[Wombat]

Spence has “drunk the kool aid”.

For those not familiar with the expression:

“‘ Drinking the Kool-Aid" is an expression used to refer to a person who believes in a possibly doomed or dangerous idea because of perceived potential high rewards. The phrase often carries a negative connotation. It can also be used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion. In recent years it has evolved further to mean extreme dedication to a cause or purpose, so extreme that one would "drink the Kool-Aid" and die for the cause.”

Spence evidently knows nothing about safety management theory, risk management and probability theory, still less about anything to do that involves physically interacting with equipment involved in aviation except seat 1A. I am also concerned that there seems to be a lack of understanding of a number of behavioural concepts vital to aviation.

Aviation is an activity like surgery, pouring concrete and arguing in front of a court in that there is no way to pause the process once it starts. Once the aircraft ascends, it is going to have to land. As a result, Pilots, Surgeons and Barristers (and perhaps concrete contractors) require that their environment is as deterministic as possible in the sense that a + b always must equal c because the aircraft MUST return to earth, the concrete harden and the judge retire to his club at 1.00pm.

Contrast that environment with the regulations, which are the very opposite of deterministic except in one glaring case I will cover later. This is just plain effing wrong. We all know the reason for this too; it is to give CASA maximum room to deny any liability for outcomes, to escape any requirements to provide either internal or external consistency in its behaviour because that implies determinism a + b only sometimes equals c in CASA’S playbook and when it doesn’t, it always computes in a way that disadvantages pilots and advantages CASA. It is to maximise CASA s power while minimizing its accountability. To minimise the requirement for heavy intellectual travail and the making of difficult decisions and perhaps even for the personal gratification of the odd psychopath in its ranks, although I am not aware of any.

The result, as report after report and case after case has demonstrated is a toxic regulatory environment that is the medical equivalent of a very bad chemotherapy drug - in that the current system tries to keep us ‘safe”, ridding us of accident, without quite killing the industry.

Perhaps Ms. Spence might like to read some of the regulations and try and understand IN DETAIL what they actually mean because she would find that many of them end up in a judgement call as to what is “sufficient”, “appropriate” or “acceptable”. Those are nominative words that mean anything you like, just as the word “safety” itself is a nominative.

Yes Ms. Spence; “safety” compared to what? Compared to a dose of Astra Zeneca? Compared to the risk of being attacked by a kangaroo in one of Canberra’s parks? Compared to what exactly?

We do know what it isn’t compared to; - the ICAO standards for risk, because to apply international standards require we actually compute risk in Australia, compare them to international standards, compare the associated costs and benefits and (deterministically) regulate on the basis of concrete evidence but that wouldn’t be any fun would it?

Of course if you aren’t regulating deterministically or evidence based as it’s sometimes called, you are building on foundations of sand aren’t you? This is despite the Supreme(?) court upholding sand castle building in the Angel Flight case where his honor ruled that CASA does not need to base regulation on evidence.

Talking of evidence, did you read the Forsyth Review? The cases of Quadrio, Dominic James, Jabiru, Gippsland Aviation, Bristell and now the loathsome thing your organisation has done to Glen Buckley? These are not the hallmarks of an effective organisation working in the best interests of the country. Can you possibly comprehend the opportunity costs inflicted on the Australian economy? Let alone the personal costs to industry participants? The jobs and GDP aviation will never now produce?

Ah yes! You say, “but what about protecting the public”? We can’t have aircraft crashing all the time can we? Of course not. The way to protect the public and to PROVE to the public they are being protected, is to use a risk management/evidence based approach to regulation - which CASA refuses to do. To put that another way, imagine if CASA was in charge of combatting Covid19 - Nurses would be arrested for tying their shoelaces the wrong way, Astra Zeneca would be banned because CASA didn’t like the colour, and groups would be chosen for vaccination based upon hair length, whether their birthday date was divisible by seventeen and the toss of a coin in Canberra each morning.

With the greatest of respect Ms. Spence, you have been led down a well trodden path to irrelevancy. The system doesn’t need fiddling at the edges. It doesn’t need “business transformation”. We don’t require another “process Queen or King” to make us all play nice in the sandpit, we need someone who will tear the place apart and rebuild it from the ground up of honest solid stone, for example the New Zealand interpretation of the FAA regulations and then administer the result in a fair firm and friendly manner for the good of the country.

And the case I mentioned where CASA is deterministic? Why it’s contained in the last clause of each and every regulation: words to the effect that each and every transgression of this regulation is a criminal offence of strict liability. You have to hand that one to CASA you can’t be more deterministic than that, can you?

Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. Better people than me can explain it.

[Peetwo]

A Sandy reply to PIP - 

Yesterday I opened up the latest CASA Briefing and it was with a heavy heart that I read the following bureaucratic waffle from PIP...

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence
 

However Sandy lifted my spirits with this 'no prisoners' response...

So there we have it, the first real communication from the CASA CEO, otherwise known by the really silly and excruciating title of ‘Director of Air Safety.’

Two months and nothing.

“…incremental changes..” but not one specific item.

“ And the other good news is that we are building on already solid foundations.” 
Charitably let’s assume Ms. Spence is meaning Aviation Hearse has solid foundations.
For certainly she speaks not of the much beleaguered and shrunken industry of General Aviation (GA) trying desperately to cover ever more CASA fees, and finding the time to handle CASA’s mountainous paperwork and avoid criminal prosecution for some minor misdemeanour. We have ‘crimes’ for some activities that don’t even rate a mention in the USA rules.

