[Peetwo]

DAS Carmody makes progress on 'Safe Skies are empty skies' policy 

"K" off the AP Senate thread : http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ml#pid9445

"Voyager, there are no bridges, one builds them as one walks."

“Our general aviation (GA) community is similar to the inner workings of a kaleidoscope. It consists of different parts — different types of pilots and mechanics, on many different types of aircraft, representing different issues, needs, and concerns. Just like the kaleidoscope’s prism of mirrors, GA advocacy groups reflect and support each part of our aviation village to create the harmonious patterns that shape our aviation world.”

That, is one the very best analogies of what is loosely known as GA. Of course in the USA, the term GA is not a derogatory term. In the USA it encompasses the entire spectrum of non airline operations; from privately owned and operated ‘heavy metal’ all the way through to the lightest, homebuilt bug smasher. All signify; not always harmonious, but very definitely considered. AOPA America is very, very good, efficient, organized and have worked hard to develop a sound working relationship with the regulator. But; it does take ‘two to Tango’ as they say. The FAA attitude to matters aeronautical is vastly different from the Australian edition; which makes discussion possible and any proposed ‘change’ has at least a fighting chance of becoming part of the fabric. The difference is stark and compelling.  

AOPA and the FAA work closely together to educate and provide outreach to the GA community, share information, and circulate best practices and lessons learned. A good example of this relationship is the GA Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), of which the FAA and AOPA are members. This joint government/industry committee uses a data-driven approach to analyze GA accident causal factors and develop mitigation strategies. Committee members all work together through educational programs such as the #FlySafe campaign to promote best practices and safe flying techniques.

Seriously – how much would this nations aviation aspirations benefit by adopting a similar system? Sure, it takes time, effort and willingness – from all concerned to arrive at any sort of agreement – always does – the difference being that in the USA – things get done; finished tidy. It seems to me at least, that there is a ‘can do/ want to do’ attitude over there; whereas in Australia, it always seems to be a one way street of ‘no – you can’t; first,  and then, even if you can, we will make it as difficult, complicated and expensive as possible. Why this is so, I’ve no idea; however, it is there – in your face, every time you need to change the colour of the bog roll in the airborne executive dunny. 

The entire article – above, (courtesy of P2) is worth reading through. Then, you can return to the 99th  re hash of the no longer approved after audit of the manual you drafted two years ago, to accommodate the new aircraft type; or to include the amendment to the exemption, which used to exempt you from only using black ink.  

Hell's bloody bells!– we can’t even get AOPA into the game here. Time the minister resolved the mess; or resigned, in favour of a more able man (or even my aging, giddy Aunt Mable). Thing that really gets my back up is we pay, and pay dearly to allow CASA to blithely, with untrammeled authority, to get away with this. Aye, ‘tis the ultimate of bollocks; self inflicted, just so we can all go along, to get along. Ridiculous. 

As a passing strange coincidence I note that Carmody Capers has tapped out yet another enthralling OP piece for the Oz...  

CASA’s satisfaction rating rises
SHANE CARMODY

As a CEO it is important to take stock of how your organisation is tracking. Is it making progress or slipping behind?

The feedback I receive most of the time about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is that we are making progress, but there is still more to do. That’s not entirely surprising to me because over the past few years we have done a lot.

We have implemented new surveillance technology, transitioned flying schools to new regulations, reviewed fatigue rules, established vastly simplified consultation arrangements, introduced new aviation medical processes, made small but targeted improvements to service delivery, sought to make our decision-making more nationally consistent and added far more rigour in our approach to industry regulatory oversight.

It is a fact of life that CASA is a regulator, and regulators are never universally popular.

Put simply, we are charged with making decisions that maintain and enhance high safety standards — and taking steps against those who are purposely not meeting them. A simple analogy is road safety regulation.

No one enjoys getting a speeding fine, but most of us would accept that driving safely and within the speed limit is part of a necessary system of road safety. It is not the case that CASA is always dealing with people who are deliberately reckless. In fact, with CASA it is usually the opposite.

No one takes off expecting to have an accident nor considering whether their lack of safety focus will cause an accident. We all want to get home safely.

CASA and the aviation community do share a strong commitment to safety. It is just that we sometimes differ in how that commitment is best expressed.

