CASA meets the Press
#81

P2, please forgive me if I don't quote in full. It gets tiring for an old man to wade through wholesale quotes so I'll abbreviate somewhat.

You said, inter alia, "However I disagree with your assessment that the Dick Smith/NewsCorp campaign is only about airspace reform, especially in light of these comments..."

"..The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.."

This is back to the future stuff. You may recall that in the days when the great satan was known as the CAA, that they received a severe spanking after the Monarch and Seaview crashes where it was held that they were too close to the industry and that henceforth they were to have no concern with the commercial impact of their fiefdom.

"..The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”..."

Well they bloody well did that and came up with the EASA model. Thanks a bunch.

"...Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.

Well whoopee. That happens to be its legislatively assigned task. But I quibble, yes there are ways of being a regulator without being an R.

The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.

At any new regulations, its the bloody existing ones that need to be looked at. Now if he had said that he would take a second look at THE new regulations, it would mean something but not the former phrase.

“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.

Thus spake CASA. That is their mantra. I'm sure every morning at Fort Fumbles they gather in the executive floor and recite that to get their day off to the best possible start.


“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”..."

Hah! Since when is the government concerned about how much the industry has to pay. Anyway, can you imagine the Senate estimates hearing next year when CASA fronts up and says that the millions it has spent creating the Galapagos Duck of our regulations is all going to be thrown out. An attack of the vapours all round me thinks.

I am possibly being too cynical. I am currently having my own battles with CASA and while I'm not bitter I have become very critical of the incredible lengths they are going to to embugger the industry. At present I see very little chance of major change in the situation. Although, I have now heard from a couple of sources (definitely NOT reliable though) that Truss thinks well of the Forsyth inquiry and wants to see the changes implemented and that we should watch that space. Mmmmm.......last time I held my breath I was turning blue before I gave in. Not doing that again.

Crankybastards, you say, "Greens support would be forthcoming if a copy of the US reg's were shown to highlight the destruction of trees impacting all "Earthiens".

Very easy. An En Zed instructor at the aviation establishment where I attempt to keep body and soul together, has a copy of the total sum of NZ aviation publications. 5 or so A5 folders. Put that in front of them and then stack the volumes of Aust aviation garbage besides. Then just say, "think of the trees". Job jobbed.
Reply
#82

Quote:PL – “I am possibly being too cynical. I am currently having my own battles with CASA and while I'm not bitter I have become very critical of the incredible lengths they are going to to embugger the industry. At present I see very little chance of major change in the situation. Although, I have now heard from a couple of sources (definitely NOT reliable though) that Truss thinks well of the Forsyth inquiry and wants to see the changes implemented and that we should watch that space. Mmmmm.......last time I held my breath I was turning blue before I gave in. Not doing that again

Pete – the nail very nicely hit on the head.  I did, several years ago realise that the regulations were originally written by men ‘of good will’ and that ‘interpretation’ was allowed some latitude – within common sense boundaries.  Even after Peter Illych got busy the practical ‘intent’ of a regulation was used more than the ‘black letter’ legal eagle method.  The trend to use the ‘extreme’ limits interpretation which opened the bank account to the legal fraternity, slowly, but surely became the norm.  Used as and when required to either promote a ‘favourite’ or to despatch an enemy operation.

You don’t need too go far or dig too deep to find where this practice is used as a weapon; there are managers who encourage it and ‘their’ FOI who actually enjoy doing it.  I am certain you know the cases as well as I do and the individuals involved.

Part 61 aside the regulations as they stood, while clumsy, prescriptive and often contradictory could be worked with – until some Inutile FOI decided that a subjective, personal interpretation would ‘satisfy’ CASA.  Anyway, before I get too deeply involved, we need to sort out the ‘way’ the rules are used and those who use them.   How often do you come across one element with two or perhaps three different interpretations and opinions?  How often have you seen a subjective view used against an operator or individual?

The number of instances of this in the PAIN archives is truly remarkable. The Senate through Pel-Air clearly identified the atrocious behaviour of CASA at all levels, particularly of management.  Forsyth further defined this and the pressing need to overhaul CASA before the regulations was clearly enunciated.  Which element of the Forsyth report made you smile the most; reform of CASA or regulatory reform?  I know mate, a no brainer, silly question, but with Skidmore buggering about, lost, clueless and witless the reform of CASA slips quietly into the background; and, it’s this we must try to prevent.

A reform Minister, Board, DAS and COO is needed.  Truss seems to want it done, Boyd &Co seem to want it done; industry certainly want to see it done.  So who’s left? – you got it; those who created the mess.  CASA must be reformed first.  Anything else is window dressing, rhetoric and a waste. 

Rat catchers required - apply within.

Toot toot.
Reply
#83

On missives & Directives??

On a slightly different track, yesterday Boyd's old crowd the RAAA put out a media release:

Quote:MEDIA RELEASE

CASA Director of Aviation Safety Raises the Bar


13 July 2015

The recent Directive on aviation safety regulations issued by Mark Skidmore, CASA

Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), is the most important regulatory policy document

issued by CASA in decades.

It sets out clearly the guiding principles by which CASA will carry out its responsibilities to

the travelling public and to industry.

It commits CASA to meaningful consultation with industry, to justifying regulations on the

basis of safety risk and to not imposing unnecessary cost on industry.

In addition, the DAS has stated that regulations must be clear, concise and effective,

and be developed under the industry supported three tier framework.

“Make no mistake, this is a landmark document from CASA” said Jim Davis, Chair of the

Regional Aviation Association of Australia.

He added, “Many past CASA administrations have laid claim to effective industry

consultation and to producing clearer regulations and failed to do so, but this directive

shows a clear intent to make it work this time”.

“The principle of making regulations cost effective is extremely important and is a

breath of fresh air after the last six years of mindless and unnecessarily expensive and

complicated regulation”.

“The DAS is to be highly commended for issuing this directive and we look forward to

seeing it applied to new regulation and to amendments to current regulation”.

He said in conclusion, “The RAAA is very encouraged by the directive and stands ready

to assist the DAS in meeting his stated objectives”.

Media Enquiries:

Paul Tyrrell, CEO

Mob: 0438 114 372
 
Unlike the Weekend Oz extravaganza etc. Huh ; this presser was covered by Hitch at Oz Flying - RAAA praises CASA DAS Directive - & by the Oz Aviation online here:

Quote:Regional aviation backs new “landmark” CASA directive


July 13, 2015 by australianaviation.com.au

[Image: IMG_9334.jpg]

CASA Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) Mark Skidmore issued the new directive in June, which says, among other things, that aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary and developed with a view to addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be addressed effectively by non-regulatory means alone.