Does Ms. Spence expect us to believe there will be improvements? Surely in over two months she might have reviewed the pronouncements of her predecessors? If so she would understand why we don’t believe a word of it. Because belief and hope have been hammered out of us.
Words are not sufficient;  and all the words have been said over and over again but the results for GA have been “incrementally” worse and worse, death by a thousand cuts.

“…mammoth task of introducing the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is inching towards completion.”

Who created this mammoth task and why? Well, at long last nearly finished;  after thirty three years? before inches gave way to millimetres? Not to mention $millions wasted with 830 employees beavering away. Snails move at lightning speed compared to CASA’s  never ending story.
In fact the CASRs will not be finished until they are replaced by a workable set of rules such as NZ, or better still for the harmonisation of industry, the US FARs.
But wait, Mr. Carmody told us it was all done and dusted. It really is impossible to believe that the feel good intentions of the CASA leadership will be translated into reality. Its just soft soap repeated.

Ms. Spence, with respect,

Please don’t tell us how good it is or how it is going to be improved. If you are to survive your stint with CASA and have your reputation intact, better still enhanced, you must decide to take some reform measures now to the Minister and ask him for his support.

You could start with :-

(1)  A rapprochement with Glen Buckley.
(2) Go to Minister Dutton with the recommendation from the Forsyth report to remove the ASIC requirements for GA pilots.
(3)  Private Pilot medicals same as RAAUS or USA.
(4) Delete Cessna Special Inspections for Private ops., as USA.
(5)  Allow independent instructors, same as USA where 70% of pilots are trained by independent instructors.

The last reform (5) will help to regenerate the whole of GA, a start to rebuild training throughout Australia where, due to over regulation and unnecessary regulation, we have lost some twelve hundred flying schools which is why we’ve been importing airline pilots.

Get some runs on the board and then tackle the other main problems like the wrong split of VH registered aircraft and the RAAUS system because here safety has suffered, quite apart from our loss of freedom to chose, and forcing people into a fleet of extremely low weight. RAAUS, a monopoly entity administering aircraft with an artificial weight limit, which are often not suited to Australian conditions, but are favoured by many because of a more practical regulatory environment, especially the medicals.

Make a stand within Aviation House and GA will stand with you, you will be a hero to thousands, I’m not exaggerating.

Sandy Reith.

Hmm...it may be time for Barnaby to give PIP a nudge in the right direction as it seems that (once again) the newly appointed DAS/CEO is in serious danger of being captured by the CASA Iron Ring 

 "..But the good news is the mammoth task of introducing the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is inching closer to completion.."



So Carmody and the current CASA Board Chair have both told porky pies! Are you able to retract Queen's Birthday Gong's for misleading both the industry and the Federal parliament? 

But the Chocfrog POTW goes too...  

Spence has “drunk the kool aid”.

For those not familiar with the expression:

“‘ Drinking the Kool-Aid" is an expression used to refer to a person who believes in a possibly doomed or dangerous idea because of perceived potential high rewards. The phrase often carries a negative connotation. It can also be used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion. In recent years it has evolved further to mean extreme dedication to a cause or purpose, so extreme that one would "drink the Kool-Aid" and die for the cause.”

Spence evidently knows nothing about safety management theory, risk management and probability theory, still less about anything to do that involves physically interacting with equipment involved in aviation except seat 1A. I am also concerned that there seems to be a lack of understanding of a number of behavioural concepts vital to aviation.

Aviation is an activity like surgery, pouring concrete and arguing in front of a court in that there is no way to pause the process once it starts. Once the aircraft ascends, it is going to have to land. As a result, Surgeons and Barristers (and perhaps concrete contractors) require that their environment is as deterministic as possible in the sense that a + b always must equal c because the aircraft MUST return to earth, the concrete harden and the judge retire to his club at 1.00pm.

Contrast that environment with the regulations, which are the very opposite of deterministic except in one glaring case I will cover later. This is just plain effing wrong. We all know the reason for this too; it is to give CASA maximum room to deny any liability for outcomes, to escape any requirements to provide either internal or external consistency in its behaviour because that implies determinism a + b only sometimes equals c in CASA’S playbook and when it doesn’t,  it always computes in a way that disadvantages pilots and advantages CASA. It is to maximise CASA s power while minimizing its accountability. To minimise the requirement for heavy intellectual travail and the making of difficult decisions and perhaps even for the personal gratification of the odd psychopath in its ranks, although I am not aware of any.

The result, as report after report and case after case has demonstrated is a toxic regulatory environment that is the medical equivalent of a very bad chemotherapy drug - in that the current system tries to keep us ‘safe”, ridding us of accident, without quite killing the industry.

Perhaps Ms. Spence might like to read some of the regulations and try and understand IN DETAIL what they actually mean because she would find that many of them end up in a judgement call as to what is “sufficient”, “appropriate” or “acceptable”. Those are nominative words that mean anything you like, just as the word “safety” itself is a nominative.

Yes Ms. Spence; “safety” compared to what? Compared to a dose of Astra Zeneca? Compared to the risk of being attacked by a kangaroo in one of Canberra’s parks? Compared to what exactly?

We do know what it isn’t compared to; - the ICAO standards for risk, because to apply international standards require we actually compute risk in Australia, compare them to international standards, compare the associated costs and benefits and (deterministically) regulate on the basis of concrete evidence but that wouldn’t be any fun would it?

Of course if you aren’t regulating deterministically or evidence based as it’s sometimes called, you are building on foundations of sand aren’t you?  This is despite the Supreme(?) court upholding sand castle building in the Angel Flight case where his honor ruled that CASA does not need to base regulation on evidence.

