[Kharon]

If you read nothing else this decade - read this from the UP. Bravo.

What’s wrong with CASA asked my son Daniel a Private Pilot some months ago?

As I contemplated the question, I offered him the following explanation and at his suggestion I now offer my thoughts to you.

Let me introduce myself. I am a former Examiner of Airmen in the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). I was one of the early General Aviation recruits to progress through the Flying Operations Inspectorate levels 2 and 3 when CAA changed name/restructured into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). I hold an Air Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL) aeroplanes, a Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) helicopters, Instructor ratings on Aeroplanes and am an independent Approved Testing Officer (ATO)/Examiner of Airmen and act on behalf of CASA to conduct flight tests to allow CASA to issue Pilot licences and associated ratings. I was employed in the CAA/CASA in Inspector roles from 1990-2007.

G’day Dan, I have written lots on the basic problems internally in the past and have been part of a group of CASA pilots that have made many submissions, some are included in my thoughts below which have fallen on deaf ears as it is too close to the bone for governments of all persuasions.

The problem with CASA in a nutshell is the deliberate breakdown of the Westminster System of Government in Australia.

Incumbent departmental Government Ministers since about 1974 have found ways to avoid their Ministerial Responsibility and shift what was traditionally their accountability, to that of Departmental Heads, which is not realistically possible under a pure Westminster system.

CASA is an Executive arm of the Federal Government; it functions as the regulator and as the reader, you need to understand the actual role CASA plays under the Australian System of Government.

The Westminster system of Government has four elements, the people (you and me) the parliament, the judiciary and the regulator.

There’s a set of rules called the Constitution which controls the behaviour of each of the elements. Each element in the system has a distinct role to play and for the system to work properly, the powers of any one group must not be undermined by any of the others.

The system is designed to make each element answerable to some other, but no one group ever gets to hold all the cards.

Under this system, the regulator’s (CASA) job is that of a police force. The role of a police force is to administer the law, as written, without fear or favour. The policeforce is seldom loved by the people, but if it does its job, as it should, it will always be respected.

In aviation and in other specialised departments, the spin on the ball is the regulator has an additional role to play. Because aviation is a specialist field, the technicalities of which are not necessarily understood by those who comprise the government, the regulator, being a disinterested body [[b]a disinterested body is the fundamental pillar of any regulator], is required to contribute to setting and recommending standards.

CASA must not only be able to understand and implement the law, but it must have enough knowledge of the industry to remain abreast of changes and legislate accordingly, in aviation, a daunting task.

Given the complexity of the role, the ability of CASA’s senior management teams to handle the task must be closely examined on an ongoing basis.

Unfortunately, this task has largely been delegated to a group of so-called professionals called Human Resources (now I believe called People and Performance) (HR) in CASA and many other government departments. HR is a construct of non-technically qualified pseudo phycologists that were formally called personnel/payroll departments. When it comes to employing technical staff, they employ personnel who are submissive and compliant to the philosophy of the day, rather than to the discipline the personnel are to be administering. Over a period, the qualified and practiced technical staff have become very “Rumsfeld like”; they don’t know what they don’t know = ‘Compound Ignorance’.

On the Flying Operations Inspectorate (FOI) side of the equation there is no depth of regulatory expertise, nor is there a great degree of specialist knowledge. As a result, the inspectorate is open to capture by an enthusiastic but not necessarily knowledgeable Board. The fact that senior managers are on contract and do not have Public Service permanency does not help with the needed objectivity required to perform the task given to them by the people (PUBLIC).

Consequently, in recent decades, the 1990s and 2000s, managers have latched onto concepts that they can readily understand and can put before a Board as evidence of their success in their managerial field. Two concepts which come readily to mind are saving money and industry audit.

There can be no objection to management saving money - however, when the savings are made at the expense of a competent, flying currency and a well-trained Inspectorate then that is another matter entirely. CASA management rationalise that the Airlines are the experts in all areas of aviation which is another attack on the Executive arm of Government. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. There is no easy way to say this but the Ministerial strategy of having contracted management who have converted inspectorate competency expenses (flight training) and industry credibility to that of budgetary savings (thanks largely in recent times to the longevity of the Howard governments). Has meant over the last 20 or so years, the deterioration in inspectorate competency is at the point where CASA is not even capable of knowing what competencies an inspectorate needs to perform its basic functions.

Governments rationalise the reduction in inspectorate competence, by emphasizing industry audit as CASA's primary role. Put simply, they see CASA as policemen. "Here is the standard - go and check against it - you don't need to know how to fly or maintain an aircraft to do that" and HR (payroll) employ that criteria. It is only necessary to have held or hold a pilot license at some time in your life to be an inspector.

Audit is seen in management's eyes, as a simple check, of actuality, against a published standard.

In some areas in aircraft airworthiness this is probably enough. The manufacturer builds an aircraft and produces a maintenance manual. Instructions are specific - "Install sump plug, part No x fitted with new O ring, part No y and tighten to z ft lbs". Under these circumstances, audit is easy.

The problem is that management, lacking the knowledge, considers that it is equally easy to audit in the flying operations inspectorate area, as HR in their wisdom have elected in many cases to have Airworthiness managers managing the Flying Operations sections.

What CASA has not appreciated and is so demoralising for me as an ex-CASA representative is that in much of the flying operations areas there are no manufacturer’s instructions. A flying operations inspector auditing an organisation to ensure that it has 'suitable procedures and practices' needs to understand that there are as many procedures and practices as there are organisations in Australia and the world.

What is acceptable and what is not becomes very much a matter of judgment on the Inspectors’ part.

Herein lies the key and why we are in such confusion and why there is such a demise in the flying operations inspector/inspectorate. An inspector can only exercise sound judgment if he/she can base that judgment on two attributes, namely knowledge and experience, both of which, have been leached out of the inspectorate in the last 20 plus years in the interests of saving what amounts to a few dollars. Such neglect will compound to provide us with little disasters at first, if we do not intervene, and we know what is needed of a regulator. We had it in 1988, a competent inspectorate, and mostly respected by the industry. Mary Schiavo who was the head of the FAA, was asked about a tricky incident on a technology issue when Fly -by-wire was being introduced. She said in words to this effect “it is not the FAA’s job to tell Boeing how to build an Aircraft but it is the FAA’s job to have enough knowledge to say that if you are going to have three flight control computers talk to each other then one of those computers programmes should be written by a different designer/programmer.” At the time it was only possible to audit about 20,000 lines of computer script. There’s no point in having a fault in a system and all three computers not seeing the problem. It doesn’t mean an incident wouldn’t happen but a line of defence for the ‘Public” has been put in place.

Pilot training these days is not really knowledge based but more checklist driven. When you’ve been around for a while you learn that checklist is a must in normal operations but it is often a best guess in an emergency, as emergencies in reality, when they occur, have not read the checklist (QANTAS A380) and do not necessarily conform to what some engineer has anticipated as a sequence of events in an emergency checklist. The exception to this being when emergencies are pre-programmed into pilot simulator training.

To some extent knowledge can be acquired in the classroom but the application of this knowledge requires a measure of experience and this can only be gained in the field doing the job. For example, no inspector should assess an operator's fuel policy until he/she has been in a minimum fuel situation and has understood the stress this situation places on a flight crew. {This is now an issue in the standard of training I see when doing flight tests of late, candidates can find information but interpreting the information is in some instances venturing into another reality. Scenario based questioning or the application of the requirements (Still a CASA policy) has been reduced to that of a box ticking exercise to meet pages and pages of competency standards now required by CASA. The ability of a pilot being able to save themselves if something goes wrong is disappearing fast in the General Aviation training field, and today is either not taught or not applied during their training}.

It is not enough to remember what it was like from years gone by (held or have held a pilot license to be an Inspector). In time, our human minds have the ability of blocking out unpleasant experiences, we recall the good weather and the great landings, but we somehow forget the occasions that we made a real pig's ear out of the situation.

In the final analysis, the credibility of CASA has been deliberately undermined on a false premise, that the industry has too much at stake to cut corners, the very reason Regulators were introduced in the first place. In the year before I joined the CAA in 1990 the Gyrocopter fraternity based in the Melbourne area killed 90% of their membership the previous year because there was no training and licensing. Late in 1989, training was introduced and the following year there were no deaths.

In response to the statement that “the Airlines and Operators are now the experts”, in days previously if CASA was to decide that an operator's procedures were unsatisfactory and consequently refused to issue whatever the permission or approval being sought, the operator, under the democratic system described, would have a right to take his/her case to the judiciary. This would result in CASA having to justify the judgment of the inspector before a disinterested third party.

The operator/Airline will always argue that his crews have thousands of hours of experience in the area in question and in comparison, what would CASA know?

CASA's counter to this, has in the past, always been that the Operational Inspector is not only an experienced pilot, endorsed and required to be current on the operator's aircraft but also experienced on a whole range of other aircraft and familiar with other operator's procedures and it is from this base that he/she made their assessment.

In previous decades, this was the case. CASA flying inspectors were recruited from experienced flying instructors, chief pilots, check captains or chief flying instructors. The skills they brought to CASA were enhanced by endorsements and flying on a range of Departmental aircraft which were representative of that portion of the industry in which they were involved. Those Inspectors involved in industry assessment were given regular training on the industry aircraft even to the extent of exposure to overseas simulators and operators. Those involved in setting standards were given the opportunity to use Departmental aircraft to validate the standards that they had produced.

This did in effect, ensure that the flying operational inspector remained abreast of industry developments. It did not provide the inspector with many flying hours, but it did provide them with a broad base of experience from which to make their judgments, and that, after all, was what they were employed to do.

Historically the DCA, CAA (department of many names) had their own aircraft since 1921 to enable the carrying out of the many duties required by legislation.
Even more so now, with technology racing ahead, the need for flying operations staff to have their own aircraft, like other world leading aviation regulatory departments such as Canada and the US, are essential to the business of an aviation Regulator.In 1992, the then chairman of CAA (Richard Harold Smith) very proudly disposed of the GA fleet of aircraft (G1000’s, BAE 125 and Beech Bonanzas) that were an essential part of the ability of flying operations staff to keep abreast of technology and the operating environment they were intimately involved in.

