[thorn bird]

Gawd Sandy, where is this woman oops sorry person from?

ADS-B is going to "Save" the GA industry, really?

“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."

A proud history??? Uh, can anyone tell me of anything each way Albo did for aviation when he was last in the seat?

[Kharon]

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 

 Comment:-

[Kharon]

Comment HERE.
Crimes of omission. Sins of commission.

"The opposition has a very proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety.

How very convenient for them; direct descendants of Pilate and his neat little side ways two step shuffle (Matthew 27:24). Fact or fiction? Irrelevant, but the legend stands as representative of the great cop-out. The 'opposition' is there to 'challenge' and debate matters which affect the well being of the nation. The 'Navigation Act' is due for an overhaul; it is an essential document which carries great weight, domestically and internationally. It is a document which requires/demands intense scrutiny and debate. How can any parliamentarian, of any stripe, simply waive the thing into law without a moments consideration? Where does the hypocrisy end, the 'opposition' on an almost daily exhibit their 'opposition' to almost anything the governing party proposes - (see the comedy hour. a.k.a. Question time). Bills are debated and refined by both houses; and yet 'matters aeronautical' are simply waived through. Why? There are hundreds killed, maimed and injured on our roads every year; a much higher level of risk than any aviation activity, the costs horrendous and yet any change to the road rules (a'la aviation rules) would have 'em all on their hind legs barking and biting. Seems to me the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to airport. Aviation legislation is at a crisis point; time someone challenged the bipartinsane cop out and brought in some semblance of sanity. 

"There are, frankly, no margins for error when it comes to aviation safety."

What a risible statement; what a load of ignorant arrogance and its bullshit. There are  so many allowances for 'margins of error' practised every day that they are uncountable; the risks are completely understood, the safeguards carefully arranged etc. Where the real lack of risk margin exists is within the legislation, (politicians business). All directed toward 'safe conviction' and plausible deniability of any and all responsibility for politicians and CASA.

Bipartisanship shames the notion of democracy; and disgusts those who do accept the responsibility for 'safety' on a daily basis, despite little to no relief in law from even minor transgressions.

Toot - toot...

[Wombat]

"how best to unlock the potential of the aviation sector’s contribution to achieving net zero."

That is code for taxing all forms of petrol engined flying out of existence.

[Peetwo]

EWH OP on Senate v CASA??

Hitch catching up again in this week's LMH..

Senators have the right to throw up any question to a government body in inquiry or Estimates hearings. It is the place where the bureaucrats that have such a significant impact on the lives of ordinary people have to answer to the representatives of those ordinary people. Answers given to questions are considered evidence, so if a senator throws a hand grenade that an organisation is not prepared to catch and throw back, that organisation has the option to take the question on notice, which means they'll answer it later. But in the case of CASA, the senators are starting to think that process is being abused. In both Estimates and the GA inquiry, CASA seems to have come unprepared to answer questions on current issues. The inability of Jonathon Aleck to answer the question about Angel Flight costs in a GA inquiry hearing was the straw that broke the camel's back. As the head legal eagle at CASA, the senators thought he would have to know what the costs were as part of his role. That left two possibilities: CASA was sandbagging or they genuinely didn't know. Either way they probably deserved the admonishing they got. Things got worse in Estimates last week when it seemed CASA wasn't able to answer any questions at all. Senator McCarthy accused CASA CEO Pip Spence of just that. There was a certain level of unfairness in this. The CEO cannot know the answers to every question without micro-managing the organisation; they have to rely on middle-management experts to supply the answer in hearings. That so many critical issues are being taken on notice indicates, to me, that the fault lies with that managment strata who aren't briefing their CEO properly. They need to get their ducks in line for the next time they front the senators or I wouldn't rule out a complete RRAT committee meltdown.

"McDonald mixed her ire at CASA with praise for Spence"

The need for a complete change of culture within the regulator was first formalised during the short-lived reign of Mark Skidmore as Director of Aviation Safety. He started the transition towards just culture, and after his departure the torch was theoretically taken up by Shane Carmody. But it seems to the GA industry that CASA's culture has not undergone any change at all, thwarted, perhaps, by a labyrinth of bureaucracy that has no end. That culture–which perhaps could be described as an unjust culture–came under the heaviest fire it has for a long time in senate Estimates. Senator Susan McDonald waved a pile of papers and forcefully expressed her concerns over the treatment of a GA operator in [b]Orange[/b]. Supporting fire came from Senator Rex Patrick who accused CASA of destroying the GA industry and CEO Pip Spence of delivering platitudes instead of firm answers to questions. Clearly, he had reached some form of limit, and Senator McDonald is standing with him shoulder-to-shoulder on that matter. Interestingly, McDonald mixed her ire at CASA with praise for Spence, revealing that the senator believes the problems in CASA don't come from the corner office in Aviation House, but from walled cubicles somewhere else on the floor. If I may speculate a bit, I suspect McDonald is casting the evil eye lower down the hierarchy chart. Can a genuine just culture be put in place at CASA with managers who agree in principle but disagree in action? I, for one, will be disappointed if the report into the GA inquiry doesn't recommend some changes in CASA along these lines, especially after McDonald virtually said in Estimates that she was ready to recommend CASA be disbanded in view of the poor culture that exists.

MTF...P2 

[gizmoe]

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 

 Comment:-

[Peetwo]

CASA Board meeting 1 March 2022

Our Board meeting 1 March 2022

The Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) meets six times per calendar year to fulfill its obligations under Section 53 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; and ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.

The first meeting of the CASA Board in 2022 was on 1 March at the CASA Melbourne Regional Office. Leading up to the meeting, the Board met with the Executive management team at Essendon Fields Airport, members of the Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA) and the Chair of the Australian Flight Training Industry Association (AFTIA).

CASA Board meetings follow a theme-based agenda focusing on organisational matters and operational matters that affect the aviation industry.

The organisational matters centre around CASA’s corporate governance, financial position, status of major projects, cyber security issues and general health of the CASA workforce.

Consistent with its focus on the wellbeing of CASA staff and the culture of the organisation, the Board approved a charter to establish a Board sub-committee to focus on CASA’s People and Culture matters.

The Board was briefed on accidents and incidents data and performance results against the national regulatory oversight program of work.

