[Peetwo]

Su_Spence GA workplan - Part II

One question your Honor, why didn’t Rex bring on his “sledgehammer” years ago?

Must be more than two years ago when he and I had conversation about these issues. We also spoke about the Opal town of Andamooka where many private flyers used to visit but there’s no town airstrip these days. BHP controls the Olympic Dam airport some distance away but their restrictions make it an unfriendly place. This is in spite of the fact that the whole point of registered airports is equal and non discriminatory availability in the same way as the National road system. In addition BHP has the lease over the claypan that could be used for Andamooka township but for all the talk:-  nothing.

“sledgehammer”….a review! Some sledgehammer, pass a Bill for yet another review.                                           

More like slapping CASA with a small balloon tied to a thin reed.

Yes I understand the Bill must be drafted but why so difficult for our dear Parliamentary drafting staff that they have to be helped to draft a Bill that says Australia will adopt the FAA rules? It’s been done before in the late 90s. There’s plenty of precedence but that would mean someone has to go to work, no doubt the Parliamentary drafting crew would be more cooperative if it was a government Bill.

Then when all’s said and done it’s dependent on Rex winning his seat, waiting for drafting, debating and passing in the Senate, then to the House of Representatives. Don’t hold your breath.

We are stuffed. I give up on the complexity of the rules, the complexity of changes and the clear intent of CASA not to give up a millimeter of control.

This is most visibly encompassed in the following CASA medico legal tautology:

“Industry has told us that:

healthy pilots find it difficult to get medical clearances.

healthy pilots sometimes get caught in complex and cumbersome regulatory processes that offer little safety benefit.”

The qualification “healthy” destroys the meaning of the rest of the statement, as was obviously intended by CASA.

What constitutes a “healthy pilot”?

“Healthy” compared to what?

Isn’t that the whole point of the argument that CASA has just deliberately avoided - the definition of what that word “healthy” should mean in an individual aviation context???

Aren’t these observations by CASA deliberately meaningless circular drivel designed to ensure that no beneficial change is logically possible?

I have reached the stage where I believe that no aviation action whatsoever, not even opening the hangar door,  is possible without breaching at least one aviation criminal regulation.

It is physically impossible to keep up with the myriad of regulations.

The intended result has been achieved: all pilots are criminals. I shudder to think of the many offences I must have committed when I was last airborne and I am not joking. No one is safe from prosecution.



How such a situation is supposed to advance the cause of safe aviation is beyond me.

Oh: FCOL ! - and stone idols wept to see it.

A second and third reading of the dog eared CASA mantra - "keep the community safe" - makes me wonder which 'community' is to be the grateful recipient of their largess. In priority order; first cab off the 'safety' rank is?

Yes; its a bit of a trick question and there is some ambiguity within. The right answer is is in two parts, almost inseparable. Many, many years ago a federal minister vowed and declared that 'never again' will a 'minister' be embarrassed by the ineptitude of the incumbent administration of aviation: not going to happen, no way. The response to this declaration was not the one you may be forgiven for imagining. The 'administration' swooped on it and grabbed it, rejoicing. In order to protect the minister; first priority became protect the administration and those who wallow in the trough. Administration untouchable, ergo the crown is protected. Enter the notion of a 99.9% 'safe' conviction rate and law to support, all backed by unlimited power and freedom from accountability gifted to a bunch of opportunists with the morals of back street brothel keepers. From this moment on, 'Safety' (whatever that is) became a catchall for the seven deadly sins - ruthlessly exploited and manipulated into the expensive, destructive monster we have presented today by Spence...

