Where the sun don’t shine….
At the end of this - POST – P2 has tacked on a rather good ‘letter’ addressed to our confounded Senators, some of whom, IMO may understand there are serious ‘problems’ within the Australian aviation industry, but have not as yet grasped how deep seated and debilitating the chronic problems are.
In part, the radical cause and much of the blame must be laid at the ‘political’ doorstep. Ministers - of every stripe – have happily divested the government's ultimate responsibility for aviation safety to the bureaucratic agencies. Many ministers have been not only captured, but have an acute case of the Stockholm Syndrome. This habitual arse covering and backsliding has come at a great fiscal cost to not only the industry, but to the nation. Deliberately acting against the general well being of the nation could, at a stretch be debated as ‘treasonable’. In fact it has – but I digress – in short, there is little in the way of excuses for not only the incumbent ministers (past and present) but of the entire parliament who, through sloth, ignorance, lethargy or indolence ‘rubber stamped’ some of the most ludicrous, inept, inutile ‘law’ into existence. With one exception – I have never heard a parliamentary debate on any of the ‘new’ aviation regulations. Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Parts 61 and 135 for example – absolute load of very expensive bollocks – which will not improve ‘safety’ one iota. These regulations will gift CASA even more power to ensure the ‘safe’ conviction of those it decides are ‘criminal’. Yet the parliament just waves them through, on a rubber stamp, without an eyebrow raised or a question asked. It is a national disgrace.
Enough of my rambling; let’s take a close look at ‘the letter’.
Anon - “May I express my thanks for your interest and concern of the plight general aviation in Australia faces struggling to survive under the burden of a capricious, inept and I believe a corrupt regulator determined to completely shut down a whole industry.”
One could quite easily forgive the venom in the opening paragraph. I could agree with most of it – except I would qualify the ‘corrupt’ argument. CASA don’t seem to be ‘corrupt’ in the normal ways of Baksheesh, despite the tales, there is little evidence of that sort of thing. What there is an abundance of is ‘corrupted’ use of power; a total arrogance based on two racing certainties. One – that no matter how ‘wrong’ an edict is, the ‘law’ as writ by CASA, for CASA purposes is almost unbeatable. Two – the absolute certainty that the CASA tried, tested and true system of ‘hay stacking’ any argument will carry the day. Many millions have been spent to categorically prove this as fact, when there is the chance to defend a case. Of course many, many cases are not defendable as they are deemed ‘strict liability’. Some would call that a corruption of the powers granted by parliament.
Anon – “I understand you have examined a picture of a comparison between the US rule set and Australia’s. This picture only illustrates a small part of industries problems.”
The first picture does tell the story of ‘volume’, the almost unbelievable quantity of paper required to be ‘available’ for audit – aptly dubbed ‘Shelf-ware’. How anyone is supposed to wade through that lot and remember it is a mystery. But the real story lays in how much time, trouble, angst and money is poured into producing an exposition which not only acknowledges the regulatory requirements, provides a company unique way of demonstrating compliance, that very same CASA accepted (or approved) manual suite can and will be used in evidence to aid any case CASA care to mount. Essentially the company manuals are the trapdoor on the hangman’s scaffold. Evidence to support this – by the truck load – where do you want it delivered?
Anon – “Commonly known as Shelf-ware within the industry, because they sit on the shelf and gather dust until the next CAsA audit, where the differing opinions of the Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of the day invariably means re-writing large swaths of what was compliant one day and non compliant the next.”
Anon – “The cost of producing these manuals and expositions can run into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of maintaining them tens of thousands more.
Anon – “After a CASA audit more than a hundred thousand dollars was spent defending an AOC and re-writing its expositions after less than three years in operation.
Anon – “ It can take two years and cost a quarter of a million dollars to gain an Australian Air Operator Certificate (AOC)..
Anon – “These manuals largely regurgitate information already available in the manufacturer-supplied manuals, but with a unique Australian slant as well as directions from CAsA FOI’s. “Unfortunately many of these FOI’s have very little in the way of operational experience, which can lead to directions that are patently unsafe.
All spot on true; in fact it actually understates the case. Anon has used a generalised format to underscore only a few of the more obvious, serious, unnecessary imposts forced on industry in the name of ‘safety’. Many would agree it is all based on the ‘whim’ of the FOIs and their instructions on how the audit is to be handled. Once again, the truck can be despatched full of evidence to support not only this complaint, but other, more sinister claims related to the way in which CASA set about their business.
