[Peetwo]

Chester the charlatan Transport miniscule - 

Over on the Rev Forsyth's thread, the Ferryman said:

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“Infrastructure found a number of regulatory gaps ranging from outdated regulatory approaches failing to provide suitable transparency and accountability for Commonwealth decision-making and/or creating uncertainty where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.

In contrast today in the Oz Binger helps TAAAF bang the drum for calling 4D M-NFI out on recognising the parlous state of the aviation industry... :

Alliance calls for forum
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum this week wrote to Transport Minister Darren Chester urging a meeting.

An alliance of the major aviation associations has called on the government to convene an urgent meeting to voice concerns about the failings of government policy to halt the decline of general aviation in Australia.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum this week wrote to Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester urging the meeting and formation of a National Aviation Policy to address the shortcomings and structural changes in the industry that are smothering it under reams of red tape.

More than 15 associations lend their names to the letter that demands Mr Chester and the government take action.

Since the TAAAF policy release, the government and the aviation regulator have extended the deadline for a hi-tech navigation system known as ADS-B and the deadline for compliance to fatigue management rules. A review of the problems facing general aviation has also been launched.

But the TAAAF is fed up with reviews and deadline delays and wants immediate action from the government.

“While welcoming recent wins for common sense, the Minister’s response to TAAAF policies is disappointing given the years of policy neglect of the aviation portfolio,” said TAAAF chairman Greg Russell.

TAAAF in April told the government it was imperative the Civil Aviation Act be rewritten to align with international standards and that action must be taken to ensure education and aviation training remain on par with global best practice.

  
Totally related and in a rare return from a well deserved retirement, tendentious aviation blogger Phearless Phelan brushes off his keyboard to write this pointed piece on the historical record of the failed RRP:

Restoring Trust?

Leave a reply

Paul Phelan, Dec 16, 2016
Highlighting the fracture of industry/regulator relations clearly and repeatedly, the government-commissioned Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) Panel used the word “trust” or one of its derivatives no fewer than 26 times throughout its discussion, analysis and recommendations.
Continue reading →

To which off one of the PAIN email chains Sandy made this excellent OBS & summation :

Thanks Stan,

My comment copied here.

I first started reading the author’s commentary on the regulation of general aviation some thirty years ago. These were articles written in aviation magazines. They exhibited the same qualities as this one; careful assembly of factual elements detailing the problems facing the GA industry, the causes and the reforms necessary to prevent a forecast decline. The decline has, in recent times, become more savage than could have been imagined back, say, in the eighties or nineties. It could be added that the structure of CASA as an independent corporate body has contributed to its abject failure. The method of political control, an occasional statement of expectations from the Minister, has clearly failed. The secretive CASA Board of Management obviously cannot live up to its title, and the fatuously named Director of Air Safety cum CEO seems to have virtually unlimited power.

While the author here alludes to some hopeful words from Mr. Carmody, no substantive reform measures have been actually been made. Measures that could be made practically overnight if there was sufficient willpower, remembering how quickly PM Hawke got foreign pilots to get our airlines flying during that famous pilot’s ‘dispute’. Measures such as car driver medicals, independent instructors and relief from unnecessary and super expensive aircraft maintenance requirements. Not to mention the parlous state of airport management, especially the disastrous policies inflicted on our secondary airports.

Unfortunately history teaches us that the feather bed of Aviation House is such that any alleviation for GA will result in less power and perks, an inverse to the fortunes of aviation that will not happen without concerted political mandate.

Sandy

No doubt much MTF...P2