[subtropicus]

“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 Apparently the content has been archived after only 2 days??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.

Google's cache is your friend! 
There's a link to a PDF there too. 
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/fi...ovider.pdf

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s...clnk&gl=au
Cheers!

[Kharon]

Welcome - and thank you. P2 will be delighted. But be careful - he do love those dustbins.....

Cheers - right back at ya.

"K".

[Peetwo]

“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 Apparently the content has been archived after only 2 days??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.

Google's cache is your friend! 
There's a link to a PDF there too. 
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/fi...ovider.pdf

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s...clnk&gl=au
Cheers!

Glad to see it wasn't totally vaporised... - Thanks heaps for that subtropo and welcome...

---

Changing a training provider

Students sometimes may have a need to change their training provider. There are many reasons for this—for example, changing location. The regulations provide for this possibility.

Download a print-friendly version of the  Changing a training provider information sheet (PDF 388.55 KB).

Who should read this information?

• Flight training organisations
  
  
• Pilots
  

Can a student commence flight training with a training operator and transfer to another operator to complete their training?

Yes, although it depends on several factors.

• Transfer of training records - Parts 141 and 142 have regulations that require the first operator to provide copies of student training records to the second operator – refer to 141.280 and 142.360. This is important as the second operator must determine what training has been completed and develop a plan for the remaining training that needs to be completed. An assessment flight or flights are also commonly undertaken.
  
  
• Qualifying with reduced aeronautical experience – if an applicant for a licence plans to qualify with reduced aeronautical experience—for example a CPL(A) with 150 hours versus 200 hours—they need to complete the full integrated training course. This means a student can only qualify for a reduced hour licence if they have completed a full integrated course of training and have the minimum aeronautical experience at the time they apply. For the CPL(A), that is 150 hours.
  
  
• Registered and recognised aircraft – if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course, you must have logged the minimum flight times, specified in the regulations, in registered or recognised aircraft of the same category. For example, to obtain a CPL(A), you must have at least 140 hours of flight time in registered or recognised aeroplanes.
  
  Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft. Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) aircraft are not VH registered aircraft.
  
  
• Aircraft requirements for non-integrated training courses – the requirements for flight time to be conducted in registered or recognised aeroplanes do not apply to the aeronautical experience requirements for non-integrated training courses.
  
  
• Most Part 142 training operators that conduct private pilot licence (PPL) and commercial pilot licence (CPL) integrated training also hold a Part 141 certificate to conduct PPL and CPL non-integrated training.
  

Examples of where a student can change training providers

If a student plans to change their training provider, in the first instance, check your flight training provider and the proposed provider and see what certificates they hold and what flight training they are authorised to conduct.

Further information on CASA approved flight training operators can be found on the flight training webpage. Details outline whether the operators have a Part 141 or Part 142 certificate or both.

Example 1:
Claire commenced an integrated CPL(A) training course at Brightline Training (Part 142 operator) in Adelaide. Halfway through her course, she moved to Tamworth and chose High Flying (Part 142 operator) to complete her training. Brightline Training provides a copy of Claire’s training records to High Flying who completes an assessment and creates a training plan for her to complete her integrated training course. All the training Claire has completed at the first school can be transferred to the second school. On completion of the training with High Flying, Claire can qualify for her CPL(A) with a minimum of 150 hours of aeronautical experience.
Patrick commenced an integrated PPL(H) training course at Finesse Air (Part 142) in Cairns. He decides to change training providers to Cracker Jack Aviation (Part 141)—also in Cairns—for his navigation training and to complete his PPL with them. Finesse Air provides a copy of Patrick’s training records to Cracker Jack Aviation who completes an assessment and creates a training plan for Patrick to finish his training. Patrick can only qualify for his PPL(H) if he has 40 hours of aeronautical experience. If he completed his training with Finesse Air, he could have gained his licence with 35 hours.

Example 2:
Louise commenced a non-integrated CPL(A) training course at Brock Aero (Part 141) in Melbourne. On gaining her PPL, Louise decides to change training provider and chooses to complete her training with XtraAir. This operator has a Part 142 certificate for integrated training and a part 141 certificate for non-integrated CPL(A) training. Brock Aero is not required to provide XtraAir with a copy of Louise’s training records, although they may choose to do so. She could enrol in XtraAir’s integrated training course, although she would only be able to qualify for her CPL(A) if she has 200 hours of aeronautical experience when she applies for her licence. It is up to XtraAir to plan her course of training.

Example 3:
Alex completed flight training with Assimilation Training and gained a Recreational Pilot Certificate (RPL) from RAAus. After logging 60 hours of flying RAAus aeroplanes, Alex decides to gain his CPL(A) and commences training with Assimilation Training which also holds a Part 141 certificate for CPL(A) flight training. Alex moves to Melbourne and chooses to complete their CPL(A) training with XtraAir. The training Alex needs to complete, and the experience requirements would be the same as the requirements Louise needs to meet. However, the RAAus experience can be used to meet the 200 hours of aeronautical experience required for the CPL(A).
What financial assistance is available to students?
Some flight training providers have partnerships with educational institutions to provide components of their courses. In some cases, financial assistance such as VET Student Loans are available where flight training is combined with an approved diploma or higher vocational education and training course. In some cases, the aeronautical knowledge requirements for the pilot licence are delivered by the education institution who provide the theory training for the licence examinations.

Completion of the diploma or higher qualification generally involves completing the CASR Part 61 licence requirement plus additional course material. However, completing the additional VET training is separate from qualifying for a licence granted by CASA.

Note: CASA is not responsible for VET qualification or any financial arrangements.

If you have received financial assistance for your training course, it is important that you check any relevant requirements before you change your course of study or flight training organisation.
For more information, visit:

• Australian Skills Quality Authority
  
  
• Myskills
  
  
• VET Student Loans
  

Last modified: 6 February 2020

---

Although I am still curious to how it is possible for such a helpful webpage, offering assurance to concerned pilot trainees, could possibly be archived after barely a day of exposure?

I am also curious to why this potentially important information for those students affected by one or more of the example scenarios was not promoted/disseminated across all CASA Briefing media &/or social media platforms??

Just surmising but perhaps this information was not properly sanctioned/approved for general industry consumption; and/or there is something potentially libelous in the contents of the document/webpage?

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

St Patrick's Hospital for Imbeciles.

Still in business; I just wonder which side of the great divide needs to be admitted. For one or ‘tuther is certainly barking mad. Industry probably needs the help, for allowing such things as 61, 141 and 142 to become law – without protest. Even so, industry may be forgiven for quiet acquiescence, having been bullied and cowed for three decades, without hope of meaningful reform tends to take the steam out of protest. Time and time again, politicians have slithered away from the fight; bipartinsane cop out, and; my own personal favourite “Oh, they’re the experts” – etc. What a load of bollocks, what a great excuse to avoid responsibility; and what a handy little tool for confounding a minister. Mind you, I fail, totally, to see the point in making any minister look not only more of a Pillock than nature allows, but to make a minister complicit in promoting a scam is even more puzzling. 