Further, the directive says: “If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources. Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) chairman Jim Davis says the directive is a “landmark document”, adding that the RAAA “stands ready to assist” in meeting its stated objectives.

“Many past CASA administrations have laid claim to effective industry consultation and to producing clearer regulations and failed to do so, but this directive shows a clear intent to make it work this time,” Davis said in a statement on Monday.

“The principle of making regulations cost effective is extremely important and is a breath of fresh air after the last six years of mindless and unnecessarily expensive and complicated regulation.

“The DAS is to be highly commended for issuing this directive and we look forward to seeing it applied to new regulation and to amendments to current regulation.”

Skidmore said in CASA’s June Briefing the regulator was committed to consulting with the aviation community in an open and transparent manner and ensuring all communication was clear, timely and effective.

“CASA must still apply the regulations in accordance with their intent and safety must be regarded as the most important consideration,” Skidmore said.

“But we must also consider all other relevant issues, including costs and administrative burden. This means there is the opportunity for people in the aviation community to show CASA how the right safety outcomes under the regulations can be achieved at a lower cost or administrative burden.

“In other words, CASA is not saying ‘it is our way or the highway’ when it comes to the exercise of our discretionary compliance powers.”

Regional Express (Rex) chief operating officer Neville Howell described the directive as a “breath of fresh air”.

Moreover, Howell said the directive was a “reason to believe that the aviation industry can now start to recover from the severe damage inflicted over the last six years by the previous CASA administration which was the focus of the Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review”.

“We look forward to continuing to work with CASA to achieve a safer aviation environment through regulatory reforms that are grounded on rational and evidence-based policies,” Howell said in a statement on July 6.
Hmm...interesting, so is this a capitulation by the RAAA; or reserved support; or a fair warning, if the DAS even contemplates deviating from his own Directive??? 

I also wonder if the other TAAAF members are in mutual agreement with the RAAA missive?

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#84

Day 7 - Dick v Pinocchio

Well it would appear that Peter Gibson - after a poor showing last weekend Blush  - has found his mojo & is continuing to relegate the industry to purgatory & damnation FFS... 

“The Australian public rightly expects high levels of aviation safety and CASA is committed to delivering safe skies for all,” Mr Gibson said.

...; yeah by decimation of the industry, smug bugger... Dodgy

Strangely PG (read Skidmore) still seems to be out of step with Boyd & the Board, here is the full article from the Oz & that man again Wink :

Quote:CASA regulations ‘crippling aviators’  

[Image: ean_higgins.png]
Reporter
Sydney


[Image: 683345-9e83ffd6-2b59-11e5-8757-04ffb4d51cf7.jpg]

Dick Smith with his Cessna Citation plane at Ballina Airport. Source: News Corp Australia
 
Staff numbers at the aviation safety watchdog blew out 40 per cent in just seven years while the general aviation industry declined under a myriad of pressures.  

According to a study by businessman and aviator Dick Smith, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been employing ever more public servants to come up with and enforce increasingly severe rules that financially cripple smaller operators.

“They seem to be getting more and more people to write more rules for general aviation,” Mr Smith said. “It’s an industry in self-destruction mode.”

CASA denies the accusations, saying its workload has increased in part due to an increase in domestic airline activity of 28 per cent over the time period in question, with 47 million passengers carried in 2007 compared with 60 million in 2014.

Spokesman Peter Gibson also said a range of new safety programs, and the introduction of new responsibilities, had demanded more staff in recent years, but that those numbers were now declining.

Mr Gibson said the authority “has an appropriate level of staff numbers to manage the many aspects of the regulation of Australian aviation safety”.

“The Australian public rightly expects high levels of aviation safety and CASA is committed to delivering safe skies for all,” Mr Gibson said.

But small business aviators have told The Australian a series of very expensive regulatory programs introduced by CASA in recent years, including a new air navigation system and a compulsory inspection program for older Cessna light aircraft, is costing them dearly.

Total CASA staff rose from 621 in 2007 to 871 in 2014, an increase of 40 per cent, while the full-time equivalent increased from 612 to 853.

In the past year, total staff fell by 41 to 830, while full-time equivalent numbers fell by 42 to 811.

In recent years private general aviation flying hours were steady, rising slightly from 222,700 hours in 2007 to 232,600 in 2012, the ­latest year for which figures are available.
But business general aviation flying hours between those years fell from 153,400 to 130,400, a decline of 15 per cent. Even harder hit, training flying hours plummeted from 455,400 in 2007 to 360,900 in 2012, a collapse of 21 per cent.

One of the key complaints of the general aviation industry is CASA’s insistence on pressing ahead with the rollout of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, a new satellite GPS navigation system in which positioning data is relayed from aircraft to air traffic controllers via ground stations. Because it is being introduced in Australia several years ahead of the US, aircraft owners are being forced to pay between $16,500 and $125,000 for ADS-B installations because of first-of-type engineering costs and the fact that economies of scale have not yet been reached.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has called for a moratorium on further compulsory ADS-B installations until a year after the program is completed in the US.
New CASA chairman Jeff Boyd told The Australian the program was too far down the track for a moratorium, with 83 per cent of affected aircraft already fitted with the equipment.

But he said CASA was prepared to be flexible on a case-by-case basis.

For example, CASA would grant an exemption to a regional airline that in three or four months will renew some of its fleet and sell overseas or retire altogether some older aircraft, so that those departing aircraft do not have to fit ADS-B equipment, although the new ones will.

Similarly, Mr Boyd said, CASA would consider individual applications for exemptions or extensions when it came to the Cessna compliance program known as Supplementary Inspection Documents.

Slight change of subject but a brief mention (& confirmation) from Hitch on the Fort Fumble GWM purging, as reported by Gobbles:

Quote:[Image: CASA_HQ_Canberra_34A177E0-8025-11E4-B807...DC10A6.jpg]
Aviation House: CASA's headquarters in the Canberra suburb of Woden. (Bidgee)


More Management Changes at CASA
16 Jul 2015

CASA has confirmed that Executive Manager, Industry Permission, Peter Fereday, will leave the regulator today.

According to the announcement, CASA has made no permanent replacement for Fereday pending wider changes.

Fereday's departure comes less than a week after former Deputy Director Terry Farquharson was scheduled to also leave CASA.

Fereday becomes the third senior manager to leave CASA since the tenure of John McCormick ended, behind Farquharson and Principle Medical Officer Pooshan Navathe.
CASA has given no reason why Fereday is leaving.

