[Peetwo]

AMROBA supplementary submission (plus attachments) finally published?? -   

Not exactly sure what the hold up was but I note that AMROBA's sup submission has been published:

Attachment 1 (PDF 215 KB)
 
The Hon Barnaby Joyce 08/07/2021

Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Subject: Civil aviation engineering global recognition and harmonisation

Mr Joyce,

On behalf of the Board and members of AMROBA we congratulate your long overdue
return to DPM and the Minister for DITRDC and your support for the civil aviation
industry that you showed during your Ministership last time.

It will be a welcome change.

AMROBA also welcomed the appointment of Ms Pip Spence as CEO of CASA and
Mark Binskin as Chair of the CASA Board. The Board, to be respected by industry,
must be transparent like the Board of the CAA(UK) who, post their meetings, publish
the minutes for all to see their decisions and directions they give to the CAA(UK). This
transparency had been agreed to by Warren Truss. Never eventuated.

Under this new leadership we expect a return to global recognition and respect of
Australian civil aviation businesses capabilities to compete domestically and globally
in their own right and a safe prosperous civil aviation industry.

The view of general aviation sectors, including the engineering fields of design,
manufacture and maintenance, is that political leadership and direction has not been
provided by the previous two Ministers, Mr McCormack and Mr Chester.

In particular, Mr Chester signed airport master plans that has enabled the ‘property
developers’ managing airports to evict many solid aviation small businesses, some have
been in business for over 30 years, and replaced them with non-aviation businesses.

This practice is continuing today, especially at Moorabbin, Bankstown, Archerfield,
Jandakot and other airports. These ‘developers’ are not advancing aviation and they are
reducing the ability for future aviation development at these airports in preference to
non-aviation commercial businesses and increasing rents. No aviation support.

Mr McCormack took no action to reverse or restrict Chester’s approved airport master
plans even though there has been numerous submissions and pleas, sent to him, to
prevent the reduction at these mainly metro airports. DITRDC are aware and agree that

Acts need to be changed to fix the issue. There should be a ‘hold’ on this non-aviation
development until a review and Act amendment. General aviation is made up of many
small businesses that are expendable according to these developers.

The Wagga meeting of over 30 associations and around 100 industry delegates 100%
voted, with McCormack in attendance, to adopt and harmonise with the USA aviation
regulatory system (FARs). So why is CASA adopting EASA regulations that industry
does not want? The FARs are more applicable to our aviation industry sectors.

We need to adopt FARs to be at least Australasia harmonised.

Global Recognition 

Since our meeting in Tamworth, that you attended, and the subsequent meeting in
Wagga, that McCormack attended, we have recently become aware of a massive
number of Differences lodged by CASA/government to the Convention on
International Aviation Standards, signed by Australia in 1947. These differences
explains why other foreign countries and their National Aviation Authority do not
recognise Australian civil aviation products and services.

Differences: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip.../icao/icao standards.asp

Any foreign NAA, when assessing Australia’s compliance with the Convention and its
Standards, would assess the differences lodged by Australia against each Annex
standard to determine if Australia is a Convention compliant country. Not anymore.

Convention Annexes differences reveals to the world we are third world compliant.

• Article 37 of the Convention places an obligation on Australia to adopt the
“standards” specified in Annexes to the Convention by “securing the highest
practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures, and
organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all
matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation”.
• One recent difference lodged states that Australia does not manufacture or certify
aircraft above 5700Kg. This explains why potential Australian manufacturers of
larger aircraft have not been able to meet with CASA over the last decade.
• The less differences lodged by CASA means Australian civil aviation design,
manufacture and maintenance products and services can be accepted by other
nations once a bilateral (FTA) is signed with each country.

Because the Act only states that CASA must be “consistent” with the Convention, it
needs to be clarified with a direction that regulations and standards be “consistent” with
minimal differences to the Convention “standards” until the Act can be changed.

Your Minister’s ‘Statement of Expectations’ to CASA’s Board must provide such a
direction to adopt, in accordance with Article 37, the Convention’s standards with
minimal differences in order to support global recognition of our products, services and
global participation by our civil aviation businesses.

To obtain global recognition Australia needs to complete harmonisation with the FAR
system utilising their performance based regulations that will resurrect small businesses
especially in the flight training and maintenance sectors that underpin private and
commercial general aviation sectors as well as the design, manufacture and
maintenance sectors.