“Parts 141 and 142 are already showing the loop holes which can be, and are ruthlessly exploited to provide an expensive, sub-standard product. The ‘hard’ part for the minister (and Buckley) is that he was conned into open support for this grand fraud being perpetuated on not only ‘students’ but, on any future accident directly related to this aberration”.

“You have clearly proved that ignorance, idleness, and vice, are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator”. (Swift).

It’s nuts when you think about it. There stands Glen Buckley; spent much time, effort and money, developing an acknowledged ‘expert’s’ interpretation of the 141/142 mess. Produced a brilliant system for providing training and safety excellence. For his trouble he is ruthlessly hammered almost out of existence; ignored, insulted and marked for destruction. Meanwhile SOAR and RA-Oz receive ministerial acclaim and accolades for producing a system which wriggles through the gaping holes in the ludicrous regulation.

“Laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them”.  (Swift).

The two cases, whichever way you cut ‘em up clearly define a completely flawed, divisive system for producing aircrew. The USA  (or UK) system is clear, unambiguous, even handed and, most importantly it provides sound training; no matter which ‘aircraft’ is used. There is no division to be exploited. Those systems were writ by ‘true experts’ without an agenda nor a deeply seated desire to divide, conquer and manipulate. Across the globe, anywhere you look, there is a similar system – until you arrive in Australia. No wonder the world shakes it’s head.

Thirty years, half a billion dollars and Australia ends up with this result? This, before we even get close to 'rule through exemption'. 'I’m so glad St Pat’s is still in business; much more of this and I’ll need nice little padded room, a comfy straight jacket and regular medication. As said, one of us is barking….

Toot – toot.

Wiki - The bulk of his fortune (£12,000) was left to found a hospital for the mentally ill, originally known as St Patrick's Hospital for Imbeciles, which opened in 1757, and which still exists as a psychiatric hospital.

[Sandy Reith]

From the CASA website link and copied:-

“Changing a training provider

Students sometimes may have a need to change their training provider. There are many reasons for this—for example, changing location. The regulations provide for this possibility.

Download a print-friendly version of the Changing a training provider information sheet (PDF 388.55 KB).”
Etc. Etc. Etc ——— on and on and on

When I was Chief Flying Instructor of my own flying school I never had to look up any regulation about a student changing flight schools. Why? It wasn’t necessary to have such a rule. The student was entitled to his or her record, they were obviously paying for it to be kept.

Had there been any dispute I’m sure DCA, CAA or CASA could have brought pressure to bear and failing that I’ll surmise that common law would prevail. In all my years I never heard of a problem so why must CASA make such a big deal out of a nothing problem? We’re there difficult cases that were going to court and therefore the law needed clarification?

That’s easy to answer, no there were not. This is just another excrescence of complexity born out of possibly the largest make work exercise in the PS in the last 30 years.

[P7_TOM]

St Patrick's Hospital for Imbeciles.

Still in business; I just wonder which side of the great divide needs to be admitted. For one or ‘tuther is certainly barking mad. Industry probably needs the help, for allowing such things as 61, 141 and 142 to become law – without protest. Even so, industry may be forgiven for quiet acquiescence, having been bullied and cowed for three decades, without hope of meaningful reform tends to take the steam out of protest. Time and time again, politicians have slithered away from the fight; bipartinsane cop out, and; my own personal favourite “Oh, they’re the experts” – etc. What a load of bollocks, what a great excuse to avoid responsibility; and what a handy little tool for confounding a minister. Mind you, I fail, totally, to see the point in making any minister look not only more of a Pillock than nature allows, but to make a minister complicit in promoting a scam is even more puzzling. 

“Parts 141 and 142 are already showing the loop holes which can be, and are ruthlessly exploited to provide an expensive, sub-standard product. The ‘hard’ part for the minister (and Buckley) is that he was conned into open support for this grand fraud being perpetuated on not only ‘students’ but, on any future accident directly related to this aberration”.

“You have clearly proved that ignorance, idleness, and vice, are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator”. (Swift).

It’s nuts when you think about it. There stands Glen Buckley; spent much time, effort and money, developing an acknowledged ‘expert’s’ interpretation of the 141/142 mess. Produced a brilliant system for providing training and safety excellence. For his trouble he is ruthlessly hammered almost out of existence; ignored, insulted and marked for destruction. Meanwhile SOAR and RA-Oz receive ministerial acclaim and accolades for producing a system which wriggles through the gaping holes in the ludicrous regulation.

“Laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them”.  (Swift).

The two cases, whichever way you cut ‘em up clearly define a completely flawed, divisive system for producing aircrew. The USA  (or UK) system is clear, unambiguous, even handed and, most importantly it provides sound training; no matter which ‘aircraft’ is used. There is no division to be exploited. Those systems were writ by ‘true experts’ without an agenda nor a deeply seated desire to divide, conquer and manipulate. Across the globe, anywhere you look, there is a similar system – until you arrive in Australia. No wonder the world shakes it’s head.

Thirty years, half a billion dollars and Australia ends up with this result? This, before we even get close to 'rule through exemption'. 'I’m so glad St Pat’s is still in business; much more of this and I’ll need nice little padded room, a comfy straight jacket and regular medication. As said, one of us is barking….

Toot – toot.

Wiki - The bulk of his fortune (£12,000) was left to found a hospital for the mentally ill, originally known as St Patrick's Hospital for Imbeciles, which opened in 1757, and which still exists as a psychiatric hospital.

> Spot on Sandy; but it leaves a question hanging – why go to all the trouble of ‘clarifying’ a given? Seems to me the overly complex (read not understandable) regulations have ignited the deep seated paranoia within the regulator. So deeply twisted inside the minutiae of ‘law’ the practical application of what was a simple matter – i.e. ‘learning to fly’ has become a legal minefield.
 
Two points of interest emerge (a) the distancing of CASA from some of the aircraft being used for basic training and the ‘certification’ being up to a realistic standard – for training. And (b) is the disappearance of ‘small’ – local flight schools who can produce a fine product – only with a fifty hour penalty for non integration; now borderline extinct courtesy of the sausage factory, fully CASA supported approach.
 
Although how a thing like SOAR ever got to be ‘the bench-mark’ I’ll never know. Cadet systems, run by ‘airlines’ (and the like) have been proven sound over the years; but some lookalike, pale imitation, aping their peers and betters? Well – enough said.
 
IMO CASA have suddenly realised that there are gapping holes in their legal knitting. They still are pretty safe – imagine the cost of a barrister and a court to prove that they have made a pigs ear of 61, 141 and 142 – astronomical. Then weigh in the support of a minister who still wets the bed when the cat farts – and you are looking at yet another grandiose, expensive inquiry; going nowhere fast.
 
Gods alone what twisted logic provided the system; and, it will take the devil himself to work out the detailed word in the wrong place which has triggered the massive defence to follow. “K” has a book open on it – and good luck with that.

