[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.

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.

Just someone else's OP - Part I

Yet another slap in the face for the Rev Forsyth & his esteemed, fully 'independent' crew:

From the IOS Penal Colony: "Not happy Oliver!" 

Used to fly students into Ansett and the then Australian Airlines maintenance hangars at Tulla. Both companies were very cooperative taking us in for educational tours. Made a few of these evening flights, one memorable for watching a Fokker Friendship being towed into one of those hangars alongside something with rear engine nacelles, probably a DC9. Must have been a dozen staff able to watch standing around while we looked on and I thought to myself that F27 wingtip will collide with the jet's engine nacelle. It did. Not too serious, screw drivers out and went to work to change the wing tip. I made a mental safety report on the spot, in one third of a second not three years, that goes like this;  "if you don't look you will not see."

 Reminds me of the chief of CASA who has asked AOPA for the facts regarding the decline of GA and is then shown the CASA figures which do show the disastrous decline that's been obvious for years. Yes you might have your eyes open but if you can't be bothered, or don't want to see, then mind blanking will prevail.

Hmm...Sandy I wonder if it will be the same (non)-response from DAS Oliver when the results of the latest industry survey passes over his desk??

Via Oz Flying:

• Civil Aviation Safety Authority inspector overseeing aircraft operations. (CASA)
  

Close×
CASA Relationship Survey shows Low Satisfaction Levels
19 August 2016

The results of a survey done between 28 August last year and 18 January this year show that the aviation industry has low satisfaction levels when it comes to dealing with CASA.
The survey, conducted by Colmar Burton, comprised of 40 in-depth interviews with aviation people, five mini-groups held with CASA staff and the responses of 1217 stakeholders done on-line. The results were posted on the CASA website this morning, along with a response document.

"Overall stakeholder satisfaction is relatively low compared to similar customer or stakeholder relationship surveys undertaken across other government agencies," Colmar Burton states in its conclusions.

"Notwithstanding CASA’s role as regulator of the sector (which is acknowledged and respected by most stakeholders), the findings suggest stakeholders feel that within this context the relationship between the organisation and industry could be improved.

"While satisfaction with CASA service delivery overall was relatively low, those with direct interactions with CASA staff over the past twelve months provided higher average satisfaction ratings with these interactions, suggesting more recent efforts to improve service are having a positive impact.

"It is important to note that for the majority of more frequent interactions or transactions stakeholders have with CASA – such as licence applications or renewals – the expected timeframe for completion of these interactions was two weeks.

Among other conclusions, Colmar Burton found that stakeholders felt that:

• there is not enough industry consultation on regulation changes
  
• CASA staff don't understand the impact of regulatory changes sufficiently
  
• communication needs improvement
  
• current regulatory settings and best practices are not aligned
  
• CASA is not proactive enough in identifying and communicating best practices
  
• CASA decision-making lacks consistency
  

Colmar Burton also noted that many stakeholder indicated they were unwilling to disclose breaches of air safety regulation because of fears CASA will respond in a heavy-handed manner.

"We believe the findings from this study provide a clear mandate for CASA to reform its current ways of operating to drive an improved relationship with industry," Colmar Burton stated.

Along with the survey results, CASA also released an action plan based on the responses.

Among the actions are:

• training courses for inspectors
  
• targetted competency training for CASA's workforce
  
• updating and revising key manuals to make them consistent
  
• culture change to drive continuous improvement
  
• developing a service charter and improving the service centre
  
• an internal peer review process
  
• invitations to volunteers from the aviation community to help CASA identify unintended consequences from regulation
  
• a new position of Industry Relations Office to liaise with associations and peak bodies
  

"CASA will continue to work to improve its relationship with industry through the activities outlined in this action plan and its ongoing work as the regulator and service provider," the regulator concluded.

"Its progress over time will be measured every two years through the same survey and a comparison of findings with previous surveys. CASA is committed to improving its relationship with industry while maintaining the highest standard of aviation safety."
Both the detailed survey and the action plan can be downloaded by clicking on the links below.

 2016 CASA Stakeholder Relationship Survey
CASA 2016 Stakeholder Relationship Action Plan

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...41e6MDE.99

 
Can you believe what's attached to that 2nd link? - 90 pages of glossy dribble trying to desperately turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.. - Please can someone with authority or political sway get a grip here, the three aviation safety stooges are running amok in the asylum, FDS!

Update & a key for the Tim Tam cupboard for Hitch...

The Last Minute Hitch: 19 August 2016


So apparently the aviation community is not satisfied with CASA.
That's nothing new; we've being saying that since the moment John McCormick announced CASA would be a regulator with a capital R, and stories rolled out like Jaffas down a cinema aisle about unfair, obstinate and dismissive treatment by flight operations inspectors, lack of consistency, lack of expertise and lethargic responses.

"The DG might be pointing in the right direction, but the leg is long and there are headwinds."

Let's not even mention the AVMED division. So when DAS Mark Skidmore commissioned Colmar Burton to undertake a satisfaction survey he really knew what was coming; the Forsyth Report heralded the issues, so the report really couldn't have said anything else. However, bureaucracies love numbers and this report is full of those. Now not only do they know we are unsatisfied, but also by how much. One positive CASA will take away is that Colmar Burton is reporting increased levels of satisfaction over the last 12 months, which they will take as an indicator that some of their improvements are working. The DG might be pointing in the right direction, but the leg is long and there are headwinds.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...SwzaKMh.99

Sandy follows up, via one of the PAIN email chains, with what I believe is intended to be a posted comment on the Oz Flying article:

It beggars belief that taxpayer and industry money has been wasted compiling this report. Not to mention an insult to three distinguished Panel Members of the Forsyth report. It is true that the Forsyth report recommended that stakeholder surveys should be made alongside KPIs to be indentified. Their report made it abundantly clear, from an independent viewpoint, that General Aviation had an extremely poor regard for the regulator, the spendthrift CASA. CASA chose to largely ignore Forsyth, but then Director of Air Safety Mr. Skidmore declared that the Forsyth report was just an opinion. 


The real question is simply what's the point until and unless there are substantial reforms in place and then measure the success or otherwise? 

There was no need whatever for the C B report to restate the 'bleeding obvious' and a state of affairs that has existed and grown worse over many years. Can't help wondering what was the cost of this report and how was this firm selected? The costing should have been be reported along with the findings. 

Anyone with any interest in aviation should alert their Parliamentary representatives to the shameful actions of CASA, the ongoing destruction of small aviation business, waste and extraordinary mismanagement, AVMED, SIDs, ADS B, the tip of iceberg. Talking to CASA will not bring about any meaningful reform. 

Sandy Reith

 
&.. This AM Thorny cribbed a Leady post from off the UP - HERE - and of course the "K" Sunday ramble over on the Dazzling Dazza's shame thread - Irresistible force paradox.

...The latest, expensive, touchy-feely, vomitus ‘report’ -  (HERE) - produced at CASA’s behest, on the industry credit card is an expense we could well have been spared. It is not only insulting to the Rev. Forsyth and his ‘expert’, independent team; but assumes the industry is as green as it is cabbage looking. The CASA response to the report – classic, copy-book stuff; more time, more money, more shuffling, more window dressing, Oh, and new ‘statement’ neckwear for the top deck.  This, all to support the deceit in a text book bureaucratic smoke and mirrors charade...  

TBC..therefore MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

While Fort Fumble crumbles? - A word from our sponsors the IOS

What an end to a week in the annals of aviation safety admin in the land Dunceunda, where it will all lead is in the lap of the Gods?? Here is a little bit of a wrap up that covers off some of the week's proceedings:

Yes Minister the numbers don't lie...

[quote pid='5000' dateline='1471737528']
[quote pid='4993' dateline='1471580931']

http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...41e6MDE.99

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...SwzaKMh.99

Irresistible force paradox.

[/quote]

Well apparently the straw that broke the camel's back was that - latest, expensive, touchy-feely, vomitus ‘report’ -  (HERE) ; check out Binger's latest (via the Oz) with this damning headline - Survey shows industry’s deep loathing for CASA. Not a good look if your the Minister... :

Phil Hurst says CASA has ‘a major management problem with transparency and accountability’. Picture: Ray Strange - P2 Edit: Sorry Binger no offence to Mr Strange but IMO the above pic is better...

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 26, 2016
  @Mitch_Hell
  [img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4c134add4c3a9e4881f7841b69d9ac85/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester has told the aviation regulator to pick up its game after an inaugural survey into its performance revealed a deep schism between it and the ­industry it oversees.

The minister’s warning to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority came as the nation’s air safety boss, Mark Skidmore, yesterday resigned from the aviation regulator after just 20 months. It is understood the two incidents are not linked.

"..The minister’s warning to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority came as the nation’s air safety boss, Mark Skidmore, yesterday resigned from the aviation regulator after just 20 months. It is understood the two incidents are not linked.."     - Yeah right!

The results of the government-ordered survey, by research agency Colmar Brunton, shows large segments of the aviation industry hold a deep dissatisfaction towards CASA on a range of issues.

More than 1200 respondents completed the survey, exceeding CASA’s target of 800, that shows about 46 per cent of the industry was “dissatisfied or very dissatisfied” when it came to their relationship with the regulator. Just 25 per cent of respondents said they were satisfied.

A key concern was a perception that CASA could be overly punitive rather than collaborative when it came to solving issues.

The organisation’s service delivery also copped a beating: 49 per cent of respondents said they were disappointed and CASA’s dialogue with the industry came out with a similar number of dissatisfied customers.

