[Kharon]

I’m over it.

From despair to fury; from outrage to incredulity; been there done that on this issue.  Booth makes a solid case as do the other entities: so what?

Todays meeting should last about five minutes.  The ‘soup group’ elected spokesman placing a short list of demands on the table, signed by all soup group honcho’s, making a short statement then leaving.  Something like, not prepared to discuss it further until the demands of all our member are met.

Point one being the removal of Weeks if not from the department, then at least from any discussion related to Part 61.

The soup groups have bought CASA a new frock, dancing boots to match, sent flowers, wined and dined the object of their interest.  This has not worked: words, words, words promises and more words.  Yet there sits the moulding, reeking pile that is 61 with the man who made it so squatting atop the heap, adding more every day.

Time to stop ducking about – just tell ‘em how it is and say NO.

Stopping now – keyboard getting a hammering.  I shall wait for the individual agendas to be placed behind a cohesive, constructive, well timed get ducked until CASA put someone sensible and qualified at the table.  Or; gods willing; this rule set is repealed and shredded.

Toot – toot.

[Gobbledock]

Booths intentions are admirable. I like the guy. However, it is all folly. For CAsA it's more chit-chat, more blah blah blah, more words, more paper, more oral musings, more....................yawn

[Kharon]

Aye, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That’s the truly annoying part, ain’t it?   The good intentions and willingness to negotiate wasted on the incompetent or the inexperienced.  Take the engineering bun fight, leave the ‘heavy’ brigade’ (ALAEA etc.) out, just for a moment and look at the AMROBA argument, the expertise, the qualifications of those with the expertise and the total of experience speaking.  Then look across the table and compare the other side – it’s an unbalanced equation; then think on the free advice and ways to ‘fix’ things offered by Cannane and his group.  Then consider how that advice is treated.  It's all arse about.

Look at the operational side – do the comparison again.  

Compare the competent Hirst to the team he is forced to deal with.

In fact, look at any of the CASA crew who (with a few exceptions) are gainsaying the assistance offered, the expertise made freely available and the investment in time, money and effort (read blood, sweat and tears) in gaining that invaluable experience.

All of that balanced against the incompetence, arrogance and an almost complete lack of real life experience – from those who seek to derail even the inestimable, independent Forsyth and disparage the likes of Fawcett and Xenophon.

But watch: – the tea and biscuits arrive; the chat is done; and, there is not so much as even a broken off tea cup handle left as a reminder of industry outrage.  Not a ripple to be seen on the calm, placid, putrid waters of the Fort Fumble duck pond as they wave bye-bye to yet another industry delegation as it wanders off down the well paved road to hell's own gate.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Act now or else -
 
From Avbiz today, apparently the TLISC Aviation Workforce Skills Study was released last Friday (presumably in conjunction with the Miniscule & Industry AICC meeting) and is now available for industry comment up till 16 February 2016:

Aviation workforce study reinforces need to get cracking

 
From TLISC website:

Transport & Logistics Industry Skills Council
&.. from the Aviation Workforce Skills Study - Key Issues Paper:

Off the Yaffa - Denise says enough of the talkfests...

Editor's Insights
04 Feb 2016

This week an aviation workforce skills study paper produced by the Transport & Logistics Industry Skills Council (TLISC) was circulated widely in the aviation industry to canvas feedback on a wide range of issues that address the skill needs – or in some instances the lack of them – in this sector.

While reports like this are necessary to bring attention to the shortcomings and deficiencies as well as the potential in a largely fragmented industry, I can't help but have niggling doubts that this might just end up as another talkfest paper.

We have seen it too many times before. Plans announced with great gusto in August 2014 for a national aerospace meta hub, backed by federal funding, were to to bring Australia's aerospace and aviation manufacturing and research together to propel expansion into international markets and ensure the skills needed were adequately catered for.

But the hub fizzled, partly because of funding cutbacks, but also because industry participants just couldn't or wouldn't make the time to get themselves together as a united platform to drive the project.

And that was after six months of detailed research and feedback on many of the issues the Transport & Logistics Skills Council are now canvassing. They want the right skills base and enough qualified people to make Australia a leading provider, not just in the aviation training sector, but also to be able to attract business in areas such as maintenance, repair and overhaul, a sector that is becoming increasingly thin on the ground  globally as airline growth increases demand for such services.

To this end, the University of New South Wales is also looking to take its two year study, “The Future of Aircraft Maintenance in Australia: Workforce Capability, Aviation Safety and Industry Development" to the next level, ideally constructive action.

 Like the TLISC report, it focuses on labour skills, specifically the MRO sector where it is estimated there will be a 30 per cent global shortfall in numbers by 2025.
 
The report has considerable tertiary, industry and union input and multiple sources of funding, but now some facilitator – the most obviously being the  federal government - needs to to pick up and run with the proposal in it for the creation of a specialist national aerospace/aviation college that will put Australia in the box seat as a leading  provider and exporter of skills in this sector, in the process helping to address the shortfall in aircraft maintenance capacity. Such a college could go further to cover all aviation and aerospace skills.

The university is working closely with Aviation/Aerospace Australia, which is picking up on the research done for the meta hub.

The TLSCS has the advantage of being contracted by the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to undertake its study so it has the ear of the department's minister, Warren Truss, a man with considerable knowledge of Australia's aviation industry.

If these parties could all put their heads together, share their research and resources, fill in any missing gaps and perhaps even reach out to people such as aviation doyen, David Forsyth, the man behind the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, then there might just be some glimmer of hope that talk and reports could turn into action to make the sector an economic goldmine for the country.

So how about it?

Yes how about it Wazza, you up for it? Hmm...judging by your nano-nap in QT today, it's past time you got off the pot mate..

Warren Truss looks like he fell asleep in parliament

• The Australian
  
• February 4, 2016 7:32PM
  

The eyes don’t have it as Warren Truss rests his during Question Time.

Question Time can be tough going - points of order, Dorothy Dixers and Clive Palmer’s note-shuffling - but did Warren Truss find it just a bit too much today?

The Nationals leader was caught seemingly punching out a few sneaky zeds as Malcolm Turnbull delivered a typically verbose update on the NBN.

Parliament’s television cameras appeared to show Mr Truss struggling to give the Prime Minister his full, eyes-open attention. He may have been merely resting his peepers, or concentrating really, really hard on fibre-to-the node technology.

You be the judge.

WATCH

 
 MTF..P2  

[Peetwo]

TAAAF - Bring back the Reverend Forsyth - 2nd that motion

Hot off the Yaffa Press via Hitch from Oz Flying..

TAAAF calls for Review of CASA Reform Progress

22 Feb 2016

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for David Forsyth to be reappointed to review the progress of aviation safety regulation reform.

In a statement released today, TAAAF stated that they were optimistic about the new era of co-operation emerging between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the aviation community, but that the process of reform needed to be faster.

"At its recent meeting in Canberra, TAAAF expressed optimism that a new and more positive aviation regulatory philosophy is emerging, leading to a regulatory partnership between industry and government," the statement said.

"TAAAF expressed concern at the lack of progress in the effective implementation of the Forsyth Report (the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review) and would support the reappointment of Mr David Forsyth to conduct a review of progress and make further recommendations.

"The Forsyth Review identified significant cultural change was required within CASA and TAAAF continues to encourage and support the CASA Board developing strategic policies in cooperation with the Forum."