It was all about money and a deliberate perception created in the previous years by constant attacks from external interest groups and the emerging new Government practice of deregulation. The deregulation mantra, undertaken by groups ignorant of what a regulator and industry needed to keep the flying public safe over generations. The new Board realized that the industry didn’t fall apart after the pilot dispute in 1989 as the Pilots Union had predicted. Logic would tell even the casual observer that people who had been flying aircraft and trained in ways for 30 years previously, that it would take at least a couple of generations of pilots before the lowering of standards would start to show itself. This fact in combination with a total lack of appreciation and understanding of the roles of employees in regulating the industry, the then new Board of Management, set in train the predicament all regulators in Australia face now.

These days I’m afraid the inspectorate, it would appear, are only employed to create the illusion of competence, not to protect the people but to bluff them into believing the Government and its Regulator care about their safety. Some may contend that is what they do. If they are not given the skills or given the opportunity to maintain the skills, (I remind you Dan as you well know, flying an aircraft is a motor skill you must keep using it or you lose it), then, such a concept can only be an illusion.

The training offered to the flying inspectorate consumes all their training allocation to renew his/her basic qualifications and effectively many do not have an appropriate level of experience to exercise any judgement, and they are now equivalent to that of a village policeman with a clipboard.

With such competency levels, CASA’s advice to Government although well intentioned is effectively meaningless and has caused the government to look elsewhere for advice, for example the FAA or Transport Canada, not necessarily a bad thing but without the expertise to know what questions to ask such agencies, is akin to saying to a computer system designer I want my system to do this when you really want it to do something else. Ignorance is no excuse and generally it is very expensive to claw back from a mistake when millions of dollars are involved. Another unfortunate fact of life is that there are many vested interest groups just itching to take CASA’s place. It’s called self-regulation; the Australia Parachute Federation, Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), Hang Gliding Federation (HGFA), Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association (ASRA). These organisations have been given the oversight of such activities but under the Aviation Act, CASA is responsible to the public for aviation safety and CASA cannot (legally) delegate that responsibility but effectively that is exactly what they have done.

This takes us back to where we came in, with the discussion on the system of government. What is happening is that one of the key elements of the system will/has been effectively neutered (CASA in this case) and the people will be encouraged to police themselves. It won't work, it never has in history; just look at the Banks in recent times, the building industry (Flammable Cladding) and the Insurance industry, to name just a few examples.

Over time, someone, or an organisation, will do something that gets the public’s attention and the ensuing inquiry (Royal Commission) will be critical of institutional timidity and self-regulation and heaven forbid the respective Government Minister. Then, it will all begin again.

What do we do? There’s a need to identify the difference between world's best practice and world's cheapest practice, between the best and the acceptable.

There’s plenty of models around and there are classic examples of countries getting it wrong. The New Zealanders got it wrong down south (Antarctica), the Canadians got it wrong at Dryden, we got it wrong with Seaview and our Asian neighbours seem to be getting it wrong everywhere.

CASA management must be required to justify/qualify all its changes to regulations (by adding such requirements to Government protocols).

To be honest, the technical staff they have employed are not kept up to date with the skill base, with new and emerging technologies. When Dick Smith first introduced the concept of reducing costs, we, ‘the people’, needed to ask exactly what proportion of the cost of a Melbourne /Sydney air ticket is directly attributable to the cost of operational safety surveillance, and follow up with the question "Does management really think that the 15 cent saving on an airline ticket by reducing the CASA inspectorate to a token representation will encourage the public to abandon their cars?

It is disappointing CASA management do not necessarily respond to reason, and only move smartly when their shortcomings are publicized. I was involved when ICAO (International Civil Aviation Authority) conducted an audit on the CASA licencing department. It basically said that we did not comply with International Standards in Australia, a deal was worked out then, a generic statement was made in order to show that Australia was still one of the safest places to fly in the world. No mention of the fact that we have the most benign weather, lowest mountains and generally low traffic density all of which greatly effect such an outcome.

In another example CASA had not operationally been monitoring Instrument Approaches throughout Australia. Their response to that ICAO audit around 2008 was that they were training staff for these duties and to my knowledge the staff are still waiting for their training. The advice proffered may have been genuine, but the significance of the finding certainly wasn’t to the management of the day.

The general destruction of the public service which is the keeper of the Westminster system of Government is a major factor in the failing of our democracy as we know it; done by destroying the checks and balances inherent in the system.

System changes must be subtle in nature otherwise, the ‘People’ would be wise to the situation. No one would allow our emails to be monitored, our ‘People’ to be locked up without rights if terrorism hadn’t arisen making such rationalisations possible. You cannot argue that such actions are not warranted for an immediate threat, but where are the mechanisms to repeal such powers given to un-named heads of known agencies and the agencies we are not allowed to know about.

I’ll give you an example of the subtle breaking down of the Public Service that the‘People’ seem to believe is perfectly reasonable.

When I was employed as an Examiner of Airmen in 1990, the CAA was what I still call, a credible Public Service. As a technical specialist, the induction involved the paperwork and the purpose of the position I held, and you were subtly assessed by some obvious mentors and some not so. The system (a somewhat osmotic process, a creation of many, many years) would assess one’s abilities. In my case, was I more attuned to the technical side of the service or were my abilities favouring the administrative side of the section? Had I been assessed as leaning to the administering side, my taskings would subtly favour those areas and eventually one would find one’s self in Canberra with the potential to be the Director of Aviation and had I been the Director, I would have known how the department worked from bottom to top. I would know that truism that everything is connected in regulation and change requires the ability to see the ripple down effects or consequences of change.

The Howard Government perfected the undermining of the Public Service by initially making lateral entries to protect Ministers responsibility under the Westminster system from administering their portfolios and they rationalised this by bluffing ‘the People’ saying that they would search the world to find the best personto head this or that department, so that world’s best practice will be introduced to the department. When an appointment was made, they became by government definition the expert in their respective field. They were invariably from somewhere else in the world and normally unfamiliar with Australia or the respective department’s history. They then compounded the undermining by government decree to employ direct entry personnel, so the incumbent could employ the best people (normally from their previous jurisdiction) to support them in redesigning the department from the top down.

It was obvious to the personnel in a department that if you employ a Director of a Department who has been declared an expert who employs his mates to restructure a department then they may be reluctant to ask the now subordinate personnel for advice, and even if they had such insight, human nature being what it is, why would personnel who have been holding a position for 30 years be encouraged to assist the new broom as they are now by government definition no longer competent, to use a modern term.

‘The People’ have been sold a lemon and they still believe the government in this respect. Big companies did this for a while, but it didn’t take that long especially for the ones not as big as governments to realise if you are going to restructure a department or a company it is necessary to establish the task you are doing. To ask basic questions e.g., here’s a job that needs to be done, how many people do we need to do the job? How many people do we need to supervise those personnel? You build a company or a government department from the bottom up not from the top down but still (neuronally challenged) government consultants think this is the way to restructure a department.

Back to the example; CASA had employed a direct entry Director of Aviation, Mick Toller. On the surface he met all the government world search requirements. A Cathay Pacific training and checking person who did much of his training Overseas and hadn’t operated commercially in Australia apart from the highly regimented International flights into/out of Australia. Mick and I had many arguments on the fundamentals of policy. As a man he was well intentioned, but he too was sold a lemon with respect to his position.

Not long into his appointment, there was a fuel contamination issue with the refineries in Victoria necessitating the grounding of many piston engine aircraft. In an undiluted CASA, the Director who had taken 30+ years to get there would have known how the system works and he would have said, when questioned, what CASA was doing about the fuel contamination issue. He/she would have simply stated that the aviation fuel has been found to be contaminated and the aircraft will not fly until the fuel was safe to be used in aircraft. This would have meant that
affected operators would take legal action against the fuel companies/agencies who were responsible for endangering the flying public.

What happened? Mick Toller went on the airways saying that it was unacceptable that the aircraft were grounded, and that CASA were using their Airworthiness engineers to come up with a solution; they did, CASA, came up with a work around.

This is not a safety regulators lot because now who do the affected sue? A small agency or the Federal government?

It then becomes a simple equation for the lawyers; who has the most money? CASA had now become part of the problem actively involved in finding a solution and as such, how can it be legally considered impartial or that of a disinterested body as an Executive arm of Government?

This scenario put to ‘the People’ seems reasonable for the regulator to be actively involved in finding a solution, instead of assessing whether the solution offered was effective.

The reality is that this is asymptomatic of the entire Executive arm of the Governments in Australia and around the world to a greater or a lesser degree where governments are advised in technical areas by administrative support who have been given the authority over technical personnel. When I was initially employed, the administration worked for the technical staff, but they were too hard for governments to control. They (technical staff) were also easy targets to undermine, as the technical people were out in the field while the administration staff were in the office. It is very hard to defend what you don’t know needs defending. It always was the downside of a genuine public service. This trait was taken by the new lateral entries as akin to twisting the knife into the technical expertise within departments. The Competent took packages and left and the incompetent stayed, which continues within government departments and will always be thus.

To answer the question Dan, CASA is a product of our system of government imploding and the only hope I can see of arresting the decline is for in-coming Governments to slash all contracted personnel and those that have worked for such people for more than 5 years as they unwittingly have been corrupted into the ways of the previous incumbent. Or return the public service to that of the system it was designed for; having the one mantra when assessing change; why was the requirement there in the first place? Have those circumstances changed? If so, what will be the effect on the system?

If for the better, then change it.I’m afraid there’s little hope my son.

[Sandy Reith]

Much to digest in the Examiner of Airman’s explanations of the current woeful state of affairs in the government administration and regulation of aviation. However, and respecting the carefully made points and sincerity of the author, there are areas with which to disagree.

The first is that our government is the people, the Parliament, the judiciary and the regulator. To include the regulator as an equal part of government is arguable. The regulator is a function of, and only exists by virtue of, the Parliament. Following that is the claim that CASA’s role is that of policeman.

Herein lies a fundamental problem, a problem that stems well before the date of 1974, and a problem of mindset that has pervaded our aviation regulation to my certain personal knowledge from the sixties. From a practical standpoint some policing by the regulator is probably going to happen but this should not mean it is desirable, and certainly not be the prime function which is of regulating aviation in the public interest. A much better and universally accepted scheme is in place with regulating road use. Governments make road use laws and Departmental regulations are approved then policed separately by Police forces. This avoids the conflicts of interests that so obviously flow through the many circumstances described in the previous post.

