[Kharon]

A pathway to the FARs?

Or - Sore, until tomorrow:-

Spot on Sandy - the only person who can bring about the changes so desperately needed is the minister; or rather his signature on a piece of paper; to wit, the SoE. There are three small, but very important key elements which must be present in the formula if three decades of protest are to be transformed into a productive, self supporting industry.

#1 The minister must want to see that change happen and the benefits that brings.
#2 The minister must be provided safe, sane, unimpeachable, defensible, reasoned advice along with the 'nuts and bolts' needed to get the job done.
#3 The minister must be provided a clear 'plan' defining the small steps which will lead by a 'natural' progression to the FARs being completely adopted.

Assuming #1 &#2 are 'acceptable, then #3 becomes the key to the future. If it was I who could change things, it would be a simple matter - in a twelve month from now, we will be using the FAR, get on with it; alas, we do not allow benevolent despots to run the joint. So it must be 'softly softly' - and the inevitable transition to a globally acceptable system must gain enough momentum to become unstoppable. But how?

A small push is needed to set the ball rolling; achievable, enforceable significant changes in the short term, leading to that natural progression. When one reads the GAAN submission, as CASA would - the 'loop-holes' and wriggle room become crystal clear. GAAN Item three: an open invitation to spend five years farting about with the rule book. In essentials, to honest folk, it is a bloody good idea; but it has all been said before, to no tangible change; and, a change of the Act is risky if suddenly the bipartinsane automatic 'rubber stamp' fails. That said, an achievable, low risk plan would be to insist on a 'better' classification of operation and a 'risk based' rule set.

These highly desirable elements exist, ICAO compliant in the FAR, so the model is freely available, copy and paste almost; so much for the 'classification' -  but the 'risk based' requires expert input. Take - Oh, say long line sling loads for Choppers - who better to ask for 'risk' based rules than the experts who manage such tasks for their bread and butter? So here again an easily achievable outcome is available - free of charge and aggravation.

The key element - IMO - is the words in the ministerial SoE - those words need to set the ball of real change in motion, rolling toward international standards being adopted and Australia joining the aviation global village. Just a nudge in the right direction and FAR adoption must follow - without doors being kicked in.

Tempus fugit - and tempers will be frayed if I end up late - MTF - GW,WP...

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Submission 66 & 67 - Enough Already! 

Via McDolittle's McIrrelevant GA Inquiry webpage (administered at a price tag of -  ):

66 Mr Mark Newton (PDF 195 KB)
67 Name Withheld (PDF 3474 KB)

IMO Mark Newton's excellent but lengthy (21 page) submission provides the perfect final footnote to the McDolittle inquiry eg. :

Perverse incentives

The departmental headcount required to administer a regulation increases if the regulation is more
complex. What we have seen across the last 30 years is that the size of the airworthy Australian aircraft
fleet, the size of the industry it serves, the number of pilots, and the number of flight hours have all been
declining; And yet CASA’s budget and headcount keeps expanding. There is no reason for this, except for
the fact that the complexity of CASA’s administrative function is a direct outcome of CASA’s inability to
write clear and efficient regulations. The burgeoning size of the CASA bureaucracy needed to regulate a
declining industry is a warning sign which should be taken a lot more seriously than it is.

As an example: Both CASA and the FAA administer medical certification for private pilots.

FAA regulations have, for many years, provided a system called “BasicMed” which enables private pilots
to manage their own medical fitness in consultation with their GP without involving FAA administrators.
While CASA has paid lip service to similar principles, its “Class 2 Basic” medical certification carries
enough operational limitations to make it impractical to use, so the lion’s share of medical certification for
Part 61 RPL and PPL holders requires mandatory oversight from a burgeoning (and, ofttimes, interfering)
CASA AVMED bureaucracy.

FAA and CASA both administer pilot medical certification systems which deliver roughly equivalent levels
of safety, but the method chosen by CASA to perform that function insists on the maintenance and funding
of a staff of expensive and prescriptive administrative specialists who apply expensive and time
consuming requirements on some of their applicants of a type and magnitude that the FAA has
successfully abandoned.

Applying that principle to other regulatory realms yields similar observations: CASA, when confronted with
a plethora of different ways of attaining a public policy outcome, tends to gravitate towards ones which
create cost and administrative complexity instead of ones which serve the same outcomes but minimize
its own involvement. Which is probably why CASA in 2021 has 832 employees, which is nearly one staff
member for every ten airworthy aircraft on their Australian civil aircraft register.

I invite the committee to consider the effect on the public purse if similar ratios applied to the safety
regulation of motor vehicles, boats or forklifts, and ask themselves what makes aviation so special?

CASA’s budget

Having established that CASA’s two primary functions are writing regulations and administering the
regulations it has written, we can now turn to a question of how much it costs.

To carry out those functions, CASA’s 2021-22 budget appropriation was $217 million4. Slightly over half of
that budget is funded by a levy on aviation fuel, the other half comes out of Commonwealth general
revenue.

When you compare CASA’s annual budget to the aviation industry statistics collected by the Department
of Transport and Regional Development’s BITRE program, you can see that CASA’s regulatory activities
cost the Australian economy more than $60 per flight hour5.

For comparison: CASA spends about as much per hour to regulate each flight hour as I spend on fuel
(which is the largest share of the total cost of aircraft ownership) and about twice as much per hour as I
spend on comprehensive aircraft insurance. Over the ten years I’ve owned my airplane, CASA has spent
more to regulate it than its entire resale value.

But that isn’t even a complete picture: Many of CASA’s administration functions are supplied on a cost
recovery basis6, meaning that its budget appropriation isn’t paying for all of them, and $60 per flight hour
is therefore an underestimate.

Evaluating CASA’s performance as a regulatory agency

The aims of The Act are stated in Section 3A:

The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and
promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and
incidents.

Has CASA’s regulatory framework “maintained, enhanced and promoted the safety of civil aviation?”
Happily, we don’t need to leave this to a question of opinion, because the Australian Transport Safety
Bureau (ATSB) maintains aviation safety statistics, particularly those concerned with aviation accidents
and incidents.

CASA has been pursuing a program of regulatory reform for more than three decades. If the resulting
regulations had been serving the purposes of the Act, we would be able to see a concomitant
improvement in ATSB accident statistics as new regulations “... maintaining, enhancing and promoting
the safety of civil aviation...” came into force..

That is: Unlike many other areas of government regulatory activity, where the actions of a regulatory
agency are quite distant from the metrics used to measure their efficacy, we possess detailed
independently maintained statistics which measure the degree to which CASA is supporting the aims of
the Civil Aviation Act. If they’re doing a good job of enhancing and promoting safety, we should be able to
directly observe trends in the ATSB’s safety occurrence data.

So: Can we?



The chart above depicts 7 ATSB incident, serious incident and accident statistics, including injuries and
deaths, for the ten years to year end 2019.

The ATSB report containing the infographic notes, in its Safety Summary section, that “... the number of
[general aviation] operational-related accidents and serious incidents, per year, increased over the period,”
with instructional flying as the main contributor. It should be noted that GA instructional flying is one of
the most heavily regulated activities in the aviation industry, with CASA involvement required at almost
every turn. CASR Part 61 flight crew licensing rules were launched during this timeframe, with new
Manuals of Standards and new CASA oversight.

The report also notes, later in the same section, “The accident rate for recreational flying decreased
between 2014 and 2018, with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) registered aircraft having the
greatest contribution to this reduction.” RAAus aircraft over this timeframe were operating under the
auspices of their own operational manual via CASR exemptions, with virtually no CASA involvement or
oversight whatsoever.