TAAAF will formulate a set of aviation policy recommendations it says will be sent to every member of parliament prior to the upcoming 2016 Federal Election.

   
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

"Please forward this email to your colleagues and friends in the aviation community so that their views can also be considered".

Even better Mark, I've forwarded the email address to every shonk, spammer, crack whore and 'dating agency' in India.

Cheers
GD

[Peetwo]

This week Hitch's weekly wrap IMO deserves recognition on the Reverend Forsyth's thread, so here goes..hot off the Yaffa..

The Last Minute Hitch: 26 February 2016
26 Feb 2016

I'll ask the hackneyed old question about optimism verses pessimism: is the glass half-full or half-empty? Psychologists seem reluctant to accept the obvious answer, which is actually more reflective of the real world ... it's both! I have my own creative answer: it depends on what it was before. If the glass was once full and water was poured out, then it is half empty. If it was empty to begin with then filled only half way to the top, then the glass is half full. Right? And that, my aviation mates, is why I am looking at regulatory change with a half-full glass. Before the safety regulation review the aviation community had very little reason for optimism; not only did we not have a good relationship with CASA, but also we had no reason to hope there would ever be one. Now we have hope, so that's more water in the glass than before. That hope was in the form of a better CASA board and directives handed down from the minister to make real the recommendations of the Forsyth Report. All this is progress to me, which is a lot more than we ever had under any previous federal government. Provided the water level keeps rising, albeit slowly, I will continue to see the glass as half full.

I've heard stories that we are not getting any progress in the attitudes of Flying Operations Inspectors (FOIs). Head-shaking tales of what could be considered blind interference from people who display a staggering degree of ignorance abound still. More than any other sign of progress, we are looking for a change in attitude from the FOIs all around ... failing that, we're looking for a change in FOIs. If you've got a story to tell, please let me know about it either via phone 0447 636 450 or e-mail stevehitchen@yaffa.com.au. Confidentiality is assured because we know the regulator has abused your feedback in the past...

..The Australian Aviation Associations Forum has made a strong suggestion that the federal government needs to send David Forsyth to find out how the reform progress is really going inside CASA. To me, this shows a bit of exasperation on TAAAF's behalf. They've been calling for expedited changes within the regulator for some time, and obviously now suspect some internal issues are holding things up. Yes, by all means send Forsyth in, but what would be his datum to take measurements by? Is there a program for reform speed to compare with? To check performance, you first need performance data, and I don't think there is anything such out there; certainly not in the public domain.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Apples and Oranges – compare.

“RAAA and TAAAF are certainly trying and bringing back Forsyth is not a bad notion.  This is, in theory, a great idea.  But I agree with Hitch, there must be a datum.  Had there been a time line and a clear program for ‘reform’ then with a suitable yardstick, the Rev Forsyth may have had something to measure.  The other valid point is that so much time has gone by, so much window dressing has been draped that it’s bloody near impossible to determine just what, if anything has been done, in fact, not in faery land.  PAIN  has been ‘counting’ actions rather than words; what has actually been done toward reform.  Apart from the shuffling of deck chairs and a great deal of rhetoric, little tangible has emerged.  The score card shows nothing of benefit to industry, much done for the CASA self image, if you count bluff, bluster and pony-pooh.  But if you examine the underbelly i.e. what CASA have actually been doing, and have done behind the smiling façade, it is a sad, sorry tale.  Give Forsyth some legal powers and job; then perhaps things will change.”

“Hitch mentions FOI’s and tales thereof.  It is a honest quest; but seriously, what chance is there that the Yaffa legal eagles will allow publication?   PAIN have on file some detailed reports (lots of) some of which beggar the imagination, until you get down in the weeds and test them; then a true picture emerges.  It ain’t a pretty picture but to get anyone to commit to a statement to writing and provide sworn testimony is mission impossible.  Ask anyone to write it, sign it and stand behind it; don’t get crushed in the rush to the exit.   Fear of retribution rules supreme – Why? Well there’s good reason.  Perhaps if the Rev wanted to measure anything that would be a good place to start – Would you be prepared to sign a statement?  Honourable intentions Hitch, commendable but wishful thinking and until the ‘fear and distrust’ is removed nothing will change.  The fact is that CASA have simply become more devious and a little more careful; but the bastardry continues and will continue until the known bad apples are rooted out and removed.  Chambers leaving was a good start, what about the remaining clan, still there working their evil”. 

Another good piece from Hitch; perhaps we could e-mail the combination to the Choc Frog tin to him; save us opening it every time he does good.  Cheers Hitch.....

Afterthought, if you are serious about looking at FOI folly, check some of the RCA (NCN) issued in the past.  Some of the most risible, inutile , scurrilous crap ever written may be found there; next step is run through some of the AAAT hearings and see how those, even acquitted ones are documented as 'facts' and used in evidence.  Even with the best rose tinted glasses, there are some abominations.  Good place to start research into acting in bad faith. 

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Apples and Oranges – compare.

“RAAA and TAAAF are certainly trying and bringing back Forsyth is not a bad notion.  This is, in theory, a great idea.  But I agree with Hitch, there must be a datum.  Had there been a time line and a clear program for ‘reform’ then with a suitable yardstick, the Rev Forsyth may have had something to measure.  The other valid point is that so much time has gone by, so much window dressing has been draped that it’s bloody near impossible to determine just what, if anything has been done, in fact, not in faery land.  PAIN  has been ‘counting’ actions rather than words; what has actually been done toward reform.  Apart from the shuffling of deck chairs and a great deal of rhetoric, little tangible has emerged.  The score card shows nothing of benefit to industry, much done for the CASA self image, if you count bluff, bluster and pony-pooh.  But if you examine the underbelly i.e. what CASA have actually been doing, and have done behind the smiling façade, it is a sad, sorry tale.  Give Forsyth some legal powers and job; then perhaps things will change.”

“Hitch mentions FOI’s and tales thereof.  It is a honest quest; but seriously, what chance is there that the Yaffa legal eagles will allow publication?   PAIN have on file some detailed reports (lots of) some of which beggar the imagination, until you get down in the weeds and test them; then a true picture emerges.  It ain’t a pretty picture but to get anyone to commit to a statement to writing and provide sworn testimony is mission impossible.  Ask anyone to write it, sign it and stand behind it; don’t get crushed in the rush to the exit.   Fear of retribution rules supreme – Why? Well there’s good reason.  Perhaps if the Rev wanted to measure anything that would be a good place to start – Would you be prepared to sign a statement?  Honourable intentions Hitch, commendable but wishful thinking and until the ‘fear and distrust’ is removed nothing will change.  The fact is that CASA have simply become more devious and a little more careful; but the bastardry continues and will continue until the known bad apples are rooted out and removed.  Chambers leaving was a good start, what about the remaining clan, still there working their evil”. 

Another good piece from Hitch; perhaps we could e-mail the combination to the Choc Frog tin to him; save us opening it every time he does good.  Cheers Hitch.....

Afterthought, if you are serious about looking at FOI folly, check some of the RCA (NCN) issued in the past.  Some of the most risible, inutile , scurrilous crap ever written may be found there; next step is run through some of the AAAT hearings and see how those, even acquitted ones are documented as 'facts' and used in evidence.  Even with the best rose tinted glasses, there are some abominations.  Good place to start research into acting in bad faith. 

