Senate Estimates - 2017-18.

Another Senate Inquiry gets lost in limbo -  Dodgy

Via the Oz: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...bbfb58ecc2

Quote:Airfares inquiry stuck on tarmac
[Image: 7b5e9e1ed7279ed2ceb24e4e7ea0e96b]ROBYN IRONSIDE

An inquiry into regional air routes and the high cost of fares is at risk of being dissolved after another extension was granted for the final report.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Services Committee was originally due to deliver its report by March 30 this year, but that was delayed to September and then December.

The Senate has now agreed to extend the reporting date to June 27 next year, which puts it after the next federal election.

Committee co-chairman Barry O’Sullivan would be retired by then but fellow chairman Glenn Sterle said he would push for it to continue. “Normally when a federal election is called all Senate inquiries cease and then it is at the behest of the new parliament (whether they are continued),” Senator Sterle said.

“It’s hard to give guarantees, but should there be a change of government … well I’m not stressed one little bit.”

The delay in the inquiry was due to the ongoing process of gathering information, and the committee’s desire to bring Australia’s major airline executives before a public hearing.

Senator Sterle said a “heck of a lot of information” had been requested from Qantas, Virgin Australia and Regional Express.

“We had plans for November 19 and 20 public hearings at this stage, and if we’ve been able to go through the information that we’ve requested we look forward to hearing from them there,” Senator Sterle said. “If we haven’t had the opportunity to go through it all we will postpone and find a later date.”

Cloncurry resident Hamish Griffin, who has campaigned against exorbitant airfares, said the community was frustrated by the time the inquiry was taking.

He was led to believe it was the airlines holding things up, in the hope the inquiry would go by the wayside after an election.

“It seems quite apparent they’re just trying to put up a roadblock to the point where everybody out here is thinking (about the inquiry) ‘that was a big waste of time’,” Mr Griffin said.

Senator Sterle denied any lack of co-operation from the airlines, and said it was the amount of information provided to the committee causing the delay.

In the meantime, Qantas recently announced an extension to its discounted fares program for residents in regional Australia, following a 12-month trial.

More than 6000 regional trips had been booked since the program was launched last November and Qantas Domestic chief executive Andrew David said it was recognition the airline had an important role to play in regional communities.

A Virgin Australia spokeswoman said the carrier was committed to providing reliable and consistent services throughout the regional flight network, as well as “great value fares”.




The operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities

On 16 November 2017, the Senate moved that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 March 2018. On 8 February 2018, the Senate agreed to extend the reporting date to 20 September 2018. On 16 August 2018, the Senate agreed to extend the reporting date to4 December 2018. On 17 October 2018, the Senate agreed to extend the reporting date to 27 June 2019.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...lAirRoutes



MTF? - Probably not! - P2  Cool

Ps I guess that means Sterlo's proposed SI of the CASA has got buckley's and none being instigated before the calling of the next election... Dodgy 

Reference: https://www.anao.gov.au/work-program/por...and-cities

Quote:Potential audit: 2018-19
POTENTIAL
Administration of regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
The audit would examine whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority administers its legislative and regulatory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the Australian Government’s Regulator Performance Framework and with other relevant standards and better practice principles.

Entity: 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Contact: 
Please direct enquiries through our contact page.

However, despite the fact that it's a bit like being slapped with a wet lettuce, would it not be possible for the committee (minus Barry O's vote) to ensure that the ANAO 'proposed' audit of CASA actually happens before the next election... Huh  

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

(10-10-2018, 07:35 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(10-10-2018, 11:45 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Sterlo to call for SI into self-administration aviation? Part II -  Rolleyes

Via the Yaffa: 

Quote:
  • [Image: glenn_sterle.jpg]



Senate Inquiry looms for Self-administration
10 October 2018

Senator Glenn Sterle last night told Australian Flying that next week he will ask the senate to instigate an inquiry into self-administered aviation.

Sterle said he was keen to have the inquiry and will talk with both the government and Shadow Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese next week.

The move comes after Sterle met with AOPA Executive Director Ben Morgan and Vice President Richard Talbot last month to discuss what AOPA says is inequity in medical standards between CASA and RAAus.

AOPA has also accused CASA of "being influenced into protecting the private business interests of the RAAus, rather than protecting the safety concerns of the greater general aviation community."

Sterle, Labor senator for WA, is the Chair of the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport (RRAT) References Committee and Deputy Chair of the RRAT Legislation Committee.
RAAus CEO Michael Linke said his organisation would be happy for such an inquiry to go ahead.

"We would welcome and inquiry into the self-administration sector," he said, "and would look forward to sitting in front of the senators to talk about the good work RAAus has done for aviation at large."

Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAOs) such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) and Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) are currently the subject of industry consultation under CASR Part 149.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...CI3DCyI.99

Comment in reply Sandy... Wink

Quote:Sandy Reith  5 hours ago

Thank goodness there’s one MP prepared to look into the administration, more correctly the maladminstration, of aviation in Australia, but the inbuilt problems of a divided approach will go against the best interests of aviation as a whole and particularly General Aviation. The obvious farcical distinctions between RAAus and the rest of GA should not be exacerbated by more layers just to suit CASA. Rather a graduated system should be embraced, a simplified version of the FAA rules would be the starting point. I hope Senator Sterle appreciates that the interlocking interests, career pathways, international recognition for aircraft personnel and engineering norms must be based on ICAO and acceptability to the US and Europe.

Well Sandy it would appear that the good Senator Sterlo has fired up the troops in the Senate RRAT committee, via Oz Flying:


Quote:[Image: AGAA_web.jpg]

Senate Committee summons Associations
9 November 2018

The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) has called for member associations of the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) to brief them on medical standards, according to a statement released by AOPA Australia.

The RRAT has asked the associations to brief them at 1.00 pm on Monday 19 November.

Among those summoned are AOPA, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA), the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) and the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA).

The briefing comes after the Chairman of the RRAT References Committee Senator Glenn Sterle promised to lobby the senate for an inquiry into self-administration in aviation.
"AOPA Australia is seeking an end to the unnecessary CASA dual medical standards," the AOPA statement says, "calling on the government to support universal medical standards for all pilots–RPC, RPL and PPL–regardless of what association you are part of.
"It's time to end the unfair and unjustified discrimination of CASA regulated pilots."
The major stumbling block to a self-certified medical system for RPLs and PPLs is thought to be access to controlled airspace, which has not been granted to holders of RPCs.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...3OpGFVG.99
  
Again Huh , after this week's LMH, I am not exactly sure which team SH is batting for but at least his OP is a bit more balanced on the KC and AMROBA call for a Parliamentary resolution to support aviation regulation reform (ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-117...ml#pid9513 )... Wink  

Quote:...After years of failure to get meaningful reform from regulators, it was inevitable that general aviation would move to find allies within politics. A sensible strategy if you get it right. If you get it wrong it has parallels with poking black bears with short sticks. Authorities, bureaus and boards that governments empower to regulate or control cherish that power and guard it very closely. In many instances, the bureaucrats that populate these entities have to have more political savvy than they do expertise in the area they govern. That's where the GA industry is on the back foot: we have plenty of expertise in aviation, but are a bit short on political nous. Who has the power in these battles will depend on the terms of engagement. Are we fighting the battle using aviation smarts or political nous? Given that senators are politicans and not aviators (there are a few who are both), this battle is likely to be fought on political ground, which hands the advantage over to the bureaucrats. GA's best chance is to head-up the charge with someone who knows politics, can articulate well the GA case and, perhaps above all, is respected by both the bureaucrats and the politicians. There are such champions within aviation, but it is the nature of the industry that they generally find themselves time-poor, or fear the sting in the tail of CASA in the form of regulatory retribution. When AGAA goes before the Senate RRAT committee on 19 November, they will need to do so with professionalism and integrity; this will not be the moment for emotional rhetoric that will likely fail to encourage the senators to investigate further. And the argument will need to be clear, concise and be tempered against the holes that CASA is likely to want to poke in it. Failure on either of these matters will severly damage the integrity of GA in the eyes of the senate. Political skin is rarely risked unless the case compels.


Quote:"..it would be thrown under the political bus faster than Malcolm Turnbull was.."



