[Peetwo]

Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.


Ref: https://www.change.org/p/aviation-indust...5d3f22b052


 SHANNON BAKER started this petition to Aviation industry.

As we all know, CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) have had underlying issues that have eroded industry confidence at all levels - for decades, after multiple senate enquiries over the years, it appears these have had little to no affect on how CASA continue to operate.

The first step to change - is an independent public investigation into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority... a Royal Commission would be the most appropriate medium for this, and would help restore industry confidence.

"A Royal Commission is an investigation, independent of government, into a matter of great importance. Royal Commissions have broad powers to hold public hearings, call witnesses under oath and compel evidence. Royal Commissions make recommendations to government about what should change."

The Royal Commission into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should focus its investigation on:

1) If CASA is 'fit for purpose' in its current form, in particular to its Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division (LIRA), if CASA's conduct is reasonable and in accordance with wider aviation community expectations.

2) CASA's apparent abuse of administrative law, and whether it is appropriate it retain these powers.

3) Whether it is appropriate for CASA to be involved in drafting aviation regulations.

4) Investigation into Freedom of Information requests to CASA and potential interference from (but not limited to) the Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division, as openness and transparency are pillars for democracy, trust and progress which will give confidence to industry that good governance is taking place.

5) Investigation into whether there has been any use of taxpayer funds to protect CASA staff in litigation or legal proceedings who have engaged in misconduct or alleged criminal activity, or the signing of NDA (non-disclosure agreements).

6) The erosion of General Aviation in Australia through CASA decisions.

7) Airspace review to align more with the FAA. (USA) rules.

8) Any other matter of importance that should be investigated that comes to the Royal Commission's attention during its investigation.

In its findings, the Royal Commission should include comment on whether the establishment of an independent aviation ombudsman would be appropriate, and all matters that arise from the investigation that appear to be criminal in nature shall be referred to the Australian Federal Police or other relevant authorities for investigation.

The Royal Commission shall make its findings open, public and transparent, and shall accept submissions from the public during the investigation.

This petition will be presented to federal members of parliament.

   
P2 question: Hmmm...remember this? ( HANSARD & TICK TOCK!! - Time's up Ms Spence )

CHAIR: I do. I am really frustrated that, having heard the evidence this afternoon, Dr Aleck didn't come prepared for questions about Angel Flight, about the costs. He is the head of the legal team. He would have been directing the proceedings. I imagine that he had to sign off on what the requests to the courts were and then what the courts decided. I would be fascinated to know what amount you asked the court to award and then what the court did award. I cannot believe, Dr Aleck, that you do not know the answers to this question. I appreciate that Ms Spence is covering for you, but I am very, very unhappy with the horrible abuse of your position with CASA. It's not right. For regional people [inaudible] general aviation, they are terrified of what you do to people.

CASA RC Petition Part II - Further Comments.

1st Sandy via Facebook:

Sandy Reith

The reason for this request for a Royal Commission, the devastation to General Aviation by an uncontrolled independent Commonwealth corporate, with its monopoly of ever more permissions to which are attached swingeing fees, is an undoubted fact of life. A disgraceful abrogation of responsibility by Parliament and all of its Members this last thirty years. The problem is that we do not need another inquiry which will waste precious time, line the pockets of GI (Government Industries) and give the Minister a great excuse to do nothing.

The other problem is that we don’t write the terms of reference, so we are behind the eight ball again.
Nevertheless signatures will indicate the depth of opinion and the remarks of the signatories will show where the main problems lie.

And from the petition page:

Richard Gower
2 weeks ago

The 37 year regulatory project has been grossly mismanaged and has produced mountainous volumes which are not suitable for their intended purpose and are strangling the industry.

CASA's obsession with strict liability regulations has created a atmosphere of mistrust between industry and regulator which has worrying safety implications.

---

John Massurit
24 hours ago

Change is needed to stop the decline of GA.

---

Ted Meeuwsen
17 hours ago

An in depth review of this government troglodyte is way overdue.

They act as if they are a law onto themselves and make far reaching decisions of great detriment to Aviation and make CASA a sheltered workshop for bureaucrats.

GA is a shadow of its former self and requires all the help it can get to survive.

However for my pick of the most passionate and insightful comment for the petition so far, read the following from Lorraine MacGillivray (a damning indictment of the regulator)...

Lorraine MacGillivray
44 minutes ago

My husband and I collectively have 77 years industry experience between the two of us. Over the past two years in particular we have been actively supporting an aircraft manufacturer and Australian importer against in our opinion attacks from people in CASA that have acted in a questionable way. I can assure you that comment is being kind. I have submitted two documents to the current Senate inquiry and given the content I am surprised I have not been called before the Senate Committee. CASA Legal and in-house lawyers beholding to their employer have too much power to protect the organization that pays them. It would appear there is collusion, manipulation of the truth and no support for protecting industry. An abuse of power in this Organisation is a gross understatement. Should you fear retribution? Yes you should absolutely. I have been the subject of exactly that in my view. Complaints by me of harassment and bullying ignored. The Bristell aircraft wrongly persecuted, damage to a local importer. CASA issue restrictions for this aircraft then when faced with having to defend it in the Federal Court of Australia immediately the restriction gets removed, why? the aircraft complies and always did, we proved that! And it goes on. CASA legal passing in meeting minutes that are inaccurate and incomplete by a CASA lawyer that was a participant in that meeting and should have known the minutes he was forwarding to our lawyer were not correct. How do I know this? I lawfully recorded the whole 3 hour teleconference so I know that their minutes are not correct. This industry has been eroded and turned into a over regulated, complicated dysfunctional CASA that can no longer adequately administer itself in a fair, just or safe way. There is no support for industry from some sections. We the industry in some areas like Sport Aircraft are the enemy. We are an imposition to them. There is no support for growing industry supporting industry or for industry to be able to approach without fear or favor. I personally and professionally find some in CASA to be in my opinion disgusting people, not professionals, but self serving power mongering midwits! I am told my reputation has been damaged, why because I have stood up for what is right and honest. Individuals within CASA just trying to make your life hell because they don’t want to be proven wrong and stoop to whatever they have to to get you, harm your business and play judge jury and executioner.

I could keep going on over what has been done and I have a huge amount of evidence that will come out and the public will find out about. If anyone wants the truth just about our interactions contact me. Happy to share the evidence.

In closing am I upset, yes. Do I fear for the industry? Yes. Am I scared for what CASA can do to me or my business for standing and speaking up? Yes. Is there a Royal Commission needed? Yes absolutely and urgently before a handful of people drive this industry ‘into the ground’ completely. This is damn serious! 