The US FAA already has a difference agreement with EASA for recognition of each
other’s system that Australia can copy once it adopts the FARs.

Performance Based Regulations,

PBRs are cost effective and safe. It is the basis of FARs and the US has an aviation
safety record second to none. We need to adopt.

The current regulatory development is creating a silo system of economic regulations
instead of multiple pathways as former 1990s LNP and Labour Ministers expected and
supported. For example, these Ministers required “parallel pathways” wherever
administration organisations are involved.

e.g.1990s NPRM 0603OS _ Part 103 will also establish a 'parallel pathway' for CASA
to administer these activities when individual participants, for whatever reason, choose
not to participate as members of an administering organisation.

Freedom of choice. Did not eventuate – lower red tape for Part 103 operations.

The performance based regulations like the USA Federal Aviation Regulations provide
multiple pathways, economic decisions are then made by industry participants because
of the multi-pathways available. Australia is implementing, has implemented,
economic sector protective regulations with one pathway that is restricting the viability
of small businesses to participate in civil aviation.

History needing correction

Both Australia and New Zealand were developing congruous regulations based on the
FAR system in the 1990s until CASA CEO Byron, early 2000, changed the course of
CASA without support or consultation from the whole civil aviation industry.

So began the era of ‘you get what we give you and not what you want’ attitude in
CASA and this is why the views of industry (FAR supporters) and CASA (EASR
supporters) are so diametrically opposed.

This needs to be politically corrected.

NZ, PNG and many Pacific Island States have a FAR based system adopted from the
CAA(NZ) FAR based system.

Regional harmonisation

We need a Pacific region harmonised regulatory system with harmonised personnel
qualifications to meet the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement.

As part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Government should resurrect
Single Aviation Market (SAM) discussions to include the engineering fields of design,
manufacture and maintenance.

By promoting a SAM, harmonised regulatory systems become a necessity.

This may be the only way the culture in CASA may change.

Political direction required.

CASA Engineering staff qualifications

Aviation professional engineers and maintenance engineers employed by CASA
need to hold certification and manufacturing qualifications that are not available in
Australia. ICAO also provides courses for managers regarding ICAO SARPs.

Lastly, we need your government to direct that aviation maintenance requirements
provide confidence for our businesses to employ apprentices by removing anticompetitive
regulations currently in place or being proposed.

Past Coalition governments have required the same standards to apply to pilots,
maintenance personnel and aircraft no matter with whom the aircraft was registered
with. CASA or private entity authorised as a Self-Administration Organisation (SAO).

The Canadians have a much better system than the Australia’s SAO system.

Last year, the Convention Annex 8 removed the 750Kg lower limit for aircraft below
5700Kg. From 2021 all new aircraft below 5700Kg now have to be certificated under
CASR Part 23, FAR Part 23 or EASA CS 23.

Below 750Kg non-certificated aircraft applied to aircraft that are operated under a
Self-Administration Organisation.

CASA has demonstrated that they do not understand their obligations under the
Convention to maintain type certificated aircraft to the same standard required by the
State of Design. This affects Australian creditability with other compliant nations.

For interest.

Both Europe (LAME) and Canada (pilots) have managed to set personnel training
safety standards for recreational and private aviation. They are world’s best safety
practice that government should adopt in the interest of safety.

One of the original major reason for regulatory reform was to remove economic
regulatory requirements benefitting one sector over another.

Minister, though the above appears to be insurmountable, the Board of AMROBA
believes that the new CEO must be given enormous political support to change the
culture of CASA, as has been recommended by past reviews (ASSR).

In addition, the structure of CASA needs to follow the ICAO client based model used
by most other foreign countries and previously used by CASA.

No legislative requirement requires CASA to focus on the certification of products,
continuing airworthiness, air transport operations, general aviation operations,
aerodromes & airspace and personnel licencing.

This has been a long term problem with the Civil Aviation Act.

AMROBA has had some encouraging meetings with the new regime within DITRDC
over the last 6 months that have been promising and future looking.

They need your support to speed up the identified changes.

We would like to meet and discuss these matters at your convenience.

