[Peetwo]

*NEWSBREAK* - Good news story for Oz aerospace/aviation industry - 

Yesterday our Ambassador to the US tweeted:

Joe Hockey‏@JoeHockey

AUS-US trade set to soar to greater heights w signing of agmt on streamlined approval processes for #aviation products in DC today @FAANews

 

Here is a background reference post from the Mount NCN thread:

JSCT recommends BASA treaty amendments be ratified -

Yesterday the Joint Standing Treaties Committee tabled Report 166 which reviewed...

..Amendment 1 to Revision 1 of the Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness covering Design Approval, Production Activities, Export Airworthiness Approval, Post Design Approval Activities, and Technical Assistance between Authorities under the Agreement on the Promotion of Aviation Safety and Addendum to the Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America...

The following committee conclusion & recommendation was made:

Conclusion
2.47 The Committee supports the ratification of the treaty actions.

Recommendation 1

2.48 The Committee supports the following two treaty actions and recommends that binding treaty action be taken:
§ Amendment 1 of Revision 1 of the Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America; and
§ the Addendum to the Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America.

 However this committee review & report also contained some fairly damning observations of CASA's inadequacies, inefficiencies, lack of expertise in being able to effectively administer and oversight industry. There was also a subtle inference that, despite the ASRR recommendations, there was still a long way to go before CASA is once again trusted and respected by industry...

Problem: --------3. (C/NF) While the team recognized improvements on previous shortcomings and commended many areas, there remain a few shortcomings, principally a shortage of properly-trained inspectors and excessive delegation of regulatory functions to carriers.

---

Examples from 2008 ICAO USOAP report: ..CASA’s Human Resources Management Branch has recently established a training policy that makes a commitment to provide initial, on-the-job, recurrent and specialized training to its staff in the area of airworthiness. However, no training programmes have been developed detailing the type of training to be provided to technical staff in each position, including periodic training plans. In general, the training provided to technical staff is insufficient to address the competency requirements for all the technical tasks...

---

...CASA’s Human Resources Management Branch has been developing a Competency Based Training (CBT) programme for all CASA staff and some courses that underpin this programme have been delivered. However, the existing technical training matrix does not address all the specific training needs of the Airworthiness Engineering Branch (AEB) and its technical staff. In addition, final review and approval of the CBT programme is still pending. Managers of the AEB identify and provide training to their technical staff, including the staff of the field offices, on a yearly basis. However, some specific training has not been provided (i.e. training on human factors) and while on-the-job training is provided, it has not been documented...

It also clear from the committee's OBS that the CASA of today has stubbornly refused to address the concerns of the 2008 ICAO/FAA USOAP audit team:

Resourcing and demand

2.38 During the public hearing on 2 May, CASA noted that the industry, being aware of the impending changes, had been making increasing numbers of applications for STCs. At the time of the public hearing, CASA stated that it had about 40 applications pending.40

2.39 Concern has been expressed that CASA is not adequately resourced to handle its current workload with regard to applications for STCs:

… it often takes CASA a long time to approve complex STCs and similar modifications. The fundamental reason is that in a small aviation manufacturing country like Australia, CASA cannot hope to attract and retain the calibre and quantity of people required to fulfil the task required. Nor can it afford to do so. These limitations apply equally across the spectrum of CASA’s activities. The problem is exacerbated by the lack of trust between CASA and industry as noted in the ASRR (Aviation Safety Regulation Review), which denies CASA assistance from industry to acquire at least some of the required knowledge.41

2.40 The Committee discussed with CASA witnesses whether the agency has the resources it needs to assess the pending applications in a timely manner. Asked for the specific number of STC applications outstanding for various periods, CASA supplied the following details:

• as at 30 April 2016: 18 STC applications outstanding;
  
• as at 30 June 2016: 21 STC applications outstanding; and
  
• as at 15 September 2016: 23 STC applications outstanding.42
  
  

2.41 The CASA witnesses argued that the time taken to assess each STC application varied based on the complexity of the application:43

All STC applications are usually assessed and accepted with a response provided to the applicant within 2 to 3 business days. It should be noted that this process relates to the administrative assessment of the application form and initial supporting documentation. Once the STC application is accepted the STC process begins and the time spent on each application will depend on the complexity of the modification, required involvement of CASA officers and the quality of documentation provided by the applicant.44

2.42 In general terms, CASA indicated that at present it has sufficient resources to deal with the additional applications for STCs, but that if the number of applications increased in future, CASA may experience some resource pressure.45

2.43 Under Part 21-J01 v1.0 of the Regulations, CASA has the ability to approve organisations and people to carry out certification work on its behalf.46 According to CASA:

