[Kharon]

Straw poles and Hollow men.

Every once in a while there is s serious 'sit-down' - just the houseboat crew, mostly to examine correspondence received related to serious matters. Opinions are as varied as those who write 'em. Once a level of 'concern' is expressed from a serious number then decisions have to be made. Aunt Pru's in box has been full every day lately; two topics creating the avalanche: to wit, the latest deceptive motherhood statement from Spence and the latest offering from Each-way Hitch.

It is probably easier to deal with the 'Hitch' matter first as the selected response to his latest article sums up the feelings of many (i.e. most). There is a serious call to strike the AFM forum from the board, defeated by a very slim (anorexic) majority. The old adage of tents and pissing direction won the round; it was also considered unfair to compare Hitch to the likes of Phelan and Sandilands (RIP) for there is non. The following comment pretty much sums up the majority opinion of the Hitch scribble's; from one of the fellahin who was there at the beginning and has a good grasp on the Part 149 sleight of hand, as drummed by Spence.  Hitch needs to check his gauges; they don't look too Green from here.....

Steve,
With the greatest if respect, "that they (CASA) effectively invented the ASAO idea" is simply not true. Then Minister John Sharp's "CASA Review" Program Advisory Panel (PAP) decided to borrow the idea from the New Zealanders including even the Part 149 name. This was 1997.

It is a measure of CASA's enthusiasm for the idea that, 25 years later, we still have not got a workable Part 149, largely because CASA have changed the original intent and complicated/bureaucratised it almost beyond belief - with associated imposed costs and restrictions.

CASA largely turned Part 149 into a vehicle for the rigid bureaucratic intervention and control of organisations that have already proved their worth over many decades, without heavy handed intervention by CASA and their predecessors.

You mention the GFA, they have been around since shortly after WW11, RAA for 40 odd years. All the long existing SAOs, all the members of ASAC, have commendable records.

If the CASA CEO is fair dinkum, she will go back and look at the original concept in 1997, and the original draft Part 149. The answers to the problems of the present Part 149 are all there.

Regards,

Bill Hamilton.
Vice Chairman, CASA Review and PAP, 1997-1999.

Which brings us back to Spence as the purveyor of the 'new' Part 149; as manipulated by the same back room crowd. 149 in concept and honest execution is a good deal for those it was intended for, the Gliding Federation as a stellar example. The other end of the scale is the RAoz v AOPA dichotomy. Then there are the costs to consider, then the liability, then tax payer relief from burden of CASA impost and the increased revenue, free of responsibility that 149 could generate. 'We' have no doubt that Spence is a thoroughly decent human being, as easily deceived as the next. There are many, much bigger problems within the aviation world than Part 149 which deserve immediate executive attention. Putting 149 out there is seen as a distraction from the major topics and even as a foil against the CASA shambolic performance witnessed by all during the sorriest, lame excuse for an inquiry on record.

Perhaps if some attention was given to the elephant in the room; the Act - then some serious expertise and industry knowledge was brought in, then maybe CASA could set about it's task in a professional, honest, well intentioned manner instead of the current fear driven hubris.

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence GA workplan?? - 

As required by BJ's January SOE to the CASA Board, yesterday Su_Spence released her GA workplan - see HERE. On first glance it does appear to be meeting the requirements of the minister's SOE. However the devil is always in the detail and unfortunately (once again) I believe the seemingly untouchable, unimpeachable aviation safety bureaucracy (residing under the protective Can'tberra bubble) have once again spun an almost impenetrable web of obfuscation and open-ended, weasel worded promises, designed in the short term to placate the (possibly outgoing) Minister, or the (possibly incoming), all care and absolutely zero responsibility, Labor miniscule. -   

The clues to the intent of this bollocks document IMO lies in the workplan overview:

Overview of the workplan

Consistent with the principles of best practice regulation, CASA continues to monitor regulatory impacts. In close collaboration with industry, we work to identify opportunities to refine the safety framework to keep the community safe while reducing costs wherever possible.

 "keep the community safe" - Hmm...now why does that line sound so familiar? remember this?

   

The General Aviation Workplan clearly sets out how and when CASA will optimise the regulatory framework for the general aviation sector. This will provide advice to stakeholders when regulatory changes impacting general aviation will likely occur among the range of other priority safety initiatives for government and industry.

Ensuring regulation is proportionate to risk and responsive to implementation challenges identified by industry helps to maximise flexibility for the sector and support commercial sustainability, while maintaining an appropriate level of safety.

CASA also recognises safety regulations, including the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR), need to be compatible with the role of general aviation in the broader industry. This is particularly relevant with regard to the challenges faced in regional and remote Australia as well as the sport and recreational sector.

         
Note the weasel words "monitor", "optimise", "recognises" are all empty words when there is no real acknowledgement or admission by the Su_Spence led CASA that the current parlous, decimated state of the GA industry is primarily due to their failed attempt to administer, in a timely manner, the regulatory reform program, which was started in 1988.

Read it and weep - 

MTF...P2 

ps Hmm...bring on the Nutcracker suite slaegan...

....

[Sandy Reith]

One question your Honor, why didn’t Rex bring on his “sledgehammer” years ago?

Must be more than two years ago when he and I had conversation about these issues. We also spoke about the Opal town of Andamooka where many private flyers used to visit but there’s no town airstrip these days. BHP controls the Olympic Dam airport some distance away but their restrictions make it an unfriendly place. This is in spite of the fact that the whole point of registered airports is equal and non discriminatory availability in the same way as the National road system. In addition BHP has the lease over the claypan that could be used for Andamooka township but for all the talk:- nothing.

“sledgehammer”….a review! Some sledgehammer, pass a Bill for yet another review.

More like slapping CASA with a small balloon tied to a thin reed.

Yes I understand the Bill must be drafted but why so difficult for our dear Parliamentary drafting staff that they have to be helped to draft a Bill that says Australia will adopt the FAA rules? It’s been done before in the late 90s. There’s plenty of precedence but that would mean someone has to go to work, no doubt the Parliamentary drafting crew would be more cooperative if it was a government Bill.

Then when all’s said and done it’s dependent on Rex winning his seat, waiting for drafting, debating and passing in the Senate, then to the House of Representatives. Don’t hold your breath.

[Wombat]

We are stuffed. I give up on the complexity of the rules, the complexity of changes and the clear intent of CASA not to give up a millimeter of control.

This is most visibly encompassed in the following CASA medico legal tautology:

“Industry has told us that:

healthy pilots find it difficult to get medical clearances.

healthy pilots sometimes get caught in complex and cumbersome regulatory processes that offer little safety benefit.”

The qualification “healthy” destroys the meaning of the rest of the statement, as was obviously intended by CASA.

What constitutes a “healthy pilot”?

“Healthy” compared to what?

Isn’t that the whole point of the argument that CASA has just deliberately avoided - the definition of what that word “healthy” should mean in an individual aviation context???

Aren’t these observations by CASA deliberately meaningless circular drivel designed to ensure that no beneficial change is logically possible?

I have reached the stage where I believe that no aviation action whatsoever, not even opening the hangar door,  is possible without breaching at least one aviation criminal regulation.

It is physically impossible to keep up with the myriad of regulations.

The intended result has been achieved: all pilots are criminals. I shudder to think of the many offences I must have committed when I was last airborne and I am not joking. No one is safe from prosecution.

How such a situation is supposed to advance the cause of safe aviation is beyond me.

[Kharon]

Oh: FCOL ! - and stone idols wept to see it.