The most damning finding is the regulator’s score on its development of aviation safety regulations. On that issue, 58 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

A CASA spokesman said the organisation had developed a “comprehensive action plan in response to the survey’s findings, with work already under way in many key areas”.

CASA said it would test new regulations through internal peer review, where regulatory development and operational staff would assess impacts on industry before introducing new rules.

It also said new methods of consultation would be trialled, including enhanced online and greater face-to-face inter­action.

“CASA’s aim is for the aviation community and CASA to be partners in safety and we are working hard to achieve this goal,” the CASA spokesman said.

Mr Chester welcomed the findings of the survey, saying Australia’s enviable aviation safety record was due to the “important work of CASA in partnership with the aviation sector”.

But he also said “while progress has been made to improve the relationship between CASA and industry, there’s always more work to be done.”

“The survey has clearly highlighted that there are a range of areas where CASA needs to continue to improve,” he said.

Aerial Application Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the survey was a “fundamental confirmation of how broken CASA still is”.

“That is a damning indictment of CASA’s management and its inability to act decisively on yet another comprehensive review of its shortcomings,” Mr Hurst said.

“If anyone in business received this sort of feedback from clients they would either be out of business or doing everything within their power to claw back their reputation and trust.

“CASA is doing neither. CASA still has a major management problem with transparency, accountability and in developing ways to work positively with industry to create win-win scenarios.”

Mr Hurst said CASA needed to invert its philosophy to help industry be better, rather than forcing unworkable regulations that were crippling it with onerous costs.

“Someone at CASA — either the board or the minister — must step up and address these fundamental shortcomings urgently. AAAA strongly supports the minister and the board acting decisively to address the ongoing dysfunctionality of our aviation regulator,” he said. - Phil Hurst in bold: P2 OP - Again in not too many words Phil Hurst absolutely nails it - CF for PH...

Miniscule minder:"Yes minister, that little chap said that you are stark naked. Do you want me to go back an censor some of your last selfie-tweeps ??" -


MTF...P2

Ps Not sure who down there in Canberra is currently responsible for pulling Dazzling Dazza's strings but whoever it is could they please keep doing it and a lot harder...
[/quote]

Hot off the Yaffa press -

 
RAAA urges New Effort in Reform Progress
26 August 2016

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) has called on the government to renew its efforts in reforming the CASA and to take positive action to harmonise Australia’s aviation safety regulations with the rest of the world.

The call comes in in the wake of last week's damning CASA customer satisfaction survey and the subsequent resignation of CASA CEO Mark Skidmore.

It is obvious that CASA needs to pick up its game

"With the announcement yesterday of the resignation of CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore AM, the RAAA sees it as essential that the CASA Board moves as quickly as possible to appoint an appropriately qualified successor to carry out the necessary reforms within CASA," the RAAA said in a statement released on Friday.

"The RAAA called for a new deal for Australia’s aviation industry in light of the poor results of an independent stakeholder relationship survey conducted on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)."

RAAA Chairman Jim Davis, commenting on the survey results, said that action was needed to prevent the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) from falling by the wayside.

“It is obvious that CASA needs to pick up its game," Davis said. "It is now over 18 months since the ASRR report was adopted by the government but CASA has a long way to go in achieving its objectives.

“The Government now needs to take action to ensure that the ASRR report’s recommendations are effectively implemented and haven’t been turned into just another bureaucratic box ticking exercise."

The RAAA statement urged the government to review the progress of reforms stemming from the ASRR and to "direct CASA to harmonise Australia’s aviation safety regulations with overseas jurisdictions by removing the current red tape and unfair restrictions to competition suffered by Australian industry."

The full RAAA statement can be read on the link below.

RAAA Statement 26 August 2016

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...bRiE5T5.99

RAAA CALLS FOR NEW DEAL

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) today called upon the Government to renew its efforts in reforming the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and to take positive action to harmonise Australia’s aviation safety regulations with the rest of the world.

With the announcement yesterday of the resignation of CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore AM, the RAAA sees it as essential that the CASA Board moves as quickly as possible to appoint an appropriately qualified successor to carry out the necessary reforms within CASA.

The RAAA called for a new deal for Australia’s aviation industry in light of the poor results of an independent stakeholder relationship survey conducted on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The survey indicated a general dissatisfaction by industry respondents in their overall relationship with the country’s aviation safety regulator. CASA was rated well below par in its ongoing dialogue with industry, consistency of decision making and, in particular, the development of aviation safety regulations.

The survey follows the Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) carried out in 2014 which identified a need for CASA to improve its service delivery and relationship with stakeholders. It found that CASA needed cultural change and a new strategic direction.

Commenting on the survey result RAAA Chairman, Jim Davis, said "It is obvious that CASA needs to pick up its game. It is now over 18 months since the ASRR report was adopted by the Government but CASA has a long way to go in achieving its objectives".

He added, "The Government now needs to take action to ensure that the ASRR report’s recommendations are effectively implemented and haven’t been turned into just another bureaucratic box ticking exercise".

The RAAA urges the Government to urgently commission a progress report into the implementation of the ASRR recommendations and to have it carried out by one or more of the original authors of the ASRR report.

It also calls upon the Government to direct CASA to harmonise Australia’s aviation safety regulations with overseas jurisdictions by removing the current red tape and unfair restrictions to competition suffered by Australian industry.

Media Contacts:

Jim Davis: 0408 640 533

Mike Higgins: 0434 608 332


Dated: Friday, 26 August 2016

And of course you can't go past Gobbles new thread SKIDMORE GONE! & the Ferryman's latest Sunday Ramble ...

However for a straight from the heart, cash & no BS summary of the current clusterf#*k that is aviation administration & regulatory oversight in this country, I tip my hat to new honorary IOS member Charlie, who in reply to Binger's above article said.. :

Charles

20 hours ago

I've been involved in aviation as a professional pilot for 36 years and have flown all over the world. CASA have NEVER had the respect of the industry. Operationally it's mostly staffed with career failures who couldn't make it in the industry and so joined the regulator where they a/. Couldn't be fired easily (again, often) and b/. We're guaranteed a good wage and excellent pension. Many are ex RAAF but not the top ones who mostly went from the RAAF to good airline jobs at QF, Cathay etc. The industry then has to cope with ex RAAF or Army aviators/engineers with ZERO comprehension of private enterprise and industry. The rank stupidity and dishonesty the vast majority of industry professionals have experienced/ witnessed at the hands of CASA is breath taking. Any long serving aviation professional could talk for HOURS regaling the audience with CASA horror stories - but they won't because CASA operational staff have long memories and a nasty vindictive streak.

It's an actual legal requirement that if some ex RAAF/Army/Navy pilot who just scraped through in the service and can't get a good job in industry (airline) applies to CASA they MUST be employed. That was told to me by one of the few good ex RAAF pilots who was employed by the regulator before it was called CASA and is now long retired.

All of us who have spent our careers in aviation worked with some of these individuals before they joined CASA and know exactly why they failed and why they harbour such resentment towards the industry that shunned them.

CASA needs to be overhauled root and branch...or shut down and reconstituted from the ground up.

It's not known far and wide as the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation for no reason.

TIME Gentleman & Ladies, TIME!  


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of massaging turds

He who loves selfies said;

"Mr Chester welcomed the findings of the survey, saying Australia’s enviable aviation safety record was due to the “important work of CASA in partnership with the aviation sector”.

No, CAsA doesn't work with industry nor does it contribute to safety you horses ass. CAsA has not, does not and will not contribute to aviation safety. Full stop. It is to dysfunctional, disconnected and outdated to contribute to safety. When you have an aviation industry racing through the millennia with new technologies, new systems and new practises, but is 'supposedly regulated' by a pathetic government agency that can't even rewrite it's civil aviation regulations CORRECTLY and COMPLETELY within 30 years (also costing $300m thus far), you have an industry providing it's own levels of safety, not CAsA providing safety.

Dazzling Dazza you selfie taking waste of space, industry keeps itself safe mate. Safety has nothing to do with your conga line of government employee trough dwellers. You clowns couldn't keep a box of matches out of a toddlers hands, let alone 'provide' air safety to the Australian public through a complex system. You need to wake up old mate. Piss off CAsA and give the role to AMSA. The last 30 years is all the proof of that you need to back that move. As for ATsB you can piss them off as well and subcontract its function to the Indonesians for a third of the cost. Just look at the past 5 years and you will see how pathetic this mob has become. Alan Stray has done the ground work in Indonesia. They are more ready than the Muppets we have here.

Skid'Mark got rolled due to shitty survey results. No surprise there. But the fish rots from the head, and Mr Skid'Mark, although he is 'the head' by title, is far from it in reality.

The Frankenstein beast is beyond saving. It's time to gut it, disband it, slay it, torch it, whatever you wish to call the process. But it's beyond it's use by date. It's going to take more than renaming the agency to fix it problems. You can massage the turd as much as you want, but it is still a turd.....

Tick tock goes the FAA auditors clock.

[Peetwo]

Alphabets same hymn sheet & in tune - "Hallelujah...hallelujah!"

 
While Fort Fumble crumbles? - A word from our sponsors the IOS

What an end to a week in the annals of aviation safety admin in the land Dunceunda, where it will all lead is in the lap of the Gods?? Here is a little bit of a wrap up that covers off some of the week's proceedings:

Yes Minister the numbers don't lie...