Where one can agree wholeheartedly is the abrogation of Ministerial responsibility, but the more so not so much by appointing from outside as creating a separate corporate entity. The almost complete lack of political input leaves the governance issue lacking the principle that the people’s Representatives should be wielding the power.

[Kharon]

Political thin ice?



I don’t know why, but the post above (cribbed from the UP) troubles me – makes my curiosity bump itch. Tried all the tricks; read it slowly and carefully, put it aside and ignored it, hoping a stray thought would trigger an insight – alas. Just a vague, undefinable itch. Perhaps its just a little too ‘neat’- too neutral, too sincere, inconclusive; dunno. It does however provide one paragraph for constructive thinking:-

“It is very hard to defend what you don’t know needs defending. It always was the downside of a genuine public service. This trait was taken by the new lateral entries as akin to twisting the knife into the technical expertise within departments. The Competent took packages and left and the incompetent stayed, which continues within government departments and will always be thus.”

If ever we do manage to have a serious inquiry into the CASA swamp, a good place to start a witness list would be with those who, for their own conscience and integrity, could not stick it departed the fix – at speed. I know several and the tales told, over an Ale or two beggar the imagination. All sworn to confidentiality/ non disclosure documents; bound as firmly to silence as I am by a handshake.

Should we ever get a minister with a little backbone, integrity and a genuine desire to serve the nation through a serious inquiry into the antics of the CASA, then those bound to silence could speak up. Those stories would shock a nation. The gamble each successive minister takes is relying on the ’non disclosure’ to prevent the truth becoming public knowledge.

The minister needs to decide which egg shell lined road to take – the merry road to humiliation should the truth ever emerge; or, the righteous road to industry well being by cleaning out the rats nest.

Now, ministers can run, but they can’t hide – not forever. Soon or late a government must step up and take the bull by the horns – before it butts an entire government in the arse. Not if ministers, it’s simply a matter of when the last straw is loaded onto the camel’s back.  (See the latest CAO 48 for example).

Consider; the ATSB is due for a fair dinkum hammering; you can bet on that. Do you honestly believe they’ll not be looking to shed some of the pain? MoU ring any bells; shades of MH370 turn on the small light; Pel-Air provide a clue? Is air safety a political bombshell? We all know it is – best not drop it eh?

Toot – toot.

[P7_TOM]

The untold, never ending story.

“K” - Now, ministers can run, but they can’t hide – not forever. Soon or late a government must step up and take the bull by the horns – before it butts an entire government in the arse. Not if ministers, it’s simply a matter of when the last straw is loaded onto the camel’s back.

Not all PAIN research is focused on the ‘now’. It is almost impossible to separate ‘history’ from ‘today’. Rod Lovell’s story, in isolation, may seem to many as a case of CASA behaving as requested and required. Well, it’s not isolated; and, it happens to be one of almost two dozens similar cases where a ‘whispering campaign’ against an individual has been carried out - by CASA officers. No children; it is not some far fetched ‘conspiracy’ theory dreamed up to add fuel; to a slow burning fire.

There is documented evidence of phone calls – even recordings taken from all over the world where a CASA official has offered unsolicited advice against hiring a pilot. There are sworn statements from operators who have been ‘warned off’ hiring a pilot. There is evidence supporting the threat of ‘increased audit’ activity – should So & so be hired. The facts are there alright; the problem is, who will hear the complaints and what will be done about them?


“I'm no rat! In a town this bent, who's there to rat to anyway?”

Being old, I get weary of watching Inquiry and commissions into the behaviour of CASA; which keep missing, by a country mile, the crux of the matter. I wonder when an ‘open’ no holds barred inquiry into what, in reality, CASA actually do to keep the industry scared of its own shadow will happen? Until there is an ‘in camera’ under parliamentary privilege expose, we are simply pissing into the wind attempting ‘reform’. The rot is deep, the stench appalling. Lovell ain’t a ‘one off’ – another victim of the Bankstown kitchen cabinet hit squad.

Carmody knows how it’s done; he knows what gets done, he even knows who does it, and to whom; yet he sits there smiling with the full knowledge that the industry is so terrified, that they will not hire the unshriven – lest they offend.

Buckley a classic example. So, what chance does Buckley have? On the surface, a fighting chance; but, unless the political will to clean out CASA exists, I fear another whitewash inquiry, leading nowhere, with the villains sat giggling in the background. CASA will close ranks, Aleck will spin it, Crawford will speak it, Carmody will defend it and the Senators will huff and puff a bit, while behind the scenes – bastardy, on an industrial scale is being done. Seen it all before, all documented, but in Canberra – well, just another routine day at the office.

[Peetwo]

Speaking of injustices handed down by CASA?? - Bruce Rhoades may he RIP!  

Very sad to hear of the passing of Bruce Rhoades -   

From the many tributes so far on Facebook it is plainly obvious that this gentleman had a profound effect on many young lives, here is a sample...

Derek Evans

Rest in paradise Bruce Rhoades , you've Influenced countless peoples lives for the better , giving people a true taste away from the technology ,and the hustle and bustle of city life with a good ol' taste of nature / the outback and true freedom . I've said it before and ill say it again I cannot thank you enough for the experiences and memories of a lifetime , you took us in when we had run out of money and took care of us , 70 days on that island and a few weeks at your house turned out to be the best part of our 6 month trip and has shaped the way Jacob Deane-Freeman and I have continued to live our lives . We learned you can't live your life in a bubble some times you have to just do crazy shit or you'll never get the most out of life , something you certainly did to the last drop ! Cheers Mate!

---

Jay-D McLean


Rest in peace Bruce Rhoades. You made my life better, more interesting, and certainly more exciting. Thank you for being stubborn enough to make the world a better place.
.
Your entire life story is an inspiration. Perseverance was your way of life, and because of that, every failure was followed by a greater success. You lived more lives than anyone else I know. I can only imagine what an incredible adventure your life was. I'm glad I got to be a part of a couple chapters in such an amazing story.
.
Here's to Bruce, a real man through and through.
.
(I'll raise a cup of my last bit of "Bruce Whiskey" when I get back home from my current work trip)

See BR's FB page for more: https://www.facebook.com/bruce.rhoades.77 

And who can forget Bruce's struggles with CASA to try and clear his name...

Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...83#pid9583


For the life left in me and dare I say many others, we will not let his memory be left tarnished by the likes of the Scottish Git, St Commode and other elements of the CASA Iron Ring - SHMG!...  

RIP Mate!...P2 

[Choppagirl]

Hear hear. Thanks must go to Bruce for his support in dealing with shitty bureaucrats during the most painful time of my life. I lost my soulmate and the father of our young child in the Rossair tragedy and Bruce helped me so much. If you're up there together I hope you're smiling down on us. You both influenced me a lot.

[Peetwo]

Is Boeing MAX doomed in Dunceunda land? 

Given St Commode tried to make as much mileage as he could out of HIS decision to ban the Boeing 737 MAX from flying within Australian airspace...

---

(from 01:40)

---

...I was therefore somewhat amused by the following Guardian article which had this as it's headline: Australia may ban Boeing 737 Max even if US gives it all-clear 

..Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it will make its own call on the 737 Max, which was grounded after two crashes left 346 dead


 The Boeing 737 Max has been grounded since March. Casa says it may still ban the plane even if the US Federal Aviation Administration gives it the all-clear. Photograph: Lindsey Wasson/Reuters

Australia’s air safety regulator may refuse permission for Boeing 737 Max planes to fly even if its US counterpart revokes an order grounding the aircraft, which has crashed twice, leaving 346 people dead...

Quote: “Those views will form part of our thinking when we make a decision,” he said.

Hmm...that'd be code for "we'll string this out for as long as it is bureaucratically possible", after all it is not every day that such a potentially lucrative 'make work' regulatory safety audit/review program comes along -

If I were Virgin I'd seriously contemplate cancelling that order for 48 737 MAX aircraft, as it could be years before we see another MAX in our airspace...

MTF...P2

[Sandy Reith]

Dear P2 with respect regarding “If I were Virgin I'd seriously contemplate cancelling that order for 48 737 MAX aircraft, as it could be years before we see another MAX in our airspace.” ...I doubt very much that Mr. Carmody would be able to stop the Max for more than a short token period. Huff and puff won’t overcome the realities of serious commercial interests and US Australia relationships.
Time will tell in the not too distant future.
Cheers and keep up the great work, everyone will hopefully understand that concerned aviation minded citizens are working voluntarily to inform and influence towards badly needed reforms. Rule by bureaucrats instead of rule by law must not stand, jobs, services, businesses are at stake, but more importantly are our freedoms, fairness and justice for those qualities are universal to all of our living.

P2 comment: With all due respect back at you Sandy, you do know that my statement was very much tongue in cheek and if the patron Saint of Australian Aviation Safety is deluded enough to believe that the lifting of the ban on 737 MAX aircraft flying in Australian airspace is dependent on his blessing...well I've got a cheap bridge that spans the Sydney harbour I can sell him...    

[Peetwo]

Fort Fumble drags out the CROM - 

I guess it was inevitable that the Iron Ring would develop a pushback strategy but did they really need to drag out one of their past 'fall guys' to try schmoo over the potential negative PR fallout from slowly grinding GA into the dust...  

Via the Oz today: Competition, not CASA, is to blame for general demise

---

  
 
CASA is Killing GA. Really?

October 4, 2019 | Peter Cromarty

I have heard on many occasions from different people that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is killing General Aviation (GA) with its new, onerous rules. Really? Is that a valid claim?
 
Back in the day, Cessna and Piper were building thousands of aircraft every year. Cessnas and Pipers rolled off the production lines in their thousands - all nice and shiny and new. Fuel was cheap. The airlines served very few places and for those they did, the fares were exorbitant. Surface transport was non-existent. The heavy end of town formed a much smaller proportion of aviation, so GA was king around the major cities, out in the regional areas and farms. Landing fees at airports were low or non-existent. Aviation was glamorous and people aspired to be pilots. Many (like me) were prepared to dedicate the months of studying, the hours of flying and the thousands of dollars to become pilots. Some would then rent an aircraft when they needed one but there were many who would pay the princely sums to own and operate an aircraft.
 
