[Peetwo]

From off the Rev Forsyth's thread  :

[b]

AMROBA - Who cares??[/b]

Saw the following from off the AMROBA site, thought it needed some exposure and where better to put it than on the Reverend Forsyth's thread - Why? Well IMHO he is one of a minority who truly does care...   

Also in a much easy on the eye format AMROBA's latest newsletter is IMO very much required reading  

Volume 12 Issue 8 August — 2015

Table of Contents

1. Resurrecting General Aviation — Deregulating GA

2. Is a Modified USA FBO system the Answer?

3. AME Training

4. The Role of the LAME

Well done KC & the AMROBA band..

However - except for bogus weasel-worded corporate plans, that say lots but mean nothing - the deathly silence from the Miniscule's office, his department & Murky's yes-men stooges (Skidmore, Harfy & Beaker) is deafening - could someone check if the Miniscule has a pulse??
   

&..

KC & the AMROBA Band - Latest newsletter


A how to set the Forsyth review report & recommendations in stone...

1. Implementing permanent change

Without doubt, there has been almost unanimous support in the aviation industry for the recommendations of the ASRR report. The government and industry obviously support these recommendations, so when will the Department of Infrastructure & the CASA Board initiate changes to the Civil Aviation Act to implement these recommendations permanently? The Board and Infrastructure must recommend changes to change the regulatory style.


The Act must be amended to implement the government supported ASRR recommendations.

The Act was rushed together to create the CAA back in 1988 and has a series of ad hoc amendments. NZ realises that after 20 years, the Act should be reviewed so when will Australia set up a review of the Act against international treaties and applicability to the current aviation industry.

CASA & aviation continually have review after review with no permanent result – regulatory review has been under way since the formation of the CAA in 1988. The rest of the aviation world are modernising their requirements utilising performance based regulations & standards and utilising a risk based approach. The USA are well ahead of Australia as we implement draconian requirements of the past. Changes must happen.

Many businesses that have spanned a few regimes of CASA and its predecessors, are not confident that permanent change will happen until the government support and direction to the CASA Board & DAS is given legislative support in the Act. We need a DAS reportable to the Board and a Board reportable to the Minister. The Board must be held fully accountable.

Act – Duties (1) The Director is to manage CASA subject to the directions of, and in
accordance with policies determined by, the Board.

Subject to the directions of, and iaw policies determined by the Board.

For the Board to direct and provide policies to implement the government ASRR recommendations, then they need to recommend a review of the Act, especially the following sections of the Act:

Sec 3A - [i]Main object of this Act[/i]

The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

Compare with NZ who are also reviewing their Act: While the [NZ] Act is fundamentally sound, the Act is over 20 years old and during this period there have been a number of changes in the aviation industry. The Ministry wants to make sure the Act promotes a responsive regulatory system to support a dynamic aviation sector.

[NZ] Objectives of Minister

The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—

(a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and (b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.

NZ is reviewing their Act after 20 years and we have had no review after 27 years.

Sec 9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

The ASRR clearly identified that this provision should be clarified; consistent with the Convention, compatible with other major NAAs, including NZ.

In AMROBA’s opinion, CASA has never promulgated “clear and concise aviation safety standards ” under this provision of the Act. All current “standards” are issued under the Regulations.

All future “standards” should be made under the Act and undergo full Parliamentary oversight.

Sec 20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.

Provision in this section is seen as supporting prescriptive regulations – needs to be modernised.

(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:

(a) an Australian aircraft; or

(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or

© an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft; if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.

The word “that” can be interpreted very narrowly.

Sec 98 Regulations etc.

(1) The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act:

(a) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed;

(b) prescribing matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act;

© for the purpose of carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the Chicago Convention relating to safety;

(d) in relation to safety of air navigation within a Territory or to or from a Territory;

(e) in relation to safety of air navigation, being regulations with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States; and

(f) in relation to safety of air navigation, being regulations with respect to any other matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws.

Compare with the FAA responsibilities for minimum standards.

USA Title 49. Sec. 44701. General requirements

(a) Promoting Safety. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing -

(1) minimum standards required in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers;

(2) regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for -

(A) inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances;

(B) equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling; and

© a qualified private person, instead of an officer or employee of the Administration, to examine and report on the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling;

(3) regulations required in the interest of safety for the reserve supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and aircraft fuel and oil, including the reserve supply of fuel and oil carried in flight;

(4) regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers; and

(5) regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

The concept that CASA has to create regulations and standards without stating they should be the minimum regulations and standards is a major reason why regulatory reform is treated as regulatory development by CASA staff.

The above are but a few examples – a complete review is warranted.

Cheers & MTF..P2