Toot toot.

Nearly missed this but apparently before the miniscule put himself in the back paddock he placed this on the Department ASRR webpage:

On 29 January 2016 the Deputy Prime Minister provided advice to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council on progress with implementing the Government's response to each recommendation of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report, as at 31 December 2015.

• Deputy Prime Minister's update to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council PDF: 411 KB 
  

Hmm...after reading I can understand why the former miniscule published this assessment of ASRR reform progress with little to no fanfare...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

From the Reverend's keyboard -

ASA the Empire of the RAeS cash cow - Happy trough-feeding for all

Jamie scooped this good news story, via SMH/AFR: 

Airservices to undertake 'unprecedented' freeze of charges to airlines


Date March 15, 2016

• (29)
  
• Read later
  

Jamie Freed
Senior Reporter


Airservices Australia costs had been increasing faster than revenue. Photo: James Davies

Funny how News Corp weren't privy to this significant industry story -

Doesn't even rate a mention in today's 'that Man' article via the Oz

Concerns raised about Airservices Australia and OneSKY expenses

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• March 18, 2016 12:00AM
  

 On the now 2nd VH-NGA OVERDUE  Final..Final report, perhaps we could start an official O&O thread that captures all ASA, ATSB & CASA projects, investigations, response to recommendations etc that are overdue and evidently being obfuscated?   

Here is a perfect example from a true industry luminary on the progress of the ASRR : 

Regarding how many of the ASRR recommendations have been implemented, I can advise my score card is as follows.

Assessing the information tabled by Minister Truss in parliament in February, showing implementation status as at 31 December 2015, I assessed the following status.

CASA 29% implemented, 15% partially implemented and 56% not done.

DEPT 20% implemented, 60% partially implemented and 20% not done.

ATSB 33% implemented, 33% partially implemented and 33% not done.

This is being is benevolent as possible.  Other may have a harder view.  A number of those regarded as implemented will require ongoing monitoring to ensure change remains in place and/or that the culture has changed.

No matter how you view it, the implementation rate at CASA is poor, and indicates a lack of enthusiasm for change.   As advised to their Board in February 2015, many of the recommendations (more than 10)  are simple and low hanging fruit which could have been implemented within months.   Here we are 22 months after the report was presented to the Minister and 16 months after the Minister accepted most of the recommendations, with more than half the CASA recommendations not acquitted. 

Follow up to quote (above) -  

via Oz Flying:

David Forsyth, Chairman of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) board.



Forsyth scores ASRR Reform Progress
18 Mar 2016

David Forsyth, author of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) report, has assessed reform progress made since he presented the report to the Abbott government nearly two years ago, finding there is still a lot of work to be done.

In December 2014, then Minister for Infratructure and Regional Development Warren Truss responded saying the government accepted 20 of the recommendations. Since then, the aviation community has been critical of the pace of reform.

Forsyth has since examined reform progress, and has offered the following assessment.

"Regarding how many of the ASRR recommendations have been implemented, I can advise my score card is as follows.

"Assessing the information tabled by Minister Truss in parliament in February, showing implementation status as at 31 December 2015, I assessed the following status.

"CASA: 29% implemented, 15% partially implemented and 56% not done.
"DEPT: 20% implemented, 60% partially implemented and 20% not done.
"ATSB: 33% implemented, 33% partially implemented and 33% not done.

"This is being is benevolent as possible. Other may have a harder view. A number of those regarded as implemented will require ongoing monitoring to ensure change remains in place and/or that the culture has changed."

In February, The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) called for David Forsyth to be sent back in to conduct an official review of the reform progress.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Skidmore on notice - Fawcett on Forsyth & CVD Pilots 

Well caught Sir.

Although not part of the AOPA hanger war party, the good Rev. Forsyth was indeed in attendance, he had taken the trouble to prepare a ‘stump’ speech – just in case.  I’ve never been sure if a ‘stump’ speech was one made while standing ‘on the stump’ or, one made when ‘stumped’ for something to say – not that it matters.  With the kind permission of the good Rev – herewith, unsullied as writ, from one of the best, unselfish, modest friends aviation has, a simple solution:-

CHART - Tamworth

From about 06:00 min Senator Fawcett chimes in with ( from Hansard):

CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, have you a couple of quick ones?


Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put my questions on notice, given the time constraints. Mr Skidmore, the industry has been very positive about sector risk profiles. I would like an update on where CASA's view is with that process, who you have got working on it and what resources you are investing in it. It appears to be a good way of collaborating with industry.


Mr Skidmore : I will take that on notice, and thank you very much for those comments.


Senator FAWCETT: The ASRR, some of the updates you provided online, particularly your speech in Canada about some of the progress and things moving forward—can you give us an update against each of the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth report, just as to where you are at and your time frame for implementation.


Mr Skidmore : We can certainly give you an update with regard to the government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report and what our implementation is on those.


Senator FAWCETT: I know what the government response was. I am interested in where you are at and where your time frame for implementation is going, particularly around the issues that you are obviously aware of—48 paragraph 1 parts 61 and 141, the things that are concerning industry, but I am also interested, for example, in how well the industry complaints commissioner is functioning in the way that Forsyth envisaged to get quick turnaround times. I would appreciate some actual facts and figures around number of complaints, times for resolution, what the outcomes were and how many have had to go back to the board member to indicate that CASA has taken a view that perhaps the independent expert, the board member, did not think was going to be appropriate.


Mr Mrdak : We can certainly do that. The terms of reference for the ICC were amended to be 'report directly to the board.' That was one of the aspects of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review that we have implemented. We can give you more figures in regard to the ICC process and the complaints.


Senator FAWCETT: We have spoken on many occasions about colour vision deficient pilots. We spoke about the safety case that exists for implementing an individualised capacity or functional text test for somebody who has failed the bench level testing. I am wondering what your current position is on that.


Mr Skidmore : I have reviewed the paper and I have had the paper reviewed in regard to proposing an operational test to be conducted each year. I am concerned that we would be imposing another cost on applicants in regard to that. That worries me, to start with. I am also concerned that operational testing incorporates many variables that we have no control over. We are working internationally with other regulators—we are proposing papers to get some sort of common standard across all of us in regard to assessing CVD.


Senator FAWCETT: The feedback I have had from pilots who are affected by this is that they would prefer to wear that cost as opposed to having the door closed in their face, which is what many of them are facing at the moment. In terms of the evidence, as we have talked about before, I see very little difference to assessing somebody's capability to pass an IRT on a given day—and we assume they are then going to be safe for the following year. I will follow that with interest.


Mr Skidmore : Chair, can I say thank you very much for your support for aviation and regional aviation in particular.


CHAIR: Thank you, and thank you for putting up with me.

First & foremost - what an absolute twat this WOFTAM of a DAS truly is.. 

However I do believe this former RAAF AVM (waste of space) has his head so far up his backside, that he may have missed the clear & present danger that the Senator Fawcett QWON (IMO) clearly articulated - typical of the arrogance of this individual


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

P2;

"However I do believe this former RAAF AVM (waste of space) has his head so far up his backside, that he may have missed the clear & present danger that the Senator Fawcett QWON (IMO) clearly articulated - typical of the arrogance of this individual"


Touché sir! Nice pick up from P2. I definitely think the Screaming Skull has it all over Skid'Mark in the intelligence stakes. Although at the end of the day they are both dipshits.

