Shame or Fame for McCormack.

Dots and Dashes: Of Reynard(s) Politics and Airports?   

[Image: SBG-28-02-21.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-28-02-21-of-boo...eir-words/

Slight thread drift here but most who read will be able to make the dashes... Rolleyes


Good two coffee read, via the Age... Wink 




FEBRUARY 27, 2021
[Image: 0794545f19ae18f5769da5d04c76c02078d7a910]
Daniel Andrews and Lindsay Fox.

As dawn broke on one of the most fateful days of his premiership, Daniel Andrews’ first waking thought was Linfox.


It was March 27, 2020. In a matter of hours, Andrews would dial into a national cabinet meeting and advocate for returned travellers to be quarantined in city hotels, a policy that would ultimately carry disastrous consequences for Victoria.

But at 6.37am, his immediate priority was to ensure the family business of his friend and corporate mentor Lindsay Fox was kept in the loop.

“CEO of logistics at Linfox happy to help on any hotel arrangements,” the Premier texted his chief of staff, Lissie Ratcliff. “Just needs a point of contact.”....


Daniel Andrews' text messages to his chief of staff, Lissie Ratcliff
[Image: 2230123_1614312839034.png]

Quote:...Elenium, based at the Essendon Fields development part-owned by the Fox family, is trialling its kiosks at Avalon and is currently in advanced negotiations with the Andrews government to potentially roll them out at aged care facilities, sports stadiums, government buildings and conference centres. Although other businesses were invited to tender for the work, it is not known if any other companies have lodged a bid.

Linfox has held extensive contracts with state and federal governments for years. Part of its success is an uncanny knack of offering solutions to problems governments don’t know they have.

Victorian government insiders who spoke to The Age in confidence said the Premier had a tendency to champion ideas pitched by the Fox family for which the commercial benefit to Linfox was clear...



Hmmm...now to join the dots and dashes??  Shy


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Alan Jones verdict - SHAME IT IS FOR MICK MACK!  Blush  

Via AJ's FB page: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=286...2207520000..
Quote:[Image: 156224520_286534409505532_52118098506693...e=606D5C3E]

MCCORMACK A HOPELESS NATIONALS LEADER

I have been around politics a long time.

But never have I seen such a hopeless political leader as McCormack, the leader of the National Party and, can you believe, the 7th longest serving Deputy Prime Minister in our history.

We now learn that the National Party whip, Damian Drum, had a meeting last week with Scott Morrison’s office asking whether his leader, McCormack, can have the opportunity to engage in some policy “fights”.

In other words, McCormack has no cut-through whatsoever so Drum, his mate, is asking the Prime Minister’s office to help manufacture some policy fights in an attempt for McCormack to have a few wins.

McCormack would not address questions surrounding such a meeting, instead mouthing, “We proudly represent 16 electorates across the nation – 16 seats we retained convincingly at the last election – and it’s those constituents we remain focused on.”

Retained convincingly?

Such a statement only proves what we already know. That he is a political novice who has anchored the Nationals into mediocrity.

At the last election in the safe seat of Calare, there was a massive swing against the National Party - 17 percent for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

Andrew Gee, who is a McCormack supporter, had to go to preferences.

The seat of Cowper held by Pat Conaghan, a McCormack supporter, only retained the seat by going to preferences.

In the Victorian seat of Indi there was a massive swing against the Nationals, nearly 9 percent.

The National Party didn’t get within coo-ee of the seat.

Darren Chester had a swing against him in the seat of Gippsland.

The Victorian seat of Mallee, a swing against the National Party of 28 percent. The Nationals received 27.9 percent of the primary vote.

In the seat of Parkes, Mark Coulton, a McCormack stooge, had a massive 8 percent swing against him.

But what about Damian Drum’s own seat of Nicholls where he had a 13.4 percent swing against him. And this is the bloke wanting to protect McCormack’s leadership?

The tragedy in this is that Morrison cannot win government without McCormack. If McCormack stays leader of the National Party, mark my words, you are handing government to Labor because country seats will be lost.

There is no reason to vote for this bloke.

BM in reply to that... Wink


Quote:Benjamin Morgan

If DPM McCormack was genuinely interested in some 'policy wins' he would focus on his portfolio of Transport, where the aviation industry under his management are screaming for action on a plethora of significant issues and concerns. All falling on deaf ears, as our Minister in absentia is nowhere to be found. As a life long liberal/national voter, the situation has become embarassing. More industry leaders need to be speaking up.

Alan Jones if you would like to discuss the growing list of aviation industry problems under DPM McCormack's leadership, drop me a line. More than happy to chat. Benjamin Morgan, CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia. Mobile: 0415 577 724. Email: ben.morgan@aopa.com.au


And Sandy's response to BM's comment:


Quote:Sandy Reith

Ben Morgan, CEO of our Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has been voicing the concerns of Australia’s General Aviation (GA) industry for a number years to the deaf ears of Minister McCormack.

As for my own part, a long time AOPA member, and watching the bureaucratic destruction of a good industry its been sad to see the closure of hundreds of flying schools and charter operators throughout Australia. The sorry neglect by Governments of both stripes began with the creation of an experimental form of governance, the independent Commonwealth corporate body, a regulator that’s more like a self perpetuating monopoly bent on increasing it’s pay structure in line with ‘commercial’ rates. To this end it has a never ending make work program, and invents numerous permissions for which it charges swinging fees. Not one Minister, in my 55 years of GA flying, including running a GA business as Chief Pilot of scheduled services and Chief Flying Instructor, has had the courage or taken the responsibility to reverse the course of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority juggernaut.

Almost non stop inquiries by Government have been it’s only answer, in reality just soft soap over and over. It truly is a disgrace and a huge waste. Amazing that the Nats, supposedly representing country people, have allowed the loss of thousands of GA jobs, businesses and services in country centres which cry out for employment. Maybe Alan could give GA some much needed support.

Finally via Sky News Oz last night:


Quote:


The Nationals will be ‘wiped out’ with McCormack in charge: Alan Jones

08/03/2021|3min
The only people who can’t see that Nationals Leader Michael McCormack is “totally unsuited for the role” are the “handful of sycophants” who surround him, according to Sky News host Alan Jones.

“This might seem unkind but McCormack is highly paid, yet he could not lead a horse to water,” Mr Jones said.


“As for the revelations last week that those close to McCormack have asked the prime minister’s office to help their leader with policy debate, could anything be more indicative of how hopeless he is?”

Mr Jones said those in Canberra who support McCormack in the parliamentary team “must have an electoral deathwish”.

“The Nationals will be wiped out next time around with this bloke in charge, they are already slowly bleeding after the 2019 federal election.”


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Dots & Dashes within the McDonaught Aviation Portfolio??

Ref:

(03-18-2021, 12:18 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Bristell Aero embuggerance update: 17/03/21 - AOPA Oz OP.

Via AOPA Oz... Wink


OPINION: NO SPIN, JUST A SPIRAL DIVE IN CASA ETHICS AND CONDUCT

March 17, 2021 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Chief Executive Officer, Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion on the unfolding debacle between CASA/RAAus and BRM Aero.

