[Peetwo]

Iron Ring pushback on WOFTAM changes to the Act -   

Ref: SBG 17/o3/19

Right then; back to my knitting...

. “Now I can remake the thing” she said with obvious satisfaction. Therein lies the solution to our current troubles.



We cannot, not without first unravelling, remake the way aviation is oversighted. The Act was made in a different time, with different dangers, risks and attitudes. It was also made in ignorance of the modern world and the progress made. Yet much of the original 10 Commandments of aviation safety have been obliterated, no longer applicable, not a threat.

So; and I ask why in all honesty, cannot we spend time and money, just one time to bring the Air Navigation Act up to date with aviation as it is today? Mostly, the ‘Bogey-Men of old have departed the fix. Look at Navigation for an example – in my lifetime it has changed so radically, I can barely understand how it all works – but it does, and very well indeed. I mourn the loss of an ADF approach, well judged; the loss of DME homing  as an art form; do I miss ‘em? No way GPS for me any day – ever try INS; thank the Gods it’s gone. The world has moved on; brilliant minds have removed the arcane threats. It is time our law makers caught up with modern aviation, re thought the ‘Act’ and modified our regulations to suit the modern era. Not that a new Act will matter a damn in ten years time. BUT – in the here and the now; it is well past the time when Grand Papa’s old sweater got a new lease of life. To do that, we must first be prepared to make the first snip and unravel the old. He hated the new jumper by the way – just on principal. But it was made for the best of reasons, with care and anticipation of the future. I don’t believe he ever had it far from him for the rest of his days. I can; if I close my eyes, still smell the ocean and tobacco and ‘him’ in the jumper, which was made, blended with skill, caring and an anticipation of future value to him. Thank you Grand Mama for a life lesson.


Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...2#pid10042

That’s it – there’s enough on the forum to sate the appetite of those interested in aviation’s future. It looks grim. A useless minister, incontinent Senate, moribund government and no one with the brain of a sheep flying the ship. a 'R' regulator who should be an Administrator; Air Services on a KPR binge trying to find the money to pay for the One Pie project; and ATSB which, IMO knows not, whether it is punched, bored or countersunk. The whole lot relying on the manipulation of an outdated ethos. Full of self serving justification of function and wallowing in the mess they created. It just has to end. It is borderline lunacy to continue this way........

In the Simply Marvellous Horsepooh today I note, that in the lead up to the next sitting of parliament, the Iron Ring captured side of the Feds (AFAP) is mobilising their inevitable MOAS (Mystique of Aviation Safety) campaign in response to the proposed WOFTAM changes to the Act...

By Patrick Hatch, via the SMH:

Pilots, experts call out push to make CASA weigh costs of safety

By Patrick Hatch
March 19, 2019 — 12.00am

Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.

The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.


An employee works on a Boeing 737 Max 9 plane at the company's manufacturing facility in Renton, Washington.CREDIT:BLOOMBERG

The FAA grounded all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in the US on Thursday, two days after Australian and European authorities ordered the relatively new aircraft to stop flying.

The 737 MAX crises has prompted fresh scrutiny of a bill the Morrison government introduced to parliament last month that would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the first time to "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community" when making aviation safety rules.

Small aircraft operators who claim their industry is being strangled by onerous regulation and safety compliance costs lobbied deputy prime minister and transport minister Michael McCormack heavily for the change.

"Safety needs to be the primary and overriding consideration,"  said Simon Lutton, executive director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which represents commercial airlines pilots.

We need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.

AFAP's Simon Lutton - “We have an excellent safety record in Australia and we need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.”

Aviation expert Neil Hansford, from Strategic Aviation Solutions, said the FAA's biggest concern last week appeared to have been "the Boeing share price and jobs in America".

“To commercialise the implementation of safety and operations regulations is not sound and could lean to the problem we have in the United States," he said.

He said that having to take into account the fact that "some people are going to go broke" as a result of necessary new safety rules "totally negates" the reasons of making the new rules in the first place.

The United States was the last major country to stop all Boeing 737 MAX jets from flying after the plane was involved in its second deadly crash in five months.

The changes have been designed to appease the general aviation industry - which includes including charter, pilot training, recreational and agricultural operators - which says it is being strangled by over-regulation.

Royal Flying Doctor Service chief executive Martin Laverty, who leads the minister's general aviation advisory group, said the change was a "step in the right direction".

“We at the Flying Doctors put safety above all else. We also have to be cost efficient in our flight operations. Legislative change to have the air regulator weigh cost whilst retaining safety as its key concern is a good step forward," he said.