Talking of evidence, did you read the Forsyth Review? The cases of Quadrio, Dominic James, Jabiru, Gippsland Aviation, Bristell and now the loathsome thing your organisation has done to Glen Buckley? These are not the hallmarks of an effective organisation working in the best interests of the country. Can you possibly comprehend the opportunity costs inflicted on the Australian economy? Let alone the personal costs to industry participants? The jobs and GDP aviation will never now produce?

Ah yes! You say, “but what about protecting the public”? We can’t have aircraft crashing all the time can we? Of course not. The way to protect the public and to PROVE to the public they are being protected, is to use a risk management/evidence based approach to regulation - which CASA refuses to do. To put that another way, imagine if CASA was in charge of combatting Covid19 - Nurses would be arrested for tying their shoelaces the wrong way, Astra Zeneca would be banned because CASA didn’t like the colour, and groups would be chosen for vaccination based upon hair length, whether their birthday date was divisible by seventeen and the toss of a coin in Canberra each morning.

With the greatest of respect Ms. Spence, you have been led down a well trodden path to irrelevancy. The system doesn’t need fiddling at the edges. It doesn’t need “business transformation”. We don’t require another “process Queen or King” to make us all play nice in the sandpit, we need someone who will tear the place apart and rebuild it from the ground up of honest solid stone, for example the New Zealand interpretation of the FAA regulations and then administer the result in a fair firm and friendly manner for the good of the country.

And the case I mentioned where CASA is deterministic? Why it’s contained in the last clause of each and every regulation: words to the effect that each and every transgression of this regulation is a criminal offence of strict liability. You have to hand that one to CASA you can’t be more deterministic than that, can you?

Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. Better people than me can explain it.

P7 - Choc Frogs and Tim Tams awarded to Wombat and Sandy. Well said gentlemen; Bravo.

[Sandy Reith]

It seems plain that Ms. Spence doesn’t have the incentive to make the changes that we all know are necessary if General Aviation has any chance of revival. Wombat has laid out the main contrary problems and pointed to a much better regulatory pathway.
The thirty three year experiment of removing the administration of aviation out of direct Ministerial responsibility is the key issue because the regulator now has all the wrong incentives.
1/. The head is an appointee, not elected, neither is the Board.
2/. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), being a corporate entity (unlike a Department) can be sued therefore it will protect itself.
3/. It will largely set for itself the wages and conditions and its easy to see that by making itself more important then ‘corporate’ rates of pay will be in place, and conditions may be far from optimal in terms of work output.
4/. By the requiring of new permissions, and making far more complex rules and demands of compliance, and repeatedly making changes, CASA ensures that it’s ‘fee for service’ program generates large sums of money which feed into it’s bottom line and ability to increase wages.
5/. Because it is treated by government in a completely hands off manner, notwithstanding the occasional regurgitation from the Minister’s office the very general Statement of Expectations, mostly about world’s best practice, CASA has managed to create a never ending make work program out of what should be a workable set of rules. Our rules and procedures should closely follow the International Convention of Aviation Organisations agreed standards, to which we are signatory. They do not follow the agreed standards, I hear that we have in excess of four thousand noted differences. Not to mention that by being so out of kilter, and with the USA in particular, we miss out on trade and business opportunities.

The system must be changed, maybe the Board should be elected, but without change we won’t see our GA industry take it’s proper place and provide jobs businesses and services along with all the home grown pilots that will needed in the future. And perhaps more importantly allow our freedom to fly.

[thorn bird]

"Schadenfreude"
noun [mass noun]
pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune:

One can only assume that within the ranks of the CASA iron ring are those that thrive on Schadenfreude.

What else can explain the diabolical mess they have gotten our industry in.

I had a very scary suspicion that Spence was a seat warmer. As was the minister, she was captured by the iron ring before she even sat in the seat.

If you want to see the requiem for commercial General aviation look no further than Part 135 that will eat away from the bottom up. Part 121, which they are now enforcing for all new entries to an AOC will start the rot from the top down.

The rot meets somewhere in the middle and the end of commercial general aviation.

It was fun while it lasted, but I fear GA is finished.

There may be some consolation in that nature abhors a vacuum.

For the bottom end of GA unfortunately there's no redemption, just not enough money in it, so those in need of aviation services will just have to die on our roads or sit at home and wait for the inevitable. Maybe virtual reality and drones will give tourists that joy flight experience, then again why bother when a quick jump across the ditch to a sensible country like NZ and you can fill your boots and experience it for real.

The top end just might be a little different.

Part 121 will not impact on our established airlines at all, other than through the roof airfares, even when things return to normal, economy of scale and an airline duopoly ensures that. With no ability for GA to compete I imagine there is a chance that established airlines may see a quid in it and establish a high end charter presence. Then again across the ditch under sensible regulation NZ regulatory and maintenance overheads are way below Australia's, and of course Singapores are even less, they operate to ICAO standards. Maybe our airline fraternity will consider therefore its a bit risky, considering foreign operators are already taking a lot of work that Australian operators would be doing but for our restrictive regulation.

Its interesting that NZ is a major service centre for Boeing aircraft, In Australia our acknowledged National Airline Qantas chose to spend a fortune establishing their heavy maintenance division in the USA.

Its really tragic , Australia set so many benchmarks in the history of aviation, what could have been, thrown away because of incompetent governance.

[Wombat]

Following on from the pertinent observations of Thornbird, I have to ask the question: is the demise of General Aviation the desired result of regulatory reform? The culprit being the mandarins of the public service aided and abetted by the management of the RAAF and the RPT airlines?

