[Peetwo]

ANAO (office of the wet lettuce) potential audit of CASA - 

Recently I was sent a notification from the ANAO that for this financial year they are again considering auditing CASA -   

This audit would examine whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority administers its legislative and regulatory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the Australian Government’s Regulator Performance Framework and with other relevant standards and better practice principles. 

Normally I would say why bother instigating such a foregone conclusion, rubber stamp, wet lettuce slap exercise at considerable expense to taxpayers. However the amount of money currently being wasted, hand over fist, in other areas would pale into non-existence the ANAO efforts of remaining gainfully employed and relevant in the proactive, transparent oversight of the Federal bureaucracy and government. There is also the fact that the ANAO forensic examination of the administration of CASA would be an invaluable resource and reference for the Chair Senator McDonald and the RRAT committee's GA 20/20 Hindsight inquiry.

Therefore I would urge the ANAO to stop talking about it and just get on with it - FDS!   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 16 (Dr K & Dr Naweed) & 17 GFA - 

Via Twitter: https://twitter.com/K_Kourousis/status/1...8957789186

Our submission to the @Aust_Parliament
Inquiry on General Aviation with @DrAnjumNaweed
, on the basis of our recently published paper [https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/7/6/84], is now available at the Inquiry website (Submission #16): https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=685733

#aviation #airworthiness #safety

&/or via the APH website:

16 Appleton Institue, CQUniversity (PDF 84 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 2910 KB) 

Dear members of the committee,

We have recently completed an independent research study exploring the perspectives on
safety and regulation of aircraft maintenance technicians working in the Australian General
Aviation (GA) sector. In particular, this study, was focused on evaluating:

a. The changes in the role of the regulator and in regulation that have impacted the GA
sector and perceived to have diminished safe operations; and
b. Specific practical and operational challenges that the GA industry must deal with to
sustain safe operations going forward.

The methodology, results and findings of this research study have been published in:

Naweed, A.; Kourousis, K.I. Winging It: Key Issues and Perceptions around Regulation
and Practice of Aircraft Maintenance in Australian General Aviation. Aerospace 2020,
7, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7060084

We feel that this study is highly relevant to the scope and the terms of reference of the inquiry,
thus we formally submit this for the consideration of the committee.

Moreover, we would be more than happy to contribute further to the work on the committee
by offering independent assessment, analysis and evaluation on GA airworthiness practice and
regulation.

Sincerely,

Dr Anjum Naweed, BSc, MSc, PhD, CPE | Associate Professor in Human Factors, Central
Queensland University. Staff Profile: https://staff-profiles.cqu.edu.au/home/view/3160
Dr Kyriakos I. Kourousis, CEng, FRAeS | Senior Lecturer in Airworthiness, University
of Limerick. Staff Profile: https://www.ul.ie/research/dr-kyriakos-kourousis

---

Plus sub 17:

17 The Gliding Federation of Australia Inc (PDF 4034 KB) 
17.1 Supplementary to submission 17 (PDF 211 KB) 

Extract Sup submission:

Discussion


GFA’s misunderstanding of the status of the Act does not substantially change the
arguments and recommendations of the 8th July submission. The term “affordable safety”
does not appear in the Act, nor does any obligation to “foster aviation in Australia”, nor
“ensure the viability and sustainability of aviation whilst achieving both safety and economic
outcomes”.

GFA has not seen tangible evidence of any beneficial change in CASA focus, behaviour or

culture since the Act was amended. This increases the urgency of further changes,
including explicit directions to balance safety and economic impacts within a context of
both safe and economically viable aviation industry.

With respect to the Inquiry’s terms of reference, the legislation is still not fit for purpose,
does not balance safety and economic impacts, does not adequately assess relative risks,
does not balance immediate and long term social and economic impacts of CASA
decisions, does not foster the maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian
aviation industry including viable general aviation and training sectors, and does not foster
accessibility to regional aviation across Australia.

The total regulatory system remains cumbersome, impenetrable, legalistic, technocratic,
overly prescriptive, and costly to implement.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Ennui; the last refuge.

Or; “How to Tell Whether You've Got Angst, Ennui, or Weltschmerz”

Perhaps it is the snail like approach speed of the next RRAT 'inquiry' into matters aeronautical; or, just that we've all travelled down that weary road before, to end up with nothing to show but sore feet and dusty boots. It may simply be that despite the very best efforts of some very clever, savvy folk, nothing has affected the juggernaut of 'aviation oversight' and service to the industry which keeps the monster fed and well watered.

History tells the story very clearly – major event; inquiry, industry weighing in with articulate, supported submission, great expectations of serious reform, many hours of discussion and happy support of the great expense such 'high level' inquiry demands. So, why is there only a few pages submitted to the latest Senate initiated round. Plenty of ammunition laying about from the last couple of years events, this year so far has had it's fair share of events which touch on the highly visible flaws in all three 'services' grudgingly provided to industry.

The latest two submission 16 and 17 are worth the candle light; a read of

Submission 16 (Dr K & Dr Naweed)

“We feel that this study is highly relevant to the scope and the terms of reference of the inquiry,thus we formally submit this for the consideration of the committee.”

Absolutely. That is no amateur concoction, it is a surgical analysis of an important element of real air safety – maintenance of aircraft – writ by highly qualified men (as in fair dinkum qualifications, not qualifictions).

That, closely followed by the submission of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). Another outfit which has managed it's affairs for many years now exceedingly well. They also manage to turn out skilled pilots. A worthy body, talking good sense; smart enough to see through the legal maze and 'understand' the ramifications of the latest smoke and mirrors attempt to baffle with legal bullshit.

17 GFA.

“With respect to the Inquiry’s terms of reference, the legislation is still not fit for purpose,does not balance safety and economic impacts, does not adequately assess relative risks,does not balance immediate and long term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions, does not foster the maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian

aviation industry including viable general aviation and training sectors, and does not foster

accessibility to regional aviation across Australia.” - Bravo.

You may feel disinclined to draft yet another submission; indeed, I can sympathise with that notion, but it would take only a little time to write a note of support for your choice of submission. The two above for instance; there are others worthy of support; read 'em, cast a vote; takes about five minutes - “What 'they' (- - - -  ) said” will do.

Two great submissions; thank you for making the effort. Tim Tam's all around.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Via QLD Country Life :

---

Bush aviation has flown into bumpy times says Queensland senator

Vernon Graham
@@vjgraham100
11 Aug 2020, 8:30 a.m.



MAYDAY MAYDAY: Senator Susan McDonald, who is chairing a Senate committee inquiry into general aviation in Australia, says over-regulation is making life tough for aircraft owners in the bush.

A senator who grew up in outback north west Queensland says over-regulation is seriously damaging aviation in the bush.

Senator Susan McDonald, who was reared on a cattle property near Cloncurry, is chairing the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee's inquiry into general aviation with a focus on the industry in rural, regional and remote Australia.

Committee members have been unable to travel around Australia to take evidence because of COVID-19 but a number of submissions have been scathing about the role and culture of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA, a federal authority which is in charge of functions such as the licensing of pilots and aircraft engineers and registration of aeroplanes.

Senator McDonald said she called the inquiry after receiving complaints from a cross-section of aviation groups in the bush including pastoralists, chopper pilots, charter operators and maintenance companies.

She has also been reading submissions to the inquiry and said they contained evidence that "would make your hair curl".

She said the thrust of the submissions pointed to "systemic failure" of the regulatory body to encourage aviation in Australia.

Senator McDonald said aviation had always been an integral part of the business and recreation of people in regional Australia.

"I am really keen that we open the lid and get inside and see what we can do," she said.

"I grew up south of Cloncurry and as a young person every (air) strip you went to whether it be Longreach, Mt Isa or Roma, the aprons were always full of light aircraft and people buzzing around.


 LIFTING THE LID: Senator Susan McDonald said she was determined to lift the lid on the impact of red tape and regulation on aviation in the bush.

"If you went to a field day or a race meeting there would always be lots of planes and activity and now there are just so few.

"Pilots are telling me that it is regulatory compliance and the cost of regulatory compliance that is causing them to sell their planes or put them in sheds and hoping that one day they will be able to get back to flying again."

In its 60-page submission to the inquiry the Aerial Application Association of Australia (AAAA) said the "ongoing train-wreck of regulatory change" imposed by CASA had placed a heavy burden of red tape and costs on the industry without any safety benefit.

The AAAA, which represents the bulk of Australia's professional aerial application industry including ag pilots, said CASA's overreach on regulations had decimated the training of pilots and aviation maintenance engineers.


BUMPY TIMES: The Aerial Application Association of Australia, which represents ag pilots, among others, said regulation overreach was strangling its members.

Speaking about the AAAA submission its CEO Phil Hurst said because of the difficulties and costs dealing with CASA a number of people had moved to ultralights (a category that includes relatively sophisticated small panes) which were self-administered by Recreational Aviation Australia.

Mr Hurst said one of the biggest problems was that individuals within CASA were being allowed to draft regulations without "adult supervision".

He said the old pilot-licensing regulations which ran to about 100 pages had been replaced by Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 61 which was about 700 pages.


Worse still, Part 61 had created a manual of standards of another 700-plus pages, he said.


"How can you absorb that and carry that around in your head? You end up with 1600 pages of regulations when previously it was quite safe to do it with 100 pages of regulation."


Similarly, CASA had introduced complex regulations for licensing aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs) which, like pilot training, had pushed up costs "exponentially".


Some organisations had opted out of LAME training because it was uneconomic, Mr Hurst said.

The Australian Helicopter Industry Association, whose 90 members are involved in a large range of activities including fire fighting, agriculture, search and rescue and tourism, said CASA had created a regulatory nightmare for operators without any safety benefits.

In its submission the association's CEO Paul Tyrrell wrote that regulations for pilot licensing had grown to a "ridiculous" 700 pages.

The Australian helicopter industry, which has the second largest fleet in the world, was mature and only needed a light-handed regulatory approach, he said.

"CASA would be well served to treat it as a safety partner rather than a sector to be controlled," he wrote.

"Given that the industry has far more operational experience than anyone in CASA this is not an unreasonable request."

A spokesman for CASA said the authority would be making a contribution to the inquiry and would respond to the criticism at that time.

He said aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary and were developed to address known or likely safety risks that can't be properly addressed by non-regulatory means alone.

