08-11-2020, 12:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2020, 01:08 PM by thorn bird.)
The incomprehensible regulatory destruction of General Aviation
I just recently watched a delightful feel good movie called a Dogs Purpose.
Left me feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Then I read Carmody’s obituary which engendered visions of a Dogs Breakfast.
Left me feeling cold and despairing.
Just exactly what is CAsA's purpose?
Allegedly its purpose defined by various governments of the day, is to regulate and enforce the “Safety” of aviation.
Unfortunately, they left out the bit that actually defines what the word “safety” means. As any Bureaucracy will do, CASA, left to their own devices, define it to suit themselves, a viable industry their last consideration, if they even considered it at all.
It is incomprehensible to me that a government would effectively outsource the making of law on behalf of the people, by creating essentially an independent corporation with a profit imperative, outside the checks and balances of the public service to create laws and then enforce those laws.
CASA as a corporation is free from scrutiny or assessment by the people, of the validity, effectiveness or fairness of the laws they create nor the unintended consequences that may arise because of their laws.
There is very little doubt that the regulation of aviation in Australia has been and continues to be a severe impediment to general aviation’s mere existence let alone any chance it has for growth and viability.
The big question is why this has been allowed to occur?
To be fair, our political class, who are supposed to have oversight over our Bureaucrats doings, have difficulty grasping the gravity of the dilemma general Aviation faces. Aviation is a highly complicated business, full of technical jargon that any lay person would find difficult to understand. They must rely on expert “advice” to get their head around the nuances of what makes it tick. Politicians generally rely on their bureaucrats for advice; however, expertise does not necessarily reside with the bureaucrats. To a greater extent, expertise in aviation matters resides within the Industry. Since CASA control the flow of information to the politicians is it any wonder that the industry rarely gets listened to.
Politicians for the most part are very busy people, they are required to listen to a cacophony of competing interests across the broad spectrum of society. Their very survival relies on their popularity. It is not surprising that their focus is drawn to areas that generate the most votes. A bleating bunch of aviators hardly rates a second thought, to them general aviation is irrelevant and therefore ignored.
All Aviation business is extremely fragile, a wafer-thin dividing line between viability and bankruptcy makes it extremely sensitive to any cost pressures placed upon it. Even the top end of RPT, as we are seeing with the current pandemic, is not immune. Economy of scale shields them from the cost pressures of over regulation to some extent, also their sheer size gives them political clout, the obvious importance to the economy ensures that.
The grass roots of the industry however, even in good times, finds it impossible for their voice to be heard and bears the brunt of CASA’s pogrom against aviation.
Regulation and Governance
In theory, regulation and oversight should be a relatively simple enterprise considering the resources available to any regulator around the world.
Australia has been involved with ICAO since its inception.
“About ICAO
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UN specialized agency, established by States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).
ICAO works with the Convention’s 193 Member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. These SARPs and policies are used by ICAO Member States to ensure that their local civil aviation operations and regulations conform to global norms, which in turn permits more than 100,000 daily flights in aviation’s global network to operate safely and reliably in every region of the world.
In addition to its core work resolving consensus-driven international SARPs and policies among its Member States and industry, and among many other priorities and programmes, ICAO also coordinates assistance and capacity building for States in support of numerous aviation development objectives; produces global plans to coordinate multilateral strategic progress for safety and air navigation; monitors and reports on numerous air transport sector performance metrics; and audits States’ civil aviation oversight capabilities in the areas of safety and security.”
“ICAO’s Vision:
Achieve the sustainable growth of the global civil aviation system.
Mission:
To serve as the global forum of States for international civil aviation. ICAO develops policies and Standards, undertakes compliance audits, performs studies and analyses, provides assistance and builds aviation capacity through many other activities and the cooperation of its Member States and stakeholders.