Key initiatives considered by the Board included:

• The development of a General Aviation (GA) Workplan that will soon be produced and published on the CASA website
  
• The status of transition to the Flight Operations Regulations (FOR)
  
• Matters around Flight Examiner Rating Courses and Examiner Proficiency Checks.
  

The development of our GA Workplan is a particularly important initiative. The workplan will outline a range of actions aimed at addressing regulatory settings that will support our GA community. Importantly this will include timeframes for implementation, providing GA operators certainty on what CASA is acting on and when results will be delivered. It will present a comprehensive picture about the actions that CASA is taking to address some long-standing issues in the GA sector as well as highlight actions already taken. In addition to demonstrating a firm commitment to making genuine reforms, it will also help stakeholders identify where their issues sit within a broader program of work. The plan is intended to be published towards the end of April and progress will be regularly reported to industry. The Board has made clear it expects CASA to bring forward delivery timeframes wherever this can be achieved.

Two key focuses were noted in relation to the FOR transition. The first is to complete the development of the Manuals of Standards (MOSs) that impact sport and recreational aviation, and private and commercial balloon operations (Parts 103, 105, 131). The second focus is to communicate with and prepare operators for the next major milestone on 2 June when their fully integrated manuals/expositions are due.

The CASA Board reinforced that it has stewardship of a number of risks relating to regulatory failure, industry capture and CASA’s culture and takes these matters seriously.

Following the meeting, the Board held a strategy session with members of the CASA Executive team. Matters discussed included the strategic direction for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) vehicles and the associated infrastructure. Discussions were held with representatives from the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Planning and Water to better understand the planning challenges within the local jurisdiction. Other matters included the development of strategies to address emerging technologies, the general shortfall of LAMEs across the aviation industry, and CASA’s overall workforce capability.

The next meeting of the CASA Board is scheduled for April 2022 in Adelaide.

Air Chief Marshal (Ret’d) Mark Binskin AC
Chair, CASA Board

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

More worried about the highly paid employees of CASA than the screaming problems of GA.

But this quote says it all:-

“ bring forward delivery timeframes wherever this can be achieved.”

I don’t suppose anyone else spotted the giant escape hatch in that statement?

How pathetic. This Board is a nothing just like its predecessors.

[Wombat]

Oh Dear! The Board thinks its role is to make policy and regulations: "to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; and ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner."

Well that has stuffed it! As lectured by my own Board from time to time on Governance years ago, that is not the role of the Board. The Boards role is to ensure risk is competently managed by the senior management of CASA. That means that the Board doesn't decide anything, what it does is approve. If it decides things then it has entangled itself in the management of the business and can no longer function as a dispassionate oversight as risk manager.

To put that another way, if the Board so much as touches the steering wheel of the business, it becomes part of the management. That means ownership of projects and very, very tangled chains of command. Its a very great temptation particularly for pilots to want to get "hands on" but once  you have touched something. you own it.

The Board should question the CEO about her corporate plan for the business to ensure she is managing risk. When they are satisfied they approve the plan.

As for major projects, the Board is entitled to query the CEO about them to again ensure they dovetail with the plan and that again risks are managed adequately. Now those projects are brought to the Board by the CEO not for approval but for scrutiny. If the Board doesn't like what it sees then after one or two such incidents, you fire the CEO for being a slow learner.

What has happened now, if the minutes are correct, is that the Board is now part of management, which diffuses the responsibility when things go wrong - a situation very much to the liking of senior management.

[Peetwo]

If Albo gets in the GA industry is doomed - 

Previous references:

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.

Gawd Sandy, where is this woman oops sorry person from?

ADS-B is going to "Save" the GA industry, really?

“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."

A proud history??? Uh, can anyone tell me of anything each way Albo did for aviation when he was last in the seat?

Comment HERE.
Crimes of omission. Sins of commission.

"The opposition has a very proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety.

How very convenient for them; direct descendants of Pilate and his neat little side ways two step shuffle (Matthew 27:24). Fact or fiction? Irrelevant, but the legend stands as representative of the great cop-out. The 'opposition' is there to 'challenge' and debate matters which affect the well being of the nation. The 'Navigation Act' is due for an overhaul; it is an essential document which carries great weight, domestically and internationally. It is a document which requires/demands intense scrutiny and debate. How can any parliamentarian, of any stripe, simply waive the thing into law without a moments consideration? Where does the hypocrisy end, the 'opposition' on an almost daily exhibit their 'opposition' to almost anything the governing party proposes - (see the comedy hour. a.k.a. Question time). Bills are debated and refined by both houses; and yet 'matters aeronautical' are simply waived through. Why? There are hundreds killed, maimed and injured on our roads every year; a much higher level of risk than any aviation activity, the costs horrendous and yet any change to the road rules (a'la aviation rules) would have 'em all on their hind legs barking and biting. Seems to me the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to airport. Aviation legislation is at a crisis point; time someone challenged the bipartinsane cop out and brought in some semblance of sanity. 

"There are, frankly, no margins for error when it comes to aviation safety."

What a risible statement; what a load of ignorant arrogance and its bullshit. There are  so many allowances for 'margins of error' practised every day that they are uncountable; the risks are completely understood, the safeguards carefully arranged etc. Where the real lack of risk margin exists is within the legislation, (politicians business). All directed toward 'safe conviction' and plausible deniability of any and all responsibility for politicians and CASA.

Bipartisanship shames the notion of democracy; and disgusts those who do accept the responsibility for 'safety' on a daily basis, despite little to no relief in law from even minor transgressions.

Toot - toot...

"how best to unlock the potential of the aviation sector’s contribution to achieving net zero."

That is code for taxing all forms of petrol engined flying out of existence.

Still no official ALP aviation policy out yet but if you read between lines on this Oz Aviation article:

LABOR TO FOCUS ON NATIONAL AVIATION POLICY, BRISBANE NOISE POLLUTION
written by Hannah Dowling | March 30, 2022



Shadow minister for transport and infrastructure Catherine King has revealed Labor’s plans to instate a permanent forum to monitor aircraft noise levels over Brisbane and launch a new white paper into Australia’s national aviation policy.

The white paper would have a particular focus on general aviation and training, to ensure the sector is prepared for post-pandemic recovery and growth.

It comes as the federal government revealed its proposed 2022-23 budget overnight, which introduced no new assistance for Australia’s aviation industry, amid an improving operating environment.