[thorn bird]

To quote someone else, part 61-141/142 is like paddling a barbed wire canoe in a sea of shite.

[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.

Oops! Bristell plastic fantastics back to bite - 

Via the CASA:

---

---

Hmm...I wonder where the Hooded Canary's ATCB back up to that is? - Certainly not HERE as yet??   


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

COVID19: St Commode tries to schmoo the aviation industry - 

Via Sandy...  

---

How we're helping you - exemptions being put in place

24 March 2020

The actions of various levels of government to stop the spread of COVID-19 are evolving rapidly and I am conscious that you will have many challenges in front of you as you adapt to this changing environment.
In recognition of these difficulties, we are putting in place various general exemptions for a number of CASA authorisations or permissions, which are designed to proportionally manage safety risks while providing relief as follows:

• If you have an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) or a Part 141/142 Certificate, it will be extended through an administrative process by six months. You do not need to do anything.
  
  
• If you are a pilot or an air traffic controller, you will be able to exercise the privileges of your licence for six months after the expiration of any medical certificate you hold. The conditions on your medical certificate will continue to apply. You do not need to do anything.
  
  
• If your current flight review or proficiency check expires after 1 March 2020, you will be able to continue to use all the privileges of your licence for a further three months from when it expires. You will need to apply to extend these arrangements beyond the 3 months.
  
  
• Operators will have relief from Part 61 proficiency checking and flight review as well as training and checking requirements up to 30 June 2020. Further relief options are being developed.
  

In addition to the exemptions listed above, we’ll be putting some general exemptions in place to cover dangerous goods, drug and alcohol management procedures and emergency procedures.


Further measures for other sectors such as maintenance organisations and remotely piloted aircraft operations are currently being considered.

Our decisions are designed to make it as easy as possible for you to continue current operational activities while ensuring aviation safety is maintained and operational risks are managed.

If you have specific questions, please email regservices@casa.gov.au (if you are enquiring on behalf of an organisation) or applications@casa.gov.au (if you are enquiring on behalf of yourself).

Regards

Shane Carmody

Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety

---

And Sandy's TIC reply:

"..Now we will see a terrible lot of accidents...or not
 
Perhaps the ‘Safety’ card will come out looking a bit tattered after there are no appreciable change to any ‘Safety’ statistics..."


Hmmm...why do I get the impression that this is nothing more than attempt by St Commode (the Patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety) to placate the witless, wonder from Wagga Mick Mack? After all St Commode has proven again and again, not to give a rat's arse about anything to do with the aviation industry beyond the Chairman's lounge at Qaintass -   



Hmm...perhaps I might respect, or acknowledge, or believe the above weasel words were in the best interest of the industry if the Patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety, along with his fellow top trough feeders, were to sacrifice annual earnings for the next 12 months to put back into the industry already reeling from 30+ years of fee gouging and Red Tape embuggerance??

        
MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Practical and sensible.

The general exemptions make good sense and are most welcome. Well done whoever got them across the line.

Ratings are going to be the tough one, for both CASA and industry. Lots of folk will eventually be returning to duty 'out of check'. Say this shutdown lasts four months, not every pilot in a fleet will have met the recent experience and check flight requirements. Essential, self contained services, such as RFDS and Police air-wings etc, should be OK. But for airline and charter outfits its a tough road back.

“Operators will have relief from Part 61 proficiency checking and flight review as well as training and checking requirements up to 30 June 2020. Further relief options are being developed.”

Good one. Not too much more CASA can do to alleviate; but, the government could.
Simulators cost money to run and if the company is not earning a crust – then? There is a developing problem which must be addressed before 'normal service may be resumed'. Subsidising all the simulators would be a good start – at least to keep ATO's and senior check and training 'current' – until some semblance of normality returns. Soon we all hope.

I would like to see a similar approach to the other expenses, those which, to a well heeled bureaucrat, may seem insignificant, but are a serious impost to an unemployed person. The CASA $75 fee for providing a medical certificate could be waived for a twelve month, to a working stiff, its not a lot of money – but without an income – that money could be put to better use. Just saying.

Not a CASA impost – but ASIC for instance, the time line could easily be extended to passport status; or even five years. Even a sliding scale – based on the length of time a holder has been 'in the system'. After say three years of good behaviour, the renewal could be extended to a five year period; after a five year blemish free record the renewal could be extended to ten years. If we must have them, then why not even make it the same as a driving licence. But I digress.

ASA's Halfwit earns a million plus every year – perhaps a six month or even a year of no ASA fees would put a small damper on the outrageous salary and bonus system – but I'm sure ASA could take a small hit and help the industry get back on it's feet. Seems only fair to me; most plebs scraping along on the dole or savings would look askance at the salaries and bonuses paid. Good enough for AJ, then it must be good enough for those working for profit in a national infrastructure.

No matter, at least CASA have attempted to do what they may – and are looking for ways and means to keep industry alive – even if it is just for self preservation. Thank you anyway.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

St Commode spins the light fantastic (again) - 

Via Oz Flying:

We got More Right than Wrong: CASA
30 June 2020


As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) approaches its 25th anniversary, CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody has issued a statement saying that the regulator has got more things right than wrong since it was founded. In the June CASA Briefing newsletter published yesterday, Carmody reflected on the path CASA has taken since 6 July 1995 and admitted that not everyone would be breaking out the party balloons.

"I realise not everyone will be rushing to celebrate, but never-the-less this is a time to reflect on where we have come from, the many challenges faced and overcome by the aviation community and the progress we have all made," Carmody said.

"Being a regulator is challenging but, on balance, I believe that over the last 25 years CASA and its people have got far more right than wrong. Australia’s aviation safety record is arguably one of the best in the world and we have a widely respected aviation safety system.
"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization we are currently ranked sixth out of member states for an effective national safety system."

CASA was formed when the Federal Government split the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the wake of the Seaview and Monarch tragedies, creating CASA and Airservices Australia. The move was made to increase the focus on safety and limit opportunities for conflicts of interest.
Among the achievements Carmody has attributed to CASA over the past quarter of a century are:

• introducing ADS-B
  
  
• adopting a risk-based approach to surveillance
  
  
• establishing the Basic Class 2 medical standard
  
  
• formalising industry consultation
  
  
• establishing an Industry Complaints Commissioner
  
  
• taking over the Office of Airspace Regulation from Airservices.
  

One of the people not celebrating is Ben Morgan, CEO of the AOPA Australia. Morgan told Australian Flying that he was not particularly impressed with Carmody's comments and believed the aviation community might not share CASA's evaluation.


"The viewpoint put forward by Mr Carmody is exactly that: his viewpoint," Morgan said. "It's not the viewpoint of the many thousands of people who work and rely on aviation and have participated in the industry over the past 25 years.

"There are many things in his list of achievements that, had it not been for the extremely vocal and in some cases highly-aggressive advocacy of industry bodies, those things would not have been done.

"It appears to me that CASA continues to live in an alternate universe."