"We are very conscious of the costs we place on the aviation community and have a directive in place to ensure correct principles are followed.

"Every proposed regulation must be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety, having particular regard to the safety of passengers and other persons affected or likely to be affected by the activity involved.

"Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth," he said.

The story Mayday Mayday for aviation in the bush says Queensland senator first appeared on Farm Online.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Empire Strikes Back! - AGAIN 

Via AOPA Oz on FB: https://www.facebook.com/pg/AOPAaustrali...e_internal

IMPORTANT INDUSTRY ALERT
CASA DEMANDING DATA FROM PILOTS

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has today become aware that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have provided letters of demand to pilots participating in Community Service Flights, requiring recipients to submit data and information that may infringe a pilots privilege from self-incrimination. CASA have demanded a response from pilots within 10 days.

AOPA Australia is seeking advice of Senior Counsel on this matter and encourages recipients of the above letters to continue monitoring our news feeds for updates, to ensure responses protect individual rights.


An example of the letter from CASA is attached.

It is important for pilots and our industry to be aware, that CASA is currently being challenged in the Federal Court by Angel Flight, in relation to the validity of the unnecessary Community Service Flights regulations that were forcibly introduced in 2019 by the regulator.

The timing of these letters of demand for data and information, coincides with an interlocutory hearing in the Federal Court wherein Angel Flight were successful in its application to expand the grounds of the challenge against the regulator.

CASA’s Executive General Manager, Mr Chris Monahan (who is the CASA deponent named in the Federal Court challenge) appears to be on a fishing expedition, seeking to continue a campaign of harassment towards the volunteer Community Service Flight community.

AOPA Australia’s interest is to protect the aviation community by ensuring pilots are only required to provide what they are legally obligated to, and that individual rights are protected.

AOPA Australia advises pilots to also seek independent legal advice. Further information will be published following receipt of advice from Senior Counsel.

Your sincerely,

BENAJMIN MORGAN
Chief Executive Officer – AOPA Australia
NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

---

And some comments: 

Sandy Reith They’ve finally cracked, showing conclusively the depth of contempt that CASA has for General Aviation so that no one, especially our MPs, will have any doubt about the total lack of CASA bona fides.

See further comments attached to Ben’s FB video on this subject. Everyone should jack up on this harassment and ring, write, contact or somehow collar your Fed MPs including Senators. Now if ever is the time because the dog has bared his teeth, the malice is showing plainly for all to see. Authorities are required to treat everyone equally, CASAs demands fall short of that, AOPA’s legal opinion will be most interesting.

Support AOPA.

---

Henry Bear I would like to thank you Ben both personally and on behalf of fellow operators who I work with on your tenacity and willingness to support everyone.

Your interview with Glen and Ken the other night was so powerful and clearly presented that no-one could be in any doubt that CASA is misguided, lacks integrity or willingness to take blame or criticism, and is a bloated organisation that needs to be completely halted and started again.

Ben you are an amazing person and we are very lucky to have someone like yourself standing up and defending the rights of every operator big and small , I feel that at last this will be a turning point for general aviation, take care and keep the momentum going you have our full support ?

Plus:

&/or via FB:

For the record - 


Via ProAviation June 2013:

Warren Entsch challenges CASA
1 Reply


Warren Entsch, MLA for Leichardt and Chief Opposition Whip, delivered a fiery denunciation during last night’s adjournment debate, of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s treatment of Barrier Aviation. Warren’s electorate covers a large patch of Barrier’s operating area, and as a long-standing MP and frequent flier throughout Cape York and the Gulf Country, he’s watched these processes for many years with growing concern.

Other parliamentarians to whom ProAviation has spoken share his concerns, and Mr Entsch’s calls for an enquiry are likely to be echoed in many other electorates. Our readers have been providing us with suggested inclusions in a terms of reference, which we’ll be passing on at an appropriate time.

Here’s Mr Entsch’s speech in full:

I rise tonight to outline a very serious issue —the seemingly corrupt and anti-commercial conduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority office in Cairns, which appears to hide in the shadows and cites ‘safety’ as a reason to advance personal vendettas against local aviation operators. Numerous operators in Cairns have been subjected to incompetence, threats and demands from individuals who make decisions outside of CASA’s authority. Barrier Aviation is the most recent victim, but I know of at least three other operators who have been irreparably damaged by the Gestapo tactics of a few individuals, namely, Phil Lister, Mark Ayrey and Gerard Campbell, and with the Director of CASA himself turning a blind eye.

The complaints include: totally incorrect interpretations of regulations, requiring operators to jump through unnecessary hoops at the inspectors’ commands; the inexperience of inspectors, not knowing how to interpret regulations or legislation; inspectors entering aircraft unauthorised and unsupervised and interfering with master control switches; inspectors threatening regulatory action if operators do not do as they are told even when the inspectors are wrong; formal complaints being buried and never responded to.
It is common knowledge within the aviation industry that, if CASA want you shut down, they simply bury you with regulations and wear you down with costs until you go broke. In Cairns the personal vendetta against David Kilin, an industry stalwart of almost 40 years, has led to the closure of his life’s work.
It started back in 2011 when a complaint was made by Barrier to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This complaint implicated a number of individuals within CASA Cairns who had displayed incompetent, unethical and irresponsible conduct towards Barrier. In a blatant conflict of interest, the main subject of the complaint, Mr Phil Lister, remained as an inspector of Barrier Aviation and associated companies and, incredibly, received a promotion. Despite requests, CASA’s office refused to assign Barrier to another CASA office. Meanwhile, the complaint was never responded to and, in retaliation, CASA spent almost 18 months setting Barrier Aviation up. This included a complaint that was lodged against Barrier by a disgruntled ex-employee, who then fled back to his home country of New Zealand, resulting in the cancellation of Barrier’s AOC.
Barrier has serious concerns with CASA Cairns’s procedures, including the total lack of collaboration between CASA and the industry, unilateral decision-making, reversal of the onus of proof and the lack of procedural fairness and rights of appeal. At no time did CASA try to work with the operator to address their concerns. It was simply a witch-hunt to seek revenge on David Kilin. CASA has lied about evidence and padded their investigation to make Barrier into an unsafe operator despite Barrier previously excelling in this area.
What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court—and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been tested.
Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and David Kilin has lost his life’s work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.
Since Barrier’s very public demise, I have had numerous calls from right across the country from people telling me that CASA Cairns has a history of destroying small businesses. The most troubling thing is that, while these callers are keen to express a huge amount of sympathy for Barrier, they are too scared to speak publicly. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct. After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry. I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions.

---

One thought on “Warren Entsch challenges CASA”

PAIN_Net June 13, 2013 at 17:11

Dear Sir.

We applaud the speech made by the Hon. Warren Entsch in the adjournment debate on June 5, 2013 calling for an inquiry into the atrocious behaviour of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at Cairns, based on the matter of Barrier Aviation.

As he has correctly observed, there are many who have legitimate complaint with CASA officers and the imposed ‘culture of fear’ which has an obscene, detrimental effect on investor confidence, industry growth and the ability of people working in industry to be secure in their chosen business or employment.

We suggest that any inquiry made be expanded beyond the Cairns region to include other CASA offices of which many complaints are made anecdotally, but not formally registered for fear of administrative retribution. We believe some of your parliamentary colleagues would have similar issues to share with you.

In part, the ‘silence’ is due to the CASA examining complaints made against CASA, a lack of protection from punitive retribution through “administrative decisions” and the prohibitive cost to individuals and small companies of seeking independent judicial rulings.

It is quite clear to those in the industry who have observed these issues over many years, that these events are neither isolated nor random acts by malicious individuals; but those of a co-ordinated “culture” that has grown up within the CASA organisation and represented in virtually all areas of activity; but particularly in the airworthiness, flight operations, investigative and legal departments. The observed conduct produces identifiable, repetitive patterns of behaviour, some of which suggest deficiencies in the psychological fitness of some to perform their assigned tasks. This in turn begs questions regarding the quality of the organisation’s recruiting, selection, training and supervision processes.

It is notable that this “culture” has survived at least five successive chief executive officers, notwithstanding Mr Bruce Byron’s strenuous (and partly successful) efforts to diminish this influence. This makes an important point, the necessity for identifying and removing those who are opposed to genuine reform. Even with the imminent contract expiry of the present CEO we confidently predict that any ‘in house’ reshuffle at existing executive level would not result in a positive outcome.

Given adequate terms of reference and an effective independent forum, the proposed inquiry would clearly define the last years of fear, frustration and anger with an incompetent, embarrassing, corrupt regulatory system and the people who administer that system It is time this system was publicly exposed. Momentum from the Senate Inquiry into ATSB and CASA management of the Pel Air ditching has revealed only a relatively small example of one of many calumnies inflicted on an industry which seeks nothing more than to be, legally and freely, part of Australia’s future.

Yours faithfully.

The editors.

PAIN_Net.
Professional Aviators Investigative Network (PAIN) describes itself as “a loosely organised, informal, confidential network which has formed over a number of years. There are approximately 1000 associates of the network.” Many members, in one form or another may be properly considered expert witnesses. (Ed)

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The Empire Strikes Back! - AGAIN 

Via AOPA Oz on FB: https://www.facebook.com/pg/AOPAaustrali...e_internal

IMPORTANT INDUSTRY ALERT
CASA DEMANDING DATA FROM PILOTS

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has today become aware that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have provided letters of demand to pilots participating in Community Service Flights, requiring recipients to submit data and information that may infringe a pilots privilege from self-incrimination. CASA have demanded a response from pilots within 10 days.

AOPA Australia is seeking advice of Senior Counsel on this matter and encourages recipients of the above letters to continue monitoring our news feeds for updates, to ensure responses protect individual rights.


An example of the letter from CASA is attached.

It is important for pilots and our industry to be aware, that CASA is currently being challenged in the Federal Court by Angel Flight, in relation to the validity of the unnecessary Community Service Flights regulations that were forcibly introduced in 2019 by the regulator.

The timing of these letters of demand for data and information, coincides with an interlocutory hearing in the Federal Court wherein Angel Flight were successful in its application to expand the grounds of the challenge against the regulator.

CASA’s Executive General Manager, Mr Chris Monahan (who is the CASA deponent named in the Federal Court challenge) appears to be on a fishing expedition, seeking to continue a campaign of harassment towards the volunteer Community Service Flight community.

