[Peetwo]

The origins of the MOAS bottomless bucket??

P2 - Challenge - Find the Bosch Report - Choc frog in it

You're right Ol'Tom a complete copy of the report is impossible to find off the online Parliamentary library website...  

However there is a reference link - see HERE - from the National Library of Australia for which you can loan an electronic copy if you are a library member. I know that is not quite the same thing as obtaining a full electronic copy of the Bosch Report but I have referred the matter to my other sources and will let you know Ol'Tom how I get on -   

In the meantime while trolling Google for various connections to the Bosch Report, I did come across several references and extracts from that report. One of those references was from a CASA submission (refer sub 75 - HERE) to the 2000 Productivity Commission inquiry titled Cost Recovery by Commonwealth Agencies.

P9...
 

1993 - “Also, on this matter of the supervisory or safety functions of the authority, Bosch argued that there was an unequivocal case for that to be classed as the public interest and that it should be funded out of consolidated revenue. The government agreed with that; there was no ambiguity about it. It said, `Yes, we accept the findings of the Bosch committee'. A couple of years later, when the financial irresponsibility and deficits were mounting, the government said, `We are going to walk away from that'. The proposition we have at the moment is that there will be a recovery of 50 per cent of the regulatory costs this financial year and 100 per cent in the next financial year, 1994-95.

Remembering that this submission is approaching 20 years old, the following is a quote from the submission which IMO perfectly highlights how multiple Governments and indeed the CASA Iron Ring have obliterated and spun around the original findings of the Bosch Report to their own self-interest/self-aggrandisement/self-survival/self perpetuating (make work) bottomless MOAS trough - : 

Cost recovery has been a feature of the provision of aviation regulatory
services since 1956. The first in-depth approach to develop a policy for
recovery of aviation fees and charges was the 1984 Report of the
Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, known as the Bosch report
after its Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch. The review considered all Government
aviation costs of which the costs generated by the safety regulation function
was only a small component. This component was specifically addressed by
the review and their conclusions (Chapter 19 of the Bosch Report) are
attached (Attachment 1). In summary, the Bosch Report recommended that
the Government continue to fund the standards setting and compliance
functions of the regulator and to increase the level of cost recovery for
aviation safety regulatory services, achieving full cost recovery over a ten
year period.

Attachment 1 (Chapter 19) should be required reading for those who are interested in the historical context of the now 30+ year Regulatory Reform Program and how that program has led to the almost complete decimation of the once vibrant flight training and General Aviation sectors of the industry.

(Refer to sub-para 2 'Views put to the inquiry' (from page 243 to 246) and reflect on the current situation - how things have changed - NOT!)

This was the summary and recommendations of the committee Chaired by Henry Bosch:

Now compare that to to the last paragraph of the CASA Iron Ring submission to the Productivity submission...

CASA has prepared a draft Regulatory Reform Plan for consideration by the

Minister. The objective of this Plan is to rewrite the Regulations and Orders
with the development of appropriate clear and concise aviation safety
regulations which reflect best practice in aviation regulation. This significant
programme of development work is currently scheduled for completion in
September 2002. The existing Fees Regulations will become obsolete with
the advent of the new aviation regulations and a new listing of regulatory
services attracting a fee will be developed and identified in the Fees
Regulations. This process will take account of the review by the Regulatory
Services Division of what regulatory services should be provided by CASA
and what the appropriate fees should be.

Hmm...no comment - 

MTF...P2 

ps Also from the submissions it is interesting to read the Airservices Australia submission - see HERE - which in summary is basically a defensive submission in reply to assertions/criticism by industry stakeholders in the submissions - eg. :

Dick Smith, via the UP: 

I have spent quite a lot of time in preparing this video on airspace. 

I believe it has a message that we should at least do a costing for bringing the Class E airspace down to cover the approach – especially at airports that have ADS-B coverage and/or airline traffic.

I believe we have been lucky not to have had an airline accident in this 1930s style uncontrolled airspace.

For those who are interested, could I ask you to send an email to minister.mccormack@infrastructure.gov.au advising the Minister of your views – either supportive or not supportive.

Both CASA and Airservices have stonewalled the media on this issue. They just don’t comment, so the media can’t write a story.

Anyone who has flown in the US system would know just how well the Class E airspace works. It is not a 1930s system, it is a 2020 system.

Thanks in advance.

MTF...P2