After all the Mandarins, represented by ANU trained treasury economists, killed off Australian general and automotive manufacturing. The RAAF mandarins killed of what was left of defence aerospace (the wamira and Nomad sagas). The airlines just want untrammeled use of airspace free of light aircraft “pollution” and the property developers want every square meter of airport land they can steal.

GA has no friends RAAUS has no friends. Attempts to make ourselves relevant - e.g. Angel Flight, etc. are sabotaged by CASA. greedy local councils do their bit to suppress aviation as well.

I was watching some footage of Oshkosh last night and formed the opinion that such an event would be illegal in Australia because there is no way we could surmount the regulatory barriers even to handle the air traffic control “Bonanza Xyz -land after the white dot and keep rolling, Bearhawk turn left onto the grass”.

[thorn bird]

There are mini Oshkosh's happening every weekend all around the US Wombat the sheer scale of participation in private aviation is staggering. Costs are a big driver in aviations decline in Australia. In the US maintenance costs are considerably less than here. It's almost half the cost to gain a licence in the US than here. When you consider New Zealand and it's small population, aviation contributes a large percentage to their GDP, the reason I imagine is they have sensible, useable regulation.

Funnily enough the much maligned nomad is a sort after aircraft in Alaska, the locals swear by it on floats.

I just can't fathom why Australia's mandarins are so relentless in their endeavours to kill off any Australian innovation's manufacture in this country, be it aviation related or anything else, what's so bad about making stuff here? Or are we just content to just dig up red or black dirt, sooner or later we'll run out of that, what then?

To me it just seems crazy that we have all the raw materials to make stuff here, except cheap energy, but thats another story.

Australia is drowning in rules, as they say everything is fine in Australia, there's a fine for everything.

[Wombat]

Repeat after me: “No good deed goes unpunished”. Spence and the Minister know that. There is no kudos in reform. Gratitude (Of the industry) is the shortest lived human emotion. There is not a hope in hell that meaningful change of any import to the industry as a whole is going to happen…..yet.

Of course there is going to be the impression of change; I seem to recall a lot of noise about “business transformation” and “electronic service delivery” and suchlike jargon and I can confirm as a former purveyor of such very expensive malarkey that it won’t change what matters most: the power relationship between the industry and the regulator. It is ironic that CASA, an institution that exists to purportedly manage risk, has destroyed the aviation industry by increasing the risks of any and all industry participants to impossible levels.

Let’s be clear. Risk is what it’s all about. Risk is the regulators raison d’être. It’s stated objective is public safety - minimizing risk to the general public. However it has chosen to achieve this by maximising risk to every industry participant! Let’s be clear about those risks, they are laid out in detail in Government review after review; there is the risk of alleged capricious closure and destruction of any aviation related business (example APTA), there is the risk of the alleged capricious destruction of aviation related careers (Butson/Polaire, Quadrio, Dominic James, Glen Buckley and a host of others), and there is the risk of becoming a felon, and all that it entails, from arbitrary capricious prosecution for a harmless mistake, which applies to every single person who has the temerity to lay hands on an aeroplane, any aeroplane, for any reason. A smart regulator would first try and quantify risk, minimize it, then apportion the remainder. CASA deliberately won’t take this approach, instead it’s actions work to increase risk - which ultimately will lead to its own demise………but not yet.

Let me tell you what happens next. Under the weight of impossibly complex, meaningless, pointless, arbitrary, vindictive, costly and contradictory regulation, capriciously applied, parts of the industry start looking for “workarounds” that allow it to survive. These will often take the form of officially sanctioned “exemptions” or more ominously, private understandings between industry participants and individuals. Eventually “presents” will be expected and given. The sheer complexity of the regulations leaves too much room for interpretation - enabling this trade. Declining technical skills on all sides ensure that real risks aren’t perceived let alone managed.

A portion of the industry will attempt to flout regulation by various devices. Another portion will ignore them. The skills, training and experience levels within industry and regulator will decline because of perceived criminal sanctions for error as well as better remuneration elsewhere - for example, I know a helicopter pilot who now works as a mine safety manager. The outcome from this is that nobody cares what the regulations say, still less tries to apply them. It’s all too hard. Strategy now deteriorates to simply not being caught. Intelligent individuals looking for a flying career or recreation perceive what’s happening and become professional dog groomers or take up golf. Intending aviation investors decide dog grooming salons are a more lucrative than flight training, charter or aviation maintenance businesses. Intending recreational flyers join golf clubs instead. Owners of corporate class aircraft migrate them to the American FAA register to escape what has become a rotten third world system. Airlines do the same.

The ATSB, who might have sounded the alarm, fails to intervene having surrendered its independence years ago. The situation deteriorates until a series of high profile accidents and ICAO, FAA or public enquiry reveals the mess to the Australian public. The ritual cries of “who coulda known?” are made, administrators are sacked and reform occurs. Pip Spence is left holding the bag if she has not yet moved on to a Departmental Secretary position. There will be no real “reform” until the general public perceive the system to be irretrievably broken and that ain’t going to happen any time soon.

The consulting mantra applies; “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”, “If you want to fix it, first break it, then fix it”.

It is already broken, the public just don’t know it yet.

[thorn bird]

What a sad picture you paint Wombat, tragic would be a better word.

To add credence to your scenario, I believe it is significant that New Zealand found itself in the same position as Australia some years ago.

It took a major accident and a royal commission for them to finally accept their regulator was incompetent.

As you allude, Australia is in the same boat they were in. They went on to reform and ended up with very highly regarded regulation around the world.