[Image: BristellLSA-1170x500.jpg]

It does not matter where you travel in the world, aircraft owners, pilots, aviation business and professionals would all agree that aviation is a science that relies on the understanding of facts to make decisions.  There can be no guesswork or assumptions in our industry, lives depend on doing the job right.  Yet despite our industry’s deep understanding and adherence to this fundamental principle, it appears CASA, our national aviation safety regulator, does not understand.

Enter CASA’s dispute with light sport aircraft manufacturer BRM Aero.


In February of 2020, primed with emotion and assumptions, CASA’s strong-arm of ‘safety’ was lined up on a runway to failure, encouraged by its staff and RAAus representatives into launching a bitter and protracted public attack on the Bristell aircraft type. This followed an administrative dispute that had been burning for 18 months. On 19th February CASA issued a ‘Safety Notice’ warning owners and operators of Bristell aircraft not to carry out ‘intentional or unintentional’ stalls in their aircraft.


Just five months later in July of 2020, CASA would double down by imposing operating limitations on the aircraft type, creating significant public concern and calling into the question the safety of the aircraft design.


At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft.  The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing.


The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course.


Exactly what the RAAus motives were to entangle itself in this mess remains a mystery.  But what we can assume, is that following several accidents involving flight training aircraft, the self-administration would have been eager to distance itself from any criticism of its pilot training and licensing standards.  You can only assume it would be better if the aircraft was the problem.


The consequences of CASA’s actions are both predictable and devastating for all involved, with BRM Aero suffering enormous brand and reputational damage, causing millions in lost aircraft orders and undermining both confidence and value in the aircraft fleet worldwide.


But despite CASA’s public concerns for aviation safety, away from the cameras and public stage it’s clear the regulator had little no evidence to support their position.  In fact, in their  letter to all Bristell aircraft owners accompanying the July revision to the original Safety Notice and the imposition of the Operating Limitations, CASA stunningly admitted:


Quote:“there is no conclusive basis to presently find that the Bristell Light Sport Aircraft does not comply with the spin recovery requirements…”


Without direct evidence that the aircraft did not comply to the ASTM standards, CASA instead attempted to justify their reasoning by presenting 112 points of discussion to owners.  These points were recently responded to by BRM Aero in a 5th March 2021 submission to CASA, their aircraft customers and to industry.


[ Click here to download a copy of the BRM Aero submission ]


A review of the BRM Aero submission makes clear that the Bristell aircraft is designed, built and tested in full compliance to the ASTM standards for Light Sport Aircraft.


Contrary to CASA’s misleading statements and public stance, the aircraft was subject to extensive spin testing, a fact that has been repeatedly confirmed by the manufacturer, communicated by the qualified test pilot involved, and subsequently re-verified by an EASA certified independent aircraft design and certification organisation.


And, if the above is not enough, the US FAA have communicated in writing that they have no concern with the aircraft type.


The facts and evidence unequivocally contradict CASA’s position and there is no question that the BRM Aero Bristell aircraft meets and exceeds the required design, manufacture and testing standards.


The problem here is not BRM Aero.  If there is a risk to aviation safety, then it’s CASA in it’s current form.

What this situation loudly communicates is that CASA senior management and executives have failed to maintain a professional and impartial organisation, capable of working productively with industry and it’s partners.  Instead, a toxic environment has been fostered, driven by staff and external parties who are allowing ego to drive outcomes.


The CASA and RAAus representatives involved in this mess have significant conflicts of interest that should have precluded these individuals from being involved in this matter.  Yet nobody sought to intervene.  There is no framework to protect industry from such concerns.


From the outset the BRM Aero message has been simple.  CASA have been aggressive, have demonstrated an unwillingness to communicate, have failed to remain objective and balanced and have acted in a manner that is not proportionate.


I believe them.  The evidence supports their claim.


But can anyone be surprised with the outcome?  When a matter such as this is handled so unprofessionally, when the industry and its representatives are treated with such contempt, when those holding power over our industry have such blatant conflicts of interest, when the national safety regulator is able to exercise its powers so dishonestly, was any other outcome other than disaster even possible?


At this juncture a full and independent investigation needs to be conducted, seeking to understand the true motives of both the CASA and RAAus representatives involved in this mess, along with seeking to understand how easily it was that CASA’s safety enforcement powers were manipulated by persons who quite possibly were driving an agenda that had nothing to do with safety at all.


The question now is do we have a Deputy Prime Minister willing to stand up for the industry to do the right thing?  Or will he and his government simply turn their backs and allow this disgraceful mess to be swept under the carpet?


Whilst we wait to see the outcome, all industry participants should take a long hard look at the CASA/RAAus partnership and ask themselves, exactly who is looking after your interests?




Plus:

(03-18-2021, 04:02 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Interesting OBS in Senate Estimates program - The DARD??  Rolleyes

Via the RRAT Committee webpages:



2020–21 Additional estimates


Monday, 22 March 2021
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications


Tuesday, 23 March 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment

Program 22 to 23 March 2021 (PDF 170KB)

Friday, 26 March 2021
Cross Portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters

Program 26 March 2021 (PDF 154KB)



Hmm...this is interesting??  Rolleyes

Quote:1.45pm Domestic Aviation and Reform Division

2.15pm Airservices Australia

3.00pm Civil Aviation Safety Authority

From my reasonably informed position, this is the first time the departmental entity (ie the DARD) has been mentioned in any Senate RRAT Estimate dispatches. This would appear to be backed by the fact that when you Google the DARD it's web history only goes back to the beginning of February 2021?? 

However there is a history which leads to this webpage: see HERE      

Quote:First Assistant Secretary
Ms. Janet Quigley
(02) 6274 6061

janet.quigley@infrastructure.gov.au

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au

111 Alinga Street, Canberra City ACT 2601

GPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601

Sections

Still got some more dots'n'dashes to join but I've got the feeling that the formation of the DARD is significant?? Shy

In regards AOPA CEO BM's OBS, I refer you to LMH's latest article:



 [Image: raaus_hq1.jpg]

CASA awards Part 149 Certificate to RAAus
17 March 2021
Comments 0 Comments

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week issued a Part 149 approval for Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) to take effect from 31 March 2021.

A Part 149 certificate is an approval for an organisation to operate under Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) rules.

Part 149 was designed to replace the raft of exemptions that previously allowed for some sectors of general aviation to self-administered.

"Part 149 simplifies the regulatory arrangements that have existed for many decades with sport and recreational aviation organisations through conditional exemptions from the standard aviation rules," RAAus stated in an announcement sent out last Friday. "CASR Part 149 brings more transparency, flexibility and certainty for the sector.

"RAAus has dedicated a large amount of time and resource over the past three years to prepare for the application and implementation of Part 149. Much of this work included the overhaul of many internal and external documents and policies to align with 149 requirements, and also standardising and consolidating RAAus’ processes and procedures.

"RAAus has worked with CASA to ensure that Part 149 results in no material change or financial impost for members. This means that most members will be able to continue to operate with no change to their daily operations. Part 149 provides assurance to members that RAAus’ processes and procedures are standardised and consistent, providing protection for both members and the organisation. It also further legitimises the framework under which we operate as an organisation."

The change will means that members will need to update their operations and technical manuals to new versions.

RAAus is only the second organisation to be approved under Part 149, with the Australian Parachute Federation (APF) leading the way in April last year.