The evidence boys and girls is in plain sight, neatly printed in the documents you have on the operational bookshelf. Take the time to read the humble Operation Manual; but study it not from an 'operational' standpoint, but from the other end - i.e. your personal liability, as in how can I build a defence against that express liability. Robinson Crusoe, Snowflake in Hell, first in the bus stop line etc. Regulation drafted in the pits of Hell, by those with unlimited power, complete with scaffold, trapdoor and noose: no Judge and even less chance of a jury under Strict Liability. The response to this level of fire power; your protection - is framed in the Ops Manual. Was the manual drafted with the same determination to protect the individual? No, it was not. Was the manual drafted by expert lawyers to provide a defence against possible prosecution of company or individual? No, it was not. Talk about taking a knife to a gun fight 

"The General Aviation Work-plan clearly sets out how and when CASA will optimise the regulatory framework for the general aviation sector. This will provide advice to stakeholders when regulatory changes impacting general aviation will likely occur among the range of other priority safety initiatives for government and industry".

Do not take this statement at face value; there is no way CASA will relinquish the legal stranglehold they have patiently built up within the legislation; there is no way known that any modicum of 'power' will be put aside. The base tenet of 'safe 99.9%  conviction' in the name of 'Safety' is the underpinning resident evil in a deeply flawed approach to 'control', zero responsibility, zero accountability and a placebo to whoever is the minister of the day.

The system is rotten, the laws are despicable in both spirit and intent. Until the entire system is brought back to some form of accountability and controlled; no amount unadulterated Bull Shit from Spence and those who pull her strings will resurrect an industry slowly dying from 1000 quite legal paper cuts. The Kiwi's did a splendid job of reformation; the FAA rules are easily adopted - so where's the hold up? You know the answer to that; don't you.

Aye: "all hope abandon ye who enter here".

My two bob Toot.

Blast from the past the McComic era -  :

A cabaret in the temple of doom.



Plus: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/20...-enforced/ & The world of Justarse according to Dr (Hoodoo-Voodoo) Aleck

Sandy - “the responsible exercise of discretion by CASA decision makers”

Like many things it boils down to a matter of degree, certainly the present framework gives far too much power to officialdom. It becomes too easy for CASA to be policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury when the rules are inappropriately complex and they attempt to dictate actions of flight crew into a straitjacket of perfection as perceived by bureaucratic imaginations.

The seductive advantages of power, position and unassailable righteousness are writ large in the attitudes of the bureaucratic machine. So too obvious has been the utter disregard for the fortunes of the GA industry, let alone the lives of many individuals carelessly smashed and wasted. For many such vilified individuals a recourse to justice in the courts is not viable due to time constraints, lack of money and being up against a daunting opponent with unlimited means.

Considerations;  many of our aviation “offences” don’t even warrant a mention in other jurisdictions. There was no real problem before the rules were migrated into the criminal code and laced with excessively high penalties for the most trivial matters.

Proportionately way in excess of comparable fines and penalties for road infringements. Therefore using the road rules as a model gives lie to the argument that its just a similar application of law. The other broad justification that all rules passed the various stages and processes of the Commonwealth only compounds our disquiet, and does not answer the decling trajectory of GA or the levels of distrust and dissatisfaction with the regulator.

And from the (brief) Skidmore era:

+ https://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0...on-safety/

Next from the St Commode era 4 years ago: Ref - Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ref: Correspondence from Mr Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety dated 27 November 2018

i) Industry endorsement of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 149

Firstly, I sincerely apologise that in evidence to the Committee on 19 November 2018 I
incorrectly indicated that the document I tabled was a letter signed by all parties. This was
my understanding of the advice I had received and was tabled on that basis. On subsequent
review it is now clear that my statement was incorrect and that the document tabled was in
fact signed by the Chair and Co-Chair on behalf of the members.

As I indicated during my testimony, this working group flagged some issues to discuss and
resolve, as was reflected in the endorsement letter. The group also agreed these matters
should not prevent CASA proceeding towards making the regulation, and the regulation was
made in July 2018.

As requested, I attach a copy of the minutes of the CASR Part 149 approved self-administering aviation organisations transitional technical working group meeting held on
17 October 2017.

ii) Status of Part 149

During my remarks about what was possible under CASR Part 149 (page 24 of Hansard
refers) I said: "Such [self-administering] organisations will only be able to expand the scope
of their aviation administration functions — that is, beyond their pre-Part 149 approvals — or
issue additional authorisations if they hold a 149 certificate".