Again please sign the petition - see HERE.  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

BJ issues new SoE for CASA - 

Today on Twitter Phil Hurst advertised that Minister Joyce has tabled a new Statement of Expectations for the CASA Board: ref - https://twitter.com/PhilHurst62/status/1...4614025218

Phil Hurst
@PhilHurst62

New Ministerial Statement of Expectations for CASA from @Barnaby_Joyce is a real step forward for GA if implemented - esp when combined with Government’s Aviation Recovery Framework. Simply a matter of CASA getting on with it. https://legislation.gov.au/details/F2022L00061.

 
Here is the SoE Legislative instrument and the accompanying Explanatory Statement links: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...L00061.pdf & https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...0061ES.pdf

---

Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023

I, Barnaby Joyce, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, make the following instrument under subsection 12A(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Dated:        13 January 2022

Barnaby Joyce

Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development

1.        Overview

This instrument is the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023.

This Statement of Expectations (SoE) applies in respect of the period commencing
31 January 2022 and ending 30 June 2023, and replaces the previous SoE issued on 21 June 2021.

This SoE serves as a notice to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) and formalises my expectations concerning the operations and performance of CASA.

A safe, economically sustainable and well-regulated aviation sector is critical to Australia’s national productivity and keeping Australians connected to each other and the world. The Government considers that CASA plays an important role in ensuring that the aviation sector delivers economic and social benefits to all Australians through safe operations. CASA’s role and performance should keep pace with the sector, including emerging technologies and, without compromising safety outcomes, facilitate opportunities for the sector to sustain itself, grow and innovate. Acting as a decisive and responsive regulator, CASA will balance the benefits of reducing the regulatory burden on the sector with helping to ensure the delivery of safety and public interest outcomes.

I am issuing this SoE to CASA, consistent with regulatory best practice, and relevant legislative frameworks, while taking into account its statutory independence. The Government expects that CASA will respond with a Statement of Intent within three months of the date of this SoE.

2.      An Effective and Efficient Organisation

CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Act, the Airspace Act 2007 and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 as well as other relevant legislation.

I reiterate the Government’s expectation that CASA’s resources be used in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical way, following best practice principles and guidelines.

I also expect that the conduct and values of CASA’s Board and staff should be consistent with those of the Australian Public Service.

3.        Governance

CASA was established as an independent body to administer the regulatory frameworks that are within its remit. However, CASA performs its statutory functions as part of the Australian Government and is accountable to the Parliament, and ultimately the public, through the responsible Minister, the Parliamentary Committee process, its corporate plan and the tabling of its annual report. I expect that CASA will perform its functions in a manner which supports Government policy, particularly the Government’s deregulation agenda and consistent with the principles espoused in the Government’s Regulator Performance Guide.

I expect that the Board and the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) will continue to work to enable the effective operation of CASA as the national aviation safety regulator.

I expect the Board to be responsible for the matters set out in the Act, including in particular, CASA’s strategic direction, risk management and corporate planning.

I also expect the Board to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and all stakeholders. I expect the CASA Board to be transparent in carrying out its functions, for example by publishing on the CASA website a communique of matters discussed at each Board meeting.

Subject to the Act, I expect the DAS, as the CEO of CASA, to be responsible for managing the operations of CASA, its organisational capacity, and the performance of its statutory functions. This includes leading the day to day development and implementation of effective and efficient regulation, executive-decision making, and operational, financial, personnel and administrative activities.

I expect the Board to keep me and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (the Department) fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SoE, and promptly advise of any events or issues that may materially impact on the operations of CASA, including through concise quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan and this SoE.

I ask that CASA also keep me informed in relation to its public submissions, its media releases and major speeches and any information for which the Government is accountable to the Parliament.  I further expect CASA to fully cooperate with Parliamentary Committees and other Commonwealth public accountability measures, including but not limited to the Senate Estimates process.

I expect CASA to perform its functions consistent with Australia’s international obligations where appropriate, including the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

4.        Regulatory Approach

I expect CASA will implement its regulatory approach in accordance with its regulatory philosophy.

The Act stipulates that CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. Safety management requires a systems-based approach, including risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases) as well as industry.

CASA’s regulatory approach should be scalable to the size and complexity of each aviation activity and take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors and categories of operations.

My expectation is that CASA will perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Act and has appropriate regard to the economic and cost impacts of its decisions and actions on individuals, businesses and the community. I also expect that CASA will take a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors.

In support of this regulatory approach, and my views regarding CASA’s strategic direction and the manner in which it should perform its functions, I expect that CASA will:

(a)      review its regulatory philosophy and update it if required, in consultation with the aviation sector, by the end of 2022.

(b)    fully consider the impact of new regulations on general aviation, with a particular focus on regional and remote Australia. All Explanatory Statements drafted by CASA for subordinate legislation should identify the impact on the various categories of operations as well as on communities in regional and remote Australia served by those operations and how these impacts have been considered.

©      review its consultation framework with interested and affected members of the aviation community to support a collaborative approach to developing fit for purpose regulatory amendments and addressing key safety issues. The outcomes of this review should be provided to me by 30 June 2022.

(d)    release an exposure draft of proposed regulations for industry consultation before regulations are put to me for approval unless a delay would have an immediate impact on aviation safety.

(e)      review its client services standards and ensure there are key performance indicators, such as processing times, for all client delivery functions published on its website by 30 June 2022.

(f)      following a review, seek to publish by 1 May 2022 a work plan of measures being developed that will reduce, where appropriate, the regulatory burden on general aviation.

(g)    by 30 September each year, provide me with an annual report on CASA’s forward regulatory program and how the views of the aviation community have been taken into account when prioritising which amendments should be progressed.

5.        Key Initiatives

I expect CASA, in performing its functions as the aviation safety regulator, will:

(a)      continue effective engagement with industry concerning the implementation of the flight operations suite of regulations.

(b)    support Airservices Australia (Airservices) and the Department of Defence (Defence) in the implementation of the OneSKY project through timely approval and certification, in addition to the continuing regulatory oversight of Australia’s existing air traffic management system.

©      work closely with the Department and Airservices to enable the integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) into Australian airspace, including regulatory oversight of the safety aspects of unmanned aviation operations. This includes supporting the development and progression of initiatives outlined in the National Emerging Aviation Technologies (NEAT) Policy Statement.

(d)    support Airservices in its development and implementation of a new Flight Information Management System (FIMS) to underpin Australia’s Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) ecosystem, through timely regulatory review.

(e)      provide regulatory oversight for major aerodrome infrastructure projects, including significant new runway projects, as well as providing authoritative and timely advice to me and the Department on matters related to leased federal airport developments.

(f)      ensure sufficient resources are applied to the regulatory oversight of the development of Western Sydney Airport and associated airspace in order to support the safe and on-time delivery of regulatory decisions required for the project.

