[Peetwo]

Homework for the RRAT committee.

Should the McDolittle committee ever get off it's beam ends again and actually do something useful; (about now) there is a question (or two) that could be asked, the answers enlightening.

'We' (a few of the BRB) have been running a count of the legislation changes made in Australia and a comparison graph to map out the 'changes' other 'grown up' administrations, such as the UK, USA and NZ have made in the same time frame.

To do this exercise properly, it is important to 'register' - HERE - for the true Australian count. Failure to do so provides a different 'count' and the data received 'on the street' differs somewhat from the 'official' count (curious ain't it). It is a remarkable difference; the overseas administrations tally of change notifications match the official count and those transmitted to industry.

So, the homework questions:-

Since 2017 there have been 232 email notifications of changes to regulation sent to Australian subscribers: a half a dozen of which describe re write of an entire suite. How many of those were obtained by those not 'registered?


How many of the notified changes were fully explained in terms of benefits to industry by way of savings, ease of operational restriction, added 'safety' value' and alignment with ICAO?

I say we have for 33 long, weary, expensive years lived with a regulatory suite in a constant state of flux. The cost to the taxpayer and industry into the Billion dollar realm. The regulations are not ICAO compliant, are cumbersome and onerous. How much more time and money must be expended before the Minister and government realise that the regulatory reform program is a long standing waste which is killing off an industry which, overseas, is flourishing?

Final question - how much easier and cost / operationally effective would it be to simply adopt the world wide gold standard?  The savings; cost benefits and operational increased activity stand alone would affect the national budget and increase revenue for the nations coffers.

What would the savings be if the regulatory reform program were dumped and the ICAO compliant rule set transitioned in, without interference?

There you go - a question or two worth the cost of having a Senate committee ask. Should the McDolittle coven ever reconvene and actually do something that is..

Toot - toot. (and yes, we do have definitive answers). NFP.

To add to Kharon's post above..

The email notifications numbered 232.

The actual changes to various bits and pieces of legislation numbered 299.  296 if you discount the legislation relating to yet another inquiry into CASA..

Of these 296, the Civil Aviation Regulations suite was re-compiled three times, on 16/11/2018, 5/04/2019, and 3/08/2019.

On the other hand, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations were re-compiled.....wait for it....a staggering 14 times.  Once, in October 2020, only a couple of days apart.
4/03/2017, 5/04/2018, 21/09/2018, 12/04/2019, 7/08/2019, 20/08/2019, 13/11/2019, 17/07/2020, 4/09/2020, 13/10/2020, 15/10/2020, 23/12/2020, 11/02/2021, and 23/03/2021.

Notice the two dates in 2021.....after St Commodius resigned.  Hang on a second...didn't he say it was all done and dusted?  He wouldn't tell a porkie pie now, would he?

Some other stats...

There are 91 exemptions for various things, some appearing more than once.

There are 9 amendment instruments for CAO 48.1.  Which appears to have been re-written 6 times.

Prescription of aircraft and ratings — CASR Part 61 starts with Edition 3, then goes Editions 5, 6, 7 and 8.  What happened to Edition 4?  Did it fall down behind the tea lady's trolley to get trampled to death?

Urgh....this is doing my head in!

P7 -

Well done CW - the troops say thanks - sorry about the headache, Tim Tams on the way to enjoy with "a vanilla latte with two sugars" - Cheers...

Additional homework for the committee...

Dick Smith, via the UP: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st11088945

Incredibly fantastic UK GA document

---

Have a look at the this document.

Notice the heading “Our Vision – We want the UK to be seen as the best place in the world for aviation”.

Under Contents it says, “The Government’s vision for the GA sector.”

Another half-page heading says “We want the UK to be seen as the best place in the world for GA”, and mentions “proportionate risk-based and consistent approach to regulation that delivers high quality safety outcomes.”

This is obviously being driven by the UK leaving the European Union. Also the UK CAA has nothing similar to our wording that their regulator “must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.”

This is wording from the UK CAA Act:

“… 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…”

I reckon we all have to get together and make sure that Australia is the best place for general aviation – not the UK, the USA, Canada or anywhere else. Do I have any supporters?

MTF...P2