AOPA Australia’s interest is to protect the aviation community by ensuring pilots are only required to provide what they are legally obligated to, and that individual rights are protected.

AOPA Australia advises pilots to also seek independent legal advice. Further information will be published following receipt of advice from Senior Counsel.

Your sincerely,

BENAJMIN MORGAN
Chief Executive Officer – AOPA Australia
NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

---

And some comments: 

Sandy Reith They’ve finally cracked, showing conclusively the depth of contempt that CASA has for General Aviation so that no one, especially our MPs, will have any doubt about the total lack of CASA bona fides.

See further comments attached to Ben’s FB video on this subject. Everyone should jack up on this harassment and ring, write, contact or somehow collar your Fed MPs including Senators. Now if ever is the time because the dog has bared his teeth, the malice is showing plainly for all to see. Authorities are required to treat everyone equally, CASAs demands fall short of that, AOPA’s legal opinion will be most interesting.

Support AOPA.

---

Henry Bear I would like to thank you Ben both personally and on behalf of fellow operators who I work with on your tenacity and willingness to support everyone.

Your interview with Glen and Ken the other night was so powerful and clearly presented that no-one could be in any doubt that CASA is misguided, lacks integrity or willingness to take blame or criticism, and is a bloated organisation that needs to be completely halted and started again.

Ben you are an amazing person and we are very lucky to have someone like yourself standing up and defending the rights of every operator big and small , I feel that at last this will be a turning point for general aviation, take care and keep the momentum going you have our full support ?

Plus:

&/or via FB:

For the record - 


Via ProAviation June 2013:

Ref: Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (21:30) & https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...ost7877617

Warren Entsch challenges CASA
1 Reply


Warren Entsch, MLA for Leichardt and Chief Opposition Whip, delivered a fiery denunciation during last night’s adjournment debate, of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s treatment of Barrier Aviation. Warren’s electorate covers a large patch of Barrier’s operating area, and as a long-standing MP and frequent flier throughout Cape York and the Gulf Country, he’s watched these processes for many years with growing concern.

Other parliamentarians to whom ProAviation has spoken share his concerns, and Mr Entsch’s calls for an enquiry are likely to be echoed in many other electorates. Our readers have been providing us with suggested inclusions in a terms of reference, which we’ll be passing on at an appropriate time.

Here’s Mr Entsch’s speech in full:

I rise tonight to outline a very serious issue —the seemingly corrupt and anti-commercial conduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority office in Cairns, which appears to hide in the shadows and cites ‘safety’ as a reason to advance personal vendettas against local aviation operators. Numerous operators in Cairns have been subjected to incompetence, threats and demands from individuals who make decisions outside of CASA’s authority. Barrier Aviation is the most recent victim, but I know of at least three other operators who have been irreparably damaged by the Gestapo tactics of a few individuals, namely, Phil Lister, Mark Ayrey and Gerard Campbell, and with the Director of CASA himself turning a blind eye.

The complaints include: totally incorrect interpretations of regulations, requiring operators to jump through unnecessary hoops at the inspectors’ commands; the inexperience of inspectors, not knowing how to interpret regulations or legislation; inspectors entering aircraft unauthorised and unsupervised and interfering with master control switches; inspectors threatening regulatory action if operators do not do as they are told even when the inspectors are wrong; formal complaints being buried and never responded to.
It is common knowledge within the aviation industry that, if CASA want you shut down, they simply bury you with regulations and wear you down with costs until you go broke. In Cairns the personal vendetta against David Kilin, an industry stalwart of almost 40 years, has led to the closure of his life’s work.
It started back in 2011 when a complaint was made by Barrier to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This complaint implicated a number of individuals within CASA Cairns who had displayed incompetent, unethical and irresponsible conduct towards Barrier. In a blatant conflict of interest, the main subject of the complaint, Mr Phil Lister, remained as an inspector of Barrier Aviation and associated companies and, incredibly, received a promotion. Despite requests, CASA’s office refused to assign Barrier to another CASA office. Meanwhile, the complaint was never responded to and, in retaliation, CASA spent almost 18 months setting Barrier Aviation up. This included a complaint that was lodged against Barrier by a disgruntled ex-employee, who then fled back to his home country of New Zealand, resulting in the cancellation of Barrier’s AOC.
Barrier has serious concerns with CASA Cairns’s procedures, including the total lack of collaboration between CASA and the industry, unilateral decision-making, reversal of the onus of proof and the lack of procedural fairness and rights of appeal. At no time did CASA try to work with the operator to address their concerns. It was simply a witch-hunt to seek revenge on David Kilin. CASA has lied about evidence and padded their investigation to make Barrier into an unsafe operator despite Barrier previously excelling in this area.
What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court—and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been tested.
Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and David Kilin has lost his life’s work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.
Since Barrier’s very public demise, I have had numerous calls from right across the country from people telling me that CASA Cairns has a history of destroying small businesses. The most troubling thing is that, while these callers are keen to express a huge amount of sympathy for Barrier, they are too scared to speak publicly. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct. After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry. I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions.

---

One thought on “Warren Entsch challenges CASA”

PAIN_Net June 13, 2013 at 17:11

Dear Sir.

We applaud the speech made by the Hon. Warren Entsch in the adjournment debate on June 5, 2013 calling for an inquiry into the atrocious behaviour of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at Cairns, based on the matter of Barrier Aviation.

As he has correctly observed, there are many who have legitimate complaint with CASA officers and the imposed ‘culture of fear’ which has an obscene, detrimental effect on investor confidence, industry growth and the ability of people working in industry to be secure in their chosen business or employment.

We suggest that any inquiry made be expanded beyond the Cairns region to include other CASA offices of which many complaints are made anecdotally, but not formally registered for fear of administrative retribution. We believe some of your parliamentary colleagues would have similar issues to share with you.

In part, the ‘silence’ is due to the CASA examining complaints made against CASA, a lack of protection from punitive retribution through “administrative decisions” and the prohibitive cost to individuals and small companies of seeking independent judicial rulings.

It is quite clear to those in the industry who have observed these issues over many years, that these events are neither isolated nor random acts by malicious individuals; but those of a co-ordinated “culture” that has grown up within the CASA organisation and represented in virtually all areas of activity; but particularly in the airworthiness, flight operations, investigative and legal departments. The observed conduct produces identifiable, repetitive patterns of behaviour, some of which suggest deficiencies in the psychological fitness of some to perform their assigned tasks. This in turn begs questions regarding the quality of the organisation’s recruiting, selection, training and supervision processes.

It is notable that this “culture” has survived at least five successive chief executive officers, notwithstanding Mr Bruce Byron’s strenuous (and partly successful) efforts to diminish this influence. This makes an important point, the necessity for identifying and removing those who are opposed to genuine reform. Even with the imminent contract expiry of the present CEO we confidently predict that any ‘in house’ reshuffle at existing executive level would not result in a positive outcome.

Given adequate terms of reference and an effective independent forum, the proposed inquiry would clearly define the last years of fear, frustration and anger with an incompetent, embarrassing, corrupt regulatory system and the people who administer that system It is time this system was publicly exposed. Momentum from the Senate Inquiry into ATSB and CASA management of the Pel Air ditching has revealed only a relatively small example of one of many calumnies inflicted on an industry which seeks nothing more than to be, legally and freely, part of Australia’s future.

Yours faithfully.

The editors.

PAIN_Net.
Professional Aviators Investigative Network (PAIN) describes itself as “a loosely organised, informal, confidential network which has formed over a number of years. There are approximately 1000 associates of the network.” Many members, in one form or another may be properly considered expert witnesses. (Ed)

[Peetwo]

20/20 Inquiry Update - 20/08/20

Introductory Submissions 18 & 19:

18 Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (PDF 171 KB) 

1. Summary

1.1. Aero clubs deliver significant economic and social benefits to rural and regional
communities. These include flight training, aviation infrastructure and general aviation (GA)
services.
1.2. Much of the regulation administered by CASA has been poorly developed and
implemented, and is overly prescriptive and complex. This has had an adverse effect on
aero clubs and GA more generally without appreciable improvements in safety outcomes.
1.3. Reform of CASA’s culture, mandate and processes is essential.
1.4. Systematic, piece-wise review of regulation will improve compliance and regulatory
effectiveness

---

4. Reform

4.1. The first step is for government to recognise a problem exists. The second is deciding to do
something.
4.2. Aero clubs and flight schools, like GA more broadly, are challenged by technology and
demographics, but their struggle under the prevailing regulatory regime is existential. Their
continued disappearance has an adverse effect on jobs, training and social cohesion,
particularly in rural and regional communities.
4.3. Safety regulation must be reviewed in consultation with the sector. Much can be simplified
and the cost of compliance reduced without sacrificing safety outcomes. This review need
not attempt broad, fundamental changes, but should prioritise and tackle a few areas at a
time. More coherent and effective regulations will emerge and safety will be the better for
it.
4.4. This initiative will not succeed, and will quickly become bogged down, unless CASA’s
organisation and culture is reformed. In key areas it appears to suffer from an inflexible,
change-resistant, process-driven mindset and lacks skills to manage projects and
relationships with stakeholders. Steps taken by CASA’s leaders in recent years have led to
improvements but perspective and impetus from outside the organisation is required.
4.5. CASA’s mission should also be considered. Its exclusive focus on safety is unusual for
aviation administrators in developed countries, which normally have added responsibilities
for the sector’s longer-term sustainability and development. CASA’s predecessor was
criticised after the 1993 Monarch Airlines accident, but overseas experience shows a
balance between regulatory supervision and sector stewardship can be achieved. The
safety records of those jurisdictions are the same or better than Australia’s.

19 RAAA (PDF 435 KB) 

1. The immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses,
agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia is not always understood by CASA. For example, the slow and disjointed approach to operational regulations and maintenance regulations. Both sets of legislation must go hand in hand and one cannot be prosecuted sensibly in isolation to the other. There appears to be very little understanding of the interrelationship between maintenance and operations. For example, as we approach the eleventh hour of making the operational suite of regulations for CASR Part 135, CASA has yet to decide which philosophical approach it will adopt in terms of maintenance requirements for this, the largest industry sector (in terms of numbers of organisations affected) right across Australia.

