[Peetwo]

Dear Alphabets

To all concerned I have absolutely zero affiliation with any of the alphabet soup Aviation groups, associations etc...etc just a keen observer. Much like David Forsyth (these days), this places me in a perfect situation to independently assess & review.

Now although I applaud the Marc de Stoop led initiative of Project Eureka, I believe there are already warning signs that this initiative may become derailed through industry politics and by even more bureaucratic obfuscation. It should be remembered that time is on the bureaucrats side and not on the industry's side. I also believe that it is a fundamental mistake not involving as many of the alphabet groups as is humanly possible to present as one cohesive group, eventually through attrition & division the Forsyth CASA reform program will be doomed to fail.

{Note: Here is an example of how in the US 17 industry groups put aside their differences and are now close to pushing through PBOR2 amended legislation: http://auntypru.com/forum/-Alphabet-if%E...35#pid3035 }

You will find attached a email chain talking about tomorrow's - Part 61 Solutions Taskforce - Inaugural Industry Advisory Panel Meeting.

In the course of those emails talk (through Thorny) goes to the incompetence of Roger Weeks, this is acknowledged & accepted. To me (the independent observer) that is the first mistake. The first point of order for that meeting tomorrow should be that industry will not accept Mr Weeks heading up the 'Taskforce', he has obviously a conflict of interest & industry does not believe he has the necessary prerequisites for the job - Full Stop!

Next the industry groups need to insist that CASA put in place an immediate plan of action to repeal (1st sitting of Parliament next year) Part 61 and in the interim replace with original legislation - Full Stop!

From Sandy's post - HERE - off AHIA thread:

..Although recommended that CASA make a survey every two years, following the ASSR, this survey is patently a total waste of money for the simple reason that clearly there is no point until and unless the reforms are in place, the real changes made and working to the benefit of the industry. Otherwise of course we are just going over and over the same ground. Love to know what this survey cost and who are the contractors. Any relatives or former CASA employees? Canberra people? You might say cynical but when we see the millions wasted, the mismanagement, now twenty six CASA employees working full time to correct their own regulations disaster, and having to take the time of GA operators away from their businesses, then we will probe and question. CASA and the Minister must be aware that fiddling at the edges is not acceptable. Only some real reforms to allow growth will start the long road towards cooperation and respect from GA to CASA... 

What next: Industry groups need to collectively agree to sign off on at least ten bullet points of immediate direct action that will (not shall or should - WILL) be actioned by CASA within the first four weeks of the New Year - not six months, not four months etc. - Full Stop!

Sandy on Reverend Forsyth's thread:

..Until and unless the CASA Board decides to create simple rules and stops treating us like a bunch of untrustworthy criminals then trust or respect to anyone in the top echelons of CASA will not be forthcoming.

Until and unless our minimum demands are met no more talking. The waste of time and money must stop. AMROBA is clear and sensible. The collective mindset of us all is focused on how to improve, not just revert to old rules. Its now plain to see what needs to happen, the Board must take control. It must instruct Mr Skidmore to institute some basic reforms immediately. Government must understand that it cannot crush a whole industry through neglect, lack of oversight, poor policies without repercussions..

I am with Sandy on this there is 'no negotiation', industry needs to send the message that all demands are non-negotiable.

Please don't waste tomorrow's perfect opportunity, the alternative could be that we are talking about this all over again in another six months time..an another 6 months time.. etc..etc

 MTF...P2  

Ps The following is an example of an alphabet group trying to do the best for it's members on the diabolical (death to industry) Part 61.

From AFAP President Captain Booth to Mr Skidmore nearly 5 months ago (DRAFT only):

28 July 2015
Mr Mark Skidmore
Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
PO Box 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601

By email: Mark.skidmore@casa.gov.au

Dear Mark,

AFAP concerns regarding the impact of CASR Part 61 on its pilot members
I refer to our recent meeting on 26 May, and discussion around Part 61.
There has already been considerable publicity given to the many concerns raised regarding the financial burdens, deficiencies, confusion and impracticability of the new Part 61. Many of these have been raised more than once in the CASA FCL sub-committee (the minutes of which indicate that many issues raised prior to the drafting of the current legislation are still unresolved).

The AFAP acknowledges the best of intentions of all involved in the development of Part 61, and the difficulty faced by CASA personnel in its implementation both before and after your commencement as Director of Aviation Safety. However, despite those best intentions, and the obvious and intimate understanding of the regulations by those CASA officers involved in their development, to a great many in the aviation industry Part 61 is a verbose, unclear, complicated and ambiguous document which despite copious (sometimes equally confusing) guidance material, is proving extremely difficult and expensive to comply with.

In this we feel that CASA has not lived up to its responsibility under section 9(1)© of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

In view of this situation the AFAP would ideally like to see a complete review and rewrite of the legislation in a form that is understandable to all industry participants.

In the event this is impractical or, in the interim, I would like to draw your attention to just some of the issues raised by our members with particular emphasis on the cost burden and the confusion imposed by Part 61, in its current form by way of informing the ongoing post implementation review process.

Part 61 has created onerous compliance requirements unique to Australia.

These requirements are causing a reduction in GA participation at all levels.

They are reducing employment opportunities for GA pilots and hindering pilots advancing to airline positions. CASA’s transition study on the procedural, documentary and operational changes of Part 61 was without any appreciable consideration of the cost burden to industry.