While they are at it, Gobbles has a request for Gollum to be expunged & personally I'd like to see the PG rated, weasel-worded spin puppet and that Part61 clown sent down the Green Mile. And that is just for starters with the executive trough dwellers - Ferryman any suggestions?  Big Grin

MTF..P2 Tongue

Ps Perhaps we could start an IOS wish list? Smile
Reply
#85

P2, that is a light and fluffy Fort Fumble announcement! I'm glad I broke the news much much earlier, and may I add, in a more robust fashion!
The connection for those who are yet to work it out is firstly - Poohshan and Feret'a'day presided over the CVD farce, supported by the old GWM Don. Miniscule Truss received a lot of high level heat over the CVD issue and didn't enjoy the spotlight. Secondly, with Sith Terry leaving that left his Padwan Feret'a'day without protection! Let's hope Terry's brother-in-law also gets pineappled, along with the other dross to numerous to mention, but of course the Wiley Wabbit, Campbell's cuppa soup, Shlong'arty, Gollum, the Bearded Pinoccio, and the Witchdoctor make the list! (Sorry Tid-bin-dildo, some nicknames in there. And a shanty to come!!).
Reply
#86

Ahhh!!. don't you just love a "night of the long knives"

Almost as good as Madam La Guillotine!!

Kharon, sorry we all know its you!! a wig and knitting is not enough to convince anyone your Madam Defarge.

What's needed now is lots of Ratsack, and a few more wabbit traps.
Reply
#87

Afternoon of the blunt spoon, more like.

Bugger; sprung.  Must admit, the Madam D disguise was never really my best and with all those randy bloody Frenchman about the place – well; I’ve played rugger against them and walked off the paddock with less bruises in sensitive areas.  But the hell of it is not the knitting or that verminous wig; nope; false, veranda size tits are a nightmare, one under your armpit; t’uther heading South.  Aye well, I’m glad you know; now I can find a new disguise, but I did enjoy the knitting; most therapeutic.

We have, Gobbles and the crew, been quietly getting the workboat ready for a busy period.  It’s a pain actually, the passengers coming through in dribs and drabs.  We only contracted for a full house, one off run for the Sleepy Hollow job, so we booked a space in limbo-land to park ‘em until we get enough to make the trip worth while.  They’re a rum crowd and I’ll be pleased when the charter is over and we can get back to normal business. 

There is a long list though, but apart from old Terry, non of the serious offenders have been sent our way – as yet, so it’s more an afternoon of the blunt dessert spoon rather than a night of long knives.  We must wait until Boyd &Co take a long hard look at where the problem areas are and the real villains are identified until then, nothing much will change.  This presents a double edge problem for Jeff and the team; they desperately need new blood, but no one with integrity, talent, experience and qualification will apply to fill in the gaps; not while the management structure as is remains in place.  With no one wanting the jobs, to keep the place ticking over, the serial offenders will be kept on.  So round and round she goes.  If Boyd & Co want to hire decent crew, they must create an environment which will attract ‘the right stuff’ and as both you and I know too well, the work place and ethics are toxic right now.  Would you want to part of team Wodger? working with Inutile Lad, Wickless and Madame Lash; course not.

Clean out the Sleepy Hollow warrens and covens, make it safe and attractive, then bring in the new school; within a twelve month, the industry will be ticking over like a well oiled sewing machine.  Leave the serial offenders in place and all you will have left is clusters of sinister, feral, small groups, with sharp knives, looking to remove the threat to their rice bowls and taking advantage of the unlimited opportunities to make the board and DAS look incompetent.  

The BRB solution was a simple one; hire a COO who knows how it all works, let whoever that is pick a team, turn ‘em loose and watch the vermin ducking out the back door.  Reform the regulator, correct the direction; the rest will follow along as an easy, natural progression. 

Toot toot.
Reply
#88

It’s a curiosity.

The Ean Higgins series of articles are remarkable, not so much for the content and comment which is excellent, but for the fact that none of the ‘other’ media have picked up any of it.  Why?

If a packet of Qantas peanuts has three short, or the Virgin dunny paper runs out; or, there is a ‘death plunge’ all the media are all over it.  MH 370 is another example – one journal publishes a piece; the rest all follow it, rehash it and re-publish it within hours of it appearing.

That man ’iggins is standing alone, telling the world and it’s wife that aviation oversight in Australia is disintegrating, airspace is less than safe, the rules are killing industry and that the reports which guard the safety of the public are almost useless.

So why has the ‘other’, opposition media not picked up it.  Hells bells, the Pel-Air scandal or the ASA credit card questions must be worth a line or two; but not even the aviation magazines are picking up on these tales.  

Passing strange ?– You bet.
Reply
#89

Day 8 - New chess manoeuvre, the shit sandwich!

Sadly, as noted in today's The Australian, the paper has relented and eaten a shit sandwich, it has apologised to Anus Houston on page 2.

Funny that, that assclown gets an apology, but no taxpayer gets an apology for decades of waste and mismanagement by the alphabet soup group.
Reply
#90

(07-18-2015, 01:38 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Day 8 - New chess manoeuvre, the shit sandwich!

Sadly, as noted in today's The Australian, the paper has relented and eaten a shit sandwich, it has apologised to Anus Houston on page 2.

Funny that, that assclown gets an apology, but no taxpayer gets an apology for decades of waste and mismanagement by the alphabet soup group.

Day 9 - Rules of engagement: Play the ball not the man. 

It would appear that ASA's Frau Staib has stepped up to defend her chief sponsor & former boss Angus & his honour. Consequently it would appear she has passed the hat around the Executive trough-dwellers to mount a possible defo case against NewsCorp on Sir Angus behalf.

Quote:Dear Mr Mathieson,


Your article yesterday ‘Houston gave wrong impression on rules around airport fireys’ (15 July 2015) makes inaccurate and misleading claims that are damaging to the good reputation of Airservices and our Chairman Sir Angus Houston.

We have identified at least four serious misrepresentations and imputations in the article which require immediate correction.

1/  The article and headline falsely imply that Sir Angus Houston has misled in relation to the regulatory requirements surrounding the provision of radio services at airports. This is untrue. The Australian’s misleading and unethical presentation of selective parts of a statement is consistent with your recent series of inaccurate, false and misleading articles that contain statements and imputations which are not true and do not amount to fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Sir Angus’ statement to The Australian makes the point very clearly that a person providing air traffic information to pilots must be qualified, that our firefighters are not, and that we consider this would detract from their primary role. The full statement that Sir Angus made on this matter was:

“The regulator (CASA) has decided that if anybody is to provide air traffic information to pilots in a regional context, they must be suitably qualified people. Our fire fighters are not trained in that way. Moreover, we want our firefighters ready to respond to any incident or rescue requirements, not handling the radio.” (‘Dick Smith is wrong on air safety: Houston,’ The Australian, 26 June 2015).

