Alphabet if’s and but's.
#61

(06-02-2016, 08:57 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Save Australia's General Aviation from bureaucratic disaster
[/url]

Alexander Reith Australia

[Image: Who-Cares-800x400.jpg]

Since 1988 General Aviation has been continually bombarded by bureaucratic rule changes, and fee increases, these changes have undermined GA viability causing a great loss of jobs and services throughout our great continent. Two of our most important GA airports, Bankstown in Sydney and Moorabbin in Melbourne have shrunk in flying movements to much less than half, and oil companies have removed hundreds of refueling points all over Australia. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority was hived off as an independent Commonwealth corporate body only to become a most authoritarian instrument of the Commonwealth Government, exceptional in inventing fees for a myriad of invented paperwork tasks. It was given a brief to rewrite the rules some twenty-eight years ago. Hundreds of millions of dollars later and still not finished, the last tranche of completed rules, in the words of the current CASA Board Chairman, "a mess" (6th May public meeting at Tamworth).

This is nothing short of a disaster for GA. It is time to ask the Parliament for relief, because GA has many facets that this country has great need of, for example the training and practical experience for those who fly our airliners. GA has been so battered that airline pilots are now on the 457 foreign visa worker list. Wonder who is flying you around these days?

General Aviation is needed for outback communities, police work, fire spotting, survey work, agricultural purposes, air ambulance, and mercy flights like Angel Flight, to name just a few. If you know nothing about GA I can imagine that many of you reading this will think about your brushes with an increasingly overbearing bureaucracy, be it local, state or federal government. Our country needs freedom, all we ask is not money, just simple rules like road rules, no problem, just get government off our backs and GA will grow jobs, businesses, opportunity, innovation and services.

Personally I'm retired so no axe to grind, but I want to see the industry of my lifetime career revitalised, and a new generation of aviators, designers, constructors and technicians to advance Australian aviation to all our benefit. I am a long time member of the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, this body and virtually the whole industry is strongly campaigning for reforms. Please support this petition, a win for General Aviation will help put the brakes on bureaucracy in general. We need your support, our few voices are not enough.
In this day & age petitions for support of a common concern or cause with online accessibility are beginning to lose their impact as a form of political pressuring through community lobbying.

However the online version of a petition provides the excellent opportunity to provide much insightful commentary to the supporters of the petition i.e. the signees.
 
The following is a sampling from (IMO) some of the better more insightful comments made thus far:
Quote:I'm signing because for far too long the Aviation Industry has suffered under a regime of over regulation by the CASA. The simplest example is our Part 61 licensing regulations which are over 1300 pages compared to the US part 61 which is less than 500. We need people to wake up. Business's are closing, aeroplanes are being left to rot into the weeds and a vital industry is stagnating.

Mark Smith, Australia
2 days ago



Ever wondered where your flying doctor pilot came from? GA. Ever wondered where your rescue helicopter pilot came from? GA. Ever wonder where you Qantas, Virgin, Tiger pilot came from? GA. Save this industry from government over regulation.

Andrew McIntosh, Williamstown, Australia
2 days ago



General Aviation is the lifeblood of the Australian bush and the thousands of remote communities that depend on it for their very survival. It bonds so much of our country together and provides irreplaceable services such as Search & Rescue, Air Ambulance, The Flying Doctor and Angel Flight. It is slowly and traumatically being strangled by unchecked bureaucracy gone mad. CASA is an out-of-control regulate-till-everything-stops monster that's determined to realise their ultimate aim - the only safe light aircraft is one that never flies. Truly a travesty when we have the best weather in the world, unlimited space for flying training and some of the most experience instructors, charter pilots, licensed aircraft mechanical engineers and air traffic controllers in the world. Please share this to help spread the word that this industry (which should be absolutely flourishing) is dying at the hands of disastrous over-regulation and unworkable legislation.

Philip Dartnell, Carlingford, NSW



Although I am skeptical of clicktivism, this is pertinent to me. I am a LAME and have seen the decline of aviation in Australia, sadly much of that driven by the red tape forced CASA has been mandated to foist upon the industry. The industry needs simple, effective oversight, with effective and accessable rules, and strong enforcement. The aviation industry is seen as a cash cow by many as there seems to be a perception that aircraft = available money, without much thought to the massive overheads and minuscule margins required to operate.

Ian McLean, Australia



CASA have been out of control for far too long and have done irreversible damage to the industry. They have recruited industry rejects who have abused the power they were given to settle old scores. The sooner we adopt FAA rules, the better. Unfortunately it may already be too late to save the industry, unless CASA is totally restructured with new staff. The incumbents are too entrenched in their ways to ever embrace the reforms that are necessary.

David Kilin, Australia



I have been in the aviation industry for the past 49 years. The last 22 years I have had a small company repairing avionics at archerfield airport. I have never seen the GA sector as bad as it is now. With the Government leasing of the airports to private real estate gold diggers to the CASA miss management of the GA sector for the last thirty years with no end in sight. Reportedly 350 million Dollars has been wasted on the yes minister types running the CASA system. The introduction of the part 145 which CASA admitted in a meeting I was at when they dumped the FAR system for the European system. At that meeting CASA said that the system did not work in europe for GA but they were going to make it work in australia. 30 years this September it still has not been put into place. Companies have literly spent millions of dollars getting the 145 tag for no extra safety gains. It has divided GA and forced a lot of companies to close.

I am just disappointed in all matters to the aviation from pilot certificates, licensing, engineering, Cessna Sids and the list goes on. Well done CASA they have done a great job in Being un Australian and have now stuffed the aviation industry, The Kiwi's don't seem to have a problem so Sack CASA and ket the Kiwi's over here and get Aviation going again.

Danielle Clej, Bellbowrie, Australia



I have emigrated from South Africa recently and couldn't believe till I got here and witnessed it first hand that the way things are run here is at least equally badly as the CAA in South Africa. The process of converting my SA part 61 licence was fine but voluminous however the degree of confusion on Part 61 in general, over regulation without a meaningful safety upside and nimby sycophantic behaviours in terms of airspace and minor airfields is essentially killing GA. If compare Johannesburg to Sydney in terms of GA airfields it is chalk and cheese. The lack of viable GA airfields (ie. Not just Bankstown and Camden) and thus decreasing volume of GA movements probably represents a decrease in safety through a reduction in currency derived from a reducing average of hours flown year. In such a great flying climate and beautiful country it is quite an astounding feat to have suppressed GA and your feeder pipe to the airlines (as evidenced by the scarce skills visa category comments earlier in the petition). Australia is an awesome country and we should be growing a surplus of airline pilots to fulfill both local needs and supply surplus internationally.

James Roberts, Alberton, South Africa


I'm signing because government needs to understand the benefits to the economy to have GA aligning with the performance based regulatory system of the United States that will see many jobs created in aviation.

The move away from alignment with the US that started in 1990, has seen too many jobs lost in GA.

Ken Cannane, Australia



CASA has destroyed Australian General Aviation, destroyed pilot careers and deprived rural Australia of access to reasonably priced air services.

Robert Fulton, Australia




As a private pilot I fully support Mr Reith petition, the amount of red tape created by CASA over the years is driving operators out of business, my flying school at Essendon no longer exists because of the overwhelming bureaucracy and incompetence of CASA, we are a big country, we cannot afford to loose General Aviation.