A second and third reading of the dog eared CASA mantra - "keep the community safe" - makes me wonder which 'community' is to be the grateful recipient of their largess. In priority order; first cab off the 'safety' rank is?

Yes; its a bit of a trick question and there is some ambiguity within. The right answer is is in two parts, almost inseparable. Many, many years ago a federal minister vowed and declared that 'never again' will a 'minister' be embarrassed by the ineptitude of the incumbent administration of aviation: not going to happen, no way. The response to this declaration was not the one you may be forgiven for imagining. The 'administration' swooped on it and grabbed it, rejoicing. In order to protect the minister; first priority became protect the administration and those who wallow in the trough. Administration untouchable, ergo the crown is protected. Enter the notion of a 99.9% 'safe' conviction rate and law to support, all backed by unlimited power and freedom from accountability gifted to a bunch of opportunists with the morals of back street brothel keepers. From this moment on, 'Safety' (whatever that is) became a catchall for the seven deadly sins - ruthlessly exploited and manipulated into the expensive, destructive monster we have presented today by Spence...

The evidence boys and girls is in plain sight, neatly printed in the documents you have on the operational bookshelf. Take the time to read the humble Operation Manual; but study it not from an 'operational' standpoint, but from the other end - i.e. your personal liability, as in how can I build a defence against that express liability. Robinson Crusoe, Snowflake in Hell, first in the bus stop line etc. Regulation drafted in the pits of Hell, by those with unlimited power, complete with scaffold, trapdoor and noose: no Judge and even less chance of a jury under Strict Liability. The response to this level of fire power; your protection - is framed in the Ops Manual. Was the manual drafted with the same determination to protect the individual? No, it was not. Was the manual drafted by expert lawyers to provide a defence against possible prosecution of company or individual? No, it was not. Talk about taking a knife to a gun fight 

"The General Aviation Work-plan clearly sets out how and when CASA will optimise the regulatory framework for the general aviation sector. This will provide advice to stakeholders when regulatory changes impacting general aviation will likely occur among the range of other priority safety initiatives for government and industry".

Do not take this statement at face value; there is no way CASA will relinquish the legal stranglehold they have patiently built up within the legislation; there is no way known that any modicum of 'power' will be put aside. The base tenet of 'safe 99.9%  conviction' in the name of 'Safety' is the underpinning resident evil in a deeply flawed approach to 'control', zero responsibility, zero accountability and a placebo to whoever is the minister of the day.

The system is rotten, the laws are despicable in both spirit and intent. Until the entire system is brought back to some form of accountability and controlled; no amount unadulterated Bull Shit from Spence and those who pull her strings will resurrect an industry slowly dying from 1000 quite legal paper cuts. The Kiwi's did a splendid job of reformation; the FAA rules are easily adopted - so where's the hold up? You know the answer to that; don't you.

Aye: "all hope abandon ye who enter here".

My two bob Toot.

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence GA workplan - Part II

One question your Honor, why didn’t Rex bring on his “sledgehammer” years ago?

Must be more than two years ago when he and I had conversation about these issues. We also spoke about the Opal town of Andamooka where many private flyers used to visit but there’s no town airstrip these days. BHP controls the Olympic Dam airport some distance away but their restrictions make it an unfriendly place. This is in spite of the fact that the whole point of registered airports is equal and non discriminatory availability in the same way as the National road system. In addition BHP has the lease over the claypan that could be used for Andamooka township but for all the talk:-  nothing.

“sledgehammer”….a review! Some sledgehammer, pass a Bill for yet another review.                                           

More like slapping CASA with a small balloon tied to a thin reed.

Yes I understand the Bill must be drafted but why so difficult for our dear Parliamentary drafting staff that they have to be helped to draft a Bill that says Australia will adopt the FAA rules? It’s been done before in the late 90s. There’s plenty of precedence but that would mean someone has to go to work, no doubt the Parliamentary drafting crew would be more cooperative if it was a government Bill.

Then when all’s said and done it’s dependent on Rex winning his seat, waiting for drafting, debating and passing in the Senate, then to the House of Representatives. Don’t hold your breath.

We are stuffed. I give up on the complexity of the rules, the complexity of changes and the clear intent of CASA not to give up a millimeter of control.

This is most visibly encompassed in the following CASA medico legal tautology:

“Industry has told us that:

healthy pilots find it difficult to get medical clearances.

healthy pilots sometimes get caught in complex and cumbersome regulatory processes that offer little safety benefit.”

The qualification “healthy” destroys the meaning of the rest of the statement, as was obviously intended by CASA.

What constitutes a “healthy pilot”?

“Healthy” compared to what?

Isn’t that the whole point of the argument that CASA has just deliberately avoided - the definition of what that word “healthy” should mean in an individual aviation context???

Aren’t these observations by CASA deliberately meaningless circular drivel designed to ensure that no beneficial change is logically possible?

I have reached the stage where I believe that no aviation action whatsoever, not even opening the hangar door,  is possible without breaching at least one aviation criminal regulation.

It is physically impossible to keep up with the myriad of regulations.

The intended result has been achieved: all pilots are criminals. I shudder to think of the many offences I must have committed when I was last airborne and I am not joking. No one is safe from prosecution.



How such a situation is supposed to advance the cause of safe aviation is beyond me.

Oh: FCOL ! - and stone idols wept to see it.

A second and third reading of the dog eared CASA mantra - "keep the community safe" - makes me wonder which 'community' is to be the grateful recipient of their largess. In priority order; first cab off the 'safety' rank is?

Yes; its a bit of a trick question and there is some ambiguity within. The right answer is is in two parts, almost inseparable. Many, many years ago a federal minister vowed and declared that 'never again' will a 'minister' be embarrassed by the ineptitude of the incumbent administration of aviation: not going to happen, no way. The response to this declaration was not the one you may be forgiven for imagining. The 'administration' swooped on it and grabbed it, rejoicing. In order to protect the minister; first priority became protect the administration and those who wallow in the trough. Administration untouchable, ergo the crown is protected. Enter the notion of a 99.9% 'safe' conviction rate and law to support, all backed by unlimited power and freedom from accountability gifted to a bunch of opportunists with the morals of back street brothel keepers. From this moment on, 'Safety' (whatever that is) became a catchall for the seven deadly sins - ruthlessly exploited and manipulated into the expensive, destructive monster we have presented today by Spence...

The evidence boys and girls is in plain sight, neatly printed in the documents you have on the operational bookshelf. Take the time to read the humble Operation Manual; but study it not from an 'operational' standpoint, but from the other end - i.e. your personal liability, as in how can I build a defence against that express liability. Robinson Crusoe, Snowflake in Hell, first in the bus stop line etc. Regulation drafted in the pits of Hell, by those with unlimited power, complete with scaffold, trapdoor and noose: no Judge and even less chance of a jury under Strict Liability. The response to this level of fire power; your protection - is framed in the Ops Manual. Was the manual drafted with the same determination to protect the individual? No, it was not. Was the manual drafted by expert lawyers to provide a defence against possible prosecution of company or individual? No, it was not. Talk about taking a knife to a gun fight 

"The General Aviation Work-plan clearly sets out how and when CASA will optimise the regulatory framework for the general aviation sector. This will provide advice to stakeholders when regulatory changes impacting general aviation will likely occur among the range of other priority safety initiatives for government and industry".