(g)    continue to share safety information consistent with the Safety Information Policy Statement agreed with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

(h)    work collaboratively with the Department and Airservices on modernising airspace management, including, as the regulator, leading the development of the Australian Future Airspace Framework consistent with the Government’s airspace policy objectives, and shaping Australia’s future airspace policy and regulatory framework.

(i)      work collaboratively with Geoscience Australia and Airservices to help ensure CASA’s regulatory oversight enables safe and timely implementation of satellite-based augmentation systems in the aviation environment.

(j)      work collaboratively with the Australian Space Agency to facilitate the advancement of Australia’s space policies and industry through timely decision-making and the provision of advice.

(k)    continue working with the Department in preparing advice to Government on the long-term funding of CASA to provide for its ongoing financial viability, and in examining opportunities to reduce costs of regulation in the aviation industry.

(l)      undertake suitable workforce planning, and provide me an update on this work by 30 June 2022, with detailed consideration of how CASA will maintain a suitable workforce to meet emerging aviation challenges, and how to address key cultural improvements with respect to professionalism, probity, transparency and accountability.

(m)  working with the Department, CASA will pursue, within its legislative responsibilities, appropriate mutual recognition and bilateral arrangements to support the recognition of Australian designs, innovation and certification in comparable jurisdictions, and the minimisation of red tape in transitioning between jurisdictions (including where possible, automatic recognition of licences and approvals).

(n)    identify effective mechanisms to help ensure that flight instruction and related services are more widely, readily and efficiently available, especially in remote and regional areas of Australia.

6.        Stakeholder Engagement

I expect CASA will be transparent and responsive communicators, implementing regulations in a modern and collaborative way.  In particular, I expect CASA to:

(a)      undertake effective and appropriate engagement with Government, commercial, industrial, consumer and other relevant stakeholders and bodies, including in consideration of its regulatory development program.

(b)    recognise the various sectors that comprise the aviation industry and undertake effective and ongoing engagement with those various sectors.

©      communicate clearly and regularly with relevant Government agencies, industry and other key stakeholders regarding CASA’s activities and functions.

(d)    work closely with the Department and other Government agencies, including the ATSB, Airservices and Defence, to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety advice to the Government, the aviation industry and the community.

---

MTF...P2 

ps Hint: Make sure you read the Explanatory Statement to the Legislative Instrument: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...0061ES.pdf

[Sandy Reith]

What a shame, the de facto CASA CEO won’t have much trouble with that lot because BJ still persists with the idiotic notion of safety being the most important consideration, rather than the health of Australia’s aviation industry.

There it is plainly told, emphasised to CASA and to Australia’s aviation industry.

The well being, the usefulness, the opportunities, the job creation, the international harmonisation, airspace reform, drone ops, aircraft maintenance, Angel Flight’s carriage of sick people to treatment, the flying training, the charter flying, the fairness of the regulatory environment and the costs to General Aviation are all subservient to “safety,”

This SoE gives JA even more work to make reports and comply with the necessity to plan this and that, consult with ‘stakeholders,’ create task forces to decide who are these stakeholders and devise new ways of gathering statistics (more unpaid work from GA operators).

All of the above are catered for in the SoE because CASA is instructed to obtain adequate resources in order to fulfil the requirements of the SoE. The symmetry is beautiful, increase the fees to industry in order to comply with the SoE.

This new SoE is novel in its instructions to consider many matters that could go to the reforms that are desperately needed to revive the battered body of General Aviation. But it all hinges on interpretation and whether or not Minister Joyce, if re-elected and remains the Minister, is prepared to follow through.

There is not only the ‘safety’ catch all excuse that spoils this half hearted, improbable attempt to cause reform but the utterly muddled and unresolved concept about the lines of responsibility. Joyce talks about CASA’s independence in the same breathe as exposing the bleeding obvious, that when all is said and done he, as Minister, is responsible along with Parliament.

There’s not been sufficient intelligence applied to this statement because to do so draws one to the inevitable conclusion, that you can’t possibly have it both ways.

Here is exposed the true problem, the model of governance has by any standard failed. Not in a spectacular fashion, such as a fall at the last hurdle, but in a steadily worsening disease over the last two and three decades. This explains in part the lack of recognition to the miserable state of affairs. Even many in GA and certainly our MPs, won’t easily grasp what’s been lost and therefore cannot understand what the benefits to Australia would be with a proper going aviation industry.

The only real hope for aviation in Australia is for the administration to be conducted through a Department of Government with a Minister in charge, this is the proven Westminster system.

Governance by ‘independent’ Commonwealth corporations is an anathema to our freedoms and democratic responsible government.

[Wombat]

Sandy, with respect, section 4 - regulatory approach, para 2, second sentence covers your concerns: " Safety management requires a systems-based approach, including risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases) as well as industry."

CASA is no longer permitted to shoot from the hip. There is also an ICAO manual on how to do "risk based and evidence driven.".

That would cover Jabiru, Bristell and Angel Flight cases in my opinion.

It might be a new experience for some to have to collect and analyze evidence.

[Sandy Reith]

Wombat I beg to differ because the Act, and BJ’s SOE refers, maintains the prime instruction that safety is the highest priority. Therefore the SOE is really only giving hints about looking to risk, getting flying training out to the regions, reducing costs and the regulatory burden. It’s only a couple of years since the Government amended the Act asking CASA to consider the costs to industry. What reforms have occurred to make any difference to GA viability?

Facts are there are signs of what should be reformed but no specific reform measures with action timelines. It’s as though the SOE considers areas of reform but fails to resolve the two outstanding contradictions.

Safety still trumps every consideration, and the Minister claims in the SOE that he and Parliament are responsible but CASA is independent. Impossible, and nothing to force CASA to make radical changes. They will not, unless and until Mr. Responsible, whoever that might be, makes them.

[Kharon]

Steady the Buffs!.

“You told me once that we shall be judged by our intentions, not by our accomplishments. I thought it a grand remark. But we must intend to accomplish—not sit intending on a chair.”

Aye' There's the rub; a quick first read of both the explanatory notes and the SoE, followed by a careful, second read through leaves but two questions begging answers. Before those may be answered there is much to consider. For example 'how' will the documents be 'read and comprehended' by the CASA board and top shelf incumbents.  Aviation folk tend to read stuff in practical terms - instructions mostly followed by action, clear directive with little wriggle room are the most efficient. But, the administrative types will always revel in waffle and exploit any wriggle room to their own advantage. It becomes a battle of 'intent' and 'translation'.