Ken Cannane's call for a Parliamentary Resolution to support aviation regulation reform is one of the year's most intriguing propositions. Parliamentary Resolutions are two-faced creatures that can be powerful or impotent depending on whether or not they are binding or non-binding. Binding resolutions are tantamount to law; non-binding ones have the potency of a straw poll. Any resolution about aviation that is non-binding won't have the desired impact that the campaign behind it desires. A classic case was the US non-binding resolution to support a democratic Taiwan: any binding resolution would have angried-up the Chinese. This way, the US can always forget the whole thing if it becomes expedient to do so. The same would be true of a non-binding resolution to support general aviation in Australia; should it become awkward it would be thrown under the political bus faster than Malcolm Turnbull was. Australian politics has historically been a case-study in how to be wishy-washy; how to appear to champion a cause without committing yourself to it, so a binding resolution on aviation reform might just be too affirmative for an amorphous political enviroment such as the current House of Representatives. However, a call for a binding resolution can have the effect of calling a bluff: if our elected representatives who assure us they are all for reform are serious, then what legitimate excuse can they have for not wanting to be bound by their rhetoric?


It is very pleasing to see that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has named their new media studio after Macarthur Job. Mac Job was a passionate stalwart of aviation journalism and aviation safety for decades. A man who had the respect of just about everyone who encountered him, Mac's opinion on aviation was held in higher regard that perhaps anyone else in the country. It is not for nothing that Mac is the only aviation journalist inducted into the Australian Aviation Hall of Fame. Mac's legacy to Australia was already extensive, and now the ATSB has properly honoured the one man who managed to straddle the dual roles of journalist and regulator better than anyone ever has.


May your gauges always be in the green,


Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...97wGQpR.99
 
Hmm...it would seem that Sterlo & crew are keen to get something? happening before the dissolution of the 45th Parliament, perhaps there is a bi-partisan need to try to resolve these aviation issues because the politics could get messy if they don't - just saying... Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue

Ps Although it is good gesture by the ATSB to honour Macarthur Job, I'm starting to get a bit cynical about the repeated attempts by Hood to ingratiate himself with the Australian aviation safety community... Dodgy
Reply

P2;

“Ps Although it is good gesture by the ATSB to honour Macarthur Job, I'm starting to get a bit cynical about the repeated attempts by Hood to ingratiate himself with the Australian aviation safety community... Dodgy”

Couldn’t agree more FFS. Time for Toga Boy to quit attending pissy aviation community summits, writing ‘correcting the record’ articles and naming buildings/rooms after former industry partners. No offence, but the ATsB needs to be what it was designed to be - a seperate entity to other Government departments, an indpendant Investigator with sweeping powers able to investigate without prejudice and without writing reports that are focused on protecting Miniscules, bureaucrats and airline CEO’s. The ATsB under Beaker and now Hood is a clusterfu#k. It is a weak, neutered footstool to the Minister. What a sad, dysfunctional steaming turd of an organisation.

What next for the ATsB? A focus on LGBT in staff members PD’s, rainbow flags flying from its head office, perhaps all its staff to wear pink shirts and attend an AIDS fund raising marathon in San Francisco? A staff feedback form to be filled in highlighting what colour should the office kitchen be painted in and should we order Tim Tam’s or Ice Vo Vo’s for staff birthdays? Their idea of importance and priorities died a long time ago.

Accident investigations? What accident investigations??? FFS somebody please put it out of its misery along with the current Liberal party and please let us return to what the ATsB was 10 years ago.

Tick tock
Reply

Ask not what the industry can do for you - Part II Angel 

Quote:[Image: Diq73BkV4AE_UwN.jpg]
And so; down the rabbit hole. http://auntypru.com/and-so-down-the-rabbit-hole/

How KC and the AMROBA band must wring their hands in frustration when they view such progressive EASA policy and work-shopping (above) on how best to promote the GA industry inside of the European Union... Dodgy 

However one thing about KC is despite having the historical knowledge on how it is our GA industry is in such dire straits, he also maintains a pure vision on how these mainly Government  and CASA generated embuggerances can be arrested and turned around... Rolleyes 

Example from AMROBA's latest newsletter... Wink 

Quote:1. An Industry in Permanent Transition? 

It is of great credit to the participants of ‘general aviation’ that safety levels have been sustained during continual transition to an unknown future not yet defined by governments, or the public service, that are still debating what is “general aviation”. Since the 1992 Productivity Commission’s Intrastate Aviation paper, aviation, in particular general aviation, has been in transition. But, Transition to what!!!!

Aviation, especially general aviation, has been unsympathetically treated by governments for decades and some changes that have been imposed on aviation was not based on survival or growth of the VH general aviation industry. You only have to look at how the public service interprets recommendations from multiple reports that have been created over the last 30 years to understands the outcome we have today.

None of the reports generated by Federal & State parliaments supported a blueprint that describes where and how general aviation participates and grows in the future. The political answers were, and are, “competition” and “direct cost recovery” from participants. 

Like roads, airports are a means of transport servicing communities commercially and privately. Without airports, communities tend to wither and stagnate. 

The significance of “AVIATION” was officially removed from the Federal Portfolio Department’s title in 1987 when Departments of Transport, Aviation and Communications amalgamated to form the Department of Transport and Communications. 

Creating an Agency (CAA) in 1988 moved aviation outside political influence but this also meant a loss of a previous political supported general aviation industry; design, manufacturing, maintenance, private and commercial operators. 

The August 1990 Federal Budget announced that the $73 million contributed towards safety regulation would be phased out in favour of the costs being met by the aviation industry.

A list of the changes (ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/...c284925919 ) over the last 20 years demonstrates the instability of governance.

No industry can grow when there is so much change in governance and administrative directions – all affect the capability of small and private businesses and individuals.

What are the benefits to the community and the small private and commercial industry?

It is hard to imagine the future when there is no vision promulgated and politically supported.

The biggest single problem with the government’s guide to better regulation is that the Regulatory Impact Statement is based on there being a government policy. 

If there is no policy for a future safe and viable general aviation industry, then all the RIS is creating is an undocumented policy problem to be changed.

The Government’s guide to better regulations provides what was once an approach taken by the Authority and before the decision to include European provisions.

“Light touch regulation is defined as: As a policy maker, you can choose to be less prescriptive and give discretion to regulated parties on how they can act. Principles–based regulation allows maximum flexibility among affected groups as to how they achieve compliance.” 

When politicians eventually support a future for general aviation private and business aviation, including design, manufacturing and education, then making regulatory changes to reduce regulation and red tape to support that vision would make sense.

Also from the newsletter: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...sue-10.pdf

[Image: DrOZweEU8AAMt1J.jpg]
   

All makes perfectly good sense to me, trouble is we have a miniscule seemingly hell bent on ignoring the pleas from the AGAA and the aviation IOS in preference for an aviation safety bureaucracy that has spent the better part of 3 decades and 500 million dollars on a still incomplete regulatory reform program - FDS!  Blush  


[Image: Untitled_Clipping_101518_095846_PM.jpg]

 In reference to the ASAP (pic above) I note a passing strange coincidence that last week in Friday's 'the Oz', the CEO of the RFDS and Chairman of the ASAP,  Martin Laverty featured in an Ironsider article labelled - Timely tweak for aviation safety law??

Quote:New aviation safety regulations will be required by law to consider the cost to operators, under new legislation to be drafted by the Deputy Prime Minister’s General Aviation Advisory Group.

Chairman Martin Laverty from the Royal Flying Doctor Service said a meeting of the group yesterday won the commitment that there should be an awareness that any regulatory changes came with a cost that ultimately affected operators.

“The decision of the Deputy Prime Minister (Michael McCormack) to ask the advisory group for direction as to how this should be legislated is responsive to the industry’s concerns,” Dr Laverty said.

“Legislation will continue to have safety as the first and foremost obligation, but there will now be a requirement on the regulator for that to be applied in a pragmatic, practical and proportionate way.”

Other commitments given by Mr McCormack related to work pressures in the aviation workforce, and would deliver improvements to student con­cessions available through the vocational education and training sector.

Dr Laverty said it was widely recognised that the cost of obtaining a pilot’s licence was “a specific barrier to entry to the profession at the same time as it was experiencing a shortage”.

“This is particularly impacting general aviation and the flying doctors, so any concessions are going to be a great help,” he said.

“Emphasis is to be placed on the attraction and recruitment of females into both these pilot and maintenance roles. We think there’s a great opportunity to ­expand the profession as an ­attractive career choice.”

It was the intention to go back to government before Christmas with the group’s position on amendments to aviation safety legislation followed by broader consultation, Dr Laverty said.

“ Those words that I’ve chosen —pragmatic, practical and proportionate — were the sentiment of today’s discussion and we will now be formalising that up,” he said. “We’d anticipate that amendment should be made early next year as a possibility.”
   