Do not take this statement at face value; there is no way CASA will relinquish the legal stranglehold they have patiently built up within the legislation; there is no way known that any modicum of 'power' will be put aside. The base tenet of 'safe 99.9%  conviction' in the name of 'Safety' is the underpinning resident evil in a deeply flawed approach to 'control', zero responsibility, zero accountability and a placebo to whoever is the minister of the day.

The system is rotten, the laws are despicable in both spirit and intent. Until the entire system is brought back to some form of accountability and controlled; no amount unadulterated Bull Shit from Spence and those who pull her strings will resurrect an industry slowly dying from 1000 quite legal paper cuts. The Kiwi's did a splendid job of reformation; the FAA rules are easily adopted - so where's the hold up? You know the answer to that; don't you.

Aye: "all hope abandon ye who enter here".

My two bob Toot.

Blast from the past the McComic era -  :

A cabaret in the temple of doom.



Plus: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/20...-enforced/ & The world of Justarse according to Dr (Hoodoo-Voodoo) Aleck

Sandy - “the responsible exercise of discretion by CASA decision makers”

Like many things it boils down to a matter of degree, certainly the present framework gives far too much power to officialdom. It becomes too easy for CASA to be policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury when the rules are inappropriately complex and they attempt to dictate actions of flight crew into a straitjacket of perfection as perceived by bureaucratic imaginations.

The seductive advantages of power, position and unassailable righteousness are writ large in the attitudes of the bureaucratic machine. So too obvious has been the utter disregard for the fortunes of the GA industry, let alone the lives of many individuals carelessly smashed and wasted. For many such vilified individuals a recourse to justice in the courts is not viable due to time constraints, lack of money and being up against a daunting opponent with unlimited means.

Considerations;  many of our aviation “offences” don’t even warrant a mention in other jurisdictions. There was no real problem before the rules were migrated into the criminal code and laced with excessively high penalties for the most trivial matters.

Proportionately way in excess of comparable fines and penalties for road infringements. Therefore using the road rules as a model gives lie to the argument that its just a similar application of law. The other broad justification that all rules passed the various stages and processes of the Commonwealth only compounds our disquiet, and does not answer the decling trajectory of GA or the levels of distrust and dissatisfaction with the regulator.

And from the (brief) Skidmore era:

+ https://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0...on-safety/

Next from the St Commode era 4 years ago: Ref - Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ref: Correspondence from Mr Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety dated 27 November 2018

i) Industry endorsement of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 149

Firstly, I sincerely apologise that in evidence to the Committee on 19 November 2018 I
incorrectly indicated that the document I tabled was a letter signed by all parties. This was
my understanding of the advice I had received and was tabled on that basis. On subsequent
review it is now clear that my statement was incorrect and that the document tabled was in
fact signed by the Chair and Co-Chair on behalf of the members.

As I indicated during my testimony, this working group flagged some issues to discuss and
resolve, as was reflected in the endorsement letter. The group also agreed these matters
should not prevent CASA proceeding towards making the regulation, and the regulation was
made in July 2018.

As requested, I attach a copy of the minutes of the CASR Part 149 approved self-administering aviation organisations transitional technical working group meeting held on
17 October 2017.

ii) Status of Part 149

During my remarks about what was possible under CASR Part 149 (page 24 of Hansard
refers) I said: "Such [self-administering] organisations will only be able to expand the scope
of their aviation administration functions — that is, beyond their pre-Part 149 approvals — or
issue additional authorisations if they hold a 149 certificate".

On reflection, I should have qualified this remark by confirming that CASA would be required
to consider an application for exemption from any organisation on its merits.

Finally coming back to the Sic'em Rex MAYDAY legislative proposal: via Oz Flying - Patrick promises Bill on FAA Ruleset 

...If re-elected Senator Patrick said he would introduce a bill in the form of the Civil Aviation Regulation Transition Review. This bill will require the minister to conduct an independent review to examine how FAA regulations can be translated into the Australian context.

The review would need to take submissions from stakeholders and its reports, including any interim reports, would have to be tabled in the parliament.

After concluding his speech, the senator invited questions from the audience. AMROBA’s Ken Cannane led with a discourse on the benefits FAA regulations would provide for the maintenance sector. Multiple speakers shared their personal stories of CASA over-regulation.

Marjorie Pagani, Angel Flight CEO, presented an update on the impact of the 2021 federal court ruling restricting community service flights.

AOPA CEO Ben Morgan concluded the meeting with a reference to Dick Smith’s comment, “While CASA’s been doing what’s it’s been doing Australia built the Nomad and the US built the space shuttle.”

The proposed time frame for the introduction of the bill to parliament is three months...

Finally (and somewhat ironically) from the same 2018 RRAT oversight inquiry, words of wisdom from GA industry advocate legend and (Mr Consistency - ) Ken Cannane, which totally backs the proposed Sic'em Rex legislative proposal - 

Ref: Correspondence from Mr Ken Cannane, Executive Director,  Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association dated 27 August 2018

...I attended the committee’s meeting with Aircraft Pilots & Owners Association (AOPA) on the 27th August 2018 in Sydney.

AMROBA fully supports the AGAA recommendations and the unanimous support for the USA
Federal Aviation Regulatory system for General Aviation.

Adoption of the FAA system would result in a safer system with lower costs.

Attached is a comparison with Section 98 of our Act and relevant Section of the USA aviation Act.
CASA has stated they are:

1. Aligning CASR Part 21 with FAR Part 21 post a Bilateral Aviation Safety Meeting with the
FAA earlier this year.
a. The current BASA with the USA is crucial to our design/manufacturing industries.
2. They have stated they are moving to adopt the FAR system for maintenance of GA aircraft
a. AMROBA is supportive of adopting a regulatory system with higher standards but
lower costs.
3. Eleven years after partially adopting the EASA licencing requirements for maintenance
personnel CASA has, this year, indicated they will now fully adopt the EASA requirements.

a. This will align Australia with the same licencing standards adopted throughout S/E
Asia and many other countries.
b. Education training standards still have not developed to support the CASR Part 66
standards adopted 11 years ago.

Why is the engineering disciplines (design, manufacturing, maintenance and maintenance
personnel) now be focused on the aligning with the USA system whilst the flight operations
discipline within CASA refusing to harmonise the regulatory structure and language with the FAR
system that CASA told the industry they would do in the late 1990s.

AMROBA has been very vocal for a decade asking for adoption of the FAR operational
regulations, with minimum changes, so the decline in GA can be checked.

With the design, general aviation maintenance and aircraft/parts manufacturing disciplines
aligning with the FARs, the WAGGA summit made it quite clear that the operation associations
all supported adoption of the FARs.

The USA aviation safety standards are second to none. They have a safety record we should aim
to achieve.

CASA reputation is crucial to engineering. We need an industry and internationally respected
CASA to open up global aviation markets for our manufactured products, other maintenance
services including engineering and flight operations training.

We also need the Office of Parliamentary Council (OPC) to be directed to “adopt” FAA, EASA or
any other aviation regulatory system with minimum change so the intent is adopted.

This happened in 1998 when political direction was required to make CASR Part 21 based on FAR
Part 21.

OPC informed a combine CASA/Industry engineering meeting that they can do so IF directed by
the portfolio department or agency.

Industry wants adoption – why can it not be policy or direction?

Why NOT indeed??  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA Comms team reply to Sandy - 

Via the AP email chains:

OFFICIAL

Dear Mr Reith

Thank you for your email regarding our work to exempt operators and maintainers of Cessna aircraft in the broader private and aerial work sectors from the requirements to carry out Cessna SIDs.