Correlation is not causation, and we should recognize that one of the reasons these statistics are “noisy”
is because they rely on self-reporting obligations, but it can’t escape attention that the ATSB has observed
that the worst reduction in safety has occurred in places where CASA is involved the most, and the best
improvement in safety is in places where CASA is involved the least.

Putting that observation to one side: The other thing we can extract from ten years of ATSB data is that
there has been no notable improvement. The decade depicted here has included some of CASA’s most
significant regulatory reforms, including the culmination of more than 28 years of regulatory development
to deliver the redrafted CASR Part 61. The same timeframe featured the implementation of almost the
entire suite of maintenance regulations in the form of CASR Parts 42, 66, 145 and 147 in June 2011, under
development since 1988.

CASA has consumed uncounted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Commonwealth funds over more
than three decades to produce those regulations, and the result is no obviously discernible improvement in
Australia’s aviation safety.

But it is actually worse than that, because the replacement regulations arising from their regulatory
reform program place a heavier burden on the industry they’re regulating.

As a consequence of Part 61 reform, I now require (and must pay for) two biannual flight reviews, where
previously I only needed one, because Part 61 treats day-VFR and night-VFR separately. This doubling of
compliance costs has added nothing to safety -- otherwise it’d be reflected in the infographic above -- but
it has obviously increased my cost of operations.

As a consequence of CASA’s CASR Part 66 airworthiness regulation reform, it is more difficult for me to
find LAMEs who can maintain my aircraft. I fly it from Sydney to Adelaide every year for its annual
inspection, because that’s how far I must travel to find appropriately qualified and experienced
maintenance personnel who specialize on my aircraft type. The population of LAMEs is ageing, with few
apprenticeships to provide for generational refresh, partly due to the overabundance of regulation and
licensing requirements. It’s notable that CASR Part 66 is arguably one of CASA’s most successful
regulatory reforms, but has nevertheless contributed to the steady decline of the entire industry.
Long-time CASA observers find this unsurprising.

CASA’s unceasing regulatory churn creates safety deficiencies. For example, if you gather any five pilots
into a room, you’ll get three different opinions on which is the correct radio frequency to use in the circuit
area of an uncharted airport in regional Australia because CASA has had three different positions on what
the right answer is over the last ten years, even though the underlying regulations have not changed. It’s
critically important that aircraft operating in the vicinity of each other can maintain radio communications
on the same frequency to facilitate “Alerted See and Avoid,” the primary means of mid-air collision
avoidance for VFR aircraft. It is baffling that a safety regulator should promote so much confusion about
such a fundamental requirement.

I find myself drawn to the inescapable conclusion that CASA simply isn’t very good at safety. This
shouldn’t be surprising, because their primary role isn’t safety, it’s regulatory drafting. That is what they do.

Given the extraordinary investment of money and talent into CASA’s regulatory reform program, it should
be possible to point to beneficial outcomes that serve the purpose of The Act. The fact that a safety
regulator can draw a $217 million budget appropriation and produce safety outcomes that aren’t
meaningfully different from those of ten years ago qualifies, in the opinion of the author, as an horrific
governance failure. It’s even worse if you go back further than ten years, and note accident trends in
Australia’s aviation industry have barely improved for half a century.

To summarize: If we’re paying CASA more than $60 per flight hour to regulate aviation safety, we should
see an improvement in aviation safety. That simply isn’t happening, and I’d like to know why we would be
any worse off if we wound the clock back to when CASA was less well funded: If pouring money and
expertise into CASA’s maw yields no identifiable safety improvements, shouldn’t we stop doing it?

Sandy in reply to Newton's epistle - 

All the evidence of the 33 year failure of the independent regulation of Australia’s General Aviation has been more than clear for many years.

Anyone in government who was serious to act in the Nation’s interest could have been calling for reform action in the Parliament irrespective of party politics. But it seems we don’t yet have MPs who have the gumption to speak out.

Inquiries now are simply excuses for non action.

All the submissions to the current Senate inquiry may have different slants on GA problems, problems that have been widespread and well known for years, but none are new in principle, see 269 submissions to the 2014 Forsyth inquiry.

There’s only one new element that might further exercise the minds of politicians, that of National security because a strong GA sector (including availability of airports) must now have elevated importance.

Mark Newton’s submission makes the point that CASA has failed to increase safety and thus not complied with the intention of the Act. At the same time it has crippled GA into a shadow of it’s former self. Arguably the GA industry has made improvements by itself, engine reliability and precise navigation for examples. If the BITRE figures were correlated with hours flown and compared to population growth a much worse picture would emerge.

Without some interim measures to prove bone fides, and then a commitment to the FARs and bringing CASA firmly under Ministerial control, Australia’s GA will continue to decline with loss of jobs, technical specialists, businesses and capabilities into a rump activity for the very rich, the very limited low weight category and some agricultural and rotary wing operations. Aircraft are being sold to overseas buyers and some Commonwealth airports are being given over to warehouses and shopping centres, even closed.

Will Minister Barnaby Joyce act ?  It would be the first time for the benefit of GA in living memory.

Sandy Reith

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

IF.

No, not the Kipling kind, although, IMO, it holds much relevance to this days troubles, but that of the 'fiscal' kind, i.e. the money.

This last little 'pandemic' exercise has, in no small way, placed the national economy (i.e. us) is some pretty deep debt. When money is 'tight' sensible folk look for ways to reduce costs, outgoings and apply the rule of is it nice to have, need to have or must have and budget accordingly.

I wonder, will the government consider saving the outrageous cost of maintaining the current CASA and the lunatic system CASA insists we must have; despite it being in direct conflict with world best practice and an unnecessary burden not only on industry, but to the tax payer.

It is essential that aviation recover from the blight; quickly and positively. The first and possibly the most damaging element which will slow the recovery will be the 'regulations'. The cost to the nation of writing, rewriting and providing hundreds of pages 'explaining' the regulation is staggering. The cost to industry of 'compliance' is not calculated, but any analysis of 'man-hours' related to drafting manuals which 'demonstrate' on paper compliance would define an expense which could be avoided.

Another saving could be made by simply coming into compliance with international 'gold standard' i.e. ICAO compliance. The cost of drafting, promulgation and maintaining the registered differences is an unrequited impost, serves no practical purpose and does nothing to improve operational costs or safety. It represents one of the 'great wastes' of public money.

Mark Newton's analysis - HERE - brings into focus some of the 'great waste' very well indeed. But I wonder, what if our DPM had a coffee with the Qantas top brass and asked but one question, how fast we would see great changes to the administration of aviation happen. "Why did you move maintenance 'off shore'?"

Australian aviation could possibly hobble along for another few years under the present regime; diminishing at the current rate of attrition, loosing aerodromes or trapped in those without fuel or maintenance facilities; as the CASA budget and levy increases; but it must, sooner or later give up the ghost. However, if Australia joined with most of the aviation nations and used the FAR, it could once again blossom into a useful, productive tax paying industry.

There's is much support for that transition - and no appetite, and even less enthusiasm for continuing along the current regulatory pathway - a failed, expensive, counterproductive system clearly demonstrated.