"..
Those words that I’ve chosen —
 pragmatic, practical and proportionate.." - Q/ Why is it being left up to the ASAP Chair to make the decision to adopt those key words? And why has there been NO consideration by the ASAP (or by the Govt) to adopt the guiding principles promolgated in the AGAA Wagga aviation summit resolutions? Surely if there is contemplation of a legislative solution to the nearly three decade CASA red tape embuggerance of industry, then the AGAA resolutions and suggestions for amending the Act deserve ASAP (& by default Govt) review - ANYONE??  

 Hot off the Yaffa Press Wink


Quote:



[Image: civil_aviation_act_1988_web.jpg]


Act Changes slated for New Year
14 November 2018

Changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to compel CASA to take into account the cost of regulation are expected to be presented to parliament sometime in the new year.

According to sources inside the government, the wording of the Act will change to incorporate part of the current Statement of Expectations (SOE).

It is believed the new wording has been sent to Shadow Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese, who has promised a level of bipartisan support for general aviation.

The SOE currently states that CASA must: "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes" and "take a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors having regard to risk."

Industry associations, prompted by Dick Smith's "Stop the Lie" campaign, have been lobbying for the Act to be changed for some time, culminating in the AGAA summit in Wagga last July.

The AGAA summit went a step further, demanding that CASA also have responsibility for "maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector" and "creating the conditions for more people to benefit from civil aviation."

It is thought that the government wants to keep CASA purely as a regulatory authority and will not be including these responsibilities in the new wording of the Act.

However, the government has admitted that many of the issues can be tackled by other government departments and bodies.

Both houses of parliament sit from 26 November to 6 December this year before rising. Sources have indicated that the government has other bills it seeks to pass before it considers the wording to the Civil Aviation Act.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...jt11wk2.99
    
Hmm...interesting times, makes next week's AGAA Senate Committee meeting even more important -  Rolleyes


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Wingnut in cloud cuckoo land???

I heard a rumour about two bizzare things that Carmody is meant to have said at the AAA conference in Brisbane;
1. An audience member asked him what his thoughts were on GA declining, mostly due to CAsA embuggerance. He said ‘GA is growing, it’s not in decline, and no, CAsA does not have an effect on GA’. Apparently the audience started laughing. And;
2. Wingnut mentioned that the regulatory reform program has been going on for 20 years!! Hey Shane you complete fool, you missed 10 years!!! It’s 30 years

Aagh the AAA, back to the piss boys and girls!
Reply

Wingnut a wrong'in?  Confused

Ref:

(11-14-2018, 04:27 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Wingnut in cloud cuckoo land???

I heard a rumour about two bizzare things that Carmody is meant to have said at the AAA conference in Brisbane;
1. An audience member asked him what his thoughts were on GA declining, mostly due to CAsA embuggerance. He said ‘GA is growing, it’s not in decline, and no, CAsA does not have an effect on GA’. Apparently the audience started laughing. And;
2. Wingnut mentioned that the regulatory reform program has been going on for 20 years!! Hey Shane you complete fool, you missed 10 years!!! It’s 30 years

Aagh the AAA, back to the piss boys and girls!

More on that bollocks CC speech, via Creepy - see here: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-161...ml#pid9534

Quote:On regulatory reform, Carmody said CASA had been working hard on finalising its regulatory program after more than two decades.


Six flight operations regulations known as “the six-pack” – Parts 91, 119, 121, 133, 135 and 138 — were on track to be made this year.  Part 149 on self-administering organisations was made earlier this year.

He said his aim, politics notwithstanding, was to get the remaining lower priority regulations through early next year.

“So that’s seven on track for this year with about three to go and then the job will be done,’’ he said. “We’re pushing pretty hard to get that done because it changes people’s perceptions of us as an organisation because we deliver.’’

The CASA boss said a key transformation now underway related to how CASA managed and improved its surveillance, including the 320 aerodome operators (about 195 certified aerodromes and 127 regulated aerodromes).

He said there had been a been minor drop for the quantity of registered aerodromes and a steady increase in the requests for new certifications, mostly from the mining and resources sector.

CASA also planned to have another look at “Sector Risk Profiles” (SRPs) that aim to identify sector-specific risks.

These presented stakeholders with risk profile compiled using the authority’s data as well as information from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.

“At the moment the document is a fixed document in time,’’ he said. “So we’ll have another look at the aerodrome SRP sometime next year as the current one has probably almost reached its intended life.

“But ultimately it will be a living sector risk profile— this is what I intended to achieve across all sectors – so it can dynamically updated.

“This is something my information technology systems don’t support at the moment but certainly will.’’

The SRP would also be expanded to include unregulated aerodromes but CASA would try to align it with the post-implementation review of PART 139 early next year, Carmody said.

Also established this year was regular risk profiling for airspace that would soon be developed to include an ongoing risk analysis for aerodromes.

“We have the capacity to conduct surveillance risk profiling now on a monthly basis, but we hope to increase that to a daily or weekly soon,’’ he said.

The CASA boss said the authority was now grading surveillance differently, switching from non-compliance notices to safety alerts , safety findings or safety observations .

He said improved options for information sharing meant members of the aviation community could ask copies of the sector analysis relevant to them which outlined the top five factors from CASA’s Authorisation Golder Performance Indicator tool.

A National Surveillance Selection Process established in July also provided a systematic national approach to prioritising and scheduling planned surveillance.

It would be one of the pillars of surveillance along with national sector campaigns, CASA’s response to incidents and accidents and regulatory services.

“Put simply, we have 1032 surveillance events planned for the financial year – across all disciplines and across our entire area of responsibility,’’ he said.
“This is effectively looking more deeply into how we plan and conduct our surveillance activities.”

For aerodromes, Carmody said the NSSP would provide CASA with an opportunity to apply a consistent, risk management approach to surveillance.
It would allow it to schedule surveillance at least 12 months ahead and it was looking to couple it with a mobile client tool to establish greater standardisation of surveillance events and data.

Carmody also signalled he would oppose any move to water down CASA’s role to put commercial considerations ahead of safety.

“In our current form, we were established with our focus being first and foremost on safety,’’ he said.

“This stemmed from the tragic Monarch and Seaview accidents in 1993 and 1994 – a long way in the memory for some but for many of us not that far back at all – when the Civil Aviation Authority …  was found to have failed in its safety responsibility because it placed commercial considerations ahead of safety of passengers.

“I will do my utmost while I’m in the job to ensure that this never occurs again.

“Our key role is the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australian territory and the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory.

“And the Act that I have sitting on my desk says that in exercising my powers and performing my functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as our most important consideration.

“And that remains our focus” - P2 comment: Hmm...why do those spin & bulldust weasel words sound so familiar?

Ah yes... Dodgy





I now fully concur with Ol'Tom's OP - i.e. Carmody is a wrong'in and definitely not the reform CEO that the industry so desperately needs -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

I can smell a flyblown turd

He who haseth largeth ears and speaks with forked tongue said;

”On regulatory reform, Carmody said CASA had been working hard on finalising its regulatory program after more than two decades”.

As I’ve said previously, it’s 30 years, not 20. And he forgot the $500m price tag for this lemon. Secondly, where have I heard this before ‘we intend to finish it next year’? Of yes, that’s right; Bwuce Byron, the Screaming Skull, Mark Skidmark, and now Wingnut. All have delivered the same hollow, empty, meaningless and never to be fulfilled statement.

And what’s this pony Pooh - ‘sector risk profiles’ (SRP’s)? Another rebadged name for their silly RRG - risk review group? Has the Golden West Mafia Terry Fark’u’hard’sons Sky Sentinel been retired? Nice little earner that one, for Terry and his CAsA mate in the West....tsk tsk

Yep, CAsA = tautological rubbish.


TICK TOCK
Reply

Senate Inquiry  - Oversight of CASA (Monday 19 Nov '18)  Rolleyes

Quote from Hansard 27 August AOPAA/AGAA private briefing to the Senate RRAT Committee ( ref: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...ficial.pdf

Quote:Senator STERLE:  I just have an observation. I don't know the minister. I think he's probably a decent human being but, unfortunately, ministers get entrapped by CASA. I'm no stranger to the operations of CASA. I have been in many political punch-ups with CASA over the years, to the point where former Senator O'Brien from Tasmania and I instigated a Senate inquiry into the operations and governance of CASA. That was nicely buried away. I think, Chair, it's probably time to revisit that again.