[quote pid='5000' dateline='1471737528']
[quote pid='4993' dateline='1471580931']

http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...41e6MDE.99

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...SwzaKMh.99

Irresistible force paradox.

Survey shows industry’s deep loathing for CASA. Not a good look if your the Minister... :

Phil Hurst says CASA has ‘a major management problem with transparency and accountability’. Picture: Ray Strange - P2 Edit: Sorry Binger no offence to Mr Strange but IMO the above pic is better...

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 26, 2016
  @Mitch_Hell
  [img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4c134add4c3a9e4881f7841b69d9ac85/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

Aerial Application Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the survey was a “fundamental confirmation of how broken CASA still is”.


“That is a damning indictment of CASA’s management and its inability to act decisively on yet another comprehensive review of its shortcomings,” Mr Hurst said.

“If anyone in business received this sort of feedback from clients they would either be out of business or doing everything within their power to claw back their reputation and trust.

“CASA is doing neither. CASA still has a major management problem with transparency, accountability and in developing ways to work positively with industry to create win-win scenarios.”

Mr Hurst said CASA needed to invert its philosophy to help industry be better, rather than forcing unworkable regulations that were crippling it with onerous costs.

“Someone at CASA — either the board or the minister — must step up and address these fundamental shortcomings urgently. AAAA strongly supports the minister and the board acting decisively to address the ongoing dysfunctionality of our aviation regulator,” he said. - Phil Hurst in bold: P2 OP - Again in not too many words Phil Hurst absolutely nails it - CF for PH...

[/quote]

Hot off the Yaffa press -

RAAA CALLS FOR NEW DEAL

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) today called upon the Government to renew its efforts in reforming the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and to take positive action to harmonise Australia’s aviation safety regulations with the rest of the world.

With the announcement yesterday of the resignation of CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore AM, the RAAA sees it as essential that the CASA Board moves as quickly as possible to appoint an appropriately qualified successor to carry out the necessary reforms within CASA.

The RAAA called for a new deal for Australia’s aviation industry in light of the poor results of an independent stakeholder relationship survey conducted on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The survey indicated a general dissatisfaction by industry respondents in their overall relationship with the country’s aviation safety regulator. CASA was rated well below par in its ongoing dialogue with industry, consistency of decision making and, in particular, the development of aviation safety regulations.

The survey follows the Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) carried out in 2014 which identified a need for CASA to improve its service delivery and relationship with stakeholders. It found that CASA needed cultural change and a new strategic direction.

Commenting on the survey result RAAA Chairman, Jim Davis, said "It is obvious that CASA needs to pick up its game. It is now over 18 months since the ASRR report was adopted by the Government but CASA has a long way to go in achieving its objectives".

He added, "The Government now needs to take action to ensure that the ASRR report’s recommendations are effectively implemented and haven’t been turned into just another bureaucratic box ticking exercise".

The RAAA urges the Government to urgently commission a progress report into the implementation of the ASRR recommendations and to have it carried out by one or more of the original authors of the ASRR report.

It also calls upon the Government to direct CASA to harmonise Australia’s aviation safety regulations with overseas jurisdictions by removing the current red tape and unfair restrictions to competition suffered by Australian industry.

Media Contacts:

Jim Davis: 0408 640 533

Mike Higgins: 0434 608 332


Dated: Friday, 26 August 2016

And of course you can't go past Gobbles new thread SKIDMORE GONE! & the Ferryman's latest Sunday Ramble ...

However for a straight from the heart, cash & no BS summary of the current clusterf#*k that is aviation administration & regulatory oversight in this country, I tip my hat to new honorary IOS member Charlie, who in reply to Binger's above article said.. :

Charles

20 hours ago

I've been involved in aviation as a professional pilot for 36 years and have flown all over the world. CASA have NEVER had the respect of the industry. Operationally it's mostly staffed with career failures who couldn't make it in the industry and so joined the regulator where they a/. Couldn't be fired easily (again, often) and b/. We're guaranteed a good wage and excellent pension. Many are ex RAAF but not the top ones who mostly went from the RAAF to good airline jobs at QF, Cathay etc. The industry then has to cope with ex RAAF or Army aviators/engineers with ZERO comprehension of private enterprise and industry. The rank stupidity and dishonesty the vast majority of industry professionals have experienced/ witnessed at the hands of CASA is breath taking. Any long serving aviation professional could talk for HOURS regaling the audience with CASA horror stories - but they won't because CASA operational staff have long memories and a nasty vindictive streak.

It's an actual legal requirement that if some ex RAAF/Army/Navy pilot who just scraped through in the service and can't get a good job in industry (airline) applies to CASA they MUST be employed. That was told to me by one of the few good ex RAAF pilots who was employed by the regulator before it was called CASA and is now long retired.

All of us who have spent our careers in aviation worked with some of these individuals before they joined CASA and know exactly why they failed and why they harbour such resentment towards the industry that shunned them.

CASA needs to be overhauled root and branch...or shut down and reconstituted from the ground up.

It's not known far and wide as the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation for no reason.

TIME Gentleman & Ladies, TIME!   
[/quote]

Latest from the Aunty Pru blog -

AuntyPru Monday Quarterback: TIME Gents & Ladies, TIME!

• Posted by Sarcs
  
• on August 29, 2016
  
• Senate Estimates - Unplugged
  

[/url]

Off the AuntyPru boards today there is a general sentiment from the IOS that enough is enough and it is time the Minister and the Government extracted their heads from the sand, showed some leadership and sorted the shambolic, diabolical state of affairs of oversight & regulation of aviation safety in this country.

First from Sandy via new AuntyPru thead – SKIDMORE GONE!:

The Board of CASA has not outwardly shown any leadership that would give hope for reform. The unfolding disaster continues. What is not apparent is why did Skidmore go? Was the Board instrumental? In which case they have belatedly taken a bold step in the right direction. The given reason by Skidmore of his departure, “personal,” is entirely unsatisfactory as is the Board’s unstinting praise of his work. I think we as citizens, taxpayers and aviation industry participants are entitled to know why he has left, whether asked and by whom or gone of his own volition. We are also entitled to know how much pay he has enjoyed and how much will he take as he walks.



The train is wrecked and the train driver extricates himself from the wreckage and grabs a pile of cash from the caboose. As he wanders off the Minister for Transport and the Board of Management (assembled at a distance) say “cheerio, good job thanks.” The Minister and entourage leave the scene with a wink and nod towards the injured, the paramedics and gathered public. The fact that the tracks were ballasted with soggy bundles of outdated regulations will be reported as the cause, for which no one was responsible, ‘down the track’ say in six or seven years time....etc

Along the same theme as the Alphabets & individual IOS member commentary, I noted the following article courtesy of Aviation Tribunal where REX applaud the CASA Board for accepting (read demanding) the resignation of DAS Skidmore...

Rex welcomes developments in CASA


By Aviation Tribune
Posted on August 29, 2016
Tis Meyer / PlanePics.org

Regional Express (Rex) has described the decision by the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to accept the resignation of its CEO as a further step towards reforming the aviation regulatory body.

Rex Chief Operating Officer Mr Neville Howell said that the CASA Board had commissioned a survey late last year that identified the need for further substantial improvement within the authority. Mr Howell commended the CASA Board for this initiative and stated that it was a clear sign that the board was determined to drive change and to deliver better outcomes.

“CASA’s own survey of the stakeholders’ perception of CASA (whose results were released this week), showed that CASA received a devastating rating of between 3 and 4 (out of 10 as the most favourable) for a whole range of Key Performance Indicators.”

“One of the areas identified in the survey in need of improvement is the frequent long delays in the issuing of permits and approvals which has placed industry at risk of having to ground their operations. These delays have the potential to be fatal to small operators in particular.”

“The industry has full confidence in the newly installed Board, which for the first time comprises professionals with in-depth knowledge of the industry, as well as in the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Hon. Darren Chester, who has demonstrated his willingness to listen to industry and make bold decisions.”

Reforming a bureaucracy such as CASA is a mammoth task. Rex calls on the Board to select a new CEO who has both an intimate knowledge of CASA so that he or she can hit the ground running as well as entrepreneurial industry experience to understand the repercussions of the decisions made by the regulator. Rex also hopes the selection process can be completed within three months as the industry cannot afford to be in limbo for much longer. There was virtually nothing substantial achieved in the last two years in the implementation of the much-needed Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) recommendations (as directed in the Minister’s Statement of Expectations to CASA) and the industry critically needs an effective CEO urgently to fast track this much-delayed implementation.

Regional Express (Rex) is Australia’s largest independent regional airline operating a fleet of more than 50 Saab 340 aircraft on some 1,500 weekly flights to 58 destinations throughout all states in Australia. In addition to the regional airline Regional Express, the Rex Group comprises wholly owned subsidiaries Pel-Air Aviation (air freight and charter operator), Air Link (Dubbo-based regional airline) and the Australian Airline Pilot Academy.

  
This bit..

"..Reforming a bureaucracy such as CASA is a mammoth task. Rex calls on the Board to select a new CEO who has both an intimate knowledge of CASA so that he or she can hit the ground running as well as entrepreneurial industry experience to understand the repercussions of the decisions made by the regulator. Rex also hopes the selection process can be completed within three months as the industry cannot afford to be in limbo for much longer.."

Please refer to my 'Captain's Pick': [url=http://auntypru.com/forum/-SKIDMORE-GONE?pid=5051#pid5051]Now for the DAS conundrum

Captain's Pick: My CP for the part in bold would have to be Mike Smith..