Anon – “An AOC can be granted in New Zealand in about two months and cost less than $10,000 dollars.
Anon – “You cannot object, not if you want your AOC or permission granted.
A NZCAA Operators Certificate takes a little while longer than two months to be issued. Much depends on the complexity of the operation and the way in which the ‘exposition’ is drafted and presented. If you have all your ducks in a row, then matters progress at an acceptable speed. But, I for one would not attempt to sell a faery story to the Kiwi’s; their operational folk do actually know what they are about and; (the big one) the rules are so straightforward any ‘breach’ or anomaly will stand out like the proverbial dogs whats’its. That is the beauty part of the Kiwi regulations; no legal if’s and but’s and maybe. Compliance made easier through simplicity. You are either in compliance or in deep do-do. Two options – no choices and they are every bit as strict as CASA, just not so ‘free’ with their personal interpretations. Are the Kiwi’s ‘safe’ – you betcha they are.
Anon – “Why was the regulation of aviation placed under the criminal code, reversing the onus of proof with strict liability? Very few first world countries have aviation laws in the criminal code.”
Anon – “The penalties applied are quite horrendous for trivial offences, such as failing to produce a logbook in the required time limit. The huge fine that can be applied if you happen not to be able to prove your innocent is trivial when one considers that a criminal conviction essentially ends a pilot’s career.”
Anon – “Imagine the general publics reaction if a minor traffic offence resulted in a criminal conviction that ended your career. Many countries in the world will not allow entry if you have a criminal conviction.”
Anon ends with the hammer, once again squarely driving the nail home. Not that anyone gives a continental – but granted parliamentary privilege, in camera, it would be a simple matter to place a dozen evidenced acts of pure spite and malice in front of a committee of inquiry. Do we need another one howls the mob.? Well, yes, I rather think we do; a one with teeth and claws – Royal Commissions seem to almost work – a Judicial Inquiry is difficult to mount – but whatever happens we do not need another non event like the Senate Inquiry into Pel-Air, nor another round of the Rev Forsyth being told politely to stuff his ‘opinion’ where the sun don’t shine.
Good one Anon – not too shabby an effort at all. Gold star, Tim Tam and as may Choc Frogs as you like.
Toot – toot.
At the end of this - POST – P2 has tacked on a rather good ‘letter’ addressed to our confounded Senators, some of whom, IMO may understand there are serious ‘problems’ within the Australian aviation industry, but have not as yet grasped how deep seated and debilitating the chronic problems are.
In part, the radical cause and much of the blame must be laid at the ‘political’ doorstep. Ministers - of every stripe – have happily divested the government's ultimate responsibility for aviation safety to the bureaucratic agencies. Many ministers have been not only captured, but have an acute case of the Stockholm Syndrome. This habitual arse covering and backsliding has come at a great fiscal cost to not only the industry, but to the nation. Deliberately acting against the general well being of the nation could, at a stretch be debated as ‘treasonable’. In fact it has – but I digress – in short, there is little in the way of excuses for not only the incumbent ministers (past and present) but of the entire parliament who, through sloth, ignorance, lethargy or indolence ‘rubber stamped’ some of the most ludicrous, inept, inutile ‘law’ into existence. With one exception – I have never heard a parliamentary debate on any of the ‘new’ aviation regulations. Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Parts 61 and 135 for example – absolute load of very expensive bollocks – which will not improve ‘safety’ one iota. These regulations will gift CASA even more power to ensure the ‘safe’ conviction of those it decides are ‘criminal’. Yet the parliament just waves them through, on a rubber stamp, without an eyebrow raised or a question asked. It is a national disgrace.
Enough of my rambling; let’s take a close look at ‘the letter’.
Anon - “May I express my thanks for your interest and concern of the plight general aviation in Australia faces struggling to survive under the burden of a capricious, inept and I believe a corrupt regulator determined to completely shut down a whole industry.”
One could quite easily forgive the venom in the opening paragraph. I could agree with most of it – except I would qualify the ‘corrupt’ argument. CASA don’t seem to be ‘corrupt’ in the normal ways of Baksheesh, despite the tales, there is little evidence of that sort of thing. What there is an abundance of is ‘corrupted’ use of power; a total arrogance based on two racing certainties. One – that no matter how ‘wrong’ an edict is, the ‘law’ as writ by CASA, for CASA purposes is almost unbeatable. Two – the absolute certainty that the CASA tried, tested and true system of ‘hay stacking’ any argument will carry the day. Many millions have been spent to categorically prove this as fact, when there is the chance to defend a case. Of course many, many cases are not defendable as they are deemed ‘strict liability’. Some would call that a corruption of the powers granted by parliament.
