[Peetwo]

4D to the rescue -

“It is essential that any changes that are made are assessed against safety and risk considerations,” - miniscule Chester...

Off the DDDD_MNFI's thread P9 talks about the ever growing plethora of 'strict liability' regulations placing high red tape costs of compliance on industry, in what seems for little or no (in some cases less) actual safety risk mitigation benefit:  

Risk mitigation.

TB – funny you bring the ‘penalty unit’ into consideration; just been fiddling with a chart which attempts to define the legal ‘risks’ associated with operating a routine ‘charter’ flight Be 200), a ‘Rex’ style RPT (Saab) and a ‘heavy’ public transport service (738). I’ve only been working on it when time and mood permitted; you need to be in the right frame of mind to tackle it, lest you go nuts.

Where it all gets really scary is when you bring in the AFM, SOP, OH&S, company ‘policy’ and the SMS. If I ever get it finished I’ll send you a copy, guaranteed to send you sleep with nightmares. As PIC, the sheer weight of government ‘legal’ obligation is overwhelming, then you must add to that total the ‘extraneous’ obligations which hang off or depend on those same regulations. Without labouring the point, taking out a flight is now at a stage where you almost must seek legal advice, before even signing on for duty.

Flight risk mitigation has not changed much; improvements brought about by accident and incident are, by and large, embraced by industry.  But for every single improvement to in flight risk mitigation the ‘regulations’ have grown, on my current values, at a rate of 16 to one. That’s 16 ‘new’ rules from every accident which brought operational change. A classic example is the Civil Aviation Regulations; go back 30 years and find the ‘Regs’; then look at the ‘regulations as they stand today. It’s nuts, out of control and being promoted as a safety improvement.  I may yet get an I-pad with a direct link to a lawyer; can I accept this landing clearance – the jet ahead looks a bit too close to me? Will a ‘go-around’ cost me my job?  Flying ain’t that dangerous; it’s back on the ground where the real risks are found.

Toot - Downing – not waving - Toot.

However maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel because in recent days our excellently manicured & coiffured miniscule has put out presser headlines like: Government reducing regulatory burden on aviation industry 

And making statements like: “In particular, I am keen to see what improvements can be made ...to help alleviate regulatory and cost burdens in the general aviation sector..."

However as with all normalised deficient polly-waffles, there is a difference between the weasel words and the reality...

The cynical, bollocks DDDD_MNFI MR headline was already mentioned at post #160 and in the SBG - Government reduces aircraft noise. The quote above was taken from this presser yesterday:

Comment now on medical certification discussion paper
Media Release
DC243/2016
21 December 2016


Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester is encouraging Australia's aviation community to take part in a discussion about the future of aviation medical certification requirements.

“Today, a comprehensive discussion paper has been released setting out a range of medical certification issues and options,” Mr Chester said.

“This discussion paper forms the basis for any future consultation between CASA and the aviation community on potential changes to medical certification.

“I welcome this consultation process which is intended to streamline medical requirements for pilots in the future.

“In particular, I am keen to see what improvements can be made to the private pilot medical requirements to help alleviate regulatory and cost burdens in the general aviation sector.

“It is essential that any changes that are made are assessed against safety and risk considerations,” Mr Chester said.

Comments are due by 30 March 2017.

For more information visit: www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/review-medical-certification-standards

What is still 'passing strange', is that for a miniscule seemingly so engaged & enamoured with trying to proactively address industry's concerns with 'regulatory and cost burdens', he did not 'self' promote his attempted proactivity on either the above press releases or the now doomed possibility of a renewed search for MH370 - see: So, that’s it then.

“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft.

“As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.

Ah well I suppose it is a good thing we have such a self-sacrificing, modest miniscule looking out for our interests and those of the MH370 NOK...    


MTF...P2