In an opinion piece published in the Courier Mail, King stated Labor’s commitment to ensuring Brisbane residents are satisfied with what is being done in response to ongoing outrage over increasing aircraft noise pollution over inner-city suburbs.

“Aviation is essential to Australia and to Brisbane,” King wrote.

“Labor has long argued that the Morrison-Joyce government needs to take seriously the concerns of residents affected by aircraft noise,” she added.

It comes after residents of inner-city Brisbane suburbs have spent months lobbying and protesting against excessive aircraft noise pollution over their homes following the introduction of Brisbane’s second parallel runway.

The airport opened its new parallel runway in July 2020, and simultaneously implemented a slew of new flight paths that residents have since stated do not meet the expectations set in consultation with the community prior to the runway’s approval.

In September, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce set up a Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum for Brisbane Airport’s new flight paths, which released its first quarterly report in January.

As a result, Brisbane Airport Corporation and Airservices have together agreed to begin a new trial to send more flights over Moreton Bay, reducing the number flying over inner-city homes.

“Yes, we were pleased to see the government follow Labor’s lead last September by establishing an independent airport forum for Brisbane residents,” King said.

“But why isn’t it permanent like the similar model in Sydney?”

According to King, should the Labor party win the upcoming federal election, it will “take the next step” to make the independent forum investigating aircraft noise in Brisbane “permanent and independent”.

“Through this body, Labor will be keen to explore other ideas to better manage aircraft noise for Brisbane residents,” she said.

The shadow transport minister also said Labor will “ensure Airservices actually measures the noise that locals have to put up with, whether from the new runway or the legacy runway”.

In the piece, King also pledged to commission a new white paper “to take a detailed and coordinated look at our national aviation policy framework”.

“It will address aircraft noise and airport planning, but also the future of general and training aviation and help set the sector up for a new era of competition and prosperity,” King said.

“In the absence of leadership from the current government, an Albanese Labor government will step up to work with the local community, enable their voices to be heard and chart a better future for Australian aviation,” she concluded.

..and this Oz Flying article yesterday:

ALP Aviation Policy to include White Paper

4 April 2022

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Catherine King said last week that the Australian Labor Party would create a new aviation white paper if they won the upcoming federal election.

"An Albanese Labor Government will deliver a new aviation white paper to set the scene for the next generation of growth and development across the aviation sector, while also establishing effective mechanisms for consultation and management of issues like aircraft noise and airport development," King said in a statement.

"To continue the recovery of Australian aviation, and plot the opportunities for future growth, an Albanese Labor Government will follow in the footsteps of the last Labor government in creating a new Aviation White Paper."

KIng accused the Morrison government of having no aviation plan for the future and said throughout the pandemic the government produced no support of any lasting impact.

King said the ALP's white paper would look at several initiatives including:

• how to maximise the aviation sector’s contribution to achieving net zero carbon emissions, including through sustainable aviation fuel and emerging technologies
  
• economic reforms needed to improve productivity across the sector, including addressing skills shortages, competition between airports and airlines, and charting a course out of the pandemic
  
• how to support and regenerate Australia’s general aviation sector
  
• better mechanisms for consultation on and management of issues like aircraft noise, airport development planning and changing security requirements.
  

"Only an Albanese Labor Government will end the Coalition’s decade of wasted opportunity, charting a better path for Australia’s essential aviation industry," she said.

The ALP produced an aviation White Paper in 2009 during their last term in government when current Prime Ministerial hopeful Anthony Albanese was minister for transport. It was roundly criticised by the GA community because it delivered little of any substance and ignored much of the industry input provided to the preceeding Green Paper.

---

Yogi comment:

Yogi • a day ago

If Labor were truly interested, they would already have an updated policy. Instead they ask you to trust that they will do a good job. That is hard to do based on their last effort. This all smacks of politics and trying to grab a few votes based on airport noise. Kevin Rudd did the same thing and then did nothing for the community when he got in to power.

...we're ALL DOOMED! 

Here is the EWH take on that, via the LMH: 

ALP Shadow Minister Catherine King has released a statement of policy stating with much fanfare that, if they are elected to government, they will create another aviation white paper. Rather than being progressive policy, this is seen as just a throw-back to the White Paper of the last ALP stint in power; perhaps a needs to hang on grimly to a failed exercise that they are desperate to make work. The ALP policy has two major failings: the last White Paper is still thought of by everyone outside the ALP as being junk, and any future White Paper program would once again call for industry input at a time when people have had enough. The GA community has spent the past two decades desperately trying to get people in power to look at the state of the industry and make positive, progressive and innovative change to make sure it thrives. They've been trying to get politicians of every colour–red, blue, green or white–to value GA and what it delivers to Australia. And they're still trying, which is a reliable indicator that nothing of any substance has been done. And now the ALP wants the GA community to tell their story again? That was done in the ALP's first White Paper. That was done in the ASRR. That was done in the senate GA inquiry. That was done in every piece of CASA consultation put forward. Mostly, the story hasn't been listened to. The GA community fears that another White Paper will be a copy-and-paste of the last one, when input to the preceeding Green Paper was almost completely ignored in favour of an outcome that was so obviously pre-determined. The GA community doesn't need to know that all the work done since the ALP was last in power will be junked simply because it all happened on the Coalition's watch. That would reset our doomsday clock close to midnight.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Mr. Albanese pushed off the ATSB out of his Department in 2009 by creating yet another ‘independent’ Commonwealth corporate. No doubt Albo was taken with the huge success of another such corporate, CASA.

In his reading speech he stated that the ATSB’s function should not be subject to politics.
I think we can take from that that we can’t trust politicians to govern.

Therefore why not turn over all government to ‘experts?’

There’s plenty of them in Can’tberra so think of the money and trouble we can obviate by having no politicians at all! Nirvana beckons and Karl Marx would be thrilled.

Don’t you love clever people?

[Wombat]

I can promise you one thing; the Senior Management of CASA has a draft of an "ALP White Paper" on Civil Aviation sitting in their computers right now.

You can guess what the paper contains;

- Motherhood suggestions for a cosmetic overhaul of regulation to appear to satisfy the ALP's greening strategy.

- Amendments to regulatiory strategy and a new SoE that reinforce and increase the power of CASA Senior Management.