The DPM's SoE is (IMO) a clear directive. It is not a party piece, writ by 'other' folk and signed off as something-nothing. There are many voices echoed within, reflecting sound advice spoken to a competent listener. B. Joyce Esq was savvy enough to enlist an adviser who is not only competent but 'understands' how the system works and the minds that drive the system. The intentions within the SoE and the explanatory notes set industry on a path toward reform - provided there is enough horsepower delivered to those must ensure that the SoE is executed within the 'spirit and intent' of the document. For delivery we must rely on the intention of the DPM; one or two quick meetings and perhaps a note or two to the 'right folk' will see his job done. Regrettably, only time will tell the tale, results or more obfuscation? We shall see.   

“Nothing was or is farther from my intentions, than to enlist myself as the champion of a fixed opinion, where I have only expressed doubt.”

There is a serious BRB this evening (no darts) all have done their homework and made their notes and no doubt formed an opinion. This is, for once, a SoE worthy of serious consideration. That, stand alone is refreshing. MTF a racing certainty.


“What one does is what counts. Not what one had the intention of doing.”

Toot - toot...

[Peetwo]

Sandy, with respect, section 4 - regulatory approach, para 2, second sentence covers your concerns: " Safety management requires a systems-based approach, including risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases) as well as industry."

CASA is no longer permitted to shoot from the hip. There is also an ICAO manual on how to do "risk based and evidence driven.".

That would cover Jabiru, Bristell and Angel Flight cases in my opinion.

It might be a new experience for some to have to collect and analyze evidence.

Wombat I beg to differ because the Act, and BJ’s SOE refers, maintains the prime instruction that safety is the highest priority. Therefore the SOE is really only giving hints about looking to risk, getting flying training out to the regions, reducing costs and the regulatory burden. It’s only a couple of years since the Government amended the Act asking CASA to consider the costs to industry. What reforms have occurred to make any difference to GA viability?

Facts are there are signs of what should be reformed but no specific reform measures with action timelines. It’s as though the SOE considers areas of reform but fails to resolve the two outstanding contradictions.

Safety still trumps every consideration, and the Minister claims in the SOE that he and Parliament are responsible but CASA is independent. Impossible, and nothing to force CASA to make radical changes. They will not, unless and until Mr. Responsible, whoever that might be, makes them.

Steady the Buffs!.

“You told me once that we shall be judged by our intentions, not by our accomplishments. I thought it a grand remark. But we must intend to accomplish—not sit intending on a chair.”

Aye' There's the rub; a quick first read of both the explanatory notes and the SoE, followed by a careful, second read through leaves but two questions begging answers. Before those may be answered there is much to consider. For example 'how' will the documents be 'read and comprehended' by the CASA board and top shelf incumbents.  Aviation folk tend to read stuff in practical terms - instructions mostly followed by action, clear directive with little wriggle room are the most efficient. But, the administrative types will always revel in waffle and exploit any wriggle room to their own advantage. It becomes a battle of 'intent' and 'translation'.

The DPM's SoE is (IMO) a clear directive. It is not a party piece, writ by 'other' folk and signed off as something-nothing. There are many voices echoed within, reflecting sound advice spoken to a competent listener. B. Joyce Esq was savvy enough to enlist an adviser who is not only competent but 'understands' how the system works and the minds that drive the system. The intentions within the SoE and the explanatory notes set industry on a path toward reform - provided there is enough horsepower delivered to those must ensure that the SoE is executed within the 'spirit and intent' of the document. For delivery we must rely on the intention of the DPM; one or two quick meetings and perhaps a note or two to the 'right folk' will see his job done. Regrettably, only time will tell the tale, results or more obfuscation? We shall see.   

“Nothing was or is farther from my intentions, than to enlist myself as the champion of a fixed opinion, where I have only expressed doubt.”

There is a serious BRB this evening (no darts) all have done their homework and made their notes and no doubt formed an opinion. This is, for once, a SoE worthy of serious consideration. That, stand alone is refreshing. MTF a racing certainty.


“What one does is what counts. Not what one had the intention of doing.”

Toot - toot...

Addendum: 

Extract from the McDonaught Explanatory Statement 'Outline' for the Dr Aleck drafted (June 2021) SoE:

Outline


The Statement of Expectations (SOE) was issued by the Minister as a notice under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 provides that the Minister may notify the Board of CASA in writing of the Minister’s views on the appropriate strategic direction for CASA and the manner in which it should perform its functions.

This SOE outlines the Minister’s expectations for CASA in regard to its operations and performance over the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2023.

The SOE emphasises the need for CASA to perform its functions in a manner that supports Government policy, including that aviation safety remains the highest priority. CASA is also expected to comply with relevant legislation and to keep the Minister and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (the Department) informed of CASA’s actions and initiatives.

The SOE includes sections on CASA’s governance, regulatory approach, key initiatives and stakeholder engagement.

The SOE outlines the Minister’s expectations in relation to the way CASA conducts its functions and the need for consultation with the community, industry and Government agencies.

Details of the SOE are set out in the Attachment.

CASA was consulted in finalising the SOE.

Notices issued under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 are a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003.

The SOE commences on 1 July 2021 and expires at the end of 30 June 2023 as if it had been repealed by another SOE.
Authority: Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

 
Extract from the 13 January 2022 BJ Explanatory Statement 'Outline' for the Anita Taylor (Senior Aviation Adviser)/Department drafted SoE:

Outline

This Statement of Expectations (SoE) is issued by the Minister as a notice under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, addressed to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 provides that the Minister may notify the Board of CASA in writing of the Minister’s views on CASA’s strategic direction and the manner in which it should perform its functions.

This SoE outlines the Minister’s expectations of CASA during the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023.

The SoE emphasises the need for CASA to perform its functions in a manner that supports Government policy, including that aviation safety remains the highest priority. CASA is also expected to comply with relevant legislation and to keep the Minister and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (the Department) informed of CASA’s activities.

The SoE addresses CASA’s governance, regulatory approach, key initiatives and stakeholder engagement. It also outlines the Minister’s expectations as to how CASA conducts its functions, and the need for consultation with the industry, government and the broader community.

CASA was consulted in finalising the SoE.

Details of the SoE are set out in the Attachment.

Section 10 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 provides that notices given under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 which are legislative instruments under the Legislation Act 2003 are not subject to disallowance.

Authority: Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988

Note: Other than some of the wording and the effective dates there is vey little difference between the two outlines ( the addition of the part in bold is important in the context of the election cycle and the very clear timelines within the BJ SoE). That is where the similarities in the two SoEs seriously diverge.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

“CASA was consulted in finalising the SoE.”

It would be most interesting to compare the draft going to CASA for its opinions and the ‘finalised’ version, because no prizes for guessing that the de facto CEO made every effort to emasculate the intent and I think he has succeeded.