Toot - toot

[Peetwo]

EWH with LMH, via the Yaffa:

 

The Last Minute Hitch: 19 November 2021

19 November 2021

– Steve Hitchen

You heard it here first: CASA is working on a new Class 5 medical status, which hints at PPLs being able to fly VH-registered aircraft on a self-declared medical. A technical working group has the matter in hand, and I expect we'll see something go out for public consultation sometime next year. We should applaud now, but hold the standing ovation until we see exactly what CASA releases. Both the UK and the USA have had self-certification for a number of years, and in neither case has it resulted in an increase in aeroplanes dropping out of the sky. However, this is not likely to be a simple wiping-out of the Class 2 medical; it will come with conditions. The USA's BasicMED, for example, limits self-certification to aircraft certified for no more than five passengers and aircraft below 2721 kg MTOW. Curiously, the pilot must also maintain a driver's licence. So we can expect that CASA will probably apply restrictions to Class 5; they will likely limit it by weight and could ban Class 5s from CTA. But all this is second-guessing before the first-guessing has been done. The TWG still needs to thrash through the issue and present CASA with a solution that is not only acceptable to the GA community, but also is practical and brings about the results we all want: lower costs and less red tape.

Sandy in reply to EWH (& BJ ) - 

So there’s our answer, forget reform because the Minister will not act. 


Well done Barnaby, too frightened to tell us to our faces? No, just feed the chooks by leaking it out to a trusted CASA spokesman. Gee whiz, CASA is working on something and cleverly invents another Australian exclusive, a brand new medical Class, a Class 5! And some things might happen next year! Fantasies are like COVID, endemic. As feared, kick the can down the road right into the election frenzy of policy promises. 

Might happen next year, or the year after that;  imagine a doctor with a patient in hospital dying for lack of oxygen deciding to hold a two year inquiry into the possible means of administering said oxygen? The McDonald Committee peddled the pathetic excuse of not finishing after two whole years because of COVID. Believe that and fairies at the bottom of the garden. McDonald to Committee Secretary “better burn and bury that 2014 Forsyth report otherwise we’ll be accused of plagiarism.”

Paul Phelan would have had a field day with these old playbooks.

As for GAAN, never agaan thank you, what a lot of drivel, how GA is so special, and "General aviation does not exist as an end in itself,” and “a strategic plan is needed.” You don’t say!

Which junior in the DoIT actually wrote this nonsense?  

Not one definitive action is offered to as a means to provide assistance to a dying industry, worse than a waste of time.  

I’ve even seen an advertisement for a secondhand RAAUS registered aircraft which says make an offer before its exported. How many aircraft are being exported? The ‘why export?’ is all too clear, a signal to anyone who is watching our General Aviation industry go down the gurgler. 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Will Labor/Green Govt be the death knell for GA industry?? - 

The following HofR question time segment perfectly highlights the disturbing risks a future Labor/Greens minority Govt would have to the prosperity of Australian industries and businesses (including aviation):

 

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Official data released today shows emissions have just gone up by two per cent under your government, but the independent Climate Targets Panel has determined that, for Australia to meet the Glasgow Climate Pact requirement to keep global warming below 1½ degrees, emissions must be cut by at least 74 per cent by 2030. Given Australia will be required to update our targets in Egypt next year, will you take a 75 per cent by 2030 target to the next election, or is the only way we are going to get science based climate targets to kick your terrible government out and put the Greens in balance of power?

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:19): I thank the shadow deputy leader of the opposition in what he hopes to be a Green-Labor government after the next election. That's what they hope for. They're calling themselves shadow ministers down there in the Greens. I tell you what: they'll never be in an alignment with this government. There never will be and there never has been a Liberal-Nationals-Green government, but I do know that the Labor Party in government did a deal with the Greens to bring in the carbon tax. I know they formed an alliance with the Greens the last time they were in government. I remember the photo. It was almost as shameless as the photo we saw with the former Leader of the Opposition, with all the hubris, measuring up the curtains before the last election. There they are, getting ready and thinking the Greens and Labor are going to walk onto the Treasury bench of this country.

Scary when you consider that the "shadow deputy leader of the opposition" appeared to be deadly serious in the Greens push for a 75% emissions reduction by 2030?

This was also backed by all the Senate Greens in a motion put forward earlier in the Senate Chamber:

Senator WATERS: Thanks, Mr President. We'll come back to the procedural elements of your ruling another time. On this matter, the latest quarterly emissions data has just been released by the department this morning, and Australia's pollution is up two per cent in this quarter. These June quarter results are proof that, despite the short-term drop in emissions due to COVID that this government claimed as a great success, that was nothing but a road bump. It's a reminder that a global pandemic is not a climate policy. Today's report exposes that there is no structural change happening. We're driving off the climate cliff, with Liberals, Nationals and Labor pushing their feet on the accelerator heading into this election. In the approval pipeline, there are 116 new coal and gas projects that both parties want to see opened up. Yesterday Labor voted with the government to give $50 million to gas companies to start fracking the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory, against the wishes of First Nations owners. Last week they voted together again, to give millions more to coal and gas companies for carbon capture and storage. Meanwhile, there is no plan for transport pollution, no plan to help farmers reduce emissions, no plan for rolling out new renewables and no plan to stop the gridlock. There is expansion of methane-leaking coal and gas fields.

I note that Labor yesterday indicated, that if they won the election, they will have an emissions reduction target of 43% by 2030. Which would mean that figure would be negotiated up if there was a Labor/Greens minority Govt. Imagine what that would mean for an already severely hampered aviation industry?

"Meanwhile, there is no plan for transport pollution"

The AvGAS, AvTUR fuel prices would automatically go through the roof..   Couple that with the fact that Albo has promised to bring back his Great White Elephant Aviation paper, which people will remember was funded by a 4% bump in the aviation fuel excise. -

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

If Labor wins, buy a glider.

[Plane Fixer]

Avtur or Avgas is still required to tow it into the air!

[thorn bird]

Fixer, perhaps we could follow the Swiss? After EASA rules practically killed off Europe's GA industry, except for the very wealthy, jumping off mountains with paraglider's became very popular. Trouble is we don't have many mountains and lugging a paraglider up Kosciusko would probably be too much effort and for sure the greenies would howl about destroying the environment.

Oh well, there's always the virtual world where we can practice our passion....Oh sh.T! forgot that requires electricity.

[Plane Fixer]

Thornie, I am as passionate about aviation as all on this forum, having spent a lifetime in and around it being a LAME and PPL. I lived on LST airport in the early to mid 50s and had the total run of the airport. The only rule was to look out for taxiing aircraft and treat every prop as live. I climbed over Bristol Freighters and sat in every aero club aircraft. I went up the tower when my father was on duty and sometimes talked to the planes; I lived a little boys dream.
I have worked in the Pacific, NZ, PNG, Asia, India, Middle East, and Africa and held licences and validations from many of those countries including Swiss (pre EASA) and I found them very practical in their oversight.
Measuring Australian aviation against what I have seen in the rest of the world, aviation here is dead, the body is rapidly cooling and soon rigor mortis will set in and the last rites will be read.
I am now coming up 56 years in my trade and even though I am still doing some work, the passion is cooling. I do not know how to feel about it, angry, sad, disappointed and every other emotion. We have been regally done over by CASA and all sides of government and a distinct possibility a lab/green to finish it off.

[thorn bird]

Pretty much the same MO as you Fixer and I agree with your sentiments. Flying overseas is so hassle free, here its a bureaucratic nightmare. All about safety..NOT.

[Wombat]

Looking at the news tonight, it seems CASA is in a hurry to destroy GA and instead concentrate its efforts on destroying the electric drone industry.

If they use their normal MO, they will facilitate Amazon, Uber, Facebook, Qantas, Virgin etc. - the big end of town, and ensure that the little guys cannot compete.

[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK goes the GA industry DEATH CLOCK!! - 

Wombat said:

Looking at the news tonight, it seems CASA is in a hurry to destroy GA and instead concentrate its efforts on destroying the electric drone industry.