[Peetwo]

Phearless Phelan (via Proaviation) - On Tamworth rally and the Forsyth 'CHART' vs John Anderson's charter letter to the then incoming CASA CEO Bruce Byron: 

Trust restoration checklist

An impressive number of industry’s elder statesmen attended the rally at Tamworth on May 6, and witnessed the growing concern that only deeds, not words, can set aviation back on the long track towards a restoration of some of the mutual trust that has been squandered over the past 26 years.
A simple and condensed “CHART” checklist that was available at Tamworth, offers a framework checklist for anybody who is interested in the restoration of genuine and lasting trust.
Readers might care to compare the CHART checklist with the charter letter from our most effective recent minister, John Anderson, to (then) incoming CASA CEO, Bruce Byron. The high-quality letter could easily have been drafted by somebody like Mr Shane Carmody, who rejoined the Department on April 1 as Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, with what the Department describes as “broad overarching responsibilities in aviation.”
Here’s the CHART guide to re-establishing working relationships:

 

Mr Bruce Byron
Chief Executive Officer
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601
25 NOV 2003

Dear Mr Byron

I am pleased to provide you with a new Charter Letter setting out strategic directions for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as it enters a new era of enhanced governance arrangements based upon direct and appropriate lines of authority between myself, as the responsible Minister, and you, as the Chief Executive Officer of CASA.

This Charter Letter is also intended to provide CASA with a better understanding of the broader Government policy framework in which it must operate. You should consider my views as strategic direction as you commence your work. I urge you to take full account of the points made in this Charter Letter; to reflect on how your role relates to CASA’s new operating environment; and to share the Government’s vision with the staff of CASA.
Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, as amended, the CEO will be particularly responsible as the Director of Aviation Safety, for CASA’s safety regulatory functions and the associated management responsibilities. With the new designation of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), you take on a greater leadership role for the Authority than was previously the case. You will have additional management functions; you will be the sole Director of CASA for the purposes of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997; and you will be directly accountable to me as the Minister. While I will have an increased role in CASA policy setting and organisational performance, it is important that you retain your independence as Director of Aviation Safety responsible for managing CASA’s regulatory function.

I would like also to emphasise the greater role that will be played by the Portfolio Secretary in our future dealings. While I consider you responsible, as the CEO, for delivering CASA’s overall work plan in accordance with the views expressed below, I will be looking to the Secretary for advice across the Portfolio on aviation generally and aviation safety policy issues in particular. It is therefore important to me that you and CASA continue to develop and improve the relationships that CASA has with the Department.

It is also essential that CASA has a positive working relationship with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), our transport safety investigator. I wish to see a co-operative working relationship between the three bodies in the best interests of aviation safety in Australia.

A similar working relationship on matters of aviation security will also be essential in the national interest, notwithstanding the exclusion of CASA from security aviation matters in its legislation. I am aware that there are a variety of safety matters, such as pilot training and licensing, that have important implications for the regulation of some aspects of aviation security and I look forward to active co-operation on these matters.

I will be convening planning and reporting meetings at least every two months between you, the Secretary and myself and believe these will go a long way towards ensuring a good working relationship.

Against world standards, Australia’s aviation safety reputation is exemplary. It is my expectation that CASA, as Australia’s aviation regulator, should also aim for world’s best practice and I look to you to help achieve this goal.

Government Policy

The Government’s vision is for Australia to have a world class safety regulatory environment, including regulations that are simple to follow and reflect world’s best practice. I have also previously spoken of the importance of having a modernised certification system, which will serve to encourage Australian aircraft manufacturers.

I am pleased to acknowledge that CASA has delivered a modern certification system but I do believe there is some way to go to achieving a simple to follow regulatory system. I shall have more to say about regulatory reform later in this letter.

Its vision for CASA is of a firm but fair regulator which focuses on core safety related functions in a way that ensures that industry meets its safety obligations, but at the same time permits development and growth in Australian aviation.

Whilst CASA should perform its functions consistent with its obligations under the Chicago convention, I accept that there will be times when Australia will need to have differing regulations owing to the uniqueness of the Australian aviation environment. When Australian regulations vary from ICAO standards and recommended practices CASA should notify the differences to ICAO.

More broadly, in very recent times the Government has begun to implement quite major aviation reforms, including of CASA itself and in relation to lower level airspace. The rationale for pursuing these reforms is the desire on the part of the Government to foster a safe, strong and active aviation sector. While CASA’s primary concern must always be with safety, it must not operate in a vacuum, without having regard to the Government’s broader aviation policy agenda. Rather, it should maintain a high level of awareness of the Government’s aviation reform agenda and be in a position to respond fully to Government policy directions and decisions.

CASA as Safety Regulator

It is my view that a good regulator will exhibit specific behavioural attributes and these can best be summarised as follows. A good regulator will communicate and consult extensively with stakeholders. Its decisions will be consistent and predictable, based on transparent processes. A good regulator will demonstrate fairness, good judgement, and be flexible and responsive to the changing environment in which the aviation industry operates. It will be effective, efficient and timely in its operations and it will be accountable for its actions. In the provision of regulatory services CASA must provide a high level of client service and treat clients with consideration and courtesy. Finally, it will be independent, enforcing civil aviation regulations, as it deems appropriate, while bearing in mind these expected standards of behaviour.

Above all a good regulator should command the trust and respect of those it regulates. It should act as a facilitator for those who are genuinely trying to do the right thing while retaining the ability to act swiftly and decisively against those who deliberately flout aviation safety regulations. You may have heard me use the friendly bobby on the beat analogy to illustrate this point.

These are characteristics which I want to see systematically entrenched in CASA and exhibited by staff at all times. Combined, they represent a commitment to high quality delivery of CASA’s regulatory functions in a manner structured to engender the confidence and support of the aviation industry and the wider community. The challenge for all CASA personnel is to balance the responsibility for compliance and enforcement with the role of educator and facilitator.

Two particular initiatives I would also like to see introduced are a comprehensive and publicly transparent complaints handling mechanism and a system to encourage internal reporting of organisational shortcomings while ensuring the necessary protection for all CASA personnel.

I appreciate that much of the criticism directed at CASA may be misinformed. It is nevertheless essential for the Authority to have a visible and accessible complaints handling mechanism for the purposes of fairness and accountability, particularly where the livelihood, financial security and personal reputation of individuals may be on the line.

Reform Implementation

The Civil Aviation Act 1988, as amended, has facilitated substantial changes to CASA governance. It has broadened the range of enforcement measures, while at the same time enhancing procedural fairness without in any way restricting CASA’s ability to take appropriate safety action. You are well aware of these changes.

I expect that the implementation of these new measures and processes, along with those proposed under the CASA regulation reform process, will be preceded by comprehensive education and communication initiatives. CASA staff must be well prepared to implement and administer the new arrangements with consistency and fairness and industry must be well briefed as to how these measures will impact on their day-to-day operations and provided with information to assist with their compliance.

It is important that CASA make productive use of the new tools that have been made available to it such as the demerit points scheme which can be appropriately used for more minor breaches of the regulations where traditionally a heavier handed approach may have been used.

