[Peetwo]

Back to ToRs - 



Also from Horatio Leafblower off the UP: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10390770

 [b]Calling out CASA's Sham "consultation"

---

No matter your opinion of AOPA or Angel Flight, you really must agree that the way CASA has treated the General Aviation industry has been nothing if not contemptuous and arrogant.

Congratulations to Ben Morgan who continues to take the fight up to the regulator and the politicians in a way that I can't remember AOPA doing in my 28 years in the industry.

CASA has, at the stroke of a pen, eliminated Charter effective March 2021 and with their un-consulted Community Service Flight regulations all but eliminated Angel Flight as an important VOLUNTEER community service.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the RAAA, Chaired by Regional Express, and the ASAP, Chaired by the pseudo-charity (heavily govt funded thru charter contracts and donations) RFDS, have the blood of the General Aviation Industry on their hands.

...oh and by the way, CASA has also eliminated "Charter" from their definition of "General Aviation"... because a Baron or a C206 or a Chieftain flown on charter is "Air Transport" just like a B747. 

Watch Ben Morgan's latest here:

That brings me to my nominee for POTW...  

Lead Balloon -  CASA behaving like arseholes? Surely not.


As everyone slowly grows up and realises that aviation regulatory standards in Australia have always been set, and will always be set, primarily on the basis of politics rather than any objective criteria, people need to decide, individually, what to do about that.

What struck me particularly about Mr Morgan’s spray was the statement that: “I’ve always voted for...”. I switched off and remain uninterested in whatever party he’s always voted for. The primary reason Australia is where it is on so many fronts - and in particular aviation - is that most people have “always voted for” one the major parties.

The problem is that a vote for any of the major parties is a vote for CASA to do whatever it wants. It’s a vote for the status quo. The major parties don’t care about aviation because it’s been conveniently abrogated to the regulator. 

If you really want to make a difference, don’t send an email to any politician. Send an email to Dick Smith urging him to urge members of the public to vote for anyone but a member of a major party, until specified changes have been made. Population, aviation, gardening or pencil widths - doesn’t matter a shit about the merits of the changes. Just say what you want, Dick.

If Dick does that, things might change. Members of the major parties will agree to do what Dick wants so as to preserve the status quo - on the grounds of safety or whatever facade needs to be put over it - and you’ll all be able to return to the practice of voting for whichever of the dumb or dumber parties to whom you’re passionately dedicated.

Otherwise, resign yourself to pretty much more of the same until around 2021, when you’ll have another opportunity to demonstrate you’ve learned something.

Which finally, in the lead up to the next Federal Election, brings me back to ToRs with this Dick Smith archived post:

Dick Smith Wagga Aviation Oration.

Extracts from the Dick Smith Wagga Oration...

---

---

Good news with Minister Barnaby Joyce
 
 
Former Deputy Prime Minister
Barnaby Joyce
 
In December 2017 there was some good news.
Barnaby Joyce – clearly a Bob Hawke in many ways –
was appointed the Minister. What a difference.
 
I had a breakfast meeting with Mr Joyce and pointed out that the Civil Aviation
Act didn’t mention that cost had to be considered. He instantly said, “That is
ridiculous, you always have to look at cost.”
 
It was a fantastic breakthrough. He asked me, “Dick, if you were a dictator what
would you do to get the industry going again – especially aviation in the bush.”
I said, “The first thing I would do is fix the Act so costs can be considered, and I
believe we can get the Shadow Minister, Anthony Albanese, to agree with this.”
 
 
Shadow Minister
Anthony Albanese
 
Mr Joyce told me to go ahead and have a go so I used an industry expert to
come up with the new, effective wording, which says:
 
“CASA must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air
navigation that is consistent with:
 
(a) Maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation
industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector
(b) The need for more people to benefit from civil aviation.”
 
It was just common sense. Who could possibly be against such wording? Legislation that allows cost to be considered is not a unique idea.
 
Let’s look at the equivalent wording in the British Civil Aviation Act. It says:
“...provide air transport services which satisfy... public demand at the lowest
charges consistent with a high standard of safety... and an economic return to
efficient operators... ” British CAA Act (2012)
 
Yes, totally different to our existing “safety as the most important consideration”
lie. Mr Joyce agreed with the changes and got me to discuss them with the
Shadow Minister. Within days, Mr Albanese sent back a couple of adjustments
and supported the change – fantastic.
 
