[Peetwo]

Squeaky wheel gets the grease -

Has the worm turned? Has AMROBA & Co, from the MRO, LAME, AME world, finally kicked the ball over the CASA 'Big R' precipice??

Published yesterday on the new CASA website:

Project MS 16/02 - Review of Part 4A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) to improve efficiencies and remove anomalies in the maintenance regulations


Issue

CASA expects that the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) will continue to be required to regulate the non-airline maintenance sector until specific requirements for the small aircraft maintenance sector are introduced into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).

In view of this, CASA acknowledges that a review is required to identify provisions that are inappropriate in the small aircraft maintenance environment. In addition, feedback from the maintenance industry has highlighted the need to simplify and rationalise the maintenance regulations, and update them to reflect the current state of aviation practice and technological development.

CASA has already identified a number of areas that require attention; however, the project will be seeking input from maintainers and operators of small aircraft that are regulated under the CAR.

Within the CAR, some issues that have been identified as requiring particular attention are:

CAR provisions


Identified issue in the CAR

Part 4A generally
Clarification that the registered operator is responsible for managing continuing airworthiness of an aircraft.

Permission required for a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) to issue a maintenance release.

Need for removal of the requirement for a person to be authorised under regulation 43 in order to issue a maintenance release.

Regulation 43
Certification responsibilities need to be aligned with the provisions of Part 42 of CASR so that the maintainer is only responsible for completing maintenance that has been ordered by the registered operator.

Schedule 6
Some aspects of Schedule 6 will require amendment to align with current policy and practice.

e.g. The section dealing with final certifications is currently based on a requirement that the maintainer must ensure that all required maintenance has been completed. Under the proposed changes to Schedule 6, a maintainer would only be responsible for ensuring that all requested maintenance has been completed.

Pilot maintenance
Some maintenance tasks, such as compressor washing and installing/removing role equipment, can be carried out by a pilot who has been appropriately trained and authorised. Schedule 8 needs to be updated to make provision for pilots to perform such tasks.

Airworthiness authorities
The rules governing the issue of authorisations to perform welding, non-destructive inspections, weight control and loading, are out of date and need to be aligned with local and international practice.

Retention of maintenance records
Industry feedback has highlighted a lack of clarity about the effect of paragraph 50A (1) (a) which refers to other documents referenced in a log book. This has raised concerns about retention by the registered operator of a COA holder’s work packages.

CASA’s view is that work packages are a maintenance organisation’s internal records of how it has completed maintenance in compliance with regulations and as such could be a valuable reference document in the event of a maintenance failure. The CARs are silent on retention of work packages by a COA holder; however it would be reasonable to apply the same document retention period as Part 42, that is, 2 years after completion of maintenance.

Currently, the final certification made in accordance with Schedule 6 is the RO’s record of maintenance completed on an aircraft. The final certification is required to be made in an aircraft’s log book which the registered operator is required to retain in accordance with Section 5 of CAO 100.5.

The final certification is a comprehensive record and does not need to be supplemented by the addition of a COA holder’s internal work records, unless the final certification cites a work package in lieu of providing the detail specified in Part 4 of Schedule 6.

Regulation 2A

Clarify the relationship of data approved under AS3669 with CAR 2A requirements for data approval.

Objective

In order to ensure that the CAR remains appropriate for the foreseeable future, CASA proposes to conduct a review with an aim to:

• simplify the regulations
  
• reduce red tape
  
• reduce compliance burdens
  
• align with current policy.
  
  

The project will update the CAR airworthiness regulations to ensure uniformity of interpretation and application. Along with the CAR update, CASA intends to provide associated guidance material. The updated CARs are expected to reduce costs to industry.

   
And Hitch on this positive development...

An aircraft maintainer works on the tail of an executive jet. (Steve Hitchen)



CASA to review Small Aircraft Maintenance Regulations
23 Mar 2016

CASA announced a project yesterday to review Civil Aviation Regulation 4A to better adapt it for small aircraft maintenance, with the dual aims of improving efficiencies and removing anomalies.

In the process, CASA will not supercede the regulation with a new CASR until it is better suited to general aviation.

"CASA expects that the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) will continue to be required to regulate the non-airline maintenance sector until specific requirements for the small aircraft maintenance sector are introduced into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR)," the CASA announcement said.

"In view of this, CASA acknowledges that a review is required to identify provisions that are inappropriate in the small aircraft maintenance environment. In addition, feedback from the maintenance industry has highlighted the need to simplify and rationalise the maintenance regulations, and update them to reflect the current state of aviation practice and technological development."

The general aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry, driven by the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has been critical of the proposed CASRs because they effectively imposed regulations on GA that were designed to apply to airline transport aircraft.

CASA says it has already identified a number of areas that need attention, but will be seeking input from MROs and operators as the project progresses.

According to CASA, the CAR will need to be re-worked to make it sustainable into the future, with aims to:

• simplify the regulations
  
• reduce red tape
  
• reduce compliance burdens
  
• align with current policy.
  
  

"The project will update the CAR airworthiness regulations to ensure uniformity of interpretation and application," CASA says. "Along with the CAR update, CASA intends to provide associated guidance material. The updated CARs are expected to reduce costs to industry.

More of this bit please..

"...In the process, CASA will not supercede the regulation with a new CASR until it is better suited to general aviation..."




MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Latest AMROBA Newsletter - [b]Volume 13 Issue 3 (March  16)[/b]

1. The major reason why aviation is in such a mess.

Ask any person participating in aviation today for a single reason why aviation is in such a mess. The answer is always the same – impractical regulations and standards that are unique to Australia. Aviation is global – why do we differ?

2. CASR Part 66 – The Missing Links to Skills.

The lack of skills is different to the lack of qualifications. EASR Part 66 is very different to CASR Part 66. There are missing EASR provisions that, if adapted, would address the skills issues; provide a better classification for a specific aircraft rating; separate skills and practical training; detail a knowledge training program, etc., etc.

3. EASA Modular LAME Training System Revealed.

Europe modularisation of the EASR Part 66 knowledge training implemented a totally acceptable system that would meet the needs of the MRO industry, airlines to general aviation. CASR Part 66 adopted EASA’s B1.1, B1.2, B1.3, B1.4 and B2 licences, but 5 streams of training already modularised never adopted by CASA.

4. GA AME Group Rating Proposal repeating Part 66 errors

The proposal to amend CASA Part 66 to implement GA "group" ratings will implement the same problem that Part 66 introduced. The MEA Aeroskills package needs complete re-packaging so training establishments provide training to match the "group" rating. The "mechatronics" and Part 66 MEA Aeroskills are not training packages created to support Part 66 licences. Reject Now

KC spells it out in clear, concise English..  :

1. The Major Reason why Aviation is in such a Mess.

Ask any person participating in aviation today for a single reason why aviation is in such a mess. The answer is always the same – impractical regulations and standards that are unique to Australia. Aviation is global – there is no case for unique requirements.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL CASA CHANGE THEIR DRAFTING INSTRUCTIONS TO OPC ON HOW REGULATIONS ARE TO BE DRAFTED.

WE ARE FURTHER AWAY FROM HARMONISATION TODAY THAN AT ANY TIME DURING REGULATORY REFORM THAT STARTED PRE 1990.

Until CASA change their instructions to OPC (Office of Parliamentary Counsel) who write the regulations, the same style will continue to be produced. OPC has stated that they can write performance based regulations but CASA’s instructions do not allow this to happen.

The failure of government public servants to promulgate minimum global harmonised regulations and standards for aviation services and activities is still continuing under the CASA Board.

Harmonisation has become a total delusion – general aviation only exists in a similar structure in North America, except we don’t have the rural population of rural America.

This 28 year process has cost government and industry millions of wasted dollars and has achieved the worst outcome possible in the history of civil aviation in Australia. Nobody can look at the latest regulations, standards and proposed regulations and standards and state they are clear and concise. Aviation regulatory reform outcomes over nearly 3 decades has seen a decline in the use of private aircraft plus a loss of commercial air services to rural Australia.

Save money – buy NZ regulatory system.

Why is government (CASA) continuing to waste money? The most cost effective method to overcome regulatory reform is to buy the New Zealand system with some minor changes to meet Australian demographics, as it has been done in PNG and many other countries in the Pacific Rim. It will save millions in the future.

