[Peetwo]

KC & the AMROBA Band - Latest newsletter

A how to set the Forsyth review report & recommendations in stone...

1. Implementing permanent change

Without doubt, there has been almost unanimous support in the aviation industry for the recommendations of the ASRR report. The government and industry obviously support these recommendations, so when will the Department of Infrastructure & the CASA Board initiate changes to the Civil Aviation Act to implement these recommendations permanently? The Board and Infrastructure must recommend changes to change the regulatory style.


The Act must be amended to implement the government supported ASRR recommendations.

The Act was rushed together to create the CAA back in 1988 and has a series of ad hoc amendments. NZ realises that after 20 years, the Act should be reviewed so when will Australia set up a review of the Act against international treaties and applicability to the current aviation industry.

CASA & aviation continually have review after review with no permanent result – regulatory review has been under way since the formation of the CAA in 1988. The rest of the aviation world are modernising their requirements utilising performance based regulations & standards and utilising a risk based approach. The USA are well ahead of Australia as we implement draconian requirements of the past. Changes must happen.

Many businesses that have spanned a few regimes of CASA and its predecessors, are not confident that permanent change will happen until the government support and direction to the CASA Board & DAS is given legislative support in the Act. We need a DAS reportable to the Board and a Board reportable to the Minister. The Board must be held fully accountable.

Act – Duties (1) The Director is to manage CASA subject to the directions of, and in
accordance with policies determined by, the Board.

Subject to the directions of, and iaw policies determined by the Board.

For the Board to direct and provide policies to implement the government ASRR recommendations, then they need to recommend a review of the Act, especially the following sections of the Act:

Sec 3A - [i]Main object of this Act[/i]

The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

Compare with NZ who are also reviewing their Act: While the [NZ] Act is fundamentally sound, the Act is over 20 years old and during this period there have been a number of changes in the aviation industry. The Ministry wants to make sure the Act promotes a responsive regulatory system to support a dynamic aviation sector.

[NZ] Objectives of Minister

The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—

(a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and (b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.

NZ is reviewing their Act after 20 years and we have had no review after 27 years.

Sec 9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

The ASRR clearly identified that this provision should be clarified; consistent with the Convention, compatible with other major NAAs, including NZ.

In AMROBA’s opinion, CASA has never promulgated “clear and concise aviation safety standards ” under this provision of the Act. All current “standards” are issued under the Regulations.

All future “standards” should be made under the Act and undergo full Parliamentary oversight.

Sec 20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.

Provision in this section is seen as supporting prescriptive regulations – needs to be modernised.

(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:

(a) an Australian aircraft; or

(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or

© an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft; if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.

The word “that” can be interpreted very narrowly.

Sec 98 Regulations etc.

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

(a) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed;

(b) prescribing matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act;

© for the purpose of carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the Chicago Convention relating to safety;

(d) in relation to safety of air navigation within a Territory or to or from a Territory;

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

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

Compare with the FAA responsibilities for minimum standards.

USA Title 49. Sec. 44701. General requirements

(a) Promoting Safety. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing -

(1) minimum standards required in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers;

(2) regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for -

(A) inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances;

(B) equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling; and

© a qualified private person, instead of an officer or employee of the Administration, to examine and report on the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling;

(3) regulations required in the interest of safety for the reserve supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and aircraft fuel and oil, including the reserve supply of fuel and oil carried in flight;

(4) regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers; and

(5) regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

The concept that CASA has to create regulations and standards without stating they should be the minimum regulations and standards is a major reason why regulatory reform is treated as regulatory development by CASA staff.

The above are but a few examples – a complete review is warranted.

Sky Wars - The Force awakens - GA uprising?? Bring it on! 

 {Hint 4 Boyd: This bloke/roadblock needs to be escorted from the building ASAP}

From off the Oz this AM it would appear the troops are mobilising finally

CASA reforms: Rex says Order 48.1 wll force routes to close  

by: STEVE CREEDY
From: The Australian
November 06, 2015 12:00AM




Rex chief operating officer Neville Howell says CAO 48.1 if implemented would cost Rex more than $4m a year. Source: Supplied

Regional Express has warned that new rules about flight time limitations will cost it more than $4 ­million annually and could make some routes unviable as angst about regulatory reforms continues to spill out into the public arena.  

