[Peetwo]

Results v Rhetoric.

Fawcett and Xenophon have been; are, and I hope will continue to be great advocates for aviation sanity.  There are a couple of important qualifiers in the argument presented on the CAO 48.1 debate which, IMO, hindsight demonstrates the importance of real industry consultation before a ‘thing’ becomes law.  Having ‘poor’ law foisted on industry without industry putting up a fight is a large part of the current day problem.  But consultation has become a standing joke; how many really read, study and comprehend the edicts CASA send out, thinly disguised as consultation?  Not too many I’d hazard; and how many of those who read those offerings make considered, meaningful contribution to the discussion?  Again the same answer emerges.  Why is it so?  Fawcett sums it up neatly, even if in slightly ministerial gilded syntax:-  

Fawcett - “[On] many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation.” Etc.

NX has a slightly different take, and bounces neatly off the Fawcett springboard, teamwork:-

Xenophon – “[He] says, in his usual diplomatic way, that 'the track record of engagement with industry from CASA has not been a wholesome one'. That is an incredibly polite way of putting a situation where industry is incredibly frustrated and concerned, and the pilots are gobsmacked that we are left with these regulations that do not address fundamental issues of fatigue.’ Etc.

This takes us directly to the nub of one part of the problem.  Some of the ‘good’ changes to legislation were made through an open, honest dialogue and supported by the minister of the day.  But the moment that minister was removed, the termites set to work and real, meaningful, open consultation was essentially abandoned. Disillusion and disappointment leading to a resentful apathy, which simply allowed CASA to walk any new law they liked through due process.  Once the minister becomes enmeshed in the mystique things like parts 61, 145 and 48.1 are almost ‘automatically’ passed into law.  There have been two ‘tests’ of system; one thrown out the other allowed into law.  The results could not provide a more perfect example of how a captive government can influence the outcome.  It starts here when an intelligent man toes the party line:-

Fawcett - “[..The] government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.

This was, IMO a bad call by the minister; the notion of trying to patch up and emolliate an existing law is the reason the regulatory reform, now into it’s third decade is a complete waste of time, money and effort.  Meanwhile everyone suffers through the inherent flaws, over an extended period of time, dealing with a continuous stream of tweeks and amendments.  

Had the minister followed the Xenophon lead (or Fawcett instinct), things would be different.

Xenophon – “[Senator] Fawcett is right when he says that the consultation process for these regulations has been long and almost dysfunctional. We simply cannot go through this process again. We cannot sit and wait for improvements to be made—because will it be another five years or six years or will it be 60 years before this process is revisited? We need to take a proactive stance and push for something better, and now is the time and the opportunity to do so.

Xenophon – “[I] hope that the government will not let CASA wipe this task off its books. I hope, from Senator Fawcett's comments, that the government will be pushing for a continual consultation and a review process and not leave these issues at a dead end. And I hope that this instrument will not become another regulatory dead end, with all the implications it has for airline safety and passenger safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this disallowance motion.

You need look no further than the stark, very real differences in result created by the two disallowance motions. Through the ‘big boys’ maintenance unions and Ken Cannane’s (legend) unflagging efforts the disallowance motion on parts of the maintenance regulations have fostered ‘real’ hope for meaningful changes; done properly which should assist the ‘lighter’ end of town deal with compliance and resolve confusion.  Meanwhile, the CAO 48.1 reform farce limping it’s sad, sorry, band-aid covered way to more years of endless discussion against a regulator who no intention of changing anything, let alone listening to the proposed industry argument for change.  Window dressing consultation on fatigue versus hard, no nonsense logic on aircraft maintenance; no contest.   CAO 48.1 should have been stopped, dead in it’s tracks before it was made ‘law’ by industry apathy and acceptance of any old thing the regulator served up, without making complaint before hand. QED, refer Einstein on insanity.  

I would like to think, after re reading the Fawcett effort, that his heart was not fully committed to the make do and mend approach to regulation.  We may safely forgive this small blip on an otherwise pristine track record, there is after all a 30 year history of this method being the accepted norm; only in Australia and perhaps third world dictatorships.