Strategic Objectives
In its ongoing mission to support and enable a global air transport network that meets or surpasses the social and economic development and broader connectivity needs of global businesses and passengers, and acknowledging the clear need to anticipate and manage the projected doubling of global air transport capacity by 2030 without unnecessary adverse impacts on system safety, efficiency, convenience or environmental performance, ICAO has established five comprehensive Strategic Objectives:
Safety:
Enhance global civil aviation safety. This Strategic Objective is focused primarily on the State's regulatory oversight capabilities. The Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) outlines the key activities for the triennium.
Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency:
Increase the capacity and improve the efficiency of the global civil aviation system. Although functionally and organizationally interdependent with Safety, this Strategic Objective is focused primarily on upgrading the air navigation and aerodrome infrastructure and developing new procedures to optimize aviation system performance. The Global Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency Plan (Global Plan) outlines the key activities for the triennium.
Security & Facilitation:
Enhance global civil aviation security and facilitation. This Strategic Objective reflects the need for ICAO's leadership in aviation security, facilitation and related border security matters.
Economic Development of Air Transport:
Foster the development of a sound and economically-viable civil aviation system. This Strategic Objective reflects the need for ICAO's leadership in harmonizing the air transport framework focused on economic policies and supporting activities.
Environmental Protection:
Minimize the adverse environmental effects of civil aviation activities. This Strategic Objective fosters ICAO's leadership in all aviation-related environmental activities and is consistent with the ICAO and UN system environmental protection policies and practices.”
Through much consultation with experts from around the globe including from Australia, ICAO developed SARPS which were a guide for producing regulatory standards and oversight. It must be recognised that ICAO has no enforcement authority, they can only advise. One should also notice in the above statements from ICAO that economic viability features strongly in their Philosophy, it is barely mentioned in Australia.
One could be forgiven for pondering why, after expending vast amounts of time, money and energy contributing to ICAO over the decades, Australia’s various regulatory bodies pretty much ignore the resource ICAO supplies and went our own way, illustrated by the pages and pages of notified differences listed in our Aeronautical information publication to ICAO SARPS.
Australia inherited its Westminster system of government from its colonial master the United Kingdom, a lot of the attitudes to governance here came about through this. As in the UK in the early days, aviation was viewed as a defence department province as opposed to the USA where, after the second world war, they experienced enormous growth in civilian aviation. Technology and innovation drove it out of the realms of the wealthy and into an era affordable to anyone. The USA lead the way with the freedoms to pursue innovative development. Aviation thrived, their regulator separated from the authoritative constraints of defence saw as a major part of its vision, that regulating must encourage, foster and promote their industry. Its industry grew rapidly to become the world leader, no more so than its General Aviation sector. Authoritative over regulation in the UK saw its aviation sector decline into obscurity, in Australia it never even got off the ground.
The USA formulated its regulations recognising that safety was of paramount importance.
The difference between here and there is that, to them, safety is just a word. If safe is taken literally no aircraft should be flying. Living one’s life carries risks, committing aviation is no different, doing so carries risks. The key to it all is to encourage the management of those risks which is what regulation should do. Over regulation kills the very enterprise that it is regulating as has been the Australian experience. In the USA they have the balance right. Their aviation industry is by far the biggest in the world and debatably the safest. Its contribution to their GDP is enormous, there is no reason it shouldn’t be in Australia.
Back in the 1980’s when government put an end to the two airline duopoly it was recognised that Australian regulations, a lot of which dated from the 1930’ies, were no longer fit for purpose largely because they were written to protect the two airline principle. It was decided to reform them by mirroring the very successful, mature FAA regulatory suite.
A group was formed which included industry experts and a beginning was made, producing some useful cost-effective FAA aligned legislation.
That all came to a shuddering halt when someone, somewhere within the hierarchy of the regulator decided we should forgo US FAA rules and align with new, unproven European EASA rules.
Competing ego’s and interests in middle management of CASA ensured that in the end Australia neither aligned with the US FAR’s nor EU EASA rules.