It’s just fact that the same overriding consideration, CASA’s unique power of justification for its every action, is in its interpretation of safety. This remains its prime obligation. Safety is impossible to quantify, as is risk. Risk itself and ways to regulate for risk are judgements formed from opinions, opinions distilled from data, experience and consensus, changing along with technology, sentiment and other variables like cost of compliance and it should be what politicians judge to be acceptable to the public. Unfortunately Parliament has delegated its power to an unelected corporation which will look after itself in every way possible.

So it boils down to who has the power and has that changed?

To my mind until the Act is changed to delete safety as the overriding consideration (recognising safety as being an outcome of a healthy free enterprise aviation sector) and CASA is absorbed into a Department of Government then all the good intentions will largely remain moot.

[Wombat]

I have just printed and compared both SOE's. My opinion? Great job! The game is up Dr. Aleck. Now we know what Ms. Spence has been doing on weekends. I am fairly sure this is all her work supported by Binskin. That excuses her performance in front of the Senate Inquiry. Now we know why she was appointed - to clean the Augean stables.

Words matter. The Public Service knows how to write stuff in the sense of conveying meaning when they want to. The new SOE is a model corporate SOE and a template for restructure.

Before I start, it is important to note that the first clause in sections 12 and 12A of the Act give the Minister absolute power over the direction, strategy and conduct of CASA. The document is called "Statement of expectations" but it could just as accurately be termed "Ministers Directions". The document sets the overall parameters of CASA's existence and leaves the Board to do the corporate plan and the DAS to do the business plan. These have different time horizons.


Section 1 - Overview.
The new SOE contains the mission of CASA - A safe economically sustainable and well regulated aviation sector. At last! We know why CASA exists! This is a critical difference. Once you have a mission, everything you do can be tested - does it support the mission? if it doesn't, don't do it. Simples.


Section 3 - Governance.

First para is new. it is about accountability. Accountability to parliament and the general public. This is a major rap across the knuckles

para 4 - CASA is now expected to be transparent, starting with the Board who are required to publish a communique after each Board meeting. That behavior by definition must trickle down the organization. (thump, scream)

para 6 - CASA is reminded that quarterly reports are to be "concise". (take that!)

para 7 - This is new. The Minister directs CASA to be open and transparent to himself, parliament and the public (smash! bang! Wallop!)


Section 4 - Regulatory Approach.

Thou shalt use a safety management systems based approach and use risk based evidence driven decision making including 'well documented" safety cases. (hear that Bristell, Jabiru?)

Thou shalt be scaleable and simple.

The burden of regulation must be treated with appropriate regard - that means cost benefit calculatiion.

Then the A Bomb gets dropped:

- review of regulatory philosophy

- focus on GA

-Consultation.

- Customer service performance measurement and reporting

-- workplan for the above and an annual report on these measures to the Minister.


5. Key initiatives:

- Cost of regulation reduction.

- workforce planning and cultural improvements.

- The AMROBA agenda international recognition of standards

- Flight instruction.


6. Stakeholder Engagement.

- Open and transparent.

You can't ask for more than this.

[Sandy Reith]

Let’s play ping pong, and for one I will ask for action not more intentions.

Ms. Spence is excused? Why?

Takes the best part of $700,000 pa from the public purse. Fronts the RRAT with Majorie Pagani and hasn’t a clue about a possible $350,000 court cost in favour of CASA from Angel Flight? Sits there with her top legal manager ($500,000pa) and accepts that he will not answer the Senators. Had no briefing answers, extraordinary, the most inept display of government at work you will likely ever see. The charade laid bare.

Agreed words matter, your top Public Sector apparatchiks certainly do know how words matter.

‘Expectations’ could have been ‘Directions.’

Spot the difference? Who invented the term Statement of Expectations? Could have been the same individual who excused an officer’s lie about a certain ‘left hand elevator’ as a “discrepancy.”

And so on and so on, work your way down.
Consultation, work plan, reviews, culture. Focus. Cost and regulation reduction (same words letter to me 1989). Communique, I.e. PR spin, not ‘minutes of meetings.’ A work plan (you mean they don’t have that from the last time? Really?) for the customer service satisfaction survey, and don’t forget the report for same. No kidding.

Not one single “will accomplish ..” let alone “by date….”

“Stakeholders,” Who are they? Those that were invited to take part in one famous CASA customer satisfaction survey?

No, the purpose of this SoE is solely designed to quiet the maddening crowd.

A strategic and temporary withdrawal by the masters of obfuscation, an art form honed over decades. Remember the Forsyth hopes, how amusing, “just an opinion.”

We have made inroads, so how to placate and silence the critics and disguise the truth? Truth is that the DPM decided not to cross CASA and cause it to make reforms. Reforms that could easily have been in place months ago.

In the wider scheme of things the DPM decided not to upset the Canberra Public Sector, with its huge sensitivity to the exercise of power that goes directly to the pay packets and careers within Canberra’s 400,000 plus inhabitants.

Words of intent, cover the main bases to sooth the discontented (malcontents), recognising that they have gained a modicum of traction. Mention most of their concerns and they’ll forget the others.

Glen Buckley, the aircraft registration deletions, no action on the miss use of Commonwealth airports. No plan for GA in the Sydney basin. ATSB. Lack of BITRE statistics, how many flying schools, charter operators and maintenance engineers? How many employed in GA businesses today, ten and twenty years ago?

Not all you would find in an SoE, but all matters that have been left mouldering away for more years than most can remember, that is if they’ve been around that long.

I say keep on and do not accept intentions as substitute for actions. Don’t maintain the rage, make it more so in this lead up to the ballot box. We stop now, they win, again.

[Kharon]

Even food for thought simmering deserves a good stir every so often.

"I must thank you for it all. I might not have gone but for you, and so have missed the finest study I ever came across: a study in scarlet, eh?" (ACD/SH).

The 'public face' of this SoE may appear to be a bland confection; and, given the track record of previous iterations, a fair dollop of reasonable doubt is most acceptable. However, even though I've not yet digested and organised my notes on the BRB indaba, I thought I might share a few of the 'side bar' elements which (IMO) merit some attention. Warning - potted history follows.

We must step back to before the Tamworth rally,  one of the senior fellahin was in conversation with Joyce "what about the CASA imbroglio?" he asked. The answer " I don't want to have to deal with the CASA problem; but, if I have to then I will". (Roughly paraphrased).

Forward to Tamworth - Joyce turned up, Chester was not in attendance - so Joyce opened the batting; it was the beginning of a fine innings, cut short by the arrival of Chester and the almost instant change in mood that produced. To put a hat on a lacklustre 'closed' session Chester took a photograph of Joyce in the loo and put it about. Joyce was caught between a rock and a hard place; Chester was the minister and despite a good innings, although Joyce gained some popularity and respect, credibility and trust went downhill at a fast clip.