If they use their normal MO, they will facilitate Amazon, Uber, Facebook, Qantas, Virgin etc. - the big end of town, and ensure that the little guys cannot compete.

I do believe that the following is the news story and ministerial media release to which Wombat refers:

Better connecting regional Australia through advanced aviation industry

Dept of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Aerial electric vehicles and advanced freight drones could take to the skies sooner after the Australian and Victorian governments agreed to develop a safe and sustainable Advanced Aerial Mobility (AAM) industry – to increase regional connectivity, deliver high-speed emergency response services and create new jobs.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will see the Federal Government and Victoria work together to foster the long-term growth of an AAM industry in Australia.

AAM uses revolutionary new aircraft to transport both freight and passengers between places that have traditionally been underserviced by conventional aviation.

This could include automated electric air taxis to reduce traffic congestion in urban areas, better connections for regional communities and drones to carry out time-critical updates during bushfire emergencies when it’s unsafe for piloted aircraft to fly through smoke.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Barnaby Joyce said supporting advanced air mobility will benefit regional communities, emergency and healthcare services, and freight and passenger transport.

“The memorandum of understanding will support opportunities for industry to bring innovative technologies to Australia, building regional connectivity and creating jobs,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.

“People who choose to live in regional areas should not be disadvantaged or cut off from the goods and services they need, particularly health care. Developing this industry will ensure regional Australians are better connected to major cities and the services they rely on.

“The Commonwealth agencies have agreed to actively work to establish a safe, sustainable and resilient advanced air mobility industry, including collaborating with Victoria on creating an operating environment that will help industry achieve regulatory readiness.

“This builds on the Federal Government’s $35.7 million investment in the National Emerging Aviation Technology Policy Statement to support the use of emerging aviation technologies, addressing priority community, mobility and cargo needs in regional Australia.”

Victorian Treasurer and Minister for Economic Development Tim Pallas said the state has strong existing capability across AAM sectors, such as aerospace, defence, software development and advanced manufacturing, as well as significant expertise in emerging aviation technologies through work done by leading Victorian universities.

“We want to ensure that this new industry can develop and operate safely and meet the needs and expectations of the community,” the Victorian Treasurer said.

“Victoria has long embraced innovation and this partnership will put us at the forefront of a new industry which will create thousands of jobs as sustainable aviation technologies emerge.”

“Advanced Aerial Mobility has enormous potential for Victoria, bringing the latest technology to our health and emergency services, as well as improving connectivity.”

The MoU is between the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia and Victoria.

The Federal Government is open to agreeing MoUs with other state and territory governments where it would support emerging aviation technologies.

Ref: https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/j...paign=news

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

A declaration of independents, from America

BARNABY JOYCE



Barnaby Joyce is isolating in a Washington hotel room afer catching Covid.

11:00PM DECEMBER 10, 2021
202 COMMENTS
I have a little time on my hands. That break I sought has arrived as I peer out onto a Washington street, in splendid isolation, from my hotel room. They say it is a very nice hotel and maybe in the future I might come back and check, but all I want now is to check out and head home.

I can hear the frogs and the crickets in the background while I talk to Vikki on the phone as she sits on our front veranda and it is beginning to sound a lot like Christmas, in Australia. But I am stuck, ordered, to stay here. That is the edict of Covid.

The clock is ticking towards Christmas morning without the boys and the presents and the joy. In this vague netherworld of my hotel room is a jet-lagged confusion of neither night nor day, healthy nor sick, it is one of the best-fitted-out cells in the best address in Washington in the land of the free.

How did I catch this? Everyone in my travelling party appears to be clear which is incredibly fortunate. From my observation, if social distancing has any veracity to it then the whole of England should be coming down with Covid. They were packed shoulder to shoulder, fingers in a fist. They were cued up going into the shops, bouncing off each other inside and queued up again as they paid for their presents before leaving to then move to the next shop and repeat.

It is as if things have moved on for England and Covid gets a nod but no longer the royal treatment.

So when you have a possible spare week or two in a hotel room what do you do? Apart from growing older and stultifying your mind with 60 channels of inane “look at me mummy I am on TV” shows, you can play online scrabble with Vikki back in Danglemah; that carves out an hour or two. Shower and breakfast, there is another couple of hours. Answer messages and emails, another two or so hours booked. That leaves 18 hours in 8x8m including the bathroom. Yes, I have already stepped it out.

READ MORE:It’s time for Albanese to consign Whitlam to history|If ever there was a case of political appropriation, this is it|Scare tactics that go bump on election night|Hard Right and Left in bizarre, daft agreement
I have decided that I will dedicate my spare time and requisite skills to a subject on which even here in Washington I would more than hold my own – Australian federal politics and the coming election.

This election is going to be very close and very tough and both sides agree on that – as they will surprisingly agree on a range of things – as Labor will endeavour to make it a referendum on a change of the curtains without ever really offering any details on the alternative drapes. They have come close before and this time the caucus is the Shoosh Farm where no one is to give any details on what the farm does nor how it intends to operate if given the reins in the future.

The Coalition will insist people compare the two blocks of politics that are the only alternative to running the country: Nationals and Liberals with likely support from other conservative minor parties; or Labor and Greens with left-leaning Independents.

The Governor-General will insist that the numbers are there for stable government, so support will be sought to get an agreement that takes the Liberals and Nationals or Labor and Greens to the magic 76 out of 151 seats in the House of Representatives. You as the elector have an absolute right, and that is to know as to which group the person you vote for will support come the time to get to 76.

There is another hypothetical choice to 76 and that is 151 independents, aka chaos. Instead of having the party elect the leader who becomes the prime minister prior to the election, have 151 people all vote for the prime minister after the election then they could go on and elect every senior frontbench position – treasurer, defence, trade, agriculture, infrastructure. A lucky dip government – how wonderful, a thing of beauty, a rock in perilous times guided by the whims of 151 random electrons. Then we could all elect an opposition to hold the first group to account and so we would still have a vague reason for question time and debates on current affairs programs.

Yes, you know where I am getting to. Independents can say what they may but if we all did what they want, our nation would fall because government would be inoperable. If they are honest and say where they are aligned then quite obviously they are not independent, they are aligned. If they say they are independent then they must answer which party would they support if theirs is the vote that takes one or the other to 76 members in the House of Representatives. If they abhor that inquiry, then they must explain how does government work without blocks of votes standing behind alternate policies, otherwise known as political parties.

If parties are an evil, then what is the alternative for Australian foreign policy out my window here in Washington? How do we sign agreements, defend ourselves, come to any conclusion as to what our position is on any matter without the unselfish proposition that politicians must bind and stick in politics so as to give stability, credibility and strength as to who we are?

Voices for (insert whatever you think works today) plays on the view that the complexity of politics in a time of Taiwan and China can be managed with an online poll. Voices For ignores Complexities Of. To be quite blunt, it is simpleton, selfish politics that screams ‘It is all about me, right here, right now’.

I would not be surprised if there is a channel dedicated to it on the TV here in my room.

Barnaby Joyce is Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister.

Hmm...



Ref: GA Inquiry witnesses rating - From Gold Star (chocfrog) to WOFTAM?? & HANSARD

 MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

BJ's attempted placation of the Oz Aviation Industry with the ARF?? -

Via the DPM's Dept office:

Setting Australia's aviation industry on a course to recovery

The Liberal and Nationals Government is setting Australia’s aviation industry on a course to recovery, providing a platform from which it can return to pre-pandemic heights and drive Australia’s economic recovery on the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic and into the future.