We partially used the EASA template and filled them in with our own home-grown rules. The hegemony of CASA legal, staffed with ex East European lawyers, pushed our regulations into criminal law requiring them to be written in “legalise” instead of understandable plain English. Being very obtuse, made it difficult for lay people to understand their meaning and intent.
Basically they mean whatever CASA decide on the day, which can vary depending on your location. They also reversed the onus of proof by adding strict liability to facilitate easy prosecution.
As Australia’s attempt at reform meandered along over the next thirty years, we ended up with a convoluted hodgepodge suite of regulation entirely unfit for purpose, costing the taxpayer almost half a billion dollars to produce and not yet complete. It continues to cost the industry millions for compliance for no discernible improvement in safety.
It is incidental that the EASA rule set proved a disaster for the European industry and have been largely rewritten to better align with FAA rules.
New Zealand showed the way by adopting the proven US FAA rule set. Took them only a couple of years and a few million dollars. Is our minister going to suggest that it is not safe to fly in New Zealand or the USA for that matter?
True Reform
As Australia gets to the other side of the current pandemic, it will need every hand on deck to dig itself out of massive financial hole it has dug for itself. Every industry and enterprise will need to play its part, no matter how big or how small.
The government must also play its part by removing regulatory constraints that are not fit for purpose, impede growth and stifle innovation.
From aviation’s perspective the government must recognise that the CASA experiment has been a disastrous and very costly failure. Aviation, if the government really wants it to reach its full potential must be bought back under a responsible minister.
The old authoritative defence department “Culture” that resides within the upper echelon of CASA must be eliminated. To do this a true reforming DAS with a successful track record in aviation regulation and management must be appointed and supported by government, rather than a public service hack with no aviation background or expertise.
The current minister arrogantly expresses that Australia is the safest in the world because of our regulator, when it is closer to the truth that Australian aviation is safer despite the regulator. Therefore, utilise the expertise of the industry rather than play lip service to it.
Recognise that Australia’s regulatory suite is an unusable mess. Form a committee of industry experts and get on with what was started back in the eighties and adopt the US FAR’s as a matter of urgency while there is still some shreds of industry left.
I just recently watched a delightful feel good movie called a Dogs Purpose.
Left me feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Then I read Carmody’s obituary which engendered visions of a Dogs Breakfast.
Left me feeling cold and despairing.
Just exactly what is CAsA's purpose?
Allegedly its purpose defined by various governments of the day, is to regulate and enforce the “Safety” of aviation.
Unfortunately, they left out the bit that actually defines what the word “safety” means. As any Bureaucracy will do, CASA, left to their own devices, define it to suit themselves, a viable industry their last consideration, if they even considered it at all.
It is incomprehensible to me that a government would effectively outsource the making of law on behalf of the people, by creating essentially an independent corporation with a profit imperative, outside the checks and balances of the public service to create laws and then enforce those laws.
CASA as a corporation is free from scrutiny or assessment by the people, of the validity, effectiveness or fairness of the laws they create nor the unintended consequences that may arise because of their laws.
There is very little doubt that the regulation of aviation in Australia has been and continues to be a severe impediment to general aviation’s mere existence let alone any chance it has for growth and viability.
The big question is why this has been allowed to occur?
To be fair, our political class, who are supposed to have oversight over our Bureaucrats doings, have difficulty grasping the gravity of the dilemma general Aviation faces. Aviation is a highly complicated business, full of technical jargon that any lay person would find difficult to understand. They must rely on expert “advice” to get their head around the nuances of what makes it tick. Politicians generally rely on their bureaucrats for advice; however, expertise does not necessarily reside with the bureaucrats. To a greater extent, expertise in aviation matters resides within the Industry. Since CASA control the flow of information to the politicians is it any wonder that the industry rarely gets listened to.
Politicians for the most part are very busy people, they are required to listen to a cacophony of competing interests across the broad spectrum of society. Their very survival relies on their popularity. It is not surprising that their focus is drawn to areas that generate the most votes. A bleating bunch of aviators hardly rates a second thought, to them general aviation is irrelevant and therefore ignored.