It is what the majority of submissions to the ASRR report suggested. The ASRR highlighted the need to have harmonised requirements, especially in this region.

The ASRR recommendations are fast disappearing into the past without implementation like past inquiries and judicial recommendations.

If an aircraft operation or maintenance organisation wrote their documentation in the almost unfathomable manner as regulations, standards & advisory promulgated by CASA, then they would be classified as an unsafe operator or organisation and be shut down.

It is time the hard truth of what has been created be recognised and be declared another failure in regulatory reform.

Regulatory reform is supposed to bring benefits to the community.

Since reform started back in the late 1980s this industry has seen very little benefits from any reform. It is time for a new approach if aviation and rural communities are to see any benefits.

KC nails it as per usual

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

AMROBA on Harmonisation - In the Breaking News section off the AMROBA website KC & Co have put out a new paper:

Breaking News 

Harmonisation
March 14, 2016March 14, 2016 Ken Cannane
Harmonisation 0316

Harmonisation once meant adopting the "highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards and procedures" from the ICAO international aviation standards and recommended practices.

Challenge: The Civil Aviation Act says "consistent with" not "adopt". However, any reasonable person in aviation would assume "consistent with" means "adopting" when Article 37 of an aviation treaty signed by Australia states "adopt".

The government agreed to harmonisation with ICAO international aviation standards initially in 1947 when Australia ratified the International Convention of Civil Aviation and, up until the formation of the CAA, aviation requirements harmonised to a far greater extent than current regulations and standards – so what has gone wrong since 1988?

 
{P2 Comment - Here is a link for the latest list of Australian notified differences - https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h104.pdf. Note the AIP SUPP is now four pages of relevant links to individual Annex differences. The reasoning for the change to the SUPP, listed at Para 1.2, is absolute bollocks, this is just another cynical attempt to cover up the embarrassing number (over a 1000) of notified differences to ICAO SARPs}    

Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Regulation review started in 1988, but still has no end in sight.


CASA lacks Expertise to adopt ICAO Standards: AMROBA
17 Mar 2016

As Ken suggests the harmonisation to ICAO SARPs, or for that matter a regional rule set that complies with the ICAO SARPs (i.e. NZ CAA), is not a new or even innovative concept, it just makes common sense in the interest of uniformity across international airspace & with economic trade/transactions with fellow signatory neighbouring States.

The following is an example of another ICAO signatory State who 'gets' the importance of harmonisation with regulatory standards:

International aviation experts to propose modern safety strategies

Posted 11 April 2016 · Add Comment

International aviation specialists will convene this April at the 4th edition of the World Aviation Safety Summit, to propose new procedures for enhancing a culture of safety across the industry. 


Global experts will analyse how the sector can ensure that safety is standardised and best practice is implemented worldwide, particularly as airlines in emerging markets grow in size and routes open to airports in new destinations. 


Latest figures released by IATA show January international passenger traffic rose 7.3% compared to the year-ago period. Capacity rose 5.9% and load factor rose 1.0 percentage point to 78.8%. All global regions recorded year-over-year increases in demand. 


Safety thought-leaders attending the Summit will look at how airlines and airports can measure their own performance, and implement effective predictive measures and pressure checks to prevent and pre-empt incidents.


High on the agenda will also be debates on how regulators can effectively work with airlines to improve safety and how governments can harmonise national laws and regulations with those of industry leading states. As conflicts around the world continue to effect air transport travel, industry frontrunners will deliberate on how best to deal with armed conflicts and work together to ensure operations continue to run smoothly and ensure the safety and security of all passengers.   


Mohammed A. Ahli, director general at Dubai Civil Aviation Authority commented: “As the aviation industry continues to grow and become more complex it is important that we reinforce an effective, transparent and honest safety culture. The Summit will give us the opportunity to look at the best practice examples of working with large multicultural workforces and how we can overcome common industry challenges.”


The International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) most recent Operational Safety Audit showed a moderate climb in safety world-wide. The 2015 global jet accident rate (measured in hull losses per 1 million flights) was 0.32, which was the equivalent of one major accident for every 3.1 million flights. This was an unambiguous improvement compared to the previous five-year rate (2010-2014) of 0.46 hull loss accidents per million jet flights.


- See more at: http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/interna...0ObUc.dpuf

   
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AMROBA - Breaking News!

Breaking News 


May 6, Meet the Nationals

April 24, 2016 Ken Cannane

Ben Morgan

Aviation Advertiser


INDUSTRY RALLY

TAMWORTH AIRPORT

1pm – Friday, 6th May 2016

Hangar 6 – Tamworth Regional Airport, NSW, Australia.

To the Australian Aviation Industry,

 

YOUR INDUSTRY NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT – 6th MAY 2016


I am calling on the support of all pilots, aircraft owners, aviation business owners, operators and industry leaders to attend our industry rally in Tamworth, on Friday 6th May 2016.

RALLY COMMENCES AT 1 PM, 6TH MAY 2016

HANGAR 6, TAMWORTH AIRPORT


In attendance, representing the government will be;

The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby JoyceThe Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester

The Chairman of the Board, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Jeff Boyd.


This is your opportunity to be seen and to be heard!

The industry’s leading associations, peak-bodies and aviation personalities, will be in attendance. All standing with the pilots, aircraft owners, aviation businesses and operators of our industry – united in the call for change.

We are calling on the government to take immediate measures to direct an end the regulatory nightmare that has destroyed our charter, flight training and maintenance industries. Made Australia uncompetitive on the global aviation stage. Eroded essential air services connecting regional Australia, disconnecting townships and isolating communities.

Show your support.  Fly in or drive in.  Contact your aviation networks, email, sms, phone. Let’s send the government a clear message, that enough is enough.

Thank you for your support, and I look forward to seeing you all at the event.

Best regards,


BENJAMIN MORGAN
Chief Executive – Aviation Advertiser Digital Group
Telephone: (02) 8215 6292
Mobile: 0415 577 724
Email: bmorgan@aviationadvertiser.com.au 
 

Mailing Address:
PO BOX 465
Edgecliff NSW 2027
Australia.
 
May 6th 2016 meeting with DPM Joyce, Minister Darren Chester & CASA Chairman Jeff Boyd.

A regulatory nightmare that has forced an entire industry into collapse and thousands of hard working men and women into bankruptcy.

For too long, the Australian aviation industry has been disenfranchised the right to economic prosperity through failed policy and excess regulation and compliance costs.  We are an industry failed by political rhetoric and empty promises by the Labor, Liberal and The Nationals alike.

Our industry has been pushed to the wall, lives destroyed, families broken, retirements ruined and homes lost.

A prosperous future for aviation in this country can only be assured through a regulatory framework that is balanced, fair and representative of the needs and aspirations of industry itself.  Most importantly, it must be accountable to industry, the people it is there to serve.

I am calling on each and every aviation participant that cares for this industry to show their support and attend. We can no longer afford to sit back and watch the destruction of our industry.  Stand with us as we call on government to take action.

Help send Canberra a clear message

AVIATION INDUSTRY RALLY – SCHEDULE

1pm – Arrival
1pm-2pm – FREE BBQ lunch and drinks – Sponsored by Aviation Advertiser & AOPA
2pm – Government representatives arrive
2pm-2:30pm – Closed door meeting between Government and Industry Associations
2:30pm-3pm – Short presentation to rally from industry representatives
2:30pm-4pm – Open Q&A between rally attendees and government
4pm-6pm – Tamworth Aero Club Post Event Drinks
 

The Only Outcome Acceptable Today


The Government must:

• Direct the adoption of the USA aviation regulatory system for general aviation; and
  
• Promulgate those requirements, within two years, as Aviation Safety Standards under Sec 9 (1)© of the Civil Aviation Act; and
  
• Any proposed change to an Aviation Safety Standard, by industry or CASA, based on a USA requirement must have aviation industry sector(s) consensus; and
  
• Amend all associated regulations to support the above promulgated Aviation Safety Standards as recommended in the ASRR Report.
  
  

The 1996 Morris Report that created CASA, changed its functions that CASA staff since then have not met their obligation under the Act.

Those accountable for the current unworkable system must be held responsible.