…the model of part 21 – to the maximum extent possible have experts and industry undertake those types of design and approval processes. In terms of our obligations as a regulator, there are some things that we will obviously need to continue to be involved in.47

2.44 In terms of the degree of work done on certification by approved organisations, CASA indicated the about 100 per cent of certifications for minor modifications and minor repairs is done by approved organisations. For more complex work, the certification work would be delegated on a case by case basis to either approved organisations or to CASA itself.48However, there is concern that CASA has not been adequately utilising this avenue for approvals and has been reducing the use of delegations, contributing to the time taken to obtain approvals.49Asked to quantify the number of approved design organisations, CASA said that two organisations have been approved, one is finalising its assessment, one is in the middle of its assessment and three are at the beginning of the process.50

2.45 CASA also advised that as a result of a review of Part 21–J01 of the Regulations, CASA was working with industry advisers to find a workable alternative for general aviation design approvals.51

2.46 The Committee notes that, given the degree of interest from Australian design bureau and manufacturers in obtaining relevant STCs, it will be important for CASA to ensure the STC process proceeds as smoothly and quickly as possible.

   

The real positive implications for industry and economic benefits for the nation, of the signing  of the amendment to the US BASA agreement are best summarised by AMROBA in their latest newsletter... :

1. US Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement Update.

Recognition: Many thanks should be given to Mr Myles Tomkins, CEO of Airwork Helicopters, Caboolture, Qld who’s STC was used as the trial STC during negotiations with the FAA. Some product certification processes not done by CASA had to be processed by the FAA to obtain FAA approval.

By the time this is published, the latest amendment to the USA BASA’s Implementation Procedures (IP) will have been signed and Australian holders of CASA issued STCs will have obtained a process to obtain a FAA issued STC based on the process included in the latest amendment to the IP. This is a major boost for CASA approved organisations that have excellent entrepreneurial and innovation skills to design new products and product improvements. There is now an agreed process where an Australian STC holder can request CASA to submit their CASA STC to the FAA for acceptance and issue of a FAA STC. Up till now, having a CASA issued STC did not open foreign aviation markets but obtaining a FAA STC changes the marketing capabilities for Australian STC holders.

This is probably the biggest change since the BAA was renegotiated as a BASA and CASR Part 21 was aligned with FAR Part 21. This change opens foreign markets to Australian designed and manufactured products...

AMROBA, other industry advocate groups and many stakeholders should be applauded for their tenacious efforts in pushing for this reform to the US BASA agreement. There should also be a show of gratitude for Senator Fawcett, in support of the Joint Standing Committee for Treaties, for his efforts in bringing attention and understanding to the many historical issues/problems and roadblocks previously involved in the complex treaty process.

Now although this a major coup for Aussie aerospace manufacturing and airworthiness/maintenance (MRO) organisations; KC & AMROBA did not pass up the opportunity to provide a much bigger industry message to government... :

Government should immediately take action to give “powers” to CASA to “harmonise” CASA’s certification processes, e.g. noise certification, and CASA to update their processes to comply with the FAA process.

Nevertheless, during the process of implementing this “recognition” process, it was obvious that CASA had strayed from “harmonisation” with the FAR system. CASA, administratively adopted changes and resurrected original processes implemented during the adoption of FAR Part 21 as CASR Part 21.

AMROBA would hope that common sense prevails and CASA accepts the FAA processes completely and streamline their certification processes to remove any differences with the FAA so the FAA gains full confidence in CASA’s ability to certify aircraft and products in the same manner as the FAA.

Many members holding other NAA organisation approvals encourage CASA to seriously look at harmonisation with the FAR system for engineering: design, manufacturing and maintenance, as the FAR performance based requirements are ‘business’ related and the most recently updated.

This amendment is a step in the right direction, now CASA has to resurrect talks with FAA regarding maintenance harmonisation. CASR Part 145 is in need of PIR as much as CASR Part 66 & 147. A new Part 43, based on FAR Part 43 is the answer.

The Byron concept to align with EASRs has been a failure – there is no sign of industry expansion or international recognition with a change that was not supported by the majority of the MRO industry.

The FAA took over a decade to finalise their FAR Part 145 and it is now the most modern Part 145 in the world that should be the model that CASA must use, if we are to survive, and grow, in the next 40 plus years.

The BASA/IP with the USA, has great potential for engineering (design, manufacturing & maintenance) if CASA dedicates to “harmonise “the CAR/CASR system” with the applicable FAR system that provides for the continuing airworthiness of FAR certified aircraft & products. The intent is Australia will apply the same standards to FAA products.

      - Listen up miniscule Chester & PM Malcolm...


MTF...P2