It leaves me to wonder how the government will fare in the wash up of MH 370.  The same ‘heads’ that advise the minister on domestic matters aeronautical hold sway with international events.  This leaves any minister enmeshed in snares of bureaucratic power games; seduced by the siren song of political survival and completely captured within the fear and mystique of the mystique of ‘safety’.

Aye well, another twiddle wasted on deaf ears; no matter, the day is my own to do with as best pleases.  I may yet pop off and watch P2’s blue whales distributing spare parts about the coast of Madagascar.

Selah.

Disallowance Motion CASR Part 145 - Part II 

P2 filling in the gaps -

Clues:

confusion, befuddlement, bewilderment, puzzlement, perplexity, disconcertment, discomposure, daze, fog, muddle, NFI etc ........

The MOAS causes Polly discombobulation (MOAS: Mystique of Aviation Safety) - Ventus made us aware of the condition called Discombobulation - see HERE. 

Now although considered to be a largely Pilot affliction suffered in today's modern high-tech airliner cockpits, I believe this is also a Polly affliction when presented with bureaucratic spin & bulldust in the highly technical world of aviation safety regulation.

The following is an attempt to present an example of how this affliction manifests itself within the walls of APH & how M&M and Co use this to their advantage to maintain the status quo.  
( Reference the recently released - Questions on notice index: (PDF 718KB) - & this post HERE)

There are some real curly written QON for CASA, especially from Senator X, which the answers will be of particular interest to ALAEA, AMROBA & the LAME/AME/MRO fraternity:

98 - 103 CASA/XENOPHON - Specialist maintenance

CASA provided advice that they "take the view" that any approval for additional Specialist Maintenance will require a legislative instrument. Where is this view reflected? Is it contained in a written policy or is this "requirement" to create an instrument also discretionary?

---

Are there companies operating with approvals in their Maintenance Organisations Expositions for Specialist Maintenance of the kind that was disallowed by the Senate in March 2015? How many? When were the approvals issued?

---

As there have been no actual changes to the Part 145 MOS in respect of the discretionary provisions for Specialist Maintenance approval since the creation of the MOS, how were the approvals for additional Specialist Maintenance for individual company’s Expositions made? Should they have been made under a legislative instrument? If so why weren’t they? What actions have CASA taken to ensure this doesn’t occur again?

---

In relation to the oversight of maintenance and differences between EASA and Australia – CASA indicated there were similarities and differences.

Does the European Aviation Safety Regulator require a licence qualified person to take an active role in all maintenance tasks and ensure they have been completed properly and signed off properly?

Is this the case in Australia, or is a non-licence qualified Specialist Maintainer permitted to sign off the maintenance?

---

In her speech to the Senate on 18 March 2015 in opposition to a motion to disallow the Amendments to Part 145 MOS Senator Cash, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development stated that CASA’s position in relation to specialist maintenance is consistent with that being applied in major overseas jurisdictions including Europe. Was the information being relied upon by the Minister accurate?

---

Can CASA supply a comparison of similarities and differences between the CASR system of certification and the EASR system, including any advice published by both EASA and CASA on their policy expectations? 

From the NX written QON (above) there seems to be an underlying inference, that in regards to (IMO a historical day in the Senate - 17:57 Australian Senate Chamber 18 March 2015 ) the DM on Part145, that the miniscule was ill advised, given incorrect factual information and fed bureaucratic spin & bulldust from his head Mandarin Mrdak & the CASA Iron Ring.

To which the Ferryman replied in - Flummery - à la Mode.

P2 – “[that] the miniscule was ill advised, given incorrect factual information and fed bureaucratic spin & bulldust from his head Mandarin Mrdak & the CASA Iron Ring.

..Clearly he was; for had he not, then the decorative Cash would not be trotting out the departments words.  This is not the first miniscule to be led down the garden path, chanting the mantra of charlatans which refutes logic, ignores fact and shuns good governance.

P2 – ‘Last night Labor bowed to union pressure and walked away from the long-standing bipartisanship approach to aviation safety—voting in the Senate to disallow a regulation put forward by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to improve safety arrangements in aviation maintenance".