The article in The Australian yesterday selectively used only part of this statement such that a reader of your newspaper is likely to interpret and apply a different meaning to that quote in light of the context in which it was presented.

Specifically, the article in The Australian yesterday stated that:

Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston gave the impression that fire crews employed by his body at regional airports would not be lawfully allowed to provide potentially life-saving weather and air traffic information to pilots, when an avenue is available for them to do so.”

This statement was followed with the selective report of Sir Angus’ actual statement as follows:

“The regulator (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) has decided that if anybody is to provide air traffic information to pilots in a regional context, they must be suitably qualified people. Our fire fighters are not trained in that way.”

Airservices rejects the assertion and imputations you have made by selectively quoting part of this statement, presenting it as Sir Angus’ position in a different context, and then claiming a “wrong impression”.

We seek an immediate retraction of this claim and a public apology to Sir Angus for the damage to his reputation.

2/  The article claims a discrepancy between Airservices comments and the position of Ballina Airport in relation to whether the airport has ever sought the aviation rescue and fire fighters to provide a Unicom service. We stand by the information that we provided to The Australian that Ballina Airport is not seeking a Unicom service and that Airservices continues to enjoy a strong and collaborative relationship with the airport’s management. We understand that Ballina Airport has also written to your journalist to set the record straight on this.

3/  The article wrongly asserts: “Only when it became clear Airservices was not going to budge did he [Ballina Airport Manager] surrender on that front and move to hire retired air traffic controllers for the purpose.” This totally misrepresents the status of our relationship and discussions with Ballina Airport. As we have advised The Australian on at least three separate occasions, we are working closely with Ballina Airport to develop the most appropriate and cost effective options for providing radio information services.

4/  The article also misrepresents Airservices in relation to the provision of weather services to pilots both generally and in relation to Ballina Airport. Comments provided by Airservices in relation to weather have been reported out of context and selectively quoted to create a false and misleading impression.

Airservices statement to The Australian in relation to the article ‘Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies’ (Weekend Australian, 11 July 2015) was:

“A comprehensive suite of weather information services is available to all pilots both before and during any flight in Australia through services provided by the Bureau of Meteorology in conjunction with Airservices. This includes automated weather services available during flight as well as services provided by air traffic controllers over the radio.” (emphasis added)

Your article yesterday reported the following:

“Airservices has also claimed it and the Bureau of Meteorology provide a ‘comprehensive’ weather service to pilots because airports without air traffic controllers have automated weather stations, a statement aviation experts describe as ludicrous.”

In addition, the article asserts in the context of Ballina:

“Airservices said ‘a comprehensive suite of weather information services is available to all pilots… this includes automated weather services’ which convert weather readings to voice for pilots. But a US expert in air traffic control who has spent time in Australia, Jeff Griffith, said the automated services could only relay information from the precise point the device was located, not talk about weather dangers visible many kilometres away.”

Airservices never claimed, in relation to Ballina or any other airport, that automated weather stations alone are a comprehensive solution but rather that these stations form part of a comprehensive suite of weather services. Your selective truncation of a statement provided in another context again misrepresents Airservices position.

The implication that pilots have only automated weather services available is wrong as additional weather information is available from controllers on request.

We ask again that you refrain from making inaccurate and misleading claims, that you publish corrections at the earliest opportunity and that future articles are a fair and balanced reporting of the facts.

We have now provided extensive factual material in response to almost 200 questions since 29 May 2015 in relation to a series of articles that you have published as part of this self-acknowledged “sustained campaign.” This letter is the seventh we have written to you in relation to 11 articles that contain inaccurate and misleading claims about Airservices.

We have given The Australian every opportunity to correct the record in relation to issues that we consider to be in contravention of the News Limited Code of Conduct and the Journalists Code of Ethics. In light of the sustained inaccurate and false reporting by The Australian, this conduct would appear to be malicious. Airservices is now considering its position on these matters.

Airservices has had a good working relationship with The Australian prior to this campaign and the reporting in recent weeks has been disappointing. It is certainly not what the public would expect of The Australian. These articles contribute to unnecessary concern for the travelling public when Australia’s aviation safety is among the best in the world.
Airservices respects the role of the media and remains willing to engage in public debates that are factual, balanced, respectful and make a positive contribution to the ongoing improvement in aviation safety in Australia.

Yours sincerely
 
Margaret Staib
Chief Executive Officer

I guess, with a couple of hundred thousand words on the subject - it was just a matter of time before Higgo over-stepped the mark. However it should be noted that the retraction letter is solely an apology to Angus... Blush

Moral of the story leave 'attacking the man' up to Sociopathic bureaucratic organisations like CASA (e.g. Quinn & Aherne, Pel-Air cover-up Senate Inquiry) or cleverly by the Senators under PP, example Big Grin :



However in my book that leaves certain other parts of Frau Staib's missive to the Oz as fair game.

First 'Stabbed in the dark' took offence to these statements from the Oz: 

Quote:“Airservices has also claimed it and the Bureau of Meteorology provide a ‘comprehensive’ weather service to pilots because airports without air traffic controllers have automated weather stations, a statement aviation experts describe as ludicrous.”


“Airservices said ‘a comprehensive suite of weather information services is available to all pilots… this includes automated weather services’ which convert weather readings to voice for pilots. But a US expert in air traffic control who has spent time in Australia, Jeff Griffith, said the automated services could only relay information from the precise point the device was located, not talk about weather dangers visible many kilometres away.”   
 
SITD in reply said:

Quote:"..Airservices never claimed, in relation to Ballina or any other airport, that automated weather stations alone are a comprehensive solution but rather that these stations form part of a comprehensive suite of weather services. Your selective truncation of a statement provided in another context again misrepresents Airservices position.


The implication that pilots have only automated weather services available is wrong as additional weather information is available from controllers on request.



We ask again that you refrain from making inaccurate and misleading claims, that you publish corrections at the earliest opportunity and that future articles are a fair and balanced reporting of the facts..."