That was all to change. Within two weeks, Barnaby Joyce had resigned, clearly
because he did not live in Bob Hawke times!
 

---

 
Change not supported by new minister, Mr McCormack
 

Deputy Prime Minister
Michael McCormack
 
Now let’s move to the present time. I was fortunate to be able to arrange a meeting with the new Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack. When I asked him if he would support the change of the Act, he was undecided and said,
 
“I would like more information. I think there should be more discussion and more consultation.”
 
Now why wouldn’t he have said to me,
 
“Dick, this is just common sense - of course I will support the change - cost always has to be considered and I have read so much about the destruction of general aviation, particularly in the bush.”
 
It is very likely that Mr McCormack would have liked to have said that, but with his six years as a politician, I think his “actor” training came in. He knew that any changes to the Act that even hinted that costs should be looked at would be considered by some as reducing safety – and be beaten up accordingly in the media.
 
However, I really hope he will support the change in the future.
 
We laughed at the “Yes, Minister” segments, however, let’s think about it.
That “Yes, Minister” show is an example of how our politicians have become
actors not doers. I was shocked each time I was chair of the safety regulator
in Canberra to see how people – once the emotive word “safety” came up –
were not game to apply the common sense that I had experienced in private
enterprise for over 30 years.
 
You can’t blame individual politicians for this. The vast majority are as honest as
any Australians. It is the system we have evolved to and we have to fix it.
 
Even though I have concentrated on a story about aviation, this is also the
explanation of why so many are disillusioned with our democratic systems. No
wonder Mr Trump was elected to drain the dishonest swamp.
 

• Firstly, we need to change the Act as agreed by Mr Joyce and Mr
Albanese – “stop the lie – change the Act – let aviation thrive!” This
should be our motto.
• Secondly, we have to ensure that CASA concentrates on the regulatory
rewrite to remove every unnecessary cost.
• Thirdly, we should harmonise with the simpler and lower cost FAA
regulations which allow a successful, safe, General Aviation industry.
• Number four, we need to get people with talent and industry experience
in as advisers to the Minister and appointed to the CASA board. For the
last 15 years, the person appointed to advise the Minister on aviation has
never been a person with the skills or the experience, or ever stated any
vision on how to grow aviation.
• Five, we need to second experienced experts from the industry to CASA
for one or two years to get the General Aviation industry thriving again.
• And six. We need to convince governments to treat aviation safety in a
bipartisan way – not the point-scoring that goes on today which clearly
damages our country.

The major parties agree on our alliance with the United States. Why? Because
it is of such national interest. What could be more of a “national interest” than
having a safe and viable aviation industry? We need the major parties to jointly
support aviation reform. The agreement between Mr Joyce and Mr Albanese is
an example of what can be achieved.
 

---

Mr McCormack has huge opportunity
 
Tens of millions of dollars of additional export income
 
In closing - the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack, has a huge opportunity to support these common sense changes to get aviation, especially aviation in the bush, thriving again.
 
We could become the world leaders in flight training and recreational aviation – tens of millions of dollars of additional export income could be earned – promoting massive investment in both infrastructure and services in our country towns and regional centres.
 
The problems I have mentioned do not affect me personally, I’m fortunate. I can afford the high costs. It’s others and my country I am concerned about.
 
Call for action
 
This is my call to action. I ask you to contact the Minister, your Local Member, the media – everyone – and ask for the “Dick Smith Wagga Proposals” to go ahead. They will be on my website. Sir Henry Parkes gave the Tenterfield Oration in 1889, which was a trigger for our Federation. Well, this is the “Dick Smith Wagga Oration” which I am hoping will trigger the revitalisation of General Aviation in Australia.
 
Aviation call for action
 
https://www.dicksmithfairgo.com.au

Oh and if Albo, McDo'Naught, Carmody Capers & co. think we're going to stop banging on about the DFO abberration...

Dear DPM McDo'Naught

RE: CASA 30+ year embuggerance of the aviation industry.

Following on the discussion from the UP, Bill Pike shared his correspondence to the NFI DPM...  

---

Angel Flight

---

I sent a submission to McCormack and asked that he forward it to CASA. CASA did not publish it as they said that I had not requested publication. 