Rodrigo Onederra, Australia




If the authorities would just wake up, we could have an aviation industry building aeroplanes for local needs. Several start-ups are still struggling because the bureaucrats have no idea of how to foster inventiveness and industry. PM Turnbull says that is his goal, so why not start with GA?
Waye Talbot, Australia




Australia was among the pioneering nations of aviation. It would be a shame to see the primacy of bureaucracy and politics kill off an industry that contributed much to the growth of this country. Lessons of the past have not been learned, and if the government is determined to repeat them for lack of courage and conviction, then they should expect that general aviation will not go gentle into the good night. We will rage!

Steve Hitchen, Australia





CASAs rules and rule making has everyone confused and they have let down the entire industry in not keeping up with the rest of the world. Our workshops and release notes are not recognised in many places , to such an extent that where I once had things overhauled here, I now have to use FAA or EASA approved organisations oversees to comply with my customers requirements. Something must be done and now. Our industry is basically destroyed. Try and find people to maintain these days

david morgan, sylvania waters, Australia

[url=https://www.change.org/p/the-parliament-of-australia-save-australia-s-general-aviation-from-bureaucratic-disaster/c/460920971]
I'm a GA pilot since 1973 and a light aircraft owner. The rules of aviation seem to be evolving principally to ensure no blame for anything is ever sheeted home to a public servant or politician. Rules are being created with no concern for commonsense and with little or no input from the people who fly aeroplanes. If CASA was running the road safety system they would have a blanket 20kph max speed and we'd all wear crash helmets to drive. The ADS-B fiasco is a perfect example of lack of commonsense. Let's implement a new system in Australia before anyone else in the world, so we can pay the highest cost for the equipment, then brag that it's all in the name of safety. We have a great safety record in this country, no need to gold-plate it at the pilot and aircraft owners expense. Australians exercise commonsense and judgement when they fly. Let the risky countries adopt first, then follow along when the prices fall. It seems that CASA have little insight into the real world, they are just public servants in charge of aviation.

William Leighton, Australia



Because I'm a young person in the industry with 3 children and I would like to see the industry exist for them in the future - at the rate it is going, it won't

shannon wells, Australia



Australian aviation is suffering. We are the laughing stock of the world, all the way from our biggest airlines through to GA. We have always been such a hard working, practical country, so how have we found ourselves operating in such a crippled position with legislation that allows no decision making freedom? We're watching our back with every single move we make to avoid punishment and litigation. Very average people in positions of power justifying their positions at the expense of the country. The CASA cancer must be cut away so that aviation and GA in particular can one again thrive. We are aviation in this country, we have to take the power back

Scott Johnson, Australia

Dear MP Wannabes,

Please listen & learn from the above participants & advocates of the GA industry
Yours PAIN & Aviation industry tendentious bloggers... Big Grin
Reply
#62

Who’s to bless and who’s to blame?

It is a tough but fair question.  But the answer is right there, next to you at work; or, sitting in the pub; or, at the BBQ, even in your front room watching the TV.  People; every single solitary last one of ‘em and their quest for a peaceful life are the real root cause of today’s troubles.  Beer up tuppence a pint, OK have one less; bread up a penny a loaf; OK, movie tickets up 10%; OK, we’ll go once a month instead of every fortnight; income tax up a cent in the dollar – groan, moan and cough up.  Why do we put up with it?  Well after a 14 hour shift, traffic chaos going home, one kid with colic, t’uther with toothache, the neighbours cat digging up last weeks planting and the car’s needing new brakes, and the football team is dragging it’s arse and the horses are all donkeys and the arsehole at work is making your life a misery. Who wants to get involved with anything other than a hot shower, a cold beer, spot of dinner and a quick, advert ridden episode of MKR before bed?  No one does.  People have enough to do just keeping body, soul and family together.  

The empirical evidence for this may be seen every evening on the TV; shocking often horrific tales from home and abroad in graphic detail; but, fixing the dishwasher is ‘real’, now and in the kitchen.  But, but War, pestilence and the four horsemen of the Apocalypse ride, unchecked, throughout the world, you cry: even so; the dog needs a walk, dinner is nearly ready, dancing with the stars starts soon and Mum’s cranky.

Priority to scale; but can forbearance, acceptance and a desire for quiet life be described as apathy? I think not; indeed, watch how quickly people become ‘un’ apathetic when their own way of life or their children’s well being is at risk; hell they’ll go to war in court over a droopy back fence; or indulge in suburban warfare because ‘her’ in number 23 has told the kids off; or, ’him’ next door uses a leaf blower at 0700 every Sunday.  No, you can’t blame ‘apathy’.

The point of this ramble is that aviation – as we know it – is in a terrible state and something major needs to be done.  But what? I suggest the answers are abundantly clear, well enunciated and widely published.  So why has nothing been done? There are 60, that’s five dozen, ‘recommendations’ made by two separate, expensive government inquiries, these have been gathering dust for two years or more. These recommendations are not the ramblings of a few disgruntled, slack jawed, drooling inmates of the local nut house.  They are the stated demands of an industry which, quite rightly, may claim a fairly high level of intelligence and heavy investment.  So why then has nothing changed?

I dearly wish I knew; but one thing I do know is that unless you can generate a simple, easy to follow campaign to place the safety of the travelling public ahead of Pizza and MKR; then reform never get started, let alone fail.  Without that reform, industry will not prosper.  How much longer can we tolerate an extra tuppence a pint on beer, before we kick up a row?  I’d bet a long time; but not because of apathy, but of fear of rocking boat and having our quiet, ostrich like life disturbed.

Aye, just who’s to bless and who’s to blame is a puzzle.  No matter the kettle has boiled, coffee becomes #1 priority, then things to do, best get a wriggle on.  Not to worry, it will all sort it’s self out soon enough; won’t it?  Must dash.

Toot_Alt_file_delete_toot.
Reply
#63

The fear of failure, retribution or success?
Quote:K - The point of this ramble is that aviation – as we know it – is in a terrible state and something major needs to be done.  But what? I suggest the answers are abundantly clear, well enunciated and widely published.  So why has nothing been done? There are 60, that’s five dozen, ‘recommendations’ made by two separate, expensive government inquiries, these have been gathering dust for two years or more. These recommendations are not the ramblings of a few disgruntled, slack jawed, drooling inmates of the local nut house.  They are the stated demands of an industry which, quite rightly, may claim a fairly high level of intelligence and heavy investment.  So why then has nothing changed?

The following is a quote from Sandy off the AOPA thread that is an excellent appraisal of the current series of bureaucratic manipulated road blocks to essential reform:  
(06-09-2016, 08:10 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
Quote:The Department split AOPA from TAAAF with the excuse that there were two papers to consider. In reality there is only one consideration:- that is that GA needs radical reform if it is to be viable and grow. Its obvious that it was to the Department's advantage, divide and rule, to be able to say that we are not united. The two bodies have combined points of agreement for the same goal. The details have little to do with the main game:- what will government do to revitalise aviation? These meetings were initiated from Tamworth, the mandate clearly was for one meeting and government should have provided a response to the concerns expressed... 

...What action does the Department propose? As far as Mr. Skidmore is concerned his opinion has no value because he fails to grasp where GA was, and where it should be, and that his massive over regulation and expensive prescriptive type regime is totally against the flow of deregulation as coming from the US, UK and deregulation is even gaining recognition in the EU. Criminal sanctions of strict liability to the nth degree do not make flying safer and are not compatible with our freedoms. Mr. Skidmore, of 'Tiger Team' fame, refuses to acknowledge the seriousness of nearly 300 submissions to the ASRR, and has done little to implement government policy from the Forsyth review. Mr Skidmore's take is totally at odds with Board Chairman Jeff Boyd. Jeff Boyd's opinion expressed at Tamworth was that the rules, still not finished after 28 years and hundreds of millions wasted, are a mess. Jeff Boyd understands what poor regulation does to business, it was a major reason he relinquished Brindabella. 