Civil Aviation Act
Interpretations
“aviation safety standards” means standards relating to the following:

• the flight crews engaged in operations of aircraft;
  
• the design, construction, maintenance, operation and use of aircraft and related equipment;
  
• the planning, construction, establishment, operation and use of aerodromes;
  
• the establishment and use of airspace;
  
• the planning, construction, establishment, maintenance, operation and use of:
  
• services and facilities of the kind covered by paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Air Services Act 1995; and
  

(iii) services of the kind referred to in paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 to the extent that those services use aircraft; 
and any construction associated with those facilities or services;

• the personnel engaged in:
  
• the maintenance of aircraft and related equipment; or
  
•  (ii)   anything referred to in paragraph © or (e).
  
  

Simplified Aviation Regulatory Structure


Aviation Safety Standards (Sec 9(1)(c ) based on:

• International Aviation Safety Standards (ICAO SARPS)
  
• Harmonised with FARs for GA, EASR for major airlines (same as NZ)
  
  

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations

• Division 1, “head of power” for Aviation Safety Standards
  
• Division 2 Enforcement of real criminal offences, not just standards
  
  

The Morris Inquiry introduced Aviation Safety Standards to take the place of CAOs, etc. promulgated by CASA. By stealth, CASA has recreated CAOs in the form of MoS – this is what the Morris report recommended against – another government review recommendation ignored.

B there or B square...
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Of snowflakes in Hell.

2pm-2:30pm –Closed door meeting between Government and Industry Associations.

Thirty short minutes to deliver the message; all of it, in a manner which will leave no doubt and be powerful enough to actually get things moving in the right direction.

One chance to knock down the walls built around the status quo; one small opportunity to beat the ‘mystique’, one microscopic opening to kill the fear politicians have of being responsible; and the slimmest of hope that BJ as part of keeping his job will actually make a promise and keep it.  It’s a ducking big ask.  

IF there is to be a serious change, those precious 30 minutes cannot, must not be wasted.

There are only a few who can get the message delivered and those few need to be there.  One short, succinct, no wriggle room statement each, no more than five minutes.  Each statement delivered ‘flat’ without flowers and dissembling.

David Forsyth has the credibility, skill and knowledge to do this.

Ken Lewis has the credibility, skill and knowledge to do this.

Ken Cannane has the credibility, skill and knowledge to do this.

Phil Hurst has the credibility, skill and knowledge to do this.

There are several others who could do as well, but I fear ‘conflict of interest’ and other political associations could be used to dilute the purity of message.

It’s a little late in the day to be getting seriously organised; but it’s not too late to beg, plead, coerce or brow beat these worthies to speak.  If it’s to cost money for transport and accommodations, the industry could have a whip around and raise the necessary.

A 30 minute gun fight, for high stakes, let’s not turn up with a blunt, rusty pocket knife.

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

Peetwo, you are a technical guru, is there any way we can make your last post a stand alone thread or something like a 'sticky' like the way those tools on UP do for important threads?
May 6 is an incredibly important event and needs to be put up in bright lights!!

Lock in May 6 Tamworth folks. It's an almost final opportunity for an industry in its death throes to send a clear warning to Government that we've had enough and if they continue to refuse to intervene we will hit them at the poll booths en masse.

P_666

... ...

[P7_TOM]

A work horse required; not a show pony. If Barnaby had any sense he’d leave Chester at home and bring Fawcett along; just to see the difference someone who can see clear and far makes. Industry will support anything Fawcett says and does – he has our trust and respect. Real credibility, apart from that, he actually knows what he’s about.

[Peetwo]

A work horse required; not a show pony.  If Barnaby had any sense he’d leave Chester at home and bring Fawcett along; just to see the difference someone who can see clear and far makes.  Industry will support anything Fawcett says and does – he has our trust and respect.  Real credibility, apart from that, he actually knows what he’s about.

Excellent point Old Tom...

Now I know Dazzling Dazza has signed up to the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation Group  but really, since his honeymoon period ended, it is quite obvious that he has NFI nor interest in righting the incredible wrongs inflicted by nearly 3 decades of CASA Iron Ring O&O of the RRP.

The following is the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation Group statement off the PFGs webpage:

As legislators, we have a key role in keeping aviation both safe and viable as an industry and the friendship group will provide members a great opportunity to stay informed about the issues the industry is facing.

    
However the PFOAG members, which now includes the Minister for Transport, may have to reconsider their current strategy in applying their "key role".

Senator David Fawcett (Chair of PFOAG) on the other hand is the real deal, a perfect example is his passionate delivery of his speech recognising the tabling of the Senate AAI (PelAir) report:

Also from the Senate Estimates quoted thread post (above), Senator Xenophon pays compliment to Senator Fawcett and highlights the importance of his contribution to the long running debate of aviation safety and the breaking down of the mystique lorded over minister after minister for decades.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to Senator Fawcett's contribution—hopefully this will not damage Senator Fawcett's preselection chances with the Liberal Party!—we are lucky to have him in this place, given his considerable expertise in aviation safety. The contribution he has made on Senate committees on this issue has been outstanding. I am very grateful to have worked with him. I think both sides of the chamber can safely say that.

But the points that he makes to rebut this motion are, in fact, points that can be used to support it—equally or with greater force. Senator Fawcett acknowledges quite openly that the length of time to change regulations is unsatisfactory and that the industry should be more involved in the process. He says, in his usual diplomatic way, that 'the track record of engagement with industry from CASA has not been a wholesome one'. That is an incredibly polite way of putting a situation where industry is incredibly frustrated and concerned, and the pilots are gobsmacked that we are left with these regulations that do not address fundamental issues of fatigue. I outlined those concerns in my earlier contribution.

There are real problems in the regulation-making process, as Senator Fawcett, with his expertise and involvement in these issues, acknowledges. We need to have a mechanism to deal with these. The independent scientific panel is something that would see a way through this. That is what we need to have. To say that we are no worse off than we were does not address the fundamental issue that these regulations are simply inadequate. While this instrument does bring us, in some respects, to a relatively safer position than the previous regulation, we must take this opportunity to address the significant concerns about this instrument. In many respects, there are huge gaps in safety, and the concern of pilots—those whom we trust to fly us from A to B around this great continent—are still there. They have serious concerns about these regulations; I have outlined those.

Senator Fawcett is right when he says that the consultation process for these regulations has been long and almost dysfunctional. We simply cannot go through this process again. We cannot sit and wait for improvements to be made—because will it be another five years or six years or will it be 60 years before this process is revisited? We need to take a proactive stance and push for something better, and now is the time and the opportunity to do so.

I hope that the government will not let CASA wipe this task off its books. I hope, from Senator Fawcett's comments, that the government will be pushing for a continual consultation and a review process and not leave these issues at a dead end. And I hope that this instrument will not become another regulatory dead end, with all the implications it has for airline safety and passenger safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this disallowance motion.

So we have the 'real deal' Senator Fawcett vs Dopey Dazza the twitter-verse photo opportunist who is already under the MOAS spell: As Chester clearly intends to never mention aviation

Newsflash - Chester was just on ABC Radio being interviewed by Kelly Fuller on the Tamworth aviation rally 2 days ago - verdict?? Murky has reined him in and he is back under the "mystique" spell - FFS!


Well miniscule while your being misled by your head Mandarin, take heed because you have now inherited the 60 minutes clock to impending doom -    

Of risks, red flags, ridiculous responses and a rooted system - PartII

..This is further proof that the system is absolutely rooted - possibly beyond redemption - & in dire need of some external examination. To quote "K"...


"..Aye, nothing to see, move along, the new whitewash will cover the blood stains and the cloak of mystique will vanish all trace of the aberrations and indecency inflicted on the public, who have a right to expect better..."

It is now obvious that the mandarins & minions in charge are air-brushing over a significant crater in the mouldy - aviation safety - Swiss Cheese. Instead of mitigating safety risk they are perpetuating and adding to the risk...FFS - ICAO...FAA..NTSB..TSBC anyone??- SOS      

From the interview this AM it is pretty damn obvious that Skidmore, Murky & Co have blinded (the filter) Chester with the bollocks that 'aviation safety is their No1. priority'. After reviewing some of the above, for them to even suggest that the administration & enforcement of the 26+year, $300+million RRP is justified in the interest of air safety is simply bollocks - wake up Barnaby you now ultimately own this -  

..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick

Yep totally second the motion that Senator David Fawcett, the Chair of the PFOAG, is required to be in attendance on the 6th May D-day for GA -



MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

"Gunfight at the Tamworth Corral"

- I second the motion for David Fawcett to be the primary guest at the Tamworth gig.

