[Peetwo]

And Oliver just to help you out here is an example from AMROBA of how possibly to re-word Section 3A of
the Act..

Recommendation 2: Amend 3A to read similar to the NZ Objectives: e.g.

a) CASA to undertake the government's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of

achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable aviation system; and

(b) to ensure that Australia’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are

implemented.

NPRM 1519OS - Aerial work operations

Documents
15 September 2015

• NPRM 1519OS (160KB)
  
• Annex A - Summary of responses to DP 1507OS and minutes of the Part 138 packaging meeting (124KB)
  
• Annex B - Draft Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulation 2015 (852KB)
  
• Annex C - Draft Part 138 Manual of Standards compilation (420KB)
  

 
...UFB ...just another lazy old 150 odd pages for some poor HOFO/CP to decipher from bullshit legalese to plain old Queen's English.

Hmm..could be a good opportunity to apply Oliver's 10 'in principle' commandments??

In an update to my last, it would appear that OSM is getting the hang of this spin & bulldust campaign, cleverly designed & masked to obfuscate the Forsyth review and any real hope of reform.

From the regurgitator Creepy today, courtesy the Oz:

Aviation changes may be delayed, says CASA boss Mark Skidmore

Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore has flagged that rule changes the federal government wanted finalised this year are likely to be delayed because of industry feedback.  

Mr Skidmore also signalled his determination that staff at the regulator adopt the more consultative approach being advocated by upper management.

Industry groups have welcomed comments by Mr Skidmore that CASA will take on board industry concerns but some have expressed concern the message is not filtering down to some parts of the organisation.

In an email to staff, Mr Skidmore said he was aware some staff may be unclear about the regulator’s current priorities on developing and implementing remaining parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

These included suites of rules covering general aviation maintenance, passenger transport operations, aerial work and sport and recreation operations.

Mr Skidmore noted the government’s response to the Aviation Safety Review had called for the drafting of all new regulations to be completed this year but it had also said they should be subject to changes in “regulatory approach and appropriate con­sultation’’.

It also said CASA needed to ensure an effective communication and education process was put into place before these provisions started.

“As I have made clear previously, in so far as they relate to CASA, I am committed to ensuring we implement the government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review in an effective and timely manner,’’ he said in the email.

“Many of those recommendations have already been successfully implemented and a range of others are under way. Delivering on the government’s expectations is vital.

Consistent with that obligation, however, it is equally important to get the implementation of changes right. If it takes a little more time to implement successful and effective change, then I support such an approach.

“This principle applies to the finalisation of both the development and implementation of the new regulations.’’

Mr Skidmore said extensive consultation with the aviation industry had produced comments indicating operators found the volume of changes overwhelming and were struggling to find time to comment on them.

“While it is early days, and no decisions on how the regulatory change program will move forward will be made until the consultation is finished and the results analysed, it is clear CASA’s current approach is causing the aviation community significant difficulty,’’ he said.

“We need to finish this listening and discussion exercise before determining the next steps. If this creates some delay in the regulatory development and implementation process, I believe that would be time well spent to get the right outcomes for Australian aviation.’’

Mr Skidmore revealed earlier this month that he is allocating more resources to addressing issues raised by industry about flight crew licensing rules in Parts 61, 141 and 142.

He noted in his email that it was difficult to bring the aviation community with CASA on regulatory changes while it was still working on issues from previous changes.

“Regulatory development will be completed as quickly as is possible and implementation will be undertaken in an orderly and managed way, with a view to maximising safety benefits while minimising unnecessary burden on the aviation community,’’ he said.

..  

I also noticed that Oliver's bollox is slowly filtering out to the international aviation MSM, here is a couple of paras in the Aviation International News publication (AINonline):

CASA Publishes Regulatory Philosophy

 
by Robert P. Mark
 - September 20, 2015, 5:40 AM Mark Skidmore, the director of aviation safety for Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), last week released 10 guidelines of regulatory philosophy he believes should direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions. They include maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, remaining mindful of the primacy of air safety and CASA’s role in accounting for the cost of its recommendations, using risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision making and performing its functions consistent with Australia’s international commitments.

Skidmore’s list also said CASA will approach its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively and that the agency will communicate fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders; that CASA should fairly balance the need for consistency with its own need for flexibility; that the agency employ a just culture in its regulatory and related actions; that it demonstrate proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercise its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice; and that CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation.