Morgan concedes that everything CASA has done since its inception has not necessarily been wrong, but believes the overall impact on the aviation community has been very detrimental.

"There are some things that CASA gets right; it would be unfair to say that they don't get anything right. But on the whole, over the past 25 years, the organisation has implemented policies and changes in regulation that have all conspired to create a significant period of economic decline for the aviation industry."

Morgan said that CASA has been publishing comments such as this for many years without any supporting evidence.

"This is marketing; it's rhetoric. Marketing like this is put in front of the industry and the government, but the truth is they wouldn't know if they're doing a good job or not.

"It's about time they backed-up the rhetoric with statistics to show what the facts are."

This from St Commode who brought us this bollocks...

https://auntypru.com/st-commode-strikes-...a-critics/

...and this insult to industry:



Hmmm...MTF me thinks - P2 

[Peetwo]

St Commode spins the light fantastic (again) - 

Via Oz Flying:

We got More Right than Wrong: CASA
30 June 2020


As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) approaches its 25th anniversary, CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody has issued a statement saying that the regulator has got more things right than wrong since it was founded. In the June CASA Briefing newsletter published yesterday, Carmody reflected on the path CASA has taken since 6 July 1995 and admitted that not everyone would be breaking out the party balloons.

"I realise not everyone will be rushing to celebrate, but never-the-less this is a time to reflect on where we have come from, the many challenges faced and overcome by the aviation community and the progress we have all made," Carmody said.

"Being a regulator is challenging but, on balance, I believe that over the last 25 years CASA and its people have got far more right than wrong. Australia’s aviation safety record is arguably one of the best in the world and we have a widely respected aviation safety system.
"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization we are currently ranked sixth out of member states for an effective national safety system."

CASA was formed when the Federal Government split the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the wake of the Seaview and Monarch tragedies, creating CASA and Airservices Australia. The move was made to increase the focus on safety and limit opportunities for conflicts of interest.
Among the achievements Carmody has attributed to CASA over the past quarter of a century are:

• introducing ADS-B
  
  
• adopting a risk-based approach to surveillance
  
  
• establishing the Basic Class 2 medical standard
  
  
• formalising industry consultation
  
  
• establishing an Industry Complaints Commissioner
  
  
• taking over the Office of Airspace Regulation from Airservices.
  

One of the people not celebrating is Ben Morgan, CEO of the AOPA Australia. Morgan told Australian Flying that he was not particularly impressed with Carmody's comments and believed the aviation community might not share CASA's evaluation.


"The viewpoint put forward by Mr Carmody is exactly that: his viewpoint," Morgan said. "It's not the viewpoint of the many thousands of people who work and rely on aviation and have participated in the industry over the past 25 years.

"There are many things in his list of achievements that, had it not been for the extremely vocal and in some cases highly-aggressive advocacy of industry bodies, those things would not have been done.

"It appears to me that CASA continues to live in an alternate universe."

Morgan concedes that everything CASA has done since its inception has not necessarily been wrong, but believes the overall impact on the aviation community has been very detrimental.

"There are some things that CASA gets right; it would be unfair to say that they don't get anything right. But on the whole, over the past 25 years, the organisation has implemented policies and changes in regulation that have all conspired to create a significant period of economic decline for the aviation industry."

Morgan said that CASA has been publishing comments such as this for many years without any supporting evidence.

"This is marketing; it's rhetoric. Marketing like this is put in front of the industry and the government, but the truth is they wouldn't know if they're doing a good job or not.

"It's about time they backed-up the rhetoric with statistics to show what the facts are."

This from St Commode who brought us this bollocks...

https://auntypru.com/st-commode-strikes-...a-critics/

...and this insult to industry:



Hmmm...MTF me thinks - P2 

Addendum: Dear Dan - L&Ks Sandy  

Dan,


Mr. Carmody is claiming, in today’s “Briefing” newsletter, copy I will forward, that CASA has made various reforms, including the changed option for private flyers to have a General Practitioner (GP) medical examination instead of a full blown, expensive and time consuming CASA type medical. 

This supposed reform was brought in to assuage the patently unrealistic requirements for full CASA investigatory, detail study and additional tests for private pilots to gain their medical certification. 

The GP medical idea was excellent, but when eventually it was promulgated the ‘reform’ came with the totally unnecessary requirement that the applicant has to meet ‘unconditional’ commercial driver licence standard. Just ‘conditional’ approval for commercial driver not good enough for private flying. 

So now one can drive a bus or heavy truck down any highway on a ‘conditional’ commercial driver’s medical, within metres of lots of traffic, but can’t fly a private VH registered aircraft unless running the full gamut of a CASA medical exam with all the extra expenses, time and travel costs attached. 

Oddly the same pilot might opt for a ‘24’ or ‘19’ registration (two seat aircraft) and not see any medico at all but simply self declare fit to drive a motor vehicle and hence fit to fly privately.  This is a system, though CASA sponsored Recreational Aviation Australia, has been successful for some thirty years plus, and in line with the USA standards. 

In other words Mr. Carmody’s claim about the medical reform is not supportable, its the reform you are having when not having a reform. 

Please do something about real reform for General Aviation to stop the steep decline, induced by CASA’s runaway over regulations, inappropriately put into the criminal code, and fee gouging for all sorts of unnecessary permissions. If Government is serious about red tape reduction and growing jobs and services for Australians, outside of Canberra, then there must be action. 

Sandy

[Sandy Reith]

More right than wrong?

(With apologies to the all those in CB who do their best within a wrong system)

We have a split nation, Bureaucratalia, capital Can’tberra, now population 450,000 (vis. ABS) which is growing strongly within the body of Australia (effectively a separate country).

More right than wrong in Can’tberra? True, pay rates as shown by Commonwealth statistics are 40% higher than Australia and property are values increasing.

More right than wrong for Australian Aviation?
You must be joking, how can you preside over a steeply declining industry, forget CV19, and make that claim? Especially in General Aviation (GA) where we have lost hundreds of flying schools and charter operators, private pilots and the whole scene so bad that we were having to find airline pilots from foreign countries. CASA has fee gouged and strangled what was once a healthy GA industry. CASA has perfected a bureaucratically devised trajectory which is counterproductive to the safety of flight, free enterprise and the good of Australia.

Unfortunately we tend only to blame CASA, and it’s management is certainly deserving of our criticism, but behind that the real power lies with the National Parliament. Here is where the hard yards must be done because thirty two years of the worst administration and rule making by CASA proves that it will not change itself.

[Peetwo]

CASA Chair Tony Mathews slurps from the Koolaid fountain - 

Via Oz Flying: 

Carmody to leave CASA at Year End
8 July 2020
Comments 0 Comments


Civil Aviation Safety Authority CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) Shane Carmody will leave the regulator at the end of 2020.

CASA Chairman Tony Mathews confirmed today that Carmody would retire four years after he was appointed to the role.

"The Board is very pleased with what Mr Carmody has achieved during his time as CEO/DAS, particularly the resolution of CASA’s long standing Regulatory Reform Program and much improved stakeholder confidence in CASA as a safety regulator," Mathews said.

