[Peetwo]

How to: Reconnecting with the real world of Aviation

Not that our mob (government & bureaucracy) want to hear but here is a simple 'how to' redefine our RRP and reform our presently big "R" regulator. Courtesy KC & the AMROBA clan :

2. The Role of CASA is not defined in Legislation

One of the major points that the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review identified was the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was functioning very different from its 10 counterparts that have a place at the ICAO Council. Member States listed in the Council’s Part 1 – States of chief importance in air transport are:Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States.

The commonality of the other Part 1 members enabling Act, regulations, i.e. standards, that are aligned with the ICAO promulgated international standards and the international standards promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration of the USA is very comparable, except for Australia. Our ancient Act that was developed in haste back in 1988, does not clearly define CASA’s role or government responsibility under the Convention.

After nearly 30 years, Australian aviation requirements have not been harmonised with these world leading aviation countries, let alone the minimum standards promulgated by ICAO.

Within ICAO, the 191 Member States and a number of global aviation organizations work together to develop international Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). These SARPs are the reference for states developing their national civil aviation regulations which are legally enforceable. This is an important aspect: ICAO SARPs are not legally binding by themselves, they form the basis of national regulations which have legal status.

In this way, civil aviation regulations are harmonised all over the world, with slight differences based on the actual implementation in national regulations. These local differences are then reported back to ICAO and published.

So, when the rest of the ICAO member States adopt the ICAO SARPs, do we create very unique and costly requirements that no other country adopts. The world is too small for non-standardisation.

The ICAO Safety Oversight Manual, Part A states:

2.4.8. The aviation industry has the overall responsibility for maintenance of safe, regular and efficient operations, for aviation personnel training and for the manufacture and maintenance of aircraft and aviation equipment.

 Some States may share some of the responsibility for monitoring internal safety standards with other organisations (air traffic and aerodrome service providers, operators, approved maintenance organisations, manufacturers, etc.) that have been found to be reliable and to and to act responsibility.

 The objective of a safe and orderly civil aviation system cannot be attained unless each designated member is prepared to readily accept the implications of policy, including committing the necessary resources to its implementation. Crucial to the confidence that the CAA may place in civil aviation certificate holders and the associated freedom and flexibility it can give is the establishment by the certificate holders of an adequate quality system which must be reviewed and approved by the CAA.

CASA’s predecessors had already shared responsibility with industry participants and were well advanced until inexperience management reversed a couple of generations of gaining confidence and sharing responsibilities. Changes in the last decade to modernise the FARs has seen the shared responsibilities that CASA’s predecessors had implemented to be promulgated in the FARs.

It is time to revert to the proper empowering of the industry participants as was in progress in the past pre CAA/CASA, by adopting the modernisation changes to the FARs.

MTF...P2