- measures to take revenge on opponents of the status quo.

In other words, CASA will inflict more of the same and you can forget any meaningful "reform".

By way of explanation, all Government organisations have a "wish list" ready and waiting to go against the day that a Government changes and policy must be seen to change. Politicians  and their staff are lazy. They will take CASA's proffered paper, change a few words and headings and voila! A new ALP policy!

[Peetwo]

BJ makes ADSB rebate happen - 

Via AOPA Oz: 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia
CLAIM UP TO $5,000 FOR ADS-B UPGRADES
GOVERNMENT REBATES - NOW OPEN

"The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia is proud of our work across the past three years in advocating for ADS-B rebates for aircraft owners across Australia ", Benjamin Morgan, CEO.

"We thank the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, for bringing this vital opportunity forward, assisting aircraft owners with the enormous costs associated with ADS-B,

"AOPA Australia encourages our members and the broader aviation community to consider upgrading to ADS-B during the rebate period," he said.

Grants are now available of up to $5,000 to increase the uptake of ADS-B equipment in Australian–registered aircraft to improve safety and efficiency for Australian airspace users. 

Up to $5,000 per eligible aircraft covering up to 50% of eligible project expenditure. Only one grant per aircraft and per device is permitted.

For more information, visit: https://business.gov.au/grants-and-progr...u0wpEwxdy0

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Then there was seven?? -   

I almost missed this? The BJ appointment of a 7th board member was totally devoid of any media coverage including the DPM's ministerial Media Release page?

Via CASA.gov.au : 

New CASA board member adds high-tech expertise

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority board is boosting its expertise in emerging technologies with the appointment of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Professor Felipe Gonzalez.



Dr Gonzalez is a professor at QUT’s School of Electrical Engineering and Robotics and an expert in aerial robotics and automation.

He is also chief investigator at the university’s Centre for Robotics, where he leads the QUT Airborne Systems Lab.

CASA chair Mark Binskin said the appointment of Prof. Gonzalez by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Barnaby Joyce was a welcome move at a key time.

‘The aviation industry is on the cusp of significant technological change, particularly in the area of uncrewed aerial vehicles,’ Air Chief Marshal Binskin said. ‘The appointment of Professor Gonzalez adds further depth to the CASA board as it moves into this new era.

‘His expertise and insight will be invaluable in helping CASA tackle the challenges ahead.’

Prof. Gonzalez’ expertise includes the use of UAVS for remote sensing and artificial intelligence (AI) for object detection.  He is also passionate about the creation of aerial robots and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) with a high level of awareness stemming from on-board computer algorithms using advanced optimisation and game theory.

He is co-author of several books on UAVs and has published a large number of papers on remote and airborne sensing.

A Chartered Professional Engineer, Prof. Gonzalez has been on a number of boards, including V-TOL Aerospace, Aspect UAV Imaging and Australian Spatial Analytics.

He is a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

He also holds a private pilot licence (PPL) and a remote pilot licence (RePL) from CASA.

Date: 29 March 2022

(P2 comment: Passing strange that the CASA Chair announcement was made 6 days after Prof. Gonzalez officially took up his position on the Board??)


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Will Albo's Leopard change it's spots??  

Last week Albo had a pretty ordinary week in electioneering terms...

Via PML on Youtube:

However the one Albo faux pas that caught my attention was when he walked out in the middle of politically sensitive questioning in a daily press conference:

(From 2 min 13 seconds):

This reminded me of when Albo escaped out the back door when questioned by 7news Chris Reason (unfortunately I can't find the footage -  ) on the Government non-response to the very damning Senate AAI inquiry (Pelair) report, with the excuse that the Labor government had entered 'caretaker' mode. This was despite being briefed/advised by Mrdak and the Dept, McCormick and CASA, Dolan and the ATSB, on or around the 5th of June 2013.

From Hansard 18th November 2013:

Senator FAWCETT: The last time we met in estimates, you were anticipating giving a brief to former minister Albanese about the Senate report into air accident investigations. You anticipated giving that to him, I think, within 10 days of the date of the estimates. Could you confirm what date the department did provide that brief for action to the minister?

Mr Mrdak : Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.

Senator FAWCETT: Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak : It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak : It certainly drew to the minister's attention the findings of the Senate committee report.

Although I don't have the footage of Albo dodging the questioning on the PelAir report by Chris Reason I do have two damning blog pieces (from the time) by two former legendary aviation tendentious bloggers Sandilands and Phelan (may they both rest in piece - )... : Ref - Pprune: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...7#pid12767

Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister’s false statement

The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese was caught out on 7 News tonight in a report by Chris Reason on the festering sore that is the proven hush up by CASA and the ATSB of all of the circumstances that were relevant to the crash of a Pel-Air operated air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode.

Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

On 29 May after consultation with your department Plane Talking published this story as to the urgency with which you and your departmental head Mike Mrdak (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/...h-urgency/) were claimed to be responding to the unanimous report of the Senate Committee inquiry into aviation safety investigations with particular reference to the performance of the ATSB (the safety investigator) and CASA (the safety regulator).

At that inquiry the Director of Safety at CASA, John McCormick, admitted to withholding an internal audit by CASA that found that the accident was preventable if CASA had actually carried out its duties and obligations in law in relation to the oversight of Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick also apologised for his actions, which the committee has referred to the Australian Federal Police to resolve whether or not it was action that constituted an offence under the Transport Safety Investigations Act of 2003. (If the words in the act mean what they say, McCormick broke the law.)

The committee went on to devote an entire chapter of its report into its lack of confidence in the testimony given by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan. The committee’s findings, made by a panel drawn from Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, was unanimous in its findings.

It also recommended, among other things, that the ATSB reconsider its final accident report and in the process retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage of the jet, which lies at a recoverable depth on the sea floor near Norfolk Island where it came to rest after being ditched immediately before it ran out of fuel. (All six persons on board were subsequently rescued by a fishing boat in the middle of the night).

The ATSB has deliberately chosen not to recover the data, which carries the distinct possibility of proving that the pilot did not receive correct meteorological information before flying the jet to a position where it could no longer divert to an alternative airport in Noumea or Fiji should it be unable to land at Norfolk Island for a refueling stop.