"This Board is confident that CASA is on a firm footing for the future.

"To allow time for a replacement to be found, Mr Carmody will remain as CEO/DAS until the end of the year."

Carmody was appointed to the role as Acting DAS in October 2016 after the sudden departure of Mark Skidmore. He was confirmed in the role permanently in June the following year. Carmody is a career public servant  and has had a long career in public service including in defence security intelligence, veterans affairs and a three-year stint as CASA Deputy DAS to Bruce Byron in 2006-9.

During his time as DAS, Carmody oversaw the end of the epic aviation safety regulation reform program, the implementation of the Basic Class 2 medical and the establishment of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).

So finally the St Commode will be departing the fix, I do wonder if Tony Mathews has been sipping a little too much from the Can'tberra Koolaid fountain??

"The Board is very pleased with what Mr Carmody has achieved during his time as CEO/DAS, particularly the resolution of CASA’s long standing Regulatory Reform Program and much improved stakeholder confidence in CASA as a safety regulator,"


UDB!

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

CASA Chair Tony Mathews slurps from the Koolaid fountain - 

Via Oz Flying: 

Carmody to leave CASA at Year End
8 July 2020
Comments 0 Comments


Civil Aviation Safety Authority CEO and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) Shane Carmody will leave the regulator at the end of 2020.

CASA Chairman Tony Mathews confirmed today that Carmody would retire four years after he was appointed to the role.

"The Board is very pleased with what Mr Carmody has achieved during his time as CEO/DAS, particularly the resolution of CASA’s long standing Regulatory Reform Program and much improved stakeholder confidence in CASA as a safety regulator," Mathews said.

"This Board is confident that CASA is on a firm footing for the future.

"To allow time for a replacement to be found, Mr Carmody will remain as CEO/DAS until the end of the year."

Carmody was appointed to the role as Acting DAS in October 2016 after the sudden departure of Mark Skidmore. He was confirmed in the role permanently in June the following year. Carmody is a career public servant  and has had a long career in public service including in defence security intelligence, veterans affairs and a three-year stint as CASA Deputy DAS to Bruce Byron in 2006-9.

During his time as DAS, Carmody oversaw the end of the epic aviation safety regulation reform program, the implementation of the Basic Class 2 medical and the establishment of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).

So finally the St Commode will be departing the fix, I do wonder if Tony Mathews has been sipping a little too much from the Can'tberra Koolaid fountain??

"The Board is very pleased with what Mr Carmody has achieved during his time as CEO/DAS, particularly the resolution of CASA’s long standing Regulatory Reform Program and much improved stakeholder confidence in CASA as a safety regulator,"


UDB! 

Commentary on St Commode's golden jockstrap departure...  

Sandy Reith • 2 hours ago

CASA Board Chair Tony Mathews has a vastly different view about the state of General Aviation (GA) industry administration and the regulatory performance of CASA compared to the great majority of GA industry personnel.

Changing personalities in the position of the (fatuously titled) ‘Director of Air Safety,’ or for that matter Board membership, has done nothing to alter the devastating attack on GA by the regulator. The results are there for all to see and one or two faltering steps forward amount to nothing compared to two hundred backward steps. GA has lost thousands of jobs and hundreds of flying schools and charter operators these last thirty two years of the CASA‘s counterproductive, excessive and hugely expensive regulatory avalanche.

A perfect example would be the quoted medical certification Basic Class 2 ‘reform.’ The reform you are having when you are not having one, a classic Clayton’s reform. On the one hand the RAAus (low weight category) private pilot medical certification has satisfactorily operated on a self declared car driver standard. The same pilot, who might fly the exact same aircraft but with CASA registration, instead of RAAus registration, has to make it to a standard of ‘unconditional’ commercial truck or bus driver standard. In other words the pilot may drive a bus on a conditional commercial driver licence but not fly a VH registered aircraft.

In typical fashion CASA has created the illusion of tackling reform sufficiently to maintain it’s high salary structure and importance by employing the ‘safety’ mantra and it’s Clayton’s reform sideshow. How long will it take before Parliament wakes up to this unsustainable trajectory?

Via the UP:

Lead Balloon , 8th Jul 2020 11:24
Carmody “walks the plank”?

I think you mean “transitions to the comfort of a six-figure taxpayer-funded pension, supplemented by the occasional inquiry appointment.“

The only important question is: Who is Mick from the Wagga office going to appoint as Carmody’s replacement?

---

Torres , 8th Jul 2020 20:52

Quote:

I have confidence that whoever he chooses, it will be the right decision. I have no doubt some people will disagree with me and that is fine but I actually have a lot of respect for Michael McCormack and think he is going to do a lot of good for the aviation industry in the long run!

Love the comedian!  

McCormack is so good he makes Anderson look smart! 

Now, back to the real world..........

---

poteroo , 9th Jul 2020 01:25
Did I really read 'the resolution of the longstanding regulatory reform program' ??

Can't be so.. Only 600 odd pages in Part 61 and same in its' MOS isn't much of an achievement. Roll on 1000 pages in each. What's a few more pages of patronising, prescriptive legalese telling instructors how to suck eggs? With a legacy like this, any aviation experienced DAS would be sneaking out the backdoor at 16:59 on Friday.

---

Lead Balloon , 9th Jul 2020 01:30
It is Orwellian. An incomplete dog’s breakfast is described as the resolution of the longstanding regulatory reform program. These people have no shame.

---

Bodie1 , 9th Jul 2020 01:33

Quote:

Maybe I am just a little bit nieve because I am at the start of my career in aviation but I just believe in giving everyone a chance to prove themselves that's all.

Oh he's proven himself alright, to be a bumbling, incompetent fool.

---

exfocx , 9th Jul 2020 03:18

The Australian Way!
Why would ANYONE here be surprised by the way things have panned out? This is the Australian way, pedantry; Australia is a pedantic country, we take things to the nth degree, we do not allow common sense and I think that is because of our nature. Everything has to be very prescriptive because if something goes wrong it will be argued "well, the rules don't disallow that...." and that will be carried as a just defence and out comes a rewriting of the rules, we are very lawyerly! Notice when our pollies rip off their allowances and when caught the catchcry response is that the rules aren't clear enough "The rules don't say I can't fly to my mates party at taxpayers expense after only attending a "party meeting" in the same city for all of 5 minutes".

Intent never gets an airing, the response is always "but, that isn't what it says!". People look for workarounds and the response is more and more rule writing.

Lawyers love this approach, with a prescriptive approach you can find a way around whatever is in your way.

MTF? - Probably not...P2 

[Peetwo]

St Commode spins the light fantastic (again) - 

Via Oz Flying:

We got More Right than Wrong: CASA
30 June 2020


As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) approaches its 25th anniversary, CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody has issued a statement saying that the regulator has got more things right than wrong since it was founded. In the June CASA Briefing newsletter published yesterday, Carmody reflected on the path CASA has taken since 6 July 1995 and admitted that not everyone would be breaking out the party balloons.