Why? Is this a joke? Show evidence GA is going backwards? Ok class, pay attention:- 
I have to say that one could be forgiven for thinking that AOPA is being led down the garden path. There is no point whatever in going around in circles at the behest of the Department to waste time, to divert us, for them to obfuscate, muddy the waters... 

...They are perfectly well aware of the parlous situation for GA. Don't play along with them any more.

The Department and CASA will do anything to brush it all under the carpet. They have their interests at heart, not ours. Only political action will make a difference. Why not advertise my Change.org petition again, now about 1600 supporters? A big number will help our cause. Action is required, another meeting, with an attendance record, including email addresses and an agenda with motions framed, should be on the planning board, suggest SY. The Ben Morgan inspired momentum should be maintained. Waiting for a nice communique from Department is a waste of time, especially with the election looming... 

Finally today courtesy of Oz Flying, AOPA President Marc De Stoop talks about the elephant in the room, the "fear", & speaks up and asks...   

Quote:[Image: AOPA_logo_5B563F10-5C0C-11E5-A89F02ED0340CAB3.jpg]

Show Us Your Policies: AOPA
9 June 2016

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) President Marc De Stoop has called for the major political parties to reveal their policies on general aviation ahead of the 2 July Federal Election.

Even after the industry rally in Tamworth on 6 May and the subsequent meetings in Canberra on 25 May, neither the Coalition nor the Labor Party have made responded to growing aviation community demands for reforms.

“We’ve had meetings with the department that have involved CASA but that’s at a departmental level," De Stoop said."The aircraft operators of Australia want to hear from their elected leaders about where they see the direction of the industry heading.

“We had the Forsyth report, but many parts of that are yet to be implemented. We need word from both the Coalition and Labor that it is still a priority to see these recommendations implemented. We’d also like some idea about the attitudes of both parties toward the Civil Aviation Act and how it relates to CASA’s governance of the industry.”

De Stoop's statements reflect a growing fear in the aviation community that neither party intends to make the changes necessary to revitalise GA, a concern compounded by silence and a lack of commitment on behalf of both sides of politics.

“The Coalition at least engaged with us before the election," De Stoop said, "and Anthony Albanese from the opposition made some noises. But since the election was called the Labor party don’t seem interested in talking to anyone about general aviation.”

The Department of Infrastructure and Transport is believed to be working on responses to AOPA's Project Eureka and The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) 2016 policy statement, but there is no indication if they will be made public before the election.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...gkriTg4.99


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#64

Once, were worriers.

It would be hard to disagree, in the main, with either of the statements above.  But then it was hard to disagree with the Rev Forsyth and his crew, the TSBC or even the Senate Pel-Air recommendations.  All valid, considered and worthy of direct action.

It would also be hard to disagree with the fact that nothing ‘real’ has been done; the regulator remains a retrogressive mess; the idiot rules are being pumped out and enforced.  It is more than reasonable that ‘industry’ folk are annoyed and are wondering why?

One need look no further than the Estimates thread and Hansard to understand where the road blocks are located.  The departmental suits sit there, bluff and obfuscate their merry way through tough, awkward questions and leave the building to workshop the oblique answers to QoN without a care in the world.  If ‘they’ can stare down a Senate committee and call the ASRR an opinion, the IOS and the like have no chance in hell, no matter how much dust is kicked up, of achieving any meaningful change.  United, then perhaps the alphabet soup groups stand a chance, but even then it’s only a slim one.  Any settlement will be, at best, a negotiated armistice to gain time.  Time to drive in the wedges, divide through exemption and conquer through fear of having those ‘exemptions’ and special ‘arrangements’ cancelled.

It is not the rule set which needs reform, never has been, never will be.  If CASA is not reformed, from the top down, then all of the best intentions, meetings or agreements will not change things, not one iota.

Skidmore must go – that is pretty much an unanimous call; followed by the crew on deck; the whole lot. What’s that old saw about a bad apple spoiling the barrel? Well, IMO the whole lot is a stinking, maggot ridden, festering mess.  Reform the regulator first; the rest will follow on. When this endless election period is over, buttonhole every independent, lobby the bejasus out of ‘em; appoint an industry ‘tiger team’ to relentlessly pursue just one objective;  the reform the regulator and associated agencies: accept nothing less.

It can be done, but it won’t happen through playing  nice.  The opposition won’t, they’ll cheat, lie and bully their way through the game.  We need to match the tactics and be better at it, rougher and dirtier than they – if ‘we’ want to win.  

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”  Khayyám


Toot toot.
Reply
#65

Aerial App Phil speaks up about the stalled Forsyth (ASRR) recommendations & CASA reform... Wink

First from ProAviation... Wink
Quote:[Image: cropped-Aircraft3.jpg]
CASA change too little and too slow

Leave a reply

The Aerial Application Association of Australia is calling on all political parties to commit to major change to Australia’s aviation regulator to fix ongoing problems that are damaging productivity and fuelling uncertainty.

The AAAA represents over 90% of air operators engaged in cover crop spraying, fertilising, sowing, locust and mouse plague control, fire bombing and oil spill management – to name only a few.

Phil Hurst, CEO of AAAA said in Canberra today, ‘Two years after the damning Forsyth Report, we do not appear to be materially closer to large scale and tangible relief from the problems identified’, ‘Despite enormous goodwill and support from industry over that time, the lack of  CASA output across a wide range of issues is deeply troubling and will continue to handicap Australia’s ability to take advantage of the predicted significant international upturn in aviation demand.

‘Of particular concern is the apparent rejection of a partnership approach identified by Forsyth as key to improving safety.

‘Alignment between the Minister, the CASA Board, senior management and staff is critical to culture and behavior change and this is clearly a significant hurdle continuing to dog CASA.  This is also another reason for a review of the Civil Aviation Act – the first in nearly 30 years.

‘The new Minister and the existing CASA Board will certainly have the full support of the industry in tackling the highly resistant CASA culture of ‘we know better than industry’.

‘Whoever the new Minister is after the election, they will have a massive task still ahead of them which may require further personnel changes if reform cannot be delivered rapidly – something supported by an industry focussed on outcomes, not talk.

‘CASA is still out of step with comparable international regulators which is costing Australia jobs, exports and productivity.

‘The lack of urgency in undoing legacy regulations that even CASA agrees are overly complex for many sectors is not sustainable, and they continue to add massive cost and delays for no safety gain.

‘Despite a few exemptions now surfacing after years of work, these are simply patches on the worst impacts and not a long term rethink of the previous CASA approach of over-regulation, micromanagement and red tape creation.

‘Industry has offered CASA an opportunity to enter into a new paradigm of partnership, based on transparency and a matching of regulation to risk, but this currently appears a step too far for some in CASA who are clinging to the discredited culture singled out by Forsyth.

