[Kharon]

Start the clock GD;
 
So, we have DAS who declares “I’ll wear it” – but only for the ‘decisions’ he makes. Well ain’t that grand, in theory. Talk, as my Grand-pappy said, is cheap son, whisky cost money; real money, that’s as in cash and no bullshit”.  A credit rating is a thing earned, trust is another commodity which must be earned. We have ‘trusted’ two DAS now who turned out to be ‘cash poor’ and traded on ‘position’ for credit, rather than money in the ‘industry’ trust fund.
 
And so, we have a new DAS (ridiculous title), a solidly professional bureaucrat who has wandered into the IOS pub, fronting the bar and offering a round of drinks to the BRB. Good Oh; we’ll take the drinks, no worries and offer him Cheers, while we drink ‘em; but then – what? Well he must, metaphorically, sing for his supper. During that performance there will be some hard, cynical, weary eyes judging; and, they are ‘expert’ judges. Many ‘wannabe’s have graced the BRB stage, some blow hard, some soft, some jiggle most obligingly, some bluster, some boast, some even try their hand at prose: alas, few, very few ‘impress’.
 
And so, we have a new DAS, with one lightweight, exhibition bout at the Estimates cage fights, we can allow that, even appreciate the starting position. Let’s call it a friendly spar, to warm up the combatants and leave it at that; for there was little of any great substance to the amusements.
 
And so, we have a new DAS. But a real, reform oriented DAS; or, a caretaker? Positioned to make a dim, lacklustre minister look good and get the howling mob off his back. Even money on my tote. But I will, nonetheless run a tote on the Carmody innings.   
 
On the plus side.
 
“Carmody also announced among others two new appointments at CASA: Andrew Tiede as manager Air Navigation, Airspace and Aerodromes and Mark Sullivan as Client Services Manager.”
 
Smart move. Considering the amount of detritus on the ASA back door step. Tiede seems to be the ‘real deal’ and would know where to find the skeletons – should the minister decide some were urgently needed – to keep the governments sorry arse out the sling. That aside, Tiede seems calm, competent and qualified; long may that last.
 
On the negative side:-
 
"I will continue Mark Skidmore’s commitment to regularly meeting people and organisations across the aviation community to listen to ideas, issues and concerns.
 
Oh BOLLOCKS. Carmody trots off to see the Kickatinalong Aero Club, all six of ‘em. Wow; that’ll get to the truth – Skidmore thought they’d spill the beans and tell him their troubles. Fat lot of good that did – who, possessing a sound mind, is going to tell the ‘boss’ of the CASA meat grinder that ‘they’ have a complaint. BOLLOCKS, faery tale, la-la land, dreamtime BOLLOCKS. Prancing about the country side ‘pressing the flesh’ and using country dunnies is a total waste of time, money and talent. End of.
 
If Carmody want’s (and it is a real question); really want’s to know what is wrong he needs to stay in the office and start reading. Not the ‘bits’ provided, but settle down and read every single complaint lodged against ‘CASA’: interview the applicants for AOC; or the Chief pilots knock backs and many of the other disgusting, disgraceful, deceitful thing CASA have perpetrated in the name of “safety”.  Start there, believe in the evil and do some ducking thing about stopping it - FCODL.
 
A reform DAS, like Smith, for example, would automatically gain industry trust and respect; he has a gold credit rating with ‘industry’. Those are not gifted with the job title; but earned.
 
And so, for the new DAS the clock is ticking and the tote is running. One move against; one for: that makes him ‘Evens’ on the board – but I will advise you all – there are very, very few bets being laid at the moment.
 
And so here begineth the Carmody Hour of fame.  Tote odds posted on ‘the loop’.
 
Selah.

[Gobbledock]

The clock has started........tick tock tick tock. 'The time at the third stroke will be 2359 precisely'.

Wingnuts cheap words won't cut it. Action is required. Evidence is required. Transparency is required, and all starting with him if he is to be believed.

Mr Carmody needs to realise that with regards to the IOS he is actually dealing with some skilful, intellectual, astute individuals with business degrees, engineering degrees and aeronautical and flying smarts and then some. We don't have small willies and feel a need to hide behind a 'PHD','AVM', or 'Sir' title. You see we know all the smoke and mirror bullshit acts. We see through the lies, empty promises, glossy brochures and the legally advised cleverly worded non-committal and non-accountable hot air that is expelled from a bureaucrats and politicians mouth every time they speak. You are a foolish and naive man if you think anything less. So Shane, put your money where your mouth is, so to speak;

Put forward a 10 point plan, endorsed and signed off by the Miniscule, to do the following;

- Hire Mike Smith or an equivalent. Nothing less.
- Void the 30 year/$300m regulatory reform failure. Go on, do it, we dare you. Then announce a 3 year/$50m plan to fully adopt the NZ regs.
- Gut and restructure CAsA. All dross gone (you know who they are), introduce more new blood by way of industry folk with the right experience and skill set. No more seat warmers hanging about until their retirement or geriatrics with enlarged prostates and flaccid doodles, who last flew or fixed DC3's straight off the production line. (Terry F??)
- Restructure the ICC, back to the Hart days. Not this shit where the DAS is on the panel, plus he is boofing it's Commissioner.  What a disgusting mockery!
- Overhaul the ATsB. Do the same as what needs to be done to CAsA
- Overhaul ASA, do the same as what needs to be done to CAsA and ATsB.
- No more talk, consultation, selfies at piss troughs, or benign threats. Just fucking do something will you!
- FULL implementation of Rev Forsythe's holy aviation report.

So get those big ears flapping in the wind old mate. You have a lot of work to start, do, and finish while you keep the DAS chair warm. The IOS have eyes and ears everywhere.

First 50 seconds;

TICK TOCK most definitely Wingnut. There is no time for a Carmody of errors.

[Kharon]

Of the ministers ‘thing’.  (Play nice GD).

The minister's ‘thing’ tomorrow will be a first yardstick against which to measure our ‘part time DAS’.  See what manner of man lays beneath the highly polished surface. He does, most certainly have a ‘problem’, an internal one. No matter how many stage managed ‘revitalization’ pantomimes, or tambourine banging sing alongs the minister hosts with lemonade and ice cream, to create ‘good will’ the distrust will linger, like a festering canker.

It’s time someone told it, the way it is. Only fair to the new boy. Some will say “Ah but he is aware of the problems”. I say -NO – he ain’t. Not the deep seated ones, not the deep, dark, archival stuff that has grown into legend over the decades.

Now I’m not one to believe every tale I hear in the pub; I acknowledge that there is always two sides to any quarrel and it take s two to Tango; but, I always listen, carefully, then think it trough, then investigate, then check.  One absolute horror story got me interested in ‘research’, the tale was too bizarre too be true and so began the Bankstown Chronicles.  I was amazed at the results of my investigation; I had been slightly misled. The chap involved had underestimated the amount of sheer bastardry involved. It  was staggering; it was proven to be truly, the most disgraceful episode I have had the misfortune to study. I thought at the time that this could not possibly be anything else but an aberration; sadly that assumption turned out to be wrong, very, very wrong. There are many such examples, where the CASA have, with malice aforethought, set out on a path of deliberate, deceitful destruction.  The BRB have, through research and investigation discovered and verified an amazing amount of ‘embuggerance’, some on a minor scale, others so large as to beggar belief. CASA have gotten away with everything, bar blue murder, unscathed, untouched, untroubled and totally unrepentant.  It is this deeply entrenched ‘fear and distrust' which underlays every single appeal for ‘reform’; not of the benighted regulations, but of the organisation and those who still hide deep within its bowels, well fed, well paid, gainfully employed, safe in the knowledge that CASA is, indeed above the law. This situation was created by CASA people, the list is long, the files are many; but none of them will change the unspoken abhorrence of CASA, while the minister believes they are above reproach; and he will, as his predecessors did, believe  that faery tale. Except Albo - who embraced it, then broke a squillion rules to have his pet sociopath gifted the job; boy, did the good times roll then.

The minister is entitled to believe whatsoever he chooses; every other minister has. But there can be no meaningful change so long as ' the outstanding matters', close and personal to many in industry, go unchallenged and  while the minister is ‘associated’ with and seen to be supporting of  the ‘authority’, as it stands. Tarred by the same brush, guilty by association. Want an inquiry? then make certain the ToR are aimed somewhere close to the heart of ‘the problem’.