2. CASA's processes and functions, including its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian
aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors has been cumbersome at best.
Some will promote the view that private general aviation is dying as a result of CASAs actions. Yet under the careful oversight of CASA via self-administered organisations like Recreational Aviation Australia numbers are flourishing with over 10,000 members and over 3,000 aircraft on their register. RA-Aus also run 40% of the flying training schools in Australia with 174 organisations currently active. However, it is vital to note that the RA-Aus graduate cannot operate in the commercial world and is restricted to private operations only. The foundational eco-system of the commercial world are the Australian owned flying schools producing commercial licenced pilots. These organisations are struggling under onerous regulations of CASR parts 141 and 142 which have yet to demonstrate improved safety and quality outcomes commensurate with the increased investment.

3. The efficacy of CASAs engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation, has never been better. The formation of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and the applicable Technical Working Groups brings significant and relevant industry expertise directly to the tables of senior leaders in CASA. The resulting undiluted intelligence leaves CASA with the most up to date and relevant state of the industry. This system needs to be maintained and protected at all costs.

4. The inconsistencies between different CASA offices and even different CASA personnel continues to be a drain on the industry and often results in unnecessary expense and waste of resources due to one
individual’s interpretation of a particular regulation. CASA must work towards eliminating this with a more centralising system of policy determination and regulatory decision making. The ATO seems to have a good system to ensure consistency of regulatory interpretation and CASA desperately needs something similar.

P2 OBS - From the Tuesday AOPA Sports Aviation video conference session (see below at approximately 39:45 minutes) BM indicates that there is news that inquiry public hearings are slated to start from August 28th??   

AOPA Australia

REFORMING CASA:  THE KEY TO SPORT AVIATION SUCCESS

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation with theSport Aircraft Association of Australia and the Gliding Federation of Australia, discussing how a lack of CASA reform is damaging Australia's sport aviation sectors.

THIS WEEKS PANELIST

- Benjamin Morgan: Chief Executive Officer, AOPA Australia
- Tony White: President, SAAA
- Gary Weeks: Director, SAAA
- Peter Cesco:  President, GFA

JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION - LIVE

AOPA Australia invites you to post your comments and questions during the live panel broadcast.

JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION - LIVE

AOPA Australia invites you to post your comments and questions during the live panel broadcast.

Via Youtube:

&/or via FB:

Comments:

David Young  · 1:21:13 The funding provided by CASA to the sports aviation organisations is quite simply inadequate to enable those 9 organisations to conduct their required compliance activities that those bodies need to conduct on behalf of CASA. This is particularly astounding when compared to the amount of funding available to CASA to essentially do the same task. The inequity is astounding.

Mark Newton  · 1:02:12 Before the South African CAA disbanded their equivalent of RAAus, they also regulated to destroy their equivalent of GFA and force all their glider pilots to join the RAAus-equivalent body. Now it’s all collapsed, so there are _two_ sports aviation organizations that were torn up, achieving nothing.

AN AIRPORTS TALE

The privatisation of secondary airports in Australia was a whole different ball game than that of the primaries. The primaries were potential cash cows ripe for exploitation, the secondaries were essentially Air Parks, catering for small businesses supporting aviation enthusiasts, charter companies and flying training. When run by the Federal Airports commission (FAC), at the best of times they only returned around thirty Million dollars a year in dividend to the commonwealth. The FAC ran the airports in the interests of its users, modest, affordable rents, long term leases that allowed people to invest in aviation with some security of tenure.

Two particular bureaucrats were tasked with finding buyers for these airports, a difficult task if these airports were to remain airports.

The land these airports occupied real value lay in their potential for non-aviation related industrial development. Inconveniently the Airport Act and the head leases provided protections against this occurring, essentially recognising that to exist, aviation required an airport from which to operate therefore reserving the land for aviation use, in much the same manner as Parks and other open areas were reserved for public use.

A long game needed to be played by any development shark eyeing off usurping green field publicly owned land worth billions as industrial sites but as we know its very hard to stand between a development shark and a dollar, if they cant get it by hook they will by crook.

In the Sydney basin there were three secondary airports serving general aviation, the bureaucrats engineered a deal with a bank to buy all three for about $250,000,000, but the bank pulled out at the last minute so the deal was sweetened by offering Hoxton Park freehold and the deal was then done. Hoxton park was closed, its runway torn up and sold for around what the bank paid for all three airports, a nice little earner, two airports and ultimately their land basically for free.

None of the entities who bought leases for secondary airports did so to run an airport, they did so to develop greenfield land worth potentially billions but first they had to engineer getting rid of as much aviation activity they could.

All the new leaseholders of secondary airports used their monopoly advantage to diminish as much aviation activity as possible. Rental increases of at times thousands of percent drove many businesses from secondary airports or they simply closed their doors. Draconian parking fees caused a mass exodus to private airfields or regional centres far from the city. To further ensure no new aviation activity could establish, very short-term leases were offered to discourage any new businesses from establishing a foothold.

The thing I find strange is the bureaucrats were heavily lobbying responsible ministers to remove clauses from the airport leases they engineered that hindered development. There was even a play for Jandakot to close entirely and the leaseholder would build a whole new airport 30 Km away. The minister declined to approve that proposal.

A subsequent minister was lobbied to alter the leases to give the developers free reign, by producing a document that indicated all stakeholders were consulted and agreed to this. The minister’s adviser at the time was so concerned he brought a copy of this document to the president of the AOPA who vehemently denied he had been consulted. This minister also declined the proposal.

Restrictions were finally lifted by Warren Truss when he became minister, interestingly his permanent head was also involved with the initial sale of the airport leases.

One would have thought that once the sales were done the bureaucrats job was finished. Why would they lobby, heavily, to change the terms of the leaseholds?

Did they make under the table promises during sales negotiations?

Were they or the minister promised “considerations” if they could convince a minister to sign off the impediments?

I guess we will never know the answers to those questions, one thing is for sure the stage was now set for the transformation of secondary airports from being airports to being industrial estates which may or may not have a runway left for aviation use.

If this was the ultimate intention of government the Australian people should feel very aggrieved. If they had just announced all secondary airports would be closed in the first place and sold for industrial development, the land would have sold at a premium, instead of pursuing this facade of preserving airports for aviation use.

The Bankstown experience raises many questions.

Is the land the airport sits on Commonwealth land, or state land owned by the commonwealth. Legal opinion would suggest it is State land, it carries a LOT and Portfolio number. If it was in fact “State Land” were state planning and environmental laws complied with

The notion that it is Commonwealth land has been used to circumvent a lot of state codes.
For example there seems to be no record of Stamp duty being paid on the original leases. That denied State coffers of many millions of dollars.

State environmental requirements were circumvented, a runway closed against safety advice and a flood plain filled with asbestos contaminated fill on top of already heavily contaminated land. The environmental approval for this essentially written by the airport leaseholder, given an air of authority by writing it on Commonwealth Letterhead.

These are just two of the passing strange issues that have occurred at Bankstown.

The lease for Bankstown is currently controlled by The State Government super fund, the airport act says a trust, which is what a super fund is, cannot own an airport lease. State super simply says they don’t, they just own the company that owns the lease.

Safety aspects associated with airport development seem to have been ignored in a frantic flurry of work under cover of the covid pandemic. The massive structures rising on the Southern side of the airport making perfect targets for an Essendon type event. We were very lucky that time that mass casualties did not occur, we may not be so lucky next time.

As many pilots who operate into Canberra will attest, the turbulence created in strong winds by buildings close to runways is a severe hazard, more so at Bankstown considering the small aircraft that operate there.

Bankstown airport is heavily contaminated from war-time activity. The filling of the flood plain with contaminated soil adding to the mix, all being channelled straight into the Georges river. By cutting off the flood plain future floods will more than likely be more severe upstream of the airport, during the recent small flood a lot of houses were damaged that had never seen flood waters before and it was by no means a fifty year flood.

Will that expose the Australian taxpayer to the potential of monstrous compensation claims?

The Southern development is just the start of the eventual destruction of Bankstown as an airport, almost a third of the land taken in one bite. Development of the Northern precinct will take another third, the likely scenario as aviation declines that it will become a single runway in a wind tunnel surrounded by warehouses with little room for any aviation development.

If that was the government’s intention in the first place a far higher premium could have been obtained for the Australian public without all the subterfuge.

The development sharks will make the billions not the public purse and of course who cares about the aviation industry when dollars are to be made.

The machinations of the bureaucrats who engineered this have never been publicly scrutinised.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Via Oz Flying:

---

 

CASA shackled on Risk-based Regulation: RAAA
20 August 2020
Comments 1 Comment


Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) CEO Mike Higgins has said that CASA is being shackled by the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which prevents it from implementing risk-based regulation for general aviation.

Higgins made the claims in the RAAA's submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the general aviation industry.

According to Higgins, there are "certain elements" in the current version of the Act that is preventing CASA from moving to  risk-based regulation from the prescriptive rules currently applied.

"Rather than be bound by the commercial or hire-or-reward imperatives, a fresh look at a genuine risk-based approach is required," Higgins says. "The current approach may be appropriate for the large end of the sector; however, this simplistic approach is not allowing the smaller end of the sector to flourish as it should ..."

Higgins believes that the issue has been simmering for decades with no resolution and that the time to tackle it head on is now.

"Attempting the adoption and application of a risk-based philosophy to regulatory development has frustrated CASA and its predecessors for decades," he says. "Governments of both persuasions have been struggling with this concept since 1986 and the time has come to grasp the nettle and resolve the legacy issues embedded in the traditional approach to the regulation of general aviation."

Higgins points out that several CASA documents such as the minister's Statement of Expectations and the CASA Regulatory Philosophy already call for a risk-based approach and a reappraisal of how it functioned would benefit both general aviation and the regulator.

"The fresh perspective will give traction to the various CASA publications which espouse a risk-based and outcomes-focused philosophy. This will free up both industry and CASA resources from the burden of less than effective administration and cost which has been the bane of the smaller end of the industry for decades."

The full RAAA submission is available from the senate inquiry website.

