[Peetwo]

2015 - The Year of 'Great Exasperations'

AMROBA's final newsletter for the year - Volume 12 Issue 12 - should be required reading for those individuals who want to obtain a better appreciation of the largely regulator induced woes & decline of the once flourishing but still essential GA industry...

1. Year 2016 may provide some benefits for GA!

CASA seems to be denying that aviation participants/aviation activities at secondary airports and many others rural airports are a shadow of the past. Why? The prescriptive regulatory imposts, red tape & documentation that have been generated, especially over the last decade, has created an administrative restricted system. This is preventing aircraft from being used as an alternative form of transport like cars. Once CASA convert recent "words" into "action" then 2016 may show some promise for GA.

2. What are CASA Board’s direction to the DAS?

AMROBA members, like other industry participants, have been waiting and waiting and waiting for change in direction to the regulatory system – e.g. a move from prescriptive based regulatory system to a performance based regulatory system. Sadly, all we see is more prescriptive requirements causing confusion and non-acceptance by industry participants. E.g. Part 61 latest over regulation fiasco.

In addition, ever increasing red tape continues despite the government rhetoric regarding red tape and regulatory burden reduction.

3. CAA/CASA must accept onus for damaging GA


Why can some government departments reduce costs when CAA/CASA cannot? Without doubt, every regulatory change since the formation of the CAA, has reduced the number of participants in this industry. The numbers of jobs in rural aviation and at secondary city airports are a ghost of the past numbers and it all comes down to over-regulation.

Besides the rules of the air, all that should be required in private general aviation is an aircraft with an onus on the operator to maintain it airworthy, a pilot with an applicably rated licence and not much else.

4. Understanding risks – regulator & industry

The latest buzz words is risk based regulation. Sounds good until you realise that public servants are risk adverse and think their role is to protect the public therefore perceiving unsupported risks not based on evidence. Most technical public servants perform their role enthusiastically but when clarity of responsibility is not clear, some may become overawed at their ‘perceived’ responsibility and the public frustrations become obvious. Read submissions to the ASRR.

From KC's review of 2015 & looking forward to 2016 you get a strong sense of exasperation for the year that promised so much but delivered so little...  

Examples:

..In 2015, once again we have heard a lot of talk from CASA & its DAS, Mark Skidmore. However, industry has heard the same from Cooper, Keith, Toller, Byron & McCormick usually followed by a restructure of the Authority that ends up with more of the same no matter which regime. Skidmore has done the same as his predecessors but, from industry point of view, we are yet to see the benefits. Will Skidmore’s restructure work when previous restructures have not?..

    

If the CASA Board is to be effective then it has to be transparent so industry can see what directions that they give to DAS Skidmore iaw the Minister’s Statement of Expectations. If all its communications, directions, policies are kept secret between the Board and the DAS, then it will become an ineffective Board serving no benefit for the public or industry participants...

...The aviation regulatory structure and current requirements are probably in a worse condition than at any time in my 55 years’ experience in this industry.

ASRR states we need clear and plain English written standards supported by a regulation like CASR Part 145. We contend that the MoS approach should be standards under 9(1)© of the Act that are written as Standards without the criminal code being applied. We may lose this battle in the short term but hopefully win in the long term.

If we are to have an effective Board, then we need to see what it is doing...

Why can some government departments reduce costs when CAA/CASA cannot? Without doubt, every regulatory change since the formation of the CAA, has reduced the number of participants in this industry. The numbers of jobs in rural aviation and at secondary city airports are a ghost of past numbers and it all comes down to over-regulation or badly directed regulations.

Besides the rules of the air spelt out in Annex 2 to the Convention, all that is required in private general aviation is aircraft with an onus on the operator to maintain them airworthy; plus a pilot with an applicably rated licence and not much else. Who does the maintenance and the minimum maintenance standards should be promulgated by CASA as standards. Our system has become complicated and therefore no longer encourages the volume of participants needed to expand.

Without doubt, every regulatory change since the formation of the CAA, has reduced the number of participants in this industry...

...The aviation industry has enough challenges from other government departments and agencies ever increasing regulatory imposts, it does not need unnecessary restrictions from its own regulator.


Some of the blame lies with an aviation Act that nobody wants to change because of the political situation in the Senate. Without doubt, CASA’s approach can be partially blamed on an ageing out of date Civil Aviation Act but CASA must also accept blame as it does not comply with the Act. CASA has never promulgated "clear and concise civil aviation safety standards" under the Act because, in their mind, they would have trouble enforcing. So they have created complicated and over regulated standards under the Regulations which have had the criminal code applied to the regulation.

This has nothing to do with safety as aviation safety standards promulgated under the Act are as enforceable as the Act itself.

Every participant in the aviation industry should, whenever they feel disenchanted with any current requirement, or proposed requirement, let the CASA Board know.

The majority of the Board members know by past experience that this industry’s aviation regulatory system is in total disarray. Any other aviation regulator (excluding EASA) that produced such a complicated and frustrating set of requirements would have political consequences...

..One of the reasons jobs are not being created in aviation, besides the ever changing unworkable regulatory processes (e.g. pilot licencing), is the complexity that has been implemented over time. How many VH registered aircraft sit idle every year? Why are they not being flown more than 100 hours/annum? If aircraft were utilised as they were designed to be used each year, then the industry would be growing.

The only way higher utilisation will occur will be when the regulatory system has been simplified so aircraft can be used as a form of transport as an alternative to road and rail. This means private aviation and small maintenance businesses must operate with virtually zero red tape...

Words of wisdom KC, however is anyone listening?  
MTF...P2