- I second the motion that 'Chester of the immaculate' be relegated to parking attendant only at the Tamworth gig.

- I second the motion that Barnaby Joyce be given full and unfettered ownership of the 60 Minutes clock.

-I forward a motion that if no tangible results or commitment is provided by our Government at Tamworth on May 6 then we action a widespread group motion including signatures for a vote of NO CONFIDENCE be actioned against Joyce, Chester, MrDak, and Skidmore.

P_666

[Kharon]

Windsor has it, can BJ steal it away?

Credibility is a major portion of the politicians stock in trade; so far Barnaby has this within the aviation community.  It is important to us that he keep both it and his seat.  So why is he risking it by foisting Chester onto an already cynical audience waiting for them at Tamworth?  Party lines and political deals aside, what of value (intrinsic or practical) does he believe Chester can bring to the table?

If and it’s a big IF Turnbull and Joyce are to retain any form of aviation industry credibility, David Fawcett must, even as a PFoA be there.  In fact, if BJ in his wisdom appointed Fawcett even as junior Minister solely for aviation, even as an interim measure just to set things to rights it would be one of the best ‘political’ decisions ever made by a government and one of the wisest.  

Albo was an unmitigated disaster; Truss in a half hearted, dopey, sleepy sort of way to tried to help, at least he gave industry the ASRR; but he quietly dropped the ball and sickened many.  Now we are expected to suffer the darling of the twitter dancing with stars fans set, bouncing in to speak on and listen to matters he will never understand.  He is and will remain totally reliant on and captive of the very creators of the problem for advice. Chester is aware of little else but his own self image, I doubt he’s even aware that there are serious, across the spectrum problems; with international ramifications, let alone be able to make the wise, tough, ruthless calls needed to ensure the survival of industry.  

Dear Barnaby. Please, leave Darren at home to browse his ‘selfies’.  Bring Fletcher and Fawcett; then relax.  Enjoy the event, watch these two masters go to work and revel the tangible rise in both your credibility and popularity.  Then fix up the Act; adopt the Kiwi or USA regulations and leave the rest to us and Fawcett.  It really is that simple.

More of this:-




Not more of this:-



Toot toot  - and watch this space.

[Peetwo]

Windsor has it, can BJ steal it away?

Dear Barnaby. Please, leave Darren at home to browse his ‘selfies’.  Bring Fletcher and Fawcett; then relax.  Enjoy the event, watch these two masters go to work and revel the tangible rise in both your credibility and popularity.  Then fix up the Act; adopt the Kiwi or USA regulations and leave the rest to us and Fawcett.  It really is that simple.

More of this:-



Not more of this:-



Toot toot  - and watch this space.

Love it and spot on Ferryman...

Follow up to the AMROBA newsflash, today KC published their latest newsletter - Volume 13 Issue 4 April — 2016 - which also provided a link for the latest (just released) TAAAF Policy:

1. TAAAF Policy Document – 2016.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum have released its policy document with fully costed savings and recommendations that government should take into consideration now and post-election. 2016 is make or break for general aviation and these policies support a future GA that will prosper.

The major policies of this document are:

1. A National Aviation Strategy in partnership with industry with a focus on safety, job creation, and growth.

2. Modernisation of the Civil Aviation Act and alignment to international standards.

3. Sale of Airservices and creation of an Aviation Future Fund.

4. Urgent policy action on aviation education and training.

5. New approaches to general aviation, manufacturing, security and regional aviation.

There are many issues that directly affects your future being proposed. All aspects of general aviation has been covered.

It is recommended reading to all members and feel free to pass it to your local council that controls your airport. Send it to local government, State and Federal members even if they get more than one copy. All people working in this industry should read this proposal.

Download a copy and place it in a position for all to read. Link on front page.

KC also again promotes the importance of the May 6 Tamworth GA meeting:

2. Tamworth GA meeting with Joyce/Chester May 6th

AMROBA congratulates Ben Morgan, Aviation Advertiser, for arranging the meeting at Tamworth that has led to the GA meeting with the National Party – DPM Barnaby Joyce, Minister Darren Chester and CASA Chairman Jeff Boyd. Everyone in GA that can get there should attend. Aviation needs a new political direction/policy and many changes to the Civil Aviation Act if we are to get back to a natural growth industry.

Meeting link to our ‘Breaking News’ article on this meeting. Link: Tamworth Meeting.

The last meeting in Tamworth could have been a failure except it raised enough issues for DPM Barnaby Joyce to agree to another meeting – this is an election year. Nationals needs the support of the aviation industry and we need their support. Two major issues confront general aviation:

1. Repeal of a regulatory system that, since 1990, has lost over 100,000 jobs. It is time to reverse these effects by adopting the USA regulatory system for GA.

2. Promulgate the USA regulatory system as Aviation Safety Standards under Sec 9 (1) © of the Civil Aviation Act. (no strict liability clauses);

a. Any amendment proposed by industry or CASA needs industry sector(s) consensus.

b. Regulations be amended to support the Aviation Safety Standards;

c. All changes be completed within the next two years.

Show Joyce, Chester and Boyd that the GA industry has had enough and change must happen within the next 2 years.

 
KC then seeks to explain the draconian implications of currently contravening the Act:

3. Consequences if you do not comply with an Act?

The Civil Aviation Act has some severe penalties if a person or entity does not comply with a provision of the Act but there is no penalty if CASA does not comply or meet their obligations under the Act. The Morris Report changed CASA’s Functions:

3.30 The [Morris] committee considers that CASAs primary or core functions should be:

(a) to establish aviation safety standards;

(b) to issue licences, certificates or permits to those who satisfy CASA that they can meet the standards established under (a) above or in the Act; and

© to supervise compliance with standards and take appropriate action for non-compliance.

Obviously public servants can ignore Act obligations if you are CASA. CASA Functions are ignored. The following are what a few of us have scored CASA compliance: (continue to read page 3)..

...CASA has failed to perform an obligation to promulgate the "foundations of aviation safety" and works against the intention of Parliament. If there has been a failure to perform an obligation imposed by legislation, quite apart from possible consequences for the office-holder, there may be an issue as to the consequences of that breach of the law for others. i.e. no clear/concise aviation safety standards.


From the Attorney Generals website:

"Under Australia’s Constitution, the Parliament can make laws in the form of Acts of the Parliament or it can choose to delegate its power to make laws on particular matters to other persons and bodies. For guidance on which powers may be delegated, see the Legislation Handbook. Laws made under delegation are known as delegated, subordinate or secondary legislation. They include: (a) regulations made under an Act of the Parliament; and (b) rules; and © determinations; and (d) declarations.

Act proposed ‘Aviation Safety Standards’ would be "rules" promulgated by CASA that provide the foundation of aviation safety throughout Australia. This foundation has never been implemented as was the intention of the 1995 Act changes.

Example: If you held a certificate or licence issued by CASA and had intentionally refused to implement a safety system in your business for the last 21 years you would have been deemed as not a fit or proper person to hold a certificate or licence. Enough said.

  
Finally KC acknowledges the AOPA Project Eureka and the symmetry with TAAAF Aviation Policy document:

4. Project Eureka document

AOPA’s project Eureka has similarities with the TAAAF policy document because they contributed to its development in the early stages. The AOPA document is in the same vein as the TAAAF document. The current and proposed regulatory system is the prime reason for GA decline. Basically, the current regulator is the reason why hundreds of jobs have disappeared out of aviation.

What this document and the TAAAF policy document highlights is the sad state that general aviation is now in and the sole cause is the totally unworkable aviation requirements that continue to reduce jobs.

The discontent with CASA imposed requirements is bubbling to the top and industry participants have had enough.

The recent "pilot" based regulations are totally unworkable in this country but so are the requirements implemented for all sectors so far.

Application of Aviation Safety Standards adopted from the FARs for general aviation will keep a safe aviation system but with global standards at much lower costs. Unlike the FARs, CASA has an aversion against performance based regulations. Europe is just starting to realise performance based requirements are the future.

 
As usual KC & the AMROBA crew well done & see you in the Tamworth Corral...

Remember KISS & "United we conquer divided we fall"

Quotes from Dick Smith & Tony Windsor, via the Northern Daily Leader:

“It’s almost at the point where it’s not saveable, but I’m hoping Barnaby will be ruthless and fire a few people and put some good people in. If they do nothing in the next four or five months, I’m going to come up and support Tony Windsor.”