The ATSB failed to honor its international obligations to make safety recommendations in relation to the failure on board the ditched jet of all of the safety equipment to perform as intended. It regarded the eventual discovery that CASA had found Pel-Air to be in breach of dozens of safety requirements at the time of the crash as ‘immaterial’, and it framed its final report to visit the entire blame for the accident on the captain Dominic James, who was central to the 7 News report, which should be readily found by a search query on the internet later tonight.

As Mick Quinn, the former deputy chief executive officer of CASA told Chris Reason on 7 News tonight, this corrupted and untruthful circus performance by the safety bodies in relation to the Pel-Air investigation has destroyed Australia’s reputation as a first class nation when it comes to the administration of air safety.

Minister, you are personally responsible for this. You allowed commitments to be made on your behalf, which were not honoured, and you have demonstrated contempt for the Senate of Australia by not responding to the committee’s recommendations within 90 days.

This means you have not acted in a timely manner to correct or restore the integrity of the aviation safety authorities, and that means the safety of Australian air travellers, and those of foreign airlines and their passengers using our air space and airports, is no longer a given.

On 30 May Plane Talking reported on the intention of the department of Infrastructure and Transport to ‘ride out’ the controversy (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/...r-scandal/) over the disgraceful report issed by the ATSB into this accident.

Minister, surely you are not a party to ‘riding out’ critically important air safety issues? The world is unlikely to let Australia get away with such a poor attitude, as explained in this more recent report (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/...sk-to-all/).

If the Minister can say so during caretaker mode, what was he thinking when he gave his misleading answer about his inability to repond to these matters in the Chris Reason interview?

Was it amnesia? Or did he think no one would notice that what was broadcast tonight was in conflict with his position at the end of May?

Courtesy Phearless Phelan, via proaviation.com.au :

Election squabbling buries air safety recommendations

Liberal Senator David Fawcett says Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has failed to respond to the damning findings of the Senate Inquiry into the ATSB’s and CASA’s responses to the Norfolk Island ditching on November18 2009.

ATSB today confirmed that there would now be no action on the critical recommendations until after the election.

The Senate Committee’s report with 26 safety-related recommendations was released on 23 May, 2013. It highlighted serious concerns with the processes and conduct of both government agencies, and its recommendations were aimed at rectifying what it described as “the serious deficiencies that the committee had identified.”

Senator David Fawcett 02b
Senator Fawcett

The committee’s first recommendation was that the ATSB retrieve the accident aircraft’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders “without delays.”

The report said: “The committee understands that retrieval of the recorders would be particularly useful in this instance [and] that the ATSB has certain responsibilities, set out in ICAO Annex 13, when it comes to retrieval of aircraft involved in accidents. It is an assumption throughout Annex 13 that, where a FDR [flight data recorder] exists, the accident investigation body will prioritise its retrieval.”

Air safety specialists believe that the aircraft’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders could be recovered with relative ease, saying they do not understand why this recommendation is being ignored, especially as further delay might damage the equipment.

Also recommended were a reopening of the original investigation with a focus on organisational and systemic issues, a drastic rearrangement of the structures within which ATSB and CASA operate, the establishment of an ICAO Annex 13 independent panel to oversee ATSB investigations and reporting, and a referral to the Australian Federal Police to investigate whether CASA breached the Transport Safety Investigation act by withholding critical documents during the investigation.

During estimates hearings in May this year, Senator Fawcett specifically highlighted the risk of Government inaction before the caretaker period began, causing an unacceptable delay to implementing the recommended aviation safety reforms.

When asked during Estimates on May 29 if the department’s brief to the Minister would occur in sufficient time so that Mr Albanese could respond before the caretaker mode, Department Secretary Mike Mrdak replied:

“We already have officers in the department – and clearly me and senior officers – who have carefully read the report now. I have had discussions with my senior officers. We envisage being in a position to provide some initial advice to the minister, I expect, certainly within the next week to 10 days in relation to it. I envisage having conversations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority CEO and the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in the coming days to ascertain their views, to enable me to provide a comprehensive view to the minister, I would hope by the end of next week.” [two months ago.]

Senator Fawcett points out that the report was tabled on May 23, allowing the Minister a three month window to respond and that given its damning findings Minister Albanese should have made this his top priority, particularly given his promise that ‘nothing is as important as aviation safety.’

“Even the announcement today of an external review of the ATSB by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) was not made by the Minister but by the agency in question, said Senator Fawcett, referring to ATSB announcement on August 2 that the transportation is safety board of Canada (TSB) will conduct an independent external review of the ATB’s investigation processes and publish the results. The review was announced jointly by TSB Chair Wendy Tadross and ATSB chief commissioner, Martin Dolan.

Sen Fawcett remains unimpressed: “This raises serious concerns about the efficacy of any resulting report unless the Minister ensures that the terms of reference (ToR) and Australian management of the audit are transparent and independent.”

We asked the ATSB whether a decision been made on recovery of the flight data and cockpit voice recorders of the Pel-Air aircraft, whether recovering the recorders would be an ATSB or departmental decision, and whether the investigation will be reopened as recommended in recommendation 9. We also asked if the Canadian review was a part-response to the Senate recommendations.

The ATSB would not comment on the recorders or reopening the investigation, but a spokesman said: “We’ve been in discussion with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada for some time, and it’s about benchmarking and comparison of our systems of investigation. This is an initiative of the ATSB’s chief commissioner and the TSB’s Chair, and the TSB has agreed that their benchmarking review will have regard to the Senate committee’s findings, so we’ll take those into account.

“In regards to your specific questions, it is the responsibility of the Government to respond to the recommendations of Senate committees. The ATSB has provided input to the preparation of a government response. The caretaker conventions that are now in place mean that a government response will not be finalised until after the federal election.“

Senator Fawcett again called on Minister Albanese to ensure that this review of the ATSB has the confidence of the aviation industry and the public by adopting Recommendation 8 of the Senate report:

8.        The committee recommends that an expert aviation safety panel be established to ensure quality control of ATSB investigation and reporting processes along the lines set out by the committee.

“While the engagement of the Canadian TSB is welcome, the gravity of the issues raised in the Senate report means that the Minister should be overseeing the review with the support of an expert panel rather than the ATSB,” Senator Fawcett said.

“It is critical that this review of the ATSB is allowed to examine all sensitive areas of the ATSB investigation orocesses as identified in the Senate report including the Canley Vale accident.”