To which I could refute & rubbish in a long-winded argument but instead in pictures I give you.. Rolleyes

[Image: 1374166800000.jpg]

And this from Hoody in Estimates:



Of course we all know that the outcome of the ATSB investigation is still pending.. Dodgy  

So Hoody & Co maybe waiting for some time yet, for the bureau to issue SRs (if indeed they choose to issue any at all.. Angry ) on the Mildura fog near disaster.. Confused


MTF...P2 Tongue   
Reply
#91

So now we enter a new phase of the game where AsA really flexes it's muscles. The letters from Marie Antoinette didn't hit the sweet spot so now they roll out the CEO in an attempt to shut down 'that man'. The manner in which the latest letter was written could almost be construed as a form of bullying one might think?
Then this bit, Frau Staib said;

"Airservices has had a good working relationship with The Australian prior to this campaign"

So let me work this out. AsA only maintains a good working relationship with The Australian when news articles are worded more friendly and fluffy? When only 'positive' articles are written, or when only things that AsA considers to be 'nice' are written? Hmmmmm, makes you wonder doesn't it? But that's how government agencies work, they expect everyone to go along with their silly games. I have no doubt that some serious players will be leaning now on Ruperts rag and 'that man' will now be put on office duties watering the pot plants, or closely micro managed!

And a word to the wise - Just because a person is knighted and has the preface 'Sir' in front of their name doesn't mean a gob of snot to me! Big effing deal. Didn't Rolf Harris have the title of 'Sir'? You can bury that chestnut. Anybody who gains a knighthood by playing politics and riding a lifetime of greasy poles gets nil respect from me.

Doc
Reply
#92

Well Ms. Staib,
none of your diatribe at the Australian can alter the fact that you and your senior management get paid some fairly healthy top ups to your super by way of bonuses.
Pretty neat trick inflicting an unwanted, unwarranted requirement for ADSB on an industry already creaking at the knees from the cost burden of CAsA's regulatory brain farts by forcing them to pay for what they didn't want and didn't need. Guess that comes from being a monopoly.
ASA definition of cost benefit analysis, the cost is the industries the benefits are to directors bonuses!
You say in your diatribe Australia is the "Safest" to that I would say "Bollocks" we are just the "Lucky" country. Hope your still around when that Luck runs out.
And still you still want to go round and round with semantics of who's qualified and who's not to run a Unicom!!! Who gives a SHIT, It works just fine in the USA and has for a lot of years, costs nothing and it improves safety, why the hell are we getting bound up with Bullshit about this. Perhaps its because you cant see a quid in it that may add to your bonus?
ASA is a monopoly, is that why Angus is so opposed to firies doing Unicom service? Demarcation for goodness sake!! You charge almost double what it costs in NZ for Fire service at airports and almost triple what it costs in the USA, so what percentage of that goes to your bonus?
Reply
#93

Thornmeister, well said my friend, well said. You mentioned this;

"Pretty neat trick inflicting an unwanted, unwarranted requirement for ADSB on an industry already creaking at the knees from the cost burden of CAsA's regulatory brain farts by forcing them to pay for what they didn't want and didn't need".

Well that's always easy to do when the individual accountable for this crap won't be financially affected personally! $125k kick in the balls for a Ma and Pa operation, no worries laments Staib - it doesn't affect me!!!

And this;

"You say in your diatribe Australia is the "Safest" to that I would say "Bollocks" we are just the "Lucky" country. Hope your still around when that Luck runs out".

Another 'old chestnut' - We haven't lost a 170 seat aircraft yet so that makes us the safest country!!! Hahaha. Aagh yes, spoken by a true Muppet who knows SFA about safety. Yes yes, no widebody crash yet my sweet Staib, but hang on to your crotchless panties because when it does happen the political turmoil will be frantic and frenzied, the media will finally become interested and every dirty little aviation secret that is buried within the hallowed walls of the alphabet soup agencies will be dragged through the microscope.

But wait there is more;

[b]"And still you still want to go round and round with semantics of who's qualified and who's not to run a Unicom!!! Who gives a SHIT, It works just fine in the USA and has for a lot of years, costs nothing and it improves safety, why the hell are we getting bound up with Bullshit about this".
[/b]

Exactly! And while we are at it, I am sick of Staib, Sir Anus, and the Spin doctor trotting out all of their bullshit on this issue. FFS listen to the real experts, those working in the real aviation world, those who understand the nuts and bolts about this....I would like to hear the Hooded one speak on this issue. He knows what's what, he is a pilot and an ATC, there is no way Hoody could repeat the Stain/Anus rhetoric without blushing or twitching.

Last but not least;

[b]"ASA is a monopoly, is that why Angus is so opposed to firies doing Unicom service"?[/b]

Absolutely!! But there is one other reason - a lack of testicles. He is too scared to take on the Unions! It would get messy in the early stages, but would then settle down. But a trough dweller earning a taxpayer funded retirement fund top up doesn't want to get ones hands dirty in the twilight of his career, nah too hard, too messy, much rather hide beneath the CEO's desk and dodge the spotlights and difficult questions. Much rather spend the next 2 years collecting easy money from a monopolistic organisation then slink off into the sunset thanks to a lifetime of taxpayer money!!

Doc
Reply
#94

Finally old mate Pinocchio has found semi-safe ground to which he can apply his spin & bullshit... Dodgy  

Quote:Drones patrol for feral animals  
[Image: chris_griffith.png]
Senior Technology Journalist
Sydney

[Image: 742125-50220c90-2d69-11e5-b1cd-9e9b6c3a6bac.jpg]


Marcus Ehrlich with one of the military-grade drones being trialled in rural Australia to detect invasive pests on farms. Source: Supplied
Drones operating day and night could be in line to patrol remote areas of Australia for feral animals in what could be the 21st century answer to a rabbit-proof fence.  

That’s the aim of Ninox Robotics, a Sydney-based start-up whose unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become the first commercial drones to conduct test flights scouring Australia’s bush at night using infra-red technology.

The drones can be flown remotely or programmed to fly themselves.

Ninox managing director Marcus Ehrlich said the company was in discussions to employ ex-military drone pilots who flew operations in Afghanistan.

“Many of them have thousands of hours of drone sorties in Afghanistan and a lot of them have come home and don’t have many places to use those skills,” he said.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) spokesman Peter Gibson confirmed that Ninox was the first commercial operator to be granted a licence to fly above 123m and at night during its trials.

The fixed-wing drones were put through their paces at Charleville and Moonie in southern Queensland and at Walcha in northern NSW. The UAVs were tasked with searching for wild dogs, pigs, foxes, goats, camels and rabbits, which Mr Ehrlich said cost Australian agriculture more than $1bn annually in lost production.