Mr Morgan:  I will make a very brief comment on that. I think that you have absolutely nailed the issue for us. On the discussion of flight training organisation regulation and the independent flight instructors, when we met with CASA to discuss these concerns the director of aviation safety and his deputy were in that meeting and they were joined by the two people who were actually responsible for part 1 41 and 42. I think it is fair to say that they were, frankly, not interested in hearing a critique of their regulation. We had a representative from the United States give a comparison—what happens in the US versus what happens in Australia. That same person, Mike Smith, gave a presentation at Wagga. They switched off. They demonstrated themselves as absolutely unwilling to listen and had a complete desire to avoid any discussion of changing what they had created. It became alarming for us when the minister for transport was recently announced, because his aviation adviser is one of those individuals. So we cannot have a discussion with the minister about changing this part of the regulation. I'm not saying that there is a conflict; I am saying that it becomes a very difficult exercise for us, from an industry perspective, to have an open and free debate on the issues if the persons involved are demonstrating a total unwillingness to be open-minded about it.


And to the good Senator Sterle's word... Wink  

Reference: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...Activities

Quote:Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Correspondence
  1. Correspondence from Mr Ken Cannane, Executive Director,  Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association dated 27 August 2018 (PDF 573KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )


a) Attachment -  Relevant USA Aviation Act requirements (PDF 314KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )

b) Attachment - Civil Aviation Act, section 98 (PDF 247 KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )


Briefing


Public Hearings
Quote:[Image: DsKh5z-UUAAcPxp.jpg]


The live proceedings will be able to be viewed on Monday - see here: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/W...Parliament


Quote:19/11/2018 
2:30PM - 6:30PM AEDT


Senate, Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport Legislation Committee (Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; Oversight of Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities)


MTF? - What do you reckon...P2  Tongue

Ps Now about that ANAO audit of CASA -  Rolleyes

Quote:Reference: https://www.anao.gov.au/work-program/por...and-cities

Quote: Wrote:Potential audit: 2018-19
POTENTIAL
Administration of regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
The audit would examine whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority administers its legislative and regulatory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the Australian Government’s Regulator Performance Framework and with other relevant standards and better practice principles.

Entity: 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Contact: 
Please direct enquiries through our contact page.

However, despite the fact that it's a bit like being slapped with a wet lettuce, would it not be possible for the committee (minus Barry O's vote) to ensure that the ANAO 'proposed' audit of CASA actually happens before the next election... [Image: huh.gif]  
Reply

(11-17-2018, 10:50 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Senate Inquiry  - Oversight of CASA (Monday 19 Nov '18) - Part II  Rolleyes

Quote from Hansard 27 August AOPAA/AGAA private briefing to the Senate RRAT Committee ( ref: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...ficial.pdf

Quote:Senator STERLE:  I just have an observation. I don't know the minister. I think he's probably a decent human being but, unfortunately, ministers get entrapped by CASA. I'm no stranger to the operations of CASA. I have been in many political punch-ups with CASA over the years, to the point where former Senator O'Brien from Tasmania and I instigated a Senate inquiry into the operations and governance of CASA. That was nicely buried away. I think, Chair, it's probably time to revisit that again.

Mr Morgan:  I will make a very brief comment on that. I think that you have absolutely nailed the issue for us. On the discussion of flight training organisation regulation and the independent flight instructors, when we met with CASA to discuss these concerns the director of aviation safety and his deputy were in that meeting and they were joined by the two people who were actually responsible for part 1 41 and 42. I think it is fair to say that they were, frankly, not interested in hearing a critique of their regulation. We had a representative from the United States give a comparison—what happens in the US versus what happens in Australia. That same person, Mike Smith, gave a presentation at Wagga. They switched off. They demonstrated themselves as absolutely unwilling to listen and had a complete desire to avoid any discussion of changing what they had created. It became alarming for us when the minister for transport was recently announced, because his aviation adviser is one of those individuals. So we cannot have a discussion with the minister about changing this part of the regulation. I'm not saying that there is a conflict; I am saying that it becomes a very difficult exercise for us, from an industry perspective, to have an open and free debate on the issues if the persons involved are demonstrating a total unwillingness to be open-minded about it.


And to the good Senator Sterle's word... Wink  

Reference: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...Activities

Quote:Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Correspondence
  1. Correspondence from Mr Ken Cannane, Executive Director,  Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association dated 27 August 2018 (PDF 573KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )


a) Attachment -  Relevant USA Aviation Act requirements (PDF 314KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )

b) Attachment - Civil Aviation Act, section 98 (PDF 247 KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )


Briefing


Public Hearings
Today's hearing in pictures... Rolleyes 

First there was RAAus et.al insipid performance which IMO was simply not worth the effort to regurgitate, except for this bit which goes to the whole divide & conquer, COI and survive at all costs philosophy of the CASA Iron Ring:

   
 
Then AOPAA CEO Ben Morgan kicks ass... Wink :









Next came CASA with a not so happy Mr Carmody... Big Grin







Hmm...not trying to mislead the Senate again are we Mr Carmody??

Ref: FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance

Can't wait for Hansard - MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Pasodoble and faux pas.

"The Pasodoble was a way for the French to portray the techniques used in Spanish bullfights. The name means Two-Steps and this is attributed to the marching nature of the dance" etc.

"Faux pas literally means "false step" in French, and that's a great description of what you do when you make a faux pas. It's a matter of stepping in the wrong direction, or saying exactly the wrong thing. A faux pas can offend people sometimes, but more often it's just embarrassing for everyone involved."

Nifty choreography

Ayup, some pretty fancy footwork on display last evening in the RRAT ballroom; pity the music is old and tired; but then again, when the music changes the stumbles and stepping on toes begins. Not that it matters, the dancers are smooth, professional, well rehearsed and well able to fox the part time, poorly prepared judges. In fact, the competition was so boring and predictable, that one found attention wandering away from the arena and indulging in a spot of people watching, which is always an interesting distraction (MTF).

One of the more interesting ‘tunes’ repetitively used was the ‘Evidence March’.  

Oxford – “Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.”

‘without evidence, they can't bring a charge’

Any Copper worth a pension will tell you that without ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ there’s not a snowflake in hells chance of obtaining a conviction. To arrive at a safe conclusion, the juror is left to sort wheat from chaff and must rely on the evidence as presented. Medical certification was and probably still is a most contentious matter. Both sides of the dance team, for my money, missed the point by a country mile. Carmody came closest to the nub of it – controls. Behind the RaOz model, there are controls, checks, balances, accountability and audit. These are essentially a CASA responsibility – when the merde hits the ventilateur. Should the unthinkable happen; not only will RaOz be in the gun, but the CASA oversight of the organisation will be under the microscope and by extension, the incumbent minister. Lots of rice bowls in peril, right there.

The other side of the argument may be considered ‘reasonable’ and fair minded. The proposition is simple enough – if RaOz pilots can ‘self declare’ and agree to operate under the restrictions the RaOz charter imposes, why can’t the rest of the recreational pilot body enjoy the same latitude in medical standards? It is a fair question.

CASA could, if so inclined, produce a rule to support the notion, with the restrictions and impositions clearly defined, in a departmental heartbeat. Which brings us to the crux. Why has this not been done? I for one would like to see/hear an explanation of why, despite overseas studies and data demonstrating that the risks of reduced medical standards, across the board, have not impacted on the accident rate, that our regulator has not taken a similar easement. The evidence M’lud is clear, the proof undeniable and yet CASA lingers in the dark ages, playing at silly buggers while dividing a small, harmless group of folk who fly for fun, in good weather, far from built up areas and heavy jet traffic, occasionally – when they can afford to do so. Seems passing strange to me.

No matter, but should you be pushed for time; only watch the last 5 or 7 minutes of the Hansard recording; ignore the rhetoric, pay attention to three short passages of play; (i) O’Sofullofit’s invitation for a rematch; (ii) Sterle’s closing gambit; and (iii) Patrick’s well placed shots on the ‘survey’.

The infamous Carmody temper is clearly on display; behind the gormless visage there is a ruthless, angry face; one which will use a large hammer to squash an insignificant annoyance. The tale of the coffee shop eviction is infamous, fully supported and reveals much of the character on display last evening. Consider the nature of his front row; then ponder the chances of real reform, in our time.