Hmmm...much, much MTF - P2 

[Peetwo]

Albo's spots and dots on Aviation industry cont/-

Via 14 November 2013 HofR Hansard, Albo's response to the Ministerial announcement of the Forsyth (ASRR) review (note my bold -   ):

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:03): Labor welcomes the minister's statement and the announcement of a further review into the regulation of aviation safety. As the minister said, this country has an enviable record of aviation safety, the result of governments of either political persuasion taking a nonpartisan approach to this issue, as is entirely appropriate. During the period in which the current minister was the shadow minister, when it came to safety and security issues they were dealt with in a manner above politics, and I intend to adopt exactly the same approach. It is absolutely critical that safety not be an issue which becomes part of the political contest.

It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead. - Retch...vomit...spew - 

All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government. We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation. I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues.

I think this plan has got it right by looking forward and making sure that it looks at the strategic framework and the balance that must be there between appropriate safety, regulation and costs. The minister referred to that and I would agree with that. I would say this, though: there should be no compromise in terms of safety being the absolute priority—something I am sure that the minister agrees with.

I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel.

About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector.

I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience.

In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes.

That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.

In conclusion, the aviation sector injects some $7 billion into the Australian economy each year. Australia has an enviable record of aviation safety, but we should not be complacent at any time. We need to ensure that we keep our personnel appropriately trained and skilled and be prepared to provide proper resourcing.

In 2010, I was very proud that Labor announced an additional $90 million in funding over four years to provide CASA with long-term funding stability. That was not an easy process to get through our cabinet, but people recognised that this was a priority. I would say to the minister that it is important that the resourcing from government to these organisations in charge of safety and security also be kept up. This extra assistance that we provided has allowed the authority to better meet the demands of a growing and ever more complex domestic and international industry. -

The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians.

I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May.

I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support. - Note how keen Albo was back then to keep aviation safety matters bi-partisaned and behind closed doors - do you think he is going to be any different now??

We should also remember this...

Via the tendentious aviation blogger, Ben Sandilands (may he rest in peace -  )

REX begs for Govt help, but what about Pel-Air victims?

Ben Sandilands Feb 11, 2014 11:53AM

There is something very rotten about the Pel-Air crash, the treatment of its victims, and the conduct of CASA and the ATSB in relation to their respective duties to the public and to air safety.

The outbursts by REX in recent days claiming that the aviation sector could collapse without government assistance raises the question as to what Labor values it found so compelling in July 2012 as to cause it to donate $250,000 to the ALP.

It may well be of interest to the Coalition Government, too, since despite vocal support for its policies, both when in opposition, and after its defeat of Labor last September, the parliamentary register of political donation doesn’t, so far, register commensurate generosity toward the government of tough love toward businesses in trouble, whether car makers or airlines.
The REX rhetoric was strongly anti-Labor. Yet the REX money was pro-Labor.

In the last year for which there is a public record Regional Express gave $70,000 to the Liberal cause, $95,700 to the National cause, and a quarter of a million dollars to support, one might assume, Labor causes.

Except that REX doesn’t support the carbon tax, and its chairman, Lim Kim Hai, has made no secret of his detestation for Labor in general.

After the end-of-the-world commentary from REX burst into full fury yesterday Plane Talking sought in writing answers from the airline to a series of questions exploring the rural aviation crisis (which is not to be underestimated) and the company’s costly infatuation with Labor.

It was a pretty straightforward request, but it has gone unanswered.

Which raises the poor optics for REX of an over the top donation to Labor coincidentally when the ATSB was close to publishing its final report into the Pel-Air aerial ambulance charter crash of a Westwind corporate jet near Norfolk Island on November 2009.

Pel-Air is a subsidiary of REX. All six people on board the Westwind miraculously survived the ditching of the jet in the sea in the dark after it was unable to land at Norfolk Island for refueling on its way from Apia to Melbourne.

There may of course be absolutely no connection between the donation, and that report, which was so obviously deficient in integrity and diligence that it became the subject of a scathing Senate inquiry and report which the previous Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his successor, Warren Truss, seem incapable of addressing.

The Senate inquiry’s report includes an entire chapter devoted to the committee’s unanimous lack of confidence in the testimony of the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.

In an incredible development, in as far as Senate committee inquiries go, the Senators concerned uncovered a secret document that CASA the air safety regulator had withheld from the ATSB, the safety investigator, in which CASA was told of the unsafe state of the Pel-Air operation at the time of the crash, and a lack of regulatory oversight which could have prevented the crash happening.

It is now more than four years since the crash. None of those injured in the accident have been compensated. None of the regulations which CASA said would be changed concerning the fuel and diversion rules for charters like that being flown by Pel-Air at the time of the crash have been changed.

One of the victims, nurse Karen Casey, who has lost her capacity to work, and has been in pain since the crash, and has three children, has yet to receive any recompense from Pel-Air.

There is something very rotten about the Pel-Air crash, the treatment of its victims, and the conduct of CASA and the ATSB in relation to their respective duties to the public and to air safety.

When REX starts begging for financial assistance from government, perhaps it could consider those who are begging for it to address the damage done to the victims of its unsafe operation of the Pel-Air charter, an operation so unsafe it voluntarily grounded it in the aftermath of the crash.

REX needs to explain what was so admirable in the Labor government it so publicly despised yet so generously supported at the time the donation was registered.

Now ffwd 1 year: (WARNING: Bucket required)

And ffwd 2 years: (WARNING: Bucket required)

Hmm...and we all know how the suggested ASRR recommendations ended up - 

MTF? - MUCH!...P2 

[Peetwo]

Via the CASA Board: https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...april-2022

Our Board meeting 28 April 2022

The Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) meets six times per calendar year to fulfill its obligations under Section 53 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; and ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.

The second meeting of the CASA Board in 2022 was held on 28 April at the CASA Adelaide Regional Office. The members welcomed Professor Felipe Gonzalez to his first meeting since his appointment by the Deputy Prime Minister on 23 March 2022 on a three-year term.

Prior to the meeting, the Board met with the Executive management teams of two local flying training schools, Flight Training Adelaide (FTA) and Hartwig Air. Discussions were informative and respectful and provided a number of take-aways for the Board to consider.