...Anyway here is a reminder of the calibre and experience of Mike Smith:

Mike Smith Area of Specialization:

Mike Smith brings to any project a wealth of senior management experience and technical expertise in both government and private industry. Through an executive level career spanning more than 17 years, he has managed and contributed to many innovative and highly successful technical, policy implementation and organizational restructuring projects. These have included complex and contentious issues requiring astute and sensitive leadership....

Well apparently Mike Smith is ready, willing and able... "to hit the ground running"-   

So Jeff Boyd & the Board, what the hell are you waiting for...


MTF...P2

Update: AHIA joins the IOS choir.

Via Avbiz today:

Helicopter Industry Association calls for halt on new regulation
31 August 2016


The Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) has called for a moratorium on regulatory change and for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to recruit a local replacement for resigning Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore.

“With the current confusion in industry and inconsistency of interpretation of regulations within CASA the AHIA encourages the Board to instruct CASA to impose a moratorium on the current Regulatory Reform process until the restructuring of Senior Management with appropriately qualified personnel is completed,” said AHIA President Peter Crook and Vice President Ray Cronin in a joint statement.

“Additionally the entire CASA organisation is in need of clarification of direction. A recent survey commissioned by the CASA Board indicated less than favourable results with the industry having little faith in the ability of the Regulator to move ahead with safe, economical and meaningful Regulatory Reform.

“The AHIA urges Government to encourage CASA to harmonise our Regulations with other major Regulatory bodies, with regard to our Australian specific operational requirements.

“To achieve this the AHIA strongly suggests effort be spent sourcing a Director of Aviation Safety domestically, an individual ideally with a Civil Aviation background who understands the financial and operational impact on industry of proposed regulation changes.”

The AHIA has worked closely with CASA on modifying proposed changes to create less of a burden on the helicopter industry. Peter Crook believes the authority has an opportunity to implement positive change

“With possibly the most industry astute CASA Board for some decades and a new industry interested Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Hon Darren Chester, the time is right for significant change,” he said.

“With approaching 2,200 helicopters on the civil register, Australia has the second largest number of helicopters of any country in the western world, second only to the USA. There are in excess of 3,500 helicopter pilots, more than 2,500 helicopter engineers and with support services including finance, insurance, fuel, spare parts and component and engine overhaul providers the Australian helicopter industry is a significant percentage of Australian aviation

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...KouzdKO.99

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

The whirlybirders said;

“To achieve this the AHIA strongly suggests effort be spent sourcing a Director of Aviation Safety domestically, an individual ideally with a Civil Aviation background who understands the financial and operational impact on industry of proposed regulation changes.”

What??? You mean a DAS who hasn't spent his life sliding up and down slippery poles while sucking his way through a government department or one of the useless armed services portfolios on a half a million bucks per year?

A DAS who has lived in the 'real world' where ACCOUNTABILTY exists, where you get your hands dirty, where you actually know the subject matter of what you are responsible for?

A DAS who knows what it means to actually work for a living and make hard decisions, and heaven forbid a DAS who has actually gone through a coronial inquest process and seen the outcome (including photos) of what happens when people get killed due to poor decision making, where people are  burnt to a crisp, fragmented into pieces big enough to fit on a table spoon, people that are victims of a corrupt system?

This is CAsA we are talking about folks. Doesn't hurt to dream I guess!!

TICK TOCK Assholes

[P7_TOM]

I believe they omitted one item which, IMO is important. Acceptable to industry peers.  Industry pays the freight and cops the furry end of the lollipop when there is a stuff-up.

I don’t really give a bugger what the minister or his suit lizards think they want; it is, ultimately, what ‘we’ want.  I realise that not everyone ‘likes’ everyone else all the time; but it is high time the Australian pastime of playing ‘personalities’ rather than the ‘game’ stopped. But A DAS who is properly qualified, seasoned, experienced and can actually do the job need not be everyone’s cup of tea; but, it is not a popularity contest.  Just ask can this man do the job to the satisfaction of most?  Can’t please all, impossible, but perhaps some of the people, some of the time.

Hell they have tried fooling all the people, all of the time and it just didn’t work – again.  I refer you to Einstein’s famous quote about insanity.

[Peetwo]

Time for the Rev Forsyth to review the review -

Quote from Mount NCN:

The Rev rides again. Bravo!

Once again we find the quiet, modest words of the good Rev. Forsyth to be concise and eminently sensible. The case made not only practical but profitable and it drags Australia screaming into the modern world of real aviation. He tried to achieve this with the ASRR – which was treated very shabbily, denigrated to ‘an opinion’ and dismissed with lip service. Lets hope the latest ‘opinion’ is treated with less contempt.

Rev. Forsyth – “The problem is exacerbated by the lack of trust between CASA and industry as noted in the ASRR, which denies CASA assistance from industry to acquire at least some of the required knowledge.”

So the good Rev Forsyth believes that the ASRR recommended 'trust' reform between CASA and industry has not been satisfactorily achieved since the Government affirmative response to the ASRR report on 3 December 2014...

Ironically this would seem to be contrary to the recently released assessment from miniscule Chester and his (or I should say Murky's) Department:

In September 2016, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester MP agreed to the release by the Department of an update on progress with implementing the Government's response to each of the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report as at 25 August 2016.

• Implementation Progress Report as at 25 August 2016 PDF: 420 KB 
  

MTF...P2

Ps Very soon PAIN & associates will be continuing with the SSP (ICAO Annex 19) review and how it relates to the so called Department action on ASRR recommendations 1 & 2: References -

PAIN/IOS audit of Australia's SSP (ICAO Annex 19) 

[Peetwo]

Romeo 37: Comardy drops the axe on the Hoodoo - 

A late entry to the Reverend Forsyth's thread could be an indicator that the bell has finally tolled for Dr Hoodoo Voodoo....

Background from the embuggerance thread:

BRB assessment of R37 & the E&CC -

Ferryman quote: "..You can make a complaint – sure you can; you may be able to emphatically prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that embuggerance occurred; you may even be able to prove that CASA officers acted incorrectly or worse.  The ICC may even confirm that complaint.  So what.  Once all the rigmarole of ICC and meetings and grudging retraction is done, your complaint may – just may find it’s way into the rarefied, complex, convoluted atmosphere of the ‘Board’ and on to the Ethics committee.  That’s it; no more will be heard and worse, nothing further will happen to whoever ‘wronged’ you. In fact you may, if you pay attention and watch very closely see that ‘advancement’ often follows.  I could cite three, very serious, vicious individual cases, which are particularly relevant, and another dozen serious cases, if permission was granted. Should there ever be an inquiry with full protection, these cases will be first and foremost..."

I've still got the minutes scrawled over the back of a beer coaster somewhere?? But I seem to recall we had a hefty session at the last BRB darts comp - against that top crew from AMSA - on the subject of the ICC and the possible positive effects of the Rev Forsyth's R37 if properly implemented. But then someone drew attention to para 3.2 from the Board's latest missive on the governance procedures for the ICC :

Para 3.2 of the Board GA for ICC:

3.2 Reports to the Ethics and Conduct Committee

The ICC will prepare a report for each meeting of the E&CC in such form and addressing such matters as are specified from time to time by the Chair of the E&CC.

After that it was unanimously agreed that until such time as Jeff Boyd & the Board give Dr Aleck his marching orders and simply disband the E&CC, then any effective implementation of R37 will be null & void and Mr Boyd is not serious in rooting out the evil influence of the CASA Iron Ring...  

P2 question: Why is it not possible for the board itself to act in oversight of the internal ethics and conduct of CASA's employees?

So why did the BRB come to this unanimous decision? 

I will attempt to flesh out some of the BRB examples mentioned where Dr Aleck as the Chair of the E&CC either simply ignored; or firmly embraced ongoing embuggerances . He also agreed and/or set policy as ADAS which would allow black letter law for corrupt CASA officers to carry out duplicitous embuggerances unencumbered by CASA enforcement policies and protocols.

The following reference is from the current version of the CASA Enforcement manual (version 4.4 last revision 17/02/16), which ironically is still counter-signed by the former DAS McCormick and not at all by Skidmore:

Departure from Authorised Policy

Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision. As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the “preferable” decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.
Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:

• Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness
• Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision- making; and, of course
• Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.

Without fettering a decision-maker’s discretion, it is therefore expected that appropriate consultation will occur before a decision is made that is not the product of the policies and processes set out in this manual. The prescribed consultation process is described below...

It is interesting to note that Dr Aleck is supposed to have been the main architect and original draftee of the EM. Therefore the above 'black letter' dispensation would have at least been agreed to in principle by the former ADAS. Which brings up another conflict of interest, because since that version of the EM was released Dr A has been demoted as ADAS and is now the head of the Legal Services Division. Yet apparently he still remains as the Chair of the E&CC...

Next example comes from the well documented and ongoing embuggerance of Dominic James, which was instigated by the former Sydney/Bankstown Regional Manager Wodger Chambers, while being ably aided & abetted by McComic.







So was Dr Aleck advising Greg Hood in his capacity as the ADAS or in his capacity as the Chair of the Ethics & Conduct Committee?

And if you think the conflict of interest in CASA embuggerances were maybe a thing of the past for Dr Aleck, well think again and refer to my post#56 (above) on the ongoing embuggerance of Jabiru...

or the longer version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPyTIbuvLI8

 ...AK could also have got a sniff of the evil incarnate that emanates from the last of the original GWM & Iron Ring one Jonathon Aleck.    