Sandy Reith • 3 hours ago

While it is true that the emphasis on safety, as expressed with the unintelligent and simplistic notion ‘the primacy of safety,’ is written to guide CASA, there has recently been added to the legislation the requirement to consider economics. Unfortunately for General Aviation (GA) CASA has shown repeatedly that it is incapable of taking a hint, or even following it’s own plainly stated intentions. CASA’s letter to operators of 1989, a fulsome example of good intent, all about reducing regulations and costs to the aviation industry being a case in point. Without political intervention GA will continue to shrink with great loss to the Nation, jobs businesses and services.

---

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A dream – in a nutshell.

Glen_B - “A very real opportunity sits before the Deputy PM. Bow to the pressure of a Royal Commission or simply instigate change and employ personnel that can deliver professionalism. The change of less than 5 staff, replaced by "new blood" may well achieve more than a Royal Commission.”

I keep coming back to the Glen_B comment above. Less than 50 words; and, at first read – a game changer; in theory at least. Initially, I thought it is a theory I could support, indeed it has true merit and would go a long way to resolving several major problems – but would it be a 100% 'cure'?

The short answer is no, it would not. Over the last three decades a carefully constructed power base has been brought into law: unchallenged by minister and industry alike. Now I don't care who sits at the top table; human nature and the 'type' of character which the level of 'power' the CASA executive hold attracts, alongside a rule set which guarantees immunity from any check or balance is an almost irresistible recipe for 'corruption' in both a legal and moral sense. It ain't a 'new' problem:-

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” (RH Lord Acton).

Where do we look for a solution? To government of course – and what do we run into there? Ayup; same old, same old. We have had a string of ministers who were and are quite happy to let CASA 'do it's thing' - all in the name of safety of course. Their safety being of prime concern - “Oh we leave that to the experts” - exeunt stage left with hat and coat. Then, may we look to the parliament? Nope, forget that – the easy application of the rubber stamp is simply too tempting a dish to refuse – well, that and the security of the 'experts' as a handy scapegoats, should the need arise.

So, we wheel in a new 'top five' – can you see them sitting down with a honest Board and dismantling the powers that have been gifted? - Yes - Then let me sell you a lightly used bridge in excellent condition with unparalleled harbour views.

There is serious work for the government to do – the only real course of action (IMO) is to simply start again – from the beginning. New Zealand did, very successfully, economically and quickly. They identified the radical; addressed it and have never looked back. The entire public service is on full pay – fully employed – there is great talent hidden away in 'treasury' and the PMC – honest, hardworking folk with the long term interests of this nation at heart. Put 'em work; now, while aviation is parked up. There will never be another (I hope) opportunity like this to get aviation back on the rails. We don't have the two years worth of steam in the boiler to follow McDonald's course; the next half year will be critical; after that – well, its anyone's guess what will be left – the sure bet – it won't be too much....

There, I feel much better now. - Toot – toot.

[Kharon]

But. Is there 'a' case to answer?

Glen_B. “On other matters and on high-level advice, I will also be proceeding with a case of negligent misstatement/ misfeasance and malfeasance against CASA for the significant commercial damage inflicted on my business, and several other businesses and individuals as part of this process.”

The short answer is no. To view the Buckley matter in isolation i.e. 'a' (singular) aberration will not prevent future cases or analyse past cases, where, in some instances, the damage enforced has been in excess of even the horrors inflicted on Buckley.

The infamous 'Pel-Air' ditching off Norfolk Island which was the subject of not only a Senate Inquiry but an ASSR review, costing many millions of dollars, should have seen the fundamental changes demanded embraced and enforced on the regulator. That inquiry, standing alone, should have prevented the 'standard' CASA tactics being used against Buckley.

I say 'standard' as the method and madness used has not changed in over two decades. Buckley is not an isolated case; indeed, he is but one of many who have had 'the treatment'. Sen McDonald mentions that some submissions 'would make your hair curl'. I wonder what would happen if every operator and individual with a substantiated grievance stepped up and told their tale of woe. Tales of businesses destroyed, individuals hounded, careers destroyed; all play things to the CASA conscience.

The truly sinister side to this is the very real fear engendered; 'go along to get along' – or else. Everyone knows what 'or else' means. Smile, and breathe a sigh of relief when CASA have left the building; do not get on the 'wrong side' of even the clerk in the pencil sharpening cupboard; no matter how preposterous, expensive or potentially lethal the edicts are. Strict liability and a criminal record for even minor infringements are always the first and foremost thought; and CASA can whip up a case out of nothing - and drive it home with almost manic malice. Few have survived the onslaught,

This is not some whimsy of my imagination. Should the next Senate Inquiry genuinely want to get the aviation industry back to a thriving, productive major revenue and job producing state – Buckley, and all who went before him need to be heard – clearly and properly.

IMO, failure to examine this 'unspoken' element – to whit,  'Embuggerance' renders the current and future 'inquiry' nugatory – and inevitably risible. Solution – in camera – come one, come all; the truth will set the industry free; provided the politicians have the sand to grasp the nettle.

"True it is Philautus that he which toucheth ye nettle tenderly, is soonest stoung."

Aye well; one can but try -

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Submission 20 (ANON) & 21 (Mary Brown) - 

Via Parl website:

20 Name Withheld (PDF 69 KB) 

Summary

CASA’s regulatory reform program, based as it is on safety, has not
demonstrated safety deficiencies that required reform in the first place.
Regulatory reforms have not addressed the financial or economic impact of


proposed changes. Post implementation, has not documented the safety
improvements of reforms, nor the safety improvements arising from them.
Despite public statements to the contrary, CASA’s interaction with the
general aviation industry continues an adversarial approach to
implementation and surveillance.

These issues have been identified and have been well documented in
previous reviews. The problems are long standing and reflect a deep seated

culture within CASA seeks at every opportunity transfer risk from itself to

general aviation. CASA’s resistance to change is also well documented.

Until the organisation’s resistant culture can be changed, the viability of
general aviation will continue to decline rather than thrive.

21 Mrs Mary Brown (PDF 227 KB) 

4. Any related matters.

A report from the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau ‘Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2008-2017’
clearly identifies that the number of fatalities in GA and RA during 2017 were consistent with the
previous nine years. This in itself demonstrates that CASA delivered no measurable safety
improvements during this time. In 2008, according to the CASA Annual Report (07/08), CASA employed
653 employees. CASA’s 2016-17 Annual Report stipulates that the Organisation had 830 employees.
Whilst no measurable safety outcomes were delivered, a raft of regulatory changes WERE delivered, as
evidenced by the increase in the Organisation’s staffing levels over the period examined by the ATSB
Statistics report.

In addition to the increase in staffing levels, we have seen CASA move to an electronic platform as its’
preferred means of communicating and consulting with Industry. The Organisation’s apparent
reluctance to directly engage with stakeholders has resulted in a communications breakdown that can
only be remedied with improved access to face-to-face exchanges and personal communications. Many
within the Industry admit to being able to communicate more effectively in person than on-line. It is that
personal interaction that will facilitate a more positive relationship between Industry and CASA, and allow
CASA to glean a full understanding of the sentiments of those operating within the space of GA. Many
of these Operators are highly skilled, exceptionally knowledgeable and expertly practiced in the
practicalities of safe and sustainable aviation in Australia.

With regards to communications with CASA, a worrying scenario exists with the interpretation of Rules,
AD’s, requirements etc. It is often found that interpretation, rather than solid clarification, is offered by
CASA representatives when contacted for assistance from Industry. These interpretations differ from
staff member to staff member. It has become obvious to Industry that if CASA cannot agree to an
interpretation, the clarification that industry needs can never be obtained. In summary, if our regulator
cannot answer Industry’s questions, how can Industry comply?

Australian aviation has the capacity to return to the vigorous and exciting industry it once was, as we are
incredibly well positioned to be a training ground for pilots and engineers to specialise in their fields, and
meet the needs of an ever-evolving and improving industry. We simply need to be equipped with the
tools to do so. Unfortunately under CASA’s current operational structure, scope and delivery style, there
is very little confidence within the industry that this will ever eventuate, unless urgent, industry knowledge
and proactive expertise can be introduced into the organisation.

Yours in Aviation,

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 22 (RLC) 

Via the RRAT 20/20 inquiry webpage: 

22 Mr Robert Cassidy (PDF 416 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 92280 KB) 

My sincerest recommendation to the Senate Committee, is to completely dismantle C.A.S.A., from top to bottom and discard the entire suite of Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and Civil Aviation Orders and C.A.S.A.’s ridiculous way of regulating the Aviation industry, would be a good place to start. By squeezing the pedantic, wrap everyone in cotton-wool rules and regulations into the Federal Aviation Administration numbering system, as C.A.S.A. endeavors to achieve, is not the answer. The U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations are simple and practical. They should be adopted, completely, and wherever Federal Aviation Administration appears, change it to Civil Aviation Safety Authority and replace U.S. with Australia. 

You should know that I had applied to C.A.S.A. to become the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, when the position was advertised, but a career bureaucrat and the Acting CEO/DAS was the preferred choice. Does he even know how to fly? I do.

Hmm..same hymn sheet again and I reckon Thorny and Sandy could relate to this...

Let us consider the following: To purchase a set of Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) and

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) would cost $169.95 and to purchase a set of
Civil Aviation Orders (CAO) would cost $99.95 and for the Airman’s Information
Publication it would cost $69.95 + $99.00 for a 12 month revision service. Or, $438.85
for all, including 3 three-ring A4 binders. By comparison, the U.S. Federal Aviation
Regulations combined with the Airman’s Information Manual in one book would cost 
$17.95 (USD). Does a more voluminous and ridiculously expensive set of Aviation

Regulations make it any safer? Or, do you think for Operators and Pilots to understand
the CASA Regulations and try to apply them in every day practical ways, would make it
less safe? I would bet on the latter. I believe C.A.S.A. has failed its mandate, under Civil
Aviation Regulation Act 1988, Section 9.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 23 (Dick Smith) & 24 (Confidential)

Via: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...ubmissions

---

23 Mr Dick Smith (PDF 159 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 1029 KB) 

Dear Senators


RE: SUBMISSION - INQUIRY INTO THE CURRENT STATE OF AUSTRALIA’S GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY



As a former Chairman of both the Civil Aviation Authority and Civil Aviation Safety Authority, I believe the

inquiry into the current state of Australia’s General Aviation Industry must prioritise amending the wording

of the overarching Civil Aviation Act. Unless this is addressed, any change to underlying legislation will be

futile.



