[Peetwo]

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...

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Once I have the Hansard I will be taking to task that complete and utter bollocks from the Scot Git because as an historical reference the mismanagement and obfuscation by CASA on effectively mitigating industry safety risk with fatigue dates back nearly 3 decades - see HERE & HERE for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

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.



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:
 

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
   
   2. The USA is booming while we stagnate in general aviation.
      
2. Australia states Australia does not design or manufacture aeroplanes > 5700Kgs.
   
   2. This has been lodged as a Difference to Annex 8 by Australia;
      
   3. Is this a reason why technical expertise has been allowed to decline in CASA?
      
   4. Open letter to Government/CASA.
      
3. ICAO has amended Annex 1, Chapter 4 to include CBT for AMEs.
   
   2. We need to adopt ASAP to align with NVET CBT
      
   3. EASA already has a committee underway.
      
   4. When will CASA set up an implementation committee?
      
   5. Proposal to CASA
      
4. The Chicago Convention’s Annexes & lodged differences by Australia.
   
   2. We encourage everyone to look at what has been lodged by Australia.
      
   3. It demonstrates why we have the wrong focus now.
      
   4. Foreign NAAs looking at the differences must question Australia’s compliance with the Annexes.
      
   5. 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:

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

---

---

 

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 - 



MTF...P2