You may be interested to note our General Aviation Workplan which summarises existing and proposed projects aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on general aviation. Details of the workplan are available here.

As well as the Cessna SIDs issue, the workplan includes an initiative to make it easier for flight instructors to operate independently by establishing the option of a simplified application and fast-tracked assessment process for ‘independent’ instructors seeking to obtain a Part 141 of CASR training approval.

I encourage you to continue to engage through our consultation processes, including on medical standards.

We have also sent your request to alter your submission to the AvMed consultation to regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au.

Have a great weekend.

Kind regards,

CASA communications team.

Sandy in reply...

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding independent instructors, according to John King of the highly regarded King Schools, who was employed at one time as consultant to CASA, about 70% of USA pilots are trained outside of the Part 141 system. Therefore your idea of ‘fast tracking’ to Part 141 is not strictly relevant to the proposal which would, if implemented, do a great deal to revive our General Aviation (GA) industry.

If you can point to impediments that pertain to Australia compared to the USA situation I think it would be helpful if you would elaborate or explain your concerns. In my experience there are no impediments, and I commenced my flying school in the 70s, I see no differences that would impede going to independent instructors. This should happen quickly because GA is in trouble.

In regards to medicals, your online system doesn’t allow for attachments and I’d be grateful if you could forward the attachments below to those who are considering medical reforms. Again the matter is urgent because we are losing pilots because of the time, travel, expense and having often to make multiple visits to various specialists in order to satisfy AVMED’s requirements.

I will say that no one would object to such medical stringencies if there was a real case to safeguard the public, let alone the pilots themselves. But, as the tables below indicate there is no safety case to cause us to persist with the current requirements. Apart from these tables the c. 30 year successful RAAUS history is proof that a self declared car driver standard is practical and not unsafe. But I must emphasise that a new standard must include IFR and CTA being the safest and most controlled environment, and IFR should be encouraged for the overall health and advancement of our much beleaguered GA industry.

Much appreciated your willingness, and invitation, to continue to engage.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA Comms team reply to Sandy - 

Via the AP email chains:

OFFICIAL

Dear Mr Reith

Thank you for your email regarding our work to exempt operators and maintainers of Cessna aircraft in the broader private and aerial work sectors from the requirements to carry out Cessna SIDs.

You may be interested to note our General Aviation Workplan which summarises existing and proposed projects aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on general aviation. Details of the workplan are available here.

As well as the Cessna SIDs issue, the workplan includes an initiative to make it easier for flight instructors to operate independently by establishing the option of a simplified application and fast-tracked assessment process for ‘independent’ instructors seeking to obtain a Part 141 of CASR training approval.

I encourage you to continue to engage through our consultation processes, including on medical standards.

We have also sent your request to alter your submission to the AvMed consultation to regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au.

Have a great weekend.

Kind regards,

CASA communications team.

Sandy in reply...

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding independent instructors, according to John King of the highly regarded King Schools, who was employed at one time as consultant to CASA, about 70% of USA pilots are trained outside of the Part 141 system. Therefore your idea of ‘fast tracking’ to Part 141 is not strictly relevant to the proposal which would, if implemented, do a great deal to revive our General Aviation (GA) industry.

If you can point to impediments that pertain to Australia compared to the USA situation I think it would be helpful if you would elaborate or explain your concerns. In my experience there are no impediments, and I commenced my flying school in the 70s, I see no differences that would impede going to independent instructors. This should happen quickly because GA is in trouble.

In regards to medicals, your online system doesn’t allow for attachments and I’d be grateful if you could forward the attachments below to those who are considering medical reforms. Again the matter is urgent because we are losing pilots because of the time, travel, expense and having often to make multiple visits to various specialists in order to satisfy AVMED’s requirements.

I will say that no one would object to such medical stringencies if there was a real case to safeguard the public, let alone the pilots themselves. But, as the tables below indicate there is no safety case to cause us to persist with the current requirements. Apart from these tables the c. 30 year successful RAAUS history is proof that a self declared car driver standard is practical and not unsafe. But I must emphasise that a new standard must include IFR and CTA being the safest and most controlled environment, and IFR should be encouraged for the overall health and advancement of our much beleaguered GA industry.

Much appreciated your willingness, and invitation, to continue to engage.

Updated with pics...courtesy Sandy - 

[thorn bird]

"Regarding independent instructors, according to John King of the highly regarded King Schools, who was employed at one time as consultant to CASA, about 70% of USA pilots are trained outside of the Part 141 system. Therefore your idea of ‘fast tracking’ to Part 141 is not strictly relevant to the proposal which would, if implemented, do a great deal to revive our General Aviation (GA) industry."

But But Sandy, if they allowed independent instructors they would have to forego the thousands of dollars in fees charged for the part 141 approval process, which an independent instructor could never afford anyway. An instructor at a rural airport with maybe half a dozen students could never recoup the capital costs, let alone purchase and run a trainer. So many senior pilots I know would be happy to teach, but have given up, as the costs of maintaining their qualifications is simply not sustainable.

[Sandy Reith]

Thornbird, I thank you for your gentle rebuke at my failure to account for the loss of revenue to CASA in relation to loss of fees if my silly idea of independent instructors was actually implemented. Should have remembered the reason Glen Buckley was whacked.

I’d completely forgotten that the true business of CASA is to provide the most ego stimulating, comfortable, stressless, temperature controlled working conditions, RDOs and free wintertime jaunts to seminars in sunny Queensland or Montreal. I admit overlooking that for their unique attributes CASA executives are paid phenomenal salaries for their ingenious make work programs. Dreaming up new permissions, for which are charged swingeing fees, has become an art form of such elegance that one can’t help but admire how it’s all arranged legally, and how any deviant behaviour is savagely dealt with via the criminal code. Marvellous.

Quite apart from the two thirds destruction of General Aviation, their make work programs have given us an international reputation in the administration of aviation that’s second to none. So much so that the subject of Australia’s General Aviation will rarely be discussed in earshot of Aussie aviators, by, say, a group of USA, Canadian or New Zealand aviators. Why? too embarrassing, and impossible to muffle the gasps of incredulity and laughter.

Again, mea culpa, don’t mention the war, or the fact that Ms. Spence was paid $253,089 from 17th May 2021 to 30th June 2021. Six weeks.

[Kharon]

Second coffee Addendum:-

TB - "An instructor at a rural airport with maybe half a dozen students could never recoup the capital costs, let alone purchase and run a trainer."

Sandy - // "or the fact that Ms. Spence was paid $253,089 from 17th May 2021 to 30th June 2021. Six weeks."

Two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum - but what of the bits in the middle? The dramatically increased cost and liability gradient to those who must bear the brunt of the increased impost; many examples to choose from; all prevent non airline pilots and operators from seeking to add to their 'tool-kit' improve their skill levels; or business base model.

The cost and the liability of being an independent ATO for example; the cost and liability of an in house ATO; the endless paper trail which can and is used to prevent all but the brave (or the cunning) from adding qualification to a licence. The cost of obtaining an instrument or night rating; the added cost of maintaining - along with the increase in liability - along with the cost of upgrade of equipment - along with the time taken for any sort of approval - along with the breathtaking speed it can all be taken away is not only indecent; but prevents a general increase in 'safety' through advanced training - on tap.

