[Peetwo]

An Aerial Perspective...

Via GlenB's UP thread:

Originally Posted by Paragraph377 View Post:

Glen B; “It’s a cunning use of phraseology they use, that leads people to believe that we did not have full operational control. CASA never state which rule was breached or what we did to raise concerns, because there is nothing”.

The misuse and/or personal interpretation of rule and law is what CASA is famous for. Over many decades they have made up their own minds as to what certain rules and regulations mean and they written them in a way that gives them an ace up their sleeve because when it suits them they like to apply whatever ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ they see fit. And usually that is to suit their own nefarious agenda. Glen, they used this ‘ace’ to nail you to the wall, and others before you.

Lead balloon; “The only person whose opinion counts is that of a judge. Unfortunately, as you and many others have found out, first-hand, the costs and risks of taking on a scare-mongering 'safety authority' are prohibitive. The practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is”.

Again, so very true. CASA are like a ‘woman choosing which shoes to wear each day’. On any given morning it will normally be a different pair of shoes to the previous day. And some days there will be multiple changes throughout the day, all depending on each wearers personal taste and the days agenda. To try and follow this process or the methodology/thought pattern behind it is next to impossible.

The overarching Civil Aviation Act is shit. It is a convoluted dogs breakfast and the starting point for reform is rewriting the Act. And what a dream come true that would be. By contrast, as a retired pilot and businessman I have also dealt with The Marine Safety National Law Act 2013 (may have been updated more recently, not sure) under which AMSA regulate. And also the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which the Department of Agriculture regulate. Both Acts have both been rewritten and updated in the past 8 years. They aren’t perfect but they are much more clear and precise (maybe lacking some teeth) compared to what they used to be. The 1988 Civil Aviation Act is an outdated load of cobblers and remains that way so that certain CASA legal folk can use it as a weapon when it suits them. It may be fun and games to them (you know who you are) but it negatively impacts and costs Australia’s economy many many millions of dollars in revenue each year. Since 1988, that figure is probably in the billions. If Australia wanted to get serious, the Government would follow the example of my beloved New Zealand who took only 4 years to rewrite the rule set into a more manageable and sensible suite of regulations which sit under a more succinct Civil Aviation Act. CASA is a pathetic joke.

Bravo. Bravo.

I remember the late eighties/early nineties and 'harmonisation' being discussed in NZ and AU - the difference was, as you say, NZ had it done in 4 years (Civil Aviation Act 1990).

To be fair (well, to give some hope), CASR Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, et al come into force on December 2nd this year, effectively wiping out nearly all of the previous CARs and CAOs and getting somewhere approximating what NZ took 4 years, to our 35 years and still not complete.......

As an interesting aside, there is actually no 'head of power' that enables the Commonwealth to Regulate Aviation and Aerospace under the Constitution. Section 51 ("Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:.......) mentions nothing about aviation.

An attempt was made in the Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights Bill (a Bill to Amend the Constitution) to, among other things, grant the Commonwealth power to regulate aviation and navigation. This followed a similar Referendum in 1937 to do the same, both failed to achieve the required majority of voters in a majority of States and a majority overall.

The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the font from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention.

Just shows how out of date the Constitution is in many ways and perhaps the overly onerous method of amendment should be eased somewhat.

Anyway, may be telling everyone something they already knew but I just thought that was an interesting aside.

And... :

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post

The interstate trade and commerce power, the corporations power and the incidental power cover a lot of aviation safety regulatory ground, too, but not completely.

There are a number of sub-sections of s51 that add on the end "... and similar matters...."

You'd think with hot air balloons already existing and the likelihood that the aeroplane would be a reality within 3 years of the Constitution being enacted that "... and similar matters...." added on the end of shipping and navigation would have covered it but no.

Needless to say, the external affairs power (not the foreign affairs power as I erroneously identified it) has come in very handy for establishing a right to legislate in matters that the Constitution is silent on.

While s128 is onerous, I tend toward supporting it on the basis that if it were much easier to amend the constitution, goodness knows what governments of both stripes would have done to it over the years.

I do however think that a dual system, such as having a second amendment method based on that in the US Constitution (extremely erroneous in their political landscape) where the Parliament must pass something by a special majority (2/3rds), then it must be ratified by the legislatures of 2/3rds of the States might still retain the check on unbridled changes, while allowing a bit more evolutionary change to occur.

Hmm...spot the disconnect - 


"..The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the front from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention..."

Now refer back to this post: Mount NCN shrinking but Airports still loom as biggest risk??

Referring to the above, I have just completed the rather onerous task of collating the latest list (May 2021) of Australian ICAO NCNs (see HERE).

Although probably not a 100% accurate (lost count and place a number of times) the total figure for notified differences from my calculations has in fact gone down from the high of 4280 calculated by the department in February 2018.

Currently there is 321 pages with a total of 2712 NDs, an average of 8.5 per page. This would suggest that the Dept has been conscious of the problem (ie extreme non-compliance with ICAO from at least 2018) and have been progressively reducing NDs since it was brought to their attention by both the Senate  RRAT committee and by association AuntyPru.

The most disturbing figures for NDs is within Annex 14 (Airports & Heliports, Vol 1 & 2) with a total of 127 pages and 1018 NDs. 

The question is why is it so hard for the Australian authorities to reign in, what is surely a major international embarrassment, our growing non-compliance with ICAO defined safety-risk mitigation (Annex 14) around airports/heliports and the surrounding airspace?

References: Chairman Dan calls in CASA Iron Ring favour on non-safety TRA & Vic Coroners Essendon DFO crash inquest begins

Last but definitely not least, I came across this dude on Linkedin who has worked exclusively for Dr A for the past 9 years -   

Senior Policy Officer, International Relations
Company Name Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Dates Employed Oct 2012 – Present
Employment Duration 9 yrs
Location Canberra, Australia

Manage CASA’s capacity building projects through the Indonesia Transport Safety Assistance Package and work with Government colleagues to establish a work program in Papua New Guinea.

Contribute to Australia's multilateral engagement in international aviation safety, including through International Civil Aviation Organization governing meetings and regional forums.

Foster bilateral policy relationships with civil aviation partners including the US Federal Aviation Administration, European Aviation Safety Agency, New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority and other regional counterparts.

And this is the dude's quals:

The Australian National University
Degree Name Master of International Affairs Field Of Study International System, China, Humanitarianism, US Security Policy, Intelligence & Security
Dates attended or expected graduation 2009 – 2012


University of Canberra

Degree Name Bachelor of Communication Field Of Study Public Relations, Politics
Dates attended or expected graduation 2000 – 2002

Considering that this dude was employed by Dr A in the same year that the Senate PelAir inquiry began and was there through the subsequent Forsyth review, the TSBC ATSB peer review, the 2016 BASA US FAA airworthiness treaty and the 2017 ICAO Oz (self-)audit, one has to ask what exactly has the dude actually achieved -       

MTF...P2 

ps Out of curiosity I did a ring around of several of our esteemed BRB members (who have regular dealings with CASA in this area - ie treaties and BASA/trade agreements) whether they had heard of this dude and to date I am yet to get a positive response - WTD?