On reflection, I should have qualified this remark by confirming that CASA would be required
to consider an application for exemption from any organisation on its merits.

Finally coming back to the Sic'em Rex MAYDAY legislative proposal: via Oz Flying - Patrick promises Bill on FAA Ruleset 

...If re-elected Senator Patrick said he would introduce a bill in the form of the Civil Aviation Regulation Transition Review. This bill will require the minister to conduct an independent review to examine how FAA regulations can be translated into the Australian context.

The review would need to take submissions from stakeholders and its reports, including any interim reports, would have to be tabled in the parliament.

After concluding his speech, the senator invited questions from the audience. AMROBA’s Ken Cannane led with a discourse on the benefits FAA regulations would provide for the maintenance sector. Multiple speakers shared their personal stories of CASA over-regulation.

Marjorie Pagani, Angel Flight CEO, presented an update on the impact of the 2021 federal court ruling restricting community service flights.

AOPA CEO Ben Morgan concluded the meeting with a reference to Dick Smith’s comment, “While CASA’s been doing what’s it’s been doing Australia built the Nomad and the US built the space shuttle.”

The proposed time frame for the introduction of the bill to parliament is three months...

Finally (and somewhat ironically) from the same 2018 RRAT oversight inquiry, words of wisdom from GA industry advocate legend and (Mr Consistency - ) Ken Cannane, which totally backs the proposed Sic'em Rex legislative proposal - 

Ref: Correspondence from Mr Ken Cannane, Executive Director,  Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association dated 27 August 2018

...I attended the committee’s meeting with Aircraft Pilots & Owners Association (AOPA) on the 27th August 2018 in Sydney.

AMROBA fully supports the AGAA recommendations and the unanimous support for the USA
Federal Aviation Regulatory system for General Aviation.

Adoption of the FAA system would result in a safer system with lower costs.

Attached is a comparison with Section 98 of our Act and relevant Section of the USA aviation Act.
CASA has stated they are:

1. Aligning CASR Part 21 with FAR Part 21 post a Bilateral Aviation Safety Meeting with the
FAA earlier this year.
a. The current BASA with the USA is crucial to our design/manufacturing industries.
2. They have stated they are moving to adopt the FAR system for maintenance of GA aircraft
a. AMROBA is supportive of adopting a regulatory system with higher standards but
lower costs.
3. Eleven years after partially adopting the EASA licencing requirements for maintenance
personnel CASA has, this year, indicated they will now fully adopt the EASA requirements.

a. This will align Australia with the same licencing standards adopted throughout S/E
Asia and many other countries.
b. Education training standards still have not developed to support the CASR Part 66
standards adopted 11 years ago.

Why is the engineering disciplines (design, manufacturing, maintenance and maintenance
personnel) now be focused on the aligning with the USA system whilst the flight operations
discipline within CASA refusing to harmonise the regulatory structure and language with the FAR
system that CASA told the industry they would do in the late 1990s.

AMROBA has been very vocal for a decade asking for adoption of the FAR operational
regulations, with minimum changes, so the decline in GA can be checked.

With the design, general aviation maintenance and aircraft/parts manufacturing disciplines
aligning with the FARs, the WAGGA summit made it quite clear that the operation associations
all supported adoption of the FARs.

The USA aviation safety standards are second to none. They have a safety record we should aim
to achieve.

CASA reputation is crucial to engineering. We need an industry and internationally respected
CASA to open up global aviation markets for our manufactured products, other maintenance
services including engineering and flight operations training.

We also need the Office of Parliamentary Council (OPC) to be directed to “adopt” FAA, EASA or
any other aviation regulatory system with minimum change so the intent is adopted.

This happened in 1998 when political direction was required to make CASR Part 21 based on FAR
Part 21.

OPC informed a combine CASA/Industry engineering meeting that they can do so IF directed by
the portfolio department or agency.

Industry wants adoption – why can it not be policy or direction?

Why NOT indeed??  

MTF...P2