Aye well, I won my bet; I picked O’Sofullofit to mention, at least once, that he had been a Bobby and an experienced ‘accident investigator’. Four beers, courtesy of the ever pontificating, time wasting, self aggrandising chair. Cheers………

The Hansard video is posted above – courtesy of P2.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Ben Morgan and the other AGAA representatives have done great service in the Senate Committee. Ben in particular has drawn together the various threads and shown how CASA’s wrong policy, the creation of separate entities to be privately run in competition with each other, is against the national interest and out of step with the most effective and successful General Aviation environment, namely that of the USA.
But towards the end of the videos attached to this thread, from yesterday’s, hearing a remarkable exchange between Carmody and Senator Sterle. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything quite like it. In the video Carmody emphatically declaring that AOPA and the other GA organisations “signed up” to CASA’s Part 149.
The signatures that purported to be AOPA’s (and other GA industry’s reps) agreement were on a paper that was a meeting attendance sheet. No wonder that an angry and swearing Senator Sterle was spitting chips.
If Morrison has any antenae tuned in towards this dismal display of blatant bureaucratic degeneracy he might be calling in McCormack for some serious discussions.
Wonder if the media picks up on this astounding scene. Let’s hope so.
Reply

CARMODY NEEDS TO GO

Interesting comment below;

“Carmody emphatically declaring that AOPA and the other GA organisations “signed up” to CASA’s Part 149.
The signatures that purported to be AOPA’s (and other GA industry’s reps) agreement were on a paper that was a meeting attendance sheet”.



If for no other reason than him being incompetent and deceptive Wingnut needs to be frog marched out of Aviation House for good. Trying to use an attendance sheet as an agreement is one of the most stupid and deceptive things I have heard in a long time. I’m glad he was ‘called out’ by the Senator.

Tsk tsk tsk Shane. Don’t go have a hissy fit now mate!
Reply

Passing strange aint it?
Wingnut either straight out lied and deliberately misrepresented the facts to
the senate, that's of course "IF" he knew, or he himself was deliberately mislead
by his minions into misrepresenting the facts.
Nevertheless, Shaney Poo has a bit of a track record of misleading statements
as illustrated in previous performances before the senate, one would have thought
a smart guy like him would be a tad more careful, rather than opening his mouth
to change feet.
Reply

Oversight of CASA inquiry update - 20/11/18. 


The tabled docs so far? 

Quote:Tabled Documents
  • Opening statement by the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, at a public hearing on 19 November 2018 - (PDF 2076KB)

  • Opening statement by Recreational Aviation Australia, at a public hearing on 19 November 2018 - (PDF 2865KB)

  • Civil Aviation Safety Authority document released to Senator Rex Patrick under Freedom of Information, relating to aviation medical certification policy. Tabled at a public hearing on 19 November 2018 - (PDF 3246KB)
The Senator Patrick CASA doc received under the FOI is very interesting because it shows that to begin with the policy position was very much towards a replication and harmonisation of the UK & US system of self-certification/drivers licence medicals:

[Image: Dsb56udVsAA1Rnf.jpg][Image: Dsb593EU0AA8H_P.jpg]
[Image: Dsb6DqAV4AA3pix.jpg]

So what the hell changed? Perhaps the answer to that QON lies in the evidence given by the acting Chairman of RAAus in answer to questions from Senator Slade Brockman:



P2 comment: The good Senator Brockman was quoting from the RAAus submission to the CASA medical certification discussion paper - links: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/re...-standards & RAAus submission: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/183091/down...n=pcZmVJQq

Quote from page 8 of RAAus submission:

Quote: Direct costs to RAAus – Potentially significant loss of revenue specifically if the RAMPC medical requirements are reduced. This could mean that the Recreational Pilots Licence (RPL) requirements will have a direct advantage over the RAAus Pilot Certificate with the possibility that members will leave RAAus to access CTA and MTOW, as has happened since CASA introduced the RPL. RAAus maintains its position that the RPL was an unnecessary introduction which added confusion and complexity to an already crowded marketplace. If CASA were to make accessing the RAMPC easier, it would be imperative that RAAus be given equal rights regarding accessing CTA and an increased MTOW to 1500kgs.

 This could result in a dramatic effect on the financial position of RAAus, which is a significant risk to the regulator should RAAus become unviable. If this did occur CASA would be left to manage some 10 000 pilots and 3 200 aircraft; it is questionable whether CASA has the capacity to undertake this responsibility. So, any changes to medical standards must be made in light of ensuring RAAus remains a viable and safe alternative.

 RAAus holds the view that a conflict of interest and direct bias still exists as the regulator has a competitive advantage over a self-administering organisation that requires approval from the regulator to operate.

Couple the above with the excellent, extremely readable tabled opening statement by the SAAA President and even a layman begins to understand the self-serving, sinister, duplicitous game at play by the CASA executive management and Iron Ring acolytes:


[Image: DscJKZ8VsAAGSSt.jpg:large][Image: DscJSp7U4AAqqXF.jpg]
[Image: DscJYGGUUAAjU5e.jpg]

  
Well said that man -  Wink    

Still standing by on the Hansard but I have been assured that it won't be long now... Rolleyes


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Was that second bang the door closing?

The first was Carmody being either shot in the arse from behind; or, in the foot while drawing the weapon. Not that it matters, either way; there is blood on the floor now – metaphorically speaking of course.

BRB indaba last evening – full house; and, one of the quietest I’ve ever attended. The whole video Hansard was watched, almost without pause, little ribald comment; and, importantly, no break to recharge glasses. When the show was over, (and glasses refilled) there was a general consensus that three parts needed to be seen again. Standing alone, they are significant; but viewed altogether, the only reasonable conclusion which could be reached is that Carmody has to go; and, there is need for a serious inquiry into the manner in which CASA operate.

The three ‘big’ ticket items of interest were (i) the ‘approval’ survey: (ii) Part 149 consensus and (iii) the O’Sofullofit invitation.

Items (i) and (ii) have the potential to at least demand further investigation by the Committee and possibly the minister; even if it is to simply exonerate the regulator from the suspicions raised. There has (IMO) been enough reasonable doubt raised to justify the time and expense of a further committee session to examine, in full both areas. It may well be that CASA is as pure as the driven snow and have operated with integrity and probity – however; the ugly questions have been raised; and, for the amount of public money CASA plough through, it seems fair and reasonable that the doubts raised be examined, in detail, under oath.

Item (iii) is truly interesting. Whether it was, as the BRB decided, a smart assed throw away line from O’Sofullofit; or, part of a bigger game is now academic. The invitation was issued. It is only a small section; it begins at the 10:30 time mark on the video record below.



An open invitation to the Embuggered fraternity to state their case, under parliamentary protection. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have the draconian Enforcement Manual scrutinised, a chance to walk a committee through the machinations of the CASA version of ‘safety enforcement’ and a golden moment to put a stake in the heart of an out of control operation which can and does destroy careers, reputation and life. That they do this with some glee is academic.

PAIN will be discussing ways and means of exploiting the invitation with various groups; perhaps we can, together, garner enough general supporting evidence to provide a brief to the committee and get them to put their money where O’Sofullofit’s mouth is. We shall see. There is of course a record of some of the more spectacular acts of embuggerance; in short form, which will be the keystone. This information has been pilling up for almost a decade now. Perhaps it is high time that CASA was made to sit up straight and fly right. Handing over, but you need to be in it to win it. ‘Nuff said.

Master Morgan earned a hearty ‘well done’.  It is refreshing to listen to someone who will speak up, tell it as it is, plainly, openly, honestly without fear. Yes, he does rock some boats, but can you honestly say those boats don’t need a good rocking.

Rock On Ben, have at ‘em.  BRB awarded the best guitar riff ever.



Toot – toot.
Reply

(11-21-2018, 06:34 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Was that second bang the door closing?

The first was Carmody being either shot in the arse from behind; or, in the foot while drawing the weapon. Not that it matters, either way; there is blood on the floor now – metaphorically speaking of course.

BRB indaba last evening – full house; and, one of the quietest I’ve ever attended. The whole video Hansard was watched, almost without pause, little ribald comment; and, importantly, no break to recharge glasses. When the show was over, (and glasses refilled) there was a general consensus that three parts needed to be seen again. Standing alone, they are significant; but viewed altogether, the only reasonable conclusion which could be reached is that Carmody has to go; and, there is need for a serious inquiry into the manner in which CASA operate.

The three ‘big’ ticket items of interest were (i) the ‘approval’ survey: (ii) Part 149 consensus and (iii) the O’Sofullofit invitation.

Items (i) and (ii) have the potential to at least demand further investigation by the Committee and possibly the minister; even if it is to simply exonerate the regulator from the suspicions raised. There has (IMO) been enough reasonable doubt raised to justify the time and expense of a further committee session to examine, in full both areas. It may well be that CASA is as pure as the driven snow and have operated with integrity and probity – however; the ugly questions have been raised; and, for the amount of public money CASA plough through, it seems fair and reasonable that the doubts raised be examined, in detail, under oath.