Nor was there any demonstrable or quantifiable evidence of improvements in safety standards being achieved as a result of these changes. More complex regulations do not necessarily lower the accident rate. The US FAA regulatory system covers a comparable aviation industry mix to Australia. FAR Part 61 gives much greater flexibility to flight review, proficiency checks and licence attainment, with no demonstrable decrease in safety standards. In fact in 2013 the GA accident rate in the US was 5.85 per 100,000 hrs flown, in Australia it was 8.33 accidents per 100,000 hrs flown (last available ATSB statistics).

An example of increased costs for a representative GA instructor/examiner pilot is out lined in Attachment A.

Australia’s Part 61 is over 300 pages long, and when combined with the MOS, instruments and explanatory statements total approximately 1,000 pages. This legislation compares unfavourably with the length and complexity of Australia’s tax and corporations regulation legislation. As one member put it to us:

“The situation is so confusing that estimates of the flight review / proficiency check requirements for a particular Instructor/ ATO/ check pilot vary from six to fifteen checks every two years with the cost impact, in both cases, being vastly more than was previously experienced. In addition to the direct costs involved, the impost in terms of administration and record keeping is considerable and for all of this there is little or no demonstrated practical improvement in the overall level of safety in the industry. The complexity of the rules and the structure of the legislation make it extremely difficult for industry to achieve compliance with any degree of certainty. Consequently in their current form, and despite the best of intentions, the CASRs could well lead to a reduction in aviation safety and compliance standards in this country.”

Many of the mandatory courses, training and authorisations are not yet in place in Australia, and while they may be available overseas, and may well be available here in time, the cost burden in complying is considerable. For example: the high cost of the ATPL which requires access to a Cat D simulator or equivalent aircraft for the flight test and to satisfy the MCC requirements (in the case of helicopters there is limited, if any, access to suitable simulators).

Few flying training organisations are seeking MCC training approvals. This has created a situation where, we are informed, that to date there has only been one fixed wing ATPL test since Part 61 was enacted and no Helicopter ATPLs.

Many Australian commercial pilots are now unable to qualify to higher ATPL standard which is hindering their ability to progress their careers into positions requiring an ATPL licence.

The ability to conduct an ATPL flight test in a light twin (BE58 etc) would solve this problem by providing a much cheaper solution for self-funded pilots. A workaround solution for the multi-crew component of the flight test should be found.

The AFAP does not deny the fact that checks need to be done, as indeed they were being done prior to Part 61, rather we wish to highlight the impracticality of the Part 61 system under which a number of experienced checkers and trainers are no longer able to perform this important service because they do not comply with the new regulations.

Some examples are:
1. Fixed wing GA instructor/examiner (Attachment A) – biennial cost increase to an individual examiner, Chief Pilot, of over $20,000 AUD and over two working weeks every year lost to additional preparation and testing attendance not previously required by CAO’s; and
2. Helicopter – significant biennial cost increases outlined by the AHIA.

Other ICAO State Regulatory Comparisons

EASA/UK

CASA describe the Part 61 as reflecting world’s best practice and in most instances quotes EASA regulatory comparisons. The European aviation industry has a very different mix of aviation industries from Australia with very little comparable general aviation (GA) segment.

The UK CAA has recognised that the EASA regulations are suppressive to GA and has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184, which admit the need for red tape reduction in the move to performance based regulation.

CAP 1123 states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA (UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).

CAP 1184 states that in the near term the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation (PBR).

FAA/USA

FAR Part 61.58 allows for a proficiency check in a complex type to cover other types/classes where the Australian Part 61 would require multiple checks.
FAR 61.156 Training requirements: Airplane category—multiengine class rating or airplane type rating concurrently with airline transport pilot certificate.

Allows the airline transport pilot certificate to be issued concurrently with an aircraft type rating. The Australian part 61 does not.

FAR 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications. Allows a qualified Flight instructor to maintain his approvals based on the number of students trained and passed within the preceding 2 yrs. This is a performance and results driven privilege that does not attract expensive FAA checks and tests of instructors if a certain standard is maintained. The Australian part 61 requires multiple checks and tests to maintain instructor approvals.

ASRR Findings

As the recent Australian Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel stated:

“Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.”

The AFAP restates its response to the 2014 Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel, letter of 8 July 2014:

“We now urge the government to adopt the report and its recommendations with particular regard to recommendations:

14. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.”

The CASA chaired SCC FCL Subcommittee does recognise some of these problems but appears to be addressing them in proposed minor adjustments/instruments/extensions/transitions to the rule set.

Proposed AFAP Amendments

The AFAP would like amendment proposals to Part 61 that allow:

1. The expansion of class ratings to permit a single flight review/proficiency check on a more  complex aircraft (including helicopters) to cover more simple types. E.g Single engine  aircraft proficiency coverage by the multi-engine class proficiency check.
2. Clarification of the ability to complete more than one test during a single sortie; e.g. IPC and Flight Review or instructor rating on a single sortie, maintaining standards but keeping the cost of checks to viable levels
3. Allow more scope of testing equipment for the ATPL flight test, reducing the currently extreme cost of the ATPL Flight Test, ie explore the possibility of completing the test in a light twin or lower category simulator than currently required. The FARs allows this, with subsequent limitations added to the licence.

The AFAP believe there will be many more examples of unnecessary onerous cost increases and compliance impracticalities as the industry transitions to Parts 61, 141 and 142.

Therefore, engaging with the principal excessive burdens now and scaling back or removing them must be considered a priority.

Yours sincerely,


Captain David Booth
President
Australian Federation of Air Pilots