I would also like to see a broadening of focus beyond just the criminal offences and penalty provisions. The use of education and monitoring powers by regulatory personnel will go a long way to contribute to a culture of increased safety compliance within the industry, particularly in the general aviation sector. I appreciate the challenge facing CASA staff in balancing the requirements of regulator with that of educator and look to you to ensure the appropriate support and training is available to assist regulatory staff with this transition.

I would like to discuss with you appropriate administrative measures that will assist you with the continuation of the CASA reform agenda, the further development of a simple-to-follow regulatory system and the establishment of a new and improved organisational culture. The future role of the Standards Consultative Committee and the Aviation Safety Forum will be important and we need to examine if any other advisory body or mechanism will be required to take this agenda forward.

I want to make it very clear that the Government remains committed to the timely implementation of the regulatory reform program. However, we must also take care not to squander the unique opportunity we have to get right the key aviation safety regulations that will be with us for decades to come. Meeting deadlines alone will serve little purpose if we do not achieve CASA” aim of safety through clarity and moreover if we do not end up with a world’s best practice regulatory system. Therefore I would urge you to strongly not treat regulatory reform as a case of “don’t get it right, get it written”.

I would also like to take this opportunity to make the point that it is important that the aviation safety regulations target known safety risks and are supported by credible and appropriate safety analysis. While safety must remain CASA’s primary preoccupation, it is important that regulation does not unnecessarily inhibit the dynamism and vibrancy of the aviation industry – ie without a solid and credible safety foundation. I would therefore urge you to ensure that proposed regulations address known risk factors for the various levels of operation, while also having regard to any issues that may be unique to Australian circumstances such as the often large distances between towns and the corresponding reliance, particularly in regional areas, on air transportation.

Funding Issues

CASA funding and financial management remains an issue. It is essential that CASA has a rigorous strategy in place that will ensure greater certainty in CASA’s underlying financial position. Funding must be more closely linked with activity levels. Any long term funding strategy must be supported by efficient and effective fiscal management and an increase in cost consciousness by all in the Authority.

Organisational Performance

It is important that CASA not only be able to claim a high level of performance, but that the organisation’s performance be measurable and able to be benchmarked. I envisage the behavioural concepts I have set out, together with my specific reform measures, meshing neatly together so that CASA’s performance can be measured in key areas. In particular, I draw your attention to the areas where I see CASA being able to demonstrate its performance during the course of the coming year.

Communication and consultation – CASA has seen an improvement in this area largely due to the appointment of an industry advocate and a maturing of the Standards Consultative Committee. I note the recent inclusion of Departmental officers on critical advisory subcommittees and commend this development as a practical step towards streamlining CASA’s relationship with the Department as a key stakeholder.

It is important to build on this improvement. Valuing stakeholders, by developing a culture of trust and cooperation between all areas of CASA and the industry is paramount.

A focus on improving performance in this area and upholding standards in a fair and responsive way will engender a better relationship with industry.

CASA must honour its commitment to working cooperatively with the aviation industry to maintain and enhance aviation safety. There is a strong need for CASA to strengthen stakeholder relationships, not just through formal consultative mechanisms, but in the day-to-day dealings with industry participants, particularly in the general aviation sector.

CASA should provide relevant information and documentation regarding the decision in question in a timely manner, and provide the opportunity for industry to raise issues of concern, and participate in discussions about those issues.

Consultation involves more than a mere exchange of information although engaging in a process of consultation does not mean that the parties must necessarily reach agreement in relation to each issue. However, where consultation with industry results in a divergence of views I would ask you to ensure that the final decision by CASA is made at an appropriate level within the organisation.

Consistency and predictability – this has been an area of contention over the years. The new enforcement regime, particularly the introduction of the demerit points scheme for individual authorisation holders, should give more consistency and predictability for the aviation industry. CASA needs to exercise good judgement in the use of the tools available under the enforcement regime including how they can be used with education and liaison, particularly in the initial stage of the implementation.

It is crucial that CASA staff deliver a consistent message to industry on safety and regulatory matters and it is important that appropriate training and monitoring of staff performance is in place to achieve this aim. Such consistency is essential to an efficient and respected regulatory agency and will help limit the level of complaint on this issue particularly from the smaller operators.

Flexibility – is about setting the boundaries without being too rigid. The aviation industry is dynamic and diverse and CASA must have the capacity to respond to this diversity while, as aviation safety regulator, maintaining consistency and accountability. The ‘one size fits all’ solution is not always appropriate. It is CASA’s role to take into account all relevant considerations and only those relevant considerations, while acting with integrity and impartiality.

Effectiveness and efficiency – the safety of the fare paying passengers cannot be compromised. As CASA is funded by industry and the Australian taxpayer, it has a responsibility to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources. CASA must always be conscious of the potential adverse impact of organisational inefficiencies and must avoid any unnecessary cost implications for industry, while maintaining its strong focus on aviation safety.

Timeliness – I acknowledge the good work CASA has done recently to streamline its processes and require continued work to ensure approvals, authorisations, certificates and other responses are completed in a timely manner. Prompt attention to these matters is both highly desirable and conducive to building a stronger relationship with CASA’s stakeholders.

Accurate and timely advice to me as the Minister, on key aviation safety and regulatory issues, is also essential to ensure the Government is best placed to respond promptly to matters arising in the aviation industry.

Accountability – the reform of CASA will see the Agency directly accountable to me. This requires a strengthening in the corporate planning processes within CASA to ensure that programs are strategically focussed, integrated, achievable and subject to performance and financial indicators, which enable the Government and CASA’s stakeholders to clearly assess the degree of achievements against corporate targets.

Transparency – the setting of rules that maintain or enhance safety that are clear, concise and unambiguous is essential. Transparency in all CASA’s regulatory and management processes provides a good background for governance. The ability to uphold standards fairly, a meaningful and consultative approach to stakeholder interaction and an ability to deliver and measure results without compromise are essential to CASA’s transparency.

Independence -the reform of CASA will allow me to set policy directions and performance standards but remain at arms length from day-to-day operations, as is quite proper. CASA will continue to be able to carry out its enforcement activities independently, thereby building on procedural fairness while maintaining powers to take appropriate action.
It is your legislative responsibility to develop CASA’s objectives, strategies and policies and I expect you to formalise long-term plans consistent with the Government’s policy and bring them forward for approval in the context of the CASA Corporate Plan.

Supporting this, I intend to negotiate with you a Performance Agreement covering the performance of CASA’s functions and the exercise of CASA’s powers as specified in the new legislation.

ICAO

CASA plays an essential role in Australia’s participation in the activities of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Key to the contribution made by CASA is the responsibility that it accepts, within the overall portfolio effort, for a number of ICAO Annexes. This responsibility requires a commitment by CASA to the provision of technical expertise for ICAO Panels and other relevant activities. CASA is required to maintain its commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department, Airservices Australia and CASA, to assist in administering Australia’s ICAO responsibilities.

It is important that Australia maintains the level and quality of its contribution to ICAO and the Government expects CASA to continue its commitment appropriate to its functions, in the national interest, and to assist CASA to keep fully abreast of international developments.

Conclusion

CASA must be fully responsive to Government policy directions and decisions. The recent reforms introduced by me in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, as amended, included a series of considered measures aimed at improving CASA’s accountability, enhancing their consultation with industry and building greater fairness, flexibility and strength into its enforcement processes. As the CEO, I look to you to ensure these outcomes are delivered.