Forward to the Wagga gab-fest; the unspeakable McCormack arrived late, stayed but a short while before waltzing off to more important matters than a bunch of scruffy aviation types who were not impressed by the odour of pony-pooh. The less said about McCormack the better - I'll leave it there.

Now then, the well known performance of McCormack throughout his abysmal tenure is the stuff of aviation legend. After he was defrocked he signed off on the previous SoE, a last gift to his mates (legal questions; anyone?). Had Joyce been of a similar mindset to the two previous clowns; he could have saved a lot (huge) of time, money and effort and simply let the SoE stand. But he did not, did he. What he did do was both astute and honourable. He brought in a very bright, plugged in senior adviser, who knew the ropes, was a 'do-er' and; importantly, had the respect and trust of some pretty heavy duty, qualified folk. Those are the voices clearly heard and heeded in the new SoE. 

Not too shabby an effort, considering an election is looming. The timing immaculate, politically astute and an intelligent document which, if fully enacted, will be applauded for a long while to come. IF.

Doubt and scepticism fully backed short odds favourites; history demands that. But the 'vibe' is playing merry Hell with the odds in my book. On the bright side of my ledger the odds may be firmed up quickly for the 'tells' will either come soon, or, not at all. Courage and shuffle the cards - we shall see soon enough who holds the trumps.

Toot - toot.

P2 edit/addition - KC (AMROBA) take on SoE 

[gizmoe]

Wonerfool words, eferyfink will be awwite cos the brainiacs in Aviation Hearse are the world’s best practised at chuckin bombs on those nut cases that fly little air planes. And having Mums is a beautiful thing without which we’d all be much pawer I fink.
Only a couple of minor matters seem to be inadvertently left out, how about restore flying training and reduce red tape?… just for starters.

In regards to Barnaby's Statement of Expectations for the Board of CASA, all sounds very nice but the reality is Dr Jonothan Aleck runs CASA not Barnaby and there is no way Dr Jonothan Aleck will allow GA to thrive and survive under his watch. He has a bigger bag of tricks than felix the cat. He only has to respond to Joyce with a Statement of Intent in three months which just happens to be at the same time the election is and most likely Barnaby Joyce will be gone so what is the point of writing a Statement of Expectations for the Board of CASA. Jonothan Aleck has fantastic stalling techniques and doesn't need Barnaby Joyce's help with stalling techniques by giving him three months.  I have seen it all before, all talk no action.

[Peetwo]

CASA disrespects promulgation date for BJ SOE?? 

Not sure if this is a sign of further incompetence by the Pip Spence led CASA Executive; or a further thumbing of his nose by the defacto CEO Dr Jonathon Aleck to the CASA legal obligations to adherence of the Ministerial SOE/Direction which officially came into effect today: ref - https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/about-casa

Our minister

Our minister is the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. The minister appoints the CASA Board and provides them with a statement of expectations.

  
Plus:

Legislative instrument - Notices & Notifications
Administered by: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Sunset Information

Date ceased to have effect
31 Jan 2022
Ceased by
Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023

I also note that the Org Chart has not been updated since 15 November 2021:



Plus via the UP: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st11177502

CASA lack of accountability

Sunfish, i hope you are correct. Its interesting I've been contacted by a number of people, some of the view that the new Statement of Expectations is a positive move forward, and others more cynical.

From my own personal experience dealing with CASA on my matter over the last three years, I fall on the cynical side.

CASA has absolutely no accountability at all, and most especially at the Executive Level. Despite the Organizational chart and in the spirit of "Yes Minister", it is Mr Jonathan Aleck that runs CASA. Others come and go, but for almost two decades its Aleck that runs the show..

CASA already has a Regulatory Philosophy, but it means absolutely nothing. In my own matter they have shown a flagrant disregard for that Regulatory Philosophy, and most certainly 9 of the 10 items.

Its all up to the Minister of the day. Under the previous Deputy PM, Michael McCormack they got away with murder. The Statement of Expectations is a Ministerial Document that has no head of power or any accountability. Under weak leadership displayed by McCormack it means nothing to Aleck, who simply does whatever he wants, and plighs his narcissistic trade with complete disregard for any ethics. I fear it may be the same under Barnaby Joyce. CASA feeds the Minister the information and the minister .accepts it.

It really is just a document that has absolutely no value. Far less even than any legislation. The responsible Minister doesn't have the expertise to measure CASA against his expectations, he or she depends on CASA to make that assessment.

As the word count gets longer in the Sof E every time it is released, it simply becomes more offensive. Not until the responsible Minister acts, or old age catches up with Aleck will anything change.

In my opinion (and the opinion of the overwhelming number of the BRB) until such time as Dr Jonathon Aleck's name is expunged from the Org chart (in company with Chris Monahan) then Biskin, Spence and the Board are either taking the piss out of the Minister's SOE; or they are already captured by Dr Aleck and the Iron Ring? And with the latest SOE running the risk of being banished to the Aviation Hall of Doom?? Time for DPM Joyce to put his foot down and demand Dr Aleck's head on a platter, or be relegated to the dishonourable title of miniscule...  

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

Given the tasks inherent in the Ministers SOE that include major business transformation involving:

- International harmonisation of standards (the AMROBA agenda)

- review of regulatory philosophy.

- rejigging regulations to be proportional to risk.

-stakeholder engagement.

- comprehensive transparent reporting.

- a workforce planning and cultural transformation initiatives,

, as required by the Minister (not “provided” unless you think that Van Helsing “provided” a stake through Dracula’s heart),

I. would have thought that the tasks involved in legal, international and regulatory affairs were so huge and so important that it would be entirely unfair to expect even an executive of Dr. Alecks undoubted talents to embark on all of those projects, especially as these are ongoing projects lasting many years. It may be faiirer and administratively efficient to redistribute this huge workload consisting of many projects, among a younger energetic but admittedly less experienced management team.

[Kharon]

He said - She said.

(3) - "I expect CASA to perform its functions consistent with Australia’s international obligations where appropriate, including the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)."

I forget the pre history; easy enough to find if tedious but, in a nut shell, the DCA/CAA/CASA was formed to ensure Australia met it's obligations under the Chicago Convention; a large part of the allotted 'task' was to ensure Australian rules reflected the ICAO philosophy and be in compliance with the same. (E&OE) There has been great harm done to both the spirit and intent of the convention and ICAO. Any study you care to make comparing the ICAO 'compliant' (gold standard) rule set to the Australian legislation clearly defines the glaring liberties taken. The proof easily determined from 'operational data' - (bums on seats - aircraft working - pilot employment etc). The Joyce expectation (directive if you will) should - in theory - bring the Australian 'rules' and philosophy back to where a 'safe conviction rate' of 99% is reduced to world best practice. The FAA and NZ and the UK and PNG and many other nations demonstrate how effective a less draconian rule set is. 'He' said - sort this out - the reply will be yet a while coming. Pressure required - lots of, in Spades.   