The Civil Aviation Act states:



“9A Performance of functions

(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air

navigation as the most important consideration.”



The problem relates to the “absolute” wording that safety must be the most important consideration. This

wording fails to address the fact that there are different regulated levels of safety which relate to the type

of operation and the cost a passenger would be able to pay for a ticket. For example, a joy flight for three

passengers would be prohibitively expensive if conducted in a multi-engine turbine powered aircraft with

two flight crew.



This absolute statement in the Civil Aviation Act is resulting in the destruction of the general aviation

industry as regulations become increasingly expensive in order to comply. Operators cannot remain viable

with these increasing costs and the expectations of their passengers.



In February 2018, Transport Minister Barnaby Joyce and Shadow Minister Anthony Albanese agreed to

amend the Civil Aviation Act to the following wording, recognising the importance of high levels of safety

while emphasising the vital importance of general aviation in Australia.



“9A Performance of functions

(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must seek achieve the highest

level of safety in air navigation that is consistent with:

(a) Maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable

general aviation and training sector

(b) The need for more people to benefit from civil aviation.”


The amendment was abandoned when Minister Michael McCormack replaced Barnaby Joyce...

---

24 Confidential

---

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

It becomes a question of 'respect'.

The old jungle drums and rumour mill are at it – full steam. There is even a story that a 'political' wannabe – twice sacked, only to be replaced by the RAOz tea lady as 'ministerial adviser' has had the temerity to not only apply for the DAS job, but is actually on the final list – BOLLOCKS.

It is a scam – a tester – to see if a 'puppet' with aspirations could be foisted on this industry. The 'Nat's' won't have a bar of him for a seat– Chester and McWhatisname both sacked him - FCOL.

Seriously – who – in possession of their faculties (all of 'em) – would even contemplate such a thing?

Well, within CASA there is a reptile of the venomous, narcissistic kind who has been whispering his manic, deluded, almost evil edicts to those who would ascend to the throne (*and 600 k a year by the way). Aye; the wages of sin. St Commode has almost topped the bill as the biggest bully who ever wore socks – completely subservient to the 'whispering' voice behind the Kool Aide fountain. Never, not ever was there a more repellent article  ascended to the throne – he, as Deputy DAS, completely buggered up a DAS who would have made a difference; shot his boots off (from behind cover) true dat. Fat arse only to achieve the throne (and salary) he thought he was worth through 'dynasty' connections and a considerable amount of boot kissing – he had 'debts', A sinner, a proven liar, a proven cheat and a proven gutless, bag of wind bully. That is how St Commode will be recorded in history; fat arsed, flatulent, self serving bully boy of limited intelligence; a ministers arse licker.  etc.... Perhaps being the runt of a very successful litter fuelled his megalomania – who knows why he public ally denigrated his 'Boss' when he was 2 IC.

But, thank the gods – he has now departed the fix – halle bloody leujah. So, boys and girls – what will you make of 'your' new DAS – did you have any input to the process? Did Tony the turncoat ever- once – seek your opinion of 'what' makes the best DAS?

And so we end up with what? As DAS?

I say this – (and I mean it) – If Mike Smith wins through – I will offer my services to CASA, humble though they be. If the wannabe Campbell gets the gig – I will burn my ATPL; Class 1 Medical, CIR, abandon 20,000 command hours etc; and, never, not ever again, look upon my 50 years in aviation as my 'profession'. I will close down Aunt Pru and retire to a simple life where the perfecting of a grandfather clock housing pays much (much) more – and – I am 'at home' most nights.

Seriously – how could 'Campbell' be even considered as DAS? On what grounds – barring 'political? It is absurd – and that's not just by me; or ,the serious professional industry represented - (and 'we' are, by the by, very (very) professional). If this RRAT committee 'accept' this Campbell travesty; unchallenged – given what they must know etc. Then – the shame and blame will be driven home to their ineptitude, irrelevance and an un required impost on public funds. Not to mention their three decade track record of inability, in any real sense, to return Australia to a 'thing' that actually mattered to the wider aviation industry. Not the pathetic international joke we see today.

The aviation world is laughing it's socks off at Australia- the minister - a perpetual joke; the industry branded as gutless – and, the ever obedient CASA board a colossal, corrupt, mindless, useless failure. The RRAT has FAILED – repeatedly – to address this blatant fraud perpetrated against the Australian tax payers.

It comes down to one simple question – Ms McDonald – can you fix it? Yes – then we salute, support and admire.  No (in real political reality) – well then; time to toddle off to the Kool Aide fountain. We are deeply submerged in sullage here; not to mention sewerage – will this particular Senate 'Inquiry' achieve anymore than those (multiple thereof) preceding which not only changed SFA but showed the inherent weakness in the 'attack logic'.

Tick Tock - The 'book' is open – I will take all bets – bring one bring all...Game on...

Toot – PWP - Mea culpa - toot. YES - Colour me 'furious'......

[Peetwo]

P2 Addendum:

CC off the UP: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st10885642

Checklist Charlie

I therefore suspect nothing will change in the regulator then.


Appoint a patsy so nothing changes. The iron ring continues its unfettered abuse of the industry, especially GA.
I am thankful that as I am retired I am no longer subjected to the exsistence of the Committee Against Safe Aviation.

CC

It becomes a question of 'respect'.

The old jungle drums and rumour mill are at it – full steam. There is even a story that a 'political' wannabe – twice sacked, only to be replaced by the RAOz tea lady as 'ministerial adviser' has had the temerity to not only apply for the DAS job, but is actually on the final list – BOLLOCKS.

It is a scam – a tester – to see if a 'puppet' with aspirations could be foisted on this industry. The 'Nat's' won't have a bar of him for a seat– Chester and McWhatisname both sacked him - FCOL.

Seriously – who – in possession of their faculties (all of 'em) – would even contemplate such a thing?

Well, within CASA there is a reptile of the venomous, narcissistic kind who has been whispering his manic, deluded, almost evil edicts to those who would ascend to the throne (*and 600 k a year by the way). Aye; the wages of sin. St Commode has almost topped the bill as the biggest bully who ever wore socks – completely subservient to the 'whispering' voice behind the Kool Aide fountain. Never, not ever was there a more repellent article  ascended to the throne – he, as Deputy DAS, completely buggered up a DAS who would have made a difference; shot his boots off (from behind cover) true dat. Fat arse only to achieve the throne (and salary) he thought he was worth through 'dynasty' connections and a considerable amount of boot kissing – he had 'debts', A sinner, a proven liar, a proven cheat and a proven gutless, bag of wind bully. That is how St Commode will be recorded in history; fat arsed, flatulent, self serving bully boy of limited intelligence; a ministers arse licker.  etc.... Perhaps being the runt of a very successful litter fuelled his megalomania – who knows why he public ally denigrated his 'Boss' when he was 2 IC.

But, thank the gods – he has now departed the fix – halle bloody leujah. So, boys and girls – what will you make of 'your' new DAS – did you have any input to the process? Did Tony the turncoat ever- once – seek your opinion of 'what' makes the best DAS?

And so we end up with what? As DAS?

I say this – (and I mean it) – If Mike Smith wins through – I will offer my services to CASA, humble though they be. If the wannabe Campbell gets the gig – I will burn my ATPL; Class 1 Medical, CIR, abandon 20,000 command hours etc; and, never, not ever again, look upon my 50 years in aviation as my 'profession'. I will close down Aunt Pru and retire to a simple life where the perfecting of a grandfather clock housing pays much (much) more – and – I am 'at home' most nights.

Seriously – how could 'Campbell' be even considered as DAS? On what grounds – barring 'political? It is absurd – and that's not just by me; or ,the serious professional industry represented - (and 'we' are, by the by, very (very) professional). If this RRAT committee 'accept' this Campbell travesty; unchallenged – given what they must know etc. Then – the shame and blame will be driven home to their ineptitude, irrelevance and an un required impost on public funds. Not to mention their three decade track record of inability, in any real sense, to return Australia to a 'thing' that actually mattered to the wider aviation industry. Not the pathetic international joke we see today.

The aviation world is laughing it's socks off at Australia- the minister - a perpetual joke; the industry branded as gutless – and, the ever obedient CASA board a colossal, corrupt, mindless, useless failure. The RRAT has FAILED – repeatedly – to address this blatant fraud perpetrated against the Australian tax payers.

It comes down to one simple question – Ms McDonald – can you fix it? Yes – then we salute, support and admire.  No (in real political reality) – well then; time to toddle off to the Kool Aide fountain. We are deeply submerged in sullage here; not to mention sewerage – will this particular Senate 'Inquiry' achieve anymore than those (multiple thereof) preceding which not only changed SFA but showed the inherent weakness in the 'attack logic'.

Tick Tock - The 'book' is open – I will take all bets – bring one bring all...Game on...

Toot – PWP - Mea culpa - toot. YES - Colour me 'furious'......

Totally 2nd the "CC" and "K" sentiments, this guy is the ultimate example of a politically animalistic CASAmite, who even after being sacked by two sitting Ministers (pretending to oversight aviation), is still sipping Koolaid from the seemingly bottomless ONESky trough?

Ref: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-campbell-7a534a74/

 
Government Relations Manager
Company Name: Airservices Australia Full-time
Dates Employed: Feb 2020 – Present
Employment Duration: 8 mos
Location:Canberra, Australia

FFS  - Why the hell does a Govt agency, albeit a GBE (Govt Business Enterprise), like ASA require a "Govt Relations Manager"??



Moving on down the Campbell's CASAmite Soup CV:

Deputy Prime Minister's Office
Senior Advisor - Aviation
Company Name: Deputy Prime Minister's Office
Dates Employed: May 2018 – Feb 2020
Employment Duration: 1 yr 10 mos
Location: Canberra, Australia

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Senior Aviation Adviser-Office of the CEO
Company Name: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Dates Employed: Oct 2017 – May 2018
Employment Duration: 8 mos
Location: Canberra, Australia

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Special Aviation Adviser
Company Name: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Dates Employed: Jul 2017 – Oct 2017
Employment Duration: 4 mos
Location: Canberra, Australia

Western Sydney Airport Division-Airspace and flight path design

Office of the Minister of infrastructure and transport
Senior Advisor-Aviation
Company Name: Office of the Minister of infrastructure and transport
Dates Employed: Mar 2016 – Jul 2017
Employment Duration: 1 yr 5 mos
Location: Canberra, Australia

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Company Name: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Total Duration: 2 yrs 8 mos
Title: Manager, Part 61 taskforce, Part 141/142
Dates Employed: Oct 2015 – Mar 2016
Employment Duration: 6 mos
Location: Canberra, Australia

Manager of CASR Part 141/142 review team.
Title: Standards Officer (Large aeroplanes)
Dates Employed: Aug 2013 – Oct 2015
Employment Duration: 2 yrs 3 mos
Providing policy guidance and regulation development for the CASR operations suite of regulations.