Aye well; time for the BRB which promises to be ‘entertaining’ – given the impending ‘Grand Announcement’ – another one off on the wrong road. No matter, tonight we play ‘the Huns’ and they are no easy beat.  Time to tune up the gunsight, limber the arm and forget, for a while, the awful waste of time, money and people that todays CASA ignore in their ‘presentations’ to the purblind, ignorant, deceived minister of the day. "Smoke and mirrors” "Anyone?" - "We have lots to give away".

Selah.

[P1_aka_P1]

“K” has – as usual ‘nailed it’. The BRB dismissed the ‘Ministerial announcement’ before the darts match even looked like getting under way; as “entirely predictable” . It was decided that time spent at the darts match was a much better use of everyone’s time. Chester becomes the mandarin's puppet; the puppet DAS speaks the lines and, just like that, all is well.  Boring.

I am rather looking forward to the "K" Sunday ramble – the ‘Carmody hour’ could get interesting as the minister’s man gets brush strokes on canvas for the latest ‘modern’ painting (done in dog shit) based on edict, from a vision, scripted for yet another, totally useless politician.

[Kharon]

The Carmody holiday cruise.

I just can’t wait for the ‘selfies’ – Carmody in Bermuda shorts and one of those dreadful shirts McConvict favoured. Happy snaps with golf buggies in the background; tanned men with expensive ‘state-of-the art’ clubs, looking relaxed, wealthy and without a care in the world. Carmody in ‘beach-wear’ sipping a long cooling cocktail (with umbrella’s and ‘fruit’) reclining after a tough day, watching other beach-wear at the five star pool side bar. Aye, happy, lazy days and all expenses paid for by the public, struggling to get to work on time – on public transport – in the rain in the hopes of paying off the mortgage. Great work if you can get it.  You too could enjoy these benefits – you can.  Read the instructions – carefully.

Firstly you need a job which gives you access to a crown minister. Once you have secured that job; tell him that a ‘review’ is needed, by an ‘independent’ group (to be seen as impartial); then once the fool announces the ‘review’; sit back and take it easy – for nothing, not one single, solitary job can be finalised while the ‘review’ is going on. So you have time to kill, nothing to do and lots of ready cash – may as well take a break. There its that easy.  If you are half smart, you can gain extra leisure time. You see it can take forever to get the ‘right’ review team selected; even longer to define their task; then you must remember to send the first draft of that review back with lots of red pencil lines and comments, which the office junior can do for you. Then, when the ‘review’ finally is provided to you – e-mail of course; you must take time to study it and where better than the pool-side bar at your favourite five star resort and golf course. Eventually, you may have to attend a meeting to ‘discuss’ the review, which depending on ‘diaries’ synchronizing can take a while, so no need to rush home.  Play your cards right and you will not have to even break wind in your office until the next election and then – there is caretaker mode to wait through- then the settling in period for the ‘new’ crew – then there is all of the hard work of reviewing the situation with the ‘new’ minister; before the inevitable round of meetings to decide ‘new’ policy.

It is a wonderful life – just find your pet village idiot – play a cool hand and the world is your oyster.

[Gobbledock]

GMT - Greenwich Minister Time

Naughty Kharon, depicting Wingnut as being a 9-iron wielding trough diving bureaucrat. How true!!!! But you know if you are earning between $500k to $800k per year and the taxpayers fund every other perk, rort and nicety you can ever imagine, and then you don't have to be accountable for anything, then of course a public servant is going to 'indulge a little' aren't they?

But in an effort to prove that he is budget conscious, the human aerofoil won't be hiring a golf cart, he will be playing the 18 holes on foot. Plus there is the issue of when his golf cart exceeds 13km/h his giant ear lugs cause too much drag.

But yes, this pithy little 'review' will buy precious time for 'bad skin Barnaby', 'Chester the beautiful' and Goldman Sachs Turnbull. Its an old trick, tried and tested, and importantly it works. Nice stretching of the countdown clock.

Plenty of taxpayer money to burn undertaking the review. TICK
Plenty of obsfucation days in the Gregorian calendar. TICK
Plenty of additional stalling tactics and magic tricks to follow. TICK
Plenty of bonus trough treats to gorge on during this momentous aviation initiative. TICK

Yes I can see it now, Wingnut and Barmybaby gracing the golf course in their McComick outfits, dollops of 50+ sunscreen protecting their crusty faces, Chester wearing his Ralph Lauren labelled polo shirt and drowned in Coconut Oil to enhance his perfect manicured man frame and his olive skin. Oh yes, the boys smashing it out on the golf course, cocktails by the pool, living the dream I say living the dream. And imagine the selfie opportunities - photos of them all pissing behind trees on the golf course, at the urinals in the club house, heck maybe even selfies of each other draining the python at the pool bar!

TOCK TOCK DDDDarren, the IOS patience is ticking...

[Sandy Reith]

Review of the season, I thought it was spring time but it's snowing.

Can'tberra's snow making machine on overdrive and overtime?

Hoping that AOPA will reconsider its welcome to review and that TAAAF makes it clear that reforms must start now and that all the reviews have been done to death already.

It truly is a disgrace that the Minister is supposedly not fully briefed on the state of aviation in this country. What a perfect illustration of irresponsible incompetence, millions and millions draining out continuously and they pretend they don't know what's happened. Thousands fewer jobs, crippling rents on publicly owned but leased airports with no proper oversight of lease provisions. Pilot numbers down the drain, much by AVMED out of control. Maintenance personnel numbers and experience sinking, Forsyth reforms still outstanding. The GA fleet has lost about one third of its value and good used aircraft are being exported. We are bargain basement, yes partly due to the low dollar but our loss of value is critical to the trade.

Mr. Carmody's defense is that the aviation industry isn't perfect either. What an outstanding thought. For my money on the standard of CASA the industry has Saint like purity. It produces services, it works long hours and is economical as befits reality and business. It would continue and grow well if CASA and its rule book of criminality were to disappear tomorrow.

[Gobbledock]

More from the files of Sunday Carmody Capers...

The tuned-in Sandy said;

"Mr. Carmody's defense is that the aviation industry isn't perfect either. What an outstanding thought. For my money on the standard of CASA the industry has Saint like purity".

What a weak and spineless deflection. Get your hormones in check Carmody, otherwise you will soon start crying while watching Sleepless in Seattle and lactating when you hear babies cry! FFS

Critical little possum isn't he? What Mr Carmody fails to mention is this; although industry occasionally gets things wrong, on the whole we have an excellent reputation for excellence, quality, professionalism and smarts, with a proven track record. Now Shane, your 'field of expertise', which is Government, has a woeful track record of aviation destruction, dishonesty, ineptitude, bullying and obsfucation. The proof is everywhere we look - aviation, roads, airports, schools, defence, modern infrastructure, the national debt, the competency of Ministers and bureaucrats, software and hardware systems, and on and on and on it goes.
In fact, the only people who actually think that governments and bureaucracies are worth a pint of Panther piss are the sheltered workshop public servants living in Cinderella land. You really are a bunch of incompetent and disconnected twats. Poor things, must be a sad life living within your matrix.

It has been said that an ICAO audit is desperately needed. Maybe so. But ICAO is a subsidiary of the UN. The UN works for England and America, the almighty Anglo-American world power. Australia prostitutes itself to the UN, a loyal subservient lapdog. The general public have no frigging idea how much money Australia flicks to the UN so it can be part of it's front stage by association. No no, ICAO won't pineapple us to kingdom come, not while our elected successive governments keep on shovelling taxpayer money into the UN slush funds. And yes, there are a few of them. Oh now surely not you jest? Hmmmm. ICAO wet lettuce leafing CAsA, UNESCO wet lettuce leafing the Great Barrie Reef, human rights wet luxe leafing with a virtual blind eye turned towards drowning refugees and young kids being bum raped in offshore detention centres. All ignored thanks to Australia's hefty donation arrangement. Quite a few bucks also slip comfortably into NATO's pockets. Another disgusting, irrelevant and corrupt alphabet UN soup labelled financial cash cow.

Which leads me back to something I have been saying for years; there is NO incentive for the Government to change its historical approach to aviation in this country. Transparency and fixing the mess is not on the agenda. Never has been and never will be. The only way things will change is by 'forced change'. By either an uprising and revolution (won't happen in our laid back and imbecilic nation) or an A380 spiralling nose first into a Point Piper street(s). Until then boys, for our Pollies and bureaucrats it is business as usual; excessive salaries, golf courses in the Seychelles, Cuban cigars on Tenerife beaches and hot tubs and handjobs in the Swiss Alps. It's a tough gig, but hey somebody has to do it.