‘The recently launched Aviation Association Forum 2016 Policies provide a mature and responsible base for action for the incoming government and AAAA looks forward to engaging on implementing policies to improve the industry and the economy’, said Mr Hurst

And from Oz Flying:
Quote:image: http://res.cloudinary.com/yaffa-publishi...365964.jpg
[Image: Ag_wagon_6E7380A0-3819-11E6-8D26563246365964.jpg]The Aerial Application Association of Australia speaks for Australia's many crop sprayers and firebombers. (Steve Hitchen)

AAAA calls for More Action from Canberra
22 June 2016

...The AAAA has increased the pressure that has been placed on both CASA and the department in the lead-up to the 2 July Federal Election, with The Australian Aviation Associations Forum releasing their 2016 policy and AOPA producing the Project Eureka papers.

With the government in caretaker mode, official responses to these proposals and the Tamworth industry rally have not been made, although sources inside the department suggest something will be released this week...



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#66

(06-23-2016, 11:09 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Aerial App Phil speaks up about the stalled Forsyth (ASRR) recommendations & CASA reform... Wink

Quote:CASA change too little and too slow

And from Oz Flying:
Quote:[Image: Ag_wagon_6E7380A0-3819-11E6-8D26563246365964.jpg]The Aerial Application Association of Australia speaks for Australia's many crop sprayers and firebombers. (Steve Hitchen)

AAAA calls for More Action from Canberra
22 June 2016

...The AAAA has increased the pressure that has been placed on both CASA and the department in the lead-up to the 2 July Federal Election, with The Australian Aviation Associations Forum releasing their 2016 policy and AOPA producing the Project Eureka papers.

With the government in caretaker mode, official responses to these proposals and the Tamworth industry rally have not been made, although sources inside the department suggest something will be released this week...

Update 25/06/16 - Courtesy Oz Aviation... Wink

Quote:AAAA says improving relationship between industry and regulator a “massive task” for incoming government
June 24, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au 
[Image: IMG_0770.jpg]

The industry group representing Australia’s agriculture and firefighting pilots says the party that wins the upcoming federal election has a “massive task” ahead in building an improved relationship between the industry and the regulator.

Aerial Application Association of Australia (AAAA) chief executive Phil Hurst says his organisation stood ready to give the new government its full backing in carrying out the proposed reforms contained in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), particularly in relation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. (CASA).

“The new Minister and the existing CASA Board will certainly have the full support of the industry in tackling the highly resistant CASA culture of ‘we know better than industry’,” Hirst said in a statement.

“Whoever the new Minister is after the election, they will have a massive task still ahead of them which may require further personnel changes if reform cannot be delivered rapidly – something supported by an industry focussed on outcomes not talk.”

CASA chief executive and director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore has embarked on an organisational overhaul in an effort to “better align CASA’s activities with our responsibilities to the aviation community”.

Recently, the aviation safety regulator has published a new timetable for changes to the nation’s aviation regulations in response to feedback from industry.

And on Friday, CASA apologised to pilots and air traffic controllers who have faced delays in obtaining an aviation medical certificate.

CASA said it had put on more staff to address the delays in processing medical certificates.

“Changes are also being made to workflow practices to improve the processing times,” CASA said in a statement.

Also a quote from Dick Smith off the UP:
Quote:The Barnaby Joyce/ Tony Windsor seat may be very close. Say less than a hundred votes difference.


I understand Tony Windsor has made an unequivocal statement that he will support Mr Xenophon in getting the ADSB mandate delayed until 2021 as per the AOPA requirement .

So far Mr Joyce and the Minister are supporting AsA/ CASA - and therefore the further destruction of GA in this country because even CASA claims that if complied with the mandate will cost GA over $30 million. No existing safety problem is being addressed . It's shear bastardry .

Very risky I would reckon.

Otherwise I agree with Plovett- that's why I warn everyone to get out of commercial GA before they lose everything . I see no light on the horizon. It's obvious now why the Bureaucrats in the Department allowed the selection of the current CASA board.

MTF...P2 Undecided
Reply
#67

Albo mentions the "A" word - Confused

Was listening to ABC's AM program this morning and wouldn't you know it up popped the former miniscule for non-aviation Albo, bright-eyed & bushy tailed.

Well initially I started to switch off but  then he actually mentioned AVIATION - well once at least. In typical Albo form He also started swinging into the Coalition about not having a plan for infrastructure/shipping/& aviation:
Quote:MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So this announcement today is not new money. You have already announced the $10 billion infrastructure funding model but what's new in today's announcement?


ANTHONY ALBANESE: What's new is that we're releasing a comprehensive plan for infrastructure as well as for shipping and aviation.


That's something that the current government simply hasn't done. It's extraordinary that they seem to have a 'make it up as you go along' policy when it comes to infrastructure...
Well after that Albo lisped and spat his way through more typical ALP propaganda and other than a Badgery's Airport comment aviation again wafted off into the never-ever... Dodgy
So naturally I then went in search of this elusive Labor aviation policy.
First I found this:
Quote:Flying high with Labor and a sound, safe aviation industry

 
[Image: Badgerys.jpg]
Patrick Cooney • 29th June 2016

Labor will maintain strict standards over aviation safety and focus on enhancing the role of regional airports as part of its comprehensive aviation policy released today.

Shadow infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese said a Shorten Labor government boasts a strong policy for aviation safety and jobs, which involves increasing the role of regional airports.

“Aviation is a $30b industry that directly employs tens of thousands of Australians,” Albanese said “and is critical to the ongoing development of our tourism industry.
Quote:“Ensure Australian regulations keep up with global standards.”

“Labor has always had a strong commitment to maintaining Australia’s excellent safety record.

“The former Labor government made the issue central to the production of the nation’s first Aviation White Paper in 2009, which underpins our ongoing approach to aviation.

“Aviation safety should be beyond politics and Labor will always work with other parties in the parliament to ensure Australian regulations keep up with global standards.”

Albanese, the Member for Grayndler, also spoke about the role of regional airports, having fought for Badgerys Creek airport.
Quote:“We will also continue to support the development of the Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek.”

“Labor will also seek to enhance the role of regional airports in Australian aviation, including by providing greater opportunities for them to attract international airlines,” he said.

“We will also continue to support the development of the Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek, subject to the establishment of a no-fly zone at night over existing residences.

“Labor will invest in a passenger rail connection to the airport from the day it opens to maximise the potential for job creation at the airport and aviation-related industries in the surrounding precinct.”

Only Labor has a plan for the infrastructure of Australia’s future.
 
Which basically confirms what we all suspected that Albo/ALP policy for aviation is - "Please refer to our White (Elephant) Paper".
This was further confirmed in the 8 page policy paper:
Quote:In 2009, the previous Labor Government released Australia’s only Aviation White Paper.

For the first time, the Federal Government’s long-term policy objectives for the industry

were laid out.

OUR OBJECTIVES

The White Paper listed four objectives for the industry:

n To give industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the long term.

n To maintain and improve Australia’s excellent safety record.

n To give proper consideration for the interests of travellers and users of airports.

n To better manage the impact of aviation activity on communities and the environment.

There was also a mention of the Forsyth (ASRR) review report:
Quote:..Labor supported the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review led by David Forsyth, which reported in 2014. Labor supports safety regulation that is effective, fair and firm. Labor supports constructive relationships between the regulator and the industry, but harmony should not replace rigour when it comes to the safety of passengers and crew.


Labor acknowledges the many small businesses in general aviation, and the relative burden that regulation places on them. Labor will work to remove unnecessary regulation.


Labor supports an evidence and risk-based approach to targeting areas for safety improvement across the sector...