However what really perked my interest off the AIN webpage was the 'related coverage' pages, which gives a very disturbing (7+ years) historical snapshot of the 25 year basket case, that is the Australian regulatory/administrative aviation safety reform:

Related Articles

September 29, 2011, 9:58 AM
AIN Blog: A Breath of Fresh Air From a Regulator

August 29, 2007, 11:52 AM
Australia Raises Service Fees

January 7, 2013, 2:15 PM
Australia Shuts Down Airline Over Safety Concerns

June 16, 2014, 1:20 PM
Australia Introduces Safety Regulation Reforms

June 3, 2013, 12:50 PM
Australian Senate Report Criticizes Aviation Agencies

A year out from the PelAir Senate Inquiry, if we did not have the benefit of hindsight, the first article would've been quite encouraging. However with hindsight we can only reflect, with black humour, that this was the prelude to the McComic embuggerance years..

AIN Blog: A Breath of Fresh Air From a Regulator

 
by Matt Thurber
 - September 29, 2011, 9:58 AM


   
The director of Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority pledges to listen to the agency's constituents. (Photo: Ohmega1982)

Although I get the impression that air safety in Australia is micromanaged, I admire John McCormick, director of aviation safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Maybe’s it’s because McCormick bluntly addresses CASA’s role and that he makes an effort to communicate regularly with CASA’s constituents. But it is also his willingness to confront change and consider new options.

In CASA’s latest monthly briefing, McCormick reminds Australian aviators “that CASA is not in partnership with the industry. CASA is an independent regulator and will remain so.

In my speech [to the Regional Aviation Association of Australia’s annual convention] I said what the industry should expect from CASA is not sympathy, but empathy. We will genuinely understand your views, your needs and your expectations. We may not always agree with you, but I guarantee we will listen to you, and that your concerns will be taken into account.”

This is a refreshing attitude. In the U.S., we think that the FAA should partner with the aviation industry and that the success or failure of aviation businesses depends a great deal on whether the FAA facilitates our missions. At the same time, we bemoan the FAA’s inability to adapt the regulatory framework to modern technology and to figure out how to improve safety using new and different techniques.

McCormick clearly delineates his agency’s territory and purpose. He then goes on to explain that CASA will examine some regulatory practices to see if they make sense. These include “proposed pilot licensing requirements, the need to hold an air operator’s certificate for certain kinds of operations and the obligation for smaller organizations to maintain drug and alcohol management plans.”

When was the last time the FAA ever looked over its rules and processes and decided that some didn’t make sense? In fact, the FAA consistently tightens the regulatory screws every time it decides to–in McCormick’s words–“examine regulatory practices.” And when the FAA does come up with what seems like a new way of regulating, it turns around and finds a way to take back what the new rules specifically allowed.

A case in point is the Light Sport Aviation (LSA) regulations, which created an entire new category of small aircraft and a lower barrier to entry for new pilots and new manufacturers. A key element of the LSA rules is that pilots need only have a valid drivers license to prove medical fitness to fly. Yet when the rules came out, and someone pointed out to the FAA that a regular pilot who is refused medical certification could still fly an LSA, the FAA backtracked and claimed that it didn’t mean that at all. Suddenly, and despite the fact that nowhere was this codified in the LSA rulemaking, any pilot rejected for a medical certificate was automatically denied the privilege of flying LSAs using his or her drivers license for medical qualification. (The fact that the FAA has no scientific proof of the benefits of medical certification is another story.)

Would CASA’s McCormick have done the same in Australia? I like to think that he and his team would have been more forthcoming and addressed that issue before the rules came out. But if not, maybe he would have issued a monthly briefing in which he reminded Australian aviators that he appreciates their concern and that CASA made a mistake and will rewrite the rules clearly and correctly.

    
This bit..
"..Would CASA’s McCormick have done the same in Australia? I like to think that he and his team would have been more forthcoming and addressed that issue before the rules came out. But if not, maybe he would have issued a monthly briefing in which he reminded Australian aviators that he appreciates their concern and that CASA made a mistake and will rewrite the rules clearly and correctly.."

..(besides making me feel violently ill.. ) I think Matt Thurber should refer to the  CVD pilots can fly – it's official. thread; or Creampuff with a ne-fairy-ous tale post; to see how far out of touch with reality his fluffy thought bubble on McComic truly was back then..

MTF..P2