Coincidence (maybe) but I find the timing of the RAOz Part 149 approval 'passing strange' given both the formation of the DARP and the continued bollocks, unjustified embuggerance of Bristell Aero... Huh    

MTF...P2  Tongue

Ps Hmm...given the uptake of only TWO Sport and Recreation Aviation organisations/associations for the CASA approved Part 149 Certificate, I wonder how much time, money and resources have been wasted administering what is obviously a very unpopular regulation?   
Reply

Proof – 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal); or even 'on the balance of probabilities' (civil) have long been the foundation of the 'presumption of innocence – world wide. The task of proving guilt is sheeted home to the prosecution; the defence must create  reasonable doubt – a simple enough, democratic process (in theory).


"If CASA do not agree, our opinion is that the onus is on CASA to prove that the aircraft does not comply, not the other way around."

Quite correct – and the quoted statement clearly defines how far from the 'Rule of Law pathway CASA have strayed. How many cases now, particularly with 'strict liability' involved have ignored this simple tenet? CASA must prove their guilty argument; they say the BRM aircraft is XYZ – fine; their 'opinion' now they must prove it. For far too long the presumption of innocence has been taken away by 'strict liability' the chance to mount a reasonable defence denied.

McGillvray has the right of it – if this aircraft is 'dangerous' then CASA must prove it. However, if they attempt to use the data provided by RAOz then its a hiding to nothing. AOPA has produced a reasoned statement which should not only create all the reasonable doubt required, but highlight some fairly ordinary behaviour from both the regulator and that organisation.

AOPA - "At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft.  The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing."

AOPA - "The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course."



MTF – Oh yes....
Reply

Three interesting paragraphs:-

In light of information currently doing 'the rounds'. Seems to me (IMO) that the AOPA crew are edging even closer to the truth than the AOPA article indicates. Heresy or hearsay, take your pick but – however: .if it walks like a duck and quacks etc....

AOPA _ “At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft. The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing.

Questions:-

It is time to break down the innuendo and obfuscation. A 'test flight' for the intended purpose of this particular exercise is a serious affair. So can RAOz produce the documentation to authorise the 'test flight' define the parameters; and produce the recorded data in 'proper' format for scrutiny? i.e. a Test flight data base, base parameters, test flight data recordings in an acceptable format, name the restrictions, requirements and parameters which would support a 'bona fide' test event to a standard which would satisfy an internationally recognised certifying authority?

AOPA _ The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course.

The 'owner' of this aircraft – a certified test pilot? The equipment inboard – all approved and certified to conduct the 'test' flight? The recorded data analysis from the dedicated on board computer suitable for independent 'expert' analysis?

AOPA _ Exactly what the RAAus motives were to entangle itself in this mess remains a mystery.  But what we can assume, is that following several accidents involving flight training aircraft, the self-administration would have been eager to distance itself from any criticism of its pilot training and licensing standards. You can only assume it would be better if the aircraft was the problem.

And, for the love of Mike – what, in all the hell's, would the 'executive' of RAOz know about 'test flight discipline, conduct, rigours, analysis or even the legal requirements and parameters?

The truly abhorrent part (wait for it) – is, had the Coroner actually requested a 'test flight' the right course would be to seek out 'approval' from our 'certifying' authority. Except we no longer 'certify' we rely on approved agencies, such as EASA or the FAA to ensure that 'test flights' for certification purposes are conducted within a very rigorously controlled narrow band width of 'requirements'. Requirements which MUST be met.

The BRM aircraft are accepted and enjoyed the world over. It begs the question – what have Raoz to do with which aircraft is 'acceptable': which airframe is 'safe' and what the Duck are they doing 'consulting' with CASA on certification and authorising 'test flights'? Rumour has it BRM reckon the aircraft should be grounded, never to fly again due to the 'brutal' treatment, without point, purpose or authorisation. I couldn't blame 'em - if that is what they said....

You know CASA reckon Buckley was 'dodgy'; and they reckon RAOz is a pinnacle exemplar of recreational flying. Well M'lud – I beg to differ – big time, in seven languages; and, I can supply (if requested or required) enough swear words in those languages to melt his honours wig. This is a national disgrace; a deceitful, ignoble act. I wish BRM all the luck in the world – they'll need it – they are dealing with a Kool-Aide' fuelled asylum; hell bent on being 'right'.

I could, in two words supply the BRM answer to this RAOz dribble; but, Aunt Pru objects to basic Anglo Saxon. If CASA keep going along these lines; they will simply confirm that which we all know – there is no technical expertise left in the mouldering pile of clerks, wanna be lawyers, industry rejects and fatally flawed ex spooks feeding off the gravy train. I cannot credit that a national aviation authority can be led around by the foreskin by a bunch of 'amateurs' with the temerity to invoke a Coroner, authorise a test flight, make serious allegations based on that 'test flight' – and get away Scott free from serious prosecution. EASA and the FAA reckon the aircraft is OK – so who the devil are RAOz in the world scheme of 'aircraft certification? At the very arse end – that's where.

Disgusting.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

Disquiet shared.

I don't believe that any thinking person who has read the AOPA statement – HERE – could dismiss it as a beat up. 'We' have been digging about a bit and the more we uncover, the more alarmed we become. IMO the 'test flight' and the motivation for it demand an investigation by the AFP; for several reasons, if only to clarify the situation. BRM aircraft are on the CASA hit list, needing to provide 'proof' that their aircraft are suitable for task as defined. CASA are facing down both European and American certification, their primary argument supported by some very sketchy 'assumptions' , hearsay and a highly suspect 'test flight'.

When you add in the flat, written denial from the Victorian Coroner that at no time, in any way, shape or form was a request for a 'test flight' ordered; nor was there a Coroner on hand to 'witness' the 'test flight' – you have to wonder what was going on and why. What purpose did this 'alleged' Coroner involvement serve?

The whole procedure needs to be clarified. There is little wrong with a pilot taking an aircraft through a 'spin' exercise, thousands of student pilots, world wide, do it every day – often more than once. However, few if any, claim to be conducting a 'test flight' on behalf of a Coroner. Even fewer would have the temerity to claim their results as 'test flight' data, at a standard for use in court or as part of aircraft certification. They'd be torn apart by even a competent Barrister. Even fewer again, would toddle into the nearest 'Safety Agency' front office and declare the manufacturer certification data, produced under controlled, legal parameters, by qualified test pilots a load of bollocks. Would they?

Apart from conducting many 'after maintenance' check flights; I have no experience of 'test flight' for certification – so. I went looking to see the how, why and what of it. Took a hour of reading to get to the underlying logic and 'common' requirements; the bare bones if you will. Interesting stuff, highly technical and awesomely 'legal'. Certainly no place for a backyard lash up, concocted by amateurs.

Yet our CASA have taken what is a very shaky argument to heart and are quite happy to stand behind their 'own' test flight results, provided by the qualified flight test engineers of RAOz. Bollocks – this whole fiasco demands an AFP investigation.

FYI the links below follow my reading: I liked the Cranfield one as a general reference one; the others are more 'official'. All provide an insight into 'test flight' for certification; there is a CASA one, but to be honest, it was of little value to the case in point. 

Cranfield

CASA

EASA

FAA 1.