Reading between the lines predictively what Albo & the Shortone are saying is - "..UP YOURS Aviation Alphabets & associated industry rabble.." Dodgy


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#68

ACUO calls for tighter rules over self-regulation - Huh

Well I'll be?? One of the newest entrants to the aviation Alphabet soup groups, the AACUO, is actually calling for CASA to put in place more stringent rules for commercial operation of UAV/RPAs, their reason?? You guessed it SAFETY! Courtesy Binger from the Oz.. Wink
Quote:Drone owners demand tougher legislation
Drone operators around the nation are demanding the government strike out legislation that will deregulate the commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft, saying the new rules will result in accidents.

The Association of Australian Certified UAV Operators has brought on lawyers from aviation and aerospace law firm IALPG to lobby the ­government to rescind the ­legislation which would allow commercial operators to fly drones weighing less than 2kg without a licence.

“We have had enormous support from the heart of the industry, the certified UAV Operators. We are also receiving wide support from the manned aviation sector, who are (horrified by) the safety implications alone,” ACUO secretary-treasurer Brad Mason told The Australian.

“It is important both to our members and the association as a whole to understand not just the commercial, but the legal and policy implications of seeking such serious action at federal level.

“We are certainly seeking change — but not at the expense of, or to the detriment of, our industry and livelihoods.”

The move to disallow the legislation comes after the Civil Aviation Safety Authority this year amended regulations to exempt commercial operators of remotely piloted aircraft weighing less than 2kg from requiring an Unmanned Aircraft Operators Certificate, which can cost thousands of dollars.
The amendments, which come into effect in September, will still require operators to obey standard flight rules, which are not to fly within 5.5km of an airport, above 400 feet or within 30m of buildings, railways or vehicles, and to always have line of sight of the drone.

CASA requires that a list of these rules is included with the sale of any drone but Mr Lloyd said they were neither strict nor clear enough in explaining the risks associated with piloting unmanned aircraft.

But groups like ACUO and existing commercial operators of drones have railed against the changes, saying they are a risk to the safe operation of aircraft.

Mr Mason said the regulations needed to be amended, going back to the original, to protect controlled airspace, aerodromes and airports from errant drones. He said all commercial operators should also be properly trained, qualified and certified to operate, regardless of drone size.

“CASA’s whole focus has failed to acknowledge the safety risks inherent in this sector.

‘‘It’s failed to recognise the necessity for trained and qualified people operating drones, and ­failed to plan and prepare accordingly with clear, concise guidance material and defined standards,” Mr Mason said.

“CASA make bold claims that the Australian regulatory suite for drones is closely aligned with international efforts.

“However, a comparison with the US regulatory outcomes clearly demonstrate that CASA’s efforts are woefully short on critical safety oversight.”

A spokesman for CASA said the new remotely piloted aircraft rules would cut regulatory costs for commercial operators of drones weighing less than 2kg by thousands of dollars, save time and reduce paperwork.

“CASA’s aim is to lighten regulatory requirements where this can be done without reducing safety standards,” the spokesman said.

“The new regulations recognise the different safety risks posed by different types of remotely piloted aircraft.

“It should be remembered the operators of sub two kilogram commercial drones will have to strictly follow a set of standard operating conditions and notify CASA of their operations,” the spokesman said.
    
This bit - “The new regulations recognise the different safety risks posed by different types of remotely piloted aircraft.

Well quite obviously that is not the opinion of the professional operators of these aircraft... Dodgy

Again one wonders what evidence base CASA are deriving these assumptions from, especially when you take into other parts of the world like the UK where their evidence base points to a very different story. Courtesy the Mirror.com.uk:
Quote:Pilots' union reveals shocking number of near-misses between planes and drones
  • 11:35, 29 Jun 2016
  • Updated 14:04, 29 Jun 2016
  • By Ben Glaze
There have been 26 this year already


[Image: Boeing-737-7C9-Luxair.jpg]
Pilots' leaders have warned the danger of a crash between a plane and a drone


Planes have one near miss a week with drones amid growing fears of a disastrous mid-air crash, the flyers’ union revealed today.

Airline pilots have reported dozens of near-misses with unmanned aircraft in the first six months of the year.

There have been 26 reports of drones getting too close to planes or helicopters since January, compared with 29 in the whole of last year, said the British Airline Pilots Association.

Balpa plans a major research project with the Department for Transport and aviation experts Qinetiq to find out what carnage would be caused by a collision between a drone and a packed passenger jet.

PA [Image: DEC-20-Drone-usage.jpg]

Pilots are increasingly worried about a collision between a plane and a drone
Association general secretary Brian Strutton said: “Pilots are concerned about the growing number of near misses and the potential for catastrophe should a collision occur.

“We need to understand more about the threats drone pose and are working with the Government, regulators and airlines for funding for testing to make the danger clear.”

There were 10 times as many drone near-misses so far this year than in 2014, he told the Mirror.

There was none in 2013.

“It’s an increasing problem – and not jut the number of near-misses but the size of the drones,” he said.

Getty [Image: An-Air-France-plane.jpg]
Pilots fear a collision could cause major damage

“They are definitely getting bigger.

“Pilots have to take a decision about whether to take responsive action when they see a drone.

“They have got many other things they are trying to account of as well.”

He hoped research would reveal the potential impact of a drone strike.

“There’s lots of information about bird strikes and things like that, but nobody has actually tested what one of these big drones could do,” he said.

“We think there are severe under estimates about the dangers of drones.”

Nissan [Image: Nissan-creates-GT-R-Drone.jpg]
A research project is planned to test what would happen if there was a crash between a drone and a plane

Project leaders are thrashing out details over whether the findings would be made public.

Mr Strutton also raised concerns about pilot tiredness, revealing airline bosses send pilots back into the skies despite them warning they are too tired to fly.

New European rules in mean pilots can fly for longer.

“We’re getting some real horror stories being reported to us about the length of time pilots are flying for without a rest,” he said.

Some fly for 20 hours, landing one plane before jumping back in the cockpit and taking off again without proper rest, he claimed.

Airline bosses pressure pilots into flying long hours, telling them: “Get back out there, we have got passengers to fly”, said Mr Srutton.

He warned: “Pilots have got to be able to say, “I don’t feel safe’.

“Just under half of pilots told us they have been compromised by fatigue – ‘compromised’ is a polite way of saying dropping off or losing concentration at the controls.
“It’s obviously a risk to safety.”

Pilots at one airline could strike over the long hours they are required to fly.

He also hit out at airlines which hire agency pilots, saying the terms were “almost Sports Direct-style”.

Mr Strutton also warned the Brexit fall out could delay a tough new crackdown on lasers pens pointed at aircraft.

Fifty-five per cent of pilots have experienced a “laser attack” in the past 12 months.
Stepping up Balpa’s campaign for tougher enforcement, he called for lasers to be treated as potential weapons.
Alamy [Image: PAY-Laser-pen-pointer.jpg]
Balpa wants tougher action against those who point laser pens at planes

“People need to understand they are not toys and pointing them at an aircraft puts all those on board and those on the ground nearby in danger,” warned Mr Strutton.

He believes Westminster wrangling in the wake of last week’s EU referendum Out vote could stall moves for a tougher clampdown.


Yes indeed interesting times ahead for Skidmore and his stuffed NFI Tigger numpties, one area where he may have actually had a less contentious win and the industry comes back playing the 'safety card' - Luv it! Big Grin


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#69

Conundrum #21. The shotgun solution.