In a strongly worded letter sent to Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore earlier this year, Australia’s biggest independent regional carrier warned that Civil Aviation Order 48.1 was seriously flawed and was introduced with no real representation from regional aviation.

It also argued the new rules did not meet a directive issued by Mr Skidmore calling for regulatory changes must be shown to be necessary as well as justified on the basis of safety, do not impose unnecessary costs of hinder participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

“The new prescriptive rule sets of CAO 48.1 if implemented would cost Rex over $4 million annually,’’ the letter from Rex chief operating officer Neville Howell said. “The impact on the 5 Queensland regulated routes that Rex services would represent an additional cost in excess of $2.25 million annually for transporting only some 30,000 passengers a year. This impost would need to be passed to the passenger and would effectively render the service untenable, and would close the services to these remote and isolated communities who depend heavily on the access they receive for medical, legal, government and social activities.”

The letter emerged after aviation groups last week called for an industry task force to deal with the continuing damage caused by regulatory and urged CASA to withdraw CAO 48.1.

Umbrella group The Australian Aviation Associations Forum expressed concern at the slow pace of reform and the ongoing cost of new impositions from new regulations.

The forum warned that recently introduced CASA regulations were threatening the viability of the industry, particularly general aviation, with millions of dollars needed to be invested with no particular safety gains.

It singled out CAO 48.1 and parts 61 (pilot licensing), 141 (recreational, private and commercial pilot training) and 142 (integrated and multi-crew pilot training and checking) as areas which needed urgently addressing.

Industry players gearing up their campaigns for the next federal election subsequently cautioned CASA not to ignore the TAAAF call.

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell said regional airlines had urged Mark Skidmore to ­accelerate the authority’s reorganisation.

“We were trying to inject a sense of urgency I guess into the CASA hierarchy about what we see as some of the low-hanging fruit from the Forsyth Review,’’ he said.

Aerial Application of Association of Australia head Phil Hurst said the communique was a plea for help.

“It is a genuine heartfelt concern for the welfare of an industry that has been damaged directly by CASA regulations,’’ he said.

“The problems currently experienced with firefighting training are a direct result of poor planning and appalling implementation of regulations.

“The best way forward is to get fresh eyes from industry to identify practical exemptions and amendments to address the very real ­issues.’’

The Australian Helicopter Industry Association is advising its members to withdraw their applications to protest “the administrative burden, financial penalties and lack of progress with applications for parts 141, 142 & 145 (maintenance) certificates’’.

The AHIA is particularly concerned about the high cost — sometimes more than $100,000 — its members are paying for documentation and what it says is confusion among CASA personnel about parts 141 and 142.

“It is like trying to find a road across a desert in a dust storm; like the shifting sands, the constantly shifting guidelines make the way forward impossible,’’ AHIA vice-president Ray Cronin said.

“As a result, the AHIA is recommending its members and others in the helicopter community bunker down and withdraw their parts 141, 142 & 145 applications until such time as CASA is able to provide completed templates for the industry to use in the application process.’’

Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association executive director Ken Cannane said the proposals should be dropped in favour of a system based on the US Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

Mr Cannane said general aviation design, manufacture and maintenance had all suffered from the inability of CASA to maintain pace with the modernisation of the FAR system that once underpinned general aviation in Australia.

He said general aviation supported the FAR system and AMROBA believed the current system was unworkable. The CASA board needed to urgently move towards a FAR-based system for the sector.

“Since the commencement of the CAA in 1988, the industry has promised reforms to reduce red tape and regulatory requirements to enable improved safety and productivity,’’ Mr Cannane said.

“However, like all other associations, all we have seen is the opposite happen as regulatory reform has been changed to ­regulatory development resulting in increased red tape and ­requirements.

“CASA has ignored governments’ regulatory reform best practice guidelines for over a decade.’’

CASA has said it was actively consulting with the aviation community on a range of issues and this would continue. Changes had also been made to rules to address particular issues such as firefighting operations, it said.

From the Prez De Stoop.. :



{Hint 4 Boyd & the Board: This guy needs to be escorted into the building ASAP - https://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-smith/2/595/785}


Mike Smith

Civil Aviation & Regulatory Program & Operations Auditing



MTF?- Definitely P2