Item (iii) is truly interesting. Whether it was, as the BRB decided, a smart assed throw away line from O’Sofullofit; or, part of a bigger game is now academic. The invitation was issued. It is only a small section; it begins at the 10:30 time mark on the video record below.



An open invitation to the Embuggered fraternity to state their case, under parliamentary protection. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have the draconian Enforcement Manual scrutinised, a chance to walk a committee through the machinations of the CASA version of ‘safety enforcement’ and a golden moment to put a stake in the heart of an out of control operation which can and does destroy careers, reputation and life. That they do this with some glee is academic.

PAIN will be discussing ways and means of exploiting the invitation with various groups; perhaps we can, together, garner enough general supporting evidence to provide a brief to the committee and get them to put their money where O’Sofullofit’s mouth is. We shall see. There is of course a record of some of the more spectacular acts of embuggerance; in short form, which will be the keystone. This information has been pilling up for almost a decade now. Perhaps it is high time that CASA was made to sit up straight and fly right. Handing over, but you need to be in it to win it. ‘Nuff said.

Master Morgan earned a hearty ‘well done’.  It is refreshing to listen to someone who will speak up, tell it as it is, plainly, openly, honestly without fear. Yes, he does rock some boats, but can you honestly say those boats don’t need a good rocking.

Rock On Ben, have at ‘em.  BRB awarded the best guitar riff ever.



Toot – toot.

Oversight of CASA Senate Inquiry - Update 21/11/18.

Hansard is now out here is a link: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Notable quotes so far... Rolleyes

Quote:Senator BROCKMAN: To continue on the theme, particularly the like for like, Mr Morgan, that's essentially what you're calling for. If you've got similar-sized aircraft flying similar places with a similar number of passengers, you're seeking a similar set of rules in terms of medical certification.

Mr Morgan : Yes. I repeat the statement. Our association—and, I believe, our AGAA partners—do not understand why we have a regulator that seems intent on creating one set of rules for government CASA regulated participants and a completely different set of rules for private self-administration participants. Within the context of the medical reform process we can see regulations that have been implemented which are clearly designed to disadvantage general aviation CASA regulated pilots. What do I mean by that? If you look at what the United States and the United Kingdom have done over the past two years, they have successfully reformed their private pilot medical standards. Both countries recognised there was a need for wholesale change, a total liberalisation of the system and a move towards private drivers licence standards.

We in Australia had hoped that this is exactly what CASA would do, because there was a clear demonstration that a private drivers licence standard was sufficient for the 10,000 members of the RAAus and the thousands of members within the gliding fraternity. So, in late 2016, when the reforms were announced, we all sat back thinking, 'If the UK has done it, if the US has done it, we're certainly not going to be different,' because, let's face it, the air is not different here in Australia; it's exactly the same as it is in the United States or the UK. Yet, much to our surprise, the reforms that CASA delivered for us in general aviation included implementing a basic class 2 environment that now required pilots to pass a commercial truck driver's medical.

More importantly, they made that medical a requirement you had to pass unconditionally. It's the unconditional part that really creates the herring in this particular situation. There are a substantial number of general aviation pilots who will pass a commercial truck drivers medical. In fact, many of my AOPA members have truck drivers licences. But they've consequently gone and looked at the standards they now need to pass under this basic and they simply will not be able to pass it. Yet these same people can go to the RAAus, fill out a self-cert form and pay a fee to a private company and have access to aviation.

We feel that there's a real problem with this. We feel that the system that's been delivered is designed to protect the self-administrations by not allowing a total liberalisation, and we've seen by way of the self-administrations' submission on medical reforms that they are deeply concerned that if CASA had reformed the system to a private driver's licence self-certification standard then the financial implications may well have rendered the organisation as unviable. So, we cannot answer—

Senator BROCKMAN: I have just a couple more questions. You've been on this mission since 2016, so I suspect you have a pretty good idea. We don't have the ability to bring you back immediately after CASA to hear your response. So, tell me what you think they're going to tell us, and tell us why they're incorrect.


Mr Morgan : Well, I imagine CASA will put forward that they base their decisions on the assessment of risk, and if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is adhering to its regulatory philosophy then those risks will have generated a safety case, and they'll be using that to base their decisions on. Yet, interestingly, we've been requesting this safety case, or this risk assessment, so that we can have it peer reviewed, and it has not been forthcoming. We have not seen any documentation published by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in this country that justifies the decision it made. However, the United Kingdom undertook a 10-year study of medical incapacitation among pilots, and that 10-year study resulted in a determination that the risk of incapacitation was so low that it was impossible to calculate. It was one of the fundamental underlying supports for the reform of the UK system—the fact that they had come to the clear realisation, via a medical study, that the risk is low. Now, if there's been a risk assessment or a study completed in Australia, we would love to see it. Our association would love to review it.


Senator STERLE: You've written to CASA?


Mr Morgan : Yes, I have.


Senator STERLE: Could you provide us with copies of those letters—and particularly the dates, and any responses?

Mr Morgan : I'm more than happy to.

And BM nails it  Wink :

Quote:Mr Morgan : ...To add to what Mr White was saying, I heard the comment from Spencer Ferrier that the RAAus system has been set up to deal with simpler aircraft. We've got to be careful in looking at that statement and putting too much of a stamp on it. If we go back 10 or 15 years, the RAAus were flying aeroplanes that were pretty much rag-and-tube ultralights. There were a great number of aeroplanes with, virtually, chainsaw motors on them. Those things were pretty experimental, Wild West types of aeroplanes. But the types of aircraft the RAAus are flying today are, for all and intents and purposes, general aviation aircraft, so much so that a significant number are now being used by flight training organisations nationwide. Is CASA in fact providing liberalisation for simplified aircraft, or are we now providing liberalisation for pseudogeneral aviation?

I'm often confused when I look at the general aviation economy now. I go to a flight school and see them buying up a whole bunch of RAAus aircraft, and I say to them, 'Why are you putting RAAus aeroplanes online here with the flight school?' They say: 'It's pretty simple. The students don't have to go through half the turmoil that they have to go through with CASA. We don't have to go through half the turmoil we go through with maintaining them, because we can obtain our own maintenance approvals. We can put our own people through a simplified RAAus maintenance course and we can own and maintain the aircraft. And they're cheaper to run.' So there's a very good reason why we're seeing proliferation in this space. We're seeing proliferation and rapid growth in RAAus because it's a sad indictment of the failure of CASA to actually reform our system. If CASA had taken a centralised reform approach to our overall regulatory framework and provided universal reform in terms of improving our system, we would have seen general aviation flight schools bringing these aircraft in, and we would have had growth. But instead we have this bizarre situation where we're seeing growth in an environment that can really only be categorised as a state sponsored monopoly. It is a state sponsored monopoly, because it can't exist without the special conditions and alleviations that CASA provided, whether it be through supplemental funding, reformed medical standards or the allowance to maintain your own aeroplanes. It doesn't matter which way we look at this; this thing is sponsored by CASA. We're not asking for it to be removed. What we're asking for is for our national aviation safety regulator to do the job of providing the national general aviation economy with a fair, equitable and balanced regulatory environment so that we all have opportunity...

MTF? - Definitely...P2  Wink
Reply

Oversight of CASA: Ironsider catching up on the Oz -  Rolleyes

Via the Weekend Oz:

Quote:CASA ‘forcing pilots’ to group
[Image: 7f8a99af6ed4191644d922a10d539d34]ROBYN IRONSIDE

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been accused of creat­ing a monopoly by forcing pilots who want to avoid rigorous medical tests to keep their licence­, to join a privately run organisa­tion.

Under the current aviation safety rules, only members of Recreational Aviation Australia can self-certify — or declare themselves fit to fly.

That level of certification carries­ a range of restrictions ­including the weight of the aircraft, number of passengers, and when and where they can fly.

In the case of CASA-regul­ated pilots, medical tests must be passed in order to maintain a licenc­e that allows them to carry more than one passenger and operate in controlled airspace, and at night.

The Aircraft Owners and ­Pilots Association is opposed to RAAus members being permitted to self-certify while other privat­e licence holders have to pay for a doctor’s certificate and any tests required.

Managing director Benjamin Morgan said it was almost a ­“corrupt” system where pilots were forced to join a private organisatio­n for a lower medical standard.

A Senate estimates hearing examined the situation this week, with co-chairman Glenn Sterle clashing with CASA offic­ials over the certification stand­ard.

