[Peetwo]

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?



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....   

Su_Spence and the BOHICA - Syndrome??

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

KC (AMROBA) explains it best:

"..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):

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! 

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...  

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...

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:

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...

MTF...P2