Mr M McCormack
Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the national Party

Attempts by CASA to introduce more complications in the operations of Angel Flight

Dear Mr McCormack,

For many many years CASA has in theory been answerable to a National Party Minister but in fact has run its own race over that time. I accused John Anderson of allowing CASA to run amok, uncontrolled, when I was President of AOPA. You are, unfortunately, so far keeping up the tradition.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been rewriting the safety regulations for over twenty five years with miserable progress. There are simple reasons for this. CASA likes the difficult regulations that we have. By proposing ridiculous regulations they can sit back getting paid while the industry beats itself to death opposing them.

There are/always were two ways of stopping this nonsense. The most obvious would have been to use the US FAR's. A large aviation country with a strong aviation industry probably already has invented the wheel. These regulations are not sufficiently proscriptive for our CASA. Twenty years ago the CASA CEO Mick Toller claimed that the US regs were about to be rewritten so shouldn't be copied. Hasn't happened yet.

The other way is to use an independent panel to write the regs, not CASA. One does not allow the police to write the laws of the country, does one? All industry representatives serve on various panels and Boards in their own time, and have been beggared and exhausted doing so. I suggest that all CASA representatives also volunteer to serve on these boards and panels in their own time. Then we would see some progress

I note Shane Carmody has trotted out the old homily that CASA is the police and nobody likes police. Mick Toller used that one too. That is just not so. It would take a book to do it but the contrary evidence is everywhere. Ask Dick Smith for example

Space precludes a comprehensive list of CASA's shortcomings but here are two typical examples.

1. After consultation CASA introduced, many years ago the Biennial Flight Review (BFR). It was all training, it could not be failed, so who could be against that? Subsequently, CASA, without notice or consultation, changed the name (to is it AFR?) and now it can be failed. Completely dishonest. 

2. Also without consultation , CASA stopped engineers flying out to a property to do required maintenance . Such maintenance now has to be done in an approved workshop, at greatly increased costs to the aircraft owners. This was at the behest of the big maintenance shops without any evidence that the fly in guys were not getting the result. No consultation whatsoever. In the States of course no such regulation exists .

My point is that CASA is, in this case, as ever, looking for more control and complexity even when such control is not justified. It has always annoyed the pedants in CASA that organisations like Angel Flight, (which has in fact an amazingly good safety record), are not under CASA's direct control. I well recall, many many years ago an aviation nonentity called Keith Campbell at a public meeting attended by Sir Donald Anderson, was told by Sir Donald that "my officers are only interested in safety . " Keith responded. "Your officers Sir are only interested in their career paths and their superannuation." There was much agreement from those attending. Uproarious acclamation in fact. Little has changed.

The latest attempt to exercise more direct control over Angel Flight and to add complexity to their operations, with no proven safety benefit, is being done in typical CASA underhanded fashion. Not a by a Regulation, which could be "disallowed" and debated in parliament but as I understand , as a "Direction", which does not have Parliamentary oversight. This was put up for comment over the Christmas period with, initially a two week (later extended to four weeks) comment period. How brazen is that!.

I can only quote my good friend Bill Hamilton who said to CASA representatives so many times when we both served on the old "Program Advisory Panel"

"This Regulation is required because of what known problem?"

I ask the same question of you

Yours Faithfully


FW Pike 
122 Howells Rd
Abernethy NSW 2325


CC Shane Carmody
CEO CASA

---

And some of the comments in response so far :

Blueyonda - Put up their response letter Bill. Let’s see the template letter.

---

aroa - Carbody , the Arrogant, if he replies will just spruik the usual motherhood bs we have all become so accustomed to.

And I would posit, it will probably be written by Dr Discrepancy, so expect convoluted legal acrobatic thinking to justify the unjustifiable..

Campbell's comments from way back still apply. What a fabulous gravy train is CAsA !

The stench from (Non) Aviation House gets worse by the day.

Vale GA !

---

Lead Balloon - Bill, it looks like it’s been done by legislative instrument that is, therefore, disallowable by the Parliament. However, the timing of the making of the instrument is such that it can do maximum damage for a long period of time because of the small number of sitting days of the Parliament before the election and the distraction to other matters during those days. It could be many months before 15 sitting days pass, and the likelihood of a motion of disallowing being moved and heard and voted on in the few sitting days before the election is quite remote.


Doesn’t alter the fact that the consultation was a sham and the justification for the change is a nonsense, though.

 
MTF...P2