---

Attachment 2 (PDF 450 KB)  Attachment 3 (PDF 177 KB)  Attachment 4 (PDF 389 KB)  Attachment 5 (PDF 199 KB) 

10.1 Supplementary to submission 10 (PDF 655 KB) 

Plus related email correspondence from KC to AMROBA members, it would appear that AMROBA (supported by the Minister's Dept Office) have well and truly kicked a GA industry own goal...

The following is a reply from the DPM’s office regarding recognition of CASA issued STCs recognition by the FAA and other NAAs. At last the department is talking with DFAT to include aviation in FTA.
 
There is recognition by the Department of the issues.
The DPM’s office will continue to follow-up on further action of the Department
 
Regards

KC

AMROBA’s main concern (as raised in the attached) relates to the international recognition of standards in aviation engineering. A number of stakeholders from Australia’s general aviation (GA) sector, including the Aviation Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) and members of the General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN) have raised concerns that Australia’s current lack of mutual recognition arrangements for aviation engineering products and services place Australian civil aviation manufacturers and engineers at a competitive disadvantage when compared to their foreign counterparts.


While CASA already has a range of ad hoc agreements in place with foreign safety regulators, the Department agrees that it would be in the interests of Australian industry to have more comprehensive agreements concluded.

CASA is often able to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States to arrange recognition of Australian aircraft componentry, however, this does not take place within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.

Currently, CASA’s legislation stipulates ‘automatic acceptance’ of aircraft componentry from particularly international trading partners/countries i.e. US, EU, UK. However, this is not reciprocated. Consequently, these countries do not have an incentive to enter into international agreements with Australia as they do not stand to gain from any such agreement. This creates a difficult negotiating position for Australia.

The Department has evaluated a range of options aimed at improving international recognition of aircraft componentry manufactured in Australia.

Broad agreements concluding automatic mutual recognition of Australian civil aviation products and services of the kind that AMROBA and other general aviation stakeholders have advocated for would constitute treaty level agreements, and fall outside the remit of CASA to conclude. Such negotiations would require engagement at a government level between Australia and counterparts abroad.

Agreements on mutual recognition such as those pursued by AMROBA may be progressed in the context of trade negotiations, and in this instance, there may be some prospect of mutual recognition with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) within the context of the ongoing Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations.  Given this interest, we will look to engage with DFAT on the possibility of including mutual recognition provisions as part of the negotiations. Noting that the scope to introduce such provisions will largely depend on how well progressed the FTA negotiations are already.

   

Finally (again related) I had the following on-forwarded (thanks Sandy, Stan and posthumously Phearless Phelan) Jeff Boyd speech to the 2012 RAAA convention...

Jeff Boyd
 
By kind courtesy of Aviation Trader‘s Tony Shaw and of Jeff Boyd, we’re re-publishing Jeff’s recent Commentary on the regulatory scene, first published in Aviation Trader‘s September issue, for the benefit of those who haven’t yet seen it.

In my 33 years of working in the regional aviation industry I have seen the whole gamut of industry ups and downs.

I came into this industry at the end of the 1980’s boom. I worked through the recession that we had to have. I have seen the Aussie dollar get down to less than half of a US dollar and then rise to above parity, interest rates jump to crippling levels and now sink to record lows, and who would have ever believed we would be paying well over $2 a litre for aviation fuel. We have worked our way through industry skill shortages and along the way provided the major airlines free training for thousands of pilots and engineers.
 
Jeff Boyd addressing RAAA’s 2012 conference

We have paid for barbed wire fences around country airports, hardened cockpit doors for aircraft so small that they would bounce off the side of a building, and checked bag screening in places a terrorist would be hard pressed to find in an atlas.

We have enjoyed the work a healthy mining industry has bought us and we have worked hard to keep services to regional towns that don’t have the economic benefit of the mining industry.

But with all its highs and lows, overall for those who have worked hard and worked smart, the regional aviation industry has been a great business to be in.

For me it has taught me and taken me to places that as a young fellow growing up in the Western suburbs of Sydney I could have never imagined. It has provided economic security for myself and my family along with the hundreds of people who have come and gone from our employment over the years.

However probably the biggest threat now facing the future of the regional aviation industry is one that should not be a threat at all. It is one that is not controlled by the vagaries of the European economy or the threat of international terrorism. It is in fact a process that should and  could provide great opportunities for our industry, – that is the regulatory reform of the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations.