Even the humble NVMC rating (let alone an CIR) is beyond the reach of the average mug; and yet the benefit to 'safety' is tangible. It should be encouraged not turned into an expensive, legal minefield for both the trainer and the trainee, with the cost and risks of 'compliance' a big disincentive. - Alas, the whole system is so bogged down in legal and financial risk that the uptake of additional 'qualification' is preventative - when it should be an inducement. There should not be any reason (bar choice) that a PPL cannot obtain a multi engine or instrument rating. The benefits are many, even if only rarely used; an instrument/night rating would improve safety yet again - but the 'compliance' cost is a considerable burden, the liability for instructor and pilot beyond a sustainable level for any but those employed in the game; and, even then, all are walking on the hot coals of legal liability. 

The whole legal and financial burden CASA impose on the industry is detrimental to safety, improvement, investment, incentive and enthusiasm for venturing beyond the remit. Time taken, compliance, maintaining compliance and cost involved a great disincentive to expansion of horizon and scope. Just imagine if the Spence salary was ploughed back into any aviation endeavour. That alone would improve the safety case beyond any benefit provided by paying her an indecent amount of money to 'keep the brakes on'. We all know what happens when the brakes are 'ridden' -

Its all arse about face - the biggest beneficiary of the aviation industry is CASA, along with zero responsibility or restraint - nice one...But what happens when the golden goose stops laying - or the government wake up and realise just how badly they've been conned by the 'mystique' (read bull-shit) of aviation safety by their 'watchdog' and the size of the dent put into revenue generated back to the tax paying public. 

My two bob (much devalued) spent as pleased me best.

Toot - toot...

[Peetwo]

ANAO slap CASA with a wet lettuce report - 

Yesterday the ANAO tabled in the Parliament their "Civil Aviation Safety Authority Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities" audit report (interesting timing -    ): 

Conclusion

11. While CASA has appropriate policies and procedures and largely implements its surveillance functions, its planning and conduct of surveillance activities is partly effective.

12. The appropriateness of CASA’s approach to surveillance is diminished as CASA does not have an overarching strategic plan and its approach to prioritising surveillance does not incorporate risk likelihood or clearly specify why it does not. CASA’s risk approach is not applied consistently across all sectors and industry delegates and there has not been full compliance with conflict of interest declaration requirements by CASA staff. CASA’s surveillance approach largely complies with Australia’s international obligations.

13. CASA has been partly effective in monitoring compliance and reviewing its planning and conduct of surveillance activities. While CASA has a system for monitoring compliance, there has been a downward trend in the level of surveillance in recent years, a trend that commenced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, CASA has not regularly reviewed and updated its planned surveillance approach. There is no quality assurance process in place for reviewing the quality of surveillance activities, and there has been no plan developed for reviewing the National Oversight Plan.

14. CASA has regularly reported to its Board and the government on surveillance activities, however, reporting needs to be complete and comprehensive. There has been a reduction in the level of detail in surveillance reporting over time. Recent reporting does not accurately reflect some of the issues CASA has identified.

---

Recommendations

Recommendation no. 1

Paragraph 2.13

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority formalise and fully document the National Oversight Plan including relevant governance processes, performance and review milestones.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

Recommendation no. 2

Paragraph 2.63

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority improve its approach to risk by:

incorporating risk likelihood as part of its approach to surveillance planning or clearly establish the basis for not considering risk likelihood in its prioritisation of authorisation holders for surveillance; and applying the risk and prioritisation framework consistently across all sectors and industry delegates.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

Recommendation no. 3

Paragraph 2.75

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority strengthen its approach to obtaining conflict of interest declarations by regulatory staff and managing any risks that are identified.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

Recommendation no. 4

Paragraph 3.41

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority implement a process for tracking and reporting on surveillance referrals to enforcement.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

Recommendation no. 5

Paragraph 3.68

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority review its National Oversight Plan and National Surveillance Selection Process.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

Recommendation no. 6

Paragraph 4.17

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority improve the completeness and comprehensiveness of its reporting to the Board to increase transparency related to its surveillance activities.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

Recommendation no. 7

Paragraph 4.27

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority improve the completeness and comprehensiveness of its reporting to the Minister to increase transparency related to its surveillance activities.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response: Agreed

This was Sandy's take on the ANAO report:

Be amused, here is where GI (Government Industries) never breaks ranks.  Quote from the ANAO report about CASA’s (below par) surveillance performance, quote:-

“…incorporating risk likelihood as part of its approach to surveillance planning or clearly establish the basis for not considering risk likelihood in its prioritisation of authorisation holders for surveillance; and….” (My script bolding)

Government Industries section ANAO is a masterful provider of inconspicuous escape hatches, inconspicuous to the casual observer but writ large within the general ranks of Australia’s most powerful  monopoly, the conglomerate of Government Industries. 

CASA agrees to all the ANAO’s recommendations because safety, by virtue of the Act, has no connection to risk. Naturally, otherwise the Emperor has no clothes.

Too bad the ANAO doesn’t conduct an audit on the financial efficiencies of CASA, including the question of how the CEO’s salary lept from c. $635,000 to well over $1,000,000?

Did the Board determine that $635k wasn’t sufficient to attract the quality of applicant in order to fulfil the Board’s requirements? Did the Minister sign off on this appointment and shouldn’t we, the public and General Aviation community, be entitled to know why such a massive increase in salary was necessary?

The destruction of General Aviation continues due to lack of Ministerial control, and lack of Parliamentary responsibility, coupled with the leadership of CASA and its inability to put the National interest ahead of its own.  The latter because the independent model of governance is wrong, and expecting CASA by itself to reduce its power and money wasting is a forlorn hope.

Sandy

Hmm...all fair points but what really impressed me with this report was the ease with which Su_Spence in her reply, with apparent sincerity, reverted to bureaucratic, weasel worded, gobbledygook to effectively make irrelevant the ANAO wet lettuce findings and recommendations:

---

---

 

UDB! Straight out of the Dr A book of Hoodoo Voodoo...

If we needed any further evidence that CASA are a law unto themselves, totally out of control and completely unaccountable this has to be it?? 

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

Unless by some miracle the coalition holds onto power and reappoints Barnaby as Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Act, then the latest attempt at reforming aviation regulation is finished.

If Labor, supported by the Greens gain Government, then expect GA and recreational forms of aviation to be sacrificed on the altar of climate change. There will thus be no need for reform except perhaps another hundred pages of new regulations regarding electric aircraft.

[Kharon]

For those who believe the ANO's uttering will make any difference or that CASA will not simply file and forget - I have a couple of spare bridges for sale at bargain prices; POA (delivery extra).....

[Wombat]

Technically, Pip Spence is correct. The Auditor General should be working and talking to the Board of CASA as The Accountable Authority.

This is standard corporate governance practice because the Board is responsible to the shareholders for their investments and that encompasses management of risk. Auditors always report to the Board not the CEO. The CEO is merely an employee, no different from the tea person in the canteen

The AG's review is all about risk, in this case the risk that CASA's surveillance/ oversight operations may fail to detect something important that they should have flagged.

The AG also weighs in on how the Board will satisfy itself that CASAs surveillance is working as it should, in other words, the risk that CASA may be failing its surveillance duties but the Board won't know.

BUT.....and it's a big but, in the corporate world the Board has the power to hire and fire the CEO on a minutes notice. The Board is always asking itself the question "Is the CEO performing well?" If the answer is no, then its "goodbye" which incidentally is why CEO's get paid lots of money - the sword of Damocles, etc.