(4) - "CASA’s regulatory approach should be scalable to the size and complexity of each aviation activity and take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors and categories of operations."

Oh, be still my beating heart: the benefits of 'sector risk profile' are incalculable. Take a brief look at what Phil Hurst and his crew have achieved for proof of theory. Despite CASA's grandiose claims to be 'the' subject matter experts, time and time again we find that they are simply proven not to be. It is easy to determine (for example) the risks involved in say long line sling loads in places like PNG. Why, because the boys and girls who actually do this work (all day every day) can very clearly enunciate not only the 'risks' but how best to minimise those risks. The consensus of 'expert' advice may then be used to draft suitable regulation related to ensuring that the identified 'risk' is correctly managed and a sensible, practical sector risk profile defined in plain English so as to avoid any 'misunderstanding'. 'He' said take this path - the question is has CASA got anyone capable of sensible discussion with and comprehension of 'expert' advice in the various disciplines within the aviation lexicon. Short answer -NO.

(5) (e) provide regulatory oversight for major aerodrome infrastructure projects, including significant new runway projects, as well as providing authoritative and timely advice to me and the Department on matters related to leased federal airport developments.

Yeah? - BUT why not ALL airport developments? The picture is crystal clear; evidence out the whazoo - a lot of airports are now out of Federal jurisdiction; the need for a 'Code' such as the UK system or the excellent 'California code' relating to the build up of infrastructure on, or close to an aerodrome is a 'gold standard' - yet the DFO at Essendon still stands as testimony to governmental negligence. See the Moorabin submission, read it and weep for the safety of those under, or flying over close in buildings. One day - what 'He' said will return, like a ghost at a feast to haunt and unsettle.

"To tell the secrets of my prison house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,"

Aye well; we must await the 'She said' parts - gods alone know what is transpiring 'behind the veil' - away from the smoke, mirrors and Cool-Aide fountains. Perhaps the 'real' Mandarins can step up and, as Wombat remarks, - sort it all out one Sunday morning, before brunch. That would be lovely - yes please, one off will do nicely.

Toot - toot. (с добрым утром).

[Peetwo]

Dear Dr A - "Show us the Safety Case??"

Ref:

Sandy, with respect, section 4 - regulatory approach, para 2, second sentence covers your concerns: " Safety management requires a systems-based approach, including risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases) as well as industry."

CASA is no longer permitted to shoot from the hip. There is also an ICAO manual on how to do "risk based and evidence driven.".

That would cover Jabiru, Bristell and Angel Flight cases in my opinion.

It might be a new experience for some to have to collect and analyze evidence.

I note today that GlenB has picked up on the fact that as of midnight Sunday CASA are now obliged to provide "risk based and evidence driven decision making...(including well documented safety cases)" to justify the embuggerance of participants in the aviation industry: ref - GlenB embuggerance update: 1/02/22 - "Dear Barnaby??'

"..I would also ask that you request the CASA Board to provide you with CASAs safety case for closing down my business. My reasonable expectation is that Mr Alecks decision making would be supported by risk based and evidence driven decision making. You will find that CASA is unable to provide any safety case whatsoever for closing down my business with no prior warning..."

Plus there is also the fact that the CSF Legislative Instrument is due to be repealed on 18 March 2022, therefore if CASA deem that the instrument needs to be renewed, then they are now obliged to provide a 'safety case' justifying that decision -   

 MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Warning ramble (wanderings of a halfwit) follows.

Aye; but is it safe?

There's that word, the constant use of which is beginning to seriously annoy me - SAFETY. The topic is subjective, definition open to personal interpretation, influenced by so many external factors as to render it practically useless; except of course in a 'legal' matter. A 'safe' conviction being one which renders appeal nugatory. There has to be a 'nicer' way to define 'level of risk', must be. But who are the true masters of 'risk analysis'? I thought perhaps the insurance crowd may have a handle on such matters; so, thought to action, I made a call to an old mate.

Well worth the cost of the call; two pints long and highly educational. At street level an insurance policy, for say your car, may seem like a fairly straightforward deal. The mathematics and legal input to that routine document are somewhat more complex than I ever imagined; and bear in mind, the underwriters expect a profit. They ain't in the business of charitable largess. I digress, the point is that 'safety' is not in their vocabulary; they operate on (for ease of reference) a 'risk assessment matrix'. Which, IMO makes excellent sense.

The first line is always related to what is their exposure i.e. worst case payout scenario, followed by the cost of a court case, the risk of loosing the same and the final overall cost involved weighed (gambled) against the premium cost. Next cab off the rank - Risk analysis. Close inspection of the percentage chances that worst case eventuates and policy will be paid out (maybe). This is, in simple terms, (as it was explained to me) what senior management pilots do (or should do) to assess the operational risk of a proposed series of flights and set a policy which minimises the risk matrix. For example; this is done on an almost daily basis by flight instructors - first solo - imminent. Check list - required hours (tick) any holes in the standard required (tick) weather suitable (tick) traffic density (tick) - and so off they go for the final line in the risk matrix; satisfactory on the day (tick) "off you go then - two circuits and back to the barn". High risk on face value, reduced to an acceptable level of risk by elimination of those elements which are deemed 'high risk'. Is it safe? Maybe, maybe not, who'd know. BUT the level of risk has been reduced (within reason) to an acceptable level.

Now, before I ramble on; lets just say no one is ever completely 'safe' there are no iron clad guarantees that you will even wake up in the morning, let alone survive the road trip to work. One can do one's very best to mitigate the risks, reduce the probabilities; and, gods willing, weather permitting arrive back home in one piece to find a cold Ale waiting.

The word 'safety' must (really should) be removed from all documents relating to 'matters aeronautical' it is far too nebulous. A graded 'risk matrix' from extreme to acceptable (back to the insurance boffins) for each discipline in the aeronautical library would be of great value; and (dare I say it) improve overall 'safety'. For example:- If you stand on the railway line waiting for your 0815 to town you fall into a high risk zone, stand on the platform close to the edge you are in a medium risk zone; stand back a little way - low risk. Racing up the stairs running late? High risk on three fronts.

Just a twiddle; trying to unscramble the hidden uses of the 'safety case' - whatever that may be. Buckley wants a 'safety case' defined - operational or legal safety; and for whom? Nebulous, and difficult to define don't come close to resolution, too much wriggle room built in..