“You’ve got old farmer Barry who’s got his plane, and if he gets to the stage where his medical testing gets too tough, why can’t CASA say you can self-certify but you won’t be able to fly at night (and so on)?” questioned Senator Sterle.

“Why does he have to go and join RAAus? You’re creating a monopoly, that’s what I can see.”

But CASA executive Graeme Crawford said there was nothing to say a third player could not come into the market.

“Essentially AOPA could duplicate what RAAus does,” Mr Crawford said, adding that they would need approval.

CASA chief executive Shane Carmody said the current ­system helped meet the different needs of pilots across Australia.

“If you’re a general aviation pilot in the northwest of Aust­ralia and you’ve got a station up there, basically it would be in your interest to leave the GA ­sector and move to RAAus,” Mr Carmody said.

“There’s a financial advantage.”

The cost of RAAus membership starts at $215 for three months, plus a $22 joining fee.

Two-year memberships are available for $460.

CASA also came under fire for the methodology used in a ­recent stakeholder survey which found satisfaction levels within the aviation industry had improve­d.

AOPA has accused CASA of cherrypicking survey respondents to avoid those sectors that had clashed with the regulator.

Under relentless questioning from Senate committee co-chairman Barry O’Sullivan, it was revealed that survey forms went to 11,000 people from CASA’s database of 50,000. Of those, 1168 forms were ­returned.

And a comment from Sandy... Wink

Quote:Robyn, thank you for prising open the lid just a bit more. The Hansard video of these Senate Committee proceedings reveal the regulator CASA as arrogant, obfuscating and downright incapable of telling the truth. Senator Sterle was quite correct in stating that he was being led down the garden path. 

“If you’re a general aviation pilot in the northwest of Aust­ralia and you’ve got a station up there, basically it would be in your interest to leave the GA sector and move to RAAus,” Mr Carmody said. 
Really? Sell your comfortable 4/6 seat, a range and carrying capacity capable aircraft, fully certified, expensively maintained, a functional Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft that you’ve been flying for years for a tiny uncertified two seater. Lucky if you can squeeze in, certainly can’t carry parts, food and other necessities let alone tools or an esky like your old plane. An ultralight that attempts to make do with a government mandated maximum takeoff weight of only 600kg, after the engine, accessories, 2 crew and very short range fuel you are left with about 260 kg for the airframe. Like a leaf in the wind. Mr. Carmody hasn’t got a clue, and we pay him about $600,000 per annum. 

At $200 million pa CASA is being exposed as a purely self serving entity, it is causing the death of General Aviation, death by a thousand regulatory cuts. Divide and conquer, induce thousands of pesky private pilots into the low weight category.  Loss of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses due to ever increasing bureaucratic costs, fees for unnecessary permissions, masses of unworkable rules migrated inappropriately to the criminal code, strict liability, rule by fear The 30 year experiment of the independent regulator has failed, hence the losses and astonishing lack of Australian airline pilots, where we used to excel and provide the best... 

Wink Wink Big Grin - MTF...P2   Tongue
Reply

Carmody gets our vote of no confidence!

Stain Carmody at a glance;
- $600k per annum salary
- 15.75% Government superannuation
- Business class airfares
- 5 Star travel accomodation
- Annual conferences
- Generous travel and away allowances

The guy probably has 2 to 3 years left until retirement, maximum. He is a seat warmer, working his final couple of years for CAsA until he retires on his 40 year bureaucrat fortune. A foul tempered egotistical self serving sook who doesn’t know aviation shit from clay, while he lives in his Can’tberra bubble pontificating about he and his out-of-tune abject failure of a department, CAsA, know best. Read his CV, a life spent working in an alternate reality - Government.

His latest display of anger, arrogance and disdain towards aviation, especially GA, proves the fish rots from the head, and with people like him, Skidmore and the Screaming Skull having spent the past decade riding the GA wrecking ball it is time the Senate forced through change. This cannot be left to continue. All that will be left flying in the skies will be Drones flown by acne covered teenagers.

Tick Tock goes the GA clock as it sits at 10 seconds to midnight.
Reply

Govt response to Senate Drone wars inquiry? Confused

Via the 27/11/18 Senate Hansard:

Quote:Australian Government response to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report:

Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.

Executive Summary

Like elsewhere in the world, Australia has experienced rapid growth in commercial and recreational Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) use in recent years. The potential of RPAS to change the way in which Australians approach everyday tasks is significant, as they can reduce the cost and risk associated with hazardous, difficult or time-consuming work. There has already been a significant uptake in industries such as the media, emergency services, agriculture, mining and scientific research.

The Government recognises the importance of regulating the RPAS industry to ensure the safety of the public, RPAS pilots and other airspace users. However, this regulatory approach must be proportionate to risk and encourage growth in the sector now and into the future. If regulated appropriately, the emerging RPAS sector will contribute significant productivity and efficiency gains to the Australian economy.

On 31 July 2018, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (the Committee) tabled the Report into the Current and future regulatory requirements that impact on the safe commercial and recreational use of RPAS, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems (the Report).

The Government notes Recommendations 1, 3 and 5, and will review its position on these matters as RPAS technologies advance.

The Government agrees with Recommendations 2 and 10, and has identified measures by which the recommendations can be put into action.

The Government agrees in principle with Recommendations 4, 6, 8 and 9, and will progress work relating to these recommendations as identified.

The Government does not agree with Recommendation 7, specifically the need to develop import controls for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for implementing Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10.

Airservices Australia (Airservices) is responsible for working with CASA, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) to implement Recommendation 9.
The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for Recommendation 7.

The Australian Federal Police, in concert with CASA, is responsible for Recommendation 4.

The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities is responsible for Recommendation 8 relating to the whole of government policy coordination mechanisms.

The Attorney-General's Department (AGD) and the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities are responsible for the privacy related aspects of Recommendation 8.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority draw on the growing body of international empirical research and collision testing on remotely piloted aircraft systems below 2kg to immediately reform Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

The Government notes this recommendation.

CASA continues to draw on international research to develop and refine the regulations relating to RPAS.

At this stage, the Government does not consider that the current international research supports the need for an immediate redraft of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 101 relating to RPAS below 2kg. The introduction of CASA's legislative instrument (Direction—operation of certain unmanned aircraft) in October 2017 has already provided stronger, clearer and tightened safety rules for recreational RPAS users. The new rules include a requirement that operators must not fly their RPAS over or near areas affecting public safety or where emergency operations are underway, and not within 5.5 kilometres of a controlled aerodrome.

All RPAS users, unless approved otherwise, must adhere to the prescribed standard operating conditions, including not flying above 400 feet, not flying within 30 metres of people and operating within line of sight to the RPAS. For those operating in the 'excluded category' (commercial operations under 2kgs), they must notify CASA five days before they fly and operate within the rules applicable to the excluded category.

The Government notes that despite the proliferation of RPAS, the ATSB have no confirmed reports of a collision between RPAS and conventionally piloted aircraft in Australia.

The Government supports CASA's continued monitoring of RPAS operations below 2kg, set to be bolstered by the Government's RPAS policy and data frameworks to be established in response to Recommendations 8 and 9 (refer). CASA will continue to follow international developments in RPAS regulatory frameworks and will amend Part 101 if appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce a mandatory registration regime for all remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) weighing more than 250 grams. As part of registration requirements, RPAS operators should be required to successfully complete a basic competence test regarding the safe use of RPAS, and demonstrate an understanding of the penalties for non-compliance with the rules.

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

This recommendation is consistent with the views reflected in the CASA's Review of aviation safety regulation of remotely piloted aircraft systems (CASA's Review), published May 2018.

The Government supports the implementation of an appropriate mandatory testing regime as part of the registration process, under which recreational and other drone users in the excluded category must successfully demonstrate an understanding of the safe and lawful use of RPAS.

CASA has begun to develop options for an effective and efficient registration scheme. The scope and form of that scheme will have regard to the Committee's concern that any such scheme should be both cost-effective and sustainable.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a tiered education program whereby remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) users progressively unlock RPAS capabilities upon completion of each level of training. Three tiers are proposed as follows:

purchase of the RPAS  mandatory registration requires user to demonstrate knowledge of the basic rules for flying RPAS, and the penalties for non-compliance (as described in Recommendation 2);

recreational use of RPAS  second tier requires user to demonstrate an advanced understanding of aviation rules and safety before unlocking additional capabilities; and

commercial use of RPAS  final tier requires user to demonstrate comprehensive aviation knowledge before obtaining commercial operator licence and unlocking full RPAS capability.

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government supports a broader education scheme and mandatory registration and CASA, as the aviation safety education provider, will progress implementation.