In summary, I wish to see CASA demonstrate world’s best practice in the area of aviation safety regulation. In its daily dealings, CASA must exhibit those behavioural attributes of a good regulator including consistency, accountability, fairness, flexibility and efficiency.

The CASA reform process must be taken forward to achieve the Government’s aim of a simple-to-follow regulatory system and a new and improved organisational culture. These objectives must be accompanied by explicit benchmarks and a capacity within CASA to demonstrate in a measurable and accountable way how and when these objectives will be met. This Charter Letter will be reviewed with you after six months and revised as necessary.

I am confident that the strategic direction I have provided will not only increase the safety of air navigation but assist CASA in becoming a highly respected and best practice regulator and I encourage all CASA personnel work together to achieve this shared vision.

Yours sincerely

John Anderson 

Isn't it amazing how nearly 13 years have passed since the former Minister & Nationals leader wrote that very comprehensive charter letter. Technology and innovation in aviation has advanced beyond anyone's predictions or wildest dreams, yet CASA still remains back in the dark ages and in direct conflict with nearly all first world aviation nations, who are rapidly adopting a progressive performance based, regulatory philosophy -   





MTF...P2

[Sandy Reith]

Reading this letter attributed to John Anderson, but no doubt not wholly written by him, it is no wonder that CASA is in such a complete shambles. Would it be possible to invent a more wordy statement full of every possible nuance with this way and that way, balance with judgement, all things to all people repetitive exhortations? A more soothing and complete tour de force of hackneyed motherhood type concepts and charming little similes like the "friendly cop on the beat" it would be hard to find. Catch all ideas like we want to get on with the rewrite but take your time to get it right, not one specific timeline or performance indicator, nothing to say work to a budget figure, nothing about anything except in mile wide  generalisations.

Nauseating nonsense in extremis, it would be really amusing if it was just a parody of a bureaucratic directive.

Sadly the 'cop on the beat' concept is one of the key contributors to the extraordinary decline of GA. The regulator should not be the cop and judge and jury. I cannot see why CASA should not be largely taken out of the prosecution of those offending the rules. Maybe it could alert the AFP to breaches but certainly its mindset of total control is part of the cop on the beat concept. There simply was no need to put so much of the regulations over to the criminal code, let alone strict liability. CASA would have to take the prize as greatest make work program in the history of the Commonwealth, too bad it has cruelled a good industry in the process.

[Peetwo]

Courtesy Oz Flying:

Reform Progress Survey
17 June 2016

After the Aviation Safety Regulation Review came out, the general aviation community was swept forward on a wave of optimism that we thought was carrying us to a brighter future. But now, there are rumblngs of discontent that reforms are too slow, too ineffective or are simply window-dressing what is really no reform at all. Take our survey below and tell us what you're feeling about the future of general aviation in Australia.

REFORM PROGRESS SURVEY
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LW8MDXR

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...eXEu5lW.99

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Gross insult? Oh, Duck yes.

P7 is excused UP watch duties; it’s furry muff, he flatly refused to join in when we all played over there, turns out he was correct about it’s present value and future worth in relation to getting anything of value done.  

I was obliged to have a look at the posts (one) - (two) which caused so much fury; seems it’s not only P7 who took umbrage. The latest line of argument is the 'justification' for calling the report presented by the Rev. Forsyth and two other highly qualified, expert observers “an opinion”.  This, to prop up the Oliver-Skidmore-Twist dismissal of the ASRR; which is bad enough; but wait, there’s more.  

The ‘opinion’ that ASRR is an opinion is based on ‘legal’ principals, seems CASA don’t feel a need to do anything without challenging and testing the evidence.  Seems we have to now prove they are a worthless, amateurish, incompetent bunch of charlatans.  Just like in court; seems that the ASRR and it’s submissions must be tested for probity, before CASA will believe any of it.  The suggestion is that not only ‘we’ but Rev. Forsyth and his crew are all lying through our teeth; and, unless CASA can challenge each and every statement allowed in as ‘evidence’, then try to have those ‘disallowed, then have the remaining tested under cross examination with the associated hoop-la of clever lawyers, then nothing can be believed.  Even then any result will be subject to appeal, just like the CVD case.

This is really now a matter for industry to take up; not in court, that will take more years than I have remaining and cost more than we could ever afford.  The TAAAF and the aligned ‘alphabet groups’ need to put their collective foot on throat of this total shambles we refer to as the ‘authority’.  Collectively.  From the ‘big hitters’ such as AIPA and Qantas, through to old mate and his Wilga sitting in some tin shed back of beyond.  

The insult is brazen; the notion that AIPA, VIPA, David Forsyth or even old mate would, in open submission to government inquiry, tell ‘fairy stories is noxious.

How can any industry survive in such a toxic atmosphere? Is a valid question.  But more to the point, how can industry just lay down and accept the inevitable after the ASRR?

“Surely, you mean raped my dear?”

“No M’lud, I was graped; there was a bunch of ‘em”.

Endit: not worth the steam or a Sunday ramble; we’ll save the coals for when we need ‘em GD.  When this industry gets off it’s collective arse and bellows ENOUGH.

Toot toot.

Edit: I don’t think I’ve ever read such an unmitigated load of crap on any forum, anywhere.  I sincerely hope I never have to do so again.  Words fail - about here…….

[thorn bird]

"It is important that Australia maintains the level and quality of its contribution to ICAO and the Government expects CASA to continue its commitment appropriate to its functions, in the national interest, and to assist CASA to keep fully abreast of international developments."

The key word is "Quality"....substitute for this the word "Quantity"...

From some senior Acquaintances of mine in other worlds

"CAsA has always punched above it's weight in ICAO, they are a nuisance really, and we would really prefer it if they didn't"

In other words CAsA is a joke internationally, very embarrassing.

[Kharon]

But, only in the eye of the beholder.

TB – “In other words CAsA is a joke internationally, very embarrassing.”

Not so, according to Skidmore.  He is actually bragging, to all and sundry that administrations from all over the world ring him to discover, for themselves just how the Australian system works; it seems, according to Skidmore, that they all want to throw out their simple, ICAO compliant rule sets and follow the sterling example.  This, boys and girls is not a tale of my imagining.  Nope, I have had this now from several who I would count amongst the sane; they always look either slightly stunned or bemused when they tell the tale.

If, and it is a seriously big IF; anyone from overseas a rings OST to discuss ‘Australian’ aviation regulatory reform it is because they either (a) cannot believe the stories of wrack and ruin are true and need to hear it from the horses arse; or, (b) they want to know how to extort the serious amounts of money the scam of regulatory reform provides

I have little doubt that the reports of Skidmore repeating this fairy tale to any who question the shambles are true.  This leaves us with a man clearly not only out of his depth, but one who is quite happy to be the front man to one of the greatest rip-offs ever inflicted on the tax payer. The story also casts serious doubts over probity – if this is the yarn being flogged, hand over heart, to a hapless minister, dumb enough to believe it; then we are all in serious trouble.

This is not even mildly amusing: nothing like an aging maiden Aunt who talks to the ‘wee folk’ at the bottom of the garden, believing that fairy pooh make the sprouts grow better.  This is not remotely funny.  What we have here is either a venal, gross deception, a fraud perpetrated on ministers of the crown; or, someone who should be introduced to your Aunt.   Either way, the road to reform is not only blocked by those who make a living from it, but by the person who is; or was, expected to remove the blockage.