IMO the two last entries should sound the largest alarum bell for industry that if this CASAmite was to be anointed to the position of DAS it would be all over for the GA sector of the industry...  

From the late great Phearless Phelan submission to the ASRR, the following is a reminder of the level of unnecessary red tape complexity and embuggerance that Part 61/141/142 forced on industry  when finally brought into law in 2016: Ref pg 9 - https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...dacted.pdf



Finally joining some dots let's refer to this AP blog post: https://auntypru.com/nah-duck-this-for-a...-soldiers/

Note the Senate Estimates session (with Skidmore being monitored by his soon to be heir apparent St Commode sitting in the 2nd row) was 2 months after CASAmite Soup had left CASA (after helping inflict the largest and most complex version of Part 61 on industry) and 1 day before he was severely berated for embarrassing former minister Chester at the infamous Tamworth aviation rally.

Then ffwd 2.5 years and consider he then spent an 8 month stint in the office of the St Commode before heading into the realm of miniscule McDonaught's office - coincidence? conflicted? - Nah! Nothing to see here?? 

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Its all a matter of Opinion

Lord Acton, a British historian and politician, is credited with the adage;

“Power Corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”

He also wrote;

“Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought”

Very prophetic words, however very similar words have been expressed throughout history by other noted thinkers. As a student of history, no doubt Lord Acton’s thoughts were influenced by other writers which ultimately formulated his expressed “opinions”.

Throughout our lives as sentient beings, we develop our own opinions as to how and why things influence our lives. Many are formed from our upbringing, some from our education, some from life’s experiences, many by accepting other’s opinions and for some a healthy dose of ego.

Where things can come unstuck is when we allow our opinions to be so rigidly set in our minds that we ignore or refuse to accept when evidence or logical argument indicates that perhaps our opinion may just be wrong.

In Australia’s representative government, we the people elect candidates to represent us
and our interests within the legislative government. Unfortunately, this simple concept is not quite the way it works. Politicians generally join parties, parties who’s manifesto closely mirrors their own beliefs. Parties develop policies which their executive branch (Cabinet) are bound to implement. An individual politician may disagree on certain “policies” but are bound to vote in favour to maintain party solidarity. The consequences of going against the party can be severe. In the end, supposedly it comes down to the majority wins the day, from the party room to the cabinet to the vote in the parliament to the final vote in the house of review, the senate. An idea developed into an opinion, no matter how brilliant, faces an arduous road to fruition, constantly bombarded with competing opinions and interests.

Counting the number of lobbyists in Canberra perhaps indicates how fraught with danger the political profession can be.

Politicians, as we all do, have opinions of their own, but it’s a brave politician who freely expresses them. There is also the fact that it is impossible for anyone to have expertise in every facet of government business, for that they must rely on advice, often advice not based on a persons expertise rather their opinion.

Ministers, the supposed arbiters of what gets a look in and what doesn’t, may not necessarily have the slightest idea of the nuances and technicalities of the portfolio they oversee, nor should they have to, other than rudimentary knowledge. Its their job to look at the “Big picture” take considered advice and make a decision, Yeah or Nay.

It comes down to exactly who they take advice from or whether that advice is based on facts or is just an opinion based on something else.

In truth the opinions of the Industry ministers represent are rarely sought, by either the minister responsible, nor the bureaucrats.

The formulation of law and its management falls to various public service departments and their attendant bureaucrats. In the case of aviation an Independent Statutory Authority.
The key word is “independent” in that the minister has no real control of how CASA goes about its business. He appoints a board of directors, mostly political flunkies, gives them a statement of expectation and leaves them to it, free from political interference or scrutiny.

“Power Corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”

It is recognised within the aviation industry that the expertise within CASA is somewhat scant. There are some very fine individuals who do their best, but a toxic culture within middle management bullies anyone not following the script. The choice? tow the line or leave in disgust.

An Independent Statutory Authority provides a responsible minister with a perfect model.
Absolved from all responsibility and the bureaucrats from scrutiny of everything they do.

From the CASA website;

Our vision, mission and values

Our vision: Safe skies for all.

Our mission:

To promote a positive and collaborative safety culture through a fair, effective and efficient aviation safety regulatory system, supporting our aviation community.

Our values

• Excellence - to strive to excel in all we do.
• Courage - to act with strength of character and conviction while      being accountable for our actions.
• Teamwork - to work together to promote a strong, cohesive and highly effective workforce.
• Fairness - to ensure our actions and decisions are informed, consistent, risk-based, evidence driven and without bias.
• Integrity - our actions and behaviour are open, transparent and ethical.
• Respect - to engage with our peers, colleagues and the wider aviation community in a clear, concise and respectful manner at all times.
• Innovation - to challenge existing practices and look for opportunities to support effective continuous improvement.

I don’t believe there is anyone within the industry that believes any of the above motherhood statements apply or have been achieved.

Over thirty years ago CASA embarked on a regulatory reform program that has cost the Australian taxpayer over half a billion dollars to develop and is still not complete.

What has been produced? Masses of convoluted legislation which flies in the face of what was envisioned and against the objections of the industry.

The most convoluted, extreme, industry destroying suite of unusable regulation that does not achieve so called “Safety” imperative, rather the exact opposite.

By way of example CASA requires over 700 pages of legalise to annunciate pilot licencing and standards. The USA and New Zealand do it in around 90 pages, in plain English, that everyone can understand, and they achieve better safety outcomes.

Australia has completely failed in all the objectives of the original reform directives and become an international joke in the aviation world.

The tragedy in all this is there is so much General aviation in particular could contribute. Unshackled from the straight jacket CASA have created, especially in regional areas. 

Creating Jobs, jobs and more jobs we are told is the governments primary objective as we come out of the Covid crisis. Bankstown airport once directly employed over eight thousand people. Under CASA’s yoke today, a few hundred. There is no reason why it could not again stand out as the busiest airport in the southern hemisphere. Also, once upon a time our regional airports were busy places, not so today.

New Zealand shows us what could be, they adopted the most mature, safest regulations in the world, the US FAR’s. A couple of years and a few million dollars we could follow their example instead of this façade CASA arrogantly continues to promote.
Unlock our industry and let it thrive.

It is also maybe pertinent to observe where New Zealand sits on the Corruption perceptions index.

New Zealand sits equal first with Denmark. Australia sits at number 12.

Should that maybe tell us something?

[Peetwo]

 
AOPA Australia
AOPA Australia


140 subscribers

CASA AVMED:  AN UNLAWFUL CULTURE?

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation with aircraft owner and pilot, Clinton McKenzie, and DAME Dr Sean Runacres, discussing the culture of CASA Avmed and findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that highlight a culture of unlawful action by the regulator.

THIS WEEKS PANELISTS
- Mr Benjamin Morgan: Chief Executive Officer, AOPA Australia
- Mr Clinton McKenzie:  Aircraft Owner & Pilot
- Dr Sean Runacres:  DAME, Aircraft Owner & Pilot

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

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

[Peetwo]

 
AOPA Australia
AOPA Australia


140 subscribers

CASA AVMED:  AN UNLAWFUL CULTURE?

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation with aircraft owner and pilot, Clinton McKenzie, and DAME Dr Sean Runacres, discussing the culture of CASA Avmed and findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that highlight a culture of unlawful action by the regulator.

THIS WEEKS PANELISTS
- Mr Benjamin Morgan: Chief Executive Officer, AOPA Australia
- Mr Clinton McKenzie:  Aircraft Owner & Pilot
- Dr Sean Runacres:  DAME, Aircraft Owner & Pilot

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

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

5 Mr Clinton McKenzie (PDF 4764 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 6794 KB) 

From approx 10:00 min

From approx 14:45 min

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

Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission

Dr Robert Liddell

This submission is a personal submission in relation to the medical certification of aircrew.
I am a current holder of an Australian, British and FAA Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence. I have 7000
hours of flight experience with over 3000 hours in jet operations, mainly in Boeing 727 aircraft in
Europe and Australia.

Between the years of 1988 and 1997 I was employed by CASA (then CAA) as the Director of Aviation
Medicine. This position has now been re-named Principal Medical Officer.

Following my resignation at Director of Aviation Medicine the position has been filled by Dr Peter
Wilkins, Dr Ian Hosegood and Dr Pooshan Navathe.

The international nature of aviation and the relationship of each country’s aviation authority with
the standards and recommended practices that they are signatory to in the International Civil
Aviation Organisation has resulted in a safe system that most major aviation countries have seen fit
to deviate from in various ways. The country with arguably the most differences from ICAO is the
country with the largest aviation industry in the world, namely the USA.

In Australia we have had minor differences with the SARPs since their very inception. In some areas
we are more restrictive than the SARPs and in others we are more relaxed. For example during my
tenure as Director of Aviation Medicine I had occasion to be called as an expert witness in the
Federal Court where a Qantas pilot was claiming discrimination on the basis of age as Qantas were
requiring him to retire having reached the age of 60 years. This was done ostensibly on the grounds
of medical risk. My contention has always been that age is not a good predictor of risk and many
pilots are high risk at a relatively young age and many are low risk even in their 70s. The judge
upheld the appeal and Qantas since then and Australia therefore became one of the few countries
to allow pilots to fly heavy jets regardless of age. To achieve this it was requested by the judge that
CASA Aviation Medicine develop a risk mitigation strategy. Consequently we became the first
country in the world to put a risk matrix over pilots at every medical examination, and those that are
at increased risk of heart disease are required to undergo an exercise ECG to prove cardiovascular
health. This is an example where Australian regulations were far more stringent than the ICAO
SARPS. In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour
defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the
colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around
1990 and remained in place until recently. There are now hundreds of colour defective pilots flying
commercially in all types of operations and who over 20 years will have built up thousands of hours
of accident free aviation.