Anon – “I understand you have examined a picture of a comparison between the US rule set and Australia’s. This picture only illustrates a small part of industries problems.”
The first picture does tell the story of ‘volume’, the almost unbelievable quantity of paper required to be ‘available’ for audit – aptly dubbed ‘Shelf-ware’. How anyone is supposed to wade through that lot and remember it is a mystery. But the real story lays in how much time, trouble, angst and money is poured into producing an exposition which not only acknowledges the regulatory requirements, provides a company unique way of demonstrating compliance, that very same CASA accepted (or approved) manual suite can and will be used in evidence to aid any case CASA care to mount. Essentially the company manuals are the trapdoor on the hangman’s scaffold. Evidence to support this – by the truck load – where do you want it delivered?
Anon – “Commonly known as Shelf-ware within the industry, because they sit on the shelf and gather dust until the next CAsA audit, where the differing opinions of the Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of the day invariably means re-writing large swaths of what was compliant one day and non compliant the next.”
Anon – “The cost of producing these manuals and expositions can run into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of maintaining them tens of thousands more.
Anon – “After a CASA audit more than a hundred thousand dollars was spent defending an AOC and re-writing its expositions after less than three years in operation.
Anon – “ It can take two years and cost a quarter of a million dollars to gain an Australian Air Operator Certificate (AOC)..
Anon – “These manuals largely regurgitate information already available in the manufacturer-supplied manuals, but with a unique Australian slant as well as directions from CAsA FOI’s. “Unfortunately many of these FOI’s have very little in the way of operational experience, which can lead to directions that are patently unsafe.
All spot on true; in fact it actually understates the case. Anon has used a generalised format to underscore only a few of the more obvious, serious, unnecessary imposts forced on industry in the name of ‘safety’. Many would agree it is all based on the ‘whim’ of the FOIs and their instructions on how the audit is to be handled. Once again, the truck can be despatched full of evidence to support not only this complaint, but other, more sinister claims related to the way in which CASA set about their business.
Anon – “An AOC can be granted in New Zealand in about two months and cost less than $10,000 dollars.
Anon – “You cannot object, not if you want your AOC or permission granted.
A NZCAA Operators Certificate takes a little while longer than two months to be issued. Much depends on the complexity of the operation and the way in which the ‘exposition’ is drafted and presented. If you have all your ducks in a row, then matters progress at an acceptable speed. But, I for one would not attempt to sell a faery story to the Kiwi’s; their operational folk do actually know what they are about and; (the big one) the rules are so straightforward any ‘breach’ or anomaly will stand out like the proverbial dogs whats’its. That is the beauty part of the Kiwi regulations; no legal if’s and but’s and maybe. Compliance made easier through simplicity. You are either in compliance or in deep do-do. Two options – no choices and they are every bit as strict as CASA, just not so ‘free’ with their personal interpretations. Are the Kiwi’s ‘safe’ – you betcha they are.
Anon – “Why was the regulation of aviation placed under the criminal code, reversing the onus of proof with strict liability? Very few first world countries have aviation laws in the criminal code.”
Anon – “The penalties applied are quite horrendous for trivial offences, such as failing to produce a logbook in the required time limit. The huge fine that can be applied if you happen not to be able to prove your innocent is trivial when one considers that a criminal conviction essentially ends a pilot’s career.”
Anon – “Imagine the general publics reaction if a minor traffic offence resulted in a criminal conviction that ended your career. Many countries in the world will not allow entry if you have a criminal conviction.”
Anon ends with the hammer, once again squarely driving the nail home. Not that anyone gives a continental – but granted parliamentary privilege, in camera, it would be a simple matter to place a dozen evidenced acts of pure spite and malice in front of a committee of inquiry. Do we need another one howls the mob.? Well, yes, I rather think we do; a one with teeth and claws – Royal Commissions seem to almost work – a Judicial Inquiry is difficult to mount – but whatever happens we do not need another non event like the Senate Inquiry into Pel-Air, nor another round of the Rev Forsyth being told politely to stuff his ‘opinion’ where the sun don’t shine.
Good one Anon – not too shabby an effort at all. Gold star, Tim Tam and as may Choc Frogs as you like.
Toot – toot.