Australia had the chance to embrace their reforms, but chose to ignore the obvious.

As you describe, people ignorant of the facts, will have to lose their lives because Australia chose to ignore the lessons of history and of course nobody will accept responsibility.

[Wombat]

I confess I watched the Senate Youtube extract and marvelled at the performance. However I failed to understand how the discussed relationship between ATSB and CASA could have a positive effect on safety in the general sense. All I think I heard was “Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law”.

[Peetwo]

Dear PIP - L&Ks Ben (CEO AOPA Oz)

Via AOPA Oz:

SELF-CERTIFICATION PILOT MEDICALS, IT’S TIME TO GET IT DONE!
August 18, 2021 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Chief Executive, Mr Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion on self-certification pilot medicals for RPL/PPL holders.



I was responding to comments online this week that focused on the issue of medical reform, specifically self-certification pilot medicals, and when we could expect to see them available for RPL and PPL holders in Australia.  I thought I would share the following opinion with you all.

I am often asked why there is no self-certification pilot medical standard yet for CASA licensed RPL/PPL holders, with members continuing to question the regulators logic in refusing the community with access to it – yet at the same time approving RAAUS RPC holder’s access.

For those joining the discussion on this issue for the first time, in layman’s terms; self-certification pilot medicals refer to the ability of a pilot to self-declare that they are fit to fly and hold a current private driver’s license.  This self-certification standard addresses the obvious; that if you are fit to hold a license to drive a car and carry passengers, then you are fit to fly a light aircraft.

CASA’s somewhat arbitrary ‘good for one but not good for the other’ stance on pilot medicals appears devoid of any serious safety case or genuine risk assessment, with CASA refusing to publish any justification to their decision.  Any request from industry or AOPA Australia to provide their safety case and risk assessments have simply been ignored.  The Federal Senate Rural Regional Affairs Transport Committee achieve the same result, with CASA ignoring their direction to supply it.

The issue of self-certification pilot medicals frustrates and angers a great many in the RPL/PPL pilot community, and rightfully so.  Self-certification pilot medicals have been in use for several decades by RAAUS RPC holders – all approved by CASA.

On one hand CASA says it’s perfectly safe for an RAAUS RPC holder to fly using a self-certification pilot medical, then looks across to RPL/PPL holders, who in many cases are flying the same aircraft from the same airfields in the same airspace, and declaring them unsafe and prohibiting them from accessing the medical standard.

You can be excused if you’re feeling confused, because we all are.  What is good for the goose is clearly no good for the gander.  Sadly, it has left many wondering as to what has happened to the much touted ‘risk based, proportionate and just regulation approach’ promised by past CASA Directors of Aviation Safety.  I fear it has all been marketing and slogans.

It really does not take a genius to work out that CASA is actively discriminating against RPL/PPL holders and that it has delivered seriously anti-competitive regulation to drive it.

I have all but given up counting how many times I have asked successive CASA Directors of Aviation Safety, one very simple but vitally important question;  “Yes or No?  Is it safe for a pilot to fly recreationally with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, in aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 600kgs, using a self-certification pilot medical?”

We all know the answer is an obvious YES!

But in six (6) years this simple question remains unanswered by CASA – why?  They refuse to answer it, and this should be of great concern to everyone, because this is a simple question that should neither challenge nor concern an impartial regulator conducting itself in adherence to the law.

And, it’s not just the industry which is being refused an answer either.  I have watched on as successive CASA representatives have cleverly testified before Federal Senate Inquiries and Hearings, swearing under oath to provide truthful answers, but all the while dancing around the issue and never once giving a straight answer.
It is my view that CASA cannot answer the question, not because it does not know the answer, but because the answer itself would be to admit that self-certification pilot medicals are being wrongfully held hostage and used by the regulator to drive pilots into Part 149 self-administration.

CASA’s current regulatory stance unjustly forces Australian pilots to submit to paying a private company for access to a medical standard, that should be rightfully and openly available to all Australians who hold a pilot license – period.

This issue is not about which license you hold but is instead about the limitations acceptable to support a self-certification medical standard.

If the limitations of a self-certification pilot medical are that you must only fly only outside of controlled airspace, with one passenger, in an aircraft weighing no more than 600kgs, then these responsibilities can be equally adhered to and discharged by any RPC, RPL or PPL holder.

The above should not be a challenge for CASA to understand or to deliver to industry.  Just about every pilot in Australia has some kind of limitation that they adhere to when they go flying.  Some are approved for aerobatics, some are not.  Some can fly tailwheel, others cannot.  Some are licensed to fly IFR and the list goes on.  Going further, pilots are well versed in self-certification and continuously assess their fitness to fly, taking into consideration mundane colds and flu, along with other medical conditions and ailments that they experience through the course of ordinary life.

There is absolutely no safety justification whatsoever to support CASA’s continued forcing of RPL and PPL holders into paying a private company to access this vital pilot medical standard.

A pilots affiliation to a private business should have no bearing on what aviation safety standards are set by the Australian Government.  CASA’s regulations should be impartial and support aviation nationwide.

CASA now has a new Director of Aviation Safety and CEO, Ms Pip Spence, who unfortunately has inherited what is easily considered a royal mess with respect to pilot medicals.  On my last meeting with her, I raised this issue and in the coming week will again forward a submission from AOPA Australia seeking the introduction of a fair and equal system for all pilots.

Under new leadership, CASA has the opportunity to re-engage with industry, delivering risk based, proportionate regulation to support our collective future.