Bridging this gap requires both mutual understanding and mutual respect. One element of developing and maintaining mutual understanding is ensuring we know what the aviation industry thinks about us. We need to know what Australian aviation thinks we are doing well, what we are not doing well and how we could do better.

A key tool in this understanding is conducting regular and comprehensive research of the aviation community.

We have just released the results of our 2018 aviation community relationship survey and I am pleased to say there has been a marked improvement in outcomes across the board. The ­survey shows the aviation community believes we have made real improvements in key areas. This is not CASA patting itself on the back, but the verdict of people from all sectors of the Australian aviation community.

The first time CASA undertook this survey, in 2015, we found out we had to do a lot better. The overall result was a mean satisfaction rating of 4.2 out of 10. In 2018, the mean satisfaction rating has risen to 6.2 out of 10.

Significantly, those stakeholders who were “satisfied or very satisfied” with their relationship with CASA increased from 25 per cent in 2015 to 53 per cent in 2018. Additionally, those who were “dissatisfied or very dissatisfied” decreased from 46 per cent in 2015 to 20 per cent in 2018.

Can we further improve our performance in the future? We will most certainly be trying: not to increase our popularity, but to improve on the many things we still don’t do well enough and thereby improve aviation safety for all Australians. Of course, we will continue to expect that everyone in Australian aviation demonstrates their commitment to safety each and every day.

While CASA will keep working hard to get better at what we do, achieving the highest levels of safety relies upon the efforts of every aviation organisation and individual. We are in a safety partnership and that requires effort by us all. The latest survey included a new question on the three most important areas CASA should focus on to improve aviation safety. The answers were that we should make regulations simpler, clearer or more practical (19 per cent of answers); increase industry and stakeholder knowledge and interaction through consultation (13 per cent); and focus on training (10 per cent).

The survey also pointed to dissatisfaction with the delays in processing licence applications or renewals, and with difficulties contacting people within the ­organisation.

We will work hard to improve these areas. I’d like to thank the aviation community for the honest feedback. From what we are hearing we believe we have set the right course. We will commit to improving the way we regulate, not to court popularity, but to build the understanding and ­respect that is the foundation of aviation safety.

Shane Carmody is the CEO and director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

  
Hmm...this spiel somehow sounds so very familiar...
Quote: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-142...ml#pid9308

---

Senator O’BRIEN —Mr Carmody, I believe you are disappointed that this inquiry is taking place.
Mr Carmody —I was, certainly. I was disappointed that the inquiry was taking place. After we had given our evidence at the last estimates, the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed.
Senator O’BRIEN —Because you felt that whatever you needed to tell the Senate you had already told the Senate?
Mr Carmody —There are a couple of reasons. A number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot and there is also management time and effort. We as an organisation have an enormous amount on our plate. As you know—and I am sure we will get to it—we have issues with regional airlines and have issues with oversight and Qantas maintenance. We have a lot to do. Therefore, essentially going through another estimates process and preparing for another estimates process—preparing witnesses and putting in a submission—involves a lot of work. So, yes, I am disappointed.
Senator O’BRIEN —How many witnesses have you prepared?
Mr Carmody —All of the general management team are here.
Senator O’BRIEN —How have you prepared witnesses?
Mr Carmody —At the end of the day, in the same way that we normally do Senate estimates preparation—and ‘preparation’ is probably too strong a word—we, like all departments and organisations, look at issues that may come up and we prepare briefs and make sure that we have an understanding of the issues. So managers are distracted from what they would normally do by going back and reviewing the issues. That is the preparation that I meant...