The CASA Board on the other hand can't fire the CEO, thus it has no power, none at all. It is at best the CEO's cheer squad, at worst a fig leaf for the Minister to hide behind.

The Auditor General was correct in writing to Pip because he understands that the Board is toothless. It is a fantasy to suggest otherwise.

[Peetwo]

On Crossbenches and Boards - 

Chocfrog for you Wombat (yet again ) you've totally nailed it, the Board is indeed a toothless tiger whose main role, it would seem, is to provide an expensive, tax payer and industry funded fig leaf for the incoming miniscule...   

Quote from this week's LMH: 

...It all comes down to tomorrow. The red, the blue, the green and the teal have all had their say and the fate of the 47th parliament now lies with the voters. Will general aviation come out of this smelling rosy or more like decaying mulch? That's a conundrum with an evasive answer; regardless who wins, GA won't be on the first page of their priority list, if at all. Both the Coalition and the ALP have made their positions clear-ish, but as D-day draws closer analysts and pundits seem even surer that the parliament is going to be hung. That means whoever forms government will need the co-operation of the cross-benchers to do so, and other than a small few, the cross-benchers haven't really embraced the problems of a minority like GA. So whilst a good outcome for GA is very hard to get a handle on, a worst-case scenario is much more obvious: nothing happens at all. The time for revitalising our community is right now, not during the 48th parliament or any other parliament to come. The weight of work done to open the eyes of politicians has put us in the best position ever to get something concrete done, and if that is all ignored in the coming months because it doesn't gel with poltical will, then it all will have been wasted. There won't be any more chances; this is the one we have and somehow we need to make it happen for us, and that may mean deeper engagement with the minor parties...

Teal it is?? -   

And now with Albo as PM and the imminent return of the GWEP (Great White Elephant Paper), the chances of the Board concept being once again abandoned; and/or the CA Act being amended; or the Board being given greater powers of proper oversight; become marginal at best, given Labor's love affair for large Government industries in the guise of independent statutory authorities/agencies...  

However perhaps there is a glimmer of hope that under a parliament where the balance of power in both houses will potentially be controlled by the crossbench, that with an allied block of Nationals (and some Liberal) Senators, the Sic'em Rex MAYDAY proposition (even if he isn't reelected) may (ironically) have a better chance of getting up if sold properly as a non-partisan (save an industry) Bill?? 

Flashback in time to highlight how we've been at this same fork in the road before...

But remember, under slightly different circumstances, we've been here before...

Ref: https://auntypru.com/catchers-in-the-wry/

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
23 June 2010

…CASA, the nation’s independent aviation safety watchdog, will recruit almost 100 additional frontline staff with the $89.9 million in new funding provided by the Budget. This extra investment in safer skies will be funded via a small increase in the aviation fuel excise, from 2.8 cents per litre to 3.5 cents per litre. The Government considers this to be a reasonable and responsible step considering the industry’s continued growth depends on the public’s ongoing confidence in its safety standards. Following the ICAO and FAA audits this investment in CASA’s staff and training is critical, and will strengthen the organisation’s oversight of the industry. Aviation safety should be bi-partisan, and the Government puts the safety of passengers ahead of other interests…

---

If the crossbench, the supporting Nationals and the department bureaucrats want further evidence that the industry concerns in regards to the toxic culture, maladministration and red tape embuggerance continues unabated, without control or proper oversight, under the current CASA executive, then go no further than following excerpt from the ANAO WLR - 

4.8 The ANAO assessed whether CASA’s performance reporting to the Board was appropriate and found that performance indicators for measuring against CASA’s portfolio outcome were only partly reliable or complete.38

4.9 CASA does not reliably report against its KPIs relevant to surveillance. CASA financial year reporting39 against KPIs on incident and accident data requires improvement because the key performance indicator relies on the availability of data which is published by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) on a calendar year basis. In April 2021, the CASA Board were provided with a briefing from the CASA executive indicating that BITRE data used to calculate the accident and incident rates was deficient ‘…as “hours flown” data [is] often estimated leading to a weakness in the veracity of any calculated statistics’.

4.10 CASA annual reporting is focussed on trends rather than its identified KPIs on the number of incidents/accidents per hours flown. The DAS, in reporting to the Board in June 2021, acknowledged the need for a lead indicator and improvement in analysis and reporting with a CASA action item to:

Improve Accident Trend Data analysis of sector specific and/or aircraft specific matters to bring to the Board’s attention. A lead indicator is required that highlights emerging issues.

4.11 The CASA executive does not report to the Board against performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of its surveillance approach for its planned, targeted or response surveillance activities. Rather, it reports on the percentage of planned surveillance achieved in a year. While CASA’s method of calculating this outcome has changed over time, CASA does not provide this information in its reporting which impedes robust analysis of the data. There is limited information provided on the methodology it adopts in its calculation of surveillance event outcomes by CASA in its reporting.

4.12 There is minimal detail reported to the Board on the NSSP. The NSSP report does not provide information to the Board on AHPIs overdue, despite the AHPI being a key indicator used to assess risk (see paragraph 3.6 for further detail). The Board requested in April 2021 that NSSP reporting should be more granular. As at January 2022, surveillance reporting to the Board is not more granular and there is no reporting on overdue AHPI’s.

4.13 The primary CASA oversight body for aviation safety, the Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) commenced reporting to the CASA Board in June 2021 (see paragraphs 2.15 and 3.52 to 3.56 for further detail on the ASC) and CASA has indicated that ‘…the Aviation Safety Scorecard is a recent initiative that includes reporting on the AHPI assessments which now also goes to the Board’.

4.14 CASA’s internal audit of its performance framework in October 2021 found ‘CASA’s approach to developing, analysing and reporting CASA’s performance through its performance measures could be improved to ensure full compliance with the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule’. Specifically:

• The performance reporting terminology used in CASA’s Corporate Plan is not consistent with PGPA Rule and RMG requirements
  
• The methodology used in, and the structure of, CASA’s Corporate Plan makes it difficult to identify what performance measures CASA uses to determine whether its Purpose is being achieved, and what targets are applicable to these measures
  
• Aspects of CASA’s presentation of performance information in the Annual Performance Statement could be clarified to support readers’ understanding of CASA’s performance
  
• Although CASA’s performance measures broadly align with best practice, CASA’s performance measures could be more effective in demonstrating whether CASA’s is achieving its Purpose
  
• CASA’s performance measures could be documented more comprehensively and completely
  
• Internal guidance for performance reporting material should be updated to more accurately reflect CASA’s legislative obligations.
  

4.15 CASA agreed to all three recommendations to address these issues.

4.16 The ANAO found that reporting to the Board is not always as transparent as would be expected and does not reflect some of the performance issues and delays CASA has identified with its surveillance activity.40

---

4.23 CASA is required to report to the Minister, consistent with the Regulator Performance Guide July 202141 and the Minister’s Statement of Expectations requires reporting on a quarterly basis.42

4.24 The CASA Board Chair writes to the Minister generally at the beginning of each quarter providing a progress dashboard for the previous quarter on CASA’s delivery against the Minister’s Statement of Expectation and the CASA Corporate Plan.

4.25 The ANAO reviewed the regularity of the CASA quarterly performance reports over the period from 2017–18 to 2020–21. CASA provided all mandated reports to the Minister over this period, although the Minister requested more timely reporting in feedback to CASA for one of the reports.