"I realise not everyone will be rushing to celebrate, but never-the-less this is a time to reflect on where we have come from, the many challenges faced and overcome by the aviation community and the progress we have all made," Carmody said.

"Being a regulator is challenging but, on balance, I believe that over the last 25 years CASA and its people have got far more right than wrong. Australia’s aviation safety record is arguably one of the best in the world and we have a widely respected aviation safety system.
"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization we are currently ranked sixth out of member states for an effective national safety system."

CASA was formed when the Federal Government split the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the wake of the Seaview and Monarch tragedies, creating CASA and Airservices Australia. The move was made to increase the focus on safety and limit opportunities for conflicts of interest.
Among the achievements Carmody has attributed to CASA over the past quarter of a century are:

• introducing ADS-B
  
  
• adopting a risk-based approach to surveillance
  
  
• establishing the Basic Class 2 medical standard
  
  
• formalising industry consultation
  
  
• establishing an Industry Complaints Commissioner
  
  
• taking over the Office of Airspace Regulation from Airservices.
  

One of the people not celebrating is Ben Morgan, CEO of the AOPA Australia. Morgan told Australian Flying that he was not particularly impressed with Carmody's comments and believed the aviation community might not share CASA's evaluation.


"The viewpoint put forward by Mr Carmody is exactly that: his viewpoint," Morgan said. "It's not the viewpoint of the many thousands of people who work and rely on aviation and have participated in the industry over the past 25 years.

"There are many things in his list of achievements that, had it not been for the extremely vocal and in some cases highly-aggressive advocacy of industry bodies, those things would not have been done.

"It appears to me that CASA continues to live in an alternate universe."

Morgan concedes that everything CASA has done since its inception has not necessarily been wrong, but believes the overall impact on the aviation community has been very detrimental.

"There are some things that CASA gets right; it would be unfair to say that they don't get anything right. But on the whole, over the past 25 years, the organisation has implemented policies and changes in regulation that have all conspired to create a significant period of economic decline for the aviation industry."

Morgan said that CASA has been publishing comments such as this for many years without any supporting evidence.

"This is marketing; it's rhetoric. Marketing like this is put in front of the industry and the government, but the truth is they wouldn't know if they're doing a good job or not.

"It's about time they backed-up the rhetoric with statistics to show what the facts are."

This from St Commode who brought us this bollocks...

https://auntypru.com/st-commode-strikes-...a-critics/

...and this insult to industry:



Hmmm...MTF me thinks - P2 

Addendum: Dear Dan - L&Ks Sandy  

Dan,


Mr. Carmody is claiming, in today’s “Briefing” newsletter, copy I will forward, that CASA has made various reforms, including the changed option for private flyers to have a General Practitioner (GP) medical examination instead of a full blown, expensive and time consuming CASA type medical. 

This supposed reform was brought in to assuage the patently unrealistic requirements for full CASA investigatory, detail study and additional tests for private pilots to gain their medical certification. 

The GP medical idea was excellent, but when eventually it was promulgated the ‘reform’ came with the totally unnecessary requirement that the applicant has to meet ‘unconditional’ commercial driver licence standard. Just ‘conditional’ approval for commercial driver not good enough for private flying. 

So now one can drive a bus or heavy truck down any highway on a ‘conditional’ commercial driver’s medical, within metres of lots of traffic, but can’t fly a private VH registered aircraft unless running the full gamut of a CASA medical exam with all the extra expenses, time and travel costs attached. 

Oddly the same pilot might opt for a ‘24’ or ‘19’ registration (two seat aircraft) and not see any medico at all but simply self declare fit to drive a motor vehicle and hence fit to fly privately.  This is a system, though CASA sponsored Recreational Aviation Australia, has been successful for some thirty years plus, and in line with the USA standards. 

In other words Mr. Carmody’s claim about the medical reform is not supportable, its the reform you are having when not having a reform. 

Please do something about real reform for General Aviation to stop the steep decline, induced by CASA’s runaway over regulations, inappropriately put into the criminal code, and fee gouging for all sorts of unnecessary permissions. If Government is serious about red tape reduction and growing jobs and services for Australians, outside of Canberra, then there must be action. 

Sandy

Hmm...this fits, via AOPA Oz - 

CASA: MORE RIGHT THAN WRONG?
AOPA AUSTRALIA - FACEBOOK LIVE PANEL - TONIGHT 7pm


Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, discussing it's impact on Australian general aviation across the past 25 years, responding to outgoing DAS Mr Shane Carmody's claim that CASA has got more right than wrong.

THIS WEEKS PANELISTS
- Benjamin Morgan, Chief Executive Officer - AOPA Australia
- Marjorie Pagani, Chief Executive Officer - AngelFlight
- Mary Brown, Director - NQ Aviation Services
- Ken Cannane, Executive Director - AMROBA
- Tony White, President - SAAA

JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION - LIVE
AOPA Australia invites you to post your comments and questions during the live panel broadcast.

  

Refer here for the many comments. It is also worth noting that to this point the FB video conference/conversation has had over 11K views - well done Ben and AOPA Oz 

MTF...P2 

ps Ben can we please get Marjorie Pagani back for an encore on a more clearer internet connection - 

[Kharon]

Arse about face.

Good to see AOPA have cottoned on to a BRB style of discussion; it works very well indeed. The only mild 'criticism' would be that with a little more notice to the non members, the numbers watching and listening would be much better. Since P2 posted the video the 'views' on the AP board have been significant. That said, it was a very good session.

The question posed referred to St Commode's vainglorious missive, making claim that CASA “had got more right than wrong”. A first water load of Hooey; backed by Mathews. AP asked a similar question, with a slightly different flavour - “does CASA understand their purpose for existence?”

In short, the answer was No; they do not. They are 'service' to the industry: not an industry leader. The role of facilitating the industry and providing a 'service' for fee is an alien concept. Its arse about face.  The industry is not there to feed and Kow Tow to the monolithic regulator. Industry should be questioning where and how the vast sums provided for this service are used. In what way has the farcical 'regulatory reform' benefited the industry or nation? Bollocks. Mathews should resign; his credibility now in the same pit as the minister he panders for. The same may said of the ATSB, the lack of 'service' (and credibility) to the industry is monstrous. ASA is probably the worst of all, profit driven and bonus ridden; an outfit which openly defies world best practice, wastes millions and provides little in the way of cost saving to the industry which it is supposed to serve. Self serving, self promoting and a never ending demand for 'more' – Why, to what purpose?