AOPA Australia is determined in its advocacy to achieve a positive outcome, one that goes a great distance in helping all of aviation recover and grow.  All we are seeking is for the rights of all pilots to be protected and to ensure that all sectors of aviation have an equal opportunity and footing to participate.
 
Fingers crossed; we can achieve this important outcome working together.

MTF...P2 

Ps Wombat quote: "..Pip Spence is left holding the bag if she has not yet moved on to a Departmental Secretary position..."  

Hmm...but Wombat she was already there mate as Acting Secretary to the Dept?? Which begs the question - why would she choose to effectively go backwards in her public service career path trajectory? 

[thorn bird]

A bird in the hand is better than a bird in the bush p2.

I mean around a million a year after perks aint chicken shit, I'd be happy with a third of that, on second thoughts I'd be ecstatic. With that sort of money would you give a damn? Hardly! The previous DAS rarely ever turned up anyway, all she has to do is be quiet, do what she's told and if she actually thinks of doing something, kill that thought with a reality check by checking her bank balance every month. She's a career bureaucrat, there's no way she'll put her head on the block. I doubt she's worried, a departmental Secretary position would be just icing on the cake.

[Wombat]

Oh dear! With the greatest respect to the esteemed Aunties and the our brave champion Ben Morgan (whom the gods protect) I respectfully submit you are making an assumption that is horribly wrong and as a result making an argument that not only will do the industry no good, but will destroy the little bit that still succeeds in staying alive. To put that another way, misery loves company.

That dangers of the assumption you are making is known to any seven year old child: “Mum! Why is Billy allowed to stay up an extra hour when you just told me to go to bed right now!” Mum: “Yes, your right! Billy go to bed right now too!”. It is child’s play for the great and good in CASA to thank Mr. Morgan for raising this subject and with a single stroke of a pen, remove RAA’s privilege of self certification. Problem solved Mr. Morgan! It’s also the Australian way. You are all equally miserable now! It’s that good old Australian ruling class mentality - keep the convicts suppressed.

Quoting Mr. Morgan: “It really does not take a genius to work out that CASA is actively discriminating against RPL/PPL holders and that it has delivered seriously anti-competitive regulation to drive it.

I have all but given up counting how many times I have asked successive CASA Directors of Aviation Safety, one very simple but vitally important question; “Yes or No? Is it safe for a pilot to fly recreationally with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, in aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 600kgs, using a self-certification pilot medical?”

We all know the answer is an obvious YES!”

…..Actually Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is a resounding NO! According to the accident stats I believe it may not be safe at all.

Says CASA; “Thank you for bringing this state of affairs to our notice Mr. Morgan. Yes we are discriminating and it is anti competitive and we don’t want that do we?

‘RAA were granted this privilege years ago on the basis that their pathetic aircraft and cretinous excuses for pilots were not REAL AVIATORS and were beneath our notice - a mere bagatelle, a mosquito swarm of buzzing lawnmower engines and fabric.” “ you ask the question are they safe? No compared to you VH guys and the more modern RAA aircraft look suspiciously fast and sleek even if they do only weigh 600kg”. “So yes, safety never sleeps, these RAA people need a good rogering, and we are just the people to give it to them!”. ’Don’t let the door hit you on your way out”.

To put that another way, if I was CASA, I would decide to hold an internal review. That would take two years and surprise, allegedly find a certain level of non compliance and if I couldn’t weave into the recommendations: mandatory covid vaccination, compulsory digital health records for all pilots and CASA automatic access to the same along with CASA surveillance of your pharmaceutical prescription benefit records and access to your private health fund record and any criminal proceedings then as an administrator I would hang my head in shame. If that was to happen and considering AVMEDS ‘form” as described in evidence by various DAMES and as catalogued in the AAT appeals, self certification would be meaningless wouldn’t it? RAA Self certification is already under threat. I think I read that regulations have recently changed to deny anyone who CASA has grounded from sneaking in the back door so to speak by joining RAA.

Don’t bag RAA to advance your argument, like Billy, that way we all lose.

[Sandy Reith]

With respect I disagree with the claim that Ben Morgan has “bagged” RAAUS.

AOPA Australia has been calling for many reforms for the betterment of all of General Aviation (GA) for many years including reforms of CASA’s aviation medical requirements. The facts about a self declared standard for private pilots is demonstrated by the reasonable history in regard to self declared medical fitness that we have from RAAUS. This is not criticising RAAUS as the group.

But tied to the wider issues for our National GA industry, and our desire to stem the decline and allow all of GA to flourish, plainly the creation of a separate system, based on an arbitrarily selected low weight, and then administered by a monopoly government sponsored company, was wrong in the first place. That the RAAUS 600kg weight limit has created a retrograde distortion of Australia’s General Aviation industry would be an understatement. The move to increase the weight limit serves to illustrate the inbuilt problem. We vote for governments to represent all of us equally, not to devolve responsibility, like the creation of separate corporate bodies like CASA and RAAUS to rule as they see fit in monopolistic fashion.

There’s every reason we should advocate change to a graduated single system administered from a Department, Minister in charge, with ICAO compliance and harmonised with the USA rules.

Plainly the present system is inconsistent at best, and demonstrably unreasonable, unfair and costing GA, the VH sector in particular, dearly.

To my own personal case in maintaining a private medical certificate, CASA has made me spend $thousands which my DAME and other medicos say is completely unnecessary.
I went for the Basic Class 2 but CASA wouldn’t wear that due to a technicality, though I would qualify for a ‘conditional’ commercial heavy vehicle driver licence.
The Basic Class 2 was the Clayton’s reform, against reason, with inbuilt disincentives for example not available for IFR.
But beyond CASA’s unsupportable medical policies lies the simple proof from the low weight category, a successful c. 30 year history of self declaration, not to mention the successful reforms in the USA.