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

EWH catching up on AMROBA SOE support -   

Via the Yaffa:

---

Somebody in Canberra does Care: AMROBA

4 February 2022

Ken Cannane, Executive Director of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) this week said the Statement of Expectations (SoE) issued to CASA shows that someone in Canberra cares about general aviation.

Deputy Prime MInister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Barnaby Joyce issued the SoE in mid January, outlining CASA's obligations as a regulator for the next 18 months.

The SoE contained several initiatives and directives that are thought hold significant benefits for general aviation, which Cannane believes is a landmark moment in aviation advocacy.

"Australia Day 2022 will be remembered by our members as the day the government at long last took affirmative action and provided a Statement of Expectations that addresses most issues that AMROBA has raised over the last decade or so," he said in a communique to AMROBA members.

"The DPM’s staff need a bit of support from industry for their effort. They listened. Considering past SoEs issued by ministers, this is the best SoE that I have seen. It is based on getting the matters we–and other associations–raised, actioned and properly addressed plus a lot more transparency.

" ... somebody within government does care."

Cannane went on to say that the SoE removed excuses for bureaucrats to do nothing.

"Government, the Department and CASA’s Board need to understand, adopt and implement these expectations, as elucidated in the Explanatory Statement, for general aviation and the engineering disciplines of design, maintenance and manufacture so we may partake in both the domestic and global aviation market," he said.

"CASA’s CEO Pip Spence now has no external impediment–except her own staff–to not change the regulatory philosophy under these expectations."

Cannane highlighted some of the positive aspects of the SoE including:

• requiring the CASA board to publish meeting minutes on the website
  
• maintaining consistency with international obligations, including ICAO
  
• establishing regulatory oversight of airport development
  
• providing the minister with a work plan
  
• publishing exposure drafts of regulation before presenting it to the minister.
  

"It is not a hard task to reduce the regulatory burden on aviation participants," Cannane said, "it is simply a matter of following the FARs and removing silos and economic restrictive regulations. Most have been created over the last 30 years.

"We must at least say well done to the bureaucracy involved in developing this Statement of Expectations and Explanatory Statement.

"We now know clearly what we expect from CASA this year, let’s hope they can deliver."

CASA is expected to reply to the minister with a Letter of Intent in April.

The Statement of Expectations can be downloaded from the Federal Register of Legislation website.

---

Plus from LMH:

Ken Cannane's unfettered optimism over the CASA SoE carries with it a very clear message: Cannane believes Barnaby Joyce is on our side. He's not alone in his faith; several other aviation advocates who spend their hours slogging around the halls of Canberra are expressing similar sentiments. With the Aviation Recovery Framework and the CASA SoE providing evidence that their faith is well-placed, you can't blame them for hailing Joyce as somewhat of a messiah. No other minister has made such in-roads to the problem in such a short time as he has done. In a contrary position, there are also advocates who prefer to reserve their accolades until things have been done and not just written. Too often aviation's optimists have had their sunny outlooks shaded by an overcast of promises that weren't backed by actions, understandably causing them to suspect more of the same every time another promise is aired. Who can remember their demenour in the weeks following the release of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review in 2014? Those were heady times when we thought everything was going to be fixed. So is Cannane wasting his optimism on the promises offered by more documents? I would say "yes" were it not for the many others who are sharing his sentiments at the moment. For the first time, people are believing the words cometh before the actions ... unless Barnaby Joyce finds himself Shadow Minister come late May.

Slight drift here but the following segment from last night's Peta Credlin show IMO provides a strong incentive for DPM Barnaby as the responsible Minister to hold the CASA and Department of Infrastructure bureaucracy to account - 

The public does not appreciate governments that cannot reign in 'out-of-control agencies'

The public does not appreciate centre-right governments who cannot reign in “out-of-control agencies,” pushing “left-wing causes” with taxpayers’ money, according to Sky News host Peta Credlin.
 
The comments come after it was revealed Australia Council for the Arts allocated scholarships for artists who perform lewd acts, including so-called “bum puppetry.”
 
Ms Credlin says Arts Minister Paul Fletcher response to the controversy “typifies so much that's wrong with the current federal government.”
 
“What's the point of a minister if he can't or won't do anything? 
 
“Why is Paul Fletcher being paid $360,000 a year if he has no say over how the Australia Council spends its $215 million in taxpayer funding every year? 
 
“And what's the point of electing what's supposed to be a centre-right government if taxpayers' money continues to be wasted on left-wing causes?”

(Note: That segment in less than 24 hrs as already 17.5 k views and accumulated over 400 comments ) 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Catherine King (Shadow miniscule) OP on BJ ARF - 

From the Member for Ballarat who brought us this bi-partisan load of bollocks...

Via the Yaffa:

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Catherine King (second from left) with Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese (second from right) in front of an Air Tractor single-engine aerial tanker (SEAT) at Ballarat Airport. (office of Catherine King)

Aviation Framework glosses over Challenges: ALP

9 February 2022


Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Catherine King today told Australian Flying that the Federal Government's Aviation Recovery Framework ignored challenges facing the aviation sector.

“Labor welcomes the Morrison-Joyce Government’s focus on revitalising general aviation as part of its long-awaited aviation recovery framework, especially the investment in ADS-B technology which we know will make a big difference to the GA sector," King said.

“But the framework–which was twelve months in the making–glosses over a range of challenges confronting the aviation sector as a whole. These include how to transition into a new post-COVID normal as financial support for the sector tapers off, how to genuinely grow skills and expertise in Australia, and how best to unlock the potential of the aviation sector’s contribution to achieving net zero."

The framework and the subsequent CASA Statement of Expectations have both drawn wide acclaim from the GA sector, but many in the industry are concerned that the reforms outlined in both won't survive if the Coalition is not returned to power at the federal election in May.

“Labor will have more to say about our aviation policy as the election drawers nearer," King said, "but we have a proud history of supporting–and driving reform in–Australian aviation. Everyone involved in general aviation can expect this to continue under an Albanese Labor government."

The ALP has in the past tied their aviation policies to the Aviation White Paper produced by the Rudd government in December 2008, a position reiterated by then shadow minister Anthony Albanese at the AGAA summit in Wagga Wagga in 2018, and again in the ALP National Platform statement published in 2021.

Hmm...no COMMENT! 

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

From Catherine King expect practically nothing at all. The usual safety line is the same dopey nonsense that covers the whole subject in any way that you like depending on which way the wind blows or which way the tea leaves arrange themselves in the bottom of your mug.

She talks about some wanting changes but others, with seemingly equal representation, don’t want much if anything. In other words no idea at all.