Willypedia; definition - 'wet lettuce leafing'. The act of threatening to severely punish, yet delicately and softly using strong words framed into meaningless speech, ensuring no actual outcome or change. Please also refer to 'bitch slapping'.  

"It's my twiddle and I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to, cry if I want to.........."

[Peetwo]

Government makes 30% savings thru harmonising aviation regulations -

Introduction: Via AMROBA thread.

Why U NO speak English?

The latest KC & AMROBA newsletter (like the above meme) offering revolves around the common theme of why it is we have voluminous, convoluted, poorly worded & impossible to understand regulations and the detrimental 'knock on' effects this has to industry:

..Correctly worded regulations and standards are clear and concise, i.e. understandable. Sadly, what has been produced over the last decade has raised more confusion than clarity and one of the main reasons is the failure to adopt and use international terminology and definitions. Instead, we have poorly worded regulations and standards very unique to Australia...

---

However, CASA converted this international standard (specialised services) into the need for "specialist". Qualified persons are not "specialists". e.g. CAR30 "qualified persons".

Regulations, Manual of Standards and advisory material impose this "uniquely" CASA approach on our industry because international terminology was purposely ignored...

...CASA is now involved with industrial matters. What was the safety case used to apply a unique and potentially costly "job classifications" on industry? How come CASA have become the experts in determining what maintenance tasks, which qualified persons have been performing safely for decades, are now to be treated as "specialist" tasks? CASA admits it does not have the expertise, this provision confirms it.

This use of improper terminology has already seen industrial issues raised in Parliament about the need for "specialists" that did not exist before the creation of CASRs and demonstrates the mindset of those instructing regulation drafters.

Australian industries have been multi-skilling to improve efficiency, productivity and innovation by nurturing an employee’s talent so the employee feels they are being used to improve the performance of the workplace. The adoption of "specialist" is a retrograde step that is damaging the industrial benefits that have been attained over the last couple of decades by governments and unions working to upskill the workforce...

---

Another misunderstanding: Instead of adopting the ICAO standards that states a maintenance release is a "certification" in a document. The CASA applied standard requires a certificate to be issued instead of a certification to be made in records.

The only conclusion that industry can come to is that those in CASA do not, or did not, understand the ramifications of poorly worded regulations and standards especially when only half the foreign system is adopted.

 
Reference part 4 latest AMROBA newsletter: Volume 13 Issue 10 (October 1016)

Come on Wingnut you know KC speaks in plain English... Get rid of the witch doctor, employ Mike Smith ASAP to reform CASA; adopt either of the NZed or US plain English (easy to read & understand) regulations, then stand back and watch the accolades roll in for yourself, Murky and the minister, as the industry flourishes and contributes greatly to 'jobs, growth' and the Aussie GDP -

In a parallel Can'tberra suburb... 

Memo to Murky, Comardy & 4D Chester - Industry suggests at the earliest possible convenience (i.e. Yesterday) that you and your minions request that either Minister Payne or Minister Pyne (don't care which - ) arrange a briefing with DoD Mandarins & minions to explain the many advantages of international harmony on aviation regulations...

Also read & absorb the following courtesy of Binger from the Oz..

Defence overhaul saves millions
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

New Defence regulations represent the biggest change in aviation safety at the ­organisation in more than 20 years.

Regulations to bring Defence in line with Europe, saves millions

The Australian
12:00AM November 4, 2016 

The Defence Force is set to save millions of dollars in unnecessary costs for it and its suppliers after implementing regulations that fall in line with European rules, representing the biggest change in aviation safety at the ­organisation in more than 20 years.

The regulations, known as the Defence Aviation Safety Regu­lations, replace the tailor-made set of rules for Australian Defence aviation that were put in place in the 1990s in response to a spate of fatal aircraft accidents.

“Those regulations have served us pretty well and protected us from those high accident rates of the past but they were unique to Defence in Australia and designed around our internal processes from 20 years ago,” said the director-general of the new Defence Aviation Safety Authority, Air Commodore James Hood.

“As we have outsourced a lot of work to industry and try to source aircraft from other countries and exploit global supply chains, the regulations have not served us well.
“Not only that, by imposing very old internal processes on commercial entities, in many ways we have put additional overheads on them, which ends up costing us more.”

The new rules, which bring Australia in line with European regu­lations being implemented by about 30 other nations, are expected to reduce the cost of overheads for Defence and its suppliers by as much as 30 per cent.

“The old regulations and their strict rules meant overheads placed on our contracting partners were getting charged back to us. So it was costing everyone more money,” Mr Hood said.

He said the new regulations would deliver immediate benefits to the organisation and its partners, including cheaper access to global supply chain and maintenance operations.

Significantly, the new rules will also allow engineering and maintenance shops to blend their workforces, meaning there will no longer be a regulated requirement to have separate workforces that are restricted to work only on civilian or military aircraft.

“Our regulations were so restrictive that it was very hard to support or exploit global supply chains, but these new regulations mean organisations can exploit global supply chains at a much reduced costs,” Mr Hood said.

“Our regulations were so restrictive that it was very hard to support or exploit global supply chains, but these new regulations mean organisations can exploit global supply chains at a much reduced costs,”

“By bringing in these new regulations which line up with civilian regulations, companies will now be able to have one workforce that can work on both a civilian aircraft and a defence aircraft.

“Not only that, it means that as defence or civil aviation work waxes and wanes, they can balance that across their workforce instead of struggling in the past as they have.”

The regulations began in September and will roll out through Defence and defence industry until the end of 2018.

Mr Hood said there remained two big risks in implementing the new regulations.

“The first is the change of language and instruments that can be a little daunting. This means some people might misinterpret the intent of the regulations,” he said. “Then we get other people who think they understand the new regulations and run ahead too fast when they don’t actually understand them.”

No comment except to say...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Bravo. Good luck to ‘em.

I don’t begrudge the director-general of the DASA his new rule set; not at all. I may be just a touch peas-green with a little unbecoming envy. How wonderful to get a rule set which saves money, improves safety and makes everyone ‘happy’. No doubt there will be a few wrinkles to iron out, but that is to be expected. I wonder though how the ‘military’ would respond to a thing like Part 61 or 135?. Of course we’ll never get the chance to see that response; wouldn’t happen, not in a million. There are enough ex military types floating about the ‘corridors of power’ with enough clout to make it happen ‘right’; and no one in CASA has the balls or brains to pull the military leg.

You see things can work out, change is possible, provided you have the horsepower, budget and connection the military has. I say well done Sir; and, nicely played. You will pardon my slightly green tinge; no doubt it will, in time, disappear.

[Peetwo]

No favours for sister safety authority -

Slight thread drift but apparently one of the causes of delay for AMSA's new tier 1 fixed wing contract with Cobham to be fully operational, is due to Wing-nut's mob holding up the works:

AMSA rescue jets still grounded
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN
A $640 million contract to use four jets for maritime search-and-rescue operations is running three months late.

..A $640 million government contract to use four Cobham ­Aviation-operated Bombardier Challenger jets for search-and-rescue operations around Australia is running more than three months behind schedule as the aircraft struggle to gain the regulatory approvals needed to fly.

The 12-year deal between the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and Cobham was supposed to begin in August when the first of four custom-fitted Challenger 604s was to begin operating from Perth.

Western Australian has been left without the long-range search-and-rescue aircraft for more than three months after problems gaining Civil Aviation Safety Authority approvals delayed their lift-off...

Sources close to AMSA say regulatory delays plaguing the 604s have been brought on by a raft of problems with the new jet, including the aircraft’s drop door being too small to allow necessary supply items to be dispatched from the plane.

Other critics have pointed to the jet’s requirement to burn off four hours of fuel before landing as a serious problem that undermines its ability to operate as a time-critical search-and-rescue aircraft.

The aircraft has also run into serious issues during testing by Cobham, including two incidents where supplies dropped from the plane struck its fuselage and tail.
AMSA said it was aware of the two incidents, which were reported to CASA as required.

“The trials informed incremental changes in design of the delivery system and drop procedures. Cobham has advised AMSA that CASA has now ­approved the system, inclusive of aircraft modifications and crew procedures, for delivery of the full range of stores,” an AMSA spokesman said.

AMSA confirmed that the regulatory approvals were holding back the launch of the aircraft but could not provide a firm date when the jets could fly.

“Cobham has experienced a number of delays in modification, integration and certification of the aircraft,” the spokesman said.