---

[size=undefined]
...Mr Quinn —If I can add something there: being out in the industry in the last few weeks and consulting with various groups, the point has been made very clear to me—and it is also a point that is very clear in CASA—that the most important aspect of this inquiry is to come up with some sort of constructive outcome in the interests of aviation safety in this country. We certainly acknowledge that, I certainly acknowledge that and so does the industry. The point that is being made here is that, whilst this is going on, it takes some significant work to prepare ourselves when other significant work is going on—and there is a lot on our plate currently. We recognise the importance of this process to get to where we want to get.
Senator O’BRIEN —That is why I asked the questions about what was involved in preparing witnesses. The answer did not seem to indicate that it was a highly complex set of preparations given. I take it from the answer given that they were essentially the preparations for estimates which have only recently occurred.
Mr Carmody —If I may add—given that the question led with my disappointment—there still is work to go back and review any other issues that are around and in place. It is not for us—and nor would I think you expect it to be for witnesses—to take a blase approach to appearing before committees. We review our material very carefully, as we should, and we put a lot of effort into doing so. So there is individual preparation by managers to make sure that they are across all elements of their brief, or as many as they can be. The other side of the disappointment aspect—because I did not conclude that—is that there have been a lot of references to CASA over the last couple of years. One element of my disappointment—and I think it is covered eloquently in our submission—is that there has been a lot of change in CASA in the last five years. I am not sure that that is as broadly recognised in the community as it could be, and that is a disappointment.
Senator O’BRIEN —Here is your chance to make the case.
Mr Carmody —That is what we did in our submission.
Senator O’BRIEN —So it is actually an opportunity rather than a disappointment?
Mr Carmody —I think I said that in the all-staff announcement. I said that it is an opportunity to show what we have done. I do not have it in front of me but I can find it.
Senator O’BRIEN —No. You started with the disappointed, and you finally got to that; I will concede that.
Mr Carmody —Thank you, Senator.[/size]

With the exception of Carmody now being in the top job, how things have changed at Fort Fumble in the last decade - NOT!

---

If you consider that the Hansard extracts etc. were taken from over a decade ago, in reality the progress as stated by CC is moving at a snail's pace - 
I also note that over on the UP that Dick Smith and certain members of the IOS would seem to have missed the CC memo?? 

Dick Smith

Whatever you do, don't change anything - CASA Multicom

---

I love it. CASA has just sent out what is probably their final consultation paper regarding "Frequency use in Class G airspace". Here is a link. https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...1802as.pdf

Note once again there are no names - no one has the confidence to put their name on any document while earning up to $300,000 per year.

Of course, I could have written the wording in their email notification “We believe the safest and simplest system is the one currently in place.” This is entirely consistent with the whole of CASA. That is, never change anything, never show a skerrick of leadership. Never copy the best from overseas and incorporate with the best we already do here. Just make sure the status quo remains so no one could ever possibly be held accountable for making a decision.

What about the extraordinary cost in CASA doing this, which is paid by the industry? Or the cost of industry people and RAPAC members going to meetings? It is not quite the $1.4 billion waste from the Super Seasprite fiasco but it is the same incompetence.

Imagine working for the place. It must be really demoralising. You have to live dishonestly during the day and then presumably go home and tell your kids and grandkids to be honest.

I presume when they did the study, Mr Carmody said to them, “Whatever you do, don’t look at what happens overseas. In fact I prohibit it completely. You must not look at countries such as the USA, Canada or Europe as our minds are fixed in concrete and there is no way we will ever copy the best in the world. After all, we made the Nomad, and they only made the Airbus A380, the Boeing 747 and the space shuttle.”
 
&..

And we are converting a French Nuclear Submarine into a “ nomad” but with piston engines!

---

Ramjet555

If this stuff was printed 50 years ago, it would be have immediately been cut into quarters and pushed on a nail in the outhouse where it belongs today.

CASA is constantly on the lookout for ways to waste Taxpayers money, to engage in the delusional world of where they hang their hat on "Safety" rather than reality and the facts. The ideas of logical reasoning, based on necessity and reliability started down the gurgler decades ago and the whirlpool has only gotten worse.

CASA think they need to reinvent the wheel that worked well before they decided to to demonstrate corporate narcissism and engage in financial rape of the aviation industry.

In the USA or Canada, 126.7 is the Class G as they call it frequency for uncontrolled airspace. It's fine for the really remote areas.

Get closer to the big smoke and up high, you hear every clown within 100 miles going thru those long winded radio calls endlessly yabbering "Conflicting traffic please advise" instead of using eyeballs.

There are other concerns that are more important, with GPS everyone flies a railroad in the sky, yet do we ever hear of any rules to fly to the right of a direct track when closing speeds can be a few seconds a mile.

CASA have removed the vocabulary that was common with overseas countries and replaced it with their own that makes CASA look stark raving mad in the international world.

Now back to reading the sacred scrolls of CASA. - 

MTF...P2