“Most feral animals are nocturnal and that’s the idea behind Ninox. There’s no hiding from our thermal camera,” he said.

Targeted species were identified by their heat signatures, with the UAVs beaming thermal video back to the pilots in a ground control station in real time. The 3m drones have a 1.5m fuselage, are powered by lithium batteries with a five-hour duration, and communicate by short-wave radio. Navigation during testing was done by locking on to up to seven GPS satellites at a time.

According to Mr Ehrlich, the UAVs had been cleared to fly up to a height of 490m. Capable of combing over 100sq km of land at up to 120km/h, the UAVs only flew 15km from their ground station during testing. With the drones flying above the tree canopy to avoid collisions, the tests involved both autonomous and manual control.

“The idea is that we fly over a certain area with the real time thermal imagery coming back, and if we spot a feral pig or dog we can take manual control and keep circling,” Mr Ehrlich said.

But monitoring wouldn’t turn into a Star Wars-like pursuit with the UAVs swooping down and attacking feral animals from the sky. Instead their real time locations would be given to farmers who could decide on follow-up action.

In future the drones might monitor infrastructure such as regional rail and pipelines, check dams for water levels, track fires using infra-red technology, and conduct other forms of biosecurity intelligence. They might also track people lost in national parks by their heat signatures. “The technology could tell farmers how well hydrated their crops were,” he said.

The first week of trials saw Ninox Robotics UAVs conduct a successful mock rescue of a person lost in the bush, search for small brush fires from over 5km away using thermal imaging, and catalogue a mob of sheep. The company was in talks with fire authorities, Mr Ehrlich said.

He said about 20 sorties were scheduled using visual and thermal-based cameras. Trials would continue until July 31.

Mr Ehrlich estimated that Ninox would charge farmers about $3500 for a four-hour sortie with a fully deployed team and for the information it gathered.

After that I started visualising drones skirting the perimeter of Bankstown airport or overflying Aviation House in the hunt for wascily wabbits, or wordly weasels, or donkey eared Pinocchio heads and then I ROFLMAO... Big Grin Big Grin

If only it was true... Wink   
Reply
#95

“Most feral animals are nocturnal and that’s the idea behind Ninox. There’s no hiding from our thermal camera,” he said.

Oh well, looks like CAsA's inspectors are all screwed then!!!
Reply
#96

(07-21-2015, 09:03 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Finally old mate Pinocchio has found semi-safe ground to which he can apply his spin & bullshit... Dodgy  


Quote:Drones patrol for feral animals  


[Image: chris_griffith.png]
Senior Technology Journalist
Sydney

[Image: 742125-50220c90-2d69-11e5-b1cd-9e9b6c3a6bac.jpg]


Marcus Ehrlich with one of the military-grade drones being trialled in rural Australia to detect invasive pests on farms. Source: Supplied
Drones operating day and night could be in line to patrol remote areas of Australia for feral animals in what could be the 21st century answer to a rabbit-proof fence.  

That’s the aim of Ninox Robotics, a Sydney-based start-up whose unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become the first commercial drones to conduct test flights scouring Australia’s bush at night using infra-red technology.

The drones can be flown remotely or programmed to fly themselves.

Ninox managing director Marcus Ehrlich said the company was in discussions to employ ex-military drone pilots who flew operations in Afghanistan.

“Many of them have thousands of hours of drone sorties in Afghanistan and a lot of them have come home and don’t have many places to use those skills,” he said.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) spokesman Peter Gibson confirmed that Ninox was the first commercial operator to be granted a licence to fly above 123m and at night during its trials.

The fixed-wing drones were put through their paces at Charleville and Moonie in southern Queensland and at Walcha in northern NSW. The UAVs were tasked with searching for wild dogs, pigs, foxes, goats, camels and rabbits, which Mr Ehrlich said cost Australian agriculture more than $1bn annually in lost production.

“Most feral animals are nocturnal and that’s the idea behind Ninox. There’s no hiding from our thermal camera,” he said.

Targeted species were identified by their heat signatures, with the UAVs beaming thermal video back to the pilots in a ground control station in real time. The 3m drones have a 1.5m fuselage, are powered by lithium batteries with a five-hour duration, and communicate by short-wave radio. Navigation during testing was done by locking on to up to seven GPS satellites at a time.

According to Mr Ehrlich, the UAVs had been cleared to fly up to a height of 490m. Capable of combing over 100sq km of land at up to 120km/h, the UAVs only flew 15km from their ground station during testing. With the drones flying above the tree canopy to avoid collisions, the tests involved both autonomous and manual control.

“The idea is that we fly over a certain area with the real time thermal imagery coming back, and if we spot a feral pig or dog we can take manual control and keep circling,” Mr Ehrlich said.

But monitoring wouldn’t turn into a Star Wars-like pursuit with the UAVs swooping down and attacking feral animals from the sky. Instead their real time locations would be given to farmers who could decide on follow-up action.

In future the drones might monitor infrastructure such as regional rail and pipelines, check dams for water levels, track fires using infra-red technology, and conduct other forms of biosecurity intelligence. They might also track people lost in national parks by their heat signatures. “The technology could tell farmers how well hydrated their crops were,” he said.

The first week of trials saw Ninox Robotics UAVs conduct a successful mock rescue of a person lost in the bush, search for small brush fires from over 5km away using thermal imaging, and catalogue a mob of sheep. The company was in talks with fire authorities, Mr Ehrlich said.

He said about 20 sorties were scheduled using visual and thermal-based cameras. Trials would continue until July 31.

Mr Ehrlich estimated that Ninox would charge farmers about $3500 for a four-hour sortie with a fully deployed team and for the information it gathered.

After that I started visualising drones skirting the perimeter of Bankstown airport or overflying Aviation House in the hunt for wascily wabbits, or wordly weasels, or donkey eared Pinocchio heads and then I ROFLMAO... Big Grin Big Grin

If only it was true... Wink   

More on this from the other Aunty:

Quote:Drones trialled to help reduce billion-dollar invasive pest animal problem


ABC Rural

Updated 37 minutes ago Wed 22 Jul 2015, 3:34pm

[Image: 6640380-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: The trials have generated a lot of interest especially because Ninox Robotics has been given special clearance by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the flights in Queensland and New South Wales. (Supplied: Lynelle Urquhar)


A high flying drone with infrared cameras could be the latest high-tech tool to deal with the very costly problem in Australia.
         
Audio: Marcus Ehrlich from Ninox Robotics and grain and cattle farmer Warren Urquhart talk about drone potential (ABC Rural)

Official estimates put the cost of feral pests like pigs, wild dogs, and rabbits at $1 billion each year in lost agricultural productivity.