Since the pandemic began, the Government has committed over $5.3 billion in assistance to the aviation sector. This is in recognition of the critical role it plays in supporting jobs, driving economic growth and transporting people, goods and commodities to where they need to be.

The Government’s timely, proportionate and targeted support provided stability for airlines when planes were grounded and security for workers who were furloughed during the pandemic.

The Government’s Aviation Recovery Framework, released today, is a strategy developed with industry, for industry to help the sector navigate its way back to a position of strength.

Aviation is a key driver of economic activity. Prior to the pandemic, the sector supported over 90,000 jobs and thousands more across other sectors of the economy. Australia relies on aviation for our economic and social prosperity, to connect our communities and businesses with each other and to the world.

The Government responded to calls for support throughout the pandemic and now we are going a step further, ensuring the sector has the right policy and regulatory settings for aviation to thrive again.

Where possible, the Government is also working to reduce red tape and costs for industry. This will drive the sector’s recovery and support a strong, competitive, safe and sustainable aviation sector into the future, while also ensuring industry operators are in a stronger position to respond to future challenges.

The Framework is underpinned by six strategic priorities, including:

• supporting aviation efficiency by targeting investment and enhancing regulatory settings to help businesses across the entire industry to thrive;
  
• building a sustainable pipeline of workforce skills for the future;
  
• adopting and integrating emerging aviation technologies, including drones;
  
• modernising airports regulation to ensure Australia has the aviation infrastructure it needs for the future;
  
• revitalising General Aviation to help it realise its potential in supporting business and the community, especially in our regions; and
  
• better connecting regional communities by providing targeted support for access to essential aviation services and investing in regional aviation infrastructure.
  

To support the implementation of the Framework, a new Strategic Aviation Advisory Forum will advise the Government on progress of the sector’s recovery, as well as issues affecting the industry moving forward.

The Government has also renewed the membership of the General Aviation Advisory Network and will commission a targeted review of the Civil Aviation Act to identify any appropriate amendments necessary to enhance productivity, innovation and competiveness in the aviation industry.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said the Government is putting the policy framework in place to help Australia’s aviation industry emerge bigger, better and stronger on the other side of the pandemic.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the aviation sector, with border closures and health safety measures limiting air travel for well over 18 months now,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.

“As a critical enabler of economic activity, the Government is focused on ensuring the industry returns to pre-pandemic levels as soon as it is safe to do so. We also want the sector to grow into the future.

“The Government’s Aviation Recovery Framework outlines our plans to help drive the sector’s recovery, in line with the National Plan to transition Australia’s National COVID-19 Response.

“We are putting in place policies and regulation to foster a competitive, safe and secure aviation sector that all Australians can rely on, and not just for travel and leisure purposes.

“Aviation is integral to our national supply chains, providing essential services to regional and remote communities and connecting Australian businesses with international markets.

“Importantly, General Aviation is a key pillar in our strategy. This is in recognition of the many critical services it contributes to the sector, none more important than flight and maintenance training capability.

“The Framework builds on the assistance we have provided to date and will provide the policy and financial settings aviation operators need to recover strongly and grow on the other side of the pandemic.”

To boost the industry’s recovery and growth, the Government is providing further support, including:

• a $30 million rebate program to support general and recreational aviation operators to install critical safety-boosting technology in their aircraft, enhancing safety outcomes across the sector;
  
• a further $4 million to extend the Women in the Aviation Industry Initiative, to fund initiatives aimed at increasing the number of females working in the sector;
  
• the $32.6 million Emerging Aviation Technology Partnerships Program, which will accelerate the development of new aviation technology, such as drones;
  
• extending the Regional Airline Network Support program until March 31 2022;
  
• up to $29 million in grants under a third round of the Regional Airports Program to improve the safety and accessibility of airports or aerodromes in regional Australia; and
  
• a further $15 million in grants to upgrade remote and very remote aerodromes across Australia under the Remote Airstrip Upgrade program.
  

These sector-wide measures will drive the goals of the Framework and will help Australia’s aviation industry to return to pre-pandemic levels of activity, and grow into the future.

The Government thanks the sector and members of the Future of Aviation Reference Panel and the General Aviation Advisory Network for their advice on policy directions.

A strong aviation sector is key to our economic recovery and future prosperity. The Government is committed to helping the sector thrive once more for the benefit of all Australians and we look forward to working closely with industry to achieve this.

The Aviation Recovery Framework is available at: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infras...s/aviation

The ARF - https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/...-12-17.pdf

Revitalising General Aviation

The Government will recognise General Aviation (GA) as a key component of the aviation ecosystem. By identifying opportunities to refine the regulatory framework and better understanding its contribution, the Government will enable GA to fully realise its role in efficiently and effectively supporting business and the community, particularly in regional areas.

Revitalising General Aviation Roadmap2 

• The Government will develop a Roadmap to Revitalising GA in Australia. Key features of the roadmap will include:

– Commissioning economic research from the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (BITRE) into the value and growth opportunities of the GA sector in Australia to help guide policy and investment decisions that best serve the national interest;

– A targeted review of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to identify and resolve regulatory bottlenecks, improve consultation processes, and encourage risk-based and outcomes-focused regulatory activity;

– Encouraging innovation, and exploring the removal of barriers to export opportunities for Australian GA-related goods and services, including through the pursuit of potential mutual recognition arrangements.

• This initiative responds to a proposal generated by the General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN) and has been included in submissions provided to the Senate’s GA Inquiry.

Support to increase the uptake of ADS-B in General Aviation to enhance safety and access to airspace3

• The Government will provide $30 million in rebates to eligible aircraft operators for up to $5,000, or 50 per cent of the cost of installing Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) transponder technology.

• Situational awareness is a critical element of aviation safety. A clear understanding of what is in local airspace, and what is likely to happen next is fundamental to positive aviation safety outcomes. Australian pilots operating under ‘Visual Flight Rules’ (VFR) have long operated on the principle of ‘see and avoid’, which essentially means looking out for other airspace users and avoiding them.

• Human scanning will always be important, but modern technology can support pilots in seeing and avoiding other aircraft. ADS-B technology enables aircraft to be accurately tracked by air traffic controllers without complete reliance on conventional radar.

• Australia has significant ADS-B surveillance coverage across the continent. Improved visibility of smaller aircraft through fitment of ADS-B devices will provide air traffic controllers and other pilots with better air traffic information and enhance search and rescue capabilities. A more accurate understanding of airspace usage will also promote efficient and effective utilisation of airspace, and potentially allow room for new and emerging technologies, such as drones, to utilise airspace more effectively.


2 Further information is available at: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infras...l-aviation 
3 Further information is available at: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infras...l-aviation 

Sandy in reply doesn't waste time on calling WALOB on BJ's (B)ARF - via FB:

Sandy Reith

“…return to pre-pandemic heights.”

Yes maybe airline activity but for General Aviation return to lower lows would be a fair description. Having read the latest “recovery for aviation” statement I’m sorry to say that this is my reply:-
Reading the blurb I’m afraid it’s just more words and includes yet another advisory body. Can you believe it another advisory body? How many is that?

What’s the point of counting, not one substantive reform policy change enacted from any of them and General Aviation (GA) is going down the drain at a faster rate than ever.

It’s hard to believe that a supposedly first world country Australia could destroy it’s General Aviation base so thoroughly but check the facts via the Government’s own BITRE statistics and then plot them against our population growth. Then see if you can find any statistics about the loss of hundreds of flying schools and charter operators this last thirty years, but you can’t, they don’t keep the truly awful facts of GA’s destruction.

So here we have more talk and promises but no action.