“Until the aircraft is certified and approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to deliver the full range of search and rescue services, AMSA will not accept the service.”
AMSA said the first Cobham aircraft was booked to undertake proving flights for its CASA Air Operator’s Certificate in coming weeks, after which it would be able to enter service.

“Safety of the operation is paramount and when the rigorous process being followed by CASA is complete, AMSA will have the necessary assurances that this will be a safe operation which will ­deliver all the capabilities required,” the AMSA spokesman said.
A spokeswoman for Cobham said the company was “fully focused” on delivering the aircraft to AMSA and that it continued to work closely with CASA to pass its regulatory hurdles...

  
No surprises there I guess, however unlike Thai Airways with their new A350 service, Cobham can't merely take their business elsewhere:

[/url]
[url=http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/50604-thai-airways-intl-revises-a350-intl-debut-plans]Thai Airways Int'l revises A350 int'l debut plans
ch-aviation
 - ‎Nov 3, 2016‎

Thai Airways International (TG, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi) has revised its A350-900 international deployment plans following delays in gaining the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) consent to use the type on flights to Australia. According ...

 Hmm...maybe Cobham should apply for a Kiwi AOC...    

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Carmody & the rise of the drones -

One of the many growing & concerning safety issues that Wingnut says he has signed up for is that of policing the rising plethora of drones & rogue drone operators.

Background on the current shenanigans etc on the recently amended CASR Part 100:

Latest on CASA CASR 101 UAV issues -  

Pinocchio Gobson gets his snag in a knot...

Read how PG tries desperately to spin the light fantastic and get the RPA/UAV genie back in the bottle..

Via Junkee:

An Aussie Hero Is Facing A Huge Fine For Using A Drone To Order A Bunnings Sausage
By Matilda Dixon-Smith, 9/11/2016

Read more at http://junkee.com/aussie-hero-facing-hug...3Oro8qQ.99

Update: Drone sausage sizzle legend goes viral -

&..via 9news.com.au

'Aussie legend's' drone video receives international acclaim

By
nine.com.au staff

Melbourne man has been described a “God damn Australian legend” after flying a drone to pick up a sausage sandwich from Bunnings.

Tim from Melbourne, who posted the video of the stunt to Facebook yesterday, told the TODAY Show he got the idea to send a drone shopping after a few beers with mates.

“It was between a couple of us, we bought a drone just having a bit of a muck around and an afternoon beer and we could smell a barbecue a couple of doors down…and we thought we’ll go to Bunnings, get one of their snags, and then one of the blokes said we should send the drone,” he said.

Tim said he and his mates contemplated several different methods of safely transporting the snack almost 2 kilometres back to his house on the drone, but in the end settled on a simple sandwich bag and string.

“I can’t decide if you’re extremely lazy or extremely innovative, or perhaps both,” host Sylvia Jeffreys said after watching the video.

Karl Stefanovic chimed in on the conversation from New York, labelling the Melbourne man a “God damn Australian legend”.

“You’ll be gainfully employed over here when Donald Trump builds that wall, you’ll be able to get all sorts of things in and out of Tijuana,” Karl said as he impersonated a drone lowering a hotdog into his hands.

While the video proved hugely popular, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said they would be investigating the flight for breach of drone regulations.

However, Tim insisted he didn’t break any laws filming the stunt.

“We made sure the area was clear, we made sure it didn’t fly over any houses… we considered it safe at the time.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/11...SGYoAeT.99

MTF...P2

Star Wars had the ‘clone-wars’; CASA is now embroiled, like it or not, in the ‘drone –wars’. Now the FAA decided, wisely, that there would be ‘trouble at mill’ if they did not get a rope on the drones – from the off. DDDD Chester will have another hissy-fit’ and proably bitch slap his advisor for allowing the situation to escalate ‘out of parental control’.

Dear Darren, tosser; please do enjoy the embarrassing situation your ‘expert’, all seeing aviation advisors have created for you to deal with. Get control, take responsibility; or, bugger off. Muppet.

Then yesterday in the Oz Joseph Wheeler is back pointing out the foibles of the Aussie drone rules:

Rein in drone Rafferty’s rules
12:00amJOSEPH WHEELER
The International Civil Aviation Organisation is racing to look at the laws relating to drone operations.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation is scoping the amount of work required to bring the barrelling steam train of technology and legal issues that are drones into a workable set of issues for its legal committee to deal with.

The speed of movement is a necessary evil to ensure that pilotless aircraft’s entry into the world of civilian international flight becomes as seamless as (fingers crossed) flight transfers and baggage delivery. Perhaps that was a bad example …

By the end of next year, the ICAO will know what issues it must prioritise for the making of rules. Issues such as, for example, the law related to drone operations over the high seas, characterising permissions and authorisations for cross-border operations and changes in possession/control of an remotely piloted aircraft during international flight may necessitate an international framework of their own.

To determine what issues to take on, a survey was sent out to all ICAO member states on August 29 and responses from around the world were expected by the end of October.
Whatever the result, the message at the ICAO is clear: the study of legal issues related to RPAs will remain at the highest priority to ensure they safely take their rightful place in the air.

The world federation of airline pilots (the IFALPA) considers this work a high priority, too. Last week in Montreal, the IFALPA’s legal committee looked at the issue and noted that it would contribute to the ICAO’s work program in any way it could to make sure international rules and guidance made sense.

Just because a drone can deliver a package across international boundaries doesn’t mean in any sense that it should be without rigorous rules.

Many states now regulate very small or under 2kg drones used for commercial and recreational purposes.

Last week, the European parliament confirmed it would mandate registration of drones of 250g and above (as the US has done since August), reflecting the likelihood of death and injury from a strike by such a vehicle to a person on the ground, and the fact that no-flight zones and height restrictions are difficult to police.

And yet we are, stunningly now in Australia since September 29, subject to laws that suggest it is “low risk” for a drone of nearly 10 times that weight to be operated by an untrained commercial operator of any age, in a foolish hope that they will not break the standard operating conditions to, for example, do something like fly near an international airport.

The Senate inquiry now taking submissions will go a long way to finding out why Australia has become the outsider in terms of regulating this size and class of drone. Then, the nearly 2000 “commercial operators” who have emerged since September 29 (up from about 700 at that date) will come to learn the laws that let them to fly without aeronautical knowledge and the development “airmanship” will likely be restruck in coming months and years, to allow a return to practical legislation in this field.

At a time when the rest of the world is unified on the wisdom of regulatory drones controls, the “red tape” reduction of saving operators $1400 in application fees in Australia will no doubt head the way of the dinosaur as practical common sense returns.
It can’t come soon enough.

Only this week a passenger airliner was forced to make what these pages have predicted will become a common occurrence without adequate controls (regulatory and educative), that is, civilian aircraft dodging drones in terminal airspace resulting in injuries.

Two flight attendants were injured when a Porter Airlines aircraft had to make a sudden dive to avoid a drone at around 9000 feet above ground in Canada. Thankfully the passengers were unharmed and flight crew injuries were minor.

But it goes to show that rules about “no drone zones” are insufficient to curb the problems with presumably untrained, uncaring, or unproven operators (recreational or commercial).

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of IALPG, aviation legal counsel for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and appointed to the IFALPA legal committee.

Here is a bit more on the Porter Airlines incident via engadget.com:

Airliner's near miss with drone injures two crew members
The Canadian flight had to take evasive maneuvers.

Jon Fingas , @jonfingas
11.14.16 in Robots
25Comments
771Shares
 

Reuters/Mark Blinch

The threat of drone collisions near airports isn't just scary -- it can lead to very real injuries, even if there's no accident. Canada's Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident where a Porter Airlines flight bound for Toronto took evasive maneuvers in an attempt to avoid a reported drone, injuring two crew members. The exact circumstances (including the nature of the injuries) isn't clear, but it took place near Billy Bishop Airport, an island hub right near Toronto's downtown core. It wouldn't have been hard for someone on the mainland to fly a drone into the path of a low-flying aircraft.

This certainly isn't the first time there have been reports of near collisions with drones, and it's possible that something else may have prompted the emergency change of course. However, the injuries could easily amplify calls for drone-finding systems at airports, not to mention anti-drone defenses. While the chance of a serious collision is slim, it's clear that even a close call can be exceptionally dangerous

As a passing coincidence on the day the Porter Airlines incident was made public Pinocchio Gobson got the twitter guy to put out this tweet:

Want to capture Sydney Harbour for #SnapSydney? Remember you can’t fly your drone there - it’s restricted airspace.pic.twitter.com/BhHyMfXsvG

 
Also somewhat related I intercepted a recent NZ CAA drone prosecution case that I thought gives an interesting perspective on our NZ counterparts parallel rule-set for UAV/RPAs ...