Bear with me.  Not far away or very long ago, I had occasion to walk cross a well used public park, a pleasant 30 minute stroll.  I could hear a strange noise, thought it was some kind of new fangled ‘whipper-snipper’ until ‘it’ passed me from directly ahead, at a high rate of rate knots, I reckon it missed me by about two feet vertical and perhaps 8 -10 lateral. It’s ‘mate’ a split second behind.  Cursing that the Purdey over and under was safely locked away on the houseboat, looked about to see who was the fool and where the ‘things’ were headed next.    Within this parkland, there is a modest ‘lake’ (for want of better) where a breeding pair of black swans have taken up residence; they hatched one signet, alas, that was ‘killed’ after a football match.  The park put in a nesting platform, safe from the banks and after a while, a clutch of three brand spanking new swans hatched.  Ayup, you guessed it, the ‘family’ of five were the next ‘target’.  FFS. It’s tough enough for wild things to survive in any case, without that sort of vicious act for a vicarious thrill.  By now, these fools were too far away for me to get to.  I stumped off in their direction, but the ‘things’ were brought over in my direction as this pair of fools departed the fix.  Not even a cricket bat to use, just some of the vilest words I have ever uttered, in any language.  

The point – (at last) how can CASA or any agency control or police that sort of behaviour?  The short answer is they cannot.  Must the folk who use the ‘drone’ technology properly an responsibly suffer because of the ‘hooligan’ mentality; how are we to ensure an even handed approach?  Had I whipped out the mobile phone, taken a picture and called the police; or, even the CASA hotline: who has the resources, time and ability to hunt them down and punish them; even if they could be brought to law?

It’s a puzzle for all aviation regulators; there’s BHP happily, responsibly and legally using a fine tool to tally their stockpiles; at ‘tuther end we have my fine pair of fools.  This will end up something like an ‘after the fact’ prosecution; only once the damage is done, can the law act.  A kiddie gets run over on a zebra crossing, nothing can undo that.  No amount of law or policing can prevent it. The penalties may, retrospectively, be ferocious; but will they cure stupidity or reckless behaviour?  Clearly they cannot.

So, poor old CASA must decide what to do with what, IMO, is a social problem, rather than a legal one. What to do to prevent my two idiots from deciding a chopper or aircraft on final is great target for testing their latest laser equipped drone. Sure, it’s a one in a million chance. However.

Enough waffle; the model aircraft fraternity have a spotless track record; perhaps that’s the solution; make drone owners belong to an association which sets the standards; that would sort the 93 percentile who have good intentions; the hooligans and the mindless, regrettably, will always be with us. I can feel a soupçon of pity for CASA in this matter, it’s a deep problem – and a bitch.

Ramble over; whistles up dogs, settles the Purdey and ambles off.  “Saddle up GD - a ‘untin we will go”.

Reply
#70

Conundrum #101 - "Disallow me?" 

Yes indeed "K" the UAV/RPA issue is a new world conundrum that perhaps needs a little more forethought from our big "R" regulator, than simply washing their hands of the problem with a self-regulate edict for UAVs below 2kg - Confused

Aviation law expert Joseph Wheeler brings up the prospect of the UAV licensed operators invoking the not entirely foolproof path of a disallowance motion in the new Parliament. A Parliament that may very well carry a rising Nick Xenophon/NXT element. NX being a Senator that is very well versed in DMs of CASR legislative instruments, with a 50:50 strike rate: 
Quote:Drone operators invoke rare process to overturn shoddy legislation
  • Joseph Wheeler
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM July 1, 2016

    When CASA made amendments to Australia’s drone laws in March, they came with high expectations from a maturing industry that things would improve for operators and the public.

    Businesses need certainty; the public and airspace users need safety. Simple, right? Maybe not, because now operators are taking things into their own hands.

    What actually happened was a raft of amendments which, purportedly because they refer to certain operations being “considered … lower risk”, pulled the rug out from underneath the most highly qualified and competent drone operators in the country.

    Under the law, from September 29, 2016, anyone with a 2kg device can start a commercial drone business and to do so would simply need to notify CASA and promise to obey already generally known operating conditions.

    There was no consideration of better enforcement measures or investigative options like appropriate registration or penalties for those who breach the rules.

    And, when one considers the US Federal Aviation Administration approach to the same subject, in rules published on June 21, the differences stand out even more starkly. For the US: training? Required. Age minimums? Required. Preflight inspection of your aircraft? While it seems obvious, yes, required.

    All of these requirements may seem obvious but that theme doesn’t carry through into the CASA legislation.

    There is something to be said for real clarification in laws for a fledgling industry.

    Even though Australia has an agenda of red tape reduction, the lack of simple prohibitive and explicit legislation to outlaw certain conduct (and thus complementary reliance on general criminal law for example) means that ambiguity abounds.

    It seems anachronistic that operators of “very small” (100g to 2kg) drones should not have to be qualified, security screened, or trained (or monitored) by anyone, and yet can ply their trade with equipment that if misused, or maliciously directed, could cause serious direct and secondary harm.

    We don’t live in the age of The Jetsons just yet, so I would strongly argue that anyone with anything but a feather-light toy, confining themselves to flight in a sheltered backyard, needs to have credentials to share airspace with others, or be explicitly taught how to avoid them at the very least.

    It is not enough that drones be restricted or prevented from entering controlled airspace or be operated away from populous areas.

    Relaxing reasonable impediments to commercial operations sends the wrong message and won’t prevent mishaps. It is against this background that commercial drone operators have sought the last bastion of fairness in Australian legislation — the process of disallowance under the commonwealth Legislation Act 2003, in this case the Civil ­Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation 2016, with its raft of misconceived mechanisms.

    It is a rarely used process which provides for either house of parliament to effectively veto delegated legislation (for example, regulations, and instruments created by agencies).

    In aviation, the procedure has been used with mixed success.

    Recently, Part 145 Manual of Standards Amendment ­Instrument 2014 (No 1), made under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) was successfully disallowed in 2015, but an attempt at disallowance of CASA’s Civil Aviation Order 48.1 on pilot fatigue, while debated, failed in 2013.

    Thus, it is by no means a certainty that disallowance can be achieved with aviation (or any) legislation.

    Seeking the repeal of CASA’s new drone laws isn’t an end in itself. Operators seek safety, clarity and certainty.

    Should a motion to disallow be put to the new parliament in ­either house, we would hope that party lines be forgotten in the hope of facilitating new technologies safely and sensibly for aviation generally, and our communities.

    Joseph Wheeler is principal of IALPG, aviation legal counsel to the AFAP and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and is retained by Australian Certified UAV Operators Inc in pursuit of its present disallowance campaign.
  • Hmm...interesting times ahead for OST in Parliamentary Estimates I would say... Big Grin



    MTF...P2  Tongue
  • Reply
    #71

    One of the major stumbling blocks to harmony seems to be the great airspace debate.  Lots of clear sky, little enough traffic and miles and miles of sweet bugger all.  A huge area with ego’s to match and no one willing to concede an inch of it.  I’m no expert – trying to stay out of bother is the best I can do; but there are some.  Anyway – as part of an exploratory gambit, prompted by the One-Sky white elephant I wasted a little time looking about the net and I found the UK CAA had some very informative stuff related.  

    I can’t debate the ‘concept’ – not qualified – however as a well constructed, informative service to dunderheads I thought it terrific.  The Brits move a shed load of traffic and seem to have done the best they can with what they have.  Their attitude, approach, model and proposed changes make sense to me.

    FWIW, the link will take you – HERE – if you have an interest in ‘airspace’ the site is worth a visit.