Gobbles: "..Aagh yes, good ol Dr Voodoo. Once again, and as he has done for several decades, he uses an opportunity to remind the aviation industry that he and his conga line think all of industry are 'dirty'.

What a f#cking parasite..."

Like GD I too believe that Dr Hoodoo is the root of all evil in Aviation House and until such time as this parasite is marched out of the building, there will never be any real cultural change at CASA -  

'Ongoing' because if Dr Aleck is left to wander the halls of Aviation House, he will retaliate for being humiliated at Senate Estimates, mark my words...   


TBC...P2  

Ah yes; I remember it well.

I can never read the first paragraph of the McComic mission statement without going back to the darkest of times when anything and everything was countenanced; provided the preordained result was achieved.  

Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision. As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the “preferable” decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.

And wasn’t that taken literally; open season on industry and a chapter of shame in the long, bloody history of our ‘regulator’. The simple fact that whatsisname – Skidmoron – failed to sign it; the shrine to McComic preserved in it’s original vile state and still active. What chance does the good Rev. Forsyth’s R 37 stand against such engineered intent to never, ever change anything CASA does. They are addicted to the untrammelled power built into every comma, full stop and wriggle room paragraph, used to justify the truly disgraceful behaviour of some of their crew.

The entire aviation world, let alone Australia should be demanding the immediate breakup of the E&EC; simply for the sake of clarity. The ICC and the Board should hold the power to decide whether the actions of CASA personnel have been righteous. Those decisions need to made available to interested parties, not buried in some secret archive kept deeply hidden within the bowels of the organisation.  Those decisions made by the clandestine E&EC could serve all manner of questionable practice and due to the secretive nature of process, the odd whiff of rank corruption could be suspected.

The McComic statement, tacitly supported by Skidmoron stands as testament to the absolute determination of the ‘iron wrong’ to persist in their quest for unlimited power, under black letter law, with strict liability and the power of ruling ‘at their discretion’, to their satisfaction.  That, and the ability to protect and succour the hand picked willing accomplices who support the tenet and perform the allotted tasks needs immediate eradication, with malice aforethought.  

Aye, embuggerance, without hindrance is a fine thing for those dishing it out. A ‘selfie’ of DDDD Chester tearing up the McComic version of ‘enforcement’ would go a long, long way toward resolving the problems of the industry he feels he is not responsible for.

Toot – rant over – toot. Feel much better now.

This was the reported progress on R37 from the 25 August 2016 M&M ASRR implementation report:
 


As can be seen M&M, his minions and the Board believe the implementation of R37 has been completed. However today in the Oz it is being reported that Comardy has taken R37 a step further by disbanding the witchdoctor's E&CC...

CASA cans internal ethics unit

12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

The aviation regulator has quietly disbanded its internal ethics and conduct committee.

The aviation regulator has quietly disbanded its internal ethics and conduct committee established to investigate complaints, incidents of fraud and illegal activity within the organisation.

The Australian has learnt that the so-called Ethics and Conduct committee was shut down in late September just three weeks after Civil Aviation and Safety Authorities acting chief Shane Carmody took charge of the organisation.

No replacement committee has been established in its absence but it is understood that complaints about CASA, its performance and the industry are now being funnelled through Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) Jonathan Hanton, who reports ­directly to the regulator’s board.

“CASA’s Ethics and Conduct Committee has been discontinued due to the restructuring of CASA during 2016. A number of positions on the committee no longer exist,” a CASA spokesman said.

“The acting director of aviation safety and CEO is currently reviewing governance arrangements across CASA and this includes integrity management.”

CASA said it had a range of ­“robust internal and external processes”, including the Industry Complaints Commissioner, to review matters relating to integrity.

“CASA also has robust internal audit procedures with a Board Audit Committee overseeing this work,” the spokesman said.

The abolishment of the committee falls in line with recommendations by the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth. That wideranging review recommended that the ICC handle complaints about CASA and its processes and report directly to the regulator’s board with its concerns and investigations.

Industry groups including Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association and the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association of Australia welcomed the move.

“We see this as a positive sign and if we assume the move to close the ethics committee and empower the ICC have been done in accordance with the Forsyth review it will have long-term ben­efits for the industry,” AOPA executive director Ben Morgan said. “It’s encouraging to see some progression on recommendations of the Forsyth review but we encourage CASA to move through the rest of the recommendations as fast as possible.”

The Ethics and Conduct Committee was established in 2010 to ensure allegations and complaints made against CASA employees, delegates and contractors were fairly and effectively addressed.

The committee was also charged with investigating serious complaints involving possible contraventions of CASA policies as well as monitoring the management of reported breaches of CASA’s Code of Conduct, its conflict of interest policy and fraud policies.

The committee was made up of six permanent members including the Associate Director of Aviation Safety; the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety; the Governance Systems Branch chief; the head of CASA’s HR department; General Counsel; and the Industry Complaints Commissioner.

In its first year of operation, in 2010, the committee received 94 complaints about CASA actions, decisions and service; and 295 complaints about the aviation industry. In recent years many of those complaints have been shifted to the Industry Complaints Commissioner for handling.

But more serious breaches of CASA’s internal conduct and fraud policies remained with the Ethics and Conduct committee.

According to CASA’s 2015-16 annual report, the committee conducted eight investigations of potential breaches of its code of conduct. Nine employees were investigated with one of those investigations still ongoing.

Of the eight completed investigations, three found minor breaches of at least one element of CASA’s code of conduct. In all three incidents the employees received formal warnings. Recommendations were also made to their managers to help them improve workplace behaviour

 
Could this be an early Xmas present (Olive branch) to industry by 4D and M&M? It would certainly set the tone for a good start to 2017 but personally it won't be regarded as a sincere gesture until Dr A permanently leaves Fort Fumble...  

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

But; it still costs money – to buy whisky.

Talk is cheap – and some of the cheap talk in the Oz article, from CASA is pure bollocks; but, we can take it as a positive step; provided irrefutable ‘proof’ is tested.

There are five, serious cases which have been well and truly given the ‘treatment’. All from the NSW office, there is a long list of other infamous cases from the other States. To convince me that the ICC and the Board is sincere – I would need to see public acknowledgement of, apology for and compensation paid to the victims who have had their lives shattered, careers decimated and reputations trashed by this shameless, unaccountable organisation.

MTF? – betcha life on it.

[Peetwo]

Murky's mob take the lead on Forsyth review progress -

Today M&M released the following for industry comment: Modernising Airspace Protection Public Consultation Paper - December 2016

This DoIRD initiative was instigated in proactive response to the findings of the Forsyth Panel and written into the ASRR report.

Page 23 of the ASRR report:

Protection of airport flight paths and operations: While noting the significant work undertaken in the past four years through the National Airports Safeguarding Framework, the Panel considers that the protection of airport flight paths and operations from the encroachment of on- and off-airport developments is becoming an urgent policy issue. There is an emerging risk to the long-term viability of Australia’s existing aviation infrastructure. The issues are complex, crossing jurisdictions and levels of government, meaning that no single agency is able to deliver the required outcomes. However, as the agency responsible for on-airport planning issues at the 21 federally leased airports, and as the lead agency on aviation and airport issues, the Department must take a policy leadership role to ensure that the future viability of airport infrastructure is not compromised by poor planning and land-use decisions.

These and other findings led to the Forsyth panel recommending that:

The Panel recommends that:

1. The Australian Government develops the State Safety Program into a strategic plan for Australia’s aviation safety system, under the leadership of the Aviation Policy Group, and uses it as the foundation for rationalising and improving coordination mechanisms.
   
   
2. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development plays a stronger policy role in the State Safety Program.
   

 
Here is a summary, courtesy of Oz Aviation, that highlights the possible long term implications of the M&M department report:

Government launches discussion paper on protecting airspace
December 15, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au
An aerial image of Brisbane Airport. (Brisbane Airport)

Australia’s Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has released a public consultation paper on proposed reforms that aim to modernise the laws protecting the airspace around airports.

The paper, titled, Modernising Airspace Protection, proposes a number of reforms to existing legislation following an examination of the legislative, regulatory and administrative arrangements in relation to airspace protection, obstacle and hazard mitigation, military airfields, communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment and rules covering tall structures around aerodromes.

The review, which was prompted by the 2014 Aviation Safety Regulation Review report, was conducted by the Department in consultation with Airservices, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Department of Defence.

“Infrastructure found a number of regulatory gaps ranging from outdated regulatory approaches failing to provide suitable transparency and accountability for Commonwealth decision-making and/or creating uncertainty where regulations were absent or ambiguous, to regulatory overlap due to legacy regulations still being in force, and considerable scope for improvement in regulatory oversight,” the discussion paper said.
Specifically, the report noted the process for the establishment of prescribed airspace by the operator of a leased federal airport was not clearly defined.

“The current airspace regulations under the Airports Act need to be modernised and streamlined to enable the future safe and efficient growth of these nationally important transport hubs in conjunction with facilitating appropriate urban density policies of State, Territory and Local governments,” the paper said.

“Neither the Airports Act nor the CA [Civil Aviation] Act obliges the proponent of an application for intrusion into prescribed airspace to demonstrate an understanding of the implications of the intrusion.

“The proponent seems to bear a disproportionately small responsibility for introducing a hazard into navigable airspace, whilst the operator of the airport and Commonwealth aviation agencies are expected to undertake detailed and resource intensive assessments of such proposals within short timeframes.”