Mr Windsor said industry representatives needed to find points of unity and use them to advance their position.


“It is time that all interested parties sit at the table to develop workable solutions to enable this vital industry to prosper, and crucially, to stimulate regional development,” he said.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

351 Windsor said;

"Mr Windsor said industry representatives needed to find points of unity and use them to advance their position".

Couldn't agree more Tony. So here is what the aviation fraternity is united in;

'We are united in the belief that the current  civil aviation Act and most of the regulations are draconian and unworkable, that CAsA is nothing more than a mob of outdated and inefficient bullies, that MrDak and his department and the regulatory bodies are of a standard lower than donkey shit, that our industry has been decimated by successive incompetent Governments and their pathetic Ministers, that our aviation industry is a broken carcass of a once thriving domain, that without urgent intervention at the highest levels of Government we will be completely fucked".

Yours truly
Gobbledock

[P7_TOM]

I can’t help remembering the CVD struggle: they battled their way through to miniscule Truss, got a meeting and everything.  Remember this:-



But they were doomed; all that hope dashed in one small session of estimates – CASA adjudged the matter worthy of appeal and the hint that RAAF rules on colour vision would apply.  Same –same with the good Rev Forsyth’s report; lots of speeches made - except Albo of course; that report too along with the Canadian review is patiently shuffling down the shredder line, waiting their inevitable fate, obscurity.

So, for my two bob, I agree if this industry can’t manage to act as a cohesive unit; put aside personalities and play the ball, not the man; then history will, as it’s wont to, be repeated.

I wish ‘em well in Tamworth, Friday week, I really do.  It is great opportunity to actually put a political party on the hot spot, the hotter the better.  Ask any blacksmith – strike while the iron is hot or don’t bother at all.

[Kharon]

Barnaby and the Choc Frog awards.

Mini BRB last evening – pre Tamworth discussion etc.  All peace and quiet until an I-pad chirped and the latest Skidmore ‘missive’ caused an uproar.  I’m fairly used to practical men expressing themselves in colourful terms, but, talk about ‘blued air’; enough said.

I have some excellent news though and a cheer up.  Barnaby Joyce’s office is included on some of the PAIN e-mail loops and surprise, his office responded.  How good is that?

The response was comprehensive and of value, but more importantly it means that the DPM’s office at least is paying attention to the aviation industry. When you add this to the meeting in Tamworth it is easy to surmise that we do have an active, involved DPM, a man of both integrity and good manners.  His stance on CSG and the truck drivers dilemma and now aviation is probably the best news this industry could have.  Anyway – you get the picture.

The BRB wanted to send BJ a Tim Tam along with a vote of thanks and support; but, considering the debacle Carr and Stwapedon Wong QoN initiated and subsequent hammering (brilliant) in the Senate regarding the ‘donations’ issue, we thought better of it.  However, it was decided that no one could construe a Choc Frog as an inducement.

PAIN would like to say thank you to the Hon. DPM Joyce for the time taken and the courtesy extended in providing a response; it is most appreciated by all.

Toot – toot…. .

[P1_aka_P1]

The response from the Hon. Barnaby Joyce is worth reading and may be viewed - HERE - in the AP library.  It is now up to industry to provide this honest, honourable man with the details needed to assist in setting things to rights.  No fairy tales or individual agenda; just the simple, bare bones and fact to support a clearly defined, united message.

[Gobbledock]

Being someone of a semi political background and well versed in Government I am willing to cut the 'opponent of Pistol and Boo' some moderate slack here. Any open dialogue with industry should be accepted, even if only at face value, and appreciated. Mr Joyce has been willing to put more to paper than many a Ministerial weakling before him. Well done.

However, we are in election mode and many careers and egos rest upon the outcome, so for me 'words are cheap', and politicians are not known traditionally for their truthfulness or integrity, so time will certainly tell.


Dear Barnaby,

You are a Farmer. We the aviation industry (you may call us the IOS) are a bit like a faithful farmers Cattle Dog -  happy to work hard, like to be treated well and just want to have a nice roof over our heads and be left in peace. Are you our Farmer, Barnaby? It doesn't take much to please us and keep us loyal. Do you want a loyal companion?  We can all get along well together without gnashing teeth and biting ankles, but it's up to you my friend. A starting point would be a display of your integrity regarding the grotesque aviation matters the industry has raised. Throw us a bone or a Smacko mate, prove to us that you are serious.
Where to start? Hmmmm. Before the election perhaps;

- Remove MrDak, Skidmore, Harfwit and Beaker. One scalp will do for a start, to prove your commitment
- Commit publicly, in writing and in policy that you will change the aviation Act, restructure the alphabet soup agencies, implement the NZ regs, and give us back our ATSB
- Action all of Rev Forsythe's recommendations
- Appoint David Fawcett to the position of Junior Minister Aviation
- Remove the ability for CAsA legal to pursue, bully and bankrupt the innocent, while wasting taxpayer money
- Commit on paper to holding a post-election royal commission into CASA and it's actions and linkages to the root cause of Lockhart, Pel Air and Canley Vale
- Acknowledge the sufferings of people like Karen Casey, Shane Urquhart, Samantha Hare and others. Compensate them adequately and  fairly, without delay
- Commit to a multi billion dollar financial injection into our aviations industry's repair, engineering, training, infrastructure and future. Bring our industry back.

Regards
Gobbledock

[thorn bird]

NZ mission statement: 

Part 72AA  in the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act  1990 and states:

“The objective of the Authority is to undertake its safety, security, and other functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system”.

Dick Smith

"Note the complete disparity(between NZ and Australia).  It mentions nothing about safety being the most important consideration, which is a staggering difference in comparison to our Act.  Perhaps you should move to the New Zealand terminology; they have a British based legislative system just as we have, and I can’t see why that wouldn’t be better for us."

Thorn Bird:

Some questions for Barnaby:

Is it government "Policy" to completely wipe out aviation in Australia as an industry?

If not, why has the government allowed the regulator an unfetted licence to do just that?

It has been more than 25 years since CAsA's so called regulatory "reform" started. So far it has expended more than $300 million of the industries and taxpayers money and it is far from complete.

Is it government policy to expend another $300 million dollars of industry and taxpayers money and another 25 years to complete CAsA's "reform"?

Will there be any industry left in another 25 years of CAsA's "reforms" to apply to?

If not, what is the point of squandering another 25 years and $300 million dollars?

Is it the intention of the "Act" as it stands, to return Australia to the old two airline days where CAsA's predecessor set airfares in favour of TAA, probably the most inefficient airline in the world and the pilots union who's members were the most highly paid and unproductive in the world?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is only two airlines left in Australia, the two so called "budget" airlines are owned by the two high end airlines. Over the recent school holidays, fares across all the so called independent airlines were pretty much line ball, even for the so called "Budget" airfares. Airfares approached the old days where a one way fare SYD-BN was about a months salary for the average Joe, who would weigh up what it cost for him and the missus to fly to attend a wedding and chose the Kingswood and the risks of the Pacific highway.
Last weekend I could have travelled return to the Philippines for the same price as a one way ticket BN to SYD. I chose the Pacific highway and saved $1200 bucks.

How many tourists to this country come to the same conclusion? Just too bloody expensive!!

Why is this so? and how much does the regulatory burden affect airline costs?

From the GA perspective, operating costs for a specific aircraft is double that of the USA.

Are we safer than the US? not even close!!

SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF CAsA AND THEIR GOBBLEDEGOOK???

"We acknowledge that there were difficulties for industry, as well as for us, in coming to terms with the requirements of the new regulations. We know it has been frustrating for industry and applicants and we do appreciate your understanding and patience".


Then from the April Missive.......

"Tell us how to cut regulatory red tape
People across the aviation community are being asked to contribute to efforts to reduce regulatory red tape. CASA is committed to the Federal Government’s deregulation agenda which aims to reduce unnecessary red tape costs on individuals, businesses and community organisations. The agenda applies to any mandatory obligations imposed by legislation, regulations or quasi-regulations. This includes statutory instruments, standards, codes of practice, or any other aspect of regulator behaviour that has a measurable cost burden on business or individuals. Costs imposed by new regulations must be offset, although not necessarily in the same area. It has been a long standing CASA policy to ensure safety regulations are necessary, risk based and cost effective, with no unnecessary cost burdens imposed on the aviation community. The Government’s deregulation agenda puts additional emphasis on CASA’s policy. Everyone in aviation is invited to make constructive suggestions on cutting red tape by sending ideas and comments to a dedicated email address. Suggestions can be made about removing unnecessary regulations, modifying inefficient regulations or simplifying CASA’s processes and procedures.
Send your red tape reduction ideas to: deregulation@casa.gov.au."