In those days, if someone wanted to travel from, let’s say, Mackay to Brisbane it would have taken 10 – 12 hours by car. For a day’s work, two nights in Brisbane would be required with two long days of driving.  So, if they were a pilot, they didn’t drive. 
 
This same person could fly a general aviation, single-engine, light aircraft. The driving at each end would be about the same (from home to Mackay airport and Brisbane or Archerfield to destination). Let’s assume an hour to prep the aircraft and file a flight plan, and then 4 to 5 hours flying. The same journey could be done with only one night in Brisbane - Two half-day’s business and home the second day. If you loved GA, you could make the case.
 
Today, the killer blow to GA today is the competition. And the competition is coming from all quarters.
 
Inflation has changed the value of the dollar over the years but, making the comparison in today’s dollars, 8 - 10 hours for the Mackay-Brisbane trip in a light aircraft plus landing fees? Between $2,000 and $3,000. However, the same trip on a Low Cost Carrier (LCC) airline, return, is $110. Furthermore, you’re not flying the aircraft so there’s no fatigue to worry about, they rarely divert due to weather, you can have an alcoholic drink if you want and you can get some work done on the flight. So, if you are serious about your business costs you’re not going to use GA. Competition from LCCs is significant and there’s more competition, literally, coming down the road. Cars.
 
The old Pacific Highway from Sydney to Brisbane was bad. A single-lane road, lots of towns without by-passes, everybody pressing on to overtake into the face of the oncoming traffic. Nightmare.  Now it is largely dual-carriageway – just stick the car in “cruise” and enjoy the journey. Same for Sydney to Melbourne. The cars are safer and more comfortable than they were, with all sorts of entertainment to keep the driver and passengers occupied. The cost from Sydney to Port Macquarie and back would be about $280 in a car. In a light aircraft, you’d be looking at a bill upwards of $1,000. In addition, it could take nearly as long to drive to Bankstown, prep the aircraft, fly to Port Macquarie and get a taxi to destination. You’d have to be an enthusiast to fly because you can’t make the case on cost. And nowadays the aircraft could easily be 40 years old. Factor-in the potential delays from inclement weather and the stress that dodgy weather induces to “press on” to get to the meeting or get home for the kids’ school play. Driving is so much easier and more reliable. Furthermore, pretty soon we won’t even have to drive the car – it’ll drive itself. Cars have become another serious competitor to GA. 
 
In days gone by, there were very few airlines and fewer destinations served. GA took up the slack carrying light freight like cheques and urgent, high-value items. Consider the boom in on-line shopping. How much of that goes by air in a light aircraft? Next to nothing. And who uses cheques now? I received one recently for a refund on my car rego from NSW and I had to go to the bank to ask what to do! 
 
Technology is not just taking over in the financial area – another example is video conference calls – why fly in a light aircraft or even an airliner, for that matter, if you don’t have to? Just sit at your desk and have your meeting on-line.
 
GA is not just about travelling from A to B. Consider surveys of roads, powerlines, pipelines, farm crops and feral animals. Before I left the Civil Aviation Safety Authority over 3 years ago we had already approved operators of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) to conduct “Beyond Visual Line of Sight” surveys of roads, powerlines and feral animals. I don’t know the relative cost of a drone to an aircraft with a human pilot but, for the simpler work within visual line of sight like aerial photos, the drone is orders of magnitude cheaper. It’s inevitable that drones will increasingly take work away from GA.
 
When I was young I would drive out to the local airports just to watch the aircraft. I was not alone – the boundary fence was lined with people. I couldn’t wait to fly - I gained my PPL at age 18 in 1971. I just learned to fly for the fun of it. Where are all the youngsters who just want to fly for the fun and love of it now? Leaning on the fence watching the aircraft? No, they have other things to do with their time. My kids are now mid-thirties and enjoyed coming flying with me. However, they didn’t want to make the investment in time and money to get a licence. They like to play golf occasionally but won’t make the commitment in time and money to join a golf club. They have bungee-jumped, climbed mountains, rafted, mountain-biked, scuba-dived, road cycled, parachute-jumped, skied, jogged and competed in triathlons. So it goes, they like to try things but they don’t want to specialise. And for many others, there are also the attractions of games consoles, computers, tablets and smart phones.
 
Recently, I was told the average age of the members of a local flying club was in excess of 60. What will happen to that club in a few years when all its members have lost their medicals or are dead? What is that club doing to sustain itself? If, by some chance, CASA relaxes its rules, do they really think the people will come flooding back into GA? I don’t. The attitude and culture of younger people has changed.  CASA isn’t killing GA, it’s dying of old age!
 
In addition to all of the above there other challenges being dealt with by GA: cost and availability of Avgas, increasingly old increasingly expensive aircraft and increasing rents for office and hangarage space. Furthermore, the bigger aerodromes and airports are trying to drive out GA because there’s no money in it.
 
If CASA is introducing new regulations, the real question to be answered is, “Are the new regulations necessary?” According to the ATSB (Aviation Occurrence Statistics, 2008 to 2017), the number of departures in 2008 for GA (which does not include Recreational Aviation) was 1,949,000 and in 2016 was 1,920,000 (ATSB numbers exclude medical transport and gliding); a negligible decline. However, according to the ATSB, “flying hours are a more useful measure of exposure for general aviation because of the higher risk of an accident outside of approach and landing and take-off phases of flight.” The hours flown by GA in 2008 were 1,439,000 and in 2016 were 1,301,000 – a decline of 138k over 9 years – say 1% per annum. Hours flown in some categories has declined significantly such as flying training, private/business and sport activity, whereas aerial work has increased. 
 
The ATSB’s figures show the total accident rate, per hours flown, for GA operations are nine times as likely to have an accident compared to commercial air transport operations. Incidentally, Recreational Aviation operations are twice as likely to have an accident as GA.

When it comes to fatalities, the ATSB states, “The fatal accident rate, per hours flown, indicates general aviation operations are around fifteen times more likely to experience a fatal accident than commercial air transport operations.” Again, Recreational Aviation is double GA. 
 
How many people were killed in GA in this same 9-year period?  206. In risk terms, does the general public tolerate this rate of fatalities? Yes. I make this statement on the basis that the media is not full of cries for CASA to do more. Or even, anything! 23 people being killed in GA every year is tolerable to the Australian general public. For comparison, there were 380 people killed on the roads in NSW in 2016 (Transport for NSW, Centre for Road Safety).  Yes, that was 380 people, in one year, in one state.
 
In answer to the question, “Are the new regulations necessary?” In risk terms and tolerability to most of Australian society, probably not. However, it should come as no surprise to anybody that the Civil Aviation Act requires CASA, “…to promote the development and improvement of the system.” So, if you were CASA and you saw that the accident rate for GA was nine times that of commercial air transport and the fatality rate was fifteen times that of commercial air transport and you were required to make improvements to the system, where would you be looking?
 
If you agree that GA declining by 1% per annum is GA being killed, then, what is doing the killing? I think CASA gets the blame because CASA is just a soft target. It’s easier to blame CASA than it is to do what may be necessary to help GA survive and thrive, which, I accept, may be very hard indeed in the current climate. 
 
CASA may be a contributory factor in the gradual demise of GA but GA must look to the changing world around it for the main reasons people no longer choose to fly in light aircraft. The leaders in GA must stop wishing for the good old days to return and hoping that things will change if they complain bitterly enough. If they want GA to thrive they must work even harder to encourage a new generation of potential pilots to come in through the door.
 
The aviation environment has changed enormously since the 1960s and 70s and, I’m afraid, it will get increasingly difficult for GA. Concepts and technology already in use such as video-calling, drones and ride-sharing will proliferate further and technology not yet considered will arrive to make life even harder for GA. Taking a pop at soft targets like CASA won’t change things for GA – the challenges already here and those coming quickly round the corner are inexorable. Competition from a wide variety of sources will either drive GA to improve and thrive or will kill it.  
 
Peter Cromarty is a former air traffic controller and pilot. He spent 27 years as a safety regulator of ATM/CNS, airspace and aerodromes.
 

---

Hmm...incoming?? - MTF...P2 

Ps Here's a reminder on just who Peter Cromarty is/was (view from about 03:45):

 

Of course the irony of that video segment is that it was nearly 2 years to the day before the Essendon DFO accident...

Yet there the Essendon DFO (still) sits...  

 

Ref: Airports - Buy two, get one free.

Pps Sandy in reply to the CROM...

..A Canberra perspective, divorced from market realities. Mr. Cromarty’s opinions of the past costings aren’t relevant now. He says CASA is not the problem but, “CASA may be a contributory factor in the gradual demise...” of General Aviation (GA), but fails to say how or why. 


Started my commercial GA flying in 1968 providing flying training, charter and scheduled services from my own airport in my own aircraft (Cessnas, Piper & Beechcraft up to 9 seats) as Chief Pilot, Chief Flying Instructor and Mainteance Controller, and now fly privately.  

Definitely the fact that the CASA’s appalling regulatory regime, huge fees for all sorts of unnecessary permissions and totally misguided philosophy of extreme control is easily the main cause for the steep, not gradual, decline in Australia’s General Aviation industry. 

CASA, an independent Commonwealth corporate was created in 1988, thus putting the Minister at arm’s length, and de-coupled CASA’s salary structure from the regular Public Service scales. No prizes for guessing what’s caused the make work shambles we’ve had ever since. Wrong governance model is the fact.  

1988, the Minister instructed CASA to rewrite the rules, turns out that they aren’t capable;  31 years later still not finished. The rules have caused the loss of hundreds of flying schools and charter operators. Wonder why hardly any aero clubs have instructors? I have a CASA letter from ‘89 (framed); it says it will simplify, streamline and be mindful of costs. The rules are now thousands of pages and have been inappropriately migrated into the criminal code with strict liability for ease of prosecution. 

Safety is suffering because inadvertent incidents go unreported. A possible criminal record (for some matters not even considered relevant in the USA) may prevent travel O/S and harm job prospects. A myriad other CASA induced woes, eg, the GA fleet decimated by an unreasonable and ferocious approach to maintenance causing huge losses to owners. 