FAA 2.

WIKI

Disgusting – and perhaps just a little disingenuous?  MTF – I reckon so.
Reply

Supposition and opinion.

Neither will stand up in court without 'proof' to support. The problem when chatting to 'experts' in any field is the need for a complete picture, data and fact. Get your facts right is a good tenet. So is engage brain before opening gob; but, you have to start somewhere. Between the BRM submission and the AOPA statement related to the CASA imposed restrictions on the Bristell there is a veritable feast of theory, but little in the way of 'fact' or evidence. However, this story will not be disappearing any time soon.

I bothered a few busy folk yesterday – asking fool questions – speculating and discussing the hellish legal mess CASA have landed themselves in. In short, the best opinion I could solicit was that it is for CASA a legal pickle of some magnitude, on several fronts. On an operational front, the restrictions imposed on the flight envelope are risible. 'Stall' speed range is passed through on every take off and landing; CASA stipulate 'intentional' and 'unintentional' operation within the 'stall/spin' range of speeds is prohibited. Bit like saying you can drive the car but it ain't safe to use the brakes.

Item next comes in three parts; Vic Coroner; RAOz and a 'test flight'. I cannot confirm this, but there is anecdotal evidence that BRM have declared that the aircraft used in this test flight should never be flown again; not ever. The legality of the 'test flight' must be questioned: who authorised it; what data was recorded; who certified the pitot/static calibration; who tested and calibrated the ASI; what automatic data recording was used and who tested that equipment for probity and reliability? Is the owner/ pilot an approved 'test pilot' with adequate qualification and experience? Last, but not least – who stated that I) the Coroner had ordered the 'test flight' and ii) would provide an observer. Vic Coroner flatly denies any such order/ request or offered to provide an observer – let alone a 'qualified' one.

Aye, its a buggers muddle alright. Simplest way to unpick it would be to ask the minister to 'please explain' next question time. His office should be able to provide the answers; or, empower those who can to get the answers. Have the opposition or the independents got the sand to ask the big question – WTD is going on during the ministers watch?

CASA on some very shaky 'legal ground' according to several 'experts' in the certification field. Mark you; non of the 'experts' in the disciplines involved will say much without seeing every single bit of paper: it is complicated and without 'the facts' – well; that's about all one may reasonably expect. Then we have RAOz allegedly misrepresenting the Vic Coroner. Involved in directing a 'test flight' which can, at best, be described as not really conforming to the 'rules' - the results therefore must be declared at least nugatory. Then the rumour that BRM are allegedly saying that ITO - the airframe used in this aeronautical fiasco should be grounded; forever. By the by - all experts wanted to know what 'safety' equipment and parameters (as requested and required for test flight) where approved, were in place and tested - by whom and documented evidence of this requirement being met. Ayup:: Dangerous business for an unprepared, ill equipped amateur is test flying; even for the trained, qualified and experienced, there are some very real risks. Amen.

Someone, somewhere has some pretty tricky questions (legal, operational and potentially criminal) to answer IMO. Perhaps its time for some ministerial 'dirty hands' – those you get those through working at your assigned task – it is after all why the big bucks are paid.

Toot – toot.-.
Reply

TICK TOCK goes the McDonaught CLOCK?? -  Rolleyes

Not aviation related but the following does ask the question on whether the worm is finally turning on miniscule McDonaught? 

Via the (Oh so WOKE) ABC - Confused : 



Michael McCormack and secret group of ministers funded projects against department recommendations


[Image: ad265ced374e5a2b2f7835337a5c844d?impolic...height=485]

In the weeks leading up to the start of the 2019 election, Michael McCormack announced $200 million in spending under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) for 330 projects across Australia.(ABC News: Adam Kennedy)

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and a secret group of government ministers intervened in the selection of more than a third of the projects funded from a $200m regional grant fund.

Key points:
  • Michael McCormack announced $200m in funding under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund

  • A third of the projects selected by Mr McCormack and a ministerial panel he chairs were not recommended for funding by departmental officials 

  • A series of other letters reveal at least $44m in grants have been approved by ministers contrary to their department's recommendations since 2017 

The scale of projects chosen by the ministerial panel — which were eligible for funding but not among those recommended by department officials for funding — raises further questions about ministerial intervention in government grant schemes.

In the weeks leading up to the start of the 2019 election, Mr McCormack announced $200 million in spending under the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) for 330 projects across Australia.

A number of projects that received funding were publicly championed by Mr McCormack and other Nationals members of parliament in a series of press conferences and announcements at the time.

The scheme was enormously popular, with organisations seeking grant applications of up to $10 million, and with 915 applications within the third round alone. 

Under the Commonwealth Grant Rules, ministers must disclose to the Finance Minister when they approve grants against the recommendations of their department. Ministers must give a brief statement of reasons for departing from funding decisions.

letter from Mr McCormack to the then finance minister Mathias Cormann sets out: "Of the 330 projects approved under round three of the BBRF, a total of 112 as listed … were chosen by the ministerial panel against the department's recommendations."


The explanation provided by the panel said it took into account the regional spread of projects relating to current and future government investments and that this was "a key factor in the selection process".

It said the selected projects "address key infrastructure priorities in each region, taking into account Australian government properties that align with the government's intent of supporting regional Australia."


The letter from Mr McCormack continues: "Please note that although not recommended by the Department, all the projects were assessed as value with relevant money."



[Image: 08331d40e8bbebd6fad9d024b2717adb?impolic...height=575]
A number of projects that received funding under the BBRF scheme were publicly championed by Mr McCormack and other Nationals. (ABC News: Sean Davey)

Under the grant guidelines for round three of the program, the ministerial panel can depart from the recommendations of the department, and 7.30 is not suggesting that the grant recipients were not eligible for funding.

Ordinarily, ministerial briefings provide a list of the highest-scoring projects they recommend for funding, and a separate reserve list of lower-scoring but eligible projects.

It appears the ministerial panel selected the 112 projects from this reserve list.

A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure told 7.30 it provided an "initial ranking of projects" to the ministerial panel.

The spokesman said those rankings included projects that were eligible and represented value for money, and the department recommended as suitable for funding, based on the funding allocation available.

They said it included projects that were eligible and represented value for money, but if projects were chosen in order of the initial ranking only there would not be enough funding available to fund.



Concerns other higher-scoring projects were overlooked

Legal experts 7.30 has spoken with are alarmed at the scale of ministerial intervention in the scheme, and the possibility that higher-scoring projects may have been overlooked for funding.

"The problem may well be that there were other community projects that were equally needed or even needed more that weren't being funded," University of Sydney law professor Anne Twomey told 7.30.

Quote:"It just seems completely unfair. And it's contemptuous of the people who have made the effort to make these applications."

The ministerial panel also selected a number of grant recipients not recommended by the department in the fourth round of funding under the Building Better Regions Fund, which was specifically focused on drought recovery.

Forty-nine out of the 163 projects approved for funding "were not recommend [sic] for funding by the Department", according to a further letter from Mr McCormack.

In that letter Mr McMormack also said: "It should be noted that the Department did not specifically recommend that these projects be rejected, however for transparency these projects are listed."

He wrote in that letter that all projects met value for money, and the ministerial panel differed in its assessments because "they are in areas significantly impacted by drought and those projects listed demonstrated value for the broader region."