Civil Aviation Authority v Reeve [2016] NZDC 16698 (23 July 2016)


NOTES OF JUDGE G S MacASKILL ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Reeve, you appear for sentencing on three charges laid by the Director of

Civil Aviation:

(a) First, that on 5 January 2015 at Pines Beach, Kaiapoi you operated a model aircraft, namely a Phantom 2 remotely piloted aircraft system, in a manner that caused unnecessary endangerment to people.

(b) Second, on 5 January 2015 at Pines Beach, Kaiapoi you operated a model aircraft, namely a Phantom 2 remotely piloted aircraft system, in controlled airspace without prior authorisation from the air traffic control unit responsible for that airspace; and

© Third, on 20 January 2015 at Pines Beach, Kaiapoi you operated a model aircraft, namely a Phantom 2 remotely piloted aircraft system, in controlled airspace without prior authorisation from the air traffic control unit responsible for that airspace.

[2] You were found guilty, after a defended hearing, of all three charges.

[3] I reviewed the evidence and stated my conclusions in my judgment of

6 May 2016, subject to some minor corrections at paragraph 38. I need mention only my essential conclusions.

[4] As to the charge of causing danger on 5 January 2015, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that you caused danger to Mr Askin and his helicopter – it is the danger to Mr Askin that I am concerned with – in that the presence of the RPAS (which is the abbreviation I am going to use for your drone) and the helicopter, at the time the helicopter was on its landing approach, in the airspace and in the circumstances, made it possible that the RPAS and the helicopter would collide. That possibility was not so speculative or unreal as not to amount to a danger; the causing of that danger was sufficient.

[5] Furthermore I found:

(a) First, any ability that you may have had to mitigate the risk by reducing the altitude of the RPAS or by landing it, should the helicopter have approached more closely, was not sufficient to negative the danger;

(b) Secondly, the risk of flyaway was not a significant factor that contributed to the danger at this time;

© Thirdly, the RPAS was hovering in very close proximity to you without the risk of a break in the control to the RPAS caused by reduction in signal strength due to distance; and

(d) Lastly, the danger identified was unnecessary. You had no reason for creating the danger beyond videoing the fire and the helicopter for your own personal interest, and perhaps possible sale to news media. Neither reason provided any necessity for causing such a danger.

[6] As to the charge of breach of controlled airspace on 5 January 2015: On

5 January 2015 you operated a model aircraft and you did so in controlled airspace without authorisation from air traffic control. The boundary of the controlled airspace in question runs along the high water mark of Pines Beach. The uncontested evidence was that you operated your RPAS over the fire to the west of the boundary and over the position where you were located, also within the boundary. These transgressions of the controlled airspace were openly close to the boundary.

[7] As to the charge of breach of controlled airspace on 20 January 2015: On

20 January 2015 you again became aware of a fire in the Pines Beach locality. This fire was closer to the beach. You operated your RPAS from the sand hills while videoing the fire. The RPAS trespassed into the controlled airspace without authorisation from air traffic control. These transgressions of the controlled airspace were also relatively close to the boundary.

[8] You have no prior convictions. You have written an essay for submission in mitigation of your offending. You have intituled this, “A Paper on Current Drone Rules in New Zealand and the faults and flaws that accompany them.” The paper does not set out to explicitly satisfy the Court that you have thoroughly grasped the nature of your obligations as an operator of a radio controlled model aircraft, but that may be an error of approach rather than of substance. You do demonstrate an understanding of controlled airspace and what practical steps you must take to comply with the relevant rules, even though you are of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the airspace rules are confusing and could be simplified.

[9] It is not appropriate that I critique and comment on the merits of your paper. I

give you credit for the serious attempt. My impression, however, is that the process

of education is not complete. I do accept counsel’s submission that you have

achieved a great deal.

[10] I also note the point made by your counsel today that you are concerned for the education of tourists and others who are not familiar with the rules that control the flight of drones, or even if any relevant law exists.

[11] You have sworn an affidavit in support of your application for discharge without conviction. It is not necessary that I review it. I accept the following points:

(a) First, you have learned from the experience of prosecution.

(b) Second, you did not deliberately flout the law but have sought to comply with it.

© Third, you care for your parents and they support you financially. (d) Fourth, you have no financial resources of your own.

(e) Fifthly, you acquired your RPAS in the hope of producing income.

(f) Sixth, a criminal conviction would likely prejudice you obtaining work using the RPAS.

(g) Seventh, Land Information New Zealand has revoked your access authority to Kairaki Beach. You no longer have permission to fly your drone over the Crown owned residential red zone on the basis of media reports on the Pine Beach fire.

[12] The character references provided satisfy me that you are a person of good character. You are well thought of in your community.

[13] The principal rural fire officer for the Waimakariri Rural Fire Authority says that aerial observations of fires can be invaluable as an alternative to a helicopter. You have provided some excellent footage that has been used in operational debriefs.

[14] I shall not review all of the prosecutor’s submissions. I take them into

account. I shall make the following points:

(a) First, I do not accept that your offending can fairly be described as moderately serious.

(b) Secondly, I do not accept Land Information New Zealand’s response is not indicative of likely reactions by governmental and quasi government agencies and of commercial concerns to the entry of a conviction.

© Third, the Court does not require that you specifically prove that persons considering engaging you for drone services might reasonably be influenced by the entry of a conviction. To require a defendant to provide evidence from potential customers in such an emerging market would be unrealistic and unreasonably burdensome. Such a common sense inference may reasonably be drawn on the basis of the Court’s experience. I am satisfied that there is at least a real and appreciable risk of such consequences.

(d) I am not persuaded that there is a strong need to denounce and deter this type of behaviour when the prosecution is novel and when your conduct was at the lower end of the scale of risk.

(e) The fifth point is that the causing danger offence is not reasonably comparable to the deliberate and highly dangerous attacks on aircraft.

[15] I agree with our counsel, Mr Glover, that you have learnt the proper procedures and are motivated to observe them, as evidenced by a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and the Christchurch tower on 4 July 2016. The writing of your paper has made you fully aware of the nature and complexity of the requirements of the legal operation of drones. That is so, even if the CAA is right to think that you have not yet completely mastered the requirements.

[16] I agree with your counsel that my finding of danger as to the principal charge was not a finding that there was imminent danger. Although the helicopter pilot was rightly concerned to hear of the presence of the RPAS, there was no near miss in the general sense. I distinguish that from the aviation use of that word, where near misses can be of a different kind, with aircraft more widely spaced. In terms of actual risk it was at the lowest end of the scale.

[17] As to the amendment referred to by counsel relating to shielded operations, that would not have exonerated you, had it been in force at the time.

[18] As to the lead charge of causing danger, I am satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of the entry of conviction would be out of all proportion of the gravity of the offence. Those consequences are the probable loss of work using your RPAS, especially from agencies sensitive to convictions relating to air safety.

[19] I have already discussed the gravity of the offence.

[20] In a different context, an opportunity for diversion might have been available. You have already suffered the consequence that this prosecution has given rise to a widespread false public belief that you flew your RPAS in close and dangerous proximity to the helicopter over the fire. That is not correct.

[21] However, while your paper has sufficiently satisfied an educative need, there should be a financial imposition. You will be discharged without conviction upon proof being supplied to the Registrar of the payment by you of a donation to a charity of your choice of the sum of $500. Your counsel has indicated that that proposal is in fact made by you. You will be remanded to a date to be fixed in a moment for that to occur.

[22] As to the two charges of breaching controlled airspace, the breaches over the fires pose no actual risk to any aircraft. The infringements were relatively minor. They were very close to the boundaries. Cautions might have sufficed. No convictions are entered on such offences. On each charge you are fined $250 and ordered to pay Court costs of $130.

[23] I perhaps need not emphasise, although I shall take a moment to do that, that the breaches of controlled airspace were, I think, highly exceptional, in that you infringed the boundaries; in fact you were flying just outside the boundary and just inside it. In my view, as I have stated, these infringements were relatively minor and, as I have also sought to make absolutely clear, the helicopter was not in the vicinity at the time you made the breaches over the fire.

[24] There will be no order as to costs.

[25] I will formally adjourn until 2.15 next Friday in the sentencing list. The defendant need not appear, if the donation has been paid.