    Toot toot.
    Reply
    #72

    TAAAF issue new communique today (27 July 2016): Via Hitch off the Yaffa... Wink

    Quote:[Image: taaaf-aviation-policy-w420-q-raa-a22f2.jpg]

    TAAAF calls for Industry Action Taskforce
    22 July 2016

    The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called on returning Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester to direct CASA to create an industry action taskforce.

    In a communique released this morning, TAAAF stated that it considered such a taskforce critical to resolving regulatory issues.

    "Forum participants highlight the value of creating a new partnership with industry, as outlined in the Forum 2016 aviation policy and continue to be disappointed with the lack of action in critical areas from CASA," the statement said.

    "The Forum expresses frustration at the disarray of the regulatory system, with new regulations likely to continue to remove jobs and opportunities from the industry through increased costs for no safety outcome.

    "The Forum calls on the Minister to direct the CASA Board to establish a small joint industry action taskforce to fix clearly identified problems.

    "The work program of the taskforce must include urgent remedies especially for CAO 48.1, but also CASR Parts 61/141/142/ 101/121/135 and the aviation medical area.

    The TAAAF communique also went to express concerns over the lack of progress in implementing the reforms of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review and said the Forum would welcome David Forsyth being tasked to conduct a review of the reform progress.

    TAAAF highlighted ADS-B, harmonisation, training and maintenance, drones and CASA's inconsistency as areas of particular concern, pointing out that their own policies contained expertise that the government should be acting upon.

    "The TAAAF Aviation Policy 2016 provides a wide range of appropriate expert advice on aviation issues and the TAAAF participants recommend the policies to the Government for further consultation and implementation."

    Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...puZv8kk.99
    MTF...P2 Tongue
    Reply
    #73

    SAAA pushing for Drivers Licence medical.

    Courtesy Oz Aviation:
    Quote:[Image: Sonex.jpg]Two Sonex Amateur-built Experimental (AB-[E]) aeroplanes. (Steve Hitchen)

    SAAA calls for Medical Exemption
    28 July 2016
     
    The Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) has written to CASA asking for an exemption from medical requirements for members who fly aircraft with a revised maximum take-off weight of 600 kg or less.

    The letter, dated 15 July, asks for SAAA members to have the same "self-certification" privileges as pilots administered by Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus).

    SAAA President Rob Lawrie, who signed the letter, points out the inequity of RAAus pilots being allowed to fly under a driver's licence medical, yet SAAA pilots flying aircraft of similar weights need to have a CASA Class 2 medical examination.

    "We propose that such pilots of sport recreational aircraft would be responsible to self-certify their medical fitness, with identical conditions imposed upon their flight operations as those currently imposed on similar sport aircraft within Australian airspace," he says.

    "The present situation is inequitable as the same pilot, who is rejected by the CASA medical certification process, may fly the same aircraft in Australian airspace under an 'alternate regulator'. This situation may reasonably be argued to result in a number of negative safety outcomes.

    "We need a solution that is immediate and allows our members to continue to fly their aircraft, many of whom have spent countless years and thousands of hours constructing them. As such our members have a considerable investment and emotional attachment to their aircraft.

    "The majority also hold considerable aviation experience and have demonstrated their ability to operate safely."

    Rather than ask for a blanket exemption for all members, the SAAA proposal concedes that the exemption should apply only to pilots and operations meeting the following criteria.
    • Single-engine amateur-built experimental (ABE) or amateur-built aircraft acceptance (ABAA)
    • Day VFR limited to pilot and one passenger only
    • No aerobatics
    • Flight below 10,000 feet AMSL
    • A revised MTOW of 600 kg for the flight or 650 kg for float equipped aeroplanes
    The SAAA is also suggesting that pilots would need to carry their driver's licence on such a flight and people with certain conditions such as epilepsy and diabetes would need an annual statement of fitness from a GP.

    "The initial exemption request is for identical weight limits and conditions as presently provided to RAAus for ultralight operations," Lawrie states. "This in itself is a very strong Australian based safety case, which CASA simply cannot ignore.

    "RAAus have held these approvals for a considerable period of time. During this time there have been almost no reports of medical incapacitation of RAAus pilots and certainly far less that those experienced in commercial and RPT operations.

    "This sort of data is essential in achieving regulatory reform. Essentially we must prove there will not be an adverse safety outcome to CASA’s satisfaction.

    "CASA is required to demonstrate fair and transparent regulation in their dealing with the aviation community. We all fly in the same air.

    "We believe these two factors will maximise our chance of success and make it more difficult for the initial request to be dismissed by CASA."

    The full text of the SAAA letter to CASA can be downloaded from the link below.
    SAAA medical letter to CASA

    Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...uGM1BE5.99
    I like the way this kind of statement is becoming a common industry mantra... Big Grin

    "..CASA is required to demonstrate fair and transparent regulation in their dealing with the aviation community. We all fly in the same air.."

    MTF...P2 Tongue
    Reply
    #74

    Ruling by exemption – Still.

    Reading Rob Lawrie’s letter is like watching a rally car trying to get to the finish line while ducking a weaving through the obstacles, tree stumps, holes and soft edges. It’s a master piece of ducking and weaving through the artificial ‘obstacles’ built in by the manic race organisers; designed to impede and penalise entrants.  The argument ‘for’ is sound enough, but look at hoops and hurdles he needs to deal with before pleading and proving his way to a rational, risk based agreement, to become 'exempt'.

    There should be no need for any of this, especially for ‘exemptions’ which oblige the receiver to ‘play nice’ with CASA: not if the rules were written sensibly.  The letter provides a perfect example of why regulatory reform is desperately needed.  The question we should be asking is why, despite the time, money and effort invested in the ‘new’ regulations does a respectable body, such as SAAA need to go to such extraordinary lengths to achieve ‘an exemption’.

    Aside.  This artificial ‘weight’ limitation on medicals intrigues me.  I don’t get it.  Same as the weight limitations imposed on building; what’s the point of it?  Is 650 kg aircraft lobbing into a school yard going to do so much less damage than a 1000 kg aircraft? Why not provided an engineering based ‘range’ of acceptable weights, like between 550 and 880 kg.  What’s the difference, apart from legal flexibility?  Why should an aircraft weighing in at 605 kg be ‘illegal’ when the same thing at 600 kg is ‘legal’.  Are CASA saying that if you get hit by a fully loaded petrol tanker it’s much better than being clouted by a train.  Probably just me being thick, again; but it beats me hollow.

    Aye well, good luck with it Rob; but remember what they say about making a deal with the devil and where the detail leads.

    Toot toot.
    Reply
    #75

    Perhaps I'm a bit thick, but why not go down the RPL route instead?
    Reply
    #76

    "There should be no need for any of this, especially for ‘exemptions’ which oblige the receiver to ‘play nice’ with CASA:"

    Statistics boatman, CASA is highly unlikely to allow a situation where statistics that they cannot control could be used against them. If they freed up the requirements for medicals for SAAA pilots could it be that, as happened in the USA, statistically it turns out, medicals are a waste of time with regards to safety.
    Reply
    #77

    (07-28-2016, 08:43 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  SAAA pushing for Drivers Licence medical.

    Courtesy Oz Aviation:
    Quote:[Image: Sonex.jpg]Two Sonex Amateur-built Experimental (AB-[E]) aeroplanes. (Steve Hitchen)

    Comments to Oz Flying article:

    Quote:[Image: noavatar92.png]

    Jack Vevers
    I think the whole medical requirement for private pilots is a complete nonsense. The RAA prove that medical exemptions have no adverse impacts on safety.