The Board also hosted an industry event on the evening of 27 April, inviting a cross section of representatives from all industry sectors to meet with the Board in a relaxed and informal environment. It provided an opportunity for industry to discuss their issues with the Board members in person and mingle with their peers, the CASA Executive team and CASA staff from the Adelaide Office. These events will continue to be held around the country whenever the Board hosts a meeting outside of Canberra.

CASA Board meetings follow a theme-based agenda focusing on organisational matters and operational matters that affect the aviation industry. The organisational matters centre around CASA’s corporate governance, financial position, status of major projects, cyber security issues and general health of the CASA workforce.

Consistent with its focus on the wellbeing of CASA staff and the culture of the organisation, the Board established a sub-committee to focus on CASA’s People and Culture matters. The committee, chaired by Board member Michael Bridge, held its first meeting on 27 April. This committee will report directly to the CASA Board.

The Board was briefed on accidents and incidents data and performance results against the national regulatory oversight program of work.

Key matters considered by the Board included:

The development of a General Aviation (GA) Workplan (that was published on the CASA website 2 May 2022)
The regulatory pipeline of new priorities and changes to the regulatory framework following the release of the Flight Operations Regulations in December 2021
The stresses on the current system across the major carriers impacting both air and ground crews in a post COVID environment as traffic and passenger number return to normal
CASA’s regulatory oversight model and then engagement with industry by front-line staff
aviation medical processing times
improvements to internal systems that support industry’s interaction with CASA.
Publication of our GA Workplan is an important milestone. The workplan outlines the support program for our GA community and includes timeframes for implementation and the actions that CASA is taking to address some long-standing issues in the GA sector. The Board will actively monitor CASA’s progress to meet its deliverables against the proposed timeline.

Significant investment is being made to develop internal systems that better support industry’s engagement with CASA. Investment in this capability will automate many of the currently manual processes and workflows and will deliver end to end communications between CASA and industry via the on-line portal, removing the need for email. Increased online capability will enable industry to access more self-service processes, reducing current wait times for CASA’s data entry requirements.

Unfortunately, due to illness, the planned strategy session with members of the CASA Executive team could not go ahead. Detailed examinations of strategic risks and emerging technologies will be picked up as part of the next meeting, which is scheduled for 23 June 2022 in Brisbane to coincide with the Rotortech conference.

Air Chief Marshal (Ret’d) Mark Binskin AC
Chair, CASA Board

P2 comment: Instead of these Biskin promotional CASA puff pieces we're currently receiving, why is it not possible to actually give industry the minutes of the meeting? IMO most industry participants would much rather see the Board doing it's job properly in over sighting CASA (warts and all) and holding the executive to account. - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

UP debate on amending the Act and cleaning out CASA?

In follow up to the above Biskin communiqué for the bollocks Adelaide Board meeting, I cribbed the following discourse off the UP...

Sunfish

Related to the SoE is the account of the Board meeting:

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...april-2022

While this document sounds like a refined afternoon tea party, I hope that there was more to it than that.

While it has been pointed out that the CASA Board is not a "real" Board in the sense of a public company Board, I would like to think it takes its duties just as seriously.

That means that no matter how politely it is done, the DAS's no doubt dainty feet are held to the blow torch.

The Board should be asking penetrating questions and expecting concise answers as to the subject of managing risk - which is the Boards duty.. If over time, the answers provided by the DAS do not suggest an appreciation of this little matter, then the Board should be looking for a new DAS.

Questions that I would be asking:

Considering the question of CASA's reputation and occasional adverse findings, how do you propose to manage it? Could you perhaps comment on the matter of Buckley and similar events as examples of reputational risk?

While this is a Board matter, Considering Government policy in toto, how should CASA support it? is our policy aligned with Government objectives? Are there any changes to The Act or policies you would recommend? Why?

Do you have sufficient resources to execute the approved business plan?

Are there any matters not mentioned in the minutes that we, as Board, should be aware of?

---

Lead Balloon

I like it how you are able to swing from realistic sceptic to wide-eyed Pollyanna with little effort, Sunfish. "I hope." "I would like to think."

CASA isn't a company trying to make a profit. CASA doesn't exist for or to help the aviation industry. CASA exists to save the public from the aviation industry. CASA couldn't care less about its reputation in the aviation industry, other than to pay lip service.

Why on Earth would any member of the CASA Board want to make stressful or embarrassing work out of Board meetings? Mutual back-slapping is far more relaxing.

Are you able to identify a single Commonwealth statutory authority where the Board has sacked the CEO? Ever in history.

---

Sunfish

Lead Balloon, Pollyanna indeed! More like Aunty Jack with Blundstones.

I was being perlite as I were dragged up to be.

A good board may contain characters who call a spade a spade. It may also contain members who hand you your head on a plate before you even realize its been cut off.

As I said " I would like to think" out of respect for the Board, it's Chairman and members, because its not an easy job, despite what you may think.

Sacked Commonwealth Authority CEO's? Of course not. CEO's "resigned to pursue other opportunities" ? That is a different matter.

---

Lead Balloon

I've have been on a few boards. I'm on one now. And I do have some first-hand insights into the way in which the boards of Commonwealth statutory authorities work.

Can you nominate any CEO of any Commonwealth statutory authority who's ever "resigned to pursue other opportunities". Mark Skidmore bailed out early, not because of any pressure put on him to jump by the CASA Board or Minister, but rather because he quickly worked out what a sh*t show he'd inherited and that sacrificing his sanity and reputation weren't worth the pieces of silver.

---

Arm out the window

but rather because he quickly worked out what a sh*t show he'd inherited and that sacrificing his sanity and reputation weren't worth the pieces of silver.

That's very disappointing, if true. If the CEO can't fix it, and the board and senate and minister can't fix it, who the hell can?

It would have been a great opportunity for someone with some direct aviation knowledge to open the can of worms, suss out who the real roadblocks were/are, and make a few big decisions. I would have thought that would be an excellent reputation enhancer!. Much better to be known as the bloke who saw a big problem in a government agency and got stuck into it, rather than put the rock back down and walked away.

Possibly not that simple, but future job prospects or financial worries wouldn't have been an issue surely.

---

Lead Balloon

Give Skates a ring and ask him.

To ‘fix’ CASA, the legislation has to be fixed. That starts with the Civil Aviation Act. Neither the Board nor the CEO has any power to change the Act.