G S MacAskill

District Court Judge

Imagine a half dozen of these sort of cases popping up every other week in Federal courts around the country?? Could be a good little revenue earner for CASA provided they can catch the culprits -

Oh well at least we have a Ag CEO/DAS in Wingnut who is apparently prepared to take ownership of this potential regulatory clusterf#*k...

tick..tick..tick..Herr Wingnut...    


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

 Carmody & the rise of the drones Part II - The French connection.

From a French perspective, the following was forwarded to me from our friendly Frog Oceankoto...

Via Le Point translated:

Drones: the hunt is open

By Thierry Hale

Published on  20/11/2016 at 17:14 

Following the series of overflights by nuclear power plant drones and other sensitive sites in 2014, the General Secretariat for Defense and National Security (SGDSN) raised the alarm and launched a call for projects to detect , Identify and neutralize these devices.  In short, it is feared that terrorists will use drones knowing that the payload or transportable load is about one-third of the weight of the aircraft.  In France , 4000 professional drones are identified and recreation rig fleet is estimated at 400,000.

On drones of leisure, this load transported is usually a camera or a camera.  So, last week, a drone flew away with the National Assembly , arrived in the axis of the Concorde bridge by which he left without being identified.  But a 1.5 kg drone can also carry a gridded grenade, dropped in the stands of a stadium or in the middle of a gathering of people. The NSDSS drone program is called "flash" because Launched in an emergency.  It receives the assistance of the National Research Agency (ANR) and a million euros have been released, distributed among the three finalists out of twenty-four candidates who responded to the call for projects.

The three consortia chosen - Angelas, Bordeades and Spid - combine the know-how of a score of SMEs specializing in defense and signal analysis technologies, universities and grandes écoles, as well as large groups such as Onera, Thales , CEA.  Future "clients" of these applications, such as EDF , the SNCF , the GIGN, the Aéroports de Lyon, etc., are also associated with the operation. On a disused track of the Villacoublay airbase near Paris, drones wheeling chest last Friday and had to be neutralized in turn by the three anti-drone solutions.  First observation, despite the unfavorable weather conditions with strong wind in gusts, drones do not seem affected and fly without problem.  One can think that the best pilots guide them.  These drones are devices that are found in the trade, like the Parrot Disco.  SNCF has also detached for the occasion one of its ten drones who monitor the rail network and try to detect the attempted theft of copper cables.

Neutralization without destruction

The operation must take place in three acts, but without intermission, in a few tens of seconds.  Identification must follow detection immediately.  The challenge is to say whether the echo raised by the radar or by the listening system is a drone, a bird, a parasite due to the rustle of the leaves, or even an airplane that passes off at high altitude .  The unauthorized drone having been formally identified, which generally requires the intervention of a human operator, it is necessary to analyze its mode of operation.  Does a ground-based remote pilot direct it in real time?  Does the drone use a GPS to guide itself?  Is it completely autonomous, having been preprogrammed?  At each configuration, a different solution must be taken, knowing that the SGDSN excludes in a civilian context destruction, as is the case in a military context.  So no microwave cannon.

 According to the consortia, the neutralization can take place by taking control of the drone to have it installed where it is desired, by a decoy that deviates its trajectory from its initial target, by a goniometric survey of the emissions of the telepilot to the ground which Will be visited by the gendarmerie.  But very quickly technology comes up against a legal vacuum.  Blurring GPS signals or sending erroneous data is formally prohibited, as this would be detrimental to many users.  In caricature, an airplane that wants to land at Roissy-CDG risks, at best, to land at Le Bourget.  As for the EDF network, it can experience load losses and overvoltages, the power stations being synchronized with each other by GPS, to provide a precise time to ten nanoseconds.  On the budget side, we speak in millions of euros, even if Spid wants to try to limit itself to 800,000 euros.

If the demonstrations carried out in Villacoublay have shown a certain efficiency at a short distance of about 2,000 meters, which may correspond to the protection needs of a nuclear power plant, a stadium or an event, the tests Are not conclusive for the protection of airports.  A circle of about ten kilometers must be sterile, covering in particular the landing axes of the instruments and take-off with the initial rise in altitude.

 The Air Force, which does not have time to wait for these high-tech developments, has acquired royal eagles as part of the anti-drones fight.  Born in the spring, the four raptors are raised on the air base of Mont-de-Marsan and find their food ... in drone wrecks.

 Along the same lines I note that there was a recent addition to the Senate submissions for the UAV inquiry (Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems. ), where a company called 'Nitestar Security Group' is offering their expert services to CASA to help police rogue drone operators: 3 Nitestar Security Group (PDF 83 KB)

Perhaps Wingnut should seriously consider what the NSG have to offer...


MTF...P2

Ps TY OK chocfrog (oops) choc Bilby is in the mail...

[Kharon]

A hunting we will go.

Personally, I’ve always enjoyed clay pigeon shooting and practice whenever I can. Before drones I’d have to spend a fair bit on target clays, then set up the ‘clay thrower’ and then find someone to ‘pull’ the release,– all jolly good fun, but there are problems. No longer – drones don’t cost me a penny and for the cost of a cartridge provide an entertaining target.

Can’t do that from a flight deck though. The most demanding in flight exercises are take off and landing; the aircraft is ‘low and slow’.  From ground level up to about 500 feet after take off, forward visibility is somewhat restricted which makes spotting ‘drones’ difficult, particularly when the sun is in an awkward position or the windscreen is wet etc. (same as a car). IMO while a 10K ‘no fly’ zone around airports would be sensible - particularly for the Choppers this would be hard to police and possibly restrictive.  But not to mandate anything less than say, what, 4K wide, 10K long exclusion zone from the DER is borderline irresponsible. Aircraft in the initial stages of departure; or, the final phase of landing, are vulnerable due speed, altitude, limited manoeuvring ability and a busy crew.

A scenario easily imagined is at a major airport, like Sydney when parallel runway operations are in use – at peak period. An aircraft on final approach – committed – is confronted by a ‘rogue drone’, head on. The aircraft must either take the hit or abandon the approach – straight ahead – there are no other options, to move laterally is impossible, to ease over or slip below the drone will dangerously bugger up the landing. So worst realistic case – an expensive overshoot and delay; all because CASA in its infinite wisdom, chose to simply ignore the drone problem, rather than address the issue before it became a problem.

There is I believe an international standard rule which prescribes the direction aircraft must turn when approaching ‘head on’. Not too many pilots around who don’t know that rule and will almost instinctively turn in the approved manner to avoid collision – I wonder how many ‘drone’ operators (bar the pro’s of course) know that rule and who is responsible for making damn sure they do? I hope our inutile minister of NFI has a safe place to hide, when the debris starts falling, lest his fat head get thumped by descending aluminium.

We do go to some bizarre extremes in the name of ‘safety’; (fact) we even prosecute for ‘paper-work’ errors, spend a small fortune tracking down rule breakers and compiling ‘evidence’. But we turn a blind eye to what is potentially a killer overhead our cities. The solution is so desperately simple, so inexpensive and so very sensible – CASA choose to ignore it.

Rule 101 – In order to purchase a non commercial drone you must provide evidence of membership to the Model Aeronautical Association of Australia (MAAA) and agree to abide by their rules and education procedures. Great little rule set by the way – HERE – perhaps CASA could take a page or two from the MAAA book.

Toot – FDS, get a grip minister – toot.

[Peetwo]

 

Is time up for Carmody Hour? 

Via FF the latest Wingnut missive : November 2016 

..This balancing act between a weak regulator and a harsh binary (black and white) regulator is a fair but firm regulator.

I made these points in a speech to the Regional Airlines Association of Australia, where I stated I was absolutely confident of the support of the CASA Board in this approach. I also said I look forward to the support of the aviation community to contribute to this significant commitment through a collaborative and co-operative approach. To ensure we harness the support of the aviation community I will continue to meet with people and organisations from across all sectors to listen to ideas and concerns.  As my predecessor made clear on many occasions, CASA doesn’t have all the answers and isn’t the source of all aviation safety wisdom...

And referring to 'closing remarks' from the RAAA speech Carmody made: Aviation regulation - the balancing act

Closing remarks

• In conclusion, I am really pleased and excited to be here leading CASA. Having been here before, I have some experience of the role of the regulator. No doubt it is a challenging role. To quote an abstract from the Sport Pilot, October 2016 edition, which I read just yesterday, CASA’s top job is
  

‘…widely regarded as the toughest and most thankless job in Aviation...’