The cost, calculated by the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre, is a serious burden for landholders plus the Local, State, and Commonwealth Governments.

Now an Australian company, Ninox Robotics, is coming at the issue of pest control from another angle; the sky.

Managing Director, Marcus Ehrlich, said the company is trialling a suite of technology, using a military grade drone, across two states.

Mr Ehrlich said it is the first time anyone has been given this special clearance from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to do these types of trials.

"We've got beyond visual line of site, which allows us to go a long way from our launch point or ground control station," he said.


Quote:We've got the ability to fly above the 400-foot altitude ceiling, about 500 metres, which allows us to cover some serious ground.
Marcus Ehrlich, Ninox Robotics

"We've got the ability to fly above the 400-foot altitude ceiling, about 500 metres, which allows us to cover some serious ground.

"We have the ability also to fly at night which is important with our thermal grade military camera."

Mr Ehrlich explained it is that infrared camera which lets them locate pest animals by stealth.

"It allows the heat signature of invasive pests to stand out enormously from the ground."

The drone itself has military grade capabilities and, as Mr Ehrlich described, is quite a big aircraft.

"It's three metres in width with its wing-span, it's 1.5 metres long and weighs about 10 kilograms."

The Ninox Managing Director adds that he cannot disclose the price of the drone as it is commercial in confidence, but suffice to say it is a lot.

"It's well into six figures," Mr Ehrlich said

He said the fact the technology they have allows the vision to be viewed live is very important.

"The drone itself passes the vision in real-time to the ground control station, where we can see it on computers and where we can give what's known as a mobile computer to farmers, which is a passive device where they can see what the drone is looking at in real time."

[Image: 6639508-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo: The grey dots on the screen are thermal images of some feral pigs gathered by the drone in a trial run near Moonie in Southern Queensland. (Supplied: Lynelle Urquhart)

Drones are currently criss-crossing a mixed cropping and cattle property near a town called Moonie in Southern Queensland and there are further trials scheduled for New South Wales.

Near Moonie, feral pigs are an enormous problem, with local farmers already pooling funds together to pay for professional aerial shooters on almost a quarterly basis.

Warren Urquhart is part of one such group and said it is something they factor into their running costs.

"We get the chopper and do it cooperatively and share the cost and it has been working out about $600 to $800 (per landholder) each time, so we do that about four times a year."

Mr Urquhart is hosting the drone trial at his place 'Warrowa', south west of Moonie, and said if the drone trials are successful it will give them another option.

"Once the drone locates them (pests) you could send in a team, a ground team perhaps and try and locate them and get them there, or if you did happen to have the helicopter about you could send the helicopter in and clean them up that way."

So the question comes back to cost effectiveness, especially for landholders and while this is in the trial phase, Mr Ehrlich said he had some early indicative prices.

"We haven't got our costs down exactly, but we think we'll be relatively competitive with some of the other pest control measures that'll be out there," he said.

"We're looking at about $3,000 to $3,500 per sortie, which is a four-hour flight and roughly works out as a bit less than a grand ($1,000) per hour."

Mr Urqhart said it is something farmers in his area will be interested in looking at, particularly if they can continue their practice of sharing the cost amongst the district.

"You need scale to bring the price down per hectare, but I think we've got the answer to that," he said.

"Our group acts cooperatively and if we just average and share the cost it keeps it well down per hectare.

"Everything helps and the technology is improving all the time and that's just the nature of technology, how quickly things advance and when those opportunities come up you have to take on that technology and make it work for you, make it help you in your business."

 "..Oh well, looks like CAsA's inspectors are all screwed then!!!."

Gobbles do you reckon you could manoeuvre one of these bad boys around the halls of Fort Fumble -- Big Grin Big Grin --



And guess what it may even be legal.. Huh

Quote:Video of gun-shooting drone in Clinton prompts FAA investigation


Josh Scheinblum, WTNH Reporter and WTNH.com Staff Published: July 17, 2015, 10:27 pm Updated: July 19, 2015, 5:34 pm 

CLINTON, Conn. (WTNH) — The FAA is investigating after a video of a drone shooting a hand gun in Clinton, apparently created by a local teen, was posted to YouTube. You may think military officials are the only people who can legally have a machine like this but Clinton Police tell News 8 what is seen in the video doesn’t appear to violate any state laws.

Bill Piedra is CEO of a Manchester based company called Flying Robots. He is also a drone enthusiast who, as part of his business, constructs drones that deliver flotation devices to people in danger of drowning, but with this video he has concerns it may have ramifications for his entire industry.

“It’s shocking,” said Piedra. “I really hope it doesn’t inhibit the continued development of drones for good purposes.”

The teen behind the video is Austin Haughwout of Clinton. You may remember him from another drone YouTube video that surfaced last year where he claimed to have been attacked by a woman who thought he was using his drone to record her at Hammonasset State Park. Saturday, News 8 spoke to Haughwout’s father about this latest situation and were told it’s his belief his son did nothing wrong.

Connecticut lawyer and drone advocate Peter Sachs disagrees. He thinks Haughwout may have violated federal aviation laws.

“I think they might have something legal to worry about,” said Sachs.

“The FAA will investigate the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in a Connecticut park to determine if any Federal Aviation Regulations were violated,” the FAA said in a statement. “The FAA will also work with its law enforcement partners to determine if there were any violations of criminal statutes.”
 
What strange times we live in... Undecided

MTF..P2 Wink
Reply
#97

P2;

"Gobbles do you reckon you could manoeuvre one of these bad boys around the halls of Fort Fumble"

Indeed, very tempting. However I was wondering if you could adapt a drone with a small mechanical arm that can sling pooh? You could load up an army of them and coordinate a group attack Australia wide on all of Fort Fumbles buildings!! They would be cleaning up more shit than they do after each Senate estimates or inquiry!!

"Safe pooh flinging for all"
Reply
#98

Not saying, not yet (despite the P2 provocation). But the idea of aerial vermin control makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Too much for an active imagination; but consider the possibilities. Once upon a time, in a deep warren, safe within the dark, dank woods of Sleepy Hollow a strange noise was heard. Maybe over the weekend, we shall see.
Reply
#99

While the FAA & CASA fluff around the edges, seemingly with NFI at all on how to control the growing scourge of UAVs (watch this Xmas apparently); our Nzed cuzin's over the dutch are pulling no punches... Wink

Courtesy the Oz today:

Quote:Strict drone rules for NZ enthusiasts  
  • by: Paul Purcell
  • From: AAP
  • July 23, 2015 10:19AM
DRONE owners in New Zealand will need to request permission to take-off every time they want to fly them outside their own property under strict rules unveiled by the Civil Aviation Authority.  