All Aviation business is extremely fragile, a wafer-thin dividing line between viability and bankruptcy makes it extremely sensitive to any cost pressures placed upon it. Even the top end of RPT, as we are seeing with the current pandemic, is not immune. Economy of scale shields them from the cost pressures of over regulation to some extent, also their sheer size gives them political clout, the obvious importance to the economy ensures that.
The grass roots of the industry however, even in good times, finds it impossible for their voice to be heard and bears the brunt of CASA’s pogrom against aviation.
Regulation and Governance
In theory, regulation and oversight should be a relatively simple enterprise considering the resources available to any regulator around the world.
Australia has been involved with ICAO since its inception.
“About ICAO
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UN specialized agency, established by States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).
ICAO works with the Convention’s 193 Member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. These SARPs and policies are used by ICAO Member States to ensure that their local civil aviation operations and regulations conform to global norms, which in turn permits more than 100,000 daily flights in aviation’s global network to operate safely and reliably in every region of the world.
In addition to its core work resolving consensus-driven international SARPs and policies among its Member States and industry, and among many other priorities and programmes, ICAO also coordinates assistance and capacity building for States in support of numerous aviation development objectives; produces global plans to coordinate multilateral strategic progress for safety and air navigation; monitors and reports on numerous air transport sector performance metrics; and audits States’ civil aviation oversight capabilities in the areas of safety and security.”
“ICAO’s Vision:
Achieve the sustainable growth of the global civil aviation system.
Mission:
To serve as the global forum of States for international civil aviation. ICAO develops policies and Standards, undertakes compliance audits, performs studies and analyses, provides assistance and builds aviation capacity through many other activities and the cooperation of its Member States and stakeholders.
Strategic Objectives
In its ongoing mission to support and enable a global air transport network that meets or surpasses the social and economic development and broader connectivity needs of global businesses and passengers, and acknowledging the clear need to anticipate and manage the projected doubling of global air transport capacity by 2030 without unnecessary adverse impacts on system safety, efficiency, convenience or environmental performance, ICAO has established five comprehensive Strategic Objectives:
Safety:
Enhance global civil aviation safety. This Strategic Objective is focused primarily on the State's regulatory oversight capabilities. The Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) outlines the key activities for the triennium.
Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency:
Increase the capacity and improve the efficiency of the global civil aviation system. Although functionally and organizationally interdependent with Safety, this Strategic Objective is focused primarily on upgrading the air navigation and aerodrome infrastructure and developing new procedures to optimize aviation system performance. The Global Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency Plan (Global Plan) outlines the key activities for the triennium.
Security & Facilitation:
Enhance global civil aviation security and facilitation. This Strategic Objective reflects the need for ICAO's leadership in aviation security, facilitation and related border security matters.
Economic Development of Air Transport:
Foster the development of a sound and economically-viable civil aviation system. This Strategic Objective reflects the need for ICAO's leadership in harmonizing the air transport framework focused on economic policies and supporting activities.
Environmental Protection:
Minimize the adverse environmental effects of civil aviation activities. This Strategic Objective fosters ICAO's leadership in all aviation-related environmental activities and is consistent with the ICAO and UN system environmental protection policies and practices.”
Through much consultation with experts from around the globe including from Australia, ICAO developed SARPS which were a guide for producing regulatory standards and oversight. It must be recognised that ICAO has no enforcement authority, they can only advise. One should also notice in the above statements from ICAO that economic viability features strongly in their Philosophy, it is barely mentioned in Australia.
One could be forgiven for pondering why, after expending vast amounts of time, money and energy contributing to ICAO over the decades, Australia’s various regulatory bodies pretty much ignore the resource ICAO supplies and went our own way, illustrated by the pages and pages of notified differences listed in our Aeronautical information publication to ICAO SARPS.