[Sandy Reith]

Furthermore;
The arguments from Mr. Cromarty about young people not being interested, or have so many different opportunities, might have some merit if the population of Australia was stagnant from, say, 1975. Truth is if one puts the activity of General Aviation (GA) against the population increase then Mr. Cromarty’s statistics and estimates are seriously understated. Around 1975 our population was approximately 14 million, now 25 million. Its reasonable to expect that a transport activity that gives great advantage to flying for our long distances would at least grow in some proportion to that population growth.

The argument that car travel is so improved beggars the truth, vehicle trip times, regional or intercity, have barely changed and arguably slower due to speed limits. In days gone past, certainly in Victoria there were no speed limits, and far less traffic, owner onus applied over 50mph, and a drive to Sydney could be accomplished in as little as 8 hr.

In regard to private aircraft trip cost and lower airline fares, one can agree to a limited extent. A very limited extent because airlines only service a tiny proportion of places that one can access by private or charter aircraft, and invariably and inevitably, go out and back from a limited number of hubs. Not to mention the inflexibility of schedules.

In regard to costs in 1966 one hour with instructor cost about $14 or 1/4 of the average wage (c.$60/week). Therefore your one hour training today is about the same proportion of wages. Unfortunately for Mr. Cromarty’s cost arguments it is well understood in our flying schools, and from my knowledge, that the extraordinary additional new Part 61 imposts, on top of already massive and unproductive paperwork, do generate a lot of unnecessary work which must be passed on to students. They don’t have anything like these costs in the USA and so their costs are much lower, and why one can learn in the US for a lot less money in spite of our pathetic exchange rate, travel and accommodation expenses.

Is Mr. Cromarty aware that in the US there is no extra Certificate, permit or Air Operators Certificate to be negotiated in order for any Instructor to teach flying? There are no instructor gradings. The US instructor needs an AIM book $15.99. There is no mandated syllabus, but there is a standard to be passed. Their safety record is equal or better than that produced by our hidebound and excruciatingly complex training regime. An applicant for an Australian flying school permit might be out of pocket $50,000 or $100,000, have to nominate different administrative personnel and senior instructor for an approval, negotiate over months or years and never be certain of the outcome.

Do people understand that an Australian instructor must hand write lesson notes and have the student sign them after each lesson? If not carried out probably a criminal offence of strict liability. No computer typed notes allowed, we’re being driven back to quills and ink wells.

As for self driving cars which are not yet in any way the norm, self flying aircraft could, or will be, just as practical, and probably safer. In any case flying has speed, and if anything matters most to people of any age its the time factor. Roads are very expensive to build and maintain, one km of runway accesses a super highway to anywhere on the Continent.

Insofar as the so called legacy fleet of GA is concerned our maintainers are expert at refurbishing and well maintained aircraft are virtually just as safe, reliable and efficient as they were when brand new, in many cases more so. Engines and avionics being more reliable and after market aerodynamic improvements are quite common. Unfortunately the unwarranted and ferocious regulatory attack by CASA on the fleet, example Cessna SIDs, has resulted in $millions in lost hull value, untold $millions in excessive maintenance, numerous unused aircraft deteriorating from lack of use and significant numbers being exported back to the USA. Well done CASA.

With proper regulation and administration, road law and administration as a good practical example of governance, GA could grow, providing jobs and services, and could once again supply sufficient home grown pilots for our airlines.

[P7_TOM]

QoM candidate:-

"Mr Cromarty, you have no idea what is killing GA.

The joys of a 15yo hangar rat, washing planes, helping the LAMEs in the hangar, washing more planes in kind for training hours, bumming rides on positioning flights, hanging around the tarmac airside for literally hours waiting for return flight, getting invited up to the tower for no other reason than being there, bumming flights in B200s on cargo flights and paper runs, before that those same pilots at a younger age doing the same thing themselves, re-fuelling, taxiing aircraft back to the hangar from the flight line.

Mate, I’ve got the logbook to prove it; over a hundred different aircraft and more than thirty models of everything out of the US....all this is now FORBIDDEN by the fun police.

There is way more, like banner towing launches, skud running at zot feet to avoid weather to get the job done without risking life and limb, how to make a plan on the back of a cigi packet and try and learn mental arithmetic tricks...all this made me a better pilot before I even applied for my licence. Soloed in under 7hrs gliders in less than 5, dollars and fractured AC joint stopped me more than anything.- that and the advent of the sausage factory in Cessnock...Everything that was fun and free now has a reg specifically to stop it. That is what killed GA...Forgive me if I’m out of line but shithot, I had a bloody fun childhood...that’s why there are no kids on the fence anymore."

[Peetwo]

St Commode strikes a low blow on CASA critics - 

Via the Oz:

---

CASA CEO reveals karma catches up with pilots who bag regulator

ROBYN IRONSIDE 
Follow @ironsider

•  NOVEMBER 1, 2019
  

In a rare outburst, Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief Shane Carmody has hit back at critics of the regulator who claim CASA is trying to destroy general aviation in Australia.

Addressing this week’s ­Regional Aviation Association of Australia conference on the Gold Coast, Mr Carmody outlined the progress CASA was making in several areas, including drones and a reduction in paperwork.

He also tackled head-on ­issues that had put CASA in the headlines, such as community service flights, the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max and much more briefly, the G8 Airvan after fatal crashes.

Mr Carmody said as a regulator, criticism went with the territory.

However, he rejected any suggestion CASA’s actions were more of a hindrance than a help to the aviation industry.

He said any suggestion CASA was trying to kill off, shut down or destroy general aviation was “ridiculous and patently untrue”.

“Some of my own research is starting to indicate to me that … those who work hardest at pushing back against the regulator are often the same ones who end up having serious accidents or incidents in flight,” Mr Carmody told the conference of airline and airport operators, and others in regional aviation.

“We have had pilots who were constantly trying to get around the rules to suit themselves.

“They criticise CASA (and others) at every turn and they end up killing themselves and others.” Although he refrained from naming names, Mr Carmody said there were several tragic examples in the last two years involving pilots with “a history of poor judgment and a history of ignoring regulation or skirting around it”.

“My colleagues in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau won’t and can’t call out pilot error; it’s not their role,” he pointed out. “But that restriction doesn’t bind me. My real point is that attitude is important.”

RAAA CEO Mike Higgins said Mr Carmody’s comments were very well received by conference delegates.

Next year will mark 25 years since CASA was established as a result of the Seaview and Monarch crashes in 1994 and 1993 which killed a total of 16 people.

---

Hmm...what a bizarre comment for a supposedly seasoned senior bureaucrat to make...

I think someone needs to up his meds...

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A brave defence to a captive audience.

Nicely spun half truths, neatly stepping around the turds on the footpath. Preaching to the converted is easy.

Drones – Yeah, well that is a world wide problem. No doubt CASA will adopt a real regulators approach, ‘modify’ it and claim it as all their own work.

Paper work reduction – you need a thick skin to tout that line – simply compare the pile Part 61 produces; it is almost bigger than the entire FAA manual. A tick-a-box easy audit which has not improved the quality of training. 

“Mr Carmody said there were several tragic examples in the last two years involving pilots with “a history of poor judgment and a history of ignoring regulation or skirting around it”.

This is, unfortunately, true of a small minority. On the roads, in the home, on the streets, on a work site, - there has always been an element which defy ‘the rules’. Aviation is no different, except in one way – in nearly every other area it is possible to mount a defence. Strict liability removes that option.

Any fool in the market place will tell you what the ATSB is in fairly colourful language; but I’ll keep it simple – a discredited laughing stock about sums up general opinion.

St Commode feels he is ‘not bound’ – furry muff. Call pilot error and then prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, in court. The very word ‘error’ is a lawyers pick-nick. Intent is another – but then why bother with court and all that ‘justice’ and rule of law stuff, when strict liability can be written into complex, one way law? Breath taking audacity in a democracy?

I doubt St Commode would know the truth if it jumped up and bit his plush, polished arse. Time for a serious inquiry into the ethos and antics of ATSB/CASA. If there’s nothing to hide; why not? CASA could open it’s books, let the nation see what a truly excellent job they do and shame the critics. Unlikely, is a safe bet.

Aye, there’s nothing like a good, old fashioned tent revival, tambourines supplied with ‘Cue cards’ and applause signs. Stellar – just duckling Stellar.

SMF.

[Peetwo]

St Commode strikes a low blow on CASA critics - 

Via the Oz:

---

CASA CEO reveals karma catches up with pilots who bag regulator

ROBYN IRONSIDE 
Follow @ironsider

•  NOVEMBER 1, 2019
  

In a rare outburst, Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief Shane Carmody has hit back at critics of the regulator who claim CASA is trying to destroy general aviation in Australia.

Addressing this week’s ­Regional Aviation Association of Australia conference on the Gold Coast, Mr Carmody outlined the progress CASA was making in several areas, including drones and a reduction in paperwork.

He also tackled head-on ­issues that had put CASA in the headlines, such as community service flights, the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max and much more briefly, the G8 Airvan after fatal crashes.

Mr Carmody said as a regulator, criticism went with the territory.

However, he rejected any suggestion CASA’s actions were more of a hindrance than a help to the aviation industry.

He said any suggestion CASA was trying to kill off, shut down or destroy general aviation was “ridiculous and patently untrue”.

“Some of my own research is starting to indicate to me that … those who work hardest at pushing back against the regulator are often the same ones who end up having serious accidents or incidents in flight,” Mr Carmody told the conference of airline and airport operators, and others in regional aviation.

“We have had pilots who were constantly trying to get around the rules to suit themselves.

“They criticise CASA (and others) at every turn and they end up killing themselves and others.” Although he refrained from naming names, Mr Carmody said there were several tragic examples in the last two years involving pilots with “a history of poor judgment and a history of ignoring regulation or skirting around it”.

“My colleagues in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau won’t and can’t call out pilot error; it’s not their role,” he pointed out. “But that restriction doesn’t bind me. My real point is that attitude is important.”

RAAA CEO Mike Higgins said Mr Carmody’s comments were very well received by conference delegates.

Next year will mark 25 years since CASA was established as a result of the Seaview and Monarch crashes in 1994 and 1993 which killed a total of 16 people.