A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister told 7.30:

Quote:"The Department provides recommendations on which projects to fund to the ministerial panel, which in consultation with Cabinet makes the final decision and may consider other factors including the spread of projects, funding across regions and the regional impact of each project.

"Not a single project that was 'not recommended' by the department received approval. All projects approved were assessed by the Business Grants Hub as eligible and representing value with relevant money.

"The Australian people elect governments to make decisions and it is entirely appropriate that the ministerial panel and the Cabinet continue to have final oversight in decision-making."

The finance department has withheld the details of the 112 projects not recommended for funding — including their total value — on the grounds that they "contain the outcome of Cabinet deliberations".

It has also withheld the names of the other ministers who sat on the ministerial panel along with Mr McCormack...



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

We elect representatives to govern in accordance with our Constitution and Parliament has the power, not the many ‘experts’ who are employed by governments.
The grants that are given out to to various causes selected on the basis of opinion coloured by thought processes that include altruistic and political advantages.
To make some argument that governments should simply follow the experts is to believe the Communist theory that we will in time all work in perfect harmony for the common good.
One blazing example of how ridiculous is that notion is our failed aviation administrator, CASA.
CASA the independent expert body unhampered by accountability via the ballot box. So much for the experts.
A far better argument about government handouts would be to advocate a much lower taxation regime and minimise or eradicate handouts altogether.
Reply

Heads I win; Tails you loose. Dodgy

I have often wondered why a 'no interest' loan rather than a 'gift' system is not considered. A thing like a town dam, water treatment plant and up graded sewage system for example is a 'not for profit' essential item, which costs a truck load. The Kickinatinalong town council know it is a needed infrastructure upgrade, but haven't got a prayer of raising that kind of money through rates etc. A bank would not look at it – no return, no income – and nothing that can be repossessed against the loan. So, it seems perfectly reasonable that an application to the Government for a 'loan' on terms which can be met would benefit the town and keep the taxpayer dollars on an even keel. Long term – sure, but in the way of 'improving' the nation, it seems to be a good investment by the nation, in the nation.

Sandy - “A far better argument about government handouts would be to advocate a much lower taxation regime and minimise or eradicate handouts altogether.”


Handouts to me seem open to all manner of ugly possibilities. No one is saying that there are shady back room deals done; but, the possibility is there. This is particularly  likely to be suspected when 'secrecy' surrounds the process. There will always be a suspicion when 'clarity' and accountability are denied the inquirer. This is 'public money' – one should be able to go to the library; take out a copy of the 'meeting' in question and see, writ clear – Kickatinalong Council – 20 million over 20 years; infrastructure upgrade – approved by Smith, Jones and Whatshisname, details on page two.

“The finance department has withheld the details of the 112 projects not recommended for funding — including their total value — on the grounds that they "contain the outcome of Cabinet deliberations".


“It has also withheld the names of the other ministers who sat on the ministerial panel along with Mr McCormack”...

The statements above could, (justifiably) cast 'reasonable doubt' – while there is probably no call to doubt the integrity of those involved or the process – it does detract from the overall good intentions. Politicians need votes to stay on the gravy train; gifted money buys the influence and publicity needed to acquire those votes.

Drought and floods are a regular visitors to Australia; management of water is essential to the national well being. Anything to do with that management, by government should be made public – in the national interest. Clear, accurate and, much like Caesar's wife; must be seen to be above suspicion.

“This expression is a complete sentence by itself. It has been interpreted in several different ways, but most often it means that people associated with public figures cannot do anything that would shame that public figure.”

L'esposa de Cèsar no només ha de ser honrada, sinó semblar-ho.

Toot – toot  (two bob's worth of steam).
Reply

A point of comparison Rolleyes

Came across an interesting Youtube video titled 'How to save General Aviation', which features an interview (conducted by the Flying Reporter) of Robert Courts MP, the UK's Minister for Aviation (yes that's right they have a minister -  Wink ). This interview reveals that the UK has many of the same issues inhibiting the economic contribution and future development of the GA industry. The difference here being that they have a minister who actually understands the industry and is proactively trying to  address the issues besetting the industry - watch and weep Wink



Compare that to this McDonaught rubberstamped waffle: ref - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...3#pid11973


[Image: Mick-Mack-1.jpg]
[Image: Mick-Mack-2.jpg]

And/or think on what McDonaught has allowed to happen, under his watch, to Moorabbin and Bankstown (Secondary) Airports -  Dodgy 

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Point of Comparison II: Crawford vs Cannane

My point for placing this comparison on McDonaught's thread will become apparent but for now remember that Australian Taxpayers ($68 million) and industry (fuel levy of $0.03556 + inflated regulatory charges) are paying the CASA 2IC Crawford 500k + for delivering the following (intellectually insulting) load of bollocks... Dodgy



(FRMS from about 15 minutes)  

Once I have the Hansard I will be taking to task that complete and utter bollocks from the Scot Git because as an historical reference the mismanagement and obfuscation by CASA on effectively mitigating industry safety risk with fatigue dates back nearly 3 decades - see HERE & HERE for starters... Angry  

Quote:A series of fatal accidents around the world over the past decade have been linked to pilot fatigue, in response the International Council of Aviation will put in place new rules next year, to manage pilot exhaustion, in one of the biggest shake-ups in 50 years of commercial aviation.

[Image: cockpit.jpg?w=300&h=200]

To see the ABC 7:30 report: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487807_2516710.asx

How would react, if you opened the cockpit door and saw both pilots fast asleep!  It really happened on a commercial flight.

Such incidents are not the norm, but even these rare occasions need to be managed, as in the aviation industry there is little room for error...

Now compare the above cringeworthy and embarrassing performance from the Scot Git, to the following KC email communication, plus extracts and links from AMROBA's latest newsletter:
 
Quote:To all members.
 
The latest Newsletter Volume 18, Issue 5 is now available on the AMROBA website.
In this issue we highlight:
  1. A new vision is needed for aviation post COVID
    1. The USA is booming while we stagnate in general aviation.
  2. Australia states Australia does not design or manufacture aeroplanes > 5700Kgs.
    1. This has been lodged as a Difference to Annex 8 by Australia;
    2. Is this a reason why technical expertise has been allowed to decline in CASA?
    3. Open letter to Government/CASA.
  3. ICAO has amended Annex 1, Chapter 4 to include CBT for AMEs.
    1. We need to adopt ASAP to align with NVET CBT
    2. EASA already has a committee underway.
    3. When will CASA set up an implementation committee?
    4. Proposal to CASA
  4. The Chicago Convention’s Annexes & lodged differences by Australia.
    1. We encourage everyone to look at what has been lodged by Australia.
    2. It demonstrates why we have the wrong focus now.
    3. Foreign NAAs looking at the differences must question Australia’s compliance with the Annexes.
    4. Links in Newsletter.
It is such a small world today, differences only create barriers.
 
Obviously, Government, bureaucracy and CASA need to change their vision for Australian civil aviation to prosper in the engineering/maintenance fields.
  • Once you read the difference, you can understand their lack of vision for growing civil aviation engineering and maintenance.
Based on the lodged differences, it makes one wonder how Australia scores so well in ICAO gradings?
 
