[Peetwo]

Skidmore consultation bollocks -

Previously off the AMROBA thread:

PBR vs Big "R" regulation

 
ARTICLE: Torqued: AC Is Not Good Substitute for Maintenance Fatigue Rule

Fancy that industry sector experts, commentators and relevant stakeholders actively getting involved, without fear nor favour, in public debate on the most appropriate way to proactively address an identified but dormant safety risk issue...  


Meanwhile in Oliver's land of retrograde regulations where all industry participants are criminals until proven otherwise, a couple of comments from LAMEs off Sandy's petition that says it all...

Read this comment and sign the petition. I have been in the aviation industry for the past 49 year... https://www.change.org/p/7202495/c/46057...responsive via @ChangeAUS

..The introduction of the part 145 which CASA admitted in a meeting I was at when they dumped the FAR system for the European system. At that meeting CASA said that the system did not work in europe for GA but they were going to make it work in australia. 30 years this September it still has not been put into place. Companies have literly spent millions of dollars getting the 145 tag for no extra safety gains. It has divided GA and forced a lot of companies to close...

 

Read this comment and sign the petition. Although I am skeptical of clicktivism, this is pertinent... https://www.change.org/p/7202495/c/46083...responsive via @ChangeAUS

...Although I am skeptical of clicktivism, this is pertinent to me. I am a LAME and have seen the decline of aviation in Australia, sadly much of that driven by the red tape forced CASA has been mandated to foist upon the industry. The industry needs simple, effective oversight, with effective and accessable rules, and strong enforcement. The aviation industry is seen as a cash cow by many as there seems to be a perception that aircraft = available money, without much thought to the massive overheads and minuscule margins required to operate.

KC in reply to the above from off a PAIN email chain:

The big difference in Australia is that “modern awards” negotiated by businesses and unions have addressed this issue a couple of decades back.
ATSB also produced a detailed paper in 2001 highlighting this issue:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/33957/sir200102_001.pdf

The recommendations in the ATSB paper were adopted back in 2001.
 
AMROBA uses it when advising its members.
 
Regards...

 To which I replied:

..guess that was a somewhat poor example as I was trying to point out the major difference in 'consultation' when it comes to the FAA v CASA.


However that is an excellent ATSB link Ken. That would have been back when the bureau was somewhat relevant and proactive in addressing identified safety issues. I note that the report had 9 very good safety recommendations, fast forward to today's Dolan led ATSB, they would be lucky to have that many SRs in a year. See my report on the decline of the SR under Dolan: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Popin_2.pdf 
 
As a point of comparison to that ATSB report, refer to yesterday's ATSB VARA ATR interim report  (link at the top of this AP Post: http://auntypru.com/forum/-Overdue-and-Obfuscated?pid=4482#pid4482 ), which IMO should also have generated the need to publish a SR (or two)...

And today another email contributor brings it back to TAWS with the following insightful & historical contribution... :

Folks,
The major points of difference in consultation, FAA v. CASA is:
 
(1)    FAA have a very formal justification criteria for regulation making, that includes risk management and cost/benefit justification ---- the major elements in making sure that every “there should be a rule --------“ doesn’t happen.
(2)    The ARAC groups duties are up to and including drafting the basic “rule” that will eventuate from their activities.
(3)    The ARAC system largely prevents “interested parties” creating “rules” for sectional commercial advantage ----- a major unacknowledged problem here in Australia.
 
As a matter of interest, every time FAA invokes its “emergency authority”, and “proceeds direct to final rule” it turns into to be a shambles, and a very expensive shambles, just like here. The “control cable AD”, which started from the lobbying of one INDUSTRY IDENTITY here, would never get off the ground in the US system.
 
In contrast, here, a genuine risk management approach simply never gets a look in, there is NO genuine and HONEST attempt at cost/benefit analysis, RIS comes after, not before, and we wind up with a huge rule book, where we have LONG SINCE PAST to point of DIMINISHING RETURNS. Ie: Most of CASA’s activities have no beneficial safety benefits, and it can be argued that many have the opposite effect, they actually increase risk.
 
Time and again, CASA’s final rules bear no relationship to what was “consulted” via the Technical Sub-Committees, the “maintenance suite” is the prime example, what we have bears not the slightest relationship to the output of the very expert group put together by Bruce Byron, and bears no relation to the EASA approach, which Byron was looking for.
 
The original draft Part 91 was actually marginally shorter than FAR or NZ CAR 91, the current draft CASR   Part 91 ----- save me.
 
As Assistant Director Bill McIntyre said, many years ago: “ The law requires us to consult, it doesn’t require us to take any notice”.
 
Regards,

In perhaps one of the better examples of the true reality of the Skidmore regime's attitude to industry consultation, I came across a RAAA submission in reply to CAsA's call for comment to proposed changes/improvements to CAO48.1 (RAAA Submission - CD1510OS-2):








Skidmore - Tick, flick & ignore...




MTF...P2