Sorry CAsA, ran out of patience a LONG LONG time ago.....just sent your Email to deregulation@casa.gov.au.

Red tape Reduction Idea:

"ADOPT NEW ZEALAND REGULATIONS" 

Anyone got anything to add to that? Feel free to include it!

Hear bloody hear!!!!

[Kharon]

Quote:
[Image: MFT_students_257079A0-0CDE-11E6-961D06B2CCB88DF3.jpg]

Students at Glen Buckley's Melbourne Flight Training. (MFT)

Innovative Idea aims to save Flying School Costs
28 Apr 2016

Moorabbin flying instructor Glen Buckley has developed an innovative idea to help flying schools cut administrative costs.

The owner and CFI of Melbourne Flight Training has proposed a consortium of flying schools to share key personnel required by CASA regulations.

If it comes to fruition, Buckley believes it could not only reduce c
osts, but could also save some schools that will find themselves unable to afford to transition to a CASR Part 142 school to offer the 150-hour CPL.

Named Australian Integrated Pilot Training (AIPT), Buckey's concept is to share the Head of Operations, Head of Aircraft Airworthiness and Maintenance Control (HAAMC), Safety Manager and Compliance and QA Manager across anything up to 20 different flying schools.

Each flying school in AIPT would contribute part of the salaries for the "super group" of administrators, and in return get high-level expertise to bring their school up to Part 142 standards at a fraction of the cost of going it alone.

Buckley developed the idea after considering the future of his own school in the current economic and regulator environment. With 90% of MFT's business coming from students doing the integrated 150-hour CPL course, Buckley was faced with a large investment simply to keep the doors open past 31 August 2018, the date by which schools must transition to the new Part 142 rules.

"I’m concerned about the future of Australian-owned businesses in the flight training sector," Buckley says, "and as my business is my superannuation, I’m concerned somewhat for my family's future.

"I consistently strive for perfection in my business but increasingly I feel like I can’t keep up anymore. I’m tired of the bureaucracy associated with simply proving that I am already doing the right thing. I get frustrated by the Fee-Help system. I need to get focused on my business at the moment, but I keep getting pulled away.

"Increasingly I have been considering how I can continue to operate my business, and operate it successfully. How can I increase its potential in a time of 'doom and gloom' for our sector?

"I’ve come up with this proposal. I want to get 20 like-minded schools that genuinely want to survive in the new environment; a range of both country and city schools, Australian-owned businesses that really have the intent to deliver on the regulator's requirements, and maintain a robust business."

Buckley says his idea is well down the track, having secured in-principle agreement from some of the key personnel to join AIPT. Buckley has also spoken with people at CASA and says the idea has been greeted with interest.

Under the proposal, each school would no longer require their senior key personnel, and even the Chief Flying Instructor could be renamed Senior Base Pilot as the CFI role would be done by a qualified instructor roving between the member organisations. Buckley also proposes each school use the Flight School Manager program to ensure compatibility of systems and procedures.

Buckley recognises there are some challenges to the AIPT concept that would need to be overcome, such as CASA's interpretation of the key personnel requirements, but understands they need to be taken on as the flight training industry itself is facing new hurdles in the next couple of years.

"A challenge immediately ahead is the transition to a 141 or a 142 organisation," he points out. "A bigger challenge will come soon after when we are audited for compliance against these complicated criteria. The transition is not the big issue. The challenge actually comes after the transition in ensuring you have the resources to maintain compliance.

"[the AIPT] approach will allow us to attend to this challenge co-operatively."
Buckley already has interest from some flying schools, and will soon be approaching others who are facing the same cost burden as MFT.

"The cost of rewriting compliant manuals alone was in excess of $100,000 for my organisation and took far too much of my attention for far too long. This was extremely challenging from a resource perspective. This approach will substantially free up both financial and time resources to allow them to focus on running their businesses."

Glen Buckley in a well constructed nutshell identifies another serious, but pointless area where the CASA fantasy meets industrial reality to achieve nothing more than that which existed, pre regulatory 'reform'.  

Is a scant 30 minutes with the Hon. Barnaby really going to be enough?

We shall see.

[Peetwo]

“When You Are Busting For A Pizza” – Barnaby’s Valedictory

In the lead up to GA "N"-Day (or D-Day), I thought it worth regurgitating Barnaby's amusing but IMO very real, Valedictory speech (courtesy of now defunct blog - "Barnaby is right").

Why?? Well because I think we need to understand that before BJ was a member of the House of Reps (& now leader of the Nats & DPM), he was first and foremost a Senator that lived by the creed of the Senators and the Senate. 

To help explain here is a quote from Senator Sterle in reply to Barnaby's original debate speech in 2012 on the establishment of the RSRT: 

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (21:11): I acknowledge the contribution from Senator Joyce. Senator Joyce and I have a lot in common. Some may not think that, but we entered the parliament together and we do enjoy each other's company. Like you, Senator Joyce, I do believe Australia's farmers are getting a pretty rough deal.

Now compare that to the admonishment of Senator Lazarus a couple of weeks ago, first from Senator O'Sullivan:

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (20:18): Tonight, I rise to speak on something that I had not witnessed in this chamber before. Early this evening, I witnessed a senator support a motion in this place that had a direct capacity to damage the interests of his own state. I am referring to the support that Senator Glenn Lazarus gave here this evening to a motion by the Greens. That motion talked about rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership to protect South Australian jobs. Let me repeat that: a Queensland senator supported a motion to protect South Australian jobs. Senator Lazarus makes a habit of moving around our state, telling people he is the farmers' friend. My message to you tonight, Senator Lazarus, is that there are a lot fewer farmers in Queensland who think you are their friend as we start to expose your attitudes to matters of agriculture...

 
& then from Senator MacDonald:

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (20:28): Two of the most significant agricultural industries that we have in Australia are, I am proud to say, mainly based in northern Australia. But I, like Senator O'Sullivan, was absolutely dumbfounded to hear today a senator, allegedly representing Queensland, attack two of these industries in some comments he made on a sugar tax and on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I do not think Senator Lazarus quite understands that he is supposed to be supporting Queenslanders and supporting Queensland industries...

  
& finally from Senator Canavan:

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Northern Australia) (20:33): I just want to add some brief remarks on the issues that Senator Macdonald and Senator O'Sullivan have raised. The sugar industry is, of course, a very important industry for northern Australia too. I wish I could say that I was astounded or surprised by Senator Lazarus's stance on this issue. But, unfortunately, it is becoming a pattern of behaviour for this particular senator to sell out Queensland jobs without thinking it through. He sells out the jobs of hardworking Queenslanders without really understanding the issues that is speaking on...

And of course for the purist example of how the Senate works in the State, then National interest first, before politics, you cannot go past the Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry report, from Senator Xenophon Adjournment speech 04 March 2014:

..I would like to speak tonight on an incredibly seriously issue that goes to the heart of aviation safety in Australia. In May last year, the Senate Rural And Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee handed down a damning report into the Aviation Transport Safety Bureau's investigation of Pel-Air flight VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the excellent work of the committee secretariat in this inquiry. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of Senator David Fawcett—that is you, Mr Acting Deputy President—whose experience and expert knowledge were invaluable to the other committee members. I am very grateful for that, as are the rest of the committee. I also want to thank the individuals involved in the incident, and their advocates and representatives, for the time and effort they spent to ensure the committee fully understood the events of that night and their implications. Bryan Aherne and Mick Quinn, experts in aviation safety with distinguished careers in aviation, deserve recognition. Mr Quinn is a former deputy director of CASA. Mr Aherne is an independent safety expert who is also very highly regarded...

...The committee also raised concerns about the ATSB's decision not to retrieve flight data recorders from the ditched plane despite the ATSB's responsibilities under the International Civil Aviation Organization's annexe 13 ruling. The committee was so concerned with Mr Dolan's comments on this front that it stated in its report:


Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee.