“Anyone who says they’re not on board with making aviation safety regulation affordable... is privy to signing a suicide note to our entire industry," said Mr Morgan.

“We’ve watched thousands in our industry go broke in the past 30 years for no reasons other than the minister won’t stand up and do his damn job."

CASA would also take into account the differences in risks that apply to different sectors of the aviation industry under Mr McCormack's proposed changes.

Geoffrey Dell, an air crash investigation expert and associate professor at Central Queensland University, said part of the reason CASA was formed in 1995 was to address conflicts between safety and commercial interests inside the transport department.

“It’s a huge step backwards and sadly we keep forgetting the lessons of the past," Dr Dell said.

"It’s just an additional layer of white noise that potentially prevents safety corrective actions being taken promptly. You don’t know how much safety costs until you have an accident.”

A spokesman for Mr McCormack said aviation safety would always be the government's top priority and it had consulted industry before introducing the bill.

“This has no bearing on immediate safety issues, where CASA will continue to be able to act in the interest of safety," he said.

A spokesman for Labor's shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the bill.

Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the General Aviation Advisory Group were all consulted on the changes and did not raise any concerns, according to the bill's explanatory memorandum.

Hmmm....UDB! 

No comment but perhaps some pictures may tell the true story here...  

Oh Gawd, where do you start with this one.

It's interesting and perhaps a tad sad that this Lutton guy from the AFAP seems to just not get it. How can decimating the bottom end of aviation possibly be in his unions interest? The "Air Crash investigation expert"sounds like he's been watching too many Air Crash Investigators on the box.

The new bill introduced into parliament if you read it and interpret it properly its obvious its been very craftily worded to ensure that nothing is really changed, the status quo remains intact and CASA will continue with its inane hillbilly regulatory fraud.

For all CASA's amateurish regulatory madness Australia is no safer today than when they started. We remain way behind the USA safety wise.

What is "Safety", How is it measured?Who sets the height of the limbo bar?.

CASA sets the height based on what parameters?

In reality safety is impossible to define, CASA sets the bar to suit themselves and their inflated ego's.

What is incontrovertible however is, over regulate and your industry dies as has been glaringly illustrated in Australia. If the industry dies what was the point of the regulation.

There has to be a balance between regulation and cost otherwise the country just does without aviation. An illogical proposition.

Following on the same theme...  

Via the Mandarin today:

APS Review sets out four priorities for change
By David Donaldson and Stephen Easton • 19/03/2019



The Australian Public Service Review has published four new “priorities” for change ahead of its main findings later this year. Common pay and moving to a professional stream model are some of their ideas.

The report, released Tuesday morning, includes a broad range of interesting suggestions for reform under four priority headings.

Those priorities are: a stronger “culture, governance and leadership model”, more operational flexibility, continued investment in talent and capability, and stronger internal and external partnerships.

Proposed changes include common pay and conditions across the APS, professionalisation of roles through a move to a “professions model” with senior staff appointed to head up each professional stream, and a “stable spine” of common digital platforms and policy frameworks across the service.

How secretaries are chosen would change slightly, with a codified process to inform the prime minister’s choice of department heads, including published criteria, as well as clear criteria for evaluating performance.

The panel suggest annual external recruitment at EL and SES levels, modelled on the approach to graduates, to reduce barriers to entry from outside the APS, as well as making it easier for staff — and potential leaders in particular — to try out working in other sectors.

The APS should develop “an inspiring purpose and vision that unifies the public service”, backed up by a secretaries board with a mandate to push cross-portfolio outcomes. Departments and large agencies would be subject to regular, independent capability reviews, which would be publicly released.

The APS’s own sense of “primacy” can sometimes stand in the way of relationships with the public and ministers, the report notes. Improving mutual understanding of the roles and needs of the APS, ministers and ministerial offices, and opening up more ministerial staff positions to public servants, could improve public administration.

They also recommend formal recognition of “the distinct and important role” of ministerial advisors, including clarity of role — both in relation to ministers and public servants — and accountability.

There would also be a “revamped” APSC, empowered to fully deliver on its responsibilities, including through sustainable resourcing and strengthened in-house capability. The responsibilities of the APS Commissioner would be clarified in legislation, as ‘head of people’, including a reinforced role in appointment and performance management of Senior Executive Service officers, and responsibility for professions and for leading a strengthened pro-integrity regime. Measures would be put in place to ensure confidence in the appointment process for the commissioner, such as requiring parliamentary consultation.

“Our approach, our optimism, and our findings are reflected in one aspiration: a trusted APS, united in serving all Australians,” write the review panel.

“This aspiration forms the organising principle for the priorities for change set out in this report.”