• My aim is to achieve the right safety outcomes reached through proper processes, real consultation and transparent decision-making. Some people will like my approach, some will not. Luckily, I don’t need any friends, but I expect that eventually everyone will respect if for what it is.
  
• Thank you!
  

Hmm...so is the 'Carmody Hour' now over?? MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of arrogance, foolishness and glass slippers

He who hath giant ears said;

"Luckily, I don’t need any friends"

WTF? Really Shane? I call pony pooh on that statement Dumbo. One doesn't climb to the top of the bureaucratic tree unless one has much support by a number of close supporters! Now I don't doubt that you have screwed and burned many to get to where you are today, in fact it is a given as that is the PD of a bureaucrat or politician.
But having no friends? Yeah right. Mate, take that approach to the aviation industry and you will be carved up and fed to the dogs in a similar fashion to previous DAS's.....just sayin.
Incase you haven't noticed (and you probably haven't because you live within and are protected by a Can'tberra fairly land bubble) the world has changed, society has changed, our industry has changed, people's tolerance has changed, hell Shane even aircraft since the Wright brothers days have changed.

Still think you don't need friends? Good luck. You, your pride and your arrogance are in for a rough ride. Tick tock.

But then again, sociopaths (which the political world attracts in vast numbers) often don't have any 'real' friends. Sure, a sociopath will 'befriend' you, but it is always because they need to use you so that they can get ahead, they will use and discard you as a means to an end. They are selfish, self centred, conceited and conscienceless.  So which criteria do you fit into Shane?

TICK TOCK Mickey Mouse

[Peetwo]

Alphabets in harmony, Fort Fumble a basket case -

From AMROBA's latest newsletter: Volume 13 Issue 11 (Nov 2016)

1. The Ugly Truth Regarding Maintenance Training.

Incompetence is the only answer to why the maintenance training and licencing is in such a mess and almost unworkable. The previous CASA project managers never spoke with other governments departments and agencies. There was no understanding of the role of the AME/AMT, who work in base maintenance and component shops, let alone understand the role of the ICAO Annex 1, Chapter 4 licence privileges. The Education Department recently confirmed no restrictions on course duration. EASR Parts 66 & 147, implemented properly, can lower costs.

Australian aviation legislation/regulations have been out of step globally since 1990. The ICAO requirements for a LAME is important to adopt and the scope of the licence needs to be documented.

Why are we not harmonised with ICAO, EASA and NZ?

The reason is CASA, who thought they were experts, did not adopt EASRs properly or work with the rest of government. The damage they have done will take a major rethink to correct. Many of our members insinuate that it was deliberately done to damage GA. Considering the inputs they had during the consultation period, it always raised industry concerns how they developed the regulations.

CASA did not adopt provisions from EASRs that are a major reason for the unique LAME rating system applied to the licence. With a small change to EASR 66.A.5, Aircraft Groups, the original CAO 100.90 Series “Groups” could have been retained. For those that are old enough, EASA is similar to the original Group ratings use by DCA before the CAO 100.90 series Group ratings. CASA reintroduced a system from the past that did not work well for GA.

66.A.5 Aircraft groups
For the purpose of ratings on aircraft maintenance licences, aircraft shall be classified in the following groups:

1. Group 1: complex motor-powered aircraft as well as multiple engine helicopters, aeroplanes with maximum certified operating altitude exceeding FL290, aircraft equipped with fly-by-wire systems and other aircraft requiring an aircraft type rating when defined so by the Agency.
2. Group 2: aircraft other than those in Group 1 belonging to the following subgroups:
— sub-group 2a: single turbo-propeller engine aeroplanes
— sub-group 2b: single turbine engine helicopters
— sub-group 2c: single piston engine helicopters.
3. Group 3: piston engine aeroplanes other than those in Group 1.

We need to adopt with reference to original CAO group ratings. The following unused EASR clarifies LAME privileges

EASR 66.A.20 Privileges

(a) The following privileges shall apply:

1. A category A aircraft maintenance licence permits the holder to issue certificates of release to service following minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification within the limits of tasks specifically endorsed on the certification authorisation referred to in point 145.A.35 of Annex II (Part-145). The certification privileges shall be restricted to work that the licence holder has personally performed in the maintenance organisation that issued the certification authorisation.
2. A category B1 aircraft maintenance licence shall permit the holder to issue certificates of release to service and to act as B1 support staff following:
— maintenance performed on aircraft structure, powerplant and mechanical and electrical systems,
— work on avionic systems requiring only simple tests to prove their serviceability and not requiring troubleshooting.
Category B1 includes the corresponding A subcategory

Other provisions of EASR Part 66 also need to be adopted that will enable self-study plus examination plus experience to obtain a licence and or rating. In addition, to obtain a licence, the use of on-line providers is growing in Europe. Tradespersons from allied trades can also be smoothly introduced into aviation maintenance with a more cost effective system.

For a decade or more, MSA, the now defunct industry skill council, (has been replaced by a new SSO to support the Industry Reference Committee responsible for developing training packages) has mislead the industry in stating the training had to be crammed into the same training hours that existed 2 decades back. Basically 1200 to 1500 training hours, depending on which State; these hours include competency assessment.

The Department of Education has informed us, at a meeting in Canberra on the 23rd November that they have never had a limitation on course duration. Like NZ, the course duration has to be promulgated by CASA. This will correct one problem. It will enable harmonisation of training packages. Under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement, we should be harmonising as close as possible with education qualifications.

Job skill requirements must be provided by the education system to CASA standards.

In reference to the above quoted post:

From the belatedly released RAAA Winter edition newsletter it would appear the Alphabets (TAAAF) are still singing in sync and the volume is increasing: 

Mike Higgins from the RHS... :

"..We have also begun to ramp up our activities in holding CASA to account in following the current Government directive of International Recognition and Harmonisation wherever possible, particularly overseas maintenance and repair organisations.

The stand out issue here is the face to face audits that CASA insist on conducting on a regular basis at great cost to some of our members, with no risk based safety case to support this extravagance...

---

...CASA finally admitted that the current Engineering Training system has been a failure.

The result is the CASA launch of a Post Implementation Review of CASR Part 66 – Continuing Airworthiness – Maintenance Engineer Licences and Ratings.


The RAAA is fully supporting our RTO members during this review and will be working closely with the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) and the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA).


The triparte group is called the Engineering Training Action Group (ETAG) and is an RAAA initiative.


The RAAA has driven a different approach this time in that the group (rather than CASA) should lead the review, inviting CASA to join us from time to time.


We will need to involve the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and the Federal and State Departments of Education.


This project will take many months, however the impact on the RAAA resources will be quite manageable and will produce an excellent mid to long term return on our investment..."

TAAAF (with RAAA taking the lead) also continue to prosecute the case for holding the now Comardy led CASA to account on properly implementing the ASRR recommendations:

"..A Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) is still high on our agenda as we seek visibility of CASA's progress on inculcating the government supported recommendations in to the organisation


CAO 48.1 (Flight and Duty times/ Fatigue Risk Management) is still on the top of the current priorities.


CASA still assert that they have a safety case to support the need for an onerous FRMS and evidence to demonstrate that fatigue is not being managed by our Safety Management Systems.

After many months of unsuccessful lobbying for CASA to produce these documents we recently serviced CASA with notice under the Freedom of Information Act to produce the documents to which they refer.."

Hmm...I see a common theme here - i.e. "show us your safety case??" 


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The not so funny Comardy -  

 

Is time up for Carmody Hour? 

Via FF the latest Wingnut missive : November 2016 

..This balancing act between a weak regulator and a harsh binary (black and white) regulator is a fair but firm regulator.

I made these points in a speech to the Regional Airlines Association of Australia, where I stated I was absolutely confident of the support of the CASA Board in this approach. I also said I look forward to the support of the aviation community to contribute to this significant commitment through a collaborative and co-operative approach. To ensure we harness the support of the aviation community I will continue to meet with people and organisations from across all sectors to listen to ideas and concerns.  As my predecessor made clear on many occasions, CASA doesn’t have all the answers and isn’t the source of all aviation safety wisdom...

And referring to 'closing remarks' from the RAAA speech Carmody made: Aviation regulation - the balancing act

To begin I must give credit where credit is due Wingnut has helped address the RRAT Senate Estimates QON within the requested completion date:

142,144 Civil Aviation Safety Authority PDF 18KB 02/12/2016

To be fair it wasn't like Dumbo was particularly challenged with only 2 QON to answer...