This is an incredibly strong statement in regard to a senior public servant. I do not understand how Mr Dolan's position in the ATSB is tenable. And yet, neither the previous government nor the current government has formally responded to the committee's report—but I understand it is coming shortly...

 
So without further ado here is BJ's Valedictory speech, with emphasis on the value of Senator Xenophon... :

From Barnaby Joyce’s office (my bold emphasis added) –

Senate Valedictory Statement
Wednesday, 26 June 2013

..You will have to give me some latitude tonight because, on the other side of the building, we have what is obviously of momentous effect to our nation, in that we are about to go through the process of changing prime ministers again, we have the State of Origin on television, and I have just listened to a speech by Pliny the Elder. It reminds me very much of what the Grateful Dead said when they came on between The Who and Jimi Hendrix. They said they were the most forgettable act at Woodstock, and I think I will be too.

I have not written a speech, because there has been so much that should be in it that I could not really do it justice. But it has been a great honour to be a part of this collegiate atmosphere which is the Senate. It has been an incredible honour to represent Australia, to wear this pin—as I always have—in my lapel, and be one of 76 Australians who have the right to go beyond the bar and come into this chamber and vote. That honour comes with immense responsibilities—immense responsibilities, because it determines the texture and nature and culture of our nation. We are reflections of that nature and its diversity.

I would like to acknowledge, most importantly, my colleagues around the chamber and the work that they have done. Although you might not presume it, I hold you in the highest respect. There are people that I have worked with, and, without mentioning all, I just wanted to mention a few—not the ones you would suspect—for the certain things that they take to this chamber. As we go around, and in no particular order, I would always like to acknowledge the work that people such as Senator John Faulkner have done—the fact that he has always held this chamber in respect. He is a person of incredible decency, a person that I do not necessarily agree with on virtually anything, but you always knew that he took the job seriously, that he held the office with respect, that he added to the office and that he was the person you could trust.

I would like to thank the vitality that Senator Doug Cameron has, and the fact that he is always getting rolled on everything—but not tonight. Tonight, Dougie wins! I would like to thank—and I really mean this—the work rate that is shown by people such as Rachel Siewert. Senator Siewert and I started at the same time and I have always looked across and thought, ‘Now there is a person who is always doing their homework.’ They are always across it and not acknowledged in the form that they should be for the immense work they do.

"..Behind me is Senator Nick Xenophon. When you are busting for a pizza and you need someone to go out with, someone to bounce a few ideas off, someone you can hold in your confidence, Nick Xenophon is the person that you recognise.."

Obviously, I would have to go through my own team. Not only have I had the chance to be a senator, but I have had the chance to work with an incredible team, a team that for our own part, have never leaked—and that should be advice to some on the other side. It is not that we did not have our differences. At times we did. But we always worked together in a form of collegiate experience. It was a representation within the National Party that I had, and I loved it. There was me as a little old bush accountant, I had Fiona as a farmer, I had Wacka as an ex-shearer, I had Bozzie as a paint brush salesman and I had Nige—who is not here—who was a fisherman. We managed to work together in such a way as to do the job of the representation of the people of our respective states and, most specifically, the people of regional Australia. There is also Bridget McKenzie who has now climbed to the rank of wanting to be on every possible committee that has ever been devised in this building.

There are so many others of my Liberal party colleagues that I would like to acknowledge. I would like to acknowledge them all, but time does not permit. But I would like to make special mention of those with the courage to stand up on issues where they get derided, because I have had that experience myself. So I have great empathy for people such as Cory Bernardi. I have great empathy, as I have said, for the tenacity of Bill Heffernan. When he was not haunting me and trying to track me down, he was generally focused on something that was going to bring about a better outcome for regional Australia. It is my colleagues from Queensland, most importantly, Bretto—Brett Mason—because every day is fun if Brett Mason is there.

Everything is always about looking to the better angels of the people that he is with. With Macka, it is his parochialism for North Queensland—not that North Queenslanders are parochial—and the representation of that. George has perfected the form of the erudite salesman for the coalition, and, with his work as the shadow Attorney-General, he will make a great Attorney-General of this nation.

These were people at the start, and I had a very peculiar start.

People talk about doing the James Bond act, and it has been done before when the National Party tried to win back the Senate seat. It was a time when nobody gave us a chance. It is so confronting when not one paper writes you up as having a prospect of winning back a Senate seat that had been previously lost. We were up against everybody from the Greens to Pauline Hanson, from the Labor Party to the Democrats, from One Nation—and because we had to stand on our own barrel—to John Howard. They were all campaigning for their turf, and into that environment we had to try to win. When we did win it was an amazing experience. From that I did carry a sense of combativeness, which I have probably expressed a range of times. If Senator Humphries was the trendsetter for crossing the floor, I can assure you I verge on Coco Chanel. It was the time to make sure, in that iteration, that the National Party never lost that position again. We made sure that we were relevant to the people who had elected us.

I would also like to reflect on the people who have supported me so well through that path. They are here tonight. It is incredibly humbling for me to see Lenore Johnson from Longreach. Lenore and I basically drove a bus around Queensland numerous times. We thought it was a huge hit if we got on a community radio station. We thought that was really cutting the mustard. Lenore has been my friend, guide and philosopher for so many years, with Bill Taylor, and with Denise Jacks, who is also here. These people are like gold. They are called branch members and they are like gold because they are the ones that carry you along. There are so many people’s names that I could go through. I can see Lou Edwards and Bruce McIver, President of the LNP. I call these people friends because we work together in a team as friends. We could always trust each other’s confidences as we went through the difficult times and the not-so-difficult times as we combined two different parties into one organisation with all the contentions that that involved.

During the election campaign of trying to reclaim this Senate seat, you had to make every item work on your behalf. I remember at one stage being in Paul Neville’ seat and I saw an opportunity. We were at an air show and I saw a camera crew filming a skydive which was about to happen, and I knew that I had to insert myself into play between that skydiver and that camera crew because that is how I would get coverage, so I did. I said to my colleagues, ‘Guys, I’m going to ask these people for their vote, and just watch this.’ So, I looked up and I saw two dots come out of the plane. As they got closer I noted that they had, obviously, lycra on and were coming down at a rate of knots and, as they were coming down, I thought, ‘This will work well.’ As they got closer I saw that it was mottled lycra of a pinkish colour. As they got even closer I noticed that one of the lycra-people had something that looked awfully like a penis—they were nude! They landed, and they did not particularly want to meet a politician. They most certainly did not want to meet a camera crew, and I do not think they ever voted for me. These are part and parcel experiences of being a senator.

During this time I have had some great staff. I have never asked my staff which way they vote. They vote whichever way they are inclined; it is their right. I have always believed absolutely in the liberty of the individual and their expression of how they vote. I do not know, but I think I have crossed the floor 19 times or something, and if you add up some others it gets into the high 20s. That is important because we are in a chamber that is supposed to express the nation’s freedom, and if we do not have it, then who does have it? Where does that freedom reside? This is no longer, to be honest, a states’ house, but it should be. I thought it would be a states’ house but it is not. It is a house made up of party bodies. If it were a states’ house we would sit as states and not as political parties, so there must be other virtues to this house. I think one of the important ones is that there must be the right of philosophical freedom, of your capacity to express your views, as ardent as they are, you should have the right to do it. If your argument is not sustainable, then you will be torn to pieces by right of argument but not by right of intimidation. That is what this place should provide.

I remember Karen Lee, who came to me from the Democrats, and was my chief of staff at one stage. I am pretty sure that if Karen had voted for me she would not have voted for my party. We had a good working relationship and she would always make me aware that you have to know how to step off your left and your right if you are going to make your way through. I have had some brilliant other staff members. I can see Matt Canavan who is going to be a senator for Queensland. He will be a great contributor to the debate in this chamber, and he has already earned himself laurels around this chamber. I have had Scottie Buchholz who obviously is a typical representative of the other chamber—oh, there he is! It has been a joy to be able to work with these people and see their careers progress. I would like to make special mention of the staff members who were there day after day. Alanna Brosnan who started with me from day 3 and is still with me today. Hayley Winks, who is now Haley Wildman, who left and came back, so we must be doing something right. She is a person who could get you in and out of purgatory or in and out of hell. She is the most incredible person who can organise someone’s life. They have all of my bank account details—the whole lot—so I will never sack them!