Each of the report’s four priority areas — which build on the five big ideas review chair David Thodey set out in November — includes further initiatives.

To help strengthen the culture, governance and leadership model of the APS, the review panel recommend:

• Common purpose and vision that unites and inspires the APS
  
  
• Secretaries board driving outcomes across government and APS performance
  
  
• A defined ‘head of service’ and ‘head of people’
  
  
• Clarity and confidence in the appointment and expectations of secretaries
  
  
• Genuine transparency and accountability for delivering outcomes for Australians
  

To build a flexible APS operating model:

• Dynamic ways of working and structures to empower individuals and teams — making collaboration the norm
  
  
• Strategic allocation of funds and resources to outcomes and essential investment
  
  
• Networked enabling systems and common processes across the service
  

When it comes to investing in capability and talent development:

• Professionalised functions across the service to deepen expertise
  
  
• Empowered managers accountable for developing people and teams
  
  
• Strategic recruitment, development and mobility to build the workforce of the future
  
  
• 21st century delivery, regulation and policy capabilities
  
  
• Policy advice that integrates social, economic, security and international perspectives
  

And for developing stronger internal and external relationships:

• Seamless services and local solutions designed and delivered with states, territories and other partners
  
  
• An open APS, accountable for sharing information and engaging widely
  
  
• Strategic, service-wide approaches to procurement to deliver better value and outcomes for Australians
  
  
• Ministers supported through easier access to APS expertise and insights and formal recognition of distinct role of ministerial advisors.
  

The challenge of implementation

The reviewers are very concerned about how any shifts will be implemented and made sustainable.
“Globally, there are more examples of failed public sector transformations than successes,” says the report.

“And there is inevitably some cynicism about the possibility of change, or about having heard it all before.

Simplistic solutions will not suffice. Nor should we just turn to the private sector for the answers.”

Much of what they suggest “can be readily implemented within existing legislative and policy frameworks”, they argue.

The report points to six key requirements for successful reform:

• Senior leadership cohort who own transformation
  
  
• Clear prioritisation of reforms, focusing on the most important things first
  
  
• A transformation leader with the influence to drive and coordinate delivery
  
  
• Deep engagement across the service in developing and implementing change with service-wide investment in capability building
  
  
• Funding, resources and support to drive transformation
  
  
• Meaningful metrics for short and long term success of transformation
  

Seeking feedback

The review panel is seeking further input from public servants to ensure their ideas are on the mark.

The panel is already considering upwards of 700 submissions, 270 suggestions on the review’s digital platform, 2900 survey responses, and the insights from 37 roundtables and workshops involving more than 550 members of the public and the APS. They’ve also completed 200 one-on-one meetings with parliamentarians, community and business leaders and others who work closely with the APS, as well as meetings with current and former public sector leaders.

But they want to keep testing their ideas.

“This report presents our current view — both what we think and what we’re still exploring,” they write.

“We were not asked to publish our interim findings, but we believe it is only through testing our thinking, openly and iteratively, that we will come to the best answers.”

So they are asking you the following questions:

• How can we strengthen each proposal?
  
  
• What are we missing?
  
  
• How do we ensure lasting change?
  

Comments can be made on the APS Review website until May 2.

Apart from Thodey, a former Telstra chief executive, the panel includes former Environment secretary Gordon de Brouwer, former University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis, Coca-Cola Amatil managing director Alison Watkins, ANZ’s digital banking boss Maile Carnegie and University of Sydney chancellor Belinda Hutchinson, who also chairs the board of defence contractor Thales Australia.

 
And in response to that, via one of the AP/PAIN/IOS email chains:

APS Review sets out four priorities for change | The Mandarin


This is an interesting development, the current model of aviation governance in Australia has failed. 

In particular, mainstream General Aviation (GA) is in severe decline, resulting in job losses, business failures and loss of flying services. 

There would probably have to be significant changes to the ‘independent regulator’ model such as CASA, if changes were instituted as per this article. Quote:-

Proposed changes include common pay and conditions across the APS, professionalisation of roles through a move to a “professions model” with senior staff appointed to head up each professional stream, and a “stable spine” of common digital platforms and policy frameworks across the service.

I think worth noting that our main call is for a change to the model, and therefore change the Act. 

This should include a much greater degree of industry participation and responsibility in the administration of GA. The benefits to the membership and the growing industry of the self administered low weight category, Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd (RAAus), testifies to what might be achieved. The artificial split of RAAus from mainstream GA could be rectified. Many anomalies, and the illogical and deleterious distortions (suitability of aircraft type to task, maintenance, medicals) should be removed. 

