electrical failures. I remember one occurrence at Jandakot where a no-radio aircraft turned up in a circuit of 6 aircraft, the tower didn't know it was there until it was on short final, it ended up going around because the aircraft ahead was unaware of it and lingered on the runway, the circuit was in silence for 5 minutes where no one said anything and several touch and goes occurred in total radio silence while the tower reorganized itself. Tower then asked everyone on early downwind their callsign in turn to re-establish who was where...

In regard to this accident the Jabiru was radio equipped, and the pilot was probably using it, but for whatever reason no one heard them and possibly they could not hear others (we'll never know). At the same time another aircraft which was also radio equipped had it's radio turned down, so now two aircraft that were radio equipped and probably using it were not able to hear transmissions. In the time I spent in GA this was not common, but it occurred regularly, wrong frequency, volume turned down, equipment failure. We are all human, mistakes will happen, which is why you should never assume anything and keep those eyes open and scanning.

As for nominating an 'active' runway, that's just stupid, the nomination is just in that one pilot's head, anyone else could nominate any other runway, hence why 'runway in use' is a much better term, using the simple rules of most into-wind has right of way. The same as nominating your own sequence number in the circuit, it sounds fancy, but just adds to confusion when somebody is out of sequence and no-one is there to correct it, ie ATC, it also leads to assumptions being made about your sequence rather than using your eyes. The old rules were about predictable, orderly flow, that is why we have a circuit pattern, so that everyone should be in a predictable position for see and avoid. This is the simplest way to maintain safety. Cutting corners in the circuit and flying close bases with not much final removes predictability, using crossing, especially shorter runways, that are not into wind is also unpredictable behavior. The best chance a pilot has for see and avoid is when that approaching pilot is established on a reasonable length final, on proper slope, with all their lights on.

Much...much MTF me thinks?? -