---

Hmm...what a bizarre comment for a supposedly seasoned senior bureaucrat to make...

I think someone needs to up his meds...

MTF...P2 

A brave defence to a captive audience.

Nicely spun half truths, neatly stepping around the turds on the footpath. Preaching to the converted is easy.

Drones – Yeah, well that is a world wide problem. No doubt CASA will adopt a real regulators approach, ‘modify’ it and claim it as all their own work.

Paper work reduction – you need a thick skin to tout that line – simply compare the pile Part 61 produces; it is almost bigger than the entire FAA manual. A tick-a-box easy audit which has not improved the quality of training. 

“Mr Carmody said there were several tragic examples in the last two years involving pilots with “a history of poor judgment and a history of ignoring regulation or skirting around it”.

This is, unfortunately, true of a small minority. On the roads, in the home, on the streets, on a work site, - there has always been an element which defy ‘the rules’. Aviation is no different, except in one way – in nearly every other area it is possible to mount a defence. Strict liability removes that option.

Any fool in the market place will tell you what the ATSB is in fairly colourful language; but I’ll keep it simple – a discredited laughing stock about sums up general opinion.

St Commode feels he is ‘not bound’ – furry muff. Call pilot error and then prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, in court. The very word ‘error’ is a lawyers pick-nick. Intent is another – but then why bother with court and all that ‘justice’ and rule of law stuff, when strict liability can be written into complex, one way law? Breath taking audacity in a democracy?

I doubt St Commode would know the truth if it jumped up and bit his plush, polished arse. Time for a serious inquiry into the ethos and antics of ATSB/CASA. If there’s nothing to hide; why not? CASA could open it’s books, let the nation see what a truly excellent job they do and shame the critics. Unlikely, is a safe bet.

Aye, there’s nothing like a good, old fashioned tent revival, tambourines supplied with ‘Cue cards’ and applause signs. Stellar – just duckling Stellar.

SMF.

Addendum: The Leopard and his spots??

Reference: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...0#pid10750

Bob Fulton Or a joke on the aviation community? Which part of that amendment forces CASA to do anything?

Glen Buckley tried to implement some common sense initiative and innovation to collectively establish, improve and monitor training standards and look what he got for his effort! It is not that the Leopard won't change his spots, but like CASA, the leopard CAN'T can't change it's spots.

Last month was the 31st anniversary of the commencement of the regulatory re-write at an unknown cost way north of $500 million and all we have is a truck load of ambiguous, micro management regulations that will one day cost another $500 million to resolve, condense and sensibly re-write or face Australia totally losing it's general aviation sector. New Zealand and Canada took five years to re-write their regulations ..... 31 years so far for Australia and the job still isn't done!

This the calibre of those involved regulating our industry and re-writing the regulations:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005 - over 14 years ago!

Mr Byron—"I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister."

Fortunately Australia has a history of departmental change or "rebirth".

1921 - 1938: Civil Aviation Branch (Dept of Defence)
1938 - 1973: Dept of Civil Aviation
1973 - ????: Dept of Transport, Air Transport Group
???? - 1995: Civil Aviation Authority
1995 - ????: Civil Aviation safety Authority

CASA can't be made to work, it has passed its 'Use By Date'. We can only hope one day a politician of sense, understanding and responsibility calls Time Out and creates a new, workable Civil Aviation Act and creates a more responsive and responsible Department of Civil Aviation.

---

Sandy Reith Bob Fulton is totally correct in his analysis of this token piece of legislation, a useless amendment to the Civil Aviation Act. A complete waste of time by the Parliament. Only Senators Susan McDonald and Rex Patrick have an understanding of the huge and ongoing disaster that is the sorry plight of General Aviation in Australia. $billions of good economic value, jobs, businesses and services all forgone for no good reason.

Safety? What a dumb joke. Safety the primary consideration? Well fine, stop flying altogether, drive your cars instead. Safety is a by-product of a healthy industry, not by the invention of complex rules and massive fees for unnecessary permissions. The waste incurred by the inappropriate forcing of Cessna special inspections resulting in the unnecessary destruction of capital value of aircraft that we can ill afford given the sorry state of our weak dollar. The CASA induced collapse of flying training has resulted in our airlines having to look overseas for pilots. Where we had many locally trained and experienced commercial pilots who graduated from charter flying and experienced all the rigours of single pilot operations in our great continent, now more likely the simulator trained pilot. Where’s the safety in that? Its well known that pilots that fly regularly are safer, if they can’t afford to fly because of the numerous government hurdles, including the very costly Aviation Security Identity Card, then this primary safety issue suffers. The whole CASA induced fear of retribution psychology towards flying is completely wrong and thoroughly counterproductive to safety. By migrating the rules into the criminal code (strict liability) no one will admit to any transgression. Even many minor such matters, and some that don’t even get a mention in the US, can land you with a criminal conviction. Try traveling or getting a job with that thrown around your neck.

Where’s the safety in that?

Pushing out hundreds of experienced instructors, where’s the safety in that? Causing outback folk to drive hundreds of miles on rough roads, where’s the safety in that?

High time for truth to be told and for politicians and regulators to stop hiding behind the pathetic mantra of “safety.”

And for the final word I refer to Anderson...

---

Reference: https://auntypru.com/letter-from-anderson/

Anderson • 4 years ago

CASA serves only the interests of CASA.

First and foremost – self-perpetuation.

Closely followed by reaching its claws into the pocket of every GA participant to extract the maximum bounty to fund said self-perpetuation.

It long ago became an unwieldy beast that shed even any sort of pretence it might actually serve the aviation community that funds it through the regular extortionate gouging, both direct and indirect.

CASA certainly does “make no apologies” – never has, never will (if past behaviour is any guide)…

Why then does it expect anyone with a brain and even the slightest modicum of historical fact into aviation in Australia to believe anything the self declared non-apologist has to say on any topic?

It has been proven time and time again to be untrustworthy on almost every level (secret collusion to influence ATSB investigations and doctor accident reports – anyone, anyone…?).

An organisation that simply lacks credibility within the real aviation community (ie, not the segment that benefits from the largesse, corporate favours and behind the scenes political shenanigans) cannot be taken at face value.

Bureaucratic regulation for all is the panacea for everything.

By now it is clear the regulatory behemoth seeks to destroy GA and everything associated with it, to not only bite the hand that feeds it but to chomp, mangle and swallow to the GA armpit and beyond.

Whatever any new purported “safety measures” might be from CASA for the community service flight sector, it will be a rocky transition to yet more rules that will do nothing to protect anyone.

The only new protection needed is for the selfless humanitarians in the community service flight sector (and GA generally) from the CASA bureaucrats.

The “safety measures” will come with some new fee or charge associated – nominal at first of course so as not to create too much resistance – and given some fashionable newspeak name to allay any unease, which will of course be simultaneously denounced as “misplaced concerns” when the CASA PR machine swings into action.

We all know by now where “nominal” fees end up down the track – the next CASA cash cow.

Remember this all well folks, for what will be sold out of both sides of the CASA mouth in the months and years ahead will be nothing but a wolf in the guise of a sheep. Harmless at first, only to reveal a savage bite when it’s far too late to fully comprehend what really occurred.

Given the behaviour of CASA over the past years, one really does need to wonder whether they are a completely delusional bunch (given the continued expectation we will blindly accept anything they broadcast), but more importantly whether there is indeed a hidden agenda to completely rout GA – to destroy it so completely that nothing remains but empty crown land, devoid of the now GA aerodromes and ripe for redevelopment – which will all be a sheer coincidence of course.

This latest little trojan horse from CASA is undoubtedly but the next distraction to interfere where none is needed and to spew forth but more needless regulation. This time it will be aimed squarely at those who provide a tremendous service and benefit to the community.

A type of actual service that CASA would not recognise if it were placed directly in front of its bloated waistline.

---

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

But, there’s a serious side to this flight folks.

I can’t remember ever laughing so hard, for so long - headache to prove it this AM. The BRB regulars really outdid themselves. We had a rendition (by the Author) of the ode to Odious Commode; a monologue, from a ‘Saint’ (football Guernsey) which was a ‘brilliant’ imitation of St Commode preaching to the converted. So it went on – I hadn’t the heart to call ‘em to order – as if I could. Shame the man himself missed it; but there was little in the imitations even vaguely resembling flattery; Ayup, such is the price of infamy.

I gave up all hope of a ‘serious’ discussion and asked my question through the ‘loops’. Simple enough thing “was the Carmody recital a thinly veiled threat?”

100% response – in the affirmative.

How many DAS, under the pump, have made similar threats and backed ‘em up? IMO if the collective industry stood up, about now, and shouted BOO! the ministerial halfwit would wet his boxers. The multiple problems, of course would not go away. Only the village idiot would think that the industry will fall for the same trick a fourth time. A new DAS then the year long wait for any sign of movement – and so we continue with the insanity of doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Teamwork and harmony (not horemony) is a proven winner; the results plain to see.

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry news - 

Ironsider catching up, via the Oz:

Red tape’s impact on air safety queried



An inquiry will examine whether red tape imposed on Australia’s general aviation industry has led to improved safety.

Queensland LNP senator Susan McDonald has ordered the inquiry as chair of the Senate standing committee for rural and regional affairs and transport, after observing fewer aircraft operating in the outback. “I have lived in regional Queensland for much of my life and it’s been my observation over the last 40-odd years that with the cost of aviation and the regulation of aviation the outcome has been ... fewer planes both on the strips and in the air,” she said.

“The best way to really get to the bottom of whether or not that’s true and what the challenges might be I thought would be to have an inquiry.”

The committee was now seeking submissions, with public hearings to be held. A final report was expected by November 2021, allowing for a thorough examination of the regulation of “helicopters, drones, charters and more broadly general aviation”.

“It’s very important to me that we as Australians live in an environment where regulation is outcomes-based as opposed to the number of pages-based,” said Senator McDonald.

“We should be able to quite easily measure whether the industry has had a safer outcome since the introduction of additional regulation, or if we’ve just had more costs imposed on the industry.”

Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive Shane Carmody said the regulator was committed to participating in “yet another high-level review of our activities, administration and governance”.