Self declared medical certification and free enterprise for GA is the way forward.

Ring, write contact your fed MP, State Senators and request medical reform, USA rules and stop the alienation of Commonwealth owned airports from aviation uses.

[Wombat]

Mr. Reith, you talk good common sense. I understand the issue, feel the pain and I wish for the same happy future as you do. My concern is with the assumption that CASA would automatically choose to implement the lowest common denominator in an AVMED solution to what the evidence suggests is a totally unfair mess. My experience suggests that the folk in AVMED will instead try and remove the RAA self certification privilege. If that is done, you are back to square one.

I therefore suggest that the argument would be better framed in terms of the self certification experience in other countries.

[Wombat]

In regard to the DAS, much has been made of her alleged inexperience of things aeronautical. In my opinion that doesn’t matter much. She would know what a bureaucratic hatchet job looks like when she sees one. You can rest assured on that.

With that in mind, her real test is not wether she knows an AN3 - 6 from a metric bolt or a tempo from an inter but whether she correctly appreciates what, how and why Glen Buckley’s APTA was stitched up and by whom and takes firm and effective action to right that situation with a view to preventing more such behaviors. It needn’t be done in public either.

If Glens misery drags on then we are able to rule out the possibility of any generational change occurring on her watch.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

No doubt many of you have received this email.  To be honest, I read the first paragraph or two, and burst out laughing.  Then I reached for the bucket...

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

I have made it clear to everyone in CASA that a key part of our job is engagement and listening.  We must have effective and productive working relationships with people and organisations across all sectors of Australian aviation so that we engage on issues in a timely and meaningful way.

CASA needs to know about the challenges being faced by the aviation community and be made aware of emerging and evolving safety risks. To translate this engagement into practical outcomes, it is our job to listen. By that I mean we must not make judgements on the views of others before asking questions and making sure we really understand the issues being raised. And, of course, we must be ready to act.

CASA already engages widely with the aviation community and my emphasis is intended to build and improve on these existing formal and informal communications. My intention is not to create a whole new way of operating, but rather to strengthen the relationships and communication between CASA and the aviation community.

An important part of our engagement with the aviation community is the way we communicate safety information. We have recently undertaken research in this area which has highlighted the need to be more effective.

Pilots told us they want to hear more safety related information and advice from CASA that is clear, approachable and authoritative. We are now looking at how we can adjust our communication strategies and safety information products to reflect this feedback.

One of the first steps in re-invigorating our communications has been to revamp this newsletter and expand its circulation. The new-look CASA Briefing is now being sent to all pilots, engineers and other people active in aviation.

We are also sending a ‘welcome to aviation’ package to all new pilots, with an information booklet explaining CASA’s role and how we can assist.

To coincide with the new flight operations regulations there will be an update to the Visual Flight Rules Guide to provide another way of getting easy to understand information about regulatory requirements. These initiatives will be followed by more changes to enhance the way we get safety and regulatory information to you.

All the best
Pip

[thorn bird]

Ms Spence, with respect:

"I have made it clear to everyone in CASA that a key part of our job is engagement and listening.  We must have effective and productive working relationships with people and organisations across all sectors of Australian aviation so that we engage on issues in a timely and meaningful way."

The industry has been attempting to communicate with CAsA for the past thirty years. Simply put you can never, never argue a point with anyone in CAsA without risking being put on their shit list, which can have very dire consequences.

History has shown CAsA is NEVER timely and NEVER meaningful, that is ongoing. Just ask certain companies attempting to comply with your new Part 121 insanity. I would point out that charter is NOT RPT. Endeavouring to make it operate as RPT will ultimately diminish it's viability as the added cost that will have to be recovered.

As an American client once said "I don't want to buy the aircraft, just rent it for a day".

"CASA needs to know about the challenges being faced by the aviation community and be made aware of emerging and evolving safety risks."

The risk to an ailing industry is CAsA itself.

"CASA already engages widely with the aviation community and my emphasis is intended to build and improve on these existing formal and informal communications."

No it doesn't. It is a fact that vast knowledge and experience lies within the industry itself, not with CAsA.

CAsA does not engage, it dictates and talks down to.

"My intention is not to create a whole new way of operating,"

We already are forced to operate in a whole new way because your wonderful world leading regulation requires us to operate completely out of step with the rest of the world.

"Pilots told us they want to hear more safety related information and advice from CASA that is clear, approachable and authoritative."

The safety advice is certainly authoritative, that is "Do as your told" and about as useful as tits on a bull.Take a tour of the FAA website if you want examples of useful advice, which is never authoritative or condescending.

"To coincide with the new flight operations regulations there will be an update to the Visual Flight Rules Guide to provide another way of getting easy to understand information about regulatory requirements."

If you wrote the regulations properly in the first place would be far more help. If you want an example of proper regulations, I can send you a copy of AIM, or you can examine New Zealand online.

[Wombat]

Dear Ms. Spence,

God. bless you. With respect to your appreciation of CASA, i wish to suggest that you might like to consider the possibility that what you have been told is at variance with the perceptions of industry. If you reread the Forsyth review, you will note the key conclusion that there is a trust deficit between the industry and CASA. That “trust deficit” voids the possibility of achieving any of the noble objectives you seek.

To put it another way as a simile , you have been told that CASA operates akin to an ultra modern medical practice; On the few occasions when drugs fail and surgery is required, it is microsurgery - Very little blood, tiny incisions, ultra modern technology no pain and miraculous results.