This process has been going on for almost as long as I have worked in the industry. It has gone on for decades and cost millions of dollars. Some people have literally made a career out of drafting and redrafting the same regulation over and over again. It has gone through several incarnations under several different names of the industry regulator and even more Directors of the regulator. It had an American accent for a while before taking on a more European brogue. Now it would seem to be trying to develop an accent all of its own. This is an area where I believe one the biggest threats lies.

All along we have been told that our Australian regulations had to be rewritten because we needed to harmonise with the rest of the world and become ICAO compliant. I don’t believe that has happened as what I am seeing are Australian-specific rules and regulations being drafted. The new part 66 engineer’s licence for example is absolutely an Australian specific licence. Originally we were told, in fact I even saw it in CASA print, that we were going to get an EASA licence. What we actually ended up with is what CASA describe as an EASA style licence. Most engineers I speak to have found it completely confusing and it is not recognised anywhere else in the world.

CASA has just finished implementing the Part 145 and Part 42 maintenance regulations for RPT operations. This has been a massive task for many of our members, – just as massive I am sure for the people in CASA working to bring these regulations on line. These regulations were brought in on a time line that was too short and very difficult to meet. In fact most 145 and 42 approvals were only issued in the last couple of weeks and days before the cut off date. The pressure this line in the sand placed on many of our members was ridiculous. I believe the level of stress that was placed on both industry and CASA staff could have resulted in serious safety implications. It certainly caused a level of stress on individuals that I would consider harmful.

Now that we have these new maintenance regulations we have actually and unnecessarily divided our small Australian aircraft maintenance industry in two. This has had huge repercussions in the Regional Aviation industry where RPT and non RPT operations generally work side by side. We now have the situation where someone with a CAR30 approval cannot work or provide overhauled or repaired parts to a 145 organisation, however someone in another country automatically approved by CASA that does not necessarily have all of the processes and systems in place as required for an Australian Part 145 approval can do so. I feared when these regulations were proposed that some organisations would see the 145 process as too daunting and would walk away from the RPT industry. This has actually happened with many organisations deciding not to go 145 or worse, just closing down their services all together. I have spoken to several Australian RPT organisations who are now sourcing overhauled or repaired components from overseas instead of the Australian workshop they previously used.

There is also much ambiguity in these regulations with as many interpretations as there are CASA field offices. I believe this can be attributed to a lack of real guidance material for both CASA and industry. This guidance material should have preceded the rolling out of the regulations instead of CASA now playing catch up.

I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting in the middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.

From where I am writing this on the Eastern side of Australia I am actually closer in distance to New Zealand than I am to Perth. So I wonder why we are not doing as almost every other country in the Pacific, and some in South East Asia have done, and adopt the New Zealand regulations. Here are a set of rewritten ICAO compliant regulations, written for and by a country with aviation operations basically the same as us. I would doubt that there would be an area of operation that would not match ours. There is also the huge upside that their “new” regulations were implemented over a decade ago and have now reached a mature state.

For the critics who will say that I am over simplifying things, or that it would not be constitutionally possible to take up my suggestion, I remind them of a set of aviation regulations called EASA designed and implemented by a large and diverse group of countries all operating within the same geographical region.

Imagine the real benefits to our local aviation industry of having our entire region operating on the same set of regulations. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so I look forward to someone smarter than me telling me what that is, but in the meantime, whoever our next Federal Government Minister may be, I implore them to consider and research my Pacific Solution.

Jeff Boyd is current Chairman of The Regional Aviation Association of Australia, and also Managing Director of Kite Aviation. The RAAA is a not-for-profit organisation formed in 1980 to protect, represent and promote the combined interests of its regional airline members and regional aviation throughout Australia. The RAAA has 29 Ordinary Members (AOC holders) and 72 Associate/Affiliate Members. The RAAA’s AOC members directly employ over 2,500 Australians, many in regional areas and on an annual basis jointly turnover more than $1b. Its members also carry well in excess of 2 million passengers and move over 23 million kilograms of freight each year. More information including categories of membership can be found at www.raaa.com.au.

   

I know, I know it is just words but remembering that speech was nearly a decade ago and nearly 2 years before the release of the Forsyth report, one has to ask what of the many issues highlighted by JB have actually been resolved since for the betterment of industry??   

MTF...P2