However IMO there is some interesting but disconcerting OBS to be made from the 2 AQON and this offhand, arrogant statement from Flappers on the UAV/RPA issues:

Also, one Senator has recently moved a disallowance motion for the below 2kg amendment, which has been deferred until late November...

...Finally, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, just last week, moved that an RPAS inquiry be undertaken and reported by 27 April 2017. Of course, we welcome the opportunity for CASA to participate in this inquiry and tell the real story. Let’s hope the number has grown to 5000 by then...

&..the AQON:

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: I am. I am very close. Can I just say that if aircraft fly below cloud cover, visually—if aircraft do not have ADS-B, they have to fly visually—correct?

Mr Carmody: Yes, they have to fly visually. That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: The point that Dick Smith has made to me just again today is that that poses a risk to pilots. There has never been a case of a mid-air collision in this country involving aircraft in clouds—is that right?

Mr Carmody: I did see a quote to that effect. I assume it is correct; I have heard that.

Senator XENOPHON: He has expressed a concern previously and again today that requiring pilots who cannot afford to install ADS-B to fly visually below clouds itself is problematic from a safety point of view. Is that something you have assessed?

Mr Carmody: Not to my knowledge. I can take that on notice and see whether we have. I do not know the answer to that, I am sorry.

Answer:

CASA has not conducted an assessment of potential increases in Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic resulting from an inability to comply with the February 2017 ‘all IFR’ ADS-B mandate. Australia’s VFR rules are long standing and consistent with international standards. CASA does not consider that flying under VFR is inherently problematic from a safety point of view.

---

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

What empirical or other data does CASA have to ground the claim that that ADS-B prices will go up as a function of time? Please table this data.

Answer:

CASA does not have empirical or other data regarding the fluctuations in the price of ADS-B equipment.

However, the avionics costs were considered as part of the ADS-B Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) and then reviewed by CASA in 2015. It was found during that review that the RIS costs were generally consistent with the current prices.

In addition, the US-based Aircraft Electronics Association, representing the manufacturers of ADS-B equipment, recently suggested that the ADS-B equipment costs had reached their lowest price point.

IMO both the AQON & the passages from the RAAA speech indicate that Comardy has nothing but pure contempt for our elected representatives in the Senate committee and in particular Senator X. He also seems to have the same dismissive cavalier attitude towards our voted most trustworthy Aussie Dick Smith...  

IOS verdict - Time's up Wingnut...


MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

Time was up twenty years ago P2.

Has anything really changed in the past twenty years? Is it any safer today than it was 54 years ago when I first stepped into the old tiger with my dad in the back? One thing I do know is it was a hell of a lot less stressful back then, and a hell of a lot of fun, the funs all gone now, the stress increasing with every new raft of bullshit masquerading as regulation churning out of the regulatory factory. 54 years ago as a pimply faced adolescent your examiners were mentors, you respected them and learnt from them, Today's batch you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

What stands out to me from the gifting of our airports for big banks to make a fortune in tax free dollars or development sharks to carve up our secondaries, to the regulatory debacle, $300 odd million down and plenty more to go. To the ASA corruption to the ATSB ineptitude the same four or five names the same signatures keep appearing, every misstep of the way.

It beggars belief they can get away with it.

[Peetwo]

Latest from Comardy (CAsA) v Morgan (AOPAA) wars...

Via BM...Dear Comardy:

Wednesday, 7th December 2016

Mr Shane Carmody
Acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.
 
The Hon Darren Chester MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia.


AOPA Australia calls on CASA to give a genuine
commitment to consult and negotiate on ADSB 2020 extension
 
Mr Carmody,
 
Further to your letter (GI16/1017) dated 1st December 2016 in response to the AOPA Australia’s call for CASA to give a genuine commitment to consult and negotiate on the ADS-B 2020 extension.
 
The AOPA Australia stands by its efforts during the initial ADS-B implementation consultation, whereby we supported the ADS-B concept on the basis that a subsidy be provided to aircraft owners ($15,000 to IFR and $10,000 to VFR).  Airservices and CASA subsequently rolled-back support for the subsidy, forcing the general aviation industry to bear the full impost of the $46.3 million ADS-B fitment estimate, that was published by CASA’s in its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS).
 
The AOPA Australia throughout the initial ADS-B consultation worked hard to ensure that only IFR aircraft would be subjected to the mandatory fitment.  Our involvement prevented thousands of VFR aircraft from being forced to prematurely install, saving the industry tens of millions. 
 
It remains AOPA Australia policy that the Australian general aviation industry is due fair compensation for the forced ADS-B fitment, given that its introduction is focused entirely on benefits its provides to the airline industry and savings it will achieve for Airservices Australia over the coming 5 years.
 
Looking to the United States the Federal Aviation Administration has sought to establish government backed interest free loans for aircraft owners/operators and have sought to encourage ADS-B technology companies to provide further rebates and incentives to help the FAA achieve industry compliance.  And, whilst the Australian government provides a raft of loans and rebates for a myriad of industries, neither Airservices or CASA have produced any platform of assistance to help the struggling general aviation industry achieve ADS-B compliance.
 
The AOPA Australia highlights that since CASA’s initial ADS-B consultation nine years ago, the general aviation industry under CASA’s regulatory management has experienced;
 

• 35% decline in general aviation pilot numbers, over 8,00 pilots exiting the industry
  
• 50% increase in the number of general aviation aircraft not flying, estimated now to be over 4,000
  
• 35% reduction in general aviation fuel sales
  
• Largest number of general aviation business closures in the past 20 years.
  

 
The above results have been acknowledged by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Darren Chester, which has triggered a review into the cause of general aviation decline in Australia.
 
The AOPA Australia considers the impact of forced ADS-B compliance as being contributory to general aviation decline, with the mandate coming into full effect during a time of sincere economic distress for many general aviation businesses.  Now more than ever our general aviation industry and business community requires both regulatory and financial assistance, so as to ease the burden of the ADS-B installation requirement, so as to avoid inducing further business closures.
To further amplify this point, I received advice only today that one of two large aviation insurance companies has made the decision to withdraw from the Australian market, citing a lack of financial viability within the general aviation industry. 
 
Simply, where have all the pilots, aircraft and businesses gone?
 
The AOPA Australia has consistently raised its concern that ADS-B fitment would negatively impact the general aviation economy, yet CASA have refused to debate our position.  Both your predecessor Mr Skidmore and yourself have actively voiced CASA’s firm stance (to both industry and Senate Estimate hearings) that no extension was being considered and have refused to engage on the topic.
 
The inflexible CASA position has demonstrated to both industry and government CASA’s total disregard to the welfare of the people in this industry and has shown the regulator to be unwilling to genuinely consult or negotiate on the issues which are vital to our future.
 
In frustration, the AOPA Australia along with 480+ industry participants held a general aviation rally in Tamworth, May of 2016, calling on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to use their powers to force CASA to the table.  Only as a result of the industry standing in full protest to the senior members of government and elevating our concerns to the broad media has CASA been compelled to change direction on the ADS-B issue. 
 
However, what CASA has provided our industry in the ADS-B 2020 extension instrument is entirely unusable to the vast majority of those affected, providing no financial relief to those that need it most.  As previously stated, the extension is a sleight of hand by CASA, designed to appear as if the regulator is doing something, when in fact it is doing nothing.
 
The AOPA Australia last week called on you to convene a meeting in Canberra so that we may openly discuss the ADS-B issue, seeking a genuine commitment from CASA to negotiate with industry.  Your response states that you were “…not clear as to what more needed to be discussed…” and I can only assume it is because you have never been subjected to compliance of CASA’s regulatory demands, that you as Acting Director of Aviation Safety are forcing on aircraft owners and general aviation business operators.
 
On behalf of Australia’s aircraft owners, pilots and aviation business operators we are disappointed that rather than opening your doors to seek understanding as to our difficult and stressful position our industry is in - you have played politics.
 
We again call on you to convene a meeting with industry and to give a genuine commitment to negotiate.
 
Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia
 

MTF...P2

Ps Comment to the above courtesy the PAIN email chain :

Folks,


An added comment: At no stage has the whole issue of ADS-B  been the subject of a credible cost/benefit justification. Despite long standing Government policy for such justification.

Indeed, in risk management terms, ADS-B has never been justified, the many claimed benefits are just that - claims, that have not been demonstrated in practice, lest alone cost/benefit justified.

Just chanting the mantra does not alter the facts.

Cheers,
Bill Hamilton