Sandy 


https://www.themandarin.com.au/105701-aps-review-sets-out-four-priorities-for-change/

---

..Sandy very correct what you say - I have no idea how you fix the Bureaucracy because basically it seems to have the "convict mentality" You came as a convict and so we will beat you up all the time.

• CASA needs to change its name - They are  not about SAFETY they are about ADMINISTRATION - this lot are about stopping GA and they are certainly no AUTHORITY. They should become The Civil Aviation Administration - it is their role to administer, not to create change for no reason and fight everyone for what it is worth over nonsensical opinionated decisions that are made by inept bureaucrats. - you only have to look at the empire built within the Medical Section. Look no further than Part 61 which is largely incomprehensible.  Look no further than the examining section of CASA - there will be no examiners as they are a monopoly and it will cost around $50000 to become one in all licences and ratings. This includes CASA fees, would be examiners time and the cost of an aeroplane.
  
• They want a leadership model strengthening culture and governance.  What kind of culture what kind of governance? - it would have to be carefully described -  then how do you inculcate it into a large organisation full of overpaid over pensioned public servants.
  
• Flexible operating model responding to change - fantastic -  A DEEP description of THE HOW to respond would have to be the first paper and Phd written on the topic. The HOW WHY WHERE AND WHAT - You only have to look in particular at Part 61 - it was absolutely apparent that part 61 came in with no thought, no consultation, no looking at the rest of the world's model Why?  Because Australia always feels it has to REINVENT the wheel and be the first to show their ignorance to the rest of the world.  Part 61 is largely incomprehensible and you should hear what the FAA said about it. No notice was taken from people in middle management in CASA down to us plebs who certainly know and knew a lot more than they did. We told them it would not work and then they asked us at a public meeting to help us fix their mistakes. When I asked how much money per hour the were they considering paying us they looked askance that I would wish to get paid - in other words let ones own company go down the gurgler due to their inept governance and let ones own company slip further down the gurgler due to no pay for our considerable knowledge and expertise.
  
• Investing in our peoples capability and talent.  The talent within their organisation goes largely unrecognised and in fact one of the best examiners that they have has been sidelined to pushing a pen and interpreting the rules for us all because his boss who gave no reason stopped him testing then moved after many years to the RTA or whatever it is called now.  All he is now doing is waiting for retirement age to get his pension.  He is a hardworking good public servant who has been kicked around.  Yet another examiner who was just the worst one in CASA prospered. Why? easy if you know the names.
  
• Building internal and external partnerships and collaboration that are stronger.  Yes well - if you want this why is AOPA being kept out of meetings and off panels,  why is the boss of CASA fighting the CEO of AOPA - amongst other reasons because he is very knowledgeable about aviation and is not afraid to advocate. You only have to look at the Senate committees on aviation and see the hash that can be made by the big guns of CASA - to know something has to be done about CASA.  WHY are you considered the enemy just because your are knowledgeable and articulate?
  
• Aviation should have its own Minister of Aviation - it is a specialist field - It did when I first arrived in Australia. Then it got swallowed up in the Department of Transport.  Now it can happen that a train expert could be sent out to investigate an air crash and vice versa.  I listened to a whole lecture given by a member of the ATSB  about how great this was.  I am left wondering if the world has any common sense left.
  

The question is:

• THE HOW of change?
  
• GET RID OF THE CONVICT MENTALITY - that will be hard to change - over 200 years of it
  
• STOP CASA FROM THINKING THEY ARE AN AUTHORITY BY CHANGING THEIR NAME TO ADMINISTRATION
  
• STOP WRITING RULES THAT INCUR PENALTIES AND ARE SO PRESCRIPTIVE THAT WITH THE BEST WILL IN THE WORLD IF YOU HAVE A CASA BLOKE READING THE RULE WORD FOR WORD AND TAKING IT SO LITERALLY WE ARE ALL SUNK and you have the CHOICE TO GO COURT or WIND UP YOUR BUSINESS. LOSE YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR ENTIRE LIFE'S WORK. 
  
• GET A PARLIAMENTARIAN WHO ACTUALLY IS INTERESTED IN AVIATION AND WISHES TO SEE IT PROSPER. there are several pilots within Parliament but where are they when it comes to aviation matters?
  
• HAVE A MINISTRY THAT IS AVIATION ONLY AND HAS ITS OWN MINISTER - separate the trains, the ships the aircraft they are all very specialised fields and get away from the view that if you have a degree in business administration you can administer any sector of industry successfully - you cannot.
  

AMINTA HENNESSY JP, OAM
President - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia

MTF...P2