About bloody time someone had the brains and balls to walk away from the ‘bi-partisan’ fraud.  It’s lazy and robs industry of open discussion while allowing CASA to continue it’s merry way along the road to perdition.  The real fraud of course comes disguised as a ‘concern’ for safety.  Which is a bollocks.

P2 – ‘“In one fell swoop, Labor's reckless opportunism has now made aviation safety a political football.

Halle bloody lujah ; finally.  Now when Senators ask questions the answers can be debated, decisions reached and blame for cock up’s sheeted home to where they belong i.e. with the responsible minister and the department the minister should be managing – for the good of industry and the country.

The phrase above shows the fear instilled into politicians, by the department.  The fear comes in three flavours:-

Seaview: where the blame for another serious, fatal accident nearly squeezed through to the miniscule of the day.  There was hell to pay and it was decided that never again would it be possible to involve the ‘government’ directly with an aviation disaster.

Expert advice: where the escape path begins, it’s all too easy for those in power to throw up their hands and wail at a funeral.  We took the advice of our experts, we claim ignorance of matters aeronautical and are in awe of the mystique.  We take care to cover our arses with expert advice, which means we are not only bone idle, but blame free.


Blood: this is the beauty part.  

Miniscule: “This is wrong, blind Freddy can see that; I want it changed.  “Look here, this report spells it all out, makes sense, saves us money and is as sound as a bell”.

Mandarin: “Well minister, of course we can have it all changed, if that’s what you want.”  “But remember, this is against expert advice, you may be blamed if the report you favour is wrong; and the blood will be on your hands, should there be an accident”. “Why not keep it bi-partisan and blame free; I know it’s dishonest, lazy and a cop out, but it’s your arse on the line”.

Trifecta win for the mandarin; industry gets Cash reading the carefully prepared, workshopped official response, while Fawcett listens to the rubbish like an angry gargoyle and Xenophon unafraid, shrugs and continues the campaign.  Real power in the Senate on display.  It’s comforting to know there are some who can recognise it and be unafraid to call it what it is - BOLLOCKS.  

Calling it for what it is will win NX more independent power in the Senate, then who knows, we may even get some real reform done.  What a pleasant change that would make.

Shame Minister, shame.

And in recent developments...

P9 - Through the ‘big boys’ maintenance unions and Ken Cannane’s (legend) unflagging efforts the disallowance motion on parts of the maintenance regulations have fostered ‘real’ hope for meaningful changes; done properly which should assist the ‘lighter’ end of town deal with compliance and resolve confusion.

...reference AMROBA thread - Squeaky wheel gets the grease

Quote from Hitch: 

 It has to be a relief for the MRO industry that CASA has decided to retain CAR 4A and update it to suit general aviation. It shows that the hard work done by Ken Cannane and the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) is starting to leave a mark on the blackboards of Aviation House. AMROBA noted early that proposed new regs were simply not going to work if the same rules that applied to RPT aeroplanes were extended to GA. Cannane's work is not yet over (in fact it might be just starting); he and AMROBA will have a lot to do to make sure CAR 4A amendments are not infected with the same silliness that the proposed CASRs were going to have.

Hope that helps P9? -  L&Ks P2 

Ps Still playing with the whales down in the SIO -

The DOI (debris of inconvenience) - Part II

Mike Chillit - But, when debris turned up in the Mozambique Channel in February, and similar debris was then reported dating back to December 2015, CSIRO decided it had to rethink its position. That’s when it came up with this model that does exactly what Geomar did 9 months earlier. But neither CSIRO nor ATSB nor the Australian Prime Minister’s office acknowledged they suddenly realized they were searching the wrong part of the Indian Ocean. In fact, they still insist they are in the right location.

It is fairly clear at this point that Australia will do whatever Australia decides to do. It will not be reasoned with or cajoled into making changes that put the search where Australia doesn’t want it to be.


So, it doesn’t really matter what is or what is likely to be. The search will go on in a part of the Indian Ocean that cannot possibly be hiding a passenger plane.