Even talking about spending money by government picking winners in aviation technology. Winners? ‘they hope,’ and bet the recipients of Minister Joyce's largesse will be represented by some clever chancers and hardly concealed con men.

I will say to Barnaby Joyce keep ‘your’ money, actually the taxpayer dollar, and get CASA and Home Affairs (the biennial $300 ASIC) off our backs. No news about the incredible taxing of GA by the hounding of the GA industry with costly procedures and swingeing fees for all their new and completely unnecessary permits.

The Minister’s pronouncement shows that he still hasn’t grasped the fact he he has to make specific policies via a new Statement of Expectations to CASA in order to make some immediate reforms prior to disbanding CASA and creating a new Department of Civil Aviation under a responsible Minister.

And, no news about the alienation of irreplaceable airport lands or the eviction of aviation businesses. No news about the unjust destruction of Glen Buckley’s umbrella flying school business.

Unbelievable blurb obviously written up by some of the CASA CEO’s former colleagues in Minister Joyce’s Department of Infrastructure and served up with the usual garnish of stale intentions.

Disappointing in the extreme, no backbone in this twaddle of dumb platitudes and ‘throw some money and more promises at them.’

Heard it all before, since 1989 when they wrote to me, “we are going to reduce costs and simplify the regulations…” Believe it? Sure, and I’d better clean my chimney so Santa doesn’t get his clothes dirty.

One tries to say politely, "please don't insult us with your money and promises." It's certainly becoming a strain to remain polite because patience after thirty years has run out.

Also via the UP: Minister Barnaby Joyce …” a new Strategic Aviation Advisory Forum …”

Hmm...could I suggest the DPM does a performance appraisal of CASA from (a) the recent GA inquiry :   

Ref: GA Inquiry witnesses rating - From Gold Star (chocfrog) to WOFTAM?? & HANSARD

...and (b) this 'Closing the safety loop' thread post: CASA and the Vic Coroner??

However the Vic Coroner link that caught my interest (& ire) was a CASA LEGAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS DIVISION reply to 2 Coroner's recommendations addressed to the regulator: link - https://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sit...0FLINN.pdf

14. CASA considers that training for inadvertent entry into IMC is more appropriate for
pilots rated only for VFR conditions. Without appropriate prior training and an aircraft
designed for IFR operations, such pilots are more likely to become spatially
disoriented or unable to safely operate the aircraft in IMC.

15. Therefore, while it does not propose to take any action in relation to this
recommendation at this stage, CASA is proposing a review of the competency
standards and the two-yearly review of proficiency rules (known as a flight review) for
private pilots in the next 18 months. A review of the basic instrument flying standards
and the related non-technical skills and human factors required of PPL holders will be
included in that review.

... in comparison to this 6 year old PAIN Coronial Analysis document: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...alysis.pdf - i.e. what's changed?

We noted the following items:-

1) The frustration expressed by various Coroners, through transcripts, where trying to establish a clear picture through the lack of deep technical knowledge and sound advice.

2) The frustration expressed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in almost every report published, where sound advice and research has been belittled or waved aside as insubstantial.

 3) The seemingly deeply entrenched culture of constant antagonism and abrogation of responsibility existing between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB.

These issues appear to often place the Coroner in the invidious position of having to make a choice between 2 'expert' opinions. The following incident reports are from a wide range available for consideration; they, we believe encompass the issues noted.

• We believe that non of the promised legislation, against which many Coroners based their recommendations, is available for practical use. 
  
• We believe none of the Coroners recommendations have been adopted to produce, in any practical, meaningful way improved safety outcomes. 
  
• We believe that, in real terms, there has been no pro active approach to reduce the self evident risks or casual factors related to the provided reports. 
  
• We firmly believe that all the presented incidents still have the potential to be repeated. 
  

The report editors.

Then reflect on the many tales of CASA embuggerance of industry participants and small businesses - see HERE - and it doesn't take long to fully realise what is truly ailing and inhibiting the GA industry from flourishing....  

It's time DPM to take the "S" out of CAsA and put back proper Ministerial oversight of the aviation regulator. - 

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Wait there's more!
Further deliberations:-

Ask why wasn’t all of that implemented out of the Forsyth report? The blurb says two years of study but not when is the starting date, out of yet another, unbelievable, alphabet committee.

There’s not one drop of sincerity because it’s predicated on promises of action by a new government that’s not yet in power. Quite apart from the lessons of the last 33 years.

Same for CASA CEO Pip Spence, tea and sympathy, been there since 17th. of May.
During the RRAT hearing (on UTube) Aleck and his crew threw the CASA CEO under the bus over the Angel Flight questions.
She’s on $600,000 plus and wasn’t prepared, her underlings, for all intents and purposes, practically sacked her on the spot! Amazing stuff!
She is not truly the boss of CASA now. I wish I could be positive but the facts don’t support optimism.

Again only a public blow up of some sort will cause any action, election mode has quashed any other hope.

All the existing alphabet 'advisory bodies' should resign for having been the bunnies set up to make Minister and CASA look like they mean what they say.

[Kharon]

The Micawber Principle.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Pretty solid advice ain't it. Depends on who you listen to, believe in or watch for the reporting of 'national debt', but either way you cut it up - it seems 'we' - the nation - owe truly staggering numbers. Figures beyond my comprehension - but lets just call it shed loads. i.e. A lot. Twiddle follows:-

Seems to me the best way to repay a national debt is to get the country 'productive'. Any business which is productive and profitable generates income for government - aviation is no exception. As it stands today aviation is dragging itself toward oblivion, aircraft sitting on the ground cannot generate income. There are hidden penalties associated with aircraft left sitting about, maintenance and return to service costs are a serious drain - aircraft need to be kept 'fit' - at work.

A government throwing money at the aviation industry and walking away is not a solution; although they'd take it - but, IMO it would prove to be counterproductive. The old adage of 'if it floats, flies or fornicates - hire it' is a tenet of many investors. Wear out a pair of boots in town walking around to see potential investors in a 'whizz-bang' scheme and watch the lights go out as soon as 'aircraft' are mentioned. Many a bank manager has had sleepless nights worrying about 'the loan'.

There are two core reasons for this worry; one fellah I know (who actually knows investment) says that as it stands, an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) is not an asset but a liability; and, that the regulatory frame work, the way it is 'used' and the uncertainty this creates is seriously detrimental. I, for one believe him.

The impost on industry and the country supporting the existing CASA and the regulations is of epic proportions. For example, the CASA 'team' presented at the last episode of the McDolittle pantomime represents somewhere North of 2.6 millions every year, before benefits and etc. is tacked on. Was that expenditure in any way justified by an equal return in revenue to the government coffers from aviation earnings? The short answer is No. (Long unprintable).  The cost of producing and maintaining the current regulations is borderline astronomical - how much taxable revenue has the suite of regulation generated? Or, to put that another way - how much revenue has been lost because of the regulations? Ask any of the parts manufacturers who have moved 'off-shore' why they pay tax in foreign climes and not based at home providing jobs.

Consider the savings and increased revenue a robust aviation industry could provide if CASA was 'trimmed' (pruned) and industry was released from the death grip regulations which benefit no one bar CASA. Change just that one element and watch how well industry recovers.

Lots of words beginning with Un spring to mind - Un patriotic, Un democratic, Un constitutional, Un productive, Aye well, time to stop methinks.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK!! - Time's up Ms Spence -   



Reference:

Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.


Ref: https://www.change.org/p/aviation-indust...5d3f22b052


 SHANNON BAKER started this petition to Aviation industry.