Australia inherited its Westminster system of government from its colonial master the United Kingdom, a lot of the attitudes to governance here came about through this. As in the UK in the early days, aviation was viewed as a defence department province as opposed to the USA where, after the second world war, they experienced enormous growth in civilian aviation. Technology and innovation drove it out of the realms of the wealthy and into an era affordable to anyone. The USA lead the way with the freedoms to pursue innovative development. Aviation thrived, their regulator separated from the authoritative constraints of defence saw as a major part of its vision, that regulating must encourage, foster and promote their industry. Its industry grew rapidly to become the world leader, no more so than its General Aviation sector. Authoritative over regulation in the UK saw its aviation sector decline into obscurity, in Australia it never even got off the ground.
The USA formulated its regulations recognising that safety was of paramount importance.
The difference between here and there is that, to them, safety is just a word. If safe is taken literally no aircraft should be flying. Living one’s life carries risks, committing aviation is no different, doing so carries risks. The key to it all is to encourage the management of those risks which is what regulation should do. Over regulation kills the very enterprise that it is regulating as has been the Australian experience. In the USA they have the balance right. Their aviation industry is by far the biggest in the world and debatably the safest. Its contribution to their GDP is enormous, there is no reason it shouldn’t be in Australia.
Back in the 1980’s when government put an end to the two airline duopoly it was recognised that Australian regulations, a lot of which dated from the 1930’ies, were no longer fit for purpose largely because they were written to protect the two airline principle. It was decided to reform them by mirroring the very successful, mature FAA regulatory suite.
A group was formed which included industry experts and a beginning was made, producing some useful cost-effective FAA aligned legislation.
That all came to a shuddering halt when someone, somewhere within the hierarchy of the regulator decided we should forgo US FAA rules and align with new, unproven European EASA rules.
Competing ego’s and interests in middle management of CASA ensured that in the end Australia neither aligned with the US FAR’s nor EU EASA rules.
We partially used the EASA template and filled them in with our own home-grown rules. The hegemony of CASA legal, staffed with ex East European lawyers, pushed our regulations into criminal law requiring them to be written in “legalise” instead of understandable plain English. Being very obtuse, made it difficult for lay people to understand their meaning and intent.
Basically they mean whatever CASA decide on the day, which can vary depending on your location. They also reversed the onus of proof by adding strict liability to facilitate easy prosecution.
As Australia’s attempt at reform meandered along over the next thirty years, we ended up with a convoluted hodgepodge suite of regulation entirely unfit for purpose, costing the taxpayer almost half a billion dollars to produce and not yet complete. It continues to cost the industry millions for compliance for no discernible improvement in safety.
It is incidental that the EASA rule set proved a disaster for the European industry and have been largely rewritten to better align with FAA rules.
New Zealand showed the way by adopting the proven US FAA rule set. Took them only a couple of years and a few million dollars. Is our minister going to suggest that it is not safe to fly in New Zealand or the USA for that matter?
True Reform
As Australia gets to the other side of the current pandemic, it will need every hand on deck to dig itself out of massive financial hole it has dug for itself. Every industry and enterprise will need to play its part, no matter how big or how small.
The government must also play its part by removing regulatory constraints that are not fit for purpose, impede growth and stifle innovation.
From aviation’s perspective the government must recognise that the CASA experiment has been a disastrous and very costly failure. Aviation, if the government really wants it to reach its full potential must be bought back under a responsible minister.
The old authoritative defence department “Culture” that resides within the upper echelon of CASA must be eliminated. To do this a true reforming DAS with a successful track record in aviation regulation and management must be appointed and supported by government, rather than a public service hack with no aviation background or expertise.
The current minister arrogantly expresses that Australia is the safest in the world because of our regulator, when it is closer to the truth that Australian aviation is safer despite the regulator. Therefore, utilise the expertise of the industry rather than play lip service to it.
Recognise that Australia’s regulatory suite is an unusable mess. Form a committee of industry experts and get on with what was started back in the eighties and adopt the US FAR’s as a matter of urgency while there is still some shreds of industry left.