You might have heard reference to the ‘Iron Ring’ as if it’s a bunch of people. The ‘Iron Ring’ is, in fact, the Civil Aviation Act and all of the legislation that says what CASA’s job is and how it is to be done. Unless and until that changes, CASA will continue creating endless complexity. It keeps getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars every year to do it.

(There are plenty of people in CASA ready and willing to apply the Iron Ring to newbie CEOs and Chairman of the CASA Board. I call it the ‘straightjacket’ rather than the Iron Ring, because the former is an allusion to a lunatic asylum and that’s more apt.)

The Parliament can fix it. The Parliament created CASA and the Parliament decides what CASA’s powers and functions are, and the way in which they are to be exercised and performed. That’s one of the primary points of the Civil Aviation Act.

The Minister isn’t the Parliament, but the Minister can introduce legislation to amend the Civil Aviation Act, as can Senators. So far, those amendments have changed little in substance. That (along with the hundreds of millions each year) tells CASA that so far as the Parliament is concerned, CASA’s doing a great job.

---

Arm out the window

Give Skates a ring and ask him.

I had bit to do with him in RAAF days and respected him. I don't have his contact details but would like to talk to him about it at some point.

I don't agree that the overarching legislation is where the core problem lies. I think different middle and senior managers working with honest good intentions could, and should have, at numerous times over the past twenty plus years of reg 'development', put a stop to over-complication and drawn-out talk fests by moving some self-serving empire builders out of their positions of influence and making ease of comprehension and application to real-world situations a requirement for any rules or policy output.

The buck-passing just keeps going on. What we need is:

1. Operator-level rules that are clear, concise and appropriate - sounds familiar, doesn't it. What we have is a barely comprehensible cluster. The more wishy-washy a rule is, the more it's open to interpretation. Who interprets? A 'guidance centre', which is just a smokescreen for the opinion of the flight and airworthiness standards person who gets the question on the day, or inspectors either assessing or auditing, who are probably just as confused as industry.

2. Less bureacratic top-heaviness and white noise, more focus and understanding on what it's like to be running or working in an aviation business, or flying a private aircraft, and genuine determination to help aviation thrive. Of course this ties in with a stripped-down, clear rule set, so everyone knows what they're supposed to be doing and the well-intentioned majority can get on with it, while the less scrupulous won't have as much cover to duck and weave.

I reckon, and this is of course just me shooting my mouth off on the internet, any simple reg set from the ones commonly quoted could be adopted and be better than what we have now. Their would be some initial pain and and angst about legal matters under the Australian legal system, but it would still be better than the current debacle. Right now, most operators are probably not compliant with the CASRs, because nobody really knows what the CASRs actually mean. There's also a Clayton's transition period of a couple of years when the regs are already in legal effect, so good luck taking anything to court at the moment - who's going to know what the law actually means?

Anyway, rant over for the moment.

Hmm...I do believe that LB and AOTW are both right but also there needs to be a top down clean out by a CEO tasked by a Minister committed to fundamentally reforming the regulator...      

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

AOTW is of course correct to call for reforms as points 1. and 2. but unfortunately a 34 year history of worse and worse is proof that the model of an independent Commonwealth corporate instead of Department with responsible Minister at its head cannot work. The Westminster system is a system of government that has stood the test of time. If someone can show a better model then fine let’s see it. Not to say we can’t improve but the only sensible way forward is to grow from what we know works.

Surely it’s abundantly clear by now that lack of political direction and a free for all CASA make work program, complete with a catch all ‘safety above all’ excuse for the most stupendous, complex and unworkable rules can’t be changed from within. Too much money in salaries for one thing and the vague Statement of Expectations as an almost useless document of guidance.

[Kharon]

Of leopards and their spots.

“NOW this is the Law of the Jungle — as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.

LB - "The Parliament can fix it. The Parliament created CASA and the Parliament decides what CASA’s powers and functions are, and the way in which they are to be exercised and performed. That’s one of the primary points of the Civil Aviation Act."

Cool, clear logic from LB, unassailable fact, rational and definitely do-able. Yet, I am not convinced the Leopard can change its spots, no matter what the Act sets down. History proves one thing; the very nature of the CASA is so deeply ingrained that no matter how sensible, logical or reasonable industry pleas are, nor how serious the demands of Inquiry are, nor even how high the count of requested 'reforms' (recommendations) reaches; irrespective of the origin, the Leopard simply finds a way to keep doing business in the same way. How the current ethos became the norm, I do not know. But, in my lifetime I have watched the transmogrification - at flight line level - go from knowing, liking and respecting the CASA men 'on the ground' - examiners who were pilots; wise, experienced and no man's fool to the present day creatures, who only hunt in packs and are obsessed with amplifying all and any minor 'transgressor' into a federal case. Change the Act, by all means, the tooter the sweeter; just don't expect the Leopard to change its spots. Not without clear direction from the leader of the pack, and even then, it will be a battle of wills, Changing spots is one thing - changing the nature of the beast is an entirely different matter. 

AOTW - "I don't agree that the overarching legislation is where the core problem lies. I think different middle and senior managers working with honest good intentions could, and should have, at numerous times over the past twenty plus years of reg 'development', put a stop to over-complication and drawn-out talk fests by moving some self-serving empire builders out of their positions of influence and making ease of comprehension and application to real-world situations a requirement for any rules or policy output."


Quite right; however - those in the 'middle' have a rice bowl to protect. It would take more backbone than they collectively possesses to speak out against those who can, in a heartbeat, knock 'em down a rung or two and take away the rice bowl. Go along to get along and don't rock the bloody boat. Is it worth 'emboldening' these folk - too weak or afraid to speak out? No, it bloody well is not; reform can only come from one place - the DAS with full backing of the DPM and ministry mandarins. The current incumbent is about as much use as a chocolate fire wall, take a quick look at the back-flip on CVD; or, the sneering response to Senator's questions; or, the disregard for industry pleas for sanity in regulation.

One DAS, fully supported by the minister and department, with a handpicked team could, within a twelve month, rejuvenate and bring hope to this benighted industry - the increase revenue from a thriving industry should be incentive enough. The Kiwi's did it and have never looked back -..

Right then, back in my box - and on with my knitting - I know;

Toot - toot...