4.26 CASA’s quarterly reporting on surveillance to the Minister is aligned with the reports provided to the CASA Board. There has been a marked reduction in the level of detail in surveillance reporting over time with recent reporting not accurately reflecting some of the performance issues and delays CASA has identified that increases risk to surveillance activity, including:

• while CASA has implemented its Learning and Management System, it has not established an effective monitoring system for key skills training (for instance, flying currency and training);
  
• the delay in establishing the EAP system; and
  
• decommissioning Sky Sentinel (which has been identified as being deficient in providing appropriate data for monitoring and reporting purposes).
  

     
In other words the CASA executive have simply thumbed their noses at CASA's statutory reporting obligations under both the PGPA and Civil Aviation Acts...  

In particular, CASA notes that given that the ANAO uses different audit methodologies to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), CASA does not consider the ANAO’s findings in any way invalidate the outcome of ICAO’s 2017 assessment, which concluded that Australia’s effective implementation of ICAO standards and recommended practices related to surveillance obligations was 96.25%.

The Iron Ring has also mislead the ANAO in regards to the above as it should be remembered that the 2017 ICAO audit only examined the self-assessment survey completed by the applicable Govt dept and agencies...

Maybe it is time for the FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) team to come back and properly audit the Australian aviation safety system...

MTF...P2     

Ps P2 OBS: Note the two footnote (41 & 42) links were not in force during the period reviewed by the ANAO (ie 2017-18 to 2020-21), nor was BJ's SOE referred to??:

41 Available from https://deregulation.pmc.gov.au/sites/de...-guide.pdf [accessed 24 January 2022].

42 Available from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00929 [accessed 24 January 2022].

[Kharon]

Bored and ignorant.

Wombat - "The AG also weighs in on how the Board will satisfy itself that CASA's surveillance is working as it should, in other words, the risk that CASA may be failing its surveillance duties but the Board won't know."

That little nutshell is worthy of the BRB - in fact the subject was discussed in some detail recently. It is a 'broad' subject and worthy of serious consideration. There are several 'good' systems' of audit, some of the best are 'adaptable' - tailor made to suit a particular operation; which, IMO is an essential element. What may be used to analyse Qantas for example simply fails when used to measure a two man joy flight operation - or Angel Flight. So, what is needed? That question in the real world should be answered by the Board; under advisement of independent experts. But, the real, fundamental question (IMO) is- does the audit/surveillance focus on identified 'risk' mitigation and provide salient, practical advice on risk management and reduction; or on prosecution, supported by strict liability?

Identifying 'real life' risk in any class of operation demands real experience of that operation as well as generally accepted, industry developed 'best practice'. These are not separate but integrated measures aimed squarely at risk management. For example - the fire extinguishers at the browser; all up to date - the fuel company will have a system for maintaining them - guaranteed. Meanwhile, the one at the back of the hanger may well have been overlooked - an audit system should pick this up and a clear system to prevent an 'oversight' established; without a penalty attached (omission corrected - no intent proven) : yes, simple stuff used as an example. So, where and when are the 'real' risks identified, by those who take them and how are they to be mitigated? Well, perhaps the call for 'sector risk analysis' could be a solution.

Take private VFR operations into IMC as a sample - the risks and results have been and continue to be clearly identified - the question that stands alone is how to reduce the body count. Take heli mustering as an example - or long line sling loads; or Aerial applications; or rig operations; or SAR work: or charter operations; or corporate jet operations: - all with different 'risk areas', both high and low - all individually quantifiable and definable.  Will one size fit all - don't think so, apart from 'book keeping' systems that is.

The question that stands alone is never answered - despite the money spent by CASA and the posturing as 'expert'. Take every 'fatal' accident over the last five years and place the CASA answer to mitigating or preventing a recurrence next to it (dismal).. Then, in a 12 month - compare the results of those measures against the body count. Nothing CASA has achieved through the money invested or their rule making has prevented those accidents; there are no solutions offered, nor can they be held accountable for their abject failure to have any impact on accident prevention. It could be argued that the reverse is true - fear of rule breaking has created a picture of paper compliance, increased cunning and a wall of silence. Pilots afraid to 'confess' - operators spending more time arse covering and paying lip service - spending on administration not maintenance, training and education.

The word 'Safety' should be removed from the CASA title - it has little to do with operational safety. The rule of law demands that 'intent' be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - in a court - with a defence available.

Toot - toot...

[Wombat]

Kharon: "It could be argued that the reverse is true - fear of rule breaking has created a picture of paper compliance, increased cunning and a wall of silence. Pilots afraid to 'confess' - operators spending more time arse covering and paying lip service - spending on administration not maintenance, training and education. "

From my untutored observations, that is exactly where we are now. People are focused on staying legal, but being legal does not guarantee that all risks are adequately managed because lawyers can't possibly foresee, let alone regulate,  the infinite combinations of circumstances leading to an unsafe situation.

A cynic would say that CASA doesnt care about this because its mission is to avoid Government liability for accident and a multiplicity of regulations protects it by providing a "who cooda known? defence.

My old Headmaster, bless him, always thundered the most important school rule which trumped all our efforts to refute: "A breach of common sense is a breach of school rules" - we were punished accordingly. Would that CASA did likewise.

[Peetwo]

Dear Pip...L&Ks Sandy - 

1st from the latest Su_Spence blurb in this month's CASA Briefing:

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

The announcement of our General Aviation (GA) workplan last month refined a project I flagged in 2021 and highlighted our determination to safely reduce the regulatory burden on smaller operators.

A response to extensive industry feedback over a number of years, the workplan is a priority for CASA and aims to set out clearly what we are doing (and when) to address key issues that have been raised with us.

It draws together regulatory initiatives stretching into next year and recognises the challenges facing regional and remote Australia as well as the sport and recreational sector.

It has the backing of the Board, and you can be assured that the chair, Air chief Marshal (Retd)
Mark Binksin AC, and I are committed to seeing it through in a timely manner.

We're also committed to reporting on progress and if we don't meet our milestones, we'll explain why.

Initiatives included in the workplan range from improved pilot licensing rules and streamlined maintenance arrangements to simplified medical requirements.

We were working on some of these projects even as we put together the plan and I'm pleased to say we have already seen progress.

We have now exempted private and aerial work sectors from the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) maintenance regime and this month we will remove the 45-knot stall speed limit for certain sport and recreation aircraft.

The SIDS exemption reduces the burden on the affected Cessna operators.

The higher stall speed responded to feedback about new rules increasing the maximum take-off weight of light aeroplanes operated by self-administering organisations from 600 kg to 760 kg.


A GA workplan project highlighted in this column last month — a move to simplify and modernise aviation medicals — is now open for comment.

Consultation closes 12 June and will help us with work we are doing with the technical working group on reviewing Part 67 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR).

We also want to hear from you about our move to introduce less complex maintenance rules through CASR Part 43.

Part 43 aims to maintain appropriate levels of safety while reducing the regulatory burden on general aviation and keeping compliance costs as low as possible. In this case, consultation closes 19 June.

And there is more support for GA in the pipeline.
We expect to set out proposed changes to the flight examiner system as early as this month as well as confirm arrangements for a multi-engine helicopter class rating.

There will be additional GA initiatives as the year progresses and, as always, we welcome industry feedback and participation.

Although it extends beyond GA, congestion in the Ballina region of New South Wales is another concern we are moving to address.

The busy region is used by a mix of aircraft and we are moving to improve safety by allocating different Common Traffic Advisory Frequencies (CTAFs) to Ballina, Evans Head and Lismore/Casino.