Fancy having more differences today than what was lodged in yr 2000.
 
Weren’t we told one of the aims of regulatory reform was to remove differences so we can compete in the global aviation market?
 
Obviously, it has all been political double speak for a decade or two.
 
 
Regards

KC

Plus:

Quote:3. Australia’s Annex Differences

Any NAA that wanted to assess the compliance of another NAA, only have to look online to the country’s Aviation Information Publication (AIP)

AIP Differences are assessable on the Airservices website: AIP Differences

Just click on each Annex and read how many “differences” have been lodged.

After 20 years of regulatory reform, we have more differences than we ever had before.

No wonder other NAAs have Australia in such low regards.

Regulatory Reform that started in yr 2000 after a Parliamentary Inquiry, has totally
failed the civil aviation industry.

By now we should have been harmonised globally and many Bilateral Aviation
Agreements should be in place so our design, manufacturing, maintenance and
technical training activities are recognised in their own right. The applicable Annexes
that you should open and read the lodged differences are:

Annex 1. Personnel Licensing
Annex 5 Units of Measurement
Annex 6. Parts I, II, III – Continuing airworthiness requirements
Annex 7. Aircraft markings
Annex 8. Airworthiness of aircraft (design/maintenance)
Annex 19 Safety Management

Most people that have looked at these differences are astonished that Australia has
lodged so many after being told in the past that regulatory reform was to remove the
differences so that we harmonised with the Annexes for better recognition globally.

One point that has been drawn to my attention is that Australia appears to dislike using
ICAO definitions or terminology. Why?

The number of difference that states ‘not defined in legislation’ is amazing.

What would a foreign NAA think when they see so many differences and many stating
not included in Australian legislation.

Compared to the differences lodged by NZ it is no wonder we have global marketing
issues. Some of the wording used in the differences makes one wonder whether the
technical expertise exists to draft differences.

These differences provide the evidence that regulatory reform has failed the civil
aviation industry. Compliance with the Annex standards, instead of being different,
would more than likely lower regulatory overheads.

“Australian legislation does not define ‘State of Design’”

A comparison with the USA Annex 8 differences is quite remarkable. As we adopted
FAR Part 21, you would expect our differences to mirror image the US differences.

No, we are quite different. How can we adopt FAR Part 21 and have separate
differences to those submitted by the USA?

No matter we are not part of the global aviation system.

Finally read this open letter to Mick Mack et.al: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...bility.pdf


[Image: aMROBA.jpg]

 

Hmm...now go back to that performance from the Scot Git and remember that Mick Mack currently relies on this individual for the proper oversight of aviation safety of the nation -  Confused

[Image: Acting-Prime-Minister-Michael-McCormack-...424808.jpg]

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

P2 on reflection, your reference to a "Scot Git" may be a tad racist, not all Scots are Gits.

Perhaps a more apt description would be a silver tongued Flim Flam man?

Oh sorry can't use "man" anymore can we, maybe "person".
Reply

McDonaught's tea lady brings out airspace issues paper?? Rolleyes

Via the Mick Mack Obfuscation Times: https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/m...ia-release

(WARNING: 90% probability a bucket will be required) 

Quote:Ensuring the safety and efficiency of Australia’s airspace

The Australian Government is seeking input on the direction of Australia’s future airspace management with the release of the National Strategic Airspace: National Aviation Policy Issues Paper. 

The Issues Paper is the next step towards developing a national strategic approach for the management of Australia’s airspace and is an avenue for industry to provide feedback on future airspace policies and direction.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Michael McCormack said the Australian Government is committed to consulting with industry to ensure future airspace policies reflect the rapidly changing airspace environment and meet the needs of airspace users.

“It is becoming more evident that future airspace operations will involve a mix of significantly different aircraft types and performance characteristics, this includes traditional aviation such as jet and piston aircraft and new aviation technology like drones and electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.

“The existing framework that underpins our safe and efficient airspace system has served Australia well for many years, however it needs to evolve to accommodate this rapidly changing environment.

“We value the input of those who use the airspace and see the Issues Paper as the starting point for open and transparent discussion.

“Feedback on the Issues Paper will inform development and implementation of Australia’s Future Airspace Framework, a project led by Australia’s Airspace regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

“While the Issues Paper considers a long-term approach for airspace management, we are addressing short-term priorities through review of Australia’s Airspace Policy Statement, which has also been released for comment today.

“I encourage industry and other interested stakeholders to take a look and have their say.”

The National Strategic Airspace: National Aviation Policy Issues Paper is available at www.infrastructure.gov.au/airspace/

“It is becoming more evident that future airspace operations will involve a mix of significantly different aircraft types and performance characteristics, this includes traditional aviation such as jet and piston aircraft and new aviation technology like drones and electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft,”  - Rrrretch... Confused Says it all really - UFB!  Dodgy



MTF...P2  Angry
Reply

"The Australian Government is seeking input on the direction of Australia’s future airspace management"

How do you steer something with no rudder?

"developing a national strategic approach for the management of Australia’s airspace"

That suggests there is a Strategy. We are still using strategies developed in the 1940'ies, bit of catching up to do.

"Michael McCormack said the Australian Government is committed to consulting with industry to ensure future airspace policies reflect the rapidly changing airspace environment and meet the needs of airspace users."

Heard that before over the past 30+ years, by consulting with industry does he mean the airlines? What is actually changing? At the rate the industry is diminishing there will be bugger all airspace users.

“It is becoming more evident that future airspace operations will involve a mix of significantly different aircraft types and performance characteristics"

Err.... does that not apply now?

“The existing framework that underpins our safe and efficient airspace system has served Australia well for many years"

No it hasn't, its been a millstone around the industries neck. It hasn't been as safe as it should and certainly hasn't been efficient.

“We value the input of those who use the airspace and see the Issues Paper as the starting point for open and transparent discussion."

I very much doubt anyone in the GA side of industry feels valued and CASA is about as transparent as a brick. (Refer to requests for docs under FOI)

"will inform development and implementation of Australia’s Future Airspace Framework, a project led by Australia’s Airspace regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority."

As long as CASA bears no responsibility for the inevitable stuff up.

“While the Issues Paper considers a long-term approach for airspace management, we are addressing short-term priorities"

There's an election in less than a year so I guess by long term you mean within a year. By short term priorities I guess you mean knee jerk reactions to newsworthy events.( Refer the angel flight imbroglio)

“I encourage industry and other interested stakeholders to take a look and have their say.”

Already have minister, year after year for the past thirty years, don't hold your breath.
Reply

Definitions:

Industry consultation = government smokescreen for inaction

Stakeholders = GA people with stakes driven into their necks

Stakeholder = CASA

Long term approach = never

Short-term priorities = inefficient and costly band-aids

Transparent discussion = the Iron Ring has already decided
Reply

The hypocrisy of DPM Mick Mack knows no bounds - UFB??  Dodgy

Yesterday in the HoR QT, McDonaught answered the following QWN Dorothy Dixar:

Quote:Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:11): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister informed the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's support for the transport sector as part of the economic recovery plan is delivering vital infrastructure and making regional Australia more resilient?


