[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-4-10-20-once-up...dered-etc/

Sandy's disgust?? - 

First via the Dept of Infrastructure Budget Statements: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/depart...0_CASA.pdf

Challenging aviation trends and implications for CASA

The aviation landscape has changed dramatically with COVID-19. One immediate
impact for CASA is that its major funding source, aviation fuel excise, has been
significantly reduced. CASA’s immediate funding is highly dependent on the recovery
of the industry, particularly in the domestic high capacity regular public transport
sector.

Whilst CASA continues to support industry through significant relief measures
including fee relief, CASA is facing significant sustainable funding challenges in the
near future, with Government providing funding certainty for 2020-21 through
additional appropriation. CASA will pursue more sustainable funding options for
Government consideration as part of its 2021-22 Budget submission.

This funding uncertainty, together with the need to adapt to accommodate the
changing aviation safety environment, as the industry continues to deal with and
recovers from the impact of COVID-19, provide CASA with some unique challenges.
Examples of these challenges includes the return from hibernation of aircraft and skills
and currency deficits of aviation professionals.

The regular passenger transport sector will undergo significant change, along with the
growth and complexity of remotely piloted aircraft systems (i.e. drones). Issues of
concern are also related to ageing aircraft, the oversight of infrastructure developments
at aerodromes over the coming decade, slow growth prospects and forecast changes in
air traffic management systems. Like other safety regulators around the world, CASA
is cognisant of the need to ensure that safety-related considerations are at the forefront
of CASA’s regulatory actions for the benefit of the aviation and wider community.

As a key priority, CASA continues to develop and implement new safety standards
and regulations, taking into account the Australian Government’s regulatory reform
agenda. CASA will stay abreast of changes within the aviation industry by carefully
analysing safety and operational data to look for trends and emerging risks which
need to be addressed. This approach will further focus CASA on its core activity - the
regulation of aviation safety.

Naturally this undesirable (for CASA) circumstance has led to CASA executive management hitting up both the useless miniscule and the ScoMo Govt for more funding via (Federal Budgetary) appropriations to prop up the Grand Mystique of Aviation Safety, which the miniscule (in his usual useless form) has obligingly  succumbed to without any serious scrutiny - FFS!   

This has naturally lead to the extreme disgust and ire of one Alexander C (Sandy) Reith - via the AP email chain:

Dan,

This announcement is a huge blow to General Aviation (GA) because it signals that the Government has taken no notice whatever about the causes of the job and business losses in GA, nor paid any attention to the numerous expensive Government inquiries and very long history of the GA industry’s extreme concerns about the industry’s bureaucratically induced deterioration and decline. 

CASA, with an invisible (c.) $1 million Board.  CEO $650k and several ’managers’ on c. $400 salaries. 

In 2009 Minister Mr. Albanese was persuaded to make a ‘one off’ 4 yr aviation fuel levy increase to enable additional ‘safety studies.’ Estimate was $89 million. On change of Government this levy was rolled into General Revenue by Minister Mr. Truss. The 200 extra CASA personnel numbers remain, total count is around 830. 

We could have taken USA or NZ rules instead of a 32 year, $hundreds of millions, make work rules rewrite, still not finished, a colossal waste. Now the Coalition believes throwing money at CASA will improve it’s performance? 

Where did this come from? GA is on it’s knees, airline activity?  

The CASA corporate model of governance is broke, cannot work, we must have real Parliamentary control if there’s to be proper accountability and the practical governance of aviation in the National interest. 

Disappointed is putting it mildly, very mildly.

Sandy 

To which my reply was - 

Sandy et.al , note the Mark Newton Facebook comment here: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...3#pid11573

Mark Newton It’s a bit of a strange document.

Claims of understaffing can be taken with a grain of salt: CASA’s budget appropriation in 2019-20 was $198 million and they added more than 70 bureaucrats, even though aviation activity in Australia didn’t grow.

The claim that technical capabilities are being hollowed out is questionable too, because CASA isn’t a technical organization anymore. Airworthiness is handled by industry, navaids and airspace is handled by Air Services Australia, airports are handled by local councils and a plethora of private consultants, airlines are essentially self-regulated via expositions with mostly light touch CASA oversight. Perhaps if technical staff are feeling unloved they could go and find real jobs somewhere else?

CASA has two (and, for all intents and purposes, only two) functions.

The first function is to recommend and draft safety regulations for promulgation into law by their Minister.

The second function is to administer the Act and its subordinate regulations.

Those two functions are linked: If CASA’s first function manages to cause regulations to pass into law which have a high administrative burden requiring additional procedures and staff to run, then CASA’s second function will need to obtain a larger budget appropriation, hire new bureaucrats and create more red tape to run them.

So if CASA’s staff are upset about being overworked or underappreciated, the obvious response is to persuade them to write better, simpler, smaller, lower-cost regulations.

Because the ONLY place their workload comes from is their own administrative requirements caused by the regulations they’ve written!

As long as they keep making rods for their own backs in they way they have been, we can all feel pretty relaxed about how unhappy they are with the result. “Doctor, it hurts when I do this!” “Well stop doing it, then!”

As soon as they work that out, the better off everyone will be.

They’re about to get a new DAS. Some of their senior leadership isn’t far off retirement (eg how many years does Aleck have left in him?)

CASA is standing at a fork in the road. If they want to change direction, now is a good time to do it.

Mark pretty much nails it IMHO

On the 89.9 million dollar bucket gifted to CASA after the ICAO and FAA audit both had major findings of lack of training and expertise within both the flight operations and airworthiness inspectorate, it is worth reflecting on these posts of mine here:  Australian campaign of O&O of ICAO NCNs - 1999-2019? & FAA IASA audit, FRMS & an 'inconvenient ditching'?

 Plus refresh your memory of former DAS McCormick's statement from 04:30 minutes here:  https://youtu.be/jXIpRrbaqbY
Now consider the following extract from public service union 'Professionals Australia' 'CASA in Crisis' discussion paper:

CASA exists to meet Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Treaty 4. It is a requirement of international treaty that Australia have a compliant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The ICAO treaty requires that CASA employ inspectorate staff and maintain the same level of technical knowledge, training and currency as those in the industry which is being regulated.

Simply put, if CASA intends to be an effective regulator of the civil aviation industry, then CASA’s technical staff must be equally as trained and current on technical knowledge as the airlines and operators which CASA oversights.

Now go back to the Mark Newton 'nailed it' comment (especially the person mentioned in the part in bold) and I think you'll find the answer to your question Sandy of 'Where did this come from?' becomes pretty obvious.

Regards P2

MTF...P2