I want to acknowledge Raelene McVinish, Robyn Mills and Sam Muller. This is a great story. Sam Muller went for an interview with us when our plane landed at Toowoomba. She got on. I said, ‘The plane is taking off; you will have to come with me for the interview.’ By the time we got to Dalby her dog had just about given up trying to keep up with the plane! We got back to Toowoomba and I said, ‘You’ve got the job,’ and she’s been there ever since. These are the sorts of people I have in my office. There is Deborah Dennis and Jenny Swan. As you would note, the vast majority of my staff have been ladies. I am thankful for that because they take the harder edge off so much of what I say and do.

Some of the formative debates probably left people a little bit perplexed. I know I had a lot of friends on the right when we took on the ETS. We took on the ETS when the polling said only seven per cent of people agreed with our position. But with tenaciousness dedication and support from Senator Boswell and so many others we managed to change the position of the National Party and change the position of the coalition. And then we changed the position of the nation. That shows that every person in this chamber is given the keys to affect the nation, at times against impossible odds. If you wish to do it, you can, but you must have the fortitude to pursue that course. And that right should be yours, because it is vital for our nation that you have it.

The Birdsville amendment is something that I worked on with Frank Zumbo—a great guy—to try and reinvest in the liberty of the individual as expressed in small business, because small business is where you can be who you really wish to be, where you do not have to follow the corporate manual, where you can set up the time that you come to work and the time that you leave, where the sweat of your brow is reflected in your bank balance and you are not guided by others. Therefore it must be precious and something that we must always stand behind.

I acknowledge the corporate interests that come in here and say that that is not the case. They always try to cajole us into moving away from the protection of the rights of the individual. But we must stand behind those small businesses because they are the powerhouses that are the expression of the philosophies that we hold in this chamber. And I believe those philosophies are held, in many instances, by senators from both sides.

There is more room to move on that issue, and we must go into that space to battle for the things that I spoke about in my maiden speech—such as the over-centralisation of the retail market—and that we do not find excuses to remove ourselves from that battle. We need to step into that space and say, ‘Big business is great. It has a role—and congratulations to it!—but it must not compromise the rights of individuals in the expression of their freedom in that space.

The nation has to take the next step. I have been very lucky to have been part of the process of being deputy chair of the dams committee, as we move the nation into what is our new horizon—our new agenda. We have to make that next step because the world is changing around us. We say we live in the Asian century but we have to start understanding what it is that we are going to do in that area. If we are going to survive in the service industry it is going to be difficult, considering many of the people we will compete with—because the internet is ubiquitous—will not necessarily by in Sydney and Brisbane but will be in Singapore, Taipei and Shanghai. And those people will be on a lower wage structure than ours. And to be honest, their standard of education in many areas is now higher than ours. The standard of English in Singapore is better than our English, and we are supposed to speak English! And as well as English they speak Bahasa, Cantonese and Mandarin.

So we must read into this Asian century what it actually means. We must understand that other nations are more proximate to the major markets. And we must understand that in many instances they have developed trade agreements which give them greater access to the world they live in.

So, where do our strengths lie? We have been blessed in this nation with mineral wealth and agricultural potential, and we have to make sure that we do not lose sight of our strengths. Sure, the others will grow. They will grow in the tertiary sector. We acknowledge that. But we must not lose sight of our strengths because, as any accountant will tell you, you must not lose sight of your strengths.

I was instructed in my accountancy by another gentleman who is here today—Phil Maltby, who I started with. Through that form of accountancy I carried certain fears. I had two groups of people that I was always very aware of—the ones who were the roaring successes and the ones who were the unmitigated failures. The rest were kind of irrelevant. The roaring successes and the unmitigated failures had one thing in common—their capacity or the lack of capacity to manage money. That is why I am almost apoplectic about our nation’s debt. I have watched it and watched it because it concerns me deeply. If you do not manage debt, debt will manage you. It will become your master. The hardest task master you will ever have is trying to pay off debt.

I acknowledge the work of my parents who instructed me in that. Marie and Jim are here today. I can see my daughters there as well. My parents were not parsimonious but they were most definitely frugal. They made you respect the dollar. They made you account for what you did. They made you note that the money you spent was the sheep that you would have to shear, the steer that you could sell. And money can be saved by being completely diligent about how money is spent around the property. That stayed with me. So when I saw our nation going down a path where we were getting ourselves further and further into debt I remembered the experience of working under Phil Maltby and others, and how hard it is to pay it all back. That task will be before us in the future. It will be a massive task. I firmly believe that none of the people in this chamber—none of us—will be here by the time we have got on top of the debt we currently have. And I find that to be an incredible indictment and legacy for our nation.

On other issues, on sideline issues, I hope that in the way I have conducted myself I have brought a form of pragmatism into how we see things.

There is no such thing as a free trade agreement. There are things euphemistically called free trade agreements, but there is no such thing as a free trade agreement. The world works pragmatically. It is ruthless. It is governed by commerce. We have to also acknowledge where we are. We call BHP the big Australian . It is not; it is 60 per cent foreign owned. We say Rio is another Australian company. It is not; it is majority foreign owned. The biggest farm in Australia is foreign owned. If you look around the skyscrapers and look for the neon sign that is a reflection of the Australian owned international champion—what is it? Where does our success lie if all the international champions are someone else’s international champions? We must deal with them, and they will be part of an open marketplace.

But we must realise that it is not selfish to want to have one of our own. It is actually wise and diligent, if we want to be a strong nation—and we must be a strong nation—to have our own champions in our own country. I do not see that happening. I see us more and more becoming the servants of other people. We romanticise it, but we will be working predominantly for others. What we must do is create a culture to create our own champions. The latest iteration of that, obviously, is ADM and GrainCorp. We say we are going to live in the agricultural century. Well, where is our international agricultural champion? Which one is it going to be?

I just want to remind the people on my own side of three issues that they probably disagreed with me on. Much to the disgust of so many of my colleagues, I supported David Hicks getting a proper trial, I strongly believed, and I was guided by my mother, that a person deserves their day in court, that we cannot abscond from the legal process. It is for people to be proven guilty or innocent by the legal process, not by our beliefs. Obviously VSU got me lots of friends, but not on this side of the chamber. That was an issue about the provision of services to regional universities—that is how we saw it. We saw it as being about football fields and obviously, the other one was the West Papuan boat issue. We are the neighbours of West Papua, so when the West Papuans turn up here it is different to when other people decide to make their way here through myriad countries.

Why do I bring these issues up? It is to try, as I leave, to reinvigorate your beliefs as senators, no matter which side of the chamber you are on. If you have a belief that you strongly hold, that might not be the belief of the colleagues beside you, it is your right—in fact, it is your duty—to stand up and say something about it and to express your view. If you do not, you are letting yourself down and, worse than that, you are letting your nation down.

I have enjoyed my time here. My final thanks go to the most important group. I want to thank deeply, with the most conviction I can possibly muster, my wife, Natalie. Natalie is a person who shuns the public spotlight. She does not want to be the politician’s wife. She was dragged there, unfortunately, by a person who wanted to be a politician. She has been both mother and father to my children as they have been brought up. Everybody says what a good job we have done. We did not do much of a job at all—she did a very good job. I apologise to Natalie for all the times that I have spent away and for the times that, basically, I have been the absent father and the absent husband. I was reminded that, in the first six months of last year, I spend eight days in my own bed. Natalie would get to the end of the year and remind me how many days I had been home, and it would be 25 or 28. When I had a good year, it was 42. As I was out saving the planet, Nat was managing the house. I apologise to Natalie and also to my daughters, Bridgette, Julia, Caroline and Odette, for not being there as much as I should have been.
Likewise, you cannot do this job without a support crew. To see the Travis family here tonight is to see an incredible part of that support group. When you live in a country town, you can just go to someone and say, ‘We’re dropping our kids off.’ Sometimes we did not come back for weeks.

The final group is obviously my National Party colleagues, who are around me here. This is going to be, I believe, a momentous time. We are coming to an election. The Australian people, whatever choice they make, will make the right one, and then once more we will be servants of those people. I thank you all for your tolerance of me over so many years. If I am successful, if I do the right job and walk humbly with the people of New England, I may get the opportunity to represent this great nation in another place. But I will always hold in fondness and admiration my time here. I hope I have not disgraced you too much. All the best and God bless.

  
Standing by for incoming...



MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

One word - fuc#wits