As far as I am aware the transport sector also includes the GA industry and vital infrastructure (that also helps regional Australia be more resilient) includes existing Primary, Secondary and ALOP airports. However the DPM yet again totally avoids the subject matter of GA industry and airports with this typical bollocks

Motherhood answer... Undecided

 

Oh but he did mention AIRPORTS.. Rolleyes

Quote:It's helping through the COVID recovery, and whilst we're a long way from being out of it yet, the work sites around the nation on our roads, on our bridges, on our rail and on our airports are making such a difference.

Meanwhile  (a couple of suburbs over) on the AOPA Oz FB page we get this disturbing dichotomy, in regards to essential  infrastructure  urban development:



Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

Take a quick tour of Sydney Metro Airport / Altis Property Partners new Bankstown Airport development and gain a sense of the scale of this non-aviation project.

FB ref link: https://fb.watch/5SAznwi_fi/

Quote:BANKSTOWN AIRPORT SELL OFF

Apparently it’s a time for a new horizon at Bankstown Airport in NSW, with Altis Property Partners now advertising its new non-aviation warehouse real-estate at the airport.

The development removes valuable aviation land from aviation industry use and ultimately will serve to drive further unsustainable increases in aviation leaseholds, driving aviation businesses and users out and off the airport.

This is what privatisation has delivered for Australia’s aviation industry.

[Image: 187010314_2229045480559698_6451886097751...e=60DBBE2F]

[Image: 189646184_2229045427226370_6110259606664...e=60DD26CB]

[Image: 187418583_2229045397226373_1335631153827...e=60DDE30D]

Comments:

Pro Aviation

Not the developers (sorry Airport Operators) to blame, they just do everything that our burorats and politicians let them get away with. Time to invest in the “Brown Paper” bags manufacturing industry.



Sandy Reith

Lack of rational Government policy is the problem. This airport land is irreplaceable and all efforts must be made to persuade our MPs to reverse the alienation of airport land to non aviation use. You wouldn’t build factories over a railway station and it’s lines simply because there’s only two or three ticket collectors employed there. Likewise our GA airports have a far greater importance than just their GA businesses located onsite. The secondary airports are necessary to bring together all the specialists and nearby educational facilities, outside engineering support and the population numbers of scale not available in smaller populations. Manufacturing potentials and the ability train thousands of pilots, including instructors who may work anywhere are the further elements that must be considered. Ring, write and contact your local MPs and State Senators. Better still, or in parallel, if we can achieve publicity for the cause then politicians will act.

Finally this amusing (but somewhat troubling) latest Acting DPM faux pas, courtesy the other Aunty... Blush



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

The AIOS pandemic and the McDonaught Aviation legacy?

The following AP post reference dates back to shortly after Mick Mack took over (in 2018) as the miniscule oversighting/obfuscating the aviation industry: TICK...TOCK miniscule McDo'Naught the clock is ticking on?

[Image: Dmr26l3U8AAX4Xq.jpg]

Now FFWD to the following post from a week ago and just consider how things have NOT changed, in fact it could be argued they have gotten far worse, especially with the apparent recent political kiboshing of one Senator Macdonut.... Dodgy   

(06-03-2021, 11:32 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: BOHICA.jpg]

Su_Spence and the BOHICA - Syndrome??

KC quote (linked post above) from 6 years ago:

Quote:KC (AMROBA) explains it best:
Quote: Wrote:"..Is CASA Australia’s Aviation Regulator or does it have an internal vision of being like one of the above?


Australia has created aviation requirements that are being prosecuted by a Regulator with a fixation on policing breaches of the criminal provisions they have created.
Aviation safety cannot be regulated into people as aviation safety relies on the safety culture of participants.
If CASA need access to metadata for ‘criminal’ offense then the Feds should be handling the offense.
This sought of dampens all the PR from CASA about working with industry.
This is a big brother mentality that does not improve trust or confidence in CASA.."

Talking about not improving 'trust or confidence in CASA, read the following from EWH (note the Su_Spence quotes in bold):

Quote:[Image: plain_english_guides_web1.jpg]

CASA releases First Plain English Guides
2 June 2021
Comments 0 Comments

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority this week released the first of the plain English guides to regulations that were first recommended by the Aviation Safety Regulation review in 2014.

The first guides cover Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules and Part 101 Micro and Excluded Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations and Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Fatigue Management.


The object of the guides is to present regulatory requirements in clear, concise language that is more easily understood than the legal language of the underlying legislation.


New Director of Aviation Safety and CEO Pip Spence said the guides mean people in the aviation community do not have to trawl through the detail of regulations and standards for the information they need.


“In these three key parts of the safety regulations getting the information you need will now be quicker and easier,” she said.


“CASA has listened to feedback from the aviation community about making compliance with the regulations easier and we have delivered a practical solution.


“We are already working on guides covering other key parts of the safety regulations to build a library of plain English safety information that will be of most benefit to the aviation community.


The three guides are available free as digital documents or as printed copies for $2.95 plus postage, with ordering done through CASA's online shop.


“I encourage everyone to get a copy of the guides relevant to their operations and to actively use them to support their safe flying," Spence added. "This is an initiative that can make a significant impact on maintaining and improving the safety of Australian skies.”

 How things change - err NOT!  Confused

Having a closer look at the 2 Parts (Part 91, 101) and 1 CAO (48.1), on a simple page count total we have over 332 pages... Confused 

The mind boggles on how many pages the complete simplified plain English 'library' version (of which PS speaks) will be?? 

Here is IMO a perfect summation from Ralph Holland (via FB) on the farce that is the Su_Spence backed 'plain English' versions of the regs and orders... Wink

Quote:Oh CASA. Proscriptive Fatigue Management changes after external consultants surveyed other States. Modifying something that was previously working - for what purpose? Then expecting an already mortified industry to volunteer their fatigue management system for a “trial” - what planet are they from?

Seasonal intensive operators such as ag operators, musterers and the like, tourism etc.

What cost benefit analysis is done to justify the cost of consultants, executives and impost on industry versus the safety outcome? Where is the science as Senator McDonald has asked?

One could say it sounds like a self-licking ice-cream; what is the intent and purpose of any of the changes that bureaucracies self-promote? It better not be jobs for their own staff.
(P2 edit)

However for an even better summation of the overall effects to the GA industry of having a bloated, archaic, 'law unto themselves', big R regulator imperiously strangling the life out of the industry, I refer to pages 2 to 4 of the SAAA submission to Sterlo's aviation sector inquiry:

Quote:THE HEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’S AVIATION SECTOR

The general aviation sector has been struggling for decades under the weight of increasingly complex and
burdensome regulations that are at odds with comparative jurisdictions such as the UK, USA and Canada.
CASA seems to be out of step with contemporary regulatory practice as adopted by The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) through the promulgation of Annex 19, Safety Management Systems – this
seems likely to in part be contributing to the decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.

Expressed in many ways and in many forums, the essence of the question has been quite simply “Why?”
And further, despite Section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 19883 - Why is it that Australia is not harmonising its aviation regulations to the rest of the world in accordance with our commitments as a signatory to the ICAO treaty? Why is Australia so different?

The consequence of the direction our regulations have taken is that aviation is a higher cost activity than it should be in Australia for a whole raft of reasons associated with regulations imposed by CASA on owners and operators. In the United States, which does not have the same approach to regulation, aircraft operating costs have been reported to be around half what they are in Australia and achieving safety outcomes that are statistically better.