As we all know, CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) have had underlying issues that have eroded industry confidence at all levels - for decades, after multiple senate enquiries over the years, it appears these have had little to no affect on how CASA continue to operate.

The first step to change - is an independent public investigation into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority... a Royal Commission would be the most appropriate medium for this, and would help restore industry confidence.

"A Royal Commission is an investigation, independent of government, into a matter of great importance. Royal Commissions have broad powers to hold public hearings, call witnesses under oath and compel evidence. Royal Commissions make recommendations to government about what should change."

The Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should focus its investigation on:

1) If CASA is 'fit for purpose' in its current form, in particular to its Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division (LIRA), if CASA's conduct is reasonable and in accordance with wider aviation community expectations.

2) CASA's apparent abuse of administrative law, and whether it is appropriate it retain these powers.

3) Whether it is appropriate for CASA to be involved in drafting aviation regulations.

4) Investigation into Freedom of Information requests to CASA and potential interference from (but not limited to) the Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division, as openness and transparency are pillars for democracy, trust and progress which will give confidence to industry that good governance is taking place.

5) Investigation into whether there has been any use of taxpayer funds to protect CASA staff in litigation or legal proceedings who have engaged in misconduct or alleged criminal activity, or the signing of NDA (non-disclosure agreements).

6) The erosion of General Aviation in Australia through CASA decisions.

7) Airspace review to align more with the FAA. (USA) rules.

8) Any other matter of importance that should be investigated that comes to the Royal Commission's attention during its investigation.

In its findings, the Royal Commission should include comment on whether the establishment of an independent aviation ombudsman would be appropriate, and all matters that arise from the investigation that appear to be criminal in nature shall be referred to the Australian Federal Police or other relevant authorities for investigation.

The Royal Commission shall make its findings open, public and transparent, and shall accept submissions from the public during the investigation.

This petition will be presented to federal members of parliament.

We all know that the chances of an RC into CASA getting up are (pardon the pun) 'Buckley's and none' -    

However as political leverage in the lead up to the next election, IMO everyone who has serious skin in the (aviation) game, or even the mildest concern for the survival of the Oz GA industry, should consider signing the petition. But if that doesn't convince then perhaps watch/listen to this..

...review the Angel Flight submission (especially Table 1) see Angel Flight submission back up unaltered?? &/or https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=717685

...then compare to this:

      

...and finally read this:

I only managed to get this far /.

"Many people lost work or had hours cut, many businesses were shut during lock-downs and restrictions meant even flying for fun was curtailed. CASA did as much as we could to ease regulatory burdens through a special package of measures and I hope this did indeed help many people. We'll continue to review and adjust as we have been and as issues arise."

/ before reaching for the bucket. However, as requested and required, I read through the missive, twice. Once to get a 'feel' for it; second time to read 'through' it. Had a coffee then went back for round three, just to make certain that my reaction to it was as sanguine as possible (considering).

Read 1: P2 nailed it - on an intellectual and professional basis the latest WOLOB from Spence is grossly insulting; and IMO, demands a published apology. It beggars belief that a DAS who was so completely blind sided by her own crew during the last McDolittle pantomime is thick skinned enough to dare publish such a load of deceitful, placatory BOLLOCKS and expect to be believed. The limited political intellect and control of her portfolio and crew on display in the Hansard video demands not only her resignation, but that of all CASA top brass on display. Clearly Spence had NDI that Pagani was about to drop a bombshell; she should have - but even so - a smart, competent DAS could have simply asked for a recess, had a short sharp discussion with those who had caused the embarrassment and then returned later with an offer to fully investigate the apparent contempt of either the Senate or the Court; for clearly there were questions which demand answers. But, no; clearly panicked she forced herself to read the prepared embarrassing statement, digging the hole deeper. Is this the right person to be 'master of matters aeronautical'?

Read 2: Paragraph 1 defines the smoke and mirrors - a confection of half truths and pony-pooh baked in smoke and mirrors. For starters there was very little 'activity' and the work which was being done required no special input from CASA - there was some latitude in medicals but little else of intrinsic or practical value on offer; the fleets were essentially grounded. "Your covid achievements" Bollocks - 'Nuff said.

Read 3: Regulatory change - IMO - at face value, it seems to light a small candle of hope don't it though. It is not; it is just CASA resetting for another decade of easy living while they continue to con-volute, manipulate and expand the massive amount of rubbish within what is arguably the worst rule set on the planet, the most dangerous to operators and aircrew and the greatest incentive to get out of the aviation industry and buy a pub. A simple statement from Spence stating that we will be adopting the gold standard ICAO compliant FAR would have been the best news industry has had in the last thirty odd years. 

But, for me the really disturbing element of the Spence missive is the soft, soppy language used; as if she thinks we are all small children in need of motherhood reassurance. Time someone assured Spence that we are not; someone might also mention that we are neither dopey, gullible or naive and have forgotten more about aviation 'safety' than she will ever know. Resignation and apology would be a great way to kick off the New Year.

Toot - toot.

To round off the 'spot on' summation of the Su_Spence WALOB from "K", here are some comments (so far) from the CASA RC petition:

Peter Brookman
24 hours ago

I believe a lot of CASA’s powers are detrimental to aviation and serves in no way for safety in aviation

---

Debra Koch
3 days ago

They have lied to me in the past. They are brazen faced shameful, deceitful and duplicitous. I would say a royal commission is the very least they deserve for chemtrail crimes against humanity

---

Sean Frewin
3 days ago

We need a fair, just and impartial authority to oversea aviation safety in this country.

---

Derek Liston
4 days ago

As a retired LAME and still current PPL I am well aware of the problems with CASA and in my particular case the Aeromedical branch.

---

Michael Carlin
4 days ago

A government department about as useful as pedals on a wheelchair. Needs a complete overhaul urgently.

---

Marjorie Pagani
5 days ago

The lack of accountability and cost to aviation has gone on far too long: the police shouldn’t be writing the rules. Departmental supervision is overdue.

---

Wally Sturgeon
5 days ago

Running 2 parallel systems since 1998 should have been fixed up long ago. Show me another country that has kept this up for the last 23 years. If you plan to adopt e.g. the EASA system, and then tamper with it you end up in 'no man's land' in terms of International harmonisation.

---

Terence McGowan
5 days ago

casa needs to have aviation experienced people. Not political appointees. Someone who has actually been involved in general aviation.

---

Bob Pagett
5 days ago

CASA need to be held to account for the mismanagement and obvious corruption that sits within the Dept.

---

Bryn Watson
5 days ago

CASA has become the single biggest threat to my safety as a professional helicopter pilot. Their well outdated methodology for regulating safety is creating more problems that they purport to solve.

---

Christopher Atkinson
5 days ago

CASA has destroyed general aviation in this country

TICK...TOCK BJ because there is much..much MTF??...P2

[Wombat]

I haven’t watched the video until now……

The body language is clear……

………The Smug senior management “supporting” their leader reminded me of my experiences dealing with merchant bankers - a lower form of life you will not find.

……Spence struggling with subjects she cannot and will not ever master.

Conclusion: Spence was not appointed as a reformist head kicker, she is expected to be just another time serving ‘’safe pair of hands”. Real leaders don’t do meetings like that.

The question now is what will become of CASA? My gut feel is that they are going to be overtaken by events and will shortly crash, and it will be finally obvious to the general public. It will then be obvious that the defective Aviation Act has allowed the creation of a rotten regulatory environment that supports a rotten institutional culture.

So the question then is does Government do a “slow and clean” fix or a “quick and dirty” fix?

Overtaken by events? Consider what is taking or is going to take management time in no particular order;

- Joyce’s Aviation recovery plan.