It is not only my opinion – Skidmore must resign or be put out to pasture on the grounds of diminished responsibility; not only being a danger to himself, but to others. You need look no further than his treatment of CVD or the Part 61 fiasco to find unequivocal evidence. His response to the ASRR beggars belief and answers all questions of intent.  The sad part? Well, I believe he actually believes all is well and he can bluff his way out of the unholy mess.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

But, only in the eye of the beholder.

TB – “In other words CAsA is a joke internationally, very embarrassing.”

Not so, according to Skidmore.  He is actually bragging, to all and sundry that administrations from all over the world ring him to discover, for themselves just how the Australian system works; it seems, according to Skidmore, that they all want to throw out their simple, ICAO compliant rule sets and follow the sterling example.  This, boys and girls is not a tale of my imagining.  Nope, I have had this now from several who I would count amongst the sane; they always look either slightly stunned or bemused when they tell the tale.

If, and it is a seriously big IF; anyone from overseas a rings OST to discuss ‘Australian’ aviation regulatory reform it is because they either (a) cannot believe the stories of wrack and ruin are true and need to hear it from the horses arse; or, (b) they want to know how to extort the serious amounts of money the scam of regulatory reform provides

I have little doubt that the reports of Skidmore repeating this fairy tale to any who question the shambles are true.  This leaves us with a man clearly not only out of his depth, but one who is quite happy to be the front man to one of the greatest rip-offs ever inflicted on the tax payer. The story also casts serious doubts over probity – if this is the yarn being flogged, hand over heart, to a hapless minister, dumb enough to believe it; then we are all in serious trouble.

This is not even mildly amusing: nothing like an aging maiden Aunt who talks to the ‘wee folk’ at the bottom of the garden, believing that fairy pooh make the sprouts grow better.  This is not remotely funny.  What we have here is either a venal, gross deception, a fraud perpetrated on ministers of the crown; or, someone who should be introduced to your Aunt.   Either way, the road to reform is not only blocked by those who make a living from it, but by the person who is; or was, expected to remove the blockage...

In a parallel hemisphere -

A couple of recent quotes from the Mythical Reform thread...

Interesting Article.

Heavens above? EASA fostering & promoting GA -

Following on from the US Part 23 initiative (above), EASA are now getting in on the Act. Via AIN:

EASA Releases Small Aircraft Certification Proposal


by Kerry Lynch
 - June 23, 2016, 12:16 PM

Today the European Aviation Safety Agency issued its proposed rewrite of certification rules governing light aircraft, putting the new European CS-23 regulation on pace for release later this year.

The EASA Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2016-05 was issued a little more than three months after the U.S. FAA had published its own proposed rewrite of Part 23 certification rules and more than a year after the European agency had issued an advance notice of proposed amendment to gather initial industry comment.

The NPA considers feedback from the advance document as well as the FAA proposal, the EASA said. Noting that its proposal is “not fully in line” with the FAA’s proposal, the European agency urged comment on the differences between the two documents. The NPA anticipates a three-month consultation period followed by a final decision in the fourth quarter. 

Greg Bowles, director of European regulatory affairs and engineering for GAMA, praised the EASA NPA as a “concise and well worded document” that takes into account concerns expressed in comments to both the European advanced notice and the FAA proposal. “We really thought the Part 23 [rewrite] has great benefits. The EASA proposal is a further evolution of what the FAA proposed and has improved upon it,” Bowles said.

He cited as a couple of examples the fact that the FAA proposal is more prescriptive in the minimum control speed to address loss of control, while the EASA proposal takes a more performance-based approach. Also, the EASA document would adopt a new numbering system that reduces confusion, Bowles said.

He expressed optimism that the EASA rule could stay on track for release this year, since the European Commission has placed the purview of the rewrite entirely within the EASA. “It’s been a really long road from when we began,” he said, noting the rewrite effort has been under way for nearly a decade.  “It’s a pretty monumental change, and at a time when the industry needs one.”

Hmm..that's funny, I noticed that neither EASA or the FAA not once mentioned that they would be modelling their Part 23 rewrite on Skidmore's regulatory reform philosophy - err why not??  

A good question P2, I mean the whole world is lining up at his door to copy Australia's industry destroying regulations, whats wrong with them for goodness sake? don't they realise anyone involved in aviation outside the regulators of course are criminals, especially GA people. The Iron Ring categorises GA as "organised crime" requiring draconian distortion of the rule of law akin to the inquisition to stamp out. One wonders whats next from OUR CAsA? Acceptance of water boarding as enhanced interrogation technique perhaps? Iron maidens? the rack? thumb screws? forced to listen to Barry Manilow all night?

Now in continuance of the world according to Oliver and the 'us & them' theme, the following is an excellent review blog by Joe Del Balzo (JDA) of an equally excellent article by Andy Pasztor from the WSJ:

WSJ’s Pasztor exposes the new SMS safety concept to readers


Posted By: Joe Del Balzo July 13, 2016

The SMS Safety Concept

All too often, the stories written by “so called” aviation reporters bear strong resemblance to press releases issued by companies/ lawyers/ pundits with a particular perspective on an issue. Relying on such sources is a virtual necessity because the subject matter is densely technical and involve complicated facts—all difficult to translate into language comprehensible to their readers.

A notable exception to that secondary source tendency was the Pulitzer Prize winner transportation editor of The New York Times, Richard Witkin. The successor to the seat occupied by Dick and others is Andy Pasztor.



Relating the journalistic credentials of the author of the below-referenced article is intended to make it clear that Mr. Pasztor’ s article merits reading. The opening sentence of his analysis makes it clear what his subject is:

“Government oversight of aviation safety is changing dramatically in many parts of the globe, with carriers and enforcement authorities working together more closely than ever to reduce risks.
…
From the U.S. to Europe to parts of Latin America, airline officials and regulators increasingly are focused on sharing information and taking joint action to prevent accidents and serious incidents before they occur—rather than imposing rules based on lessons learned from crashes.

At the heart of the system: voluntary moves by carriers intent on going beyond mere compliance with basic regulations. Airlines are sharing their own sophisticated data analyses, which typically pinpoint budding safety hazards before regulators by themselves could identify the risks.”

This may be the first general circulation (although WSJ readers may not well fit the “general” audience denomination) on the subject of Safety Management System as the future primary regulatory tool.



The data collected and analyzed by the SMS discipline has helped the regulator and the regulated to focus their attention on “fixing” potential problems rather than “fixing” the enforcement actions which were the “traffic tickets” of the past.
Pasztor’s paragraphs explain that this new concept was born in Montreal (ICAO’s headquarters), have been embraced by EASA (although they are behind the US’s pace in the P121 implementation) and are not moving as briskly in other aviation sectors around the globe. He failed to note the anomalous “all deliberate speed” dragging American airports into the new SMS world.

No slick press release brought this story to the WSJ, rather the reporter attended a conference at which Ms. Gilligan of the FAA, Patrick Ky, her European counterpart and others detailed the transition to safety risk minimization, rather than civil penalty assessments. He learned the new gospel of aviation safety.