Safety, particularly in general aviation, is dependent on the behaviour of individuals and their personal responsibility. The consequence of overly complex regulation is counter-productive and it might enable the successful prosecution of a very small percentage of recalcitrant individuals – however, that approach falls short when providing safe guidance to the good intentioned majority. Just consider the example of voluminous Software Licensing Agreements, which we are all required to so frequently acknowledge; similarly, our overly complex aviation regulations may obscure the best intentions. But further, overly complex regulation leads to multiple and confusing interpretations and an over-reliance on “experts” to assist understanding or clarify intent.

Calls to simplify our aviation regulations have been loud and clear from Australian aviators for decades and perhaps most vociferously in recent years at the Wagga Wagga General Aviation Summit in 2018. This
summit was attended by almost 40 aviation organisations and businesses and importantly also by the
Deputy Prime Minister (also Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development), Hon. Michael McCormack MP, and the then Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Hon. Anthony Albanese MP.

The calls to simplify the regulations, for example by adopting the USA aviation rules with ideally only a minimum of adjustment, remove the red-tape and all the unnecessary cost burdens to the industry so as to encourage it to flourish, and not encourage it to die were made most clearly to the Ministers. The urgency to effect change to avoid the loss of more and more aviation related business, and the effects of which reach far beyond just those involved directly in these businesses, was also made clear to the Ministers.

An important focus of the summit was to debate statements in the Civil Aviation Act in respect of the CASA’s performance of functions, which at the time effectively provided for CASA to regulate to achieve “safety outcomes at any cost”. Given the wording of the Act as it stood, CASA’s direction and actions were therefore perhaps unsurprising. However – the wording in the Act in this regard was considered the likely root cause of the direction in which our regulations had been heading – was it any wonder that without any regard for the economic impact of regulations designed to maximise “safety at any cost” would drive the industry into decline?

The Summit produced a number of recommendations that were carefully considered to represent real
tangible steps to improve the health of Australian aviation and a specific proposal to amend the Civil Aviation Act – these recommendations were forwarded by letter to the Hon. Michael McCormack MP on 17th July 20184. The need to amend the Act had been recognised for some time and, with bi-partisan support, some themes of the proposed amendments passed into law in November 2019.

The long and short is that, although there has been some activity to reform the regulations, the process is incredibly slow – measured not in years, but rather decades. “Re-inventing the wheels” when well proven cost and safety effective alternatives exist elsewhere in jurisdictions such as the UK, USA and Canada? Is there some block or unconscious bias existing that seems to have largely thwarted common sense changes so long sought, in particular, by the general aviation sector over all these decades?
Actions to date and understood to be in-hand / ongoing seem only to play at the edges and seem unlikely
to deliver the quantum change that is really required to make a fundamental change to and transform the
future of Australian aviation – and particularly the general aviation sector. There does not appear to be a will or the correct settings existing to effect material change. Accordingly, we are convinced that a sense and culture of expediency and a will to effect change needs to be prosecuted to truly bring about the concept of “affordable safety”, which is the necessary pre-cursor to effect the real change our industry needs.

COVID does not change a thing in this regard other than, like many other substantial domestic and world
events over the decades that have been then triggers to precipitate or accelerate major reforms, bringing to the forefront the very real need to do things now to protect and improve the future viability and economic outcomes of Australia’s aviation industry.

With few exceptions, the required steps have been tabled time and time again by industry. Bring some
pressure to accelerate these steps, further supported with some simple short term financial relief measures, and we believe the meaningful support for recovery from the consequences of COVID will be available and, in turn, secure and enhance the long-term viability and economic outcomes of Australia’s aviation industry.

SAAA believes the current direction of Australian general aviation regulatory development and how
regulation is administered exacerbates:

• Proliferation of differing standards for same or similar applications or functions (pilot medicals, pilot
and instructor training, aircraft maintenance etc)
• Ever increasing complexity of regulations (Australia’s regulations are considered to be substantially
more complex than most major jurisdictions such as for example UK, USA and Canada)
• Cost burden of administering such regulation at the expense of more effective safety risk mitigation
activities
• Which collectively deliver questionable safety improvement potential or conditions that maximise the
opportunity for Australian aviation to flourish in an equitable manner

We believe the pertinent questions are:

• What is driving the complexity of Australia’s aviation regulations?
• What is driving the agenda for differing standards (for same or similar applications or functions) with further exacerbates complexity?
• If lesser standards are approved by CASA for same or similar applications and functions for pilots and
aircraft operated by self-regulated organisations, then why are these standards not logically available
to all aviation participants and activities regulated or administered by CASA or any other self-regulated body? And why would not the lowest accepted standards of the current day prevail?
• What is the safety case or indeed moral case for the complexities, confusion and exclusivity driven
inequities introduced by the current agenda?
• What evidence can CASA offer that demonstrates that its approach generally benefits the Australian
economy and the Australian community - in particular regional Australia?
• Why is Australia not harmonising its aviation regulations to the rest of the world in accordance with
our commitments as a signatory to the ICAO treaty?
• What is the underlying factor or consistent thread over many decades that seems to have thwarted or
stifled common sense approaches and recommendations to create a flourishing and competitive
Australian aviation sector capable of reaching its full potential?
 

Again... Rolleyes



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Why – Indeed.

The first class SAAA submission to Sterlo's aviation inquiry (post above) could have been reduced to one simple sentence:-

“Expressed in many ways and in many forums, the essence of the question has been quite simply “Why?”

'Cui Bono' could have been added – just to pad out the questions. Questions to which the answers are self evident, writ large and crystal clear. The evidence to support may be found in over three decades of Hansard.

There is well trodden footpath leading to the venue for multiple, very expensive 'inquiries'. There exists an impressive list of very highly qualified, intelligent industry experts who have trodden that path with great hopes that the unimpeachable logic and solutions presented will result in a world best practice system being produced. Those same people have trodden that footpath away from an 'inquiry' to await the outcome – and been left disillusioned and disappointed; not by the response to the inquiry – but by the official response to that inquiry.

The Pel-Air inquiry was a classic; David Forsyth and some of the very best minds within the Senate committee drafted an extensive list of recommendations. These have been treated with disdain and deemed to be 'opinion'. The total cost of that inquiry came from the public purse. It achieved nothing, it even failed to impact on the underlying reasons for the accident; missed the heart of the matter by a country mile. Go back to the Lockhart River inquiry; the Seaview inquiry or any one of the many 'inquiries' – read the submissions; read the Inquiry response then quantify the material changes. The results will shock you; those results should shock the government into positive, bipartisan action. Alas, there is a conga line of ineffectual ministers who will cheerfully allow, even encourage the administrator to hold a steady course. That course is destroying what should be a vibrant, productive national asset.

And so, we read yet another positive, sensible 'submission' based on expert industry knowledge and mourn its passing into insignificance, destined to join the warehouse full of equally astute submissions, mouldering away; insulted, dismissed and ignored.

There is a humorous side, albeit a dark one, just imagine the DPM and Ms. Spence trying to sort it all out - before Christmas – we did. It would be bloody hilarious if it wasn't so ducking tragic.

Selah.-.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)