Over the past 20 years, CASA had participated in more than 10 major inquiries or reviews involving aviation safety and regulation.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association executive director Ben Morgan said it was disappointing that the general aviation industry had deteriorated to the point where an inquiry was needed.

 

St Commode: ...said the regulator was committed to participating in “yet another high-level review of our activities, administration and governance”. 

Code for..."we'll wait out yet another tiresome, irrelevant parliamentary inquiry before getting back to business as usual with ensuring the never ending supply of coffers to the mystique of aviation safety trough is perpetually maintained..."

Once again we get to see the sheer bloody arrogance and contempt that self-anointed patron Saint of aviation safety has for any potential threats to the gold plated,  taxpayer and industry funded, Iron Ring trough. Regardless of the self-assured confidence of the runt of the Carmody public service dynasty he does currently carry the can for the current iteration of the big R-regulator. Therefore it would seem to me that if the good Senators are to have any hope in hell in breaching the Iron Ring of aviation safety, they need to bring into full focus and review the entire history, performance and contribution of St Commode in the advancement of Australia's aviation safety system/ICAO Annex 19 SSP ever since he first set foot inside the halls of Aviation House. 

To kick it off here is some handy AP references, starting with the entire St Commode thread: The Carmody Hour.

And more recently: 

#SBG 18 August 2019: Belling the Cat??



#SBG 3/11/19: An Ode, to an Odious Commode.

 

St Commode strikes a low blow on CASA critics??



And who could forget...

Plus: 





Hmm...and I'm just getting warmed up - 

[Peetwo]

Friday Arvo Fax.

There are some equally ‘silly’ reports on the RA Oz reporting card, but the one which jumps off the pages is this one:- HERE -. I asked P7 to give it a gentle ( five minute) once over – just to make sure that once the laughter stopped, there were indeed not only several very serious breaches of basic common sense ‘flight safety’ and a certain disregard for the rules which govern both. The whole thing was fraught with peril from before even the engine was started. The manner in which the final approach to landing was conducted is not only reckless, but a danger to any other aircraft operating within the aerodrome precincts and the very airport infrastructure.

There are many parallels to be drawn between this episode and the Angel Flight fatal at Mt. Gambier. The most obvious being deliberately persisting into non VFR conditions, then continuing an approach in less than prescribed minimum visibility conditions. One led to a fatal accident, the other just got lucky.

CASA brought the boom down on AF after Mt. Gambier and yet the RA Oz crew have been allowed to present a ‘signed confession’ of dangerous operational practice and neither St. Commode nor his henchmen have raised an eyebrow, ATSB have simply filed the thing in the ignore bin.

The report provided speaks of some piss poor training – across the spectrum. Glen Buckley gets a severe hammering while the idiot posing as minister sings the praises of SOAR and their wonderful CASA sanctioned training systems.

St. Commode said this:

If; as he claims, all the gods bestowed the right to be responsible for “keeping Australians safe” does this refer to only a select group or to all? Seems to me it is time CASA accepted that responsibility and took a very close look at the incident cited in relation to rules being broken, poor airmanship through training and the possibility of a mid air; or, collision with an aircraft on the duty runway or even a CFIT. Alternatively, have CASA questioned RA Oz in relation to this matter and shown them some of their famous ‘tuff-luv’?  Told ‘em to straighten it out – or else. Did ATSB run some statistics? 31 'incidents' reported by RA Oz since Dec 2019 (6 weeks worth). Time someone paid attention I’d say…..

Nah to all of the above. Why no?. Why has the patron Saint of aviation safety not swooped in, cleaned up the mess, drafted some new onerous, restrictive rules to make RA Oz a compliant citizen of the land where St. Commode rules as the supreme doyen of aviation safety? Because it’s not his responsibility is it. Course its not, that has been ‘delegated’.

It’s not only a farce, an insult and a cop out, it betrays the very standards CASA have set but fail to enforce. Stall and spin training is now being diluted because many of the ‘cost effective’ - ‘bar-code’ aircraft ain’t tested and not certified as fit for task. What a brilliant start to a professional career that makes.

Sooner or later, the RA Oz system needs to be discussed. In principal it is a fine idea for
‘Recreational pilots’.  Personally, I have no quarrel with it, in it’s rightful place. Seems to me to be a really good thing for many folk; those who just love to fly, recreationally potter about, tour the country side: those on the land who use an aircraft in much the same way as a ute. It is a blessing for those who can safely drive a vehicle but just fall short on CASA medical standards. The benefits are many, the ‘risks’ when sensibly addressed acceptable and the restrictions placed not too draconian at all – considering.

But – (there’s always a but) as a pathway to a Commercial pilot licence and higher? In theory there is a cost saving. In reality the savings are marginal, when you do the numbers – for real. Then, there is the ‘quality’ question. I know many of the RA instructors hold a CASA IR; but many do not. No doubt these are well intentioned and properly mentored by the CASA approved senior crew; but I wonder; if there is a ‘gap’?

It is a truism, that one may teach Granny to ‘fly’ a simple aircraft in a very short period of time – up, down, left, right - try not to hit anything. Does this create a sound basis for progression to the jet command most of those (in debt) ‘training’ aspire to? It is a fair question for open, friendly discussion. BRB opinion to follow…I raise the issue because (IMO) the ‘basic’ training a pilot receives is very, very important. Essentially, that period is of very short duration – the time it takes between first lesson and first solo is the only time a pilot is actually ‘taught’ to ‘fly’ an airframe. After that it becomes a matter of further education, the basics the platform on which advanced training, ‘experience’ and operational knowledge is built. If the foundations are flawed, sooner or later the cracks will begin to appear

With the crew involved in the incident cited (above); the cracks seem o have appeared at a very early stage. Is this a good enough platform from which to build an airline career? The minister seems to think so – but then…………..

Anyway, I ramble. The whole thing is going to a full house (IOS and BRB) - - session (no darts). The agenda is far reaching, beginning from the blatant CASA misrepresentation of a 1999 ministerial directive to the current day legislative mess. Should be interesting –

Toot – toot.

 ....wonder if this would be a good time to bring up the following to our Patron Saint of Aviation Safety...  

Via the other Aunty:

UK exchange student who survived crash that killed backpacker sues Civil Aviation Safety Authority for millions in damages

Exclusive by Kate McKenna

Updated about an hour ago



A UK student who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a light plane crash that killed another passenger has launched a multi-million-dollar negligence lawsuit against Australia's civil aviation watchdog...

And possibly this?? 

---

https://auntypru.com/nevermore/



Nevermore….. – AP Forum version.

[b]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph…04#pid9804 & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph…66#pid9766[/b]

---

Or maybe even this blast from the past -  :

Ref pg 5 here: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...dacted.pdf

3.The behaviour of senior CASA officers in the RRAT Senate Estimates hearings.

• The evidence around this issue is all contained the Hansard transcripts of the RRAT Estimates Committee hearing, including those of this year. As member of the committee, I feel you would already have access and knowledge here.
• The transcripts clearly demonstrate the belligerence and evasiveness of the CASA officers who appear. It is a disgrace that senior public servants cannot give straight and simple answers to questions about the field in which they are supposed to be experts. I believe it is a glaring example of the quality of these people.
• Specifically, Mr Shane Carmody has been questioned about CASA’s role in the LHR Inquest, and from
my research, has demonstrated a misleading of the Estimates Committee. In the hearing of 19 February
2008, Mr Carmody is asked about a number of aspects about CASA :
1. That there was an explicit instruction from CASA for a sustained attack on the ATSB report.
Denied by Mr Carmody but referred to by Coroner Barnes in his findings
2. Mr Carmody says that at the end of the day, CASA’s view was the same as the Coroner. There
is no evidence of that!
3. Mr Carmody avers that CASA put forward a view that scenario b was the likely cause of the
accident and that was also what the Coroner said. NO HE DID NOT! (Ref: Coroners findings
ps53/54.

I have several more examples and references related to Mr Carmody’s statements.

MTF? - Yes, MUCH!...

Ps A very curious point of interest? This is the link for Shane Urquhart's 2014 submission to the ASRR:

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...dacted.pdf

You will note that document has been redacted?

However if you refer to SU's original submission to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA you will see that there was no redactions? https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/s...a_pdf.ashx

     

[P7_TOM]

OK, I’ll play.

P2 – “PS.  A very curious point of interest? This is the link for Shane Urquhart's 2014 submission to the ASRR:  You will note that document has been redacted?

P2 – “However if you refer to SU's original submission to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA you will see that there was no redactions?

Took about five minutes to cull the ‘redacted’ parts – and I’m left wondering why anyone would bother to ‘redact’ parts of the original in one version and leave ‘em in plain text in the other, original version. Why?

2. The appointment of long term CASA defender Ian Harvey as Counsel Assisting the Coroner. Despite Mr Harvey’s knowledge of the industry, his association with CASA constituted a gross conflict of interest. (ref: Letter from Gilshenan and Luton , Solicitors and on our behalf, to Coroner Barnes.) It was rejected out-of-hand. I would be very keen to know exactly, the circumstances surrounding Harvey’s appointment and what role CASA may have had.

5. - It is noteworthy that Mr Ian Harvey represented CASA in this instance.

8. Rob Collins issues.
• Mr Rob Collins is an ex-CASA senior officer who has a shadowy pall cast over him..My issues here are presented as questions.. What is the historical relationship between Mr Ian Harvey and Mr Collins, and between Mr Collins and Mr Les Wright. Under oath Mr Wright denied knowing Mr Collins very well. What were the circumstances surrounding Mr Collin’s appointment as a CASA consultant for the Inquest. What were the circumstances surrounding Mr Collins very quiet return to CASA as Industry Complaints commissioner only to leave after two or three days in the position.

13 - FOI Max McCrae when asked by Mr Harvey about what he understood had happened in the case of LHR. He replied: “A guy flew a plane into a hill didn’t he?”

Apart from the universally acknowledged notion that there were some very questionable facets to the Lockhart River inquiry; and that both Collins and Harvey have been on the ‘watch’ list ever since – so what? The whole crew associated with Lockhart could give you change for a nine dollar note in ‘three’s’. There were three of ‘em involved – Collins, Telling and Wright – everyone knows it – but; the powers that be won the day and there is nothing to be gained by barking or redaction. The redaction only raises 'suspicion' levels - nothing to hide? Why bother?