    CASA would do better to educate and have pilots develop better relationships with the GP's to manage their health. The current process is more likely to create bad behaviours and poorer health outcome as pilots shy away from their GP's out of fear of jeopardising their Class 2.

    It's about time CASA did something bold and sensible on the current AvMed requirements.
     

    [Image: avatar92.jpg?1469771228]
    Martin Hone I totally agree. Having both RAA pilot certificate and PPL I have seen first hand the anomaly with the current situation. I wish SAAA success in their endeavour. Makes perfect sense. Pity about not being able to do aerobatics though.....
    MTF...P2 Tongue
    Reply
    #78

    Latest from the Aunty Pru blog - Big Grin

    Quote:AuntyPru Monday Quarterback: TIME Gents & Ladies, TIME!


    [/url][Image: crisis-100x100.gif]

    Off the AuntyPru boards today there is a general sentiment from the IOS that enough is enough and it is time the Minister and the Government extracted their heads from the sand, showed some leadership and sorted the shambolic, diabolical state of affairs of oversight & regulation of aviation safety in this country.

    First from Sandy via new AuntyPru thead –
    SKIDMORE GONE!:
    Quote:The Board of CASA has not outwardly shown any leadership that would give hope for reform. The unfolding disaster continues. What is not apparent is why did Skidmore go? Was the Board instrumental? In which case they have belatedly taken a bold step in the right direction. The given reason by Skidmore of his departure, “personal,” is entirely unsatisfactory as is the Board’s unstinting praise of his work. I think we as citizens, taxpayers and aviation industry participants are entitled to know why he has left, whether asked and by whom or gone of his own volition. We are also entitled to know how much pay he has enjoyed and how much will he take as he walks.

    [Image: Montparnesse.png]

    The train is wrecked and the train driver extricates himself from the wreckage and grabs a pile of cash from the caboose. As he wanders off the Minister for Transport and the Board of Management (assembled at a distance) say “cheerio, good job thanks.” The Minister and entourage leave the scene with a wink and nod towards the injured, the paramedics and gathered public. The fact that the tracks were ballasted with soggy bundles of outdated regulations will be reported as the cause, for which no one was responsible, ‘down the track’ say in six or seven years time....etc

    Along the same theme as the Alphabets & individual IOS member commentary, I noted the following article courtesy of Aviation Tribunal where REX applaud the CASA Board for accepting (read demanding) the resignation of DAS Skidmore... Wink
    Quote:Rex welcomes developments in CASA

    [Image: f270499ddcd2546ce409be07c3e0ed2e?s=50&d=mm&r=g]
    By Aviation Tribune
    Posted on August 29, 2016

    Regional Express (Rex) has described the decision by the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to accept the resignation of its CEO as a further step towards reforming the aviation regulatory body.

    Rex Chief Operating Officer Mr Neville Howell said that the CASA Board had commissioned a survey late last year that identified the need for further substantial improvement within the authority. Mr Howell commended the CASA Board for this initiative and stated that it was a clear sign that the board was determined to drive change and to deliver better outcomes.

    “CASA’s own survey of the stakeholders’ perception of CASA (whose results were released this week), showed that CASA received a devastating rating of between 3 and 4 (out of 10 as the most favourable) for a whole range of Key Performance Indicators.”

    “One of the areas identified in the survey in need of improvement is the frequent long delays in the issuing of permits and approvals which has placed industry at risk of having to ground their operations. These delays have the potential to be fatal to small operators in particular.”

    “The industry has full confidence in the newly installed Board, which for the first time comprises professionals with in-depth knowledge of the industry, as well as in the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Hon. Darren Chester, who has demonstrated his willingness to listen to industry and make bold decisions.”

    Reforming a bureaucracy such as CASA is a mammoth task. Rex calls on the Board to select a new CEO who has both an intimate knowledge of CASA so that he or she can hit the ground running as well as entrepreneurial industry experience to understand the repercussions of the decisions made by the regulator. Rex also hopes the selection process can be completed within three months as the industry cannot afford to be in limbo for much longer. There was virtually nothing substantial achieved in the last two years in the implementation of the much-needed Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) recommendations (as directed in the Minister’s Statement of Expectations to CASA) and the industry critically needs an effective CEO urgently to fast track this much-delayed implementation.

    Regional Express (Rex) is Australia’s largest independent regional airline operating a fleet of more than 50 Saab 340 aircraft on some 1,500 weekly flights to 58 destinations throughout all states in Australia. In addition to the regional airline Regional Express, the Rex Group comprises wholly owned subsidiaries Pel-Air Aviation (air freight and charter operator), Air Link (Dubbo-based regional airline) and the Australian Airline Pilot Academy.

      
    This bit.. Rolleyes

    "..Reforming a bureaucracy such as CASA is a mammoth task. Rex calls on the Board to select a new CEO who has both an intimate knowledge of CASA so that he or she can hit the ground running as well as entrepreneurial industry experience to understand the repercussions of the decisions made by the regulator. Rex also hopes the selection process can be completed within three months as the industry cannot afford to be in limbo for much longer.."

    Please refer to my 'Captain's Pick': [url=http://auntypru.com/forum/-SKIDMORE-GONE?pid=5051#pid5051]Now for the DAS conundrum

    Quote:Captain's Pick: My CP for the part in bold would have to be Mike Smith..


    ...Anyway here is a reminder of the calibre and experience of Mike Smith:
    Quote: Wrote:Mike Smith Area of Specialization:

    Mike Smith brings to any project a wealth of senior management experience and technical expertise in both government and private industry. Through an executive level career spanning more than 17 years, he has managed and contributed to many innovative and highly successful technical, policy implementation and organizational restructuring projects. These have included complex and contentious issues requiring astute and sensitive leadership....

    Well apparently Mike Smith is ready, willing and able... "to hit the ground running"-  Rolleyes 

    So Jeff Boyd & the Board, what the hell are you waiting for... Huh


    MTF...P2 Tongue
    Reply
    #79

    Would Mike Smith be willing and able to bust the Iron Ring?
    Reply
    #80

    Vote for Smith? – hell yes.

    Men, the calibre of Smith, don’t sit about waiting for someone to tell ‘em how or, pay ‘em for platitudes.  As a star ICAO ‘consultant’ (see last job Fiji) he is full bottle on what’s needed. After the second time around, when Hawke and Truss – properly advised by ‘you-know-who’ - nobbled him and appointed the anti CVD and ASRR wannabe, he was, justifiably, disappointed and slightly miffed.  

    Mike Smith is possibly one of only a handful of men who would, purely for love of country and aviation, take the CEO job on.  Of that handful, he is perhaps the only one prepared to consider putting life and business on hold, at short notice.  There is no requirement for him to do this; but, after the second class treatment dished out, it would be very understandable if he demurred.
     
    We would be, indeed, a lucky country if Mike decided to take the challenge; but, as the Murky Machiavellian well knows: it has to happen soon and there will, this time, be conditions.   ICAO cannot wait forever, 3000 registered differences are a clear indication that Australia has been taking the Mickey Bliss, thumbing its nose and believing that ‘they’ know it all.  Pure bollocks.

    Last round, we sat quiet about Mike: no more.  Ask nicely, bring him home; step back, and watch as things quickly return to sanity.  With Mike at the helm PAIN may even get a few days off and wouldn’t it be nice to post compliments not brickbats.

    Ayup: two more here barkeeper.
    Reply




    Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)