Just for the sake of a recognisable name; lets say a fellah like Alan Joyce was put in charge. What is the first thing that would happen? He'd gut the place, cut out the fat and the deadwood and make the system perform design function; every hare-brained idea would be subject to scrutiny and no money would be wasted (not too much anyway). If government want ASA, ATSB and CASA to be a successful 'business' then its time to bring in those who understand 'service'. Qantas does – piss off the punters equates to lost revenue and a PR problem. Getting a reputation for rip off and bad service will cost a fortune to live down, provided that the 'bad smell' can be eliminated. It is tough to come back from that. Qantas probably bats at about a genuine 75% customer satisfaction – the Ministers triad probably runs at about 3% 'not cranky' and 97% totally disenchanted. Turn that into passenger numbers and it becomes clear that if there was an alternate service – someone would be very, very bankrupt. Morally and fiscally -

Aye well; at least AOPA is trying to make a difference; a wider audience would assist. I would like to think that AOPA members world wide make time to watch the video; and offer their support to a worthy cause.

Toot – toot.

PS. Is it just me who thought Ben looked like Darth Vader – the black shirt melding with the high back of his chair - 



P2 edit -   

[thorn bird]

The incomprehensible regulatory destruction of General Aviation

I just recently watched a delightful feel good movie called a Dogs Purpose.
Left me feeling all warm and fuzzy.

Then I read Carmody’s obituary which engendered visions of a Dogs Breakfast.
Left me feeling cold and despairing.

Just exactly what is CAsA's purpose?

Allegedly its purpose defined by various governments of the day, is to regulate and enforce the “Safety” of aviation.

Unfortunately, they left out the bit that actually defines what the word “safety” means. As any Bureaucracy will do, CASA, left to their own devices, define it to suit themselves, a viable industry their last consideration, if they even considered it at all.

It is incomprehensible to me that a government would effectively outsource the making of law on behalf of the people, by creating essentially an independent corporation with a profit imperative, outside the checks and balances of the public service to create laws and then enforce those laws.
CASA as a corporation is free from scrutiny or assessment by the people, of the validity, effectiveness or fairness of the laws they create nor the unintended consequences that may arise because of their laws.

There is very little doubt that the regulation of aviation in Australia has been and continues to be a severe impediment to general aviation’s mere existence let alone any chance it has for growth and viability.

The big question is why this has been allowed to occur?

To be fair, our political class, who are supposed to have oversight over our Bureaucrats doings, have difficulty grasping the gravity of the dilemma general Aviation faces. Aviation is a highly complicated business, full of technical jargon that any lay person would find difficult to understand. They must rely on expert “advice” to get their head around the nuances of what makes it tick. Politicians generally rely on their bureaucrats for advice; however, expertise does not necessarily reside with the bureaucrats. To a greater extent, expertise in aviation matters resides within the Industry. Since CASA control the flow of information to the politicians is it any wonder that the industry rarely gets listened to.

Politicians for the most part are very busy people, they are required to listen to a cacophony of competing interests across the broad spectrum of society. Their very survival relies on their popularity. It is not surprising that their focus is drawn to areas that generate the most votes. A bleating bunch of aviators hardly rates a second thought, to them general aviation is irrelevant and therefore ignored.

All Aviation business is extremely fragile, a wafer-thin dividing line between viability and bankruptcy makes it extremely sensitive to any cost pressures placed upon it. Even the top end of RPT, as we are seeing with the current pandemic, is not immune. Economy of scale shields them from the cost pressures of over regulation to some extent, also their sheer size gives them political clout, the obvious importance to the economy ensures that.

The grass roots of the industry however, even in good times, finds it impossible for their voice to be heard and bears the brunt of CASA’s pogrom against aviation.

Regulation and Governance

In theory, regulation and oversight should be a relatively simple enterprise considering the resources available to any regulator around the world.

Australia has been involved with ICAO since its inception.

“About ICAO
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UN specialized agency, established by States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).

ICAO works with the Convention’s 193 Member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. These SARPs and policies are used by ICAO Member States to ensure that their local civil aviation operations and regulations conform to global norms, which in turn permits more than 100,000 daily flights in aviation’s global network to operate safely and reliably in every region of the world.

In addition to its core work resolving consensus-driven international SARPs and policies among its Member States and industry, and among many other priorities and programmes, ICAO also coordinates assistance and capacity building for States in support of numerous aviation development objectives; produces global plans to coordinate multilateral strategic progress for safety and air navigation; monitors and reports on numerous air transport sector performance metrics; and audits States’ civil aviation oversight capabilities in the areas of safety and security.”

“ICAO’s Vision:

Achieve the sustainable growth of the global civil aviation system.

Mission:

To serve as the global forum of States for international civil aviation. ICAO develops policies and Standards, undertakes compliance audits, performs studies and analyses, provides assistance and builds aviation capacity through many other activities and the cooperation of its Member States and stakeholders.

Strategic Objectives
In its ongoing mission to support and enable a global air transport network that meets or surpasses the social and economic development and broader connectivity needs of global businesses and passengers, and acknowledging the clear need to anticipate and manage the projected doubling of global air transport capacity by 2030 without unnecessary adverse impacts on system safety, efficiency, convenience or environmental performance, ICAO has established five comprehensive Strategic Objectives:
Safety:
Enhance global civil aviation safety. This Strategic Objective is focused primarily on the State's regulatory oversight capabilities. The Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) outlines the key activities for the triennium. 
Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency:
Increase the capacity and improve the efficiency of the global civil aviation system. Although functionally and organizationally interdependent with Safety, this Strategic Objective is focused primarily on upgrading the air navigation and aerodrome infrastructure and developing new procedures to optimize aviation system performance. The Global Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency Plan (Global Plan) outlines the key activities for the triennium.
Security & Facilitation:
Enhance global civil aviation security and facilitation. This Strategic Objective reflects the need for ICAO's leadership in aviation security, facilitation and related border security matters.
Economic Development of Air Transport:
Foster the development of a sound and economically-viable civil aviation system. This Strategic Objective reflects the need for ICAO's leadership in harmonizing the air transport framework focused on economic policies and supporting activities.
Environmental Protection:
Minimize the adverse environmental effects of civil aviation activities. This Strategic Objective fosters ICAO's leadership in all aviation-related environmental activities and is consistent with the ICAO and UN system environmental protection policies and practices.”

Through much consultation with experts from around the globe including from Australia, ICAO developed SARPS which were a guide for producing regulatory standards and oversight. It must be recognised that ICAO has no enforcement authority, they can only advise. One should also notice in the above statements from ICAO that economic viability features strongly in their Philosophy, it is barely mentioned in Australia.

One could be forgiven for pondering why, after expending vast amounts of time, money and energy contributing to ICAO over the decades,  Australia’s various regulatory bodies pretty much ignore the resource ICAO supplies and went our own way, illustrated by the pages and pages of notified differences listed in our Aeronautical information publication to ICAO SARPS.

Australia inherited its Westminster system of government from its colonial master the United Kingdom, a lot of the attitudes to governance here came about through this. As in the UK in the early days, aviation was viewed as a defence department province as opposed to the USA where, after the second world war, they experienced enormous growth in civilian aviation. Technology and innovation drove it out of the realms of the wealthy and into an era affordable to anyone. The USA lead the way with the freedoms to pursue innovative development. Aviation thrived, their regulator separated from the authoritative constraints of defence saw as a major part of its vision, that regulating must encourage, foster and promote their industry. Its industry grew rapidly to become the world leader, no more so than its General Aviation sector. Authoritative over regulation in the UK saw its aviation sector decline into obscurity, in Australia it never even got off the ground.