In addition to modernising airspace protection, the proposed reforms also cover protection of the national communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) network, as well as measures to improve safety for low-flying aircraft, including commercial operations and aerial emergency search and rescue services.

“Given their economic, social and community role it is important that Australia’s major airports are protected from intrusions into navigable airspace, which would diminish aviation safety and limit future aviation-related expansion plans, such as building new runways,” the paper said.

“A critical part of regulating airports is in ensuring obstacle-free airspace is available for aircraft during approach, landing and take-off.”

Public submissions were due before February 28 2017.

The full discussion paper can be read on the Department’s website.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said the paper proposed a modern, consultative and risk-based approach to airspace proaction around airports and critical aviation CNS facilities, as well as options for better protection of low-flying aircraft from hazards operating away from airports.

“I am looking forward to feedback from interested parties as we work toward modernising airspace protection in Australia,” Chester said.

And this was miniscule (I have NFI what I am doing but I look good) Chester's take on his department's fluffy report:

Airspace protection the focus of new discussion paper
Media Release
DC230/2016
15 December 2016

• Public Consultation Paper released outlining plans to modernise airspace protection
  
• Paper covers a range of proposals to protect critical aviation infrastructure while enabling better airport and off-airport planning
  
• Submissions open until 28 February 2017
  

National airspace protection is the focus of a new consultation paper released today, with stakeholder feedback being sought on a range of proposals to modernise airspace regulatory arrangements.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said the paper aims to generate engagement with government, industry and community stakeholders on better approaches to this complex issue.

“The paper proposes a modern, consultative and risk-based approach to airspace protection around airports and critical aviation communications, navigation and surveillance facilities,” Mr Chester said.

“It also considers options to better protect low-flying aircraft from hazards operating away from airports.

“I am looking forward to feedback from interested parties as we work toward modernising airspace protection in Australia,” Mr Chester said.

Submissions on the paper will be accepted until 28 February 2017.

To view the Paper and for details on how to make a submission, visit:
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/a...index.aspx

Call me cynical but IMO I think this is another attempt at political and bureaucratic distraction/obfuscation because today there was a serious collective industry shot across miniscule 4D's manicured and coiffured front end...

Update 15/12/16: "Dear Minister Chester.." 

Courtesy of AAAA CEO Phil Hurst - TAAAF Communiqué

Just saying -


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Me too mate, me too.

P2 - "Call me cynical but IMO I think this is another attempt at political and bureaucratic distraction/obfuscation because today there was a serious collective industry shot across miniscule 4D's manicured and coiffured front end.."

The FORSYTH  Panel recommends that:

1. The Australian Government develops the State Safety Program into a strategic plan for Australia’s aviation safety system, under the leadership of the Aviation Policy Group, and uses it as the foundation for rationalising and improving coordination mechanisms.

2. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development plays a stronger policy role in the State Safety Program

Maybe I’m just thick; it maybe that I’m too limited in my imagination to understand the DDDD – NFI – D grand plan to save aviation. Maybe the plan is too far reaching for my limited understanding – but I fail, miserably, to see what stopping Westfield building a shopping complex on short final to Big Smoke International has to do with the SSP; or the Forsyth recommendation.

What I see is a minister desperate to be ‘seen’ to be doing something and a department grabbing a piece of low hanging fruit, giving it a polish, a long winded blurb saying SFA and touting it to the media as a big deal.

When you actually strip away the word weasels work – what have you got left. Well, it seems that the control of building ‘within the airspace’ around aerodromes is going to become another ‘panel’; making more work, but essentially another slow down of progress and another layer of bureaucratic red tape.

“Infrastructure found a number of regulatory gaps ranging from outdated regulatory approaches failing to provide suitable transparency and accountability for Commonwealth decision-making and/or creating uncertainty where regulations were absent or ambiguous, to regulatory overlap due to legacy regulations still being in force, and considerable scope for improvement in regulatory oversight,” the discussion paper said.” No! well I  never: well, duck me, who’d have ever been able to work that one out. Don’t that paragraph sound great, a masterpiece of obfuscation, which the miniscule can claim as his own and use, as it says bugger all of any value, but hell, it sounds good. They do not manage to convey the notion that this is and has been their responsibility and that the cock up is purely of their making. Funny about that.

“The current airspace regulations under the Airports Act need to be modernised and streamlined to enable the future safe and efficient growth of these nationally important transport hubs in conjunction with facilitating appropriate urban density policies of State, Territory and Local governments,” the paper said.

Thirty years ago, similar words were penned about the civil aviation regulations. Ahem. Still waiting for those minister. I love this bit - “[need] to be modernized”. Indeed they do, but notice the word “need”, not “will”.  Rephrased to “will be modernized” implies that something that needed to be 'done' will, indeed, be 'done' in a timely, cost effective manner. Yes, yes, I know, dream on.

There’s more, if you can stomach it; like the notion that the approach paths for a runway which may  be, scheduled or  built in 10 years time will be protected from developers. I can just hear it; “where is this runway to be built?; how long will it be?, how wide will it be?, in which direction will it be aligned?, will the flight paths cross noise sensitive areas, because if it does, we will arouse the local residents, who’d rather have a new shopping complex and apartment block than aircraft noise, to a frenzy of protest". " Now then, councillor, may I introduce you to my lovely sister, sit, have a drink".  This; much closer to reality than the M-NFI blather.  

This latest piece of departmental flummery typifies the ‘Chester’ approach; flash, slick, full of hot air, sounding wonderfully complex, deep and incisive; but signifying nothing. A word weasel confection, making something which bears little relation to the Forsyth recommendation sound as if ‘he of NFI’ is actually doing something useful.  There is a massive amount of solid, sane advice available from industry regarding Forsyth; and this pile of fluff is what the M-NFI chooses to support. Pathetic, cheap, lazy, dumb, dishonest and nasty.

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

It is with deep regret we inform you.

I should make it very clear that the good Rev Forsyth and his merry crew are not condemned to the AP ‘Hall of Shame’; indeed they have been awarded the highest honour and distinction we can bestow.

The duplicitous, despicable treatment the ASSR received, when combined with the dismissive, disrespectful treatment the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air disgrace clearly and categorically define the ‘official’ approach to righting the terrible wrong’s inflicted on all Australian aviation industry sectors. There are some good men and true continuing the battle; but, until there is a minister with courage, not concerned with ‘image and fluff’, prepared to swap a wishbone for a back bone; then aviation is doomed to suffer under the ethos of won’t power; not will power.

ASSR, now enshrined as one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated. It shames a nation.

[Peetwo]

It is with deep regret we inform you.

I should make it very clear that the good Rev Forsyth and his merry crew are not condemned to the AP ‘Hall of Shame’; indeed they have been awarded the highest honour and distinction we can bestow.

The duplicitous, despicable treatment the ASSR received, when combined with the dismissive, disrespectful treatment the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air disgrace clearly and categorically define the ‘official’ approach to righting the terrible wrong’s inflicted on all Australian aviation industry sectors. There are some good men and true continuing the battle; but, until there is a minister with courage, not concerned with ‘image and fluff’, prepared to swap a wishbone for a back bone; then aviation is doomed to suffer under the ethos of won’t power; not will power.

ASSR, now enshrined as one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated. It shames a nation.

TAAAF makes comment & scores the ASRR progress -

Via Oz Aviation:

Industry calls for more action on aviation reforms

March 9, 2017 by australianaviation.com.au

The peak bodies representing the aviation sector in Australia say more action is needed in implementing the recommendations of the 2014 Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has released an updated “industry scorecard” on the progress made so far since the ASRR, authored by David Forsyth, was handed down in June 2014.

The ASRR called for substantial cultural and structural change at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and made 37 recommendations, the bulk of which were accepted by then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss when he handed down the government’s response late in 2014.

And in August 2016, current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester released a progress report that was published on the Department’s website, highlighting what work had been done to that point in time.

TAAAF, which comprises the peak representative bodies in the local industry, said its own industry scorecard came to different conclusions on what had been achieved.

By TAAAF’s estimations, as of March 2 2017 four of the 37 recommendations had been completed to the “satisfaction of industry”, while work was underway on three of the recommendations and a further eight recommendations were described as “commenced but little achieved”.

Meanwhile, it said there had been no change on 20 recommendations, where work had either not commenced or a “different direction” was being taken.

“The new industry Forsyth scorecard differs significantly from that published by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on its website, with many items that are considered by the Department to be completed actually requiring significant additional work according to industry,” TAAAF said in its latest communique published on Thursday.

“In light of industry comments, TAAAF urges the Government to re-assess its progress with regard to implementation of the ASRR recommendations and recommit to more decisive actions.”

The Department’s progress report from August 2016 said 30 of the 37 recommendations had been completed or partially completed, with a further six not completed. One recommendations was not agreed to.

TAAAF repeated its call for a national aviation strategy to be developed in partnership with industry, among other measures contained in its aviation policy document published in 2016.

And from Oz Flying.. :

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) presents a united industry view to Canberra under the guidance of Honorary Chairman Greg Russell. (composite image)

Industry Forum releases ASRR Scorecard
9 March 2017

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has released its second scorecard measuring the progress of reforms agreed to under the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR - Forsyth Report).

The scorecard gives each reform a mark from A to F depending on the progress towards acieving the intent of the recommendation.

Of 37 recommendations measured, TAAAF has scored only four as having been completed to the satisfaction of the aviation industry (A) and only a futher three as in progress to any extent (B). The other 30 have been scored as C or lower, with 20 of them scoring an F.