These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is
available to other contracting states through ICAO.

Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian
regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards. This move is without any
evidence that adopting more restrictive practices will have any effect on safety but rather will
discriminate against some pilots.

I now have several pilots, one of whom has over 16,000 hours of operation, most of it flying night
freight in command on Boeing 727 aircraft and who in mid-career are being advised that they do not
meet the standard because of their colour vision and so cannot hold the required class of licence to
retain their occupation.

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally
confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves
conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the
opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive
imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a
weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to
early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further
expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as
little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and
repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and
they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When
their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless
further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator
then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify
themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a
doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination.

Dr Robert Liddell

Next: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ortcut.zip 

Finally for FB comments refer here: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/p...=1&theater

MTF...P2 

ps Sub 25: 

25 Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (PDF 182 KB) 

Conclusion 

AAUS welcomes the opportunity to represent the drone sector in this response to The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Inquiry into the current state of Australia's General Aviation Industry. AAUS works cooperatively with the Department, AirServices Australia and CASA on many issues relating to the drone sector. We appreciate the many initiates collectively underway to enhance safety oversight, and improve the economic viability of the drone sector, including those which promote innovation. Many of these initiatives are vital to regional and rural users and will enable applications for drones that can deliver significant downstream benefit. 

However, there is much work to be achieved in the overall regulatory framework and implementation of initiatives, particularly within CASA, to assist the fledgling drone sector. CASA resourcing, consultation and communication with drone sector members, the standardization of CASA processes and procedures, the timeliness for processing applications and the fee structure for drone registration and other services and an increased focus on training and licensing all present areas where improvement is necessary.

[Peetwo]

P2 choc frog POTW nominee - Lorraine MacGillivray 

Via AOPA Oz:

---

THE LOST DREAM: LORRAINE MACGILLIVRAY – EDGE AVIATION

October 1, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan

A long-standing industry participant and pilot, provides a powerful opinion on the state of Australian aviation.




[b]The pride I felt seeing my children learn to fly and witness their first solo flight, one in gliders, one powered was special. Now I concede that after being raised on RAAF Bases there was probably an underlying exposure to aviation that was bound to rear its head at some stage in my life. I remember, Point Cook RAAF Base, about 6 years old my father sitting me in a Winjeel and how exciting that felt, clearly that seed was planted.[/b]

My daughter set the next trigger when after me attending her weekends of gliding, asked me why I didn’t learn to fly. I recall my response was something to do with being too old, age 36. An instructor nearby insisted ‘no’ but added it might just take a little longer, great!

So, I did, and from that point the excitement, trepidation at times fear and often self-doubt where regular emotions that I experienced often during my flight training.

To fly meant and still means so much to me, and to say I am passionate about the industry and many people in it might be a slight understatement. The people that choose to fly be it professionally or privately per capita are a small percentage of the population and for the better part we used to share almost a bond via this special privilege we shared. Kind of like a club.

I didn’t go on and get my Commercial licence, at my age by the time I had ticked many other boxes like, Aerobatics, tailwheel endorsement, multi engine, night flying, multi night along with running an aviation business it was not something I thought would advantage me. I may have been wrong on that one! I did however go on and become a Recreational Aviation Chief Flying Instructor. I do not need to tell many other instructors the thrill and privilege of sending a person on their first solo flight. I knew the feeling they would be experiencing, that sheer sense of achievement and in cases an almost overwhelming fear of hoping you make it safely back onto that runway.

I nearly cannot put into words, for me anyway, that sense of freedom that comes with flying. The sense of awe at how we can be moving along up there looking out at the wings, or blurred tips of rotor blades and every time we fly think how amazing it is despite understanding the physics.

I still feel that way after nearly 25 years, but something has changed. And it does not feel that it has been for the better.

When I first flew and then purchased half of the flying school I was at, I managed to start along with my business partner at the time the fourth only Regional Airline to fly into Canberra. It was not easy, ticking all those regulatory boxes, but CASA was great, they were helpful. They supported us, and guided us through the process, and with their support we succeeded. I am not sure that would be the case today. In fact, I feel sure it would not be.

I remember being excited about a body such as RA-Aus and the progress that was being made toward fostering the Ultralight and Light Sport Aircraft sector and what it would mean for the growth of the industry and more importantly the realisation of how important this part of the industry was in feeding into General Aviation. People that were passionate about working for an organisation, working for the members to make things so much better if you no longer could get or needed a CASA medical. For retirees to be able to enjoy what was once their career, just the joy of flying. The young people who wanted a career to be able to access the ‘accessible and affordable’ option as RA-Aus was promoted to be. The safe affordable alternative!

One day seemingly not long ago I woke from the dream, or did I fall asleep and lapse into the nightmare from which I cannot wake?

I am profoundly serious about this; it feels like a nightmare. My husband has been in the industry for over 50 years, a professional pilot and aeronautical engineer. He has done, been and seen a lot in that time. From flying search and rescue, air ambulance, charter, his own low capacity airline and a bunch of aircraft design work, flight test engineering – the list far too extensive to write here. He has always been highly regarded in the industry and by CASA. Me, no commercial flying but a lot of different private flying including some aircraft ferry work, running a small airline, flight training.

Over the past twenty years we have been running Edge Aviation and provide an extensive list of services to the industry.

Now I need to put this out there and stress, there are still several good people in CASA, my go to people if I need advice from our authority. I have the utmost respect for the regulations and the fact that CASA is necessary, and we need to have a regulator, or I prefer also to add ‘educator’.

Over recent times it has saddened me immensely to see what has been happening in our communities with society in general. Nothing to do with COVID 19 but the fact that generally people are more for themselves, more competitive, less caring, too busy, abrupt, aggressive, intolerant, defensive and I could go on. Not everyone and not all the time but there is a definite trend. See I have the benefit of my 63 years to be able to note this change.

People are more isolated, people do not check on others anymore, people rarely offer you support or help – too busy! Or sadly do not even think about others at all.

This change in culture has also seeped into organisations because that is where some of these people end up.

They take this change in attitude with them. So, we have people that because of the societal changes just think of the benefit to themselves. Cushy job maybe? – the public servant mentality maybe ‘ill get paid no matter what I do or don’t do’. And instead of working with industry we have a regulator CASA and a self-administering organisation, RAA who are constantly fighting with businesses and individuals.

But why? Is the question I see myself asking during this nightmare. Industry and regulators should be working together, should be supporting each other for the benefit and betterment of the whole industry! We should be communicating, negotiating, be solution focussed and not problem focussed. The regulator, CASA and RA-Aus should be receptive, accommodating, and supportive, approachable, and friendly. Because at the end of the day if they continue to push people out of the industry many of them will not be needed. What is happening in my nightmare is people are being destroyed, businesses being crushed and a lot of people saying it is no fun anymore. It can be regulated, and it can be safe, but it should also be fun.

Overregulated, our industry is being driven to a place where people will hide health issues, maybe not even bother with the flight review, not do mandated paperwork, whatever because our ‘safety’ authority is driving a lot of things underground. Putting people and businesses through just unjustified stress causes safety issues it does not prevent them. Why?

I do not for the life of me understand why some individuals think destroying the reputation of selected aircraft types, destroying people who are successful and just being plain nasty, aggressive and dishonest think it is going to have anything but a massive negative affect on our industry. And if they do not think they look silly to other world authorities, think again! CASA and RAA have become the laughingstock of the aviation world. I do not want them to be. I want to work with them, as do many other people. I want to trust them, and I want to be able to resolve any issues with them. We are in the same industry for goodness sake. It makes no sense what is happening.

But I hope I wake up from this nightmare and I hope these people that want to persecute, destroy and pursue their own interests will see that the attitude at present will become their own nightmare as it eats away at the aviation industry in Australia.

To phrase a commonly used statement – we are all in this together! Well we are in this aviation industry of ours, so let us be in it together. Let’s make Light Sport safer together, let’s not just destroy reputations of aircraft like the Bristell when it does comply. Lets together address the weight issues of Light Sport aircraft together in a consultative, productive way. Let’s stop self-interest and commercial conflicts get in the way of honesty and fairness.

I want a cohesive aviation community and regulator I can be proud of, not one that embarrasses me with overseas companies and foreign regulators.

So, wake up everyone please, so we can all live the dream.

---

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Quotes – with grunt.

Alexander : - “The government has been “seeking feedback” from 'us', regularly, for years, great trumpeted inquiries.”


And?

Alexander: - “For example 2014 the Forsyth Regulatory Review with 269 submissions probably representing thousands of unpaid hours on behalf of GA, plus the salaries and expenses of numerous public servants. To what effect?”

And?

“Nil”


Alexander: - “Yet another one underway now by the Senate expected to take two years!”


And?

Alexander: - “This last GII inquiry is struggling to get submissions, guess why? (GII, Government Industries, sub sec. Inquiries).” 

It would really be lovely; serendipitous in fact, if somehow, some way – 'government' actually got it's skates on, got off it's beam ends and simply acknowledge that 'aviation' in Australia is a basket case and actually 'did' something except talk about it.

FCOL – how much more evidence is needed? Someone needs to roll up their sleeves; take Sharpe out of the control seat – or better yet – put him in it and be shot of this incredible incubus to aviation industry progressing i.e. CASA. Somebody wake these poor frightened political  children up from their sweet dreams to face the real nightmare –one that they alone  have created.

Two years? Twenty submissions – bollocks. The answers have been clearly drafted and defined, many times for twenty years now; and ignored.  You know it and I know it. Can the good Senator do anything about it? In reality? Oh, how I wish.............

One question – just WTD are the politicians thinking? Whatever the hell it is; it ain't about getting Australian aviation up to world standard; or solving today's make or break problems. – Shame on McDonald for thinking that another gab-fest, lasting two years will solve the decades old problems - those which still exist, unchanged; and, that everyone is weary of telling 'politicians' the same sad, old story again and again. The train wreck happened quite a while ago - 'didn't you get the memo'?



Get on with it! - NOW - while there's a break and perfect opportunity; or, – well you know the rest. Another 'report' in the cellar etc... Big pile down there. Two simple things - piss in the pot - or get off it; and, where's my bloody Ale? Can't seem get good help these days - 'can you? ...