[Peetwo]

Aviation Safety: USA vs Oz - Like chalk and cheese...

From the latest off the UP glenb thread  - Australian small business V CASA - I note the following enlightening LeadSled post...  

Folks,

Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".

The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".

The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.

As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.

Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.

I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".

Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .

Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.

In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.

All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.

Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.

Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.

For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.

Tootle pip!!

 However the part that really perked my interest was the PS...  

PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??

Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.

Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.

 
That being the case could we please have a Parliamentary Transportation and Infrastructure committee and Congessman/MPs with both the power and balls to take it up to the aviation safety bureaucracy like we saw portrayed by Congressman DeSaulnier with the recent introduction of the Safe Landings Act into the Congress??

---

Rep. DeSaulnier and Captain “Sully” Sullenberger Announce Safe Landings Act
Press Release
By
 ECT
 -
Aug 8, 2019



San Francisco, CA – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) and Captain “Sully” Sullenberger announced the introduction of the Safe Landings Act (H.R. 4166), to address near-miss aircraft incidents like the Air Canada flight arriving at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on July 7, 2017 that came dangerously close to landing on a taxiway occupied by four aircraft loaded with more than 1,000 passengers.

“In recent years, runway incursions in the U.S. increased by nearly 83%. With near-misses on the rise, we need to act now to ensure that those incidents do not turn into accidents and that our aviation system remains the safest in the world,” said Congressman Mark DeSaulnier. “With two years of research and expert input on multiple near-miss incidents, the product is what the flying public deserves. I appreciate the guidance we received, especially from Captain Sullenberger and CAPA President Captain Rooney, to be proactive and address near-misses before they turn deadly.”

“As aviation has become safer, it has become harder to avoid complacency. We have made air travel so safe and routine, some have assumed that because we haven’t had a lot of accidents in recent years we must be doing everything right. But we can no longer define safety solely as the absence of accidents. We must do much more than that; we must be much more proactive than that. We need to proactively find flaws and risks and mitigate them before they lead to harm. We must investigate accidents before they happen. I enthusiastically support Congressman DeSaulnier’s bill, which will provide the resources and means to make that a reality, and allow us to continue to do everything possible to protect the safety of Americans when they travel by air,” said Captain Sullenberger.

The Safe Landings Act addresses technology needs, training expansion, and a new federal task force to research and identify safety risks from human error. Congressman DeSaulnier spent 2 years researching, reviewing numerous near-miss incidents, and holding more than 60 meetings to get the advice of multiple stakeholders in the aviation industry, including Captain Sullenberger, pilots unions, air traffic controllers, mechanics, ground safety crews, federal agencies (NTSB and FAA), and more.

Specifically, the Safe Landings Act:

• Requires FAA to implement systems that would alert both pilots and air traffic controllers if a plane is not properly aligned to land on a runway;
  
  
• Requires FAA to gather data and report on under what circumstances airlines require pilots to back up visual approaches with electronic guidance to verify they are landing on the correct runway, and issue guidance on the most effective techniques;
  
  
• Requires the “notices to airmen” (NOTAM) system to be harmonized with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards;
  
  
• Compels the GAO to do a study on the concerns some pilots have with cockpit voice recorders (CVRs), like inappropriate foreign government use, and provide recommendations to improve CVRs while protecting pilots;
  
  
• Creates a Task Force onHuman Factors in Aviation Safety to review and provide recommendations.
  

“We applaud Representative DeSaulnier’s proactive efforts to improve aviation safety with the ‘Safe Landings Act’,” stated Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) President Captain Larry Rooney. “Aviation safety is a direct result of the continued collaborative efforts of all stakeholders to ensure that the safety of the traveling public remains paramount. This legislation provides the latest opportunity to further refine and improve on known and newly discovered safety deficiencies. CAPA looks forward to providing the subject matter expertise necessary to ensure that this important safety legislation becomes enacted into law.” CAPA represents roughly 30,000 pilots and many pilots unions.

As part of his ongoing effort to improve aviation safety, Congressman DeSaulnier also included four provisions in last year’s FAA Reauthorization Act (H.R. 4). They included measures to study pilot and air traffic controller alerts, reduce the risks associated with power outages at airports for landing aircraft, improve data analysis for safety, and make vehicle travel to and around airports more efficient.

Hmm...incoming perhaps?? 


MTF...P2