Only 11 reforms were scored higher than they were on TAAAF's first scorecard released in April 2016.

"The new industry Forsyth scorecard differs significantly from that published by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on its website," a TAAAF communique issued today said, "with many items that are considered by the Department to be completed actually requiring significant additional work according to industry.

"In light of industry comments, TAAAF urges the Government to re-assess its progress with regard to implementation of the ASRR recommendations and recommit to more decisive actions."

The scorecard was released after a TAAAF meeting at the Australian International Airshow last week. The meeting also highlighted three areas the Forum would like the goverment to action.

1. A National Aviation Strategy developed in partnership with industry

2. A comprehensive new training system to meet expected demand, including the introduction of HECS for pilots.

3. Reform of CASA including implementing ASRR agreed recommendations, harmonising regulations with ICAO, reviewing the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and reviewing the CASA funding model as per TAAAF policy.

"On the occasion of such an important international aviation event as the Avalon Airshow, TAAAF extended its thanks and admiration to Airshows Downunder for its support of industry and the creation of an occasion that facilitates significant industry, government and community interchange," the communique added.

"TAAAF noted that Australia has enormous potential to contribute even more significantly to the international aviation industry and the development of the domestic industry if it is partnered by government.

TAAAF members have called for the Minister to meet with them to agree on "concrete, short-term actions to get the industry moving again."

 TAAAF ASRR Scorecard

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Crp0wMg.99

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Chalk and Cheese:

"In light of industry comments, TAAAF urges the Government to re-assess its progress with regard to implementation of the ASRR recommendations and recommit to more decisive actions."

The scorecard was released after a TAAAF meeting at the Australian International Air-show last week. The meeting also highlighted three areas the Forum would like the government to action.

1. A National Aviation Strategy developed in partnership with industry

2. A comprehensive new training system to meet expected demand, including the introduction of HECS for pilots.

3. Reform of CASA including implementing ASRR agreed recommendations, harmonising regulations with ICAO, reviewing the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and reviewing the CASA funding model as per TAAAF policy.

Smooth as silk, a clear, authoritative message delivered at the right time, to the people that matter, by respected people who actually know what they are about, in a manner which ensures the clear message will receive attention it deserves.

I expect that the Senate recommendations handed down after the Pel-Air inquiry were considered for a mention. Personally, I’d like to see those recommendations get a little more ‘air time’ than they receive, however, the window of opportunity to deliver a clear message to a minister is not large and a succinct, clear message will be a more effective door opener.

That’s the key to it all; entrée, access, time; all essential elements to gaining ministerial support. Darren Chester did not, single handed, create the embarrassing mess aviation is in; but he did inherit it and now must own it. The big question is, will he be guided and advised by some of smartest professional aviation participants in the business and gain kudos for his ministry; or, stick with the flawed, counterproductive, self serving advice which landed aviation deep in the muck.

Ministers call; you can see why he may be a little reluctant to deal with what he perceives as representative of industry and be gun-shy of a bunch of raggedy arse, noisy amateurs.  But TAAAF and their carefully mapped policy are not of that ilk. The minister may trust TAAAF motive, method, logic and solutions; it is the best advice available, bar none, - freely gifted.

Time will tell the tale.   Bravo TAAAF, well done all concerned, thank you.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

The Reverend Forsyth back in the pulpit - Hallelujah!

Reference posts courtesy of the RAAA thread... :

Bureaucratic embuggerance of ASRR confirmed by Jim Davis.
 
From the Horse's mouth...

..All of this is history but at a meeting at the end of May with the now Department of Infrastructure and Transport, CASA and members of The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF), the Department and CASA made it clear that they were not bound by the recommendations of the ASRR report.

In a breathtaking, bureaucratic sleight-of-hand which would have had Sir Humphrey Appleby beaming with pride, the Dept and CASA stressed to TAAAF members ‘that it is the Government’s response to the ASRR recommendations that is being implemented and not the exact wording of text used by the Panel in the ASRR Report’.

In other words there is no intention from Government of being guided by the ASRR report itself or of seeking to satisfy the intent of the Report’s recommendations.

The Department also said that any review of the ASRR report implementation would take place after it was completed and would be carried out by an independent person, being not any of the original members of the ASRR panel.

It is clear that the bureaucrats have no intention of attempting to realise the objectives of the report and have simply turned this into a box ticking exercise...

So we get some more dots confirmed on the sorry ASRR timeline of embuggerance...UDB? - No pretty much business as usual for Murky, Comardy and his CAsA-phyte muppets ...  

Wingnut confirmation bias -

Courtesy of Wingnut's address to the RAAA, via Fort Fumble:

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASSR)

• CASA’s schedule for implementing the Government’s response to the ASRR was embedded into the CASA Corporate Plan and we provide a progress report to the Minister Chester on a quarterly basis. 32 of the 37 ASRR recommendations related to the functions and performance of CASA. We have already completed over 20 of these and are making good progress on all remaining recommendations (except the delays agreed with the Minister/industry in making regulations).  
  

• When I was appointed, Minister Chester made it very clear to me the implementation of the reforms contained in the Government’s response to the ASRR remains the highest priority. The Government expects CASA to complete implementing required reforms by the end of this year, except where CASA and the aviation community have agreed that regulation implementation should be deferred.
  

Now the key part of the Wingnut bollocks (above) that confirms the Davis remarks, that M&M his loyal Lieutenants (Carmody & Zielke) and his subordinate minions (Harfwit & Hoodlum) are taking the Mickey Bliss and blatantly obfuscating the Forsyth review, is here..

 "...Minister Chester made it very clear to me the implementation of the reforms contained in the Government’s response to the ASRR remains the highest priority..."

Hmm...and who was it that drafted the original Government response? - Why M&M and his minions of course -

...Davis also gives an insider goss and update to the Department vs TAAAF dispute on the actual progress on the implementation on the Forsyth (ASRR) review recommendations:

..The RAAA has been lobbying hard for some time for the recommendations adopted by the Government in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) to be implemented in a meaningful fashion.

The reports being published by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the progress of ASRR implementation were attracting strong industry criticism as being inaccurate and were seemingly designed just to tick off each recommendation without making any real attempt to accomplish the aims of the report.

In other words it was becoming a political exercise rather than a genuine attempt to achieve any significant reform. The RAAA has made repeated representations to CASA, the Department and the Minister (both previous and current) on this topic.

Until late last year we seemed to be hitting a brick wall with the relevant bureaucrats refusing to acknowledge the logic of our position.

However this has now changed with CASA convening a meeting last November with David Forsyth and industry representatives, including the RAAA. This initiative arose out of discussions at the RAAA convention and CASA is to be congratulated for it.

The meeting highlighted some serious discrepancies with industry opinion being that CASA had achieved the desired ASRR report outcome in only 33% of recommendation in contrast to the Department’s claim of 64%.

Of concern was that some key recommendations were in effect being bypassed. Further meetings are being held between the Department, CASA and David Forsyth as a consequence of this difference in assessments and it is to be hoped that these will see a satisfactory resolution of the differences.

The CASA board and the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) have contributed to this process and genuinely want to see the recommendations implemented properly and achieve the desired outcomes. It is refreshing and encouraging to perceive this attitude at the executive level in CASA...

 

Welcome back Rev...



MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Alleluia?

Alleluia – older and little more old testament. Academic of course; however, if the Rev is batting, albeit a little later in the order than normal, then things just may improve. Unless the opposition start underarm bowling, or body-line. Anyway “he’s not the Messiah”. Torn between Handel and Brian – I need another ale.

[Kharon]

Music; to cloud surf by:-

See your Hallelujah and raise you a shout of joy. Even the superb Handel cannot compare to the huge shout of ‘joy’ created by the master. A simple Hallelujah is fine for a warm up – but what the minister needs to hear is an ode; that of a delighted industry expressing it’s ‘joy’ that reform and sanity have finally been achieved.

Find seventeen minutes, close your eyes, spend time lost in the magic of a demi-god; dream a little, imagine being able feel that energy under your wings, free of political clap trap, riding on a cloud of reform. Feel the sheer power in the music to set your spirit free.

 

Aye; old age, bad company and booze will, no doubt, carry me off, sooner or later: but I’ll go smiling, dreaming of cloud surfing at 400 knots, on top, with Beethoven #3 (my fave) at cobbed throttle playing me out. But #9 will do for the while. Turn up the Bernstein but mute the clouds video, just watch. Grab a beer, go on; you know you want to.

Addendum. Patience. Maybe forget the clouds; watch Bernstein as a master of his trade ‘fly’ a full orchestra and choir about the place – remind you of anything. (Stick, rudder - timing?).

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

'K', nice cloud video. Careful though, CAsA may view that video as 'aerial photography' and commence legal action.

[Kharon]

(P2 comment: Before “K” says “gotcha P2”, these words of wisdom were originally attributed to Confucius).

GD - "K', nice cloud video. Careful though, CAsA may view that video as 'aerial photography' and commence legal action".

Killjoy’s; both of you. There was I having a quiet waffle and an ale )or two ( with the bad influence); getting all ‘spiritual’, ‘whimsical’ and philosophical like. Then you blokes lob in. Aye well; RDO sabâh, so I will hear #3 before bedtime yawns. Anyway; the battle of fitting the monolithic 1903 Record 52½ A (best bench vise ever) to the workbench needs a toast (and a Band-Aid) or two. ‘Twas indeed  a battle worthy of a drink )or two(.