CASA is developing an appropriate education package for the safe use of RPAS across the usage tiers. In developing an education program, the Government would involve appropriate law enforcement agencies, to ensure that knowledge of compliance requirements is not limited to safety issues alone, but also includes threats to national security.

CASA will work carefully to ensure that any changes to RPAS education do not impose unnecessary requirements that discourage participation from RPAS users and manufacturers, are cost effective and sustainable.

The full implementation of this recommendation would require technological capabilities to be implemented by all RPAS manufacturers. While the technology to limit or restrict operations is advancing, linking this to completion of training is currently not feasible given the breadth of sources from which RPAS can be acquired.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in cooperation with the Australian Federal Police and other relevant authorities, prohibit the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in the airspace above significant public buildings, critical infrastructure and other vulnerable areas.

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

CASA will continue to work with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), state and territory law enforcement authorities and other agencies of federal, state and territory governments to develop advanced processes to limit and restrict the operation of drones in certain locations. The Government expects security agencies to continue to assess the threat concerning significant public buildings, critical infrastructure and other vulnerable areas and advise on any necessary restrictions utilising CASA's existing regulatory powers.

Mechanisms are already in place for an appropriate security agency to request CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation to designate certain airspace as prohibited, restricted or danger areas. However, each category of designation requires CASA to be satisfied of particular criteria and would be difficult to limit to RPAS without inadvertently affecting other airspace users.

There are other options available to restrict the use of RPAS in certain areas that may be more feasible. These include increased enforcement of the RPAS regulations, or states and territories could use the capability in their own legislation to enact restrictions and further consideration of utilising geo-fencing once that technology has advanced.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, work with manufacturers of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) to develop future solutions to RPAS safety, including the implementation of technical restrictions on altitude and distance for ' off-the-shelf 'RPAS.

The Government notes this recommendation.

CASA will continue to support manufacturer's efforts to utilise geo-fencing technology to prevent RPAS operations in areas where operations are not permitted, including at or near major airports and certain classes of restricted airspace.

CASA will continue to participate in relevant international forums to stay abreast of global trends and participate in trials of new technology, where feasible.

There are a multitude of RPAS manufacturers, predominantly based overseas, and hence achieving consistent technical restrictions would likely be unfeasible.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop appropriate airworthiness standards for remotely piloted aircraft of all sizes and operations. At a minimum, fail-safe functions such as ' return to home ' and safe landing functionality, and forced flight termination, should be mandated.

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

While CASA sets aviation airworthiness standards, including those applicable to RPAS in Australia, it does not establish airworthiness standards for foreign aircraft. Instead, Australia holds technical arrangements reciprocating airworthiness certifications with certain international civil aviation safety regulators, which could be explored as a future option for RPAS airworthiness.
CASA is currently developing a long term strategy for safe RPAS operations in Australia, including the examination of airspace integration, risk and safety management, unmanned traffic management, operations near and to/from aerodromes and initial and continuing airworthiness and certification standards.

This work will also assist in informing the work of the future whole of government RPAS policy, as outlined in the response to Recommendation 8.

CASAis actively engaged with the International Civil Aviation Organization body, the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems, to develop an appropriate international airworthiness standard framework for RPAS.

The Government notes that adopting appropriate airworthiness standards is a long-term matter to allow for appropriate consideration for integration into Australian airspace.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop import controls to enforce airworthiness standards for foreign manufactured remotely piloted aircraft systems.

The Government does not agree with this recommendation.

An import control to enforce airworthiness standards for foreign manufactured remotely piloted aircraft systems would be difficult to establish and impractical to enforce. The Australian Border Force does not have the technical capability or the capacity to test, assess or determine airworthiness standards of foreign manufactured remotely piloted aircraft systems at the border. This recommendation, if adopted, would have a significant impact on the ABF's resources and ability to enforce other border controls, including the detection and interception of illicit firearms, weapons and drugs.

The Government, instead, supports CASA's participation in the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems, to develop appropriate international airworthiness standards for all RPAS.

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in collaboration with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop a whole of government policy for remotely piloted aircraft safety in Australia, and establish appropriate coordination and implementation mechanisms with relevant departments and agencies to implement the policy.

As part of a whole of government policy approach, the committee further recommends that the Australian Government explore cost-effective models to develop and administer new regulatory initiatives for remotely piloted aircraft systems, including a mandatory registration regime and tiered education program. The harmonisation of state and territory privacy laws should also be considered.

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

In March 2018, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (DIRDC) established the RPAS Network to coordinate policy work on RPAS. As at October 2018, the RPAS Network comprised of representatives from fifteen Portfolios with varied interests in RPAS. In some instances, these members also represent the many agencies within their own Portfolios who engage with RPAS technology either directly or from a policy perspective.

DIRDC will continue to work closely with CASA and other relevant departments and agencies on a coordinated whole of government approach to ensure the appropriate operation of RPAS in Australia.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is responsible for determining funding arrangements for the RPAS safety regulatory framework and is currently considering new initiatives. With regards to a mandatory registration system and a tiered education program, refer respectively to the Government response to Recommendations 2 and 3.

The Government notes the Committee's recommendation that the harmonisation of state and territory privacy laws should be considered. State and territory privacy laws are a matter for state and territory Governments. The Government, via the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, will engage with state and territory governments to consider national harmonisation of privacy laws as they apply to RPAS operators.

Recommendation 9

The committee recommends that, as part of a whole of government approach to remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) safety, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority work with Airservices Australia and other relevant agencies to implement a comprehensive research and data gathering regime. Information should be collated and centralised in a way that allows for the examination of RPAS registrations, operations, trends and incidents, to provide an evidence base on which to assess the efficacy of current regulations, and to inform the development of future policy and regulations.

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

Airservices collaborates with industry to collect data of sightings of authorised and unauthorised RPAS. This information is shared with CASA and the ATSB enabling further analysis of the evolving operations of RPAS. Airservices also periodically examines this data to determine a risk picture for the organisation.
Airservices is in discussions with several providers who have RPAS detection solutions. These products may provide real-time statistical activity information in and around airports, supplementing Airservices current reporting capabilities. Airservices intends to conduct a trial with a provider during the 2018-19 financial year, with an aim to gather data and develop knowledge on how this technology might be integrated and to better understand the current limitations of the technology. The outcomes of the trial are expected to align with the intent of Recommendation 9 while providing Airservices with a better understanding of current capabilities.

It is also useful to note that for manned aviation undertaken in Australian registered aircraft, BITRE currently compiles statistics on the hours flown by aircraft and the associated number of landings, classified by the type of activity being undertaken, the type of aircraft being flown and the state or territory where the aircraft are based.

BITRE will now undertake a similar arrangement to compile statistics for RPAS, noting however that a complete list of all RPAS owners or operators would need to exist in order to identify participants in any future survey. For this reason, the implementation of Recommendation 2 (mandatory registration of RPAS) is an important prerequisite before BITRE can undertake this work.

Recommendation 10

The committee recommends that, following the development of a whole of government policy approach to RPAS safety, including the establishment of a national registration system, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) work with state and territory enforcement bodies to implement a nationally consistent enforcement regime for remotely piloted aircraft systems. Under this regime, enforcement bodies would be delegated powers to provide on-the-spot fines and report infringements of the regulations directly to CASA.

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

CASA continues to engage regularly and constructively with federal, state and territory law enforcement authorities, with a view to enhancing the enforcement of rules governing the safe and lawful use of drones.

In the development of the whole of Government policy on drones, the Government will consider and address the most appropriate regulatory regime for RPAS noting the need for greater responsiveness to drone issues and the management of state and territory based issues, including privacy, environmental concerns and public safety.

Hmm...no COMMENT!  Dodgy

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Dear Senate - UP YOURS

The Iron Ring hard at work as usual. Another well executed CAsA response in which it basically tells the Senate to get ducked as they (CAsA) will continue to do as they please.

Agrees; means we will fix it sometime within the next 30 years. No commitment.

Agrees in principle; means we will only make the changes as long as lots of wriggle room and ‘intent’ is built into the changes, for CAsA’s advantage. Again, we will take 30 years to implement this. No firm commitment.

Notes; this means, ‘up yours Senate’. CAsA hears what you have said, but we shall file this away with all the other shelfware. Absolutely no commitment to changing anything.

It’s a tautological game that CAsA plays, over and over and over and over. Yawn. Another Senate inquiry, more millions spent, and the same old dreary, non-commital, pony pooh response.

Tick ‘yawn’ Tock
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)