The changes take effect from 16 June and will see Ballina frequency stay on 124.2 Mhz while Lismore and Casino move to 132.45 Mhz and Evans Head to 126.7 Mhz.

Many of you know we have also been conducting an airspace review around Ballina so keep an eye out for consultation on measures we believe will reinforce the safety actions we have already taken.

Finally, with 21 May now behind us, we're ready to work with the incoming government and brief the new Minister on our plans.

All the best,

Pip

Sandy, via the AP email chains:

CASA CEO
Aviation House 
Canberra. 

Dear Pip Spence,

Firstly thank you for removing the the Cessna SIDs requirement, one small step. 

I wholeheartedly support Tony Brand and his plea for support for the changes to the GA maintenance rules that he and AMROBA are calling for. Beech wing bolts AD? one glaring and easy reform. 

Having been in the business of General Aviation (GA) in Victoria for some fifty six years, and owner, over the time, of more than thirty various GA aircraft, most employed commercially, I’m well aware of the concerns and difficulties faced by the GA maintenance  industry.  These difficulties, unnecessary costs and inefficiencies are deleterious to the whole of GA and Australia. 

I can also vouch for the exemplary reputation of Tony and his knowledge of subject. I’ve known Tony by professional association from the days when he worked at Moorabbin before he and his brother set up their GA maintenance business in Horsham more than thirty years ago. The team at Horsham Aviation maintain around two hundred aircraft. 

GA in Australia is slowly dying by a thousand regulatory cuts and swingeing fees for all sorts of unnecessary permissions.

In addition, the rules were migrated, completely inappropriately, into the criminal code where, for example, a private pilot might be become a criminal for not writing up his log book. A criminal conviction might then prevent overseas travel. That example, an omission of writing up a pilot log book entry, that in the USA doesn’t warrant any penalty because it doesn’t deserve to be a wrongdoing. Otherwise transgressions of regulations should be misdemeanours, civil matters. 

Where is GA now?

My considered estimate is that GA is barely one third of its potential. Where it should be in terms of its value to Australia is not only in view of aviation jobs and services, manufacturing and education, but also GA is an important National security asset, part of our strength as a Nation in uncertain times. Aviation mobility is surely a critical element in such a large and underpopulated continent. 

GA is in dire need of some immediate reforms which I believe are in your power to deliver quickly. I realise the weight of that responsibility, and how much easier it would be with full political support but you can make decisions right now and, with respect, that’s undoubtedly what is possible and an expectation.  

What can be accomplished quickly may not necessarily be perfect but action must to be taken if you now understand the depth of the malaise in GA and the unsustainable downward trajectory of the present course. 

Other matters requiring urgent action:-

1/. Compensation for Glen Buckley. 

2/. Car driver self declared medicals for PPLs as per the AOPA/ AGAA submission. 

3/. Independent instructors not requiring an AOC (P141/142). 70% USA pilots taught outside P141/142. 

4/. a. Urge Home Affairs to remove the ASIC requirement which will encourage private owners to fly and access ‘security controlled’ airports, example Longreach Qld., for maintenance. As well provide knowledgeable eyes to enhance the security aspect. 
     b. Urge Minister King to protect Commonwealth airports from further losses to property developers. 

5/. Request Government to activate the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty to apply to GA. 

Lastly, our regulatory environment must align with the USA and ICAO standards, and I hope you can appreciate the urgency and necessity for change. 

No previous CASA CEO has been up to the task, here is a great opportunity to make good. Go ahead and you will receive much respect, support and gratitude from the GA community, quite apart from rectifying a bad situation in the National interest. 

Kind regards 

Sandy Reith
Commercial Pilot and member AOPA Australia 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence pitch to the AAA and Part 139 - 

Via Fort Fumble HQ:

---

Australian Airports Association: OPS SWAP conference

Date: 1 June 2022

Location: Sydney

Speaker: Pip Spence, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety

PART 139 Aerodromes

One thing the pandemic did not stop was the transition to Part 139.

The deadline for the switch to the new regulations passed on 13 May and I would like to thank you and the team at CASA who put in the demanding work through these difficult times to complete the change.

We could not have done this without you. I’m pleased to say all the former registered aerodromes that were expected to transition to the new rules have now done so.

We all knew that Part 139 needed review and that it failed to reflect not just the operating requirements of new generation aircraft, but significant advances in technology and changes to aerodrome operations.

Our aim was to simplify and clarify the requirements to reduce the regulatory burden and costs on aerodromes while at the same time improving safety.

One key change was to make certificates scalable to reflect the size and frequency of operations at an aerodrome because we knew there wasn’t one size that fitted all.

The changes allow for far more flexibility for aerodromes in terms of outcome-based legislation.

What does that mean in practice? We focus on the results we want but don’t dictate a specific action or process that must be followed.

You know your business and will be able to determine how best to get those results.

With the May deadline now gone, we will be watching how the part 139 rules operate to see if any improvements are needed.

We’re as keen as you are to identify and resolve any issues with the way the regulations work in practice. We can only do that if you work with us and let us know about anything that seems like an unintended consequence.

Wider reforms

The Part 139 changes are an example of the ongoing program of reform CASA is undertaking to deal with issues industry has raised with us while we also refine the structure of the organisation itself.

We are committed to improving transparency, communicating our intentions in a timely manner and explaining ourselves clearly.

We want to work with industry to reduce complexity while making sure Australia remains one of the safest aviation environments in the world.

In addition to reforms on Part 139, our new flight operations regulations came into effect in December and we recently released our General Aviation Workplan.

Our General Aviation Workplan is an important initiative that largely aims to reduce the regulatory burden for private and recreational aviation users, many of them your users.

We are continually working to improve our new website and earlier last month we responded to feedback by releasing a new ‘mega-menu’ designed to improve navigation and make content easier to discover.

We’ve beefed up staffing at our Client Service Centre to deal with increased demand after the opening of the COVID floodgates produced a deluge of requests.

You’ll also recall the Guidance Delivery centre was set up to provide a nationally consistent response to queries and prevent the potential for confusion when people received differing answers from various parts of CASA.

This is consistent with our push to break down the silos at CASA to allow it to function better as a national organisation.

While there have been some teething problems, we believe this national model will ultimately facilitate clearer and better communication with you and other industry sectors.

Plus:

A new approach

As I mentioned earlier, we have seen many airports in recent years moving to diversify their revenue streams by developing non-aviation land for commercial uses.

Sometimes the proposed land use comes into conflict with the best aviation safety practices.

There are global discussions underway about changes to the obstacle limitation surfaces —or OLS — system.

The OLS System was implemented by the International Civil Aviation Organization in 1950 and last fully overhauled some four decades ago.

This system has served airports well by limiting the growth of nearby obstacles that affect safe aircraft operations.

However, there have been significant developments in aircraft and airspace management technology over that time and we now know the position of an aeroplane with much more precision.

As a result, ICAO has been investigating how the OLS system can be updated and CASA has been monitoring these developments so we can be ready for any changes.

After six years of extensive work, ICAO is proposing significant changes with new nomenclature and new surfaces that are expected to be more flexible.

From an airport perspective, this could see restrictions relaxed on airspace that is not required to protect aviation operations under the new system but is currently out of bounds to high intensity development.

ICAO is soliciting feedback and is working towards an applicability date of 2026, so watch this space.

Hmm...does this mean we may have to wait (at least) till 2026 before the final report of the ATSB Essendon DFO approval process investigation is released? (ie the DFO might be ICAO compliant and legal by then -   )  





MTF...P2