Toot - pleasantly puggled - toot.

[Peetwo]

Oz aviation safety? - stuck in a timewarp...

Joining the dots on some recent AP posts..

Update 08/04/17: For & on behalf of Sandy..  

Here's the culprit(s), note where the knife is positioned??

Sharpy corrects the bollocks on REX prop incident -  

Sandy in response to Sharpy's article:

 Alexander: Rex does have a very good record but not quite as good as Mr Sharp makes out. In 2009 a Medivac flight operated by a subsidiary of Rex, Pelair, had to ditch in the sea off Norfolk Island at night in bad weather. Luckily owing to the skill of the pilot all survived but there were injuries. Rex seemed happy enough to go along with the first Transport Safety Bureau report, engineered in cahoots with Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which neatly scapegoated the pilot. CASA, true to form, came on the unfortunate pilot (hero) like a ton of bricks. Pelair's arguably deficient operating procedures had been approved by CASA. A Senate Committee, smelling a rat, ordered a second investigation two years ago, we are still waiting. Rex has at times made very substantial donations to political parties. 

It is acknowledged by a Government report that CASA, the architect of the severe decline in General Aviation, resulting in thousands of job losses, is not trusted by the GA industry.

Turning to John Sharp's defense of old aircraft, well that is rich. During his term as Minister CASA was in the habit of causing all sorts of grief to GA in regards to "aging" aircraft. With Ministerial approval CASA instituted a plethora of extreme maintenance requirements that are still killing General Aviation while airlines are left, in the main, to follow manufacturer's procedures.

---

&..
...Rex Deputy Chairman and Director of Rex Mr Sharp opens his defence of Rex with the modest statement that he's been "associated " with Rex for some time. 

I believe President Trump is revisiting the question of retiring Government officials getting work with those private companies that were previously in the officer's area of jurisdiction. Personally I think they should not because there's no doubt its a grey area and our democracy should, like justice, be seen to be fair.

“It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.”

..A candle in the window. The climb itself had been arduous, even without the weather being foul; the descent difficult and dangerous and the weather ferocious; such is the lot of a mountain climber. At last, in darkness a place was reached from which a walk to a hut could begin. Wet, cold and tired the dim light of a lantern could be seen in a window; it cheered a little until the truth was realised. There was still a steep valley to navigate and long dark walk in the rain to complete with treacherous footing to confound tired legs. This is where the CASA ‘reform’ process is; miles to go, in the dark with only a dim lamp to guide it over inhospitable terrain.  



What a terrific effort by RAAA to reach a place where a discourse is even possible, the tantalising glow of the small lamp in a far off window. Serious students will appreciate just how difficult it has been to achieve this and will know that the game is far from over; there’s  still a long difficult march to complete, even with the most excellent Rev. Forsyth leading his flock. The end of a long difficult climb is no place to begin a battle against the denizens of Sleepy Hollow; but it must be fought.



There’s hope, that most excellent of men, the Rev. Forsyth is padded up and heading for the crease to partner the doughty Davis; which should put a new shine on the RAAA innings. We wish him bon chance in the high stakes test match. AMROBA and TAAAF have made a great start to the match, and there are a couple of first class players  yet to bat; before the tail end gets to play, let's hope we don't need them... 

...Matters aeronautical are approaching an ‘interesting’ junction. We have seen, several times now, matters reaching a critical mass; but little of practical use or ornament has ever emerged, despite the hundreds of millions thrown at ‘the problem’ in hope of a quick fix. A true ‘fix’ is painful and bloody, the longer it takes to affect a real cure; the longer the recuperation period. Will the King Air accident, the ICAO audit, the ASA audit, the Senate estimates committee efforts all combine to be the watershed? They should – but who knows. We shall watch with interest.

Toot toot.

And a word from the Murky Mandarin...


IOS comment: "BOLLOCKS!"

The Sandy comment...

"..Turning to John Sharp's defense of old aircraft, well that is rich. During his term as Minister CASA was in the habit of causing all sorts of grief to GA in regards to "aging" aircraft. With Ministerial approval CASA instituted a plethora of extreme maintenance requirements that are still killing General Aviation while airlines are left, in the main, to follow manufacturer's procedures..." 

...was disputed by another industry identity on one of our PAIN email chains. This got me trolling the records and led me to a reference - Ageing Aircraft and CASA Conflicts - from the 'Aviation Safety Regulation Timeline 1982-2011':

1996–mid1999


Ageing Aircraft and CASA Conflicts

Airline fleet age became an issue of industry concern along with the crash rate of certain Asian airlines. Reviews of CASA and its board and staff re-shuffles continued with some publicly acrimonious disputes. With Dick Smith at the helm, a new CASA emerged to champion a Class G airspace trial that later had to be discontinued amid industry concerns. After this, and the crashes of Aquatic Air and Uzu planes, he resigned.

 
  Considering this timeframe was 20+years ago it was interesting to see and reflect on the disturbing parallels to where we are now...

Also of interest was that this shameful period of 'aviation safety regulation' was also the time where we saw the rise and fall of the Honourable John Sharp MP as the former Howard government Minister responsible for aviation...

Some excerpts of historical & parallel intrigue...

April 1996

CASA board members rejected calls for their resignations from the new Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP.

Australian, 20 April 1996, 10 July 1997.

---

6 June 1996

NSW Coroner John Gould handed down findings into the 1993 Monarch Airlines crash critical of the airline, the former CAA and the NSW Air Transport Council. The Minister (Mr John Sharp) foreshadowed a review and other actions to address the report's recommendations.

Canberra Times, 7 June 1996; Minister for Transport Media Statement, 6 June 1996 TR46/96

---

25 June 1996

The Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP announced reviews of the regulatory framework and role in an aviation safety ministerial statement. (Why does that sound so familiar.. )  He also introduced the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1996 to increase the CASA Board size from four to six people. While the Opposition supported the Bill, it questioned the motives.

House of Representatives, Debates, 25 June 1996, p. 2653

---

26 September 1996

The Minister for Transport and Regional Development announced an industry-based panel to oversee the CASA regulatory review headed by Ansett's Mr James Kimpton. The review produced recommendations that could be implemented in 1998, while reporting monthly. Industry consultations continued throughout.
(Hmm..."Let's do the timewarp again.."
- but wait it gets worse.. )
Minister for Transport Media Statement 20 and 26 September 1996, TR101 and 110/96.

---

October 1996

The (Staunton) Report of the Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry into the Relations Between the CAA and Seaview Air was particularly scathing of CAA operations and identified a number of systemic problems. Recommendations included action against two CAA officers, and suggested mechanisms for responsibility, accountability and documentation. The minister urged changes to CASA and its management board positions. BASI undertook a separate investigation of the incident.

House of Representatives, Debates, 8 and 9 October 1996, p. 5046; Sydney Morning Herald and Australian 9 October (& worse.. )

---

10 October 1996

The CASA Board released a media statement in relation to certain findings of the Seaview inquiry and lamenting comments about it made by the minister in Parliament.

Australian, 12 October 1996; Sydney Morning Herald, 10 October 1996.
&..

---

30 October 1996

A large newspaper advertisement with 512 listed names published, later found to be sponsored by the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association, requested the CASA board members to stand aside. It followed the publication of a letter by the CASA Chairman stating why the board should remain in full control despite Ministerial denigration. Meanwhile, CASA developed a program known as Airspace 2000 planned for introduction in 1998. The scheme aimed to achieve an ICAO standard with the use of systems safety, harmonisation and staged delivery.

Australian, 21, 23, 25 and 30 October 1996; Canberra Times, 23 and 31 October 1996.

&.. worse

---

3 November 1996

Falcon Airlines plane crashed into the sea off Cairns with the occupants safely reaching the shore. The subsequent report by David Wheelahan QC found a possible conflict of interest between CASA, the airline and Minister John Sharp. The Minister had sought an independent report after stating that a response from CASA was inadequate.

AAP, 18 February 1997; Canberra Times, 8 November 1996.

---

19 November 1996

Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996.

---

5 December 1996

Government response to the Plane Safe report tabled by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development the Hon John Sharp MP. (Refer to 14 December 1995). It included a monthly CASA update on safety breaches. The Senate decided to investigate the purchase of Australia's new search and rescue equipment after faults were found.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR167/96; Australian, 6 and 9 December 1996; Age 6 December 1996.

---

February 1997

Vigorous debates in Parliament regarding CASA Board placements by Transport Minister John Sharp, who continued his criticism of the CASA Board in response to the Wheelahan report and Kimpton inquiry.

Australian, 13, 15 and 17 February 1997.

Then finally in September 1997 John Sharp was given the bullet:

26 September 1997

CASA Director Mr Leroy Keith left after the Board passed a no-confidence motion in his management strategy. Chairman Justice William Fischer and member Dr Clare Pollock both resigned in protest at the Board's handling of the former Director. The New Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, replaced Mr John Sharp.

Australian Financial Review, 26 September

There is no doubt many critics of the tumultuous John Sharp period as the Minister responsible for aviation safety. However there is also IMO no doubt that Sharp understood his role as a Minister for the Crown and that he was in a dog fight with an entrenched bureaucracy operating solely in their own self-interest. Not in the interest of the travelling public nor for the betterment of Australian aviation safety standards...

It is perhaps unfortunate that Sharp lost that dogfight...

"Let's do the timewarp again.." - Except we have Barnaby's photogenic filter for a miniscule - FDS!


MTF...P2