- Angel Flight fallout.

- Glen buckley fallout.

- unnamed fallout.

- sport aviation rule reform

- GA Medical reform.

- Flight training, licensing and engineering reform.

- The pressure from the growing Drone industry

- The electric air taxi mob

- modernizing AsA

- the “hollowing out” of GA and the demise of what’s left of aviation support business infrastructure.

……and making progress in all these areas is only possible by amending the byzantine system of aviation regulation we have allowed to be created? Sorry, not possible. The regulations were designed to frustrate reform, not support it. Have a look at the latest incarnation of CAO 95.55 to get the flavor. CSA is unsustainable in its current incarnation.

Excuses will be made, but other regulators seem to deal with these issues in a timely manner; why can’t CASA? Where is our commitment to international best practice? We don’t even benchmark ourselves against other regulators do we?

Somewhere, shortly there is going to what is termed a “come to Jesus” meeting about CASA where ultimatums get given. It then becomes the Ministers and Cabinets problem when CASA can’t deliver - and it can’t, not with the current management, not with its current culture, not with its current structure, not with the current Act and not with current regulations.

If I was a CASA manager, I’d be running for the exit.

[Kharon]

Resolution : much needed for the new year.

"the quality of being determined or resolute".

All of the above widely supported; but, it is to what is rotten in Denmark we must look  for the real evil, neatly ensconced behind at least three layers of Teflon coated steel and concrete i.e. the Parliament. Both sides happy to wash their hands of any and all responsibility for the rape of aerodromes, the cost of the existing 'safety' infrastructure and the damage inflicted on the small to medium size air transport operators.

The bipartisan 'rubber stamp' of anything CASA dream up has allowed what should be a small, well organised cost effective 'authority' ensuring ICAO compliance, as per the convention and 'the Act' to become, through a complete lack of accountability, control, without either check or balance is disgraceful. This has been allowed, by the parliament, to become the thing it is today.

Compliance with the convention, the spirit and intent of ICAO and 'the Act' can be, indeed must be enforced by government. Successive 'bipartisan' governments, who cannot seem to agree on the price of postage stamps, have abrogated their duty to this nation in the name of 'safety' - whatever the Hell that may mean, successive ministers of all stripes have been happy to grant free reign to an autonomous agency without a hint of oversight - bar the pathetic efforts of the Estimate committee's - who seem to get platitudes for answers months after the questions are asked. The DoIT seems to able to turn a blind eye to some of the outrageous 'legal' edicts from the CASA and even weigh in to support on occasion. All good friends and jolly good company. Even the appointment, at tax payer expense, of a 'Board' has little to no 'influence' on the way aviation is administered in this land. Time the grown ups stepped in - before there's real trouble - like an FAA audit or a Royal?judicial inquiry; because if the weak knees, Lilly livered politicians think the fall out from an accident is 'scary' then the results of any sort of fair dinkum inquiry will have the public asking the same question. WTD were you thinking? Although I have it on good authority that most politicians prefer not to think - just react and throw money (not their own mind you),and pony-pooh (all their own) at anything which will affect the electorates voting. Disgusting....

Will the petition for a serious inquiry get up? Probably not - I doubt it will even get a mention in Hansard. That stand alone is bad enough - BUT - with a very able, well qualified Senator on tap and not being utilised; the notions of shame and disgrace surface for those who could, in a heart beat (well short phone call) set all this to rights . Starting with a Ministerial directive in the form of a Statement of Expectation. Not an end game - but a duckling good place to set the wheels in motion.

What a way to end a miserable couple of years; SoE to adopt the FAR in jig time; a commission to inquire into CASA antics and Sen. Fawcett to spur it along Skidmore back as DAS - Ah, be still my beating heart.

Aye well; if wishes were horses, then beggars could ride.



Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Via the AP email chains:

---

Sandy Reith <sandy@reith.com.au> to 40 recipients

The CSF Instrument expires 18th of March, and General Aviation (GA) reform.

Marjorie and all, 

Hope all have a Happy New Year and that the great works of Angel Flight (AF), and all it’s volunteer pilots who fly sick people to and from medical facilities, continues in strength and AF is relieved of unnecessary CASA restrictions on March 18th. 

I’m afraid I did not put in a submission to CASA’s so called ‘consultation’ process about their invention of ‘Community Service Flights’ (CSF), partly due to submission fatigue, no conscious decision anyway and I’m reaching the stage where I think playing their game is prolonging the agony. 

For example they asked submitters to write lengthy and detailed stories about their experiences and how the rules have impacted their flying for AF. And asked about increased costs or savings (choke on your weeties). Also by making such demands on the time of volunteers this may make being a part of AF less attractive. Same goes for the rest of GA, gets to the point who can be bothered? 

If everyone refuses to consult or talk to CASA but instead makes all that effort into engaging with MPs I believe we’d get no worse from CASA. It might become plain to Parliament that there’s a revolt of some sort and maybe they need to do something. 

Another angle would be to make submissions but send them to our MPs and get them to forward them. Parliament created the whole situation and is responsible. 

There’s no doubt that without political action GA will continue down the drain. Good aircraft are being exported and flying training has collapsed, with the main activity in the low weight two seat category (RAAUS) now having a weight increase, which will reduce regular VH flying schools even further. Airports are being given over to warehouses and shopping centres while aircraft maintenance and flying schools are evicted from Australia’s most important GA airports, incredibly without thought to aviation being a strategic National security asset. All of which is mitigating against AF and mainstream GA. 

No doubt there’ll be fewer pilots who will be able to fly for AF and it wouldn’t surprise that there’s a number of older owner pilots who will give up in the near future. 

AF’s court case against CASA has exposed the lie that CASA had a safety case to justify it’s unwarranted new strictures and yet another category of flight (CASA is, I believe, embarked on a having costs of $350,000 awarded against AF). A private flight is a private flight and should not be differentiated. Any deviation raises complications and costs. What if I give a lift (actual case) to someone because their Bass Strait island home is threatened by fire? Is that a CFS type flight?  Where does it end? 

In the Information Age everyone has the opportunity to assess risk, there’s no justification for the CASA regulatory overkill which in reality is counterproductive to safety.  

For our freedom and high standard of living, brought about by freedom and free enterprise, we have to fight back. Continuing restrictions on private flying will only reduce services, voluntary or otherwise and sick people will suffer the consequences. 

AF Is perhaps the best obvious and a shining example of the usefulness of GA, something the general public can understand and is a great case to gain publicity. 

Finally, the independent regulator model of CASA is an abject failure because there’s no accountability. 

Expecting a cohort of Canberra administrators to devise rules and administer altruistically in the most efficient manner within a monopoly corporate structure, salaries unhitched from traditional PS scales, at the lowest cost to the aviation industry, all without political oversight is a pipe dream. Demonstrably it doesn’t work and thirty three years of the CASA disaster proves the point. Simply rubber stamped by Parliament, CASA’s working  is an anathema to the Westminster system of responsible government. Until we have a Minister in charge of aviation through a regular Department of Government no substantive reform is possible other than an occasional patch up job.  

Primarily it’s in the hands of Minister Barnaby Joyce, but Alan Jones might be a better bet.  

Best regards,

Sandy

1989. Here started the never ending platitudes, promises and good intentions continually repeated, becoming worse than meaningless. So much so after thirty two years one wonders if outright lying would be a more accurate description of such pronouncements. We are subjected to the same insult, nearly word for word, every year, we are treated like idiots with no memory or brain.



ET CETERA… framed on my office wall. 

---

MTF...P2