The USA formulated its regulations recognising that safety was of paramount importance.
The difference between here and there is that, to them, safety is just a word. If safe is taken literally no aircraft should be flying. Living one’s life carries risks, committing aviation is no different, doing so carries risks. The key to it all is to encourage the management of those risks which is what regulation should do. Over regulation kills the very enterprise that it is regulating as has been the Australian experience. In the USA they have the balance right. Their aviation industry is by far the biggest in the world and debatably the safest. Its contribution to their GDP is enormous, there is no reason it shouldn’t be in Australia.

Back in the 1980’s when government put an end to the two airline duopoly it was recognised that Australian regulations, a lot of which dated from the 1930’ies, were no longer fit for purpose largely because they were written to protect the two airline principle. It was decided to reform them by mirroring the very successful, mature FAA regulatory suite.

A group was formed which included industry experts and a beginning was made, producing some useful cost-effective FAA aligned legislation.

That all came to a shuddering halt when someone, somewhere within the hierarchy of the regulator decided we should forgo US FAA rules and align with new, unproven European EASA rules.

Competing ego’s and interests in middle management of CASA ensured that in the end Australia neither aligned with the US FAR’s nor EU EASA rules.

We partially used the EASA template and filled them in with our own home-grown rules. The hegemony of CASA legal, staffed with ex East European lawyers, pushed our regulations into criminal law requiring them to be written in “legalise” instead of understandable plain English. Being very obtuse, made it difficult for lay people to understand their meaning and intent.

Basically they mean whatever CASA decide on the day, which can vary depending on your location. They also reversed the onus of proof by adding strict liability to facilitate easy prosecution.

As Australia’s attempt at reform meandered along over the next thirty years, we ended up with a convoluted hodgepodge suite of regulation entirely unfit for purpose, costing the taxpayer almost half a billion dollars to produce and not yet complete. It continues to cost the industry millions for compliance for no discernible improvement in safety.

It is incidental that the EASA rule set proved a disaster for the European industry and have been largely rewritten to better align with FAA rules.

New Zealand showed the way by adopting the proven US FAA rule set. Took them only a couple of years and a few million dollars. Is our minister going to suggest that it is not safe to fly in New Zealand or the USA for that matter?

True Reform

As Australia gets to the other side of the current pandemic, it will need every hand on deck to dig itself out of massive financial hole it has dug for itself. Every industry and enterprise will need to play its part, no matter how big or how small.

The government must also play its part by removing regulatory constraints that are not fit for purpose, impede growth and stifle innovation.

From aviation’s perspective the government must recognise that the CASA experiment has been a disastrous and very costly failure. Aviation, if the government really wants it to reach its full potential must be bought back under a responsible minister.

The old authoritative defence department “Culture” that resides within the upper echelon of CASA must be eliminated. To do this a true reforming DAS with a successful track record in aviation regulation and management must be appointed and supported by government, rather than a public service hack with no aviation background or expertise.

The current minister arrogantly expresses that Australia is the safest in the world because of our regulator, when it is closer to the truth that Australian aviation is safer despite the regulator. Therefore, utilise the expertise of the industry rather than play lip service to it.

Recognise that Australia’s regulatory suite is an unusable mess. Form a committee of industry experts and get on with what was started back in the eighties and adopt the US FAR’s as a matter of urgency while there is still some shreds of industry left.

[P7_TOM]

AOPA (A) -v -the Dragon.

I lost count – decades ago, of how many folk I've given but one piece of advice when confronted by the beast. It goes something like this – Imagine the very worst outcome possible – start there and build a defence against it – for that is what you will need to do. For 'tis the nature of the beast to attack where you are most vulnerable. History fully supports this.

But today, news is filtering through of the ferocity with which CASA will defend the indefensible (strict liability will apply) – with a touch of desperation. When a person holds what should be a dignified, respected position resorts to the telephone in order to verbally abuse the CEO of a respected body, such as AOPA – then you can clearly see the bully at work.

Mathews may feel secure in lambasting the messenger – may even think he has done a good days work; but nothing could be further from the truth. He has, on that day he picked up the 'phone, and the 'conversation' was recorded; forever shown the depths CASA will plumb to control and manipulate the freedom of speech we all enjoy – which is bad enough. However; even worse is the notion that by simply 'shouting' at someone, they will fold up their tent and shuffle off back into the silent wilderness is risible. Morgan and AOPA are fully supported – by the silent majority.

For too long now, industry has remained silent, afraid to speak out in the certainty of unholy retribution. If ever there was a stake driven into the heart of a monster – Mathews himself delivered the final stroke of the hammer used. What a shabby tactic; to try and intimidate a man who – for weal or woe – has tried to reveal the truth about the way CASA do business.

Shame on you Mathews – from those who know you from old and from those who now see you as the paid mouthpiece of a 'safety agency' which has lost its way, led crown ministers astray and completely devastated an industry – in clear view, in front of the aviation world, with tacit consent of government ministers – and with the support of the CASA board (that's you by the way).

Do not contemplate foisting Boyd back on this industry – not for a minute – not a good idea; not at all.

Bully, cad, coward, liar, paid catamite, perhaps cheat – maybe Aleck's fall guy, all words being spoken around the camp fires this night, some even lump all these things together. What with Aleck, Crawford and Monahan named and shamed by the Ombudsman – will you fire 'em? Nah, didn't think so, gutless jack in office. Know this – no longer will the disgust, dislike and anger with the way CASA operate be restricted to hanger, tea rooms and pilot's chats on the ramp. Remember – you started the abuse game – from the privileged, protected position of Chairman. There is only one way to deal with a bully – kick the crap out of 'em. More to follow.  If I was seen as a  gutless, inutile, piss poor excuse for a honest man, I'd go somewhere and hide my shame – or do something about it. Handing over.) .--  .-  -.  -.-  .  .-.  (Best guitar riff ever - IMO).....--

"Buddy you're an old man poor man

Pleadin' with your eyes gonna make you some peace some day
You got mud on your face
Big disgrace
Somebody better put you back into your place"

[Sandy Reith]

Sounds like the dog has gone from barking, snarling and bared teeth to brawling and biting as well.
Certainly well away from his kennel and as we all know the leash was let go thirty two years ago.
Satirist and playwright Noel Coward wrote a song “Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.”

Delete ‘and Englishmen’ and there you have it.

The quality of the government of civil aviation in Australia is being exposed, we can hope that the spectacle is sufficiently noteworthy and newsworthy to penetrate the barriers of ignorance that have insulated our legislators. Not so hopeful, perhaps the truth of a bureaucratically devastated General Aviation industry, thousands of jobs lost, is too difficult and shameful, split the responsibility by the number of Commonwealth Members of Parliament and it becomes manageable to move on to more pressing interests. If only that dog would lie down and sleep.