Industry experience (butson/polair, Buckley/APTA for example, but plenty more examples available) is that CASA is closer to a cattle crush for drenching followed by the the boning room at a meatworks. All that happened when your arrival was announced was to scrub the blood off the tables and keyboards, scatter a new layer of sawdust on the floor put on clean aprons and hastily collect all the pilot and corporate severed limbs and heads lying around the room and quickly shove them in the dumpster.

Talking to CASA is regarded as dangerous activity as evidenced by the number of anonymous submissions in multiple government reviews. Good luck.

[Peetwo]

Once again back to the future??

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

I have made it clear to everyone in CASA that a key part of our job is engagement and listening.  We must have effective and productive working relationships with people and organisations across all sectors of Australian aviation so that we engage on issues in a timely and meaningful way. 

CASA needs to know about the challenges being faced by the aviation community and be made aware of emerging and evolving safety risks. To translate this engagement into practical outcomes, it is our job to listen. By that I mean we must not make judgements on the views of others before asking questions and making sure we really understand the issues being raised. And, of course, we must be ready to act.

CASA already engages widely with the aviation community and my emphasis is intended to build and improve on these existing formal and informal communications. My intention is not to create a whole new way of operating, but rather to strengthen the relationships and communication between CASA and the aviation community.

Sandy via the AP email chains:

For the life of me I can’t see one specific item that will make one iota of difference. Pip Spence is on I think a five year contract, salary is c.$650k and she’s young enough to see other opportunities after CASA because she’ll soon see that its a poisonous environment.

We’ve had more promises, and nothing but promises, since 1988 saw aviation removed from direct Ministerial control with the creation of a monopoly corporate body, the CAA followed by the more impossible CASA with “safety” as the prime and highest consideration meaning CASA can do anything and Parliament has steadfastly rubber stamped every new and warped pile of regulatory nightmares. As Dick Smith said if there’s no risk balanced assessment against cost then all airliners should be fitted with ejection seats for passenger safety.

---

...Its obvious now that listen and engage is the playbook strategy because newbies and the ever hopefuls believe that because its so bad they must take time to work out matters and change the way they operate and regulate. ‘Take time’ being the operative element.

Here’s another CASA now “we’ll fix it” illustration below. Same old story with no intention whatever to make any meaningful reforms.



Then there’s the never ending inquiries, GI (Government Industries) make work look busy and much easier to sit back looking so interested and asking clever questions. The only real bonus for all partaking is a minor amount of physical exercise involved in making an appearance, this bonus is heavily outweighed by a quantum amount by the wasted time by submitters and committees not to mention $more millions down the drain.

Finally EWH's take on the latest PIP waffle...

Via the latest LMH:

CASA DAS Pip Spence has gone where other directors have gone before and stated that CASA needs to improve relationships with the aviation community. No matter how many times that gets intoned, the outcome is always the same: poor relationships. That's probably why they're always saying they need to improve. I think the issue is being side-stepped slightly here. With Rob Walker in charge of Stakeholder Engagement, relationships with CASA gained great tensile strength, but ultimately cracked and broke under impact; the impact delivered by poor decisions and personal skills on behalf of the operations team. One side of CASA builds-up the relationships; the other side smacks them down again. That caused the relationships to be tenuous, cautious and have little resilience. That's what Spence has to tackle. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say general aviation in particular would love a good relationship with the regulator, but what sort of relationship are you in if the other person doesn't understand you and you don't trust them anyway? It's OK for CASA to say relationships need to improve, but they need a good strategy for maintaining the relationships. If not, in a few years we'll be hearing Ms Spence's successor intoning the same thing.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

The curse of curiosity.

- and the confounded confusion induced by half answers. 'Twas, IMO, a simple enough question: and indeed had I had the sense to ask it of only one person, then curiosity satisfied, I could have ambled off and never considered the matter again. Alas...

"Why was Spence appointed as DAS"?

Only one thread is constant; to stem the blood letting. Rumour has it there was some heavy duty in-fighting, of the viscous, destructive kind. Spence was awarded the poison chalice to put an end to that and to satisfy some 'political' skulduggery at the top table. Or, so the story goes anyway...(Believe if if you like).. 

Another aspect of the tales told borders on the bizarre - but, FWIW legend has it that the head of the DoIT has some scores to settle. Here the path divides in two; there is the camp which declares 'he' is a good egg, of excellent quality, intelligent and a 'doer'. Then there are those who believe (firmly) in quite the reverse.

The rest is hearsay - almost heresy: interesting stuff for the Pub (if they ever open again) but not for serious discussion - not just yet.

Non of this satisfactorily answered my question - Why is a career public servant, specialising in administration, taken off a very comfortable career pathway and thrown into the middle of warring wolf packs, one at every cardinal point of the compass?

Don't make sense to me - not at all; which doesn't signify, however, going on 'performance' so far it is clear that someone - somewhere has dropped a bollock of significant proportion. The 'error' count is already unacceptable. Too many wrong messages delivered; allowing Crawford to star at the last Estimates session and the sickening missive delivered being the tip of a very ugly, out of control iceberg. This is a career ending path for Spence; someone wants her 'gone' and has placed her, unsupported, at the target end of a very large shooting gallery. Solitary 'Whistle blowers' can't last long in that environment.  So much for speculation; but my tote board is taking a pounding.

Anyone got a sensible explanation as to why Spence left the comfort of home turf to swim in a sea of sharks? Be buggered if I can find an answer which solves the equation.

Toot - Handing over - toot...