Sent to Coventry? Could happen.
Good catch P2, interesting developments.
Isolated maybe the wrong word there P2; perhaps excluded. All around the Pacific, nations small and large are pretty much on the same song sheet while Australia is buggering about drafting 'agreements', making arrangements and accommodations which support our increasingly 'different' rules. It costs a fortune to allow Australia to be 'out of step' and unique. Do you remember, there was a passage of play in the Senate a while back, where 'someone' was grilled about an 'agreement' which had been made at great expense, simply because 'our' rules clashed with an ICAO compliant state? It drew hardly any attention at the time, mostly because the bigger issues were being discussed.
I believe if we continue on the isolation track, developing rules which do not dovetail with 'the rest' there will come a time when we must be 'excluded', simply because it's too much trouble to negotiate with what will be seen as an awkward, spoilt child. A brat demanding that it be given special rights and privileges, simply because it's Mummy say it is unique.
From EASA to the FAA national regulators are realising the benefits of (for wont of better) 'simplified' rule sets. The esteemed Rev Forsyth and just about everyone else realised this; but what do CASA do – well they foster and promote a thing like 61, which is so far removed from the rest of the world current philosophy as to make it even harder to use an Australian 'professional' licence and rating anywhere overseas. Barring NZ, who are by default, kith, kin and obliging, sensible folk.
As the world clearly has no intention of following Australia's unique lead; perhaps it's time heads were pulled in and we meekly followed as befits a small player in the wide world of aviation heavy weights.
Extract – PAIN submission to the ASRR:
Good catch P2, interesting developments.
Quote:P2 – " [then] sadly very soon we could see the Australian isolationism policy in aviation safety come to full fruition... Ultimately we could see our nation locked out from our own region and going backwards in an aviation free trade world"..
Isolated maybe the wrong word there P2; perhaps excluded. All around the Pacific, nations small and large are pretty much on the same song sheet while Australia is buggering about drafting 'agreements', making arrangements and accommodations which support our increasingly 'different' rules. It costs a fortune to allow Australia to be 'out of step' and unique. Do you remember, there was a passage of play in the Senate a while back, where 'someone' was grilled about an 'agreement' which had been made at great expense, simply because 'our' rules clashed with an ICAO compliant state? It drew hardly any attention at the time, mostly because the bigger issues were being discussed.
I believe if we continue on the isolation track, developing rules which do not dovetail with 'the rest' there will come a time when we must be 'excluded', simply because it's too much trouble to negotiate with what will be seen as an awkward, spoilt child. A brat demanding that it be given special rights and privileges, simply because it's Mummy say it is unique.
From EASA to the FAA national regulators are realising the benefits of (for wont of better) 'simplified' rule sets. The esteemed Rev Forsyth and just about everyone else realised this; but what do CASA do – well they foster and promote a thing like 61, which is so far removed from the rest of the world current philosophy as to make it even harder to use an Australian 'professional' licence and rating anywhere overseas. Barring NZ, who are by default, kith, kin and obliging, sensible folk.
As the world clearly has no intention of following Australia's unique lead; perhaps it's time heads were pulled in and we meekly followed as befits a small player in the wide world of aviation heavy weights.
Extract – PAIN submission to the ASRR:
Quote:1) The CASA, despite industry objections, has chosen to (almost) follow the EASA approach to regulation; this has been proven, as it was in Europe to have a significant detrimental impact on some Australian aviation sectors. The EASA approach to regulation of the general aviation sector has been to take the basic rule set applicable to large commercial air transport operations and adapt those rules for general and regional aviation.
2) In many cases, where CASA has adopted EASA rules as the basis for Australian regulations they have gone beyond even EASA member states in their implementation.
a) For example, when CASA introduced the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 66 Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licensing (2010) introduced a requirement for the applicant to have been 'trained and assessed' by a Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO).
b) This requirement removed the option for an AME to gain the required practical experience with a maintenance organisation (i.e. an apprenticeship) and to complete the required examinations for license issue, without attending any formal training course at a dedicated MTO.
3) This option remains available in the UK (EASA) and is available to AME in both New Zealand and the USA. The cost, availability and practicalities of attending MTO, particularly for intending AME living and working in rural or regional Australia contributes significantly to the demonstrable decline in the number of skilled AME in Australia, this hardest felt away from the major cities. This clearly defines the safety and economic reasons for reform of this and many other imposed regulations.
4) Direct comparisons of the level of safety achieved by mature regulatory systems are problematic because of the variations in the nature of data collected by different authorities.
5) There is however an established, supported argument that over-regulation may present a threat to air safety and investment made in existing safety enhancing measures and action might be degraded.
6) There is strong support for the argument that too much regulation inflicts a time-consuming, administrative burden together with additional financial imposts which are difficult to absorb. Considering the economic constraints under which aviation business currently must operate this can divert funding from true safety enhancement. Some regulation is deemed too detailed and complex, therefore not readily comprehended, significantly increasing the risk of accidental non-compliance.
7) In recent years, EASA has adopted an enormous number of new aviation 'safety' regulations. Industry and individuals alike have complained that this constant flux of regulation has caused them great inconvenience without always achieving any demonstrable safety benefit.
8) On March 13 2012, the EASA board met and agreed a different approach to regulating general and regional aviation was needed. The Board agreed that although the subject was complex and difficult, action needed to be taken because there were serious risks that general aviation would significantly decline and/or that 'non-compliance' would increase.
9) It was further agreed that the acceptable level of risk for general aviation must be higher than that for commercial air transport operations, that more effort was needed to avoid mixing regulations for these different types of operation; and, that the simplicity of and accessibility to general aviation rules should be increased. ../ Cont..
Quote:They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter’s morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, ‘You’ll all be drowned!’
They called aloud, ‘Our Sieve ain’t big,
But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a fig!
In a Sieve we’ll go to sea!’
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve. (E. Lear).