Past ancestry, present value and future worth – all measured and weighed by Karma. Tick Tock.

The solution may just be hidden in the ‘timing’ – depends on what was surrounding the issues. That rests firmly in the P2 ‘in-basket’.

Handing over.

[Peetwo]

Sandy on St Commode's bollocks missive - 

Reference Mick Mack's thread:

Part II: It gets worse - 

Chair: "...The exemptions in the present instrument were initially introduced by CASA EX120/17, which commenced on 10 October 2017. In November 2017, the committee raised concerns that CASA EX120/17 had been used to make 'improvements' to the CASR, rather than directly amending those regulations. The committee sought the minister's advice as to why that approach was taken, and whether the government proposed to amend the CASR to address the matters covered by CASA EX120/17.2 In response, the (then) Minister for Infrastructure and Transport advised that CASA would amend the CASR to address the
matters covered by CASA EX120/17, with amending regulations to be made in 2019...."

The 'then' Minister was Chester - JUST by about two weeks before Barnaby briefly took over for 68 days. The Chair at the time was John 'Wacka' Williams, who was also an 'active' participating member of the Senate RRAT committee. Conveniently Wacka has also departed the fix, retiring from the Senate prior to the last election.

So continuing to follow the trail, I referred to the '2017 Delegated Legislation Monitor' webpage, where I firstly discovered the following for the 15 November 2017: (ref: Ch1 pg 5)

Matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment: exemptions

Scrutiny principle 23(3)(d) of the committee's terms of reference requires the committee to consider whether an instrument contains matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment (that is, matters that should be enacted via principal rather than delegated legislation). This may include instruments that grant or extend exemptions from compliance with principal or enabling legislation.

The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) require applicants for helicopter aerial application ratings and endorsements to have at least 15 hours of dual flight in a helicopter while receiving training in aerial application operations, and at least 10 hours direct supervision within the first 110 hours of aerial application operations.

CASA EX120/17 exempts an applicant from these requirements, subject to the applicant having at least 10 hours of dual flight in a helicopter while receiving training, and 20 hours direct supervision within the first 110 hours of aerial application operations (the alternative requirements).

In relation to these matters, the ES states:

[The requirements in the CASR] have been reviewed and it has been concluded that it would be more effective if the person has 10 hours of dual flight in a helicopter while receiving training but, within the first 110 hours of aerial application operations, has 20 hours of operations under direct supervision.

It appears that the exemption granted by CASA EX120/17 has been used to introduce these improvements, rather than amending relevant provisions of the CASR to remove the less effective requirements and replace them with the alternative requirements. The ES does not provide a justification for this approach.

CASA EX143/17 exempts organisations required to have a drug and alcohol management plan (DAMP) from compliance with reporting obligations in subregulations 99.100(1) and (2) of the CASR, subject to certain conditions.

The instrument extends, until 30 September 2020, a previous three-year exemption from compliance with those reporting obligations provided by CASA EX39/15 [F2015L00225]. The ES for CASA EX143/17 states that the continuing exemption is necessary because:

CASA continues to consider that the reporting requirements in those subregulations are not necessary and their removal will have no identifiable impact on safety. Consistent with this policy, the instrument exempts DAMP organisations from compliance with those reporting requirements.

The ES further states, under the heading of consultation, that:

Prior to the making of instrument CASA EX39/15 CASA received substantial feedback from industry about the burdensome nature of the DAMP reporting requirements.

No explanation is provided in the ES as to why an exemption continues to be used to effectively amend the DAMP reporting requirements, rather than amending regulation 99.100 of the CASR.

In cases such as those outlined above (i.e. in relation to both CASA EX120/17 and CASA EX143/17), the committee's general preference is that exemptions are not used or do not continue for such time as to operate as de facto amendments to principal legislation (in this case to the regulations).

The committee requests the minister's advice as to:
• why it is considered more appropriate to establish or extend exemptions to the CASR in each of the above instruments, rather than making amendments to the regulations; and
• whether and when government proposes to introduce amendments to the CASR to address the matters covered in the two instruments above.

From the 'ministerial correspondence' for the 6 December 2017, I then tracked down the former Minister Chester's reply...

(Ref: Pg 9 - dated 29 November 2017, ironically the day he finished and Barnaby took over as Minister)

...Thank you for your letter of 16 November 2017 regarding a number of instruments
included in the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Delegated
Legislation Monitor No 14 of 2017.

Civil Aviation Safety Exemption Instruments
I have sought advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) about the concerns
raised by the Committee in relation to these instruments.

CASA has utilised exemptions in this case as a means to provide more timely relief to
industry for provisions that are intended to be implemented through regulation
amendment.

However, CASA agrees that it is preferable to amend regulations rather than make
exemptions. The process for making regulation amendments that will cover these
exemptions is underway with CASA expecting to bring forward amending regulations in
either 2018 or 2019. More specific information is included below relating to each
exemption instrument.

CASA EX120/17 - Exemptions- requirements for helicopter aerial applications
endorsements [F2017L01332]
Since Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (CASR) Parts 61, 141 and 142 commenced in
September 2014, CASA has identified various issues or unintended consequences that
were then the subject of general exemptions. CASA proposes to amend these Parts
(in particular Part 61) to deal with these issues with drafting instructions for an
amendment regulation expected in 2018, for making of the regulation in 2019.

CASA EX143/17 - Exemption - DAMP organisations to provide information to CASA
[F2017L01300)
CASA has been intending to progress regulation amendments to deal with this
exemption but the work has been delayed in order to address higher profile safety
critical regulation amendments.

However, CASA has worked with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel during 2016 and
2017 to finalise an amendment package to CASR Part 99 relating to drug and alcohol
management, and proposes to introduce the amendment package in early 2018
(together with a Part 99 Manual of Standards). The amendments will deal with the
reporting requirements that are the subject of the exemption...

Now go back to the nearly 2 year later response from Mick Mack to the present Chair of the committee....  

For and on behalf of Sandy, via the AP email chains...

---

Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) fatuously styled “Director of Air Safety,” Shane Carmody, has a briefing today making comment towards a move to increase the All Up Weight (AUW) of Recreational Aircraft from 600 kg to 760kg, another arbitrary number.

Quote:- “A common comment made in the feedback was the proposal would benefit the aviation community as it would stimulate activity in the private recreational aviation sector across the board. Feedback indicated the change would result in improved safety as a result of access to aircraft with greater structural integrity, as well as the ability to carry to greater useful loads and additional fuel. It would likely change the perception of recreational private flying and attract new and former pilots into the sector, creating greater opportunities in training and maintenance.“

Shane Carmody seems favourably disposed, though somewhat coyly put, towards a weight increase for the Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) category. RAAus being a Commonwealth sponsored private monopoly company administering this section of General Aviation (GA). The weight increase is welcome but points to the colossal policy failure by government through it’s regulator CASA.

It seems that the penny has dropped, after about twenty five years, about the wrong weight limit. The wrong split of GA, and the rules twisted to induce thousands of pilots into less capable aircraft, is the root cause of this unhealthy situation. And so the pronouncement of the peak aviation safety body of government after all this time. Why do we pay these people when they cannot see or act in the National interest to correct operational and safety issues that have been so obvious for so long? Where have our Aviation Ministers and their advisors been all these years? Heads in the sand?

CASA supports the wrongful division of our industry to the detriment of Australia’s aviation industry, it cannot admit to a wrong structure or systemic failure because it is reactionary and has no appetite or incentive to change.

The wholly unnecessary and unjust revocation of Glen Buckley’s flying school umbrella model, a model developed to overcome the extraordinary and super expensive new CASA flying school regulations (the infamous Part 61), will now be seen with, if possible, even more cynicism. Why? Simply because RAAus effectively uses the same model with CASA’s tacit approval and with the weight increase will undoubtedly lead to most pilots having to learn to fly via the RAAus system.

Too bad for Australia (no wonder we are now importing pilots) that we cannot have the rational rules of the USA where instructors can teach without the huge fees, expenses and bureaucratic delaying tactics of CASA.

Make the change, not difficult, and we would see a resurgence in training, maintenance and other jobs and services growing in General Aviation.

Sandy Reith

---

[Kharon]

“It's an interesting document. Give it a read”.

So says Hitch at the end of an ‘interesting’ paragraph in the last LMH from Australian Flying.

Hitch – “In the advice, CASA has moved to distance themselves from the VET system, noting that completing the CPL syllabus does not complete a VET qualification, and that costs are completely out of their hands. CASA also mentions the need to train in recognised aeroplanes”.

That quirky little paragraph is intriguing. You could translate it any number of ways, depending on your own ‘experience’ of ‘reading’ CASA statements. To me it seems that having created the shambles, CASA now move to distance themselves from the train wreck they created. There is also a whiff of ministerial paranoia there. Rather than identify the ‘problems’ and smooth off the ragged edges; i.e. fix up the duck up, another layer of protection for CASA has been added. Parts 61/141/142 are a very expensive, embarrassing failure. To add insult to injury, there are some excellent systems produced by other adult, sensible nations which could have been used as a model; providing alignment with other national qualifications, allowing an easy transition and parity in qualifications. Alas….

Then there is the mystery of ‘the vaporised link’. Curiously intriguing. Like P2 I went to read the offered ‘advice’. Only to be advised that the link had been ‘archived’. No problem – I thought, until I tried to find where it had vanished to. Twenty frustrating minutes later I stumbled over the following helpful advice:-

CASA - “If that doesn’t work, the page may have moved and been archived and you may need to search for the page you’re looking for”. FDS+ WTD?

Blank line here; containing deleted expletive. (Much cussin’).

“P2 OBS: Passing strange? This web link provided by Hitch: https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-cer...g-provider no longer takes you to the content to which he refers? Apparently the content has been archived after only 2 days??

Well; if P2 can't find it - then I've no hope. So, who put up the link? Who demanded the link be ‘archived’ to a place beyond mortal reach? Aye, passing strange are the ways of Sleepy Hollow.

“It's an interesting document. Give it a read”. Love to mate – can you publish it – if you copied the thing – otherwise, ‘tis lost forever.

Toot – toot.