Margaret Gilligan, FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, and Patrick Ky, Executive Director of EASA.

On a slightly parallel track, he mentions that he FAA certification of General Aviation aircraft is moving into a new era. The old rules were “prescriptive” in nature and enumerated, detailed requirements; the new certification approach involves performance-based airworthiness standards. The new regulation would delete current weight- and propulsion-derived categories Part 23 with a single performance- and risk-based reviews  of airplanes of 19 passengers seats or less and with a maximum takeoff weight of  no greater 19,000 pounds.

Mr. Pasztor, however, fails to mention that the FAA is taking an inordinate amount of time to issue the final rules. It has been intimated that part of the delay may be attributable to the field’s lack of comfort with the innovative approach.

As to EASA’s investment in this new approach, Mr. Ky, its Executive Director made the following clarion message about his agency’s vision of the future of SMS as the regulatory format:

EASA’s Executive Director then uttered a very important statement about the future of his agency’s regulatory approach; here is the headline:

“We are not aviation lawyers…Regulation is not the goal. The goal is safety.”
Here are some other excerpts from the Ky vision of the future of European aviation regulation:

“’Ky said EASA is moving away from a legal approach to regulating to one that is focused on safety. The rulemaking branch was reshaped to team with the oversight branch for better understanding of how the     rules are implemented and what their effects are,’ he said. The regulators were also reminded to focus more on risk than on prescriptive rulemaking…

‘Underscoring the safety record of business aviation,’ Ky said ‘EASA should rely more on the sector’s mature safety management systems that are already in place, and partner on best practices, rather than prescribing those practices.’ “This is a fundamental change,” Ky said.

If one can read between the lines, Ky seems to be saying that over time, the FAA/airline SMS collaboration will evolve into rules fashioned to address each carrier’s capabilities and risk exposures.

The FAA’s transition to the SMS and cooperative regulatory scheme is not purely an intellectual/ philosophical/ public policy exercise, as the WSJ report would suggest. The “how we got there” story includes some realities forced on the FAA by Congress and a recognition that the old surveillance distribution of inspector resources no longer would/could work. Here is a brief recitation of the path to this new regime:

1. 1. In 2008 the House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure Oversight and Investigations Hearing held hearing entitled “Critical Lapses in FAA Safety Oversight of Airlines: Abuses of Regulatory ‘Partnership Programs.” Most of the Members took the position that the first level FAA inspectors were right and their managers were wrong. Perhaps because the manager was removed, the field was empowered to ignore and occasionally contradict the guidance of their local supervisors and managers as well as the chain of command up to the Association Administrator for Flight Safety. The consequence of this highly visible reprimand by the Members was an institutional inability to issue national policies.
      
   2. Glacier-like process of the issuance of regulations – the cumulative impact of the basic requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act plus multiple collateral statutes (like a Small Business Impact Statement) require significant time to draft and review a proposal. Then reviews, both within the FAA (policy, economics, legal) and above it (DOT, OMB), cause additional  major delays. The gestation period from initial conceptualization to final implementation can consume as much as five to ten years. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the FAA to keep up with industry changes, the identification of new technical problems and new technology.
      
   3. For twenty or more years, the budget and staffing of the FAA have been reduced. Whether it is true or not, the internal perception is that the FAA’s capacity to regulate, following the modus operandi of the past, is less than its existing safety agenda. The assignment of inspectors, for example, to the P&W powerplants of one airline is no longer possible. Congress has sent the message that the FAA must do more with less.
      
   4. Consistency – the pattern of independent, inconsistent application of policy in the field was found by the OIG, GAO, industry and even an FAA ARC. That equates to different interpretations being applied to an airline depending on what ASI explained her/his view of the FARs as well as among airlines, on a macro level. This lack of consistency has subjected the Flight Standards organization to substantial criticism, to which senior management agreed.
      
   5. The press and the NTSB frequently criticized the FAA that it reacted to accidents; that their revisions to rules made it a tombstone organization. Upon reflection, FAA senior management decided that it needed to be more proactive in its approach. An initiative began to find techniques in which the regulator could “get out in front” of safety risks.
      
   6.  ICAO and SMS—this UN organization decided that all civil aviation authorities should implement this state-of-the-art safety approach. Its basis is the analysis of meta data bases from shared airline information , extrapolating significant trends, assessing solutions, cooperative/consensus processes and quick implementation of preventative solutions. The cooperation element of SMS, which includes unions, the FAA and management, requires an open, trusting environment.
      
   7. The experience with SMS caused the FAA to realize that a punitive/enforcement tactic and a cooperative compliance approach were antithetical; so the Administrator issued a new Compliance Policy.
      
   8. The field, some of the same folks empowered by the 2008 Oversight and Investigation Hearing (#1 above), did not appear to agree with this new compliance approach.
      

1. • The Office of Chief Counsel reorganized its enforcement structure to assure that the compliance philosophy was understood and followed.
     
   • Duncan suggested that streamlined teams would manage this new comprehensive strategy.
     

→ Now instead of waiting until major changes to the FARs must be subjected to the languorous NPRM process, the SMS teams can design and implement IMMEDIATE solutions.

→ Finding fault will be replaced with defining consensus.

→ Proactive will reduce the need to be reactive.

→ FAA subject matter experts will be comfortable engaging in dialogue with the certificate holders about the intent of the FAR and then enter into a discussion of the best way to reduce risks. Confrontation and the ticket writing mentality will abate.

→ The need to promulgate an endless list of new requirements will be obviated by the fact that the problem has been solved already.

→ “One size fits all” will be supplanted by the correction which will address your airline’s particular problems.

→ Getting unnecessary advice from OST/OMB will become irrelevant and using statistical probabilities to anticipate the highest risk of your airline will be the rubric to higher safety,

SMS is the new normal. The old “punish them with civil penalties so the carriers will comply” is no longer operative, though the field still appears to be wed to the traffic cop ticket-writing mentality. There is no doubt that SMS’ data driven techniques are resulting in preventative action being jointly designed, faster development of unique solutions and implemented by each carrier on a schedule faster than a speeding NPRM. 

Thank you Mr. Pasztor, for informing your readers about the values and benefits of the SMS, collaborative safety regime. Dick Witkin would be proud!
 

---

ARTICLE: Airlines and Regulators Take New Approach: Working Together on Safety

  
Certainly makes you realise just how out of touch with reality Skidmore and the Iron Ring numb-nuts truly are.

 Skidmore may treat with ignorance, prejudice and disdain the Rev Forsyth (& his former review panel members Don Spruston & Roger Whitefield) jointly authored ASRR report, which reflected the majority view of the Australian aviation industry. However I find it quite remarkable how two of the largest regulatory bodies in the world, the FAA & EASA seem to reflect and hold similar views as those three learned gentleman and the Oz industry. 


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Skid'Marks views are irrelevant. He is just the head, and Dr Voodoo is the neck that turns the head.
Dr Voodoo's IQ far outweighs that of the CEO numptys such as Byron, MCAngry and Skiddy. Which means the CEO's will always be on the backfoot, they don 't even realise they are being manipulated into doing what he wants.
Unfortunately for Dr Voodoo is that as much as he thinks his shit doesn't stink, all that IQ doesn't buy you common sense, an understanding of how the real world works, or give you a set of balls.

Aleck, take your PHD and shove it up your ass.