UNMANNED aerial vehicles (UAVs) will not be permitted to take to the sky without owner permission of the land they will fly over, and the people in that area.
This means if an aerial enthusiast wanted to fly their UAV in a local park, they'd need the permission of the council and every person at the park before taking off.

However, UAV owners can avoid the rule changes with a CAA operating certificate, but it's unclear how much that will cost and how long it will take to be approved.

"Having a conversation with a property owner beforehand is an effective means of risk management because they are likely to have the best knowledge of the risks," CAA general manager Steve Moore said on Thursday.

"These changes address the safety risks that modern unmanned aircraft pose to other airspace users as well as people and property on the ground."

Other new regulations include requiring operators to present a safety plan to the CAA if they want to fly their drones outside the existing rules.

New Zealand's Air Navigation Service Airways and ACT leader David Seymour both commended the changes after there were a reported 53 incidents involving UAVs in the first six months of 2015, nearly double the 2014 total.

But operators are less thrilled.

Aerial photographer Tim Whittaker said the new laws would be very difficult to police.

"It is basically going to give them authority to prosecute if people get stupid," he told AAP.

The new regulations come in effect on August 1.
   
I reckon the Heff might have a bit more to say on the subject, here is the pic he tabled from last Estimates:
[Image: Untitled_Clipping_072315_034114_PM.jpg]
Where's a shotgun when you need one... Huh
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Oz Flying's Hitch on Oliver Skidmore's future forum talkfest... Huh

Quote:[Image: Mark_Skidmore_Mildura_B7683FB0-371D-11E5...89B3B7.jpg]
CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore address the Flightplan 2030 forum in Mildura. (Steve Hitchen)



First Flightplan 2030 Forum encourages CASA
31 Jul 2015

A good turn-out and participation level at CASA's first Flightpath 2030 forum in Mildura yesterday has encouraged the regulator to hold further events in other locations.

Thirty-five people attended the forum at Mildura Golf Resort, coming from all over Victoria, South Australia and NSW.

"I'm very happy with the way it went," said CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore. "The opportunity to engage with people was good. There's obviously still some issues out here, so it was an opportunity to get some idea of those.

"A lot of them were things I'm already aware of, but it's important to get them right from the people as well.

"Certainly the maintenance training is something we need to think about, and of course Part 61 came up as did the Cessna SIDs.

"But also some of the ideas about the future that came out were great, and they're certainly areas that CASA can look at. Like ADS-B and the collision avoidance aspect of that. We need to make sure that we can get the safety outcome from that. So there's some opportunities there."

Skidmore also said he was encouraged by the Mildura forum, and would now look at scheduling events in other regions around Australia.

"I thought this was a really good success and now I've got to look at how we can actually get out there. I'm going to have to make some time to do this."

The forum gave members of the aviation community to present problems directly to Skidmore. Issues raised from the floor included:

  • Current regulations are not user-friendly and people cannot comply with regulations they don't understand
  • Navaids being shut down reduces safety in some areas
  • Flight Safety Australia now being electronic only
  • CASA should be able to influence government policy over aviation and not use policy as an excuse for inaction
  • Part 147 maintenance training produces engineers that are not as good as those who did full apprenticeships
  • Inspection under the Cessna SIDs can leave the aircraft needing further maintenance because the inspection was done
  • Does CASA have control over the remotely-piloted aircraft issue, particularly in relation to drones used in fire areas?
  • Aviation medicals, processing and a lack of DAMEs
  • Why has CASA stopped producing safety wall posters?
  • It appears that those at CASA who write Service Difficulty Reports don't seem to understand the problem and often the SDR seems not to relate to the issue
  • Part 61 implementation.

Mark Skidmore answered each question, or acknowleged that CASA would have to do something about the issue. Only questions about the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) brought no promise of action, because CASA is only an issuing authority and is not reponsible for the ASIC requirements.

The group also discussed many issues facing aviation safety in the future, including:

  • The future availability of avgas
  • Ageing aircraft
  • The need for CASA to approve new technology in training and recency
  • CASA will need to be an adaptable and flexible organisation
  • ADS-B and the ability to use it for collision avoidance
  • Cost will dominate the future of aviation, and the regulations need to take that into account
  • The need for CASA to cut red tape for charter operators wanting to move from older twins to single-engine turbo-props
  • Commonsense is missing from the regulators, and needs to be injected
  • Revisions to FAR23 and the introduction of ASTM F44 for light aircraft will mean CASA needs to be open to alternative means of compliance

Skidmore also told the group he was working with The Australian Aviation Associations Forum and the Standards Consultative Committee to establish an advisory panel.

Dates and locations of future Flightplan 2030 forums will be released when available.
"..Thirty-five people.." If nothing else changes I wonder how many would be in attendance this time in 2030?? Dodgy
And here was Hitch's take on the Oliver's talkfest in his weekly wrap:
Quote:..It's clear that general aviation's future will not resemble what we have today very much at all. The industry looks set to benefit from developments that will be recorded in aviation history as a boundary between eras. Regulators are beginning to understand the need for less prescriptive legislation that will enable new technology to adopted far more easily, so GA can start to look more like an advanced industry rather than the throw-back to the 1950s that it does today. Currently, getting approvals for new avionics, safety systems, navigation systems, construction materials and even production methods is so costly that in many cases it is not economical to go ahead with the project. When the project is scrubbed, gone too are the cost savings and improved safety levels that it would have brought. Of course, there is still the natural resistance of bureaucracies to adopt concepts they didn't invent, which will have to be overcome in order for GA to go forward technologically, economically and safely.

GA's future in Australia came under scrutiny at Mildura this week in the first of CASA's Flightplan 2030 forums. Anyone who attended would have come away with a couple of strong impressions: the concerns of the future sound very similar to the concerns of today, and that CASA is beginning to convince some of aviation's most die-hard detractors that the opportunity exists for real change. Although Mark Skidmore did not answer every question, he certainly didn't baulk anything or bluster until people's eyes glazed over. There's one change right there! For me, the biggest indicator was the optimism expressed by an operator who had been subjected to Draconian, punitive enforcement from CASA that saw him shut down twice. If anyone has the right to remain angry and pessimistic, it